Flavius Josephus Online

In the introduction to his Judean War (1.1-2), issued, it is generally thought, in 79-80 C.E. (whereas the Antiquities appeared in 93-94), Josephus similarly attacks those who have written accounts of the war against the Romans in that they have misrepresented the facts. In particular, he attacks Justus of Tiberias (Life 336-39) for having no scruples about falsehood in his account of the war and for having maligned Josephus himself, though Josephus mentions by name no other writer on the war.

It appears from this statement that Josephus’ intended audience consists chiefly of non-Jews. So Ant. 1.9, 12; 16.174; 20.262. Sterling (1992:298) notes that Josephus presupposes an audience that does not know the Hebrew language (so especially Ant. 1.129), months (e.g., Ant. 8.100), system of measures (e.g., Ant. 3.142), customs and structure of Jewish life (e.g., Ant. 17.200). See, however, Feldman (1988:470-71), who notes that Josephus’ intended audience also included Jews, as we can see from his highlighting of certain episodes, notably the incident of Israel’s sin with the Midianite women (Num. 25:1-9; Ant. 4.131-55). On the term ἀρχαιολογία (“ancient history”) as a title of historical works (as, for example, in Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Cleanthes, and Hieronymus the Egyptian) see Rajak (1982:465-77). However, as Rajak notes, the similarity is a superficial one: the Jewish ἀρχαιολογία of Josephus is older; and his method differs in that his task is not to rearrange and criticize ancient memories but to transmit the texts unaltered. The justification for Josephus’ rewriting of biblical history, in contrast with the goal of pagan histories, was that it had been ignored by others. In this connection, it may be useful to examine the words that Josephus uses for “translate.” When we do so, we find that they are all ambiguous and seem to include paraphrasing and amplifying. When he declares here that his own work (that is hardly a “translation” of the Bible) has been translated from the Hebrew records, he employs the verb μεθερμηνεύω for “translate.” Josephus uses the same verb in speaking of the “translation” of the Pentateuch known as the LXX (Ant. 12.20 and 48); but inasmuch as this was hardly a literal translation and, indeed, took considerable liberties, it will hardly buttress the meaning of “translate,” but rather seems to signify “interpret.” In one of these passages we hear that the translators of the Pentateuch not merely translated (μεταγράψαι, “transcribe”) but also interpreted (μεθερμηνεῦσαι) the Law for Ptolemy’s pleasure (Ant. 12.20). There would hardly be much point in transcribing the Law for Ptolemy; there would be a point in translating and elucidating it, and it would be this latter act that would bring pleasure to Ptolemy; hence the word μεθερμηνεύω seems to imply much more than mere translation. Elsewhere it seems to refer not to the translation but to the etymology of words (Ant. 1.52 and 8.142). There are at least two instances where the meaning is not “to translate” but rather “to signify” (War 5.151 and Apion 1.167). In one important passage Josephus remarks that he has, in his Antiquities, given a translation (or interpretation, μεθερμήνευκα) of the Bible, being (γεγονώς) a priest and of priestly ancestry and being well versed (μετεσχηκώς) in the philosophy (φιλοσοφίας) of those writings (Apion 1.54). Since the participles γεγονώς and μετεσχηκώς show that the clauses are directly connected with the first part of the sentence, it would appear that Josephus’ qualifications as a “translator” were enhanced by the fact that he was a priest and by his knowledge of the philosophy, that is study, of the Bible. Clearly, to be a good “translator” required more than the mechanical knowledge of language. In fact, there is only one passage (where Josephus gives the meaning of the name Ammathus as “warm baths”) of the nine occurrences of this verb in Josephus where the meaning is unambiguously “to translate” (War 4.11).Midway through his Antiquities, Josephus reminds the reader that he was “only translating (μεταφράζειν) the books of the Hebrew into the Greek tongue, promising to report their contents without adding anything of my own to the narrative or omitting anything therefrom” (10.218). Here he uses the verb μεταφράζειν, even though he is clearly referring to the passage in the proem where he had used the verb μεθερμηνεύω; hence it would seem that he was equating the two terms and that the verb μεθερμηνεύω involves more than mere translation. Indeed, the very word μεταφράζω carries the notion of paraphrasing or restating the same concept in different words without necessarily meaning to restate them in a different language (e.g. Dion. Hal., De Thuc. 45). In particular, the cognate noun μετάφρασις in 2 Macc. 2:31 cannot mean a translation, inasmuch as the reference is to the abridged paraphrase (μετάφρασιν... συγχωρητέον) (Sterling 1992:252, n. 113).As to the uncompounded verb, ἑρμηνεύω, its meaning seems to be “to describe,” “to render,” “to express” (War 5.182, 5.393, 7.455; Ant. 6.230); and only once does it unequivocally mean “to translate” (Ant. 6.156). In the statement that Jews “give credit for wisdom to those alone who have an exact knowledge of the law and who are capable of interpreting (ἐρμηνεῦσαι) the meaning of the Holy Scriptures” (Ant. 20.264), the meaning is not “to translate,” since that would be too mechanical an art to ascribe wisdom to its practitioners.When we examine words having the same stem as the verb ἑρμηνεύω, there likewise appears to be evidence that the word implies interpretation and not merely translation. Thus, Josephus declares that he will defer the explanation (ἑρμηνεία)—in this context it cannot mean translation—of the point as to why Scripture says “one day” rather than the “first day”(Ant. 1.29). Again, he states that Demetrius wrote to King Ptolemy Philadelphus advising him to write to the Jewish high priest “that when we have learned from them the clear and consistent meaning” of the laws and obtained an accurate translation (ἑρμηνείαν), this version may be added to the royal library (Ant. 12.39). This implies that first there must be an interpretation, that will be embodied in the translation. Ptolemy advises the high priest to select six men of advanced age from each tribe who are well versed in the laws and who will consequently be able to make an accurate translation (ἑρμηνείαν) (Ant. 12.49). Why, we may ask, should the translators be old men? And why must they be well versed in the laws? If the mere mechanics of translation were a sufficient prerequisite, such qualifications would seem to be superfluous.That more than translation was involved seems clear from the fact that when the translation had been completed the people expressed their approval of the elders who had interpreted (διασαφήσαντας, “made quite clear,” “explained”) the Law, and requested that since the translation (ἑρμηνείας) had been so successfully completed, it should remain unaltered (Ant. 12.108). Again, it is clear that the work of the translators involved clarification of the laws and not mere translation. Moreover, the related word ἑρμηνευτής is used of Joseph as an interpreter of dreams, surely not a mere translator (Ant. 2.72).As to the other words that are used with reference to the translation known as the LXX, whether the word μεταβάλλω means “translate” in the narrow sense or includes interpretation in the broader sense is not apparent from the context (Ant. 1.10, 12.14, 12.15, 12.107). Thackeray, however, makes an interesting point when he remarks that the word must have been used loosely, since Josephus employs it with reference to his own translation of the War from its original Aramaic into Greek (War 1.3) (Thackeray 1929:34). That translation was probably not literal, inasmuch as our version of the War shows almost no trace of Semitic parentage (but this may be due to the assistants who, Josephus admits, aided him in the composition of that work [Apion 1.50]).Hence, we may conclude that since Josephus viewed himself as carrying on the tradition of the LXX in rendering the Bible for Gentiles, he conceived of his task as not merely translating but as also interpreting the Scriptures, and therefore he did not conceive himself as adding or subtracting anything if he continued the LXX’s tradition of liberal clarification.In other authors, however, as Sterling (1992:252 n.113) remarks, the verb μεθερμηνεύω seems to denote the process of translation, whether of an entire document, as in the prologue to Ecclesiasticus, or of individual words, as in Diodorus (1.11.2) and Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Ant. Rom. 4.76.2) and in the New Testament (Matt. 1:23; Mark 5:41, 15:22, 15:34; John 1:38, 1:41; Acts 4:36, 13:8). Actually, only Books 1 through 11.303 of the Antiquities are based on the Bible; and they are not translations but often are free paraphrases and add and omit many individual points, large and small, that differ from the biblical original. For the most recent attempt to determine the Hebrew text of the Pentateuch that Josephus used see Nodet (1996).

Josephus seems to suggest here that he had begun to write the Antiquities before he wrote the War. In the preface to the War (1.17), however, he indicates that at the time that he undertook to write his account of the War he decided that it would be superfluous to narrate the history of the Jews from their beginnings, inasmuch as many Jews before him had accurately done so, and inasmuch as those records had been translated by certain Greeks into their native language without serious error. As Meeks (1967:132) remarks, the rabbis would not call Moses “the lawgiver,” since only God gave the Torah, whereas it came “by Moses’ hand.” So Bloch (1955: 139-40). For Josephus, as Meeks (1967:133) puts it, Moses is modeled, in Platonic fashion, after the founder of a Greek πόλις whose laws form the πολιτεία of the state. Note that Josephus here indicates that even when writing his War ca. 79-81, he had viewed that war from the point of view of all of Judean history. Similarly, he constantly reads biblical history from the point of view of parallels that he finds in the history of the war against the Romans.

All of Josephus’ works (cf. Life 430; Apion 1.1), with the exception of the War, are dedicated to Epaphroditus, who is usually identified with Marcus Mettius Epaphroditus (so Sterling 1992:239-40 n.66). We have information in Suidas (s.v.) about this Epaphroditus that he had been trained in Alexandria, that he was the slave and then the teacher of the Alexandrian scholar Archias, that he lived in Rome in the latter half of the first century C.E. from the time of Nero to that of Nerva, that he was particularly noted for his scholarship on Homer and other Greek poets, and that he had a library of 30,000 books. All of his works, however, are lost. Nodet (4, n.1) suggests that the allusions in the various scholiasts to Epaphroditus point rather to a grammarian rather than to a historian, let alone a political figure, and that the Epaphroditus cited by Josephus is rather the freedman and secretary of Nero, who helped his master to kill himself and who was later for this reason exiled and then executed by Domitian in 96 (Suet., Dom. 8.4; Dio Cassius 67.14.4-5); but the Life (359) speaks of Agrippa II, who, according to Photius, did not die until 100, as already dead, whereas Epaphroditus is spoken of in the Life as still alive. Josephus mentions by name no other person who encouraged him to write his works. On the date of Agrippa II’s death see Cohen (1979:170-80). On Epaphroditus and on the concept of patronage in antiquity see Applebaum (1974:116-23); and Mason (1992:190-91).

Ptolemy II (Philadelphus) ruled Egypt from 283 to 245 B.C.E. The traditional account of the translation of the Pentateuch is found in the Letter of Aristeas in the Pseudepigrapha and is summarized in Josephus (Ant. 12.11-118) and much more briefly in Philo (De Vita Mosis 2.5.25-7.44); and the Talmud (Megillah 9a-b and Soferim 1:7-8).

This is the high priest to whom Ptolemy Philadelphus (Letter of Aristeas 33, Ant. 12.40-50) wrote a letter asking that he send to Alexandria six elders from each of the twelve tribes of the Hebrews so that they might translate the Pentateuch into Greek for his library. Josephus appears here to imply that the high priest Eleazar adhered to the Pharisaic view (Ant. 13.297) honoring “tradition” and not merely the written Pentateuch.

I.e., whereas Ptolemy Philadelphus arranged to have only the Pentateuch translated, Josephus has paraphrased the entire Bible.

Josephus is here speaking in approximate terms. According to Josephus’ own reckoning, 4306 years elapsed from the creation of the world until the destruction of the First Temple in 586 B.C.E., 4719 years until the death of Judah the Maccabee, and 4977 years until the publication of the Ant. According to the rabbinic tradition (‘Abodah Zarah 9a-b) the destruction of the First Temple occurred 3828 years after creation, hence an even greater discrepancy with Josephus’ figure here.

Greek εὐδαιμονία, a key word in the Antiquities. See, e.g., Feldman (1984-85:241 n. 79). Thackeray has noted that this unusual phrase, ἄπορα...πόριμα, in its inverse form, ἄπορα πόριμος, “making impossibilities possible,” is found in Aeschylus (Pr. 904-5). This juxtaposition is found, among extant writers, only in Aeschylus and Josephus. For similar moralizing sentiments see Ant. 1.20, 23, 72; 6.307; 7.93; 17.60; 19.16, cited by Sterling (1992:296 n.321).

Cf. Ant. 1.24. Cf. also Apion 2.239-41: “Who, in fact, is there among the admired sages of Greece who has not censured their most famous poets and their most trusted legislators for sowing in the minds of the masses the first seeds of such notions about the gods? They represent them to be as numerous as they choose, born of one another and engendered in all manner of ways. They assign them different localities and habits, like animal species, some living under ground, others in the sea, the oldest of all being chained in Tartarus. Those to whom they have allotted heaven have set over them one who is nominally Father, but in reality a tyrant and despot; with the result that his wife and brother and the daughter, whom he begot from his own head, conspire against him, to arrest and imprison him, just as he himself had treated his own father.” Ziegler (1915:582) and Dreyer (1970:71-72) note the parallel both in thought and in terminology with Pseudo-Longinus (Subl. 9.9).

Actually, according to Josephus’ own reckoning, Moses was born 1614 years before the completion of the Ant. Note that Josephus continues to position himself as a Judean over against the Greeks.

Elsewhere (Ant. 4.197), Josephus admits that he has rearranged the order of topics in his paraphrase of the Pentateuch, since, as he says, Moses left what he wrote in a scattered condition, just as he had received it from God. Josephus (Apion 1.42) similarly states that no one in long ages has ventured to alter a single syllable in the Scriptures. Josephus’ statement here in the Antiquities has occasioned a great deal of discussion by various scholars, since Josephus has most certainly added numerous details and even whole episodes, notably the account of Moses’ campaign in Ethiopia and his marriage to the Ethiopian princess (Ant. 2.238-53), while omitting passages featuring apparently incriminating details, e.g., Jacob’s deception of his father in order to obtain his blessing (Gen. 27:1-29), the cunning of Jacob in connection with Laban’s flock (Gen. 30:37-38), the Judah-Tamar episode (Gen. 38), Moses’ slaying of the Egyptian (Exod. 2:12), the building of the golden calf (Exod. 32), the grumbling and doubting before the second miraculous feast of quails (Num. 11:11-23), Miriam’s leprosy (Num. 12), the story of Moses’ striking the rock to bring forth water that speaks of Moses’ disgrace (Num. 20:10-12), the story of the brazen serpent (Num. 21:4-9) whereby Moses cured those who had been bitten by the fiery serpents, the account of Gideon’s smashing of the Baal altar (Judg. 6:25-32), the story of Micah and his idolatry (Judg. 17-18), several passages (1 Sam. 20:6, 21:4-7, 26:19) that seem to cast a shadow upon David’s reputation for piety, the identification of Elijah as a zealot (1 Kgs. 19:9, 19:14), that would have aroused the antagonism of the Romans in view of the role of the Zealots in the great uprising of 66-70, Elisha’s cursing of the little boys who had jeered at him in referring to his baldness (2 Kgs. 2:23-24), as well as his cursing of his disciple Gehazi for accepting gifts from Naaman (2 Kgs. 5:27), Jehu’s conversion of the Temple of Baal into an outhouse (2 Kgs. 10:27), that would have aroused charges of intolerance, Jonah’s extreme anger with God because He had forgiven the Ninevites after they had repented (Jonah 4:1), Hezekiah’s ingratitude to God when he became sick (2 Chr. 32:25), the charge made by the neighbors of the Jews that the Jews were rebelling against the Persian king (Neh. 2:19-20, 6:6), the statement that the Jews had failed to observe the commandment to dwell in sukkot since the days of Joshua (Neh. 8:14, 17), the infighting among the Jews in the days of Nehemiah (Neh. 5:6-7, 5:12, 13:4-11), and the gathering of the virgins in the Esther narrative (Esth. 2:19). Indeed, Josephus himself (Ant. 9.242) admits that he has omitted many things that the prophet Nahum prophesied about Nineveh “in order not to seem tiresome to my readers.” The following explanations have been suggested: 1) What appears at first glance to be an omission will, in reality, turn out to be a novel reading of the text (so Basser 1987:21-30); 2) Josephus is simply not telling the truth, or he is careless, or he depends upon the ignorance of his readers, knowing full well how difficult it would be for most of them to acquire a manuscript, let alone to look up a particular passage without benefit of an index; 3) The phrase “neither adding nor omitting anything” is a stock and essentially meaningless formula for affirming one’s accuracy, as we see in its use by Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Thuc. 5 and 8) and Lucian (Quomodo Historia Conscribenda Sit 47), as well as by Berossus, Manetho, Philo of Byblus, Ctesias, and Hecataeus of Abdera; in this connection, Sterling (1992: 255) calls attention to similar phraseology in Josephus’ summary (Ant. 12.109) of the Letter of Aristeas, namely that after it had been universally agreed that the LXX should not be altered, the leaders of the community ordered that “if anyone saw any further addition made to the text of the Law or anything omitted from it, he should examine it and make it known and correct it”; likewise, as proof of the reliability of the biblical text Josephus (Apion 1.42) affirms that “although such long ages have now passed, no one has ventured either to add or to remove or to alter a syllable”; 4) There is actually a precedent for modifying the sacred text, namely the Book of Chronicles, as compared with Kings, and the LXX, as compared with the Hebrew original, so that apparently the word “translation” is to be understood in a sense different from what is meant today; 5) The phrase refers to the commandment (Deut. 4:2 and 12:32) that one may not add to or subtract from the commandments of the Torah, whereas Josephus’ changes are, at least primarily, in the realm of aggadic material; 6) The phrase indicates that it is prohibited to add to the content of the Bible but that it is not prohibited to modify the actual consonantal text; 7) Josephus may mean not only the written Bible but also Jewish tradition generally, including the oral tradition as later embodied in midrashim. See Feldman (1968:336-39). Such midrashic traditions are embodied in the LXX, Artapanus, Eupolemus, Ezekiel the tragedian, Philo the epic poet, Philo the philosopher, the Genesis Apocryphon, and Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical Antiquities. A possible parallel to this free interpretation of biblical stories may be seen in the attitude of ancient interpreters in dealing with Homer, who sought to redeem his reputation by allegory and other methods, and in the attitude of the Greek tragedians in dealing with the traditional Greek myths, sacred though the myths were; 8) The various words that Josephus uses for “translate” are all ambiguous and seem to include paraphrasing and amplifying. See van Unnik (1949:1-36 and 1978:26-40).

The Greek word φυσιολογία, “philosophy of nature,” “inquiry into natural causes and phenomena,” includes investigations of the creation of the world. Actually, only a very small portion of the Antiquities (and of the Bible itself) deals with this topic. Perhaps Josephus, like the rabbinic tradition (Yalqut Exodus 12.2), is trying to explain why what is ostensibly a history of the Jewish people should begin with the creation of the world.

Josephus here uses the word νοῦς, but, as Gärtner (1955:131 n. 4) remarks, Josephus does not give the term any deep theological sense such as we find in Philo and among the Stoic philosophers, namely as part of the divine Logos inherent in humans that enables them to know God. For Josephus νοῦς is simply the human faculty of thought. As Josephus indicates here, to study God’s nature is the same as to contemplate His works with the eye of reason (so Gärtner:132, n. 4). According to Philo (De Posteritate Caini 48.167 and De Specialibus Legibus 1.3.20), it is possible to fathom the existence of God but not His nature. In Ant. 10. 142 Josephus notes how variegated and manifold is God’s nature in fulfilling His prophecies. Josephus thus connects the ἀρετή of Moses with the cosmos and God’s nature. Since he embodied the universe and its order he deserves to be called θεῖος ἀνήρ (Ant. 3.180).

Cf. Philo, in the introduction to his De Opificio Mundi 1.1-2: “While among other lawgivers some have nakedly and without embellishment drawn up a code of the things held to be right among people, and others, dressing up their ideas in much irrelevant and cumbersome matter, have befogged the masses and hidden the truth under their fictions, Moses, disdaining either course, the one as devoid of the philosopher’s painstaking effort to explore his subject thoroughly, the other as full of falsehood and imposture, introduced his laws with an admirable and most impressive exordium. He refrained, on the one hand, from stating abruptly what should be practiced or avoided; and on the other hand, in face of the necessity of preparing the minds of those who were to live under the laws for their reception, he refrained from inventing myths himself or acquiescing in those composed by others.” Siegfried (1875:278-81) argues that Josephus here and elsewhere is indebted to Philo. While noting the parallel with Philo, Georgi (1986:202 n. 281) concludes that an actual dependence of Josephus on Philo cannot be proven. Rather, both depend upon a common apologetic tradition. A similar attempt to explain why the Torah begins with creation is found in midrashic literature (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 1.2. Midrash Song of Songs Rabbah 1.4.2, and parallels).

Ziegler (1915:582-83) concludes that Ant. 1.22-24 is an astonishingly close abbreviated commentary on Pseudo-Longinus’ Subl. 9.9.

On divine virtue cf. Ant. 17.130 and 18.266; Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 1.38.209 and De Vita Contemplativa 3.26). Here Josephus is indicating that the laws of Moses are directed not merely toward Jews but toward humankind generally. Josephus stresses, as noted by Georgi (1986: 123) that human competence (ἀρετή) emanates from divine ἀρετή. Thus God is a partner with humans in ἀρετή, as we see, for example, in the case of Daniel (Ant. 10.200).

As Georgi (1986:141) remarks, Josephus here equates his own purpose directly with that of Moses. Greek φιλανθρωπία (“kindness,” “friendliness,” “clemency,” “grace”). See Schlatter (1932:15-16) and Weiss (1966:280). Cf. Philo (De Opificio Mundi 1.3): “His [Moses’] exordium, as I have said, is one that excites our admiration in the highest degree. It consists of an account of the creation of the world, implying that the world is in harmony with the Law, and the Law with the world, and that the man who observes the Law is constituted thereby a loyal citizen of the world, regulating his doings by the purpose and will of Nature, in accordance with that the entire world itself also is administered.” Cf. Ant. 1.54, where Josephus explains that the reason why God preferred Abel’s offering to that of Cain is that He is honored by things that grow in accordance with natural laws and not by products forced from nature by the ingenuity of grasping mortals. Furthermore, Josephus (Ant. 3.180) notes that the symbolism of the Tent and the priestly vestments is intended to recall and represent the universe. Heinemann (1952:130-38) takes seriously Josephus’ statement here that everything in the Torah corresponds to nature and concludes that it does not require allegorizing for its defense, since he permits his readers (e.g., Ant. 3.81) to believe or not to believe what is written there.

Josephus’ other references to this projected work on “Customs and Causes” (Ant. 1.29, 192, 214; 3.94, 143, 205, 230, 257, 259, 264; 4.198; 20.268) indicate that it was to be in four books (Ant. 20.268) and that it would deal with the opinions that Jews have concerning God and His essence, as well as the reasons for the commandments. Petersen (1958:259-74) proposes the identification of this work with the essay Apion; but while that work does contain a discussion of the nature of God and of the Jewish code of laws, that treatment is hardly the central theme of the work, whereas we are told by Josephus that the work is to be about those subjects. The fact that Josephus tells us that the treatise is to be in four books is an indication that Josephus had prepared some kind of outline for the work.

Früchtel (1968:98-100) suggests that Josephus, in his account of creation, used the exegesis practiced by Alexandrian scholars in their interpretation of Homer and of Plato.

Josephus uses the verb ἔκτισεν, “founded,” “built,” “brought into being,” for the Hebrew word ‮ברא‬‎ (Gen. 1:1), rather than the LXX’s ἐποίησεν, “made,” since the former implies more clearly creatio ex nihilo, whereas the latter implies creatio ex aliquo. Josephus, like Philo (De Opificio Mundi 7.29), follows the LXX’s rendering of ‮תהו ובהו‬‎ (Gen. 1:2) as ἀόρατος καὶ ἀκατασκεύαστος, “unseen and unformed.” This recalls the effort made by the Targumim (on Gen. 1:2) to interpret this breath as something distinct from God Himself. So also Philo (De Opifico Mundi 7.29). Josephus is here trying to avoid the anthropomorphism implied by the word ‮מרחפת‬‎ (Gen. 1:2), which the LXX partially eliminates by saying that the breath of God “was borne” upon the water. The connotation of the word ‮מרחפת‬‎ is not merely hovering but also brooding, with the image that the world-egg was hatched, as it were, from fluid chaos. Josephus, presumably because he feared that such an image would be regarded as equivalent to the Orphic account of creation, avoids it by using a word that implies only that the breath sped rapidly over the surface of the earth. Franxman (38), significantly, notes that for all the opportunity he had to do so throughout his paraphrase of Chapter 1 of Genesis, Josephus never once directly quotes God. Goold (1961:176) notes that Pseudo-Longinus’ (9.9) citation of Genesis has a surprisingly close parallel at the very beginning of Josephus’ Ant.

Note the double chiasmus: light (A), darkness (B); night (B), day (A); evening (P), morning (Q); light (Q), cessation (P). Josephus has omitted reference to Gen. 1:5, that declares that “there was evening and there was morning, one day,” a passage that presents difficulties because the Jewish day did not end at sunrise (and so it is not possible to understand this clause as meaning that the evening and the morning formed the first day), and because it is hard to understand how there could be evening before the day on that light was created. Josephus avoids these problems by omitting this difficult statement altogether and by noting merely that God named the dawn of the light morning and its cessation evening, as does the Bible.

Cf. Ant. 1.25 and references cited there. Philo (De Opificio Mundi 9.35) explains that the expression “one” rather than “first” day is due to the uniqueness of the intelligible world and to its having therefore a natural kinship to the number “one.” The rabbis (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 3.9, Midrash Num. Rabbah 13.6, Pesiqta Rabbati 7.4 [ed. Friedmann, p. 27b]) explain that the reason is that God was then the only one in his universe, inasmuch as the angels were not created until the second day. They also (Nazir 7a) explain that this is to inform us that a day with the night preceding it count together as one day.

Josephus here adds information to the meager and even telegraphic account of the Bible, in order to make it more intelligible to his Greek audience, so that they will understand more fully the processes described there. Thus the Hebrew in Gen. 1:6, that says “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters,” is obscure. Josephus, seeking to avoid the charge of obscurity made by some Romans (cf., e.g., Juvenal 14.102), explains that what God did was to set the heavens above the universe and to congeal ice about it. He thus explains the origin of rain, that in the biblical account is left unexplained. That the heavens contained water is also seen in the Agada, that interprets the word heaven (‮שׁמים‬‎) as a combination of two words, ‮שׂא מים‬‎ (“carries water”) (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 4.7). Note that Josephus does not mention the firmament. Franxman (41 n. 11) remarks that Josephus’ description of the second day is very close to the language and phrasing of the LXX of Job 38.

From the biblical account (Gen. 1:9) one might conclude that the earth existed before creation, since, according to it, God says, “Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear.” Josephus resolves this ambiguity by stating explicitly that on the third day God established the earth, pouring the sea around it. By saying that God poured the sea around the earth, Josephus comes very close to Ovid’s (Met. 1.36-37) formulation that “whoever of the gods it was who created the world” bade the waters to “surround the shores of the encircled earth (ambitae circumdare litora terrae).” Cf. Philo (De Opificio Mundi 12.40): “After a fashion quite contrary to the present order of Nature, all were laden with fruit as soon as ever they came into existence.” Note that Josephus omits the biblical statement here, as elsewhere in his paraphrase of chapter 1 of Genesis, that God saw that what He had created was good, perhaps because this would raise the question as to why there is evil in the world. Josephus here, particularly in the use of the word for “adorn,” διακοσμεῖ, and for heavenly bodies, ἄστρα, closely parallels Philo (De Opificio Mundi 14.45 and 17.53), as noted by Franxman (44 n. 15).

Fearing that his readers might regard as mythical the great sea-monsters (the Leviathan and its mate, according to rabbinic tradition, ‘Abodah Zarah 3b) mentioned in the Hebrew account of creation (Gen. 1:21), a view that would certainly be held by the Epicureans in his audience, Josephus says merely that God created the creatures that swim. Cf. the dictum of the third-century Rabbi Joshua ben Levi (Rosh Hashanah 11a): “All creatures of the creation were brought into being with their full stature, their full capacities, and their full beauty.” Josephus omits the blessing (Gen. 1:22) that God gives to the creatures of the sea and the sky and that is parallel to the blessing (Gen. 1:28) that God gives to the human race, since this is in the form of a commandment, that would hardly be applicable to fish and birds. Cf. Daube (1977). The fact that Josephus uses the word δημιουργεῖ (“creates,” “composes”) when he speaks of God’s creation of four-footed creatures, whereas the Bible (Gen. 1:24) says, “Let the earth bring forth the living creatures after their kind,” will remind the reader of Plato’s familiar picture of the δημιουργός, the artificer who creates the visible world in Plato’s Timaeus (40C). The rabbis realized the problem inherent in the use of the plural “Let us make man in our image” (Gen. 1:26), and they explain that before creating man God took counsel with the angels (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 8.3-7). Philo (De Opificio Mundi 24.72) inferred from this passage a plurality of creators, just as Plato (Tim. 41C, 42E) spoke of the creator as having collaborators. The classical Christian commentators generally found in the use of this plural an allusion to the Trinity. But, as the eleventh-century Jewish commentator, Rashi, notes, the use of the singular verb in the next verse, “And God created man,” shows that there was only a single creator. Nonetheless, in the list of the changes (Megillah 9a) that, according to the rabbis, the translators of the LXX were inspired by God to make, we note that this verse is changed to “I shall make man,” presumably to prevent the reader from concluding that more than one Power created man. Elsewhere (Apion 2.192) Josephus states that God performed His work of creation without assistants, for He has no need of them. Here, too, he avoids this problem and the consequent misunderstandings by reporting simply that “on this day He also fashioned humanity.” Moreover, the classical Jewish commentators were well aware that God’s words (Gen. 1:26) “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” had anthropomorphic implications, and they sought to soften these by explaining that “after our likeness” means “with discernment and understanding” (Rashi) or that it refers to those respects in that man’s soul is similar to God (Ibn Ezra and Naḥmanides). Josephus avoids this difficulty by omitting the phrase completely and by simply reporting that God formed man. Jervell (1974:197-204), commenting on Josephus’ description of the creation of man (Gen. 1:26-31), notes that Josephus represses both here and elsewhere the biblical statement that man was created in the image of God. He contends that this omission is not due to Josephus’ having a different biblical text but rather to his strong view that God Himself is not describable and to his strictness about images.

Josephus here avoids the problem inherent in the Hebrew text (Gen. 2:2), that states that God finished His work on the seventh day, since this would imply that God worked on the seventh day and would contradict the immediately following clause that God rested on the seventh day. The LXX avoids the problem by reading that God finished His work on the sixth day; and, indeed, according to rabbinic tradition (Megillah 9a), this is one of the changes that the translators of the LXX adopted under divine inspiration. The Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Gen. 2:2 avoids the problem by asserting that the work of creation was completed by the seventh day. Whereas the Hebrew text (Gen. 2:2) declares that God rested from all the work that He had done, with no implication that He would later resume His work, Josephus, in stating that He took a rest from His activities, implies that He had merely taken a respite from His activities and that He intended to resume them. So also Philo (De Cherubim 26.87): “Moses does not give the name of rest to mere inactivity. The cause of all things is by its nature active; it never ceases to work all that is best and most beautiful. God’s rest is rather a working with absolute ease, without toil and without suffering.” Pelletier (1971:71-77; 1972, 436-47; 1975: 221-24) notes that here Josephus refers to the Sabbath as Σάββατα, that is an Aramaic form. However, the use of Σάββατα in the LXX shows that the word was given a Greek ending by the translator. Pelletier (1975:222) calls attention to an unpublished papyrus (Zenon Papyri 59.762) dating from the third century B.C.E. and containing the word σάββατα without using the article or declining it, thus proving that in that era Jews transliterated the name of the seventh day thus. Note that Josephus omits the biblical statement (Gen. 2:3) that God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it. The basis for observance of the Sabbath is merely imitatio Dei. In a number of places Josephus indicates his knowledge of Hebrew through citing Hebrew etymologies: e.g., Ant. 1.33, 34, 36, 333; 2.278; 5.121, 200, 201, 323, 336; 6.22, 302; 7.67, cited by Sterling (1992:256 n.133).

Josephus may well have been aware of the problem of the so-called twin accounts of creation in Gen. 1 and 2. Thus he omits any direct paraphrase of Gen. 2:4-6, that is regarded by some as the beginning of a second account of creation. He avoids the issue by stating here explicitly that in the second chapter (Gen. 2:4 ff.) Moses is merely giving the details of God’s formation of man. He also explains here that in chapter 2 of Genesis Moses begins to interpret nature (φυσιολογεῖν), just as he had declared in his proem (Ant. 1.18) that much of Moses’ work is devoted to natural philosophy (φυσιολογία). These terms (φυσιολογία and φυσιολογεῖν) are familiar from Aristotle (De Sensu 442B25, and Metaph. 988B27) and from Epicurus (Ep. 1, p. 4 [Usener]; 2, p. 35 [Usener]). Josephus apparently felt that the statement (Gen. 2:7) that God breathed into man’s nostrils the breath of life was too anthropomorphic, and so he omits it and says instead that God injected (ἐνῆκεν, “sent into,” “implanted,” “inspired,” “instilled”) into him spirit and soul. Moreover, Gen. 2:7 says that God formed man out of the dust of the earth and breathed into him the breath of life. Josephus here adds that, in addition to the dust and the breath (πνεῦμα), God infused soul (ψυχή) into man. Wis. (15:11) uses the same two words, ψυχή and πνεῦμα, for the spiritual elements in man; and Midrash Lev. Rabbah 32.2 and Midrash Eccl. Rabbah 10.20 speak of the tripartite composition of man, consisting of body, spirit, and soul. Josephus may well have had in mind Plato’s trichotomy (Rep. 4.439D-E; a similar trichotomy is to be found in 1 Thess. 5:23) of the logical, spirited, and appetitive faculties of the soul. In any case, Josephus avoids the LXX’s translation of ‮נשמה‬‎, πνοή, that is a purely physiological term, and uses rather ψυχή, that has psychological overtones; moreover, ψυχή has strong classical antecedents, particularly in Plato’s Phaedo. A parallel may be cited from the LXX’s rendering of ‮על־גחנך‬‎ (Gen. 3:14) as ἐπὶ τῷ στήθει σου καὶ τῇ κοιλίᾳ, that Drummond (1888:1:163) regards as a reference to the division of the human faculties into rational, spirited, and appetitive elements, noting that the serpent was deprived of the first when speech was taken from him and was left with the last two elements. Franxman (47, n.20) remarks that the rabbinic tradition (Midrash Lev. Rabbah 32.2 and Midrash Eccl. Rabbah 10.20) likewise speaks of two spiritual principles, ‮רוח‬‎ (spirit) and ‮נשׁמה‬‎ (soul), within man. Hebrew ‮אדם‬‎ (Gen. 1:27), LXX Ἀδάμ, Josephus Ἄδαμος. Note that whereas Gen. 5:2 declares that God gave the name “Adam” to the first human pair, Josephus omits this, presumably because of the confusion involved in having God give the same name to both Adam and Eve and in having God give Eve the name Adam, whereas Adam himself gave her the name Eve (Gen. 3:20). Dittmann (1953:38-48), commenting on Josephus’ treatment of Gen. 1-3, asserts that Josephus was strongly influenced in what he retains and omits by his own personality. He concludes that Josephus is an historian rather than a theological exegete or a philosopher in his conception of God and humanity in his paraphrase of these chapters and that he is interested in Adam and Eve as historical personages rather than as props in a theological system. The etymology of the name Adam is uncertain. In biblical Hebrew ‮אדם‬‎ means “red.” The Akkadian adamatu, “dark red earth,” suggests that the Hebrew word “earth”, ‮אדמה‬‎, may be derived from the root ‮אדם‬‎, “to be red.” The notion that Adam was created from the purest earth is found in Midrash Hagadol (ed. Margulies, p. 78). On the connection between Adam and red see Grottanelli (1979:45-48), who notes that the word that Josephus uses for “red” is πυρρός, “fiery,” and that this word calls forth several associations, namely the holy fire of the Mamre terebinth, the primeval fire of Greek mythical tradition called πῦρ Ὠγύγιον, and Pyrrha (Πύρρα), the wife of Deucalion. Pyrrha, we may add, the daughter of Pandora and Epimetheus, is identified with Mother Earth by Philostratus (Vita Apollonii 6.39). On Adam being created from red earth and as having the color of true virgin soil, cf. Philo, De Opificio Mundi 47.137: “God is not likely to have taken the clay from any part of the earth that might offer, or to have chosen as rapidly as possible to mould this figure in the shape of a man, but selecting the best from it all, out of pure material taking the purest and most subtly refined, such as was best suited for his structure; for a sacred dwelling-place or shrine was being fashioned for the reasonable soul, that man was to carry as a holy image, of all images the most God-like.” Nestle (1908:414-16) concludes that the meaning of the word “true” in this context refers to the earth as “real,” “actual,” “genuine,” and “untouched.” For parallels see the literature cited by Vollmer (1909:324). Löw (1910:168) notes that the phrase “virgin earth” is the technical name in the Mishnah (Niddah 9:5, Middot 3:4, Oholot 16:4) for unbroken, unplowed soil. As Franxman (48-49) points out, the earth had been deprived of its virginity on the third day of creation when plants and seeds sprang up. Hence, the word ἀληθινή (“true”) here, as elsewhere in certain classical authors (e.g., Xenophon [Mem. 3.10.7] and Plato [Leg. 643C]), probably means “archetypal.”

In Josephus it is God and not Adam, as in the Bible (Gen. 2:20), who gives names to the animals. Epicurus (Ep. ad Herodotum 75-76) criticizes the hypothesis that names were at first deliberately given to things, and contends that each man, in accordance with his feeling and impression, assigned his own names to objects, and that it was only at a later stage that particular names were by common consent deliberately assigned to things. A similar view is expressed in Diodorus (1.8.3). Lucretius (5.1041 ff.) ridicules the notion that any one person assigned names to things and that other men learned their first words from him. He is apparently, as Bailey (1947:3:1493 [ad loc.]), suggests, refuting the portrayal, in Plato’s Cratylus (388E-390E), of the lawgiver who assigns names to things, comparing them so that they will bear a correct relation to the nature of the things named. Lucretius, indeed (5.1043-45), asks why one man should have this faculty while others did not. Similarly, in the second century the Epicurean Diogenes of Oenoanda (frag. 10, cols. 2-4 [William]) declares that it is nonsense to say that names were given to things by deliberate choice. “It is ridiculous,” he adds, “indeed the most ridiculous thing in the world, to suppose, in addition to the sheer impossibility of the task, that some one single man should have got together so great multitudes [of men and/or of words], for there were not at that time any writing-tablets or even letters.” The notion, then, that one man had assigned names by his spontaneous declaration seemed naive and ridiculous, at least to the Epicureans. Josephus thus avoids this possible objection by having God, not Adam, name the animals. Schalit (1:5, n. 7b) asks why, if God gave the animals their names, did He bring them before Adam? He therefore sees a change of subject in the middle of the sentence, though this is stretching the Greek, so that it is Adam who names the animals. However, the reason why God brings the animals, male and female, before Adam might be to arouse in him the instinct for a female mate. Alternatively, we may suggest that according to Josephus God devised the system of classification and that Adam carried it into effect. Moreover, in the Bible (Gen. 2:18) the statement that God said “It is not good that man should be alone” comes before the naming of the animals, whereas Josephus avoids any such hesitancy on the part of God. Josephus changes the order of biblical events here by placing the creation of the first woman (Gen. 2:22) almost immediately after the creation of the first man. In connecting Adam’s failure to find a mate from the animals and God’s creation of Eve, Josephus makes explicit what is only implicit in the Hebrew text. So also Midrash Gen. Rabbah (17.4) and ’Abot de-Rabbi Natan B 8 (ed. Schechter, p. 23).

Hebrew ‮אשׁה‬‎ (Gen. 2:23). Hebrew ‮חוה‬‎ (Gen. 3:20), “life” or “living”; LXX and Josephus Εὔα. Josephus has here joined Gen. 3:20 with the Gen. 2:23, since both refer to the first woman. The words “who live” (τῶν ζώντων) are omitted by the two best manuscripts (RO).

In the Bible (Gen. 2:8) God plants a garden in Eden before creating Eve (Gen. 2:21).

In Gen. 2:8 it is Adam alone whom God places initially in the Garden of Eden. Note that Josephus does not identify the location of the garden in Eden, perhaps because, as we see, he seeks to identify the location of all geographical names, and he has no information as to the precise location of Eden. Gen. 2:10 speaks only of a river flowing out of Eden, not of a river surrounding the entire earth. The conception of a stream, the Okeanos, flowing around the earth, is found among the Greeks from an early period (see Herodotus 2.23). Rappaport (76 n. 10) refuses to equate this stream with the Okeanos, and notes that Josephus distinguished between the waters surrounding the planet earth and the river flowing around the earth. But it is precisely the latter, not the former, that the Greeks identified with the Okeanos. Josephus thus presents biblical geography (Gen. 2:10) in terms intelligible to his Greek audience. Cf. also the statement of the fourth-century Abbaye (‘Erubin 22b): “The whole world, in fact, is surrounded by the ocean.” Hebrew ‮פישׁון‬‎ (Gen. 2:11), LXX Φισών, Josephus Φεισών. Josephus derives the name “Pishon” from Hebrew ‮פושׁ‬‎ (“leap,” “spring about,” “spread,” “increase”). So also Midrash Gen. Rabbah (16.2, 16.4). Philo (Legum Allegoriae 1.20.66) derives the name, as if it were Greek, from φείδεσθαι (“to spare”). Greek Γάγγης. The identification of the Pishon River with a river in India (though perhaps the reference is to Ethiopia) is also found in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Gen. 2:10. Gen. 2:11 speaks of the Pishon River as flowing around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold, but does not identify the land as India. Havilah itself has been identified variously as Aualis, a district in Ethiopia, or as a district in Syria or Arabia. Josephus was presumably led to this identification of Havilah with India by the fact that Havilah (Gen. 10:29), the son of Joktan, the descendant of Shem, inhabited India (Ant. 1.147). However, the prevalent tradition among the rabbis identifies the Pishon with the Nile River: see Midrash Gen. Rabbah (16). Greek Ἰνδική.

Greek Εὐφράτης. Greek Τίγρις. Greek Ἐρυθρά. Etymologically, the reference is to the “Red Sea,” but, as in Herodotus, it refers in its larger sense to the Indian Ocean. Hebrew ‮פרת‬‎ (Gen. 2:14), LXX Εὐφράτης, Josephus Φοράς. Hebrew ‮פרד‬‎ (“to separate”) or ‮פרח‬‎ (“flower”). Philo (Legum Allegoriae 1.23.72) says that its meaning is καρποφορία (“fruitfulness”), deriving it, presumably, from ‮פרת‬‎ (“to be fruitful”). The derivation from ‮פרת‬‎ is found in Midrash Gen. Rabbah (16.4), Berakot (59b) and Bekorot (55b). An etymology from ‮הפר‬‎ (“oblivion”), as well as a connection with ‮הפירה‬‎ (“upset”), is found in Midrash Gen. Rabbah (16.4). The derivation from ‮פרד‬‎ is found in Midrash Gen. Rabbah (16.3). Siegfried (1883: 47-48) suggests that there is a distinction between καλεῖσθαι (“to be called”) and σημαίνειν (“to signify”), just as there is in Philo (De Posteritate Caini 16.55) between ἐστι (“is”, i.e. the meaning in Greek) and ἑρμηνείαν ἔχει (“has the meaning,” i.e. the Hebrew etymology), and that when Josephus states that the Euphrates “is called” (καλεῖται) he is giving the meaning in Greek, while when he says what it signifies he is giving the Hebrew etymology. Hebrew ‮חדקל‬‎ (Gen. 2:14) (Diglath is the Aramaic equivalent: see Targum Onqelos and Pseudo-Jonathan on Gen. 2:14, Berakot 59b, Qiddushin 71b), LXX Τίγρις, Josephus Διγλάθ. Josephus derives the name ‮חדקל‬‎ from ‮חד‬‎ (“sharp”) and ‮דק‬‎ (“narrow”). The rabbis (Berakot 59b and Midrash Gen. Rabbah 16.3-4) derive it from ‮חד‬‎ (“sharp”) and ‮קל‬‎ (“swift”). Hebrew ‮גיחון‬‎ (Gen. 2:13), LXX and Josephus Γηών. Hölscher (1949:44n.1) remarks that in Ethiopic the Nile is called Gewon (Gejon). Josephus’ etymology is from ‮גיח‬‎ (“burst forth”). Josephus Νεῖλος. Most likely Josephus’ source for identifying the Gihon River with the Nile was the LXX of Jer. 2:18. Hölscher (1949:44) concludes that Josephus betrays his Alexandrian source in his comment here identifying the Gihon with the Nile River.

In Gen. 2:16-17 it is Adam alone that God, before the creation of Eve, commands not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. In Josephus Eve can have no excuse, since she has been warned directly by God. See Paul (1981:41-47), who stresses that the virtue of wisdom places man in a sufficient but necessary relation of liberty with all that that distinguishes him. Josephus’ account of the fall (Ant. 1.40-43) is that of a subversion of such an equilibrium. In this view Josephus inclines to Greek culture and concepts. On the other hand, in his view of speech Josephus is in accord with Jewish belief and traditions. According to Gen. 2:17, God told Adam only that he should not eat of the tree of the knowledge. It is Eve who, in her conversation with the serpent, says that God had told them not to eat of or touch the tree (Gen. 3:3). From this the rabbis deduce that he who adds to the word of God subtracts from it (Sanhedrin 29a). Apparently, Josephus found it difficult to believe that Eve, who has not yet been corrupted, would misquote God. Gen. 2:17 states that God warned Adam that on the day when he ate of the tree of knowledge he would die. Commentators have long been troubled by this passage, since Adam did not die after he ate of it but actually reached the age of 930. Naḥmanides explains that the meaning is that on that day he became mortal. Cassuto (1961:124-25), after summarizing many other explanations, suggests that the meaning is that when Adam ate of the tree of knowledge it was decreed that he would never be able to eat of the tree of life, that would have given him eternal life. Josephus avoids the whole problem by omitting the phrase “on the day” and by declaring not that they would die but that the result of their eating would be more general, namely ruin (ὄλεθρον).

In the biblical text the serpent is mentioned (Gen. 3:1) immediately after the statement that Adam and his wife were naked and were not ashamed (Gen. 2:25). This latter statement is omitted by Josephus, presumably because the juxtaposition of the serpent with Eve’s nakedness would lead the reader to the grotesque thought that he had sexual designs upon her, as indeed, we find in the rabbinic tradition (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 18, Soṭah 9b). The view that all creatures originally spoke the same language is to be found in Jubilees 3:28. Philo (De Opificio Mundi 55.156) says that originally the animals spoke with human voice. Elsewhere he says that while it is true that they spoke thus, the speech of humans was more clear and distinct (Quaestiones in Genesin 1.32). Philo (De Confusione Linguarum 3.6) states that the tradition that all animals originally had a common language is to be found in the writings of the “mythologists.” The view that in the Golden Age the animals possessed the power of speech is also found in Plato (Politicus 272C). The tradition that the serpent originally spoke is also found in Midrash Deut. Rabbah (5.10). Midrash Leqaḥ Tov on Gen. 3:1 (ed. Buber, p. 24) reports the tradition that only the serpent spoke Hebrew, the original language of humans, whereas the other animals spoke other languages. The more common rabbinic view (Midrash Deut. Rabbah 5.10) is that only the serpent produced speech. Josephus apparently also knew this view, for he says (Ant. 1.50) that speech was taken from the serpent, thus implying that only the serpent had previously possessed this faculty. Josephus omits the remark (Gen. 3:1) about the subtlety of the serpent, perhaps because in the LXX he is termed φρονιμώτατος; and this would ascribe prudence (wisdom) to a mere beast. On the other hand, Josephus realizes that the reader will ask how the serpent knew about the prohibition concerning the tree of knowledge (thus Gen. 3:1), and he rationally explains this as due to the fact that he lived together with the human pair. Whereas Gen. 3:1 simply says that the serpent was more subtle than any other wild creature, Josephus here introduces the idea that he was jealous of the human pair. So also rabbinic tradition states that the serpent saw Adam reclining in the Garden of Eden while the ministering angels roasted flesh and strained wine for him, whereupon he became envious of him (Sanhedrin 59b). For Josephus the theme of jealousy and its baleful consequences is one that permeates his paraphrase of the Bible, perhaps because he portrays himself as the constant victim of jealousy, notably on the part of John of Gischala. On Josephus’ emphasis on the theme of jealousy see Feldman (1993:337-50).

According to the Midrash Leqaḥ Tov on Gen. 3:1 (ed. Buber, p. 24), the serpent knew that it was prohibited to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, since God had announced this prohibition to Adam and Eve in the presence of the serpent. Philo (Quaestiones in Genesin 1.33) explains that the serpent spoke to the woman and not to the man because woman is more wont to be deceived than man. Seeing the serpent cast off his skin and thus seemingly exchange death for immortality, she was deceived.

The portrayal of Adam as being wont to resort to God’s company and as taking delight in associating with Him is similar to the picture in Hesiod (Op. 120) of men during the Golden Age as friendly with the immmortal gods and to the description of the close relationship of the Phaeacians and the gods (Homer, Od. 7.201-6). See Feldman (1968:340-41). Note that Josephus omits God’s question, “Where art thou?” (Gen. 3:9), since this would imply that God was not omniscient.

Josephus’ picture of primitive humanity unmolested (ἀπαθῆ) by any evil recalls the Stoic language of ἀπάθεια, though there is a difference, inasmuch as Josephus is discussing external conditions, whereas the Stoics would advocate ἀπάθεια no matter what the circumstances. Cf., e.g., Seneca (Ep. 90.37, 40) and Pseudo-Seneca (Oct. 404-5). On the importance of the concept of providence (πρόνοια) in Josephus see Attridge (1976:71-107). In this developed picture of the original bliss of mankind, that has no parallel in the Bible, Josephus follows a tradition found particularly in Hesiod (Op. 90-93): “For ere this the tribes of mortals lived on earth remote and free from ills and hard toil and heavy sicknesses that bring the Fates upon men; for in misery men grow old quickly.” In his description of the Golden Age, Hesiod (Op. 112-20), like Josephus, says that men lived like gods without sorrow of heart, remote and free from toil and grief, that they avoided old age, that the earth of its own accord gave them fruit abundantly. The notion of food springing up spontaneously, mentioned several times in Josephus’ description of the Golden Age (Ant. 1.46, 49, 54), is also found in Homer’s description of the Cyclopes (Od. 9.109). Cf. also Lucretius (Rer. Nat. 2.1158, 5.933-38), who remarks that at first the earth of her own accord created crops for humans, who now must toil for a lesser result. So also Virgil (Ecl. 4.18-20, Geor. 1.125); and Ovid (Met. 1.101-4, 109-10, Am. 3.8.39-40). See Feldman (1968:341-44).

In Gen. 3:12 Adam, in his defense, says to God: “The woman whom Thou gavest to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate.” Josephus omits “whom Thou gavest to be with me,” perhaps because this would be an accusation of God Himself.

According to the biblical order, God first punished the serpent (Gen. 3:14-15), then Eve (Gen. 3:16), and then Adam (Gen. 3:17-19). In Josephus the order is reversed: first Adam, then Eve, and finally the serpent. Whereas in Gen. 3:17 God berates Adam for listening to the voice of his wife, Josephus stresses this as the folly of yielding to a woman’s advice. On Josephus’ misogynistic tendency see Feldman (1986: 115-28, especially 116-20). In generalizing about the evil produced by womanish counsel (γυναικείας συμβουλίας), Josephus is highly reminiscent of Homer (Od. 11.436-39), where, after Agamemnon has described how he met his death through the contrivance of his wife Clytemnestra, Odysseus replies: “Ah, verily has Zeus, whose voice is borne afar, visited wondrous hatred on the race of Atreus from the first because of womanish counsels (γυναικείας... βουλάς). For Helen’s sake many of us perished, and against thee Clytemnestra spread a snare while thou wast afar.” The association of spontaneous growth with the Golden Age is an addition by Josephus (Ant. 1.46, 49, 54). It is also found in Homer’s description of the agriculture of the Cyclopes (Od. 9.109), for whom grain sprang up without sowing or plowing. Likewise, in Plato (Politicus 272A), the Golden Age is described as a period when the fruits of the earth grew of themselves (αὐτομάτης). Philemon (frag. inc. 4) contrasts the miserable lot of man who must always toil with the lot of the other animals for whom the earth gives bread of its own accord. The Peripatetic Dicaearchus of Messene, who flourished ca. 310 B.C.E., explains that primitive human’s ignorance of agriculture caused him to be dependent upon food that grew spontaneously (αὐτόματα) (frag. 49; ap. Porphyry, De Abst. 4.2, in Wehrli [1944, 1:24]). He likewise states that in the Golden Age humans lived long lives of leisure, without toil (πόνων) or care and without disease. Iambulus, in his utopia (ap. Diod. 2.57.1), remarks that foodstuffs were there produced of themselves (αὐτομάτους), and that the inhabitants lived extremely long lives, reaching the age of one hundred and fifty (10.277-80). Cf. also Lucretius (Rer. Nat. 2.1158, 5.933-38), Cicero (Nat. Deor. 2.63), Virgil (Ecl. 4.18-20, Geor. 1.125), and Ovid (Met. 1.101-4). Josephus omits the biblical statement that a woman’s desire shall be for her husband and the husband should rule thereafter over the wife (Gen. 3:16). This omission is surprising in view of Josephus’ general attitude of misogyny. Perhaps the reason for this omission is that the mention of woman’s desire for her husband does not seem to cohere with the Bible’s previous statement about the pain of childbirth to that that desire will lead.

Gen. 3:14-15 does not mention that God punished the serpent with the loss of speech. Rabbinic tradition (Midrash Deut. Rabbah 5.10), like Josephus, mentions the loss of speech as part of the punishment inflicted upon the serpent. The penalty would seem to be appropriate, inasmuch as it was through speech that the serpent had managed to mislead Eve. This is Josephus’ addition to the curse placed upon the serpent in the Bible (Gen. 3:14-15). The poison in the serpent’s mouth is also mentioned in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Gen. 3:14 and Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 14.

Josephus has omitted the biblical statement, presumably because it would seem obviously anthropomorphic, that God made coats of skin for Adam and Eve and clothed them (Gen. 3:21). He has likewise omitted the reference (Gen. 3:24) to the Cherubim that God placed at the entrance to the Garden of Eden.

Hebrew ‮קין‬‎ (Gen. 4:1), LXX Κάιν, Josephus Κάις. Gen. 4:1 states that it was Eve who gave Cain his name, but Josephus does not tell us who named him. Some manuscripts (RO) read κτίσιν, that would mean “founding,” “creation,” instead of our reading, κτῆσιν (“acquisition”). Philo (De Sacrificiis Abelis et Caini 1.2) agrees with those manuscripts (LE) of Josephus that read κτῆσιν. Rabbinic tradition (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 22.2) favors “acquisition,” from Hebrew ‮קנה‬‎ (“acquire”). Hebrew ‮הבל‬‎ (Gen. 4:2), LXX Ἄβελ, Josephus Ἄβελος. Greek οὐθέν. Some manuscripts (SPLE) read πένθος, “mourning,” sorrow,” “grief,” from Hebrew ‮הבל‬‎. Gen. 4:2 omits the etymology of Abel’s name, a fact that bothered some of the great medieval Jewish commentators, one of whom, Naḥmanides, noted that the reason for this omission was that the Bible did not wish to make explicit the pessimism inherent in the meaning of the name “nothing” (“vanity”). The Hebrew reader can immediately see how apt the name of Abel is in view of the fate in store for him; but this is, of course, not true for the Greek reader. Hence Josephus gives this etymology. Philo (De Migratione Abrahami 13.74) apparently has the same etymology, inasmuch as he says that Abel’s name stands for one to whom things mortal are a grief. Consequently, Siegfried (1875: 278-81) concludes that Josephus is here indebted to Philo; but the similarity may also be due to mutual dependence upon onomastica such as have been found in Egypt (see Rokeah [1968:70-82]). The Midrashic tradition (Yashar Bereshit 9a) explains that Eve named her son Abel because he was born only to die. An obvious question that occurs to the reader of the biblical narrative is the identification of the person whom Cain married; and the answer would appear to be that he must have married his own mother, since there was no other woman in the world at that time. The rabbis were clearly troubled by this, and they declared that the superfluous word ‮את‬‎ before the names of Cain and Abel indicates that they had twin sisters born with them (Yebamot 62a). See also ’Abot de-Rabbi Natan 1, Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 21, Midrash Gen. Rabbah 22.4, 7 and 61.4, and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Gen. 4:2. Similarly, the Book of Jubilees (4:1, 8) gives the names of the sisters as Awam and Azurah and thus postulates a sister for Cain whom he married. According to the Talmud, Adam did not marry his daughter in order that Cain might marry his sister, “so that the world might be built up by grace” (Sanhedrin 58b). Bib. Ant. 1.1-2 states that Adam begat a daughter named Noaba, and that after he begat Seth he had twelve more sons and seven more daughters. It then proceeds to give the names of the sons as Eliseel, Suri, Slumiel, Brabal, Naat, Zara, Maza, Samma, Athal, and Anath (1.3). It gives the names of the daughters as Fua, Iectas, Arebica, Sifa, Tetia, Saba, and Asin (1.4). In the Ethiopic Book of Adam the daughter’s name is given as Luva; the Arabic version gives Luluva; the Slavic version gives Debora. Nag Hammadi (2.4.91 ff.) mentions Norea as a daughter of Adam and Eve. For various other names and spellings see the extensive discussion in Jacobson (1996:1:282-83). The basis for this, of course, may well be Gen. 5:4: “And he [Adam] begat sons and daughters.” See Aptowitzer (1922:115, nn. 41 ff.), Marmorstein (1905: 141-44), and Poznanski (1905:340-42). The Greek reader, with his similar traditional abhorrence of the kind of incest practiced by Oedipus with his mother, would have been horrified at the thought that Cain had done the same, and so Josephus here, immediately after reporting the birth of Cain and Abel and before mentioning Cain’s wife (Ant. 1.60), explicitly states that Adam and Eve also had daughters. Philo (De Posteritate Caini 11.34), clearly referring to the tradition that Cain married his sister, objects that “if anyone should suggest that Cain married his sister, his suggestion will be not only unholy but untrue,” since, as he notes, Adam’s daughters are mentioned as having been born at a later time (Gen. 5:4).

Gen. 4:2 says only that Abel was a keeper of sheep and says nothing about his virtuous life. In Philo he is depicted as embodying virtue (De Sacrificiis Abelis et Caini 4.14) and holiness (De Sacrificiis Abelis et Caini 3.10). The New Testament refers to Abel’s righteousness on three occasions (Matt. 23:35, Heb. 11:4, 1 John 3:12). Rabbinic tradition likewise praises Abel’s dedication to virtue (Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Fragmentary Targum on Gen. 4:8); and Tanḥuma Balak (ed. Buber, pp. 140-41) refers to Abel as a righteous man. McNamara (1966:159) notes that Josephus’ reference to Abel as righteous and to Cain as wicked reflects the two classes into that Judaism had divided humanity (see Rosh Hashanah 16b). Gen. 4:2 speaks of Cain as a tiller of the ground and says nothing about his search for gain. Philo (De Sacrificiis Abelis et Caini 1.2), alluding to the etymology of Cain’s name, says that Cain is called “Possession” because he thinks that he possesses all things. Rabbinic tradition (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 22.7, Midrash Exod. Rabbah 31.17, Tanḥuma Bereshit 9 [p. 17], Tanḥuma Mishpatim 13 [p. 348]) also speaks of Cain’s acquisitiveness and even goes so far as to assert that he aimed to take possession of the entire world.

This is Josephus’ rationalization, since no divine commands to sacrifice have yet been given. The Hebrew text (Gen. 4:4) reads ‮ומחלבהן‬‎ (“and from their fat portions”); and this is the reading of the LXX (στεάτων) as well. Josephus may have had a different vocalization and read ‮הָלָב‬‎, “milk” instead of ‮חֵלֶב‬‎, “fat.” Perhaps Josephus was seeking to avoid presenting the story in a way that would remind the reader of Hesiod’s account (Th. 538) of how Prometheus served men with meat and entrails rich in fat while offering Zeus the bare bones of an ox with a covering of white fat. If Josephus had had Abel offer the fat portions he might have invited the reader to equate Abel with the deceitful Prometheus. This is reminiscent of Hesiod’s description of the Golden Age (Op. 109 ff.), when the earth gave forth its produce without human effort or violence (so also Ovid, Met. 1.101 ff.). One of the difficulties in the biblical text is that God is apparently capricious in accepting the sacrifice of Abel while rejecting that of Cain (Gen. 4:4-5). The LXX (Gen. 4:7) explains God’s rejection of Cain by stating that he failed to cut his sacrifice into pieces properly. Philo (De Sacrificiis Abelis et Caini 27.88-89) claims that Cain’s offering was lifeless, second in age and value, and weak, whereas that of Abel was living, first in age and value, and possessed of strength and superior fatness. Similarly, the rabbis (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 22.5 and other passages cited by Aptowitzer [1922:37-41, 142-44]) stress that Cain’s gift was of the poorest quality. The Bible itself does not contrast the gifts of Cain and Abel but merely conveys the impression that Abel brought the finest of his flock (Gen. 4:4), while Cain was indifferent (Gen. 4:3). To show that God was not capricious in preferring Abel, Josephus here condemns Cain because his gift had been forced from the soil and because Cain himself, as the etymology of his name indicates, was depraved and eager for gain. Note also the significance of Josephus’ omission of Gen. 4:7: “If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is couching at the door.” According to the rabbis (Yoma 52a-b), this is one of the five verses of the Torah the grammatical construction of that is undecided.

Gen. 4:8 says merely that Cain rose up against Abel and killed him. The statement that Cain hid Abel’s corpse is paralleled in rabbinic tradition (Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 21), where we read that Cain buried him in the ground. Gen. 4:9 states simply: “Then the Lord said to Cain, ‘Where is Abel your brother?’” The reader might well ask, as does Philo (Quaestiones in Genesin 1.68) why an omniscient God would ask such a question. Philo’s answer is: “He wishes that man himself of his own will shall confess, in order that he may not pretend that all things seem to come about through necessity.” Josephus specifically adds that God was aware of what Cain had done and that God, who had maintained a close relationship with Cain, had not seen him for many days.

This entire paragraph is Cain’s elaboration of his reply (Gen. 4:9): “I do not know; am I my brother’s keeper?”

This paragraph is Josephus’ elaboration of God’s reply (Gen. 4:10): “What have you done? The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to me from the ground.”

According to Gen. 4:13, Cain told God that his punishment was greater than he could bear; but there is no indication that he had actually repented, whereas Josephus depicts Cain as offering a sacrifice in repentance for his grave sin. So also rabbinic tradition (Midrash Lev. Rabbah 10.5, Midrash Deut. Rabbah 8.1, Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 21, and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Gen. 4:24). According to Gen. 4:15, God told Cain that whoever took vengeance on Cain would have to pay for it seven times over, that is, the slayer and six members of his family. Josephus’ version indicates that Cain’s penalty would be suspended until the seventh generation. So also Enoch 22:5-7 and Midrash Gen. Rabbah 22.12. Whereas in Gen. 4:16 Cain “went out” from the presence of the Lord, in Josephus God cast him out. Josephus also adds that God cast out Cain’s wife.

In the Bible the description of Cain’s distress (Gen. 4:6) comes before his murder of Abel. Gen. 4:15 states simply that God put a mark upon Cain lest anyone should kill him but does not mention the threat of wild beasts. Philo (Quaestiones in Genesin 1.74) asks what is the meaning of the words that “Whoever finds me will slay me” (Gen. 4:14) when there were no other people then except Cain’s parents. In answer he suggests that Cain feared the attacks of beasts and reptiles, “for nature produced these for the punishment of unjust men.” So also in rabbinic tradition (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 22.12) we read that domestic and wild animals and birds gathered to demand the blood of Abel. Josephus’ added detail here about Cain’s fear that in his wanderings he would fall a prey to wild beasts is a familiar theme from Greek and Roman literature. Thus Lucretius (5.982-87), in his vivid description of the life of primitive man, notes that tribes of wild beasts often made rest dangerous for primitive man, who would flee in terror at night at the approach of a foaming boar or a lion.

Hebrew ‮נוד‬‎ (Gen. 4:16), LXX Ναίδ, Josephus Ναίς. It is significant that the word that Josephus uses here for insolence (ὕβρις) appears, in its various forms and compounds, 46 times in his paraphrase of the Pentateuch, whereas the LXX uses it only twice in its translation of the Pentateuch (Gen. 49:4, Lev. 26:19). See Levine (1993:51). The word is common in classical literature; and MacDowell (1976:21-23) offers five general observations about its usage: it is always bad; it is always voluntary; sometimes it is not caused by one of the aforementioned causes; it is not, as a rule, a religious matter; and it often involves a victim. Josephus’ description of Cain’s immoral behavior in Nod is extra-biblical. Philo (De Sacrificiis Abelis et Caini 12.51-13.52) likewise emphasizes that Cain represents the self-loving principle that is occupied with the lower, earthly level of life (Quod Deterius Potiori Insidiari Solet 32.119).

Note that here, as often in classical literature, ὕβρις is connected with wealth. The famous and influential wise lawgiver Solon puts it this way (ap. Aristotle, Athenaion Politeia 12): “For satiety (κόρος) gives birth to insolence (ὕβρις) when much wealth (ὄλβος) comes upon people in whom the mind is unstable.” Theognis (153-54) has almost the same language. See Doyle (1970:293-303). Cf. Philo, who remarks that all the unjust deeds of the impious “are descended from the depravity that is ever dying and never dead, whose name is Cain” (De Confusione Linguarum 25.122). Josephus here elaborates considerably on Cain’s wickedness after the murder of Abel; and his language is highly reminiscent of Greek and Roman descriptions of the decline of man from the age of primitive simplicity. The ancients generally, starting with Hesiod, agreed that the chief cause of human decline was greed and selfishness. Hesiod describes the Iron Age, in that he himself lived, as one that recognized the right of might (Op. 189-92) and that praised the evil-doer and his insolence. Ginzberg (1925:5:144-45 n. 41) suggests that the observation that Cain was the first to introduce weights and measures is based on the haggadic interpretation of the name ‮קין‬‎ = ‮קנה‬‎ (“reed,” “measuring rod”). Cf. Midrash Gen. Rabbah 22.8, where we read that Cain killed Abel with an instrument of measure. Cf. Plato, who, in his description of primitive humanity, notes that people in those days were neither rich nor poor, and hence were free from insolence, injustice, jealousies, and envies (Leg. 3.679B3-C2). Being simple-minded, they believed to be true what they heard about gods and men and lived according to truth. They did not know how to suspect their fellows of falsehood.

Note the parallel with Ovid (Met. 1.135-36), wherein the ground, like the sunlight and the air, that had previously been the common possession of all humans, was now, during the Iron Age, carefully marked out by boundary-lines. So also Caesar (Bell. Gall. 6.22), in apparent praise, notes that the Germans do not have definite quantities of land or estates of their own. Virgil (Geor. 1.126-27) remarks that in the Saturnian Age it was unlawful to mark out fields and to divide them with boundaries. Cf. Tib. 1.3.43-44, Ov. (Am. 3.8.41), and Sen. Phaedra 528-29. In the present age, by contrast (Pseudo-Sen., Oct. 420-22), people have marked out boundaries, established kingdoms, built cities, and guarded their own dwellings; or, bent on plunder, they have attacked other dwellings with weapons. Bib. Ant. 2.3 adds that Cain continued to build cities until he had founded seven of them. To Virgil (Ecl. 4.32-33) the fact that people, even with the return of the Golden Age, will gird towns with walls is a vestige of this old sin. Seneca (Phaedra 531-32), in his picture of the primitive age, notes that cities were not then surrounded by massive walls, set with many towers. Cf. Pseudo-Seneca (Oct. 401). In Gen. 4:17 we read only that Cain built a city (perhaps a foreshadowing of the building of the city and tower of Gen. 11:4); but there is no implication that this was an evil act, whereas here in the context in Josephus there is a pejorative connotation. So also in rabbinic tradition (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 23.1) Cain is compared to those wicked men who wished to render themselves immortal through building a city. Hebrew ‮חנוך‬‎ (Gen. 4:17), LXX Ἐνώχ, Josephus Ἄνωχα. Hebrew ‮חנוך‬‎ (Gen. 4:17), LXX Ἐνώχ, Josephus Ἄνωχος. Linton (1957:1-144) notes that in his chronology, both for the antediluvian and postdiluvian periods Josephus is following a tradition at variance with that of the rabbinic Seder ‘Olam Rabbah.

Hebrew ‮עירד‬‎ (Gen. 4:18), LXX Γαιδάδ, Josephus Ἰαράδης. Hebrew ‮מחויאל‬‎ (Gen. 4:18), LXX Μαλελεήλ, Josephus Μαρούηλος. Hebrew ‮מתושׁאל‬‎ (Gen. 4:18), LXX Μαθουσάλα, Josephus Μαθουσάλας. Hebrew ‮למך‬‎ (Gen. 4:18), LXX Λάμεχ, Josephus Λάμεχος. The statement that Lamech had seventy-seven children is Josephus’ addition. Gen. 4:24 says only that Lamech will be avenged seventy-seven fold. Jacobson (1:296) suggests that just as a small change of ‮יקם‬‎ (“will be avenged”) to ‮יקום‬‎ (“will set up”) may explain Pseudo-Philo’s unique tradition that Cain built seven cities, such a change may also explain Josephus’ unique tradition that Lamech had seventy-seven children rather than that he was avenged seventy-seven fold. Ginzberg (1925:5:144n.37) notes that Jerome (Dam. 125) cites a Jewish tradition that seventy-seven descendants of Lamech died in the flood at the time of Noah. Hebrew ‮צלה‬‎ (Gen. 4:19), LXX and Josephus Σελλά. Hebrew ‮עדה‬‎ (Gen. 4:19), LXX and Josephus Ἄδα.

Hebrew ‮יבל‬‎ (Gen. 4:20), LXX Ἰωβήλ, Josephus Ἰώβηλος. Hebrew ‮יובל‬‎ (Gen. 4:21), LXX Ἰουβάλ, Josephus Ἰούβαλος. Gen. 4:21 speaks of ‮כנור ועוגב‬‎. The LXX translates this as ψαλτήριον καὶ κιθάραν. Josephus has the same translation, except that he has the two instruments in the plural. The first instrument is clearly a stringed instrument, but there is some doubt about the second. In Psalm 150.4 it is translated by the Greek version as ὄργανον, that apparently is a wind instrument of some type—flute, pipe, or organ. Philo, who has a profound knowledge of music (De Posteritate Caini 31.103; see Feldman [1986-87:36-54]), after citing Jubal’s inventions as ψαλτήριον καὶ κιθάραν, exactly as the LXX does, then goes on to speak of “[all the melodious sounds produced by wind- and stringed instruments.” Hebrew ‮תובל קין‬‎ Gen. 4.22), LXX Θόβελ, Josephus Ἰουβῆλος. Gen. 4:22 says that Tubal-Cain forged instruments of bronze and iron without indicating to what use he put these instruments. Josephus’ view, that they were invented to serve as weapons, is also found in rabbinic tradition (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 23.3). Philo (De Posteritate Caini 34.116-17), like Josephus, speaks of Tubal-Cain’s concern with bodily pleasures and the art of war. “All these people,” he says (34.117), “are war-makers, and that is why they are said to be workers in iron and bronze.” The connection of the invention of the forging of metal with the art of war is similarly made in Ovid’s account of the Iron Age (Met. 1.142-43). The added statement that Joubel distinguished himself in the art of war, procuring thereby the means of satisfying the pleasures of the body, is reminiscent of Lucretius’ attack on war (5.1000-1).

Hebrew ‮נעמה‬‎ (Gen. 4:22), LXX and Josephus Νοεμά. So also in rabbinic tradition (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 23.2) Lamech is spoken of as the best of his generation, though he is mentioned among the sinful descendants of Cain. Some manuscripts (RO) read μείζονα, that is, that Lamech foresaw that he would pay a greater penalty for Cain’s murder of Abel. Though Josephus (Ant. 1.58) says that Cain’s posterity would be punished in the seventh generation, Lamech is actually only the fifth generation after Cain. However, inclusive counting is common in antiquity, and consequently Lamech would be the sixth generation. Moreover, if he is looking ahead (note mention of his daughter in the immediate context) this would be the time of the seventh generation. Josephus omits the content of Lamech’s statements to his wives (Gen. 4:23-24), that he has slain a man for wounding him. Whereas the Bible (Gen. 4:24) simply asserts that Cain is to be avenged, Josephus indicates that it is Lamech who is to pay the price for Cain’s fratricide.

Likewise, Philo (De Posteritate Caini 12.42): “Those who assert that everything that is involved in thought or perception of speech is a free gift of their own soul, seeing that they introduce an impious and atheistic opinion, must be assigned to the race of Cain, who, while incapable even of ruling himself, made bold to say that he had full possession of all other things as well.” So also rabbinic tradition asserts that all sinners and criminals were descended from Cain and that they walked shamelessly (Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 21-22).

So also in rabbinic tradition (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 23.5) we hear that Adam now had an increased sexual desire after being separated from his wife for 130 years (Tanḥuma Bereshit 26 [ed. Buber, p. 20]) after the death of Abel. According to Gen. 5:3-4, Adam was 130 years old when he fathered Seth and lived for 800 years after that. Josephus’ figures here are those of the LXX. Bib. Ant. 1.2, like Josephus, states that Adam lived 700 years after he fathered Seth. There are similar divergences in the cases of the other patriarchs.

According to Jubilees 4:10, Adam had nine sons. According to Bib. Ant. 1.2, after he fathered Seth he fathered twelve sons and seven daughters, though it then proceeds to list by name only nine males and seven females. Hebrew ‮שׁת‬‎ (Gen. 5:3), LXX Σήθ, Josephus Σῆθος. On Seth in the Jewish tradition see Klijn (1977). Neither the Bible nor Bib. Ant. nor rabbinic tradition speaks of these others. Philo (De Posteritate Caini 49.170, 50.173) praises Seth as a paragon of virtue. Ben Sira (49:16) speaks of him as being held in great honor among men and couples him in virtue with Adam and Shem. Rabbinic tradition (Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 22) likewise praises Seth and his descendants as righteous people comparable to Abel, declares that the future generations of the righteous will be descended from him, and asserts that he will be one of the seven shepherds (see Sukkah 52b, Midrash Song of Songs Rabbah 8.10) counseling the Messiah after the resurrection of the dead.

Josephus’ extra-biblical description of Seth’s descendants, who lived without dissension, is similar to that of Plato’s description of society after the great deluge (Leg. 3.678E 9-679A 2); he remarks that primitive men felt affection and good will towards one another and had no occasion for internecine quarrels about their subsistence. Cf. Thucydides (3.80-83), who especially bewails civil strife. The fact that Seth’s descendants lived in prosperity, meeting with no untoward incident to the day of their death, is reminiscent of Aristotle’s remark (Eth. Nic. 1.8.1099A 31-1099B 8) that true happiness requires external goods, “for that reason some identify happiness with good fortune, though others identify it with virtue.” Aristotle further stresses that not only is complete virtue required, but also a complete life, since many vicissitudes occur, as witness the case of Priam, who fell into misfortune in his old age; “and one who has experienced such chances and has ended wretchedly no one calls happy” (1.9.1100A4-9). Finally, Aristotle quotes Solon as saying that no one should be called happy until he has seen the end of his life (1.10.1100A 10-11). According to Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 8, God transmitted to Adam the secret of adjusting the calendar by intercalation of a month; according to Midrash Gen. Rabbah 26.5, Adam transmitted this to Enoch, and Enoch to Noah. Enoch, in particular, was credited with these astronomical discoveries (Jub. 4:17). In Jubilees 8:3 we read of the discovery of writing on a rock recording the teaching of angels about the heavenly bodies. Ginzberg (1925:5:149n.53) cites the chronologists Suidas (s.v. Σήθ), Michael Glycas (Ann. 228-33), Johannes Malalas (1.151), and Joel (Chron. [(p. 3]), who know not only about Seth’s astronomical knowledge but also his invention of Hebrew letters, as well as the division of time in weeks, months, and years. He is said to have received this knowledge from the angel Uriel, who came to him as he later came to Enoch.

According to rabbinic tradition (’Abot de-Rabbi Natan A 31, ’Abodah Zarah 5a) God showed Adam all the generations yet to come, including all their sages and leaders; according to the pseudepigraphic Life of Adam (28-29), after Adam had tasted of the tree of knowledge, God told him all the secrets of knowledge. On Adam as a prophet see Seder Olam (21). According to the Life of Adam, Adam shared with Seth the secrets of the future. On God’s pondering whether to destroy the world with fire or with water see the parallel in Plato (Tim. 22C1-3), where we read that there have been and will be many destructions of humankind, the greatest being caused by fire and water. Philo (De Abrahamo 1.1) mentions the great destruction wrought by fire and water, but he is probably referring to the Flood and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. The closest parallel to Josephus is Ovid (Met. 1.253-61), who has Jupiter pondering, in connection with the Deluge, whether to destroy the earth by fire or by water. Because thunderbolts were his usual weapons, one might have expected, as Ovid indicates, that he would have preferred to use them, but he decided not to do so because it had been fated that there would come a time when earth, sea, and heaven itself would burn. According to rabbinic tradition, when Noah rebuked his fellow men, warning them that God would bring a flood upon them, they jeered, “If a flood of fire, we have a substance called ‮עליתה‬‎, whilst should He bring a flood of water, if He brings it up from the earth, we have iron plates with that we can cover the earth; if from heaven, we have a substance called ‮עקב‬‎,...that can ward it off” (Sanhedrin 108b). The Tosefta Ta‘anit (3:1) declares that though the deluge of water is past a deluge of fire can still come, as at Sodom. Jubilees 8:3-4 mentions writing carved on a rock containing the teaching of the Watchers, in accordance with that they used to observe the omens of the sun, moon, and stars. The Pseudepigraphic Life of Adam and Eve (49.3-50.1), in language that repeats Josephus almost verbatim, speaks of two tablets, one of stone and one of brick, on that are inscribed the entire life history of Adam and Eve, so that if God should destroy their descendants with water the other tablet may remain and vice versa, though in the Life of Adam and Eve the judgment is first by water and then by fire. Another difference between Josephus’ account and that of the Life of Adam and Eve, as pointed out by Klijn (1977: 25), is that the former is concerned with astrological knowledge whereas the latter is concerned with knowledge about the time before Adam’s expulsion from paradise. Moreover, Josephus does not indicate when the destruction is to take place, whereas the Life speaks of a future judgment, presumably the last judgment. The Apocalypse of Adam, found in the Nag Hammadi Library and dating from perhaps the first century C.E. (70.4-6 and 75.9-15), mentions a destruction by water, that is identified with the biblical flood, and a destruction by fire. See Bousset (1902:45) and Klijn (1977:121). The Chronicles of Jerahmeel 24.7 and 26.16, dating from the twelfth century, mentions a prophecy by Adam concerning two judgments, by flood and fire, and a tradition that Adam wrote down the science of music on two pillars, one of marble and the other of brick, so that if one should crumble because of the water the other would be saved. According to Chronicles of Jerahmeel (32.4), Zoroaster inscribed the seven sciences on fourteen pillars, seven of brass and seven of brick so as to survive flood and fire on the day of judgement. Hugh of St. Victor (on Gen. 11, PL 175.49C) speaks of Zoroaster’s fourteen pillars, seven of brass and seven of brick, erected for the use of posterity to survive two floods. The Sefer Hayashar (2.12-13), dating, to be sure, from perhaps the thirteenth century, mentions tablets of stone but does not specify their number. On this parallel see Glasson (1961: 78-79). Klijn (1977:124) concludes that both Josephus and the Life of Adam and Eve must have drawn upon a common tradition that was identified with the flood and the last judgment, and he suggests that this source was an Egyptian tradition mentioned by Syncellus about Thoth or Hermes writing on pillars before the flood. Note also the parallels in Jubilees (8:3) and 2 Peter (3:10-12). Ginzberg (1911-12:35-51) cites parallels in Berosus and in Philo and concludes that the story has Babylonian and Egyptian sources. Speyer (1970:114-15) cites a similar tradition in the Babylonian legend of Xisuthros in Berosus and Abydemos, as well as in Philo of Byblos. Cf. Eusebius (Pr. Ev. 1.9.26), who remarks that Sanchuniathon set up the teaching of Hermes upon a monument in the Temple of Amon. Note the parallel with Bib. Ant. 3.9, that predicts fire, flood, and other alternatives; but it speaks of these alternatives only after the Flood, when he has God declare that if mortals sin He will judge them by famine, sword, fire, or pestilence, but not again by a flood. The rabbis speak of the tumult accompanying the giving of the Torah at Sinai and the question put by the heathen kings to the pagan prophet Balaam as to whether a flood of water or a flood of fire might be coming to engulf the earth (Zebaḥim 116a); but they do not speak of God’s pondering whether to destroy the earth by water or by fire in the days of Noah, nor do they make it a prediction, in fact denying that the cataclysm will occur, inasmuch as God has sworn that He will not destroy humankind. Cf. the eschatological apocalypse in Sibylline Oracles (3.689-90): “And God shall judge all with war and sword, and with fire and cataclysms of rain.” Jacobson (1:327) remarks that it is just possible that the rabbinic and pseudepigraphic theme of a flood of fire as the counterpart of the Noahite flood may be used in eschatological contexts but suggests that it is likely that the rabbis avoided such an interpretation once Christian exegesis began to emphasize Christological typology in their explanation of the flood. See Feldman (1989:62). For an extended discussion of parallel mentions in rabbinic and other sources of the twin pillars see Rappaport (90-93). See also Lida de Malkiel (1970:424-32) on the influence of the theme of the pillars of knowledge in Spanish literature.

It is not clear from Josephus whether alternative catastrophes are here referred to, or whether the reference is to two catastrophes. Location unknown. The identification with biblical ‮שׂעיר‬‎ (Σάειρα in Josephus, Ant. 1.336, 2.1) is difficult on linguistic grounds, as Reinink (1975:72-73) maintains. Schalit (1968: 109) suggests the possibility of restoring Syria or Assyria. On Josephus’ interest in still visible “archaeological remains” see also Ant. 1.92 (remains of Noah’s ark), Ant. 1.151 (Abraham’s tomb), and Ant. 10.264-65 (Daniel’s fortress). Philo (De Vita Mosis 2.10.56) mentions ruins still visible in Syria, but he appears to be alluding to Sodom and Gomorrah in Coele-Syria. Bousset (1902:43-49) maintains a Chaldaic source for the tradition of the two pillars. Perhaps the reference is to Seria (Ant. 1.147), a land adjacent to India. Reinink (1975:78-85) suggests that the term Seiris is based on the old Chinese word for silk and that the people of Seiris are the Chinese, who were noted for their manufacture of silk. We may suggest another possibility, namely that Seir refers to Mount Seir, that is mentioned in Deut. 33:2 and elsewhere as a place where God appeared to the Israelites.

Spilsbury (1994:33 n. 13) comments on Josephus’ use here of the word δεσπότης for God, rather than the LXX’s usual word, κύριος, “Lord.” He notes that Fischer (1958-59:132-38), following Schlatter (1932:25-26), argues that Josephus was influenced by a desire to avoid the Greek equivalent of the Tetragrammaton. But notice that elsewhere—albeit very occasionally—Josephus (Ant. 13.68, 20.90) does use the word κύριος with reference to God. The fourteenth-century Chronicles of Jerahmeel (24.11) records a tradition that during the entire lifetime of Adam the sons of Seth did not intermarry with the sons of Cain and that the sons of Seth lived in the mountains near the Garden of Eden, whereas Cain lived in the fields of Damascus, but that after seven generations the descendants of Seth became wicked. According to Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Targum Neofiti on Gen. 4:26, idolatry began only at the time of Enosh. According to Bib. Ant. 2.9 it was in the generation of the children of Lamech that the inhabitants of the earth began to worship idols. This does not agree with Josephus since, counting Seth, there were eight generations through Lamech. If, however, we count through Cain’s line, Lamech is the seventh generation thereafter, and Josephus would be in accord with Biblical Antiquities. So Jacobson (1:305). Ovid (Met. 1.128-62), in his description of the Iron Age, that was the generation of the Flood, enumerates the evils of the age: immodesty, falsehood, trickery, slyness, plotting, swindling, violence, greed, injustice, and contempt for the gods. Similarly, Lucian (De Syria Dea 12) mentions that the Flood was brought on because humans were very insolent and did unlawful deeds.

The Hebrew version of the Bible (Gen. 6:2), as well as Bib. Ant. 3.1, speaks of sons of God rather than of angels, though ἄγγελοι is an alternative reading of the LXX. Philo (De Gigantibus 2.6), indeed, reads ἄγγελοι in his quotation of this passage. Philo (Quaestiones in Genesin 1.92) asks why the giants were born from angels and women. On the sinning angels see Jub. 4:15, 4:22, 5:1; 2 Enoch 18; 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 1:6; Ps.–Clem., Hom. 8.11-15; Aggadat Bereshit (Introduction, ed. Buber, p. 39), and the extensive discussion by Ginzberg (1925:5:153-56 n.57). Dexinger (1966:96) declines to accept the view that Josephus, in his reference here to ἄγγελοι θεοῦ, was thinking of the Sethites. He notes this phrase as an example of how easily Josephus can combine Greek mythology and the Bible. Curtius (1953:219) notes that Josephus’ comparison of the fallen angels with the giants of Greek mythology has been taken over by Tertullian (Apol. 22) and Lactantius (Inst. Div. 10.14). Levine (1993:61) comments on the word that is used here for “insolent” (ὑβριστάς) and the expectations of punishment by Josephus’ Greek-educated audience (Ant. 1.100). Josephus here associates improper sex acts with their resulting ὕβρις. Philo (Quaestiones in Genesin 1.92) speaks of the contempt and arrogance of these angels “toward the better.” Sibylline Oracles (3) also identifies these giants with the Titans of Greek mythology. Whereas Gen. 6:5 remarks merely on the wickedness of this generation, Josephus discusses the punishment by God of these sons of angels in language reminiscent of Greek tragedy, asserting that they were overbearing (ὑβριστάς) and disdainful of every virtue, being over-confident in their strength. Here Josephus seems careful not to equate these men with the giants of Greek mythology but merely to say that they are comparable to the giants mentioned by the Greeks. Yet in Ant. 1.174 he speaks of the Assyrians’ subduing the descendants of the giants. According to Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (Reuben 5:6), the angels took the shape of men; “and the women, lusting in their minds after their forms, gave birth to giants.” Cf. Philo (Quaestiones in Genesin 1.92), who says that the term “sons of God” refers to excellent men, whereas wicked men are called “bodies.” So also rabbinic tradition (Sifre Num. 86, Sifre Zuta 194 [ed. Horovitz, p. 269], Midrash Gen. Rabbah 27.2-5) identifies the sons of God as distinguished men. Note Josephus’ omission of the anthropomorphic statement (Gen. 6:6) that God repented that He had created humanity.

The Noah narrative in Josephus is much less concentrated than it is in the Bible. The centrality of Noah is thus very much diminished, inasmuch as after he is first mentioned here and we are told of the wickedness of mankind (Ant. 1.75) and of God’s instructions to Noah to build an ark (Ant. 1.76-78), there is a long digression concerning the date of the Flood (Ant. 1.80-88), followed by an account of the Flood itself and of the abating of the waters (Ant. 1.89-92). This, in turn, is followed by another digression, noting non-Jewish witnesses to the authenticity of the Flood (Ant. 1.93-95), after that comes an account of Noah’s sacrifice to God and of God’s covenant (Ant. 1.96-103), followed by still another digression, explaining the longevity of the patriarchs (Ant. 1.104-8), followed by the account of the refusal of Noah’s grandsons and later descendants to colonize the plains (Ant. 1.109-12), the building of the Tower of Babel (Ant. 1.113-21), the table of nations descended from Noah’s sons Japheth and Ham (Ant. 1.122-39), and, finally, the story of Noah’s drunkenness and nakedness (Ant. 1.140-42). Hence, whereas Noah’s drunkenness is in the Bible mentioned in only four chapters (and only 90 verses) after the first reference to Noah, in Josephus this incident is mentioned some 65 paragraphs later, even though the account of the Flood itself is considerably condensed. Each digression in Josephus, it will be noted, is apologetically motivated. He discusses the apparent discrepancy in the chronology of this period (Ant. 1.80-88), an objection to the historicity of the whole narrative (Ant. 1.93-95), an objection to the Bible’s statement about the long lives of the patriarchs (Ant. 1.104-8), and the fact that the Greeks and the other nations, that claim such antiquity, are actually descended from the biblical Noah (Ant. 1.122-39). Connected with this factor of apologetics may be the desire not to build up Noah too much, inasmuch as he is the direct ancestor of all gentiles (cf. Sanhedrin 56a-60a). In Bib. Ant. also, while there are not as many digressions as in Josephus, from the first mention of Noah until the statement of his death there are three chapters (3.4-5.8, that is, 33 subsections), much of that are taken up with an extra-biblical list of the names of the descendants of Noah and an extra-biblical census of their numbers (4.2-5.8); his motive also, presumably, is apologetic, namely, to diminish, on the one hand, the relative importance of Noah himself, while, on the other hand, endeavoring to show that the nations of the world are actually derived from Noah. Fitzmyer and Harrington (1978:205), commenting on a 4Q “Messianic Text” found at Qumran, that presents a fragment of a prediction of a new-born child, suggest that it may be related to descriptions of the birth of Noah such as are reflected in Josephus. Josephus’ picture of Noah as a preacher is that of a Cynic or Stoic preaching such “diatribes” as those written by Menippus, Meleager, Petronius, Epictetus, Dio Chrysostom, and Seneca; this model also profoundly influenced the author of Acts in portraying Paul’s sermon on the Areopagus (Acts 17:22-31). On Noah as preacher in the Christian tradition see also 2 Pet. 2:5. Rabbinic tradition (Sanhedrin 108b, Midrash Gen. Rabbah 30.7, Midrash Eccl. Rabbah 9.15, Tanḥuma Noah 5 [pp. 33-34], Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 23, Tanna debei Eliyahu 16 [ed. Friedmann, p. 80]) also portrays Noah as warning his contemporaries of an impending catastrophe, only to have them deride him. The very fact, say the rabbis, that Noah waited for many years, until the cedars that he had planted had grown, was due to his desire to warn his fellow men to repent in the meantime (Tanḥuma Noah 5); indeed, Noah took fifty-two years (Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 23) or 120 years (Sifre Num., end) trying to induce the evil-doers to repent. In fact, the rabbis (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 30.7) interpret the phrase “a righteous man” (Gen. 6:9), that is applied to Noah, to mean that he was one who forewarned others, since only such a person deserves this designation. The Sefer Hayashar 3 (ed. Dan, p. 55) gives God the credit for Noah’s concern with influencing his fellow men. We may discern an apologetic motive in Josephus, in that he did not want his readers to believe that God destroyed the world without having previously given ample warning to mankind. Neither Philo nor Biblical Antiquities says anything about any attempt by God or Noah to induce the inhabitants of the earth to repent. The theme of the persecution of Noah by his contemporaries is found in rabbinic literature (Midrash Eccl. Rabbah 3.15, Midrash Lev. Rabbah 27.5, Midrash Gen. Rabbah 32.8, Tanḥuma Emor 9 [p. 609], Tanḥuma Noah 7 [p. 35]). The mention of Noah’s fear for his life is calculated to answer the implied charge that Noah should not have separated himself from his fellows but should have sought to influence them to repent. The rabbis speak of the derision that his contemporaries cast upon Noah (Sanhedrin 108b), but they do not mention threats against his life. Midrash Gen. Rabbah 32.8, commenting on the verse (Gen. 7:13) that asserts that Noah entered the ark by day, says that if he had entered at night his contemporaries would have claimed that they did not know what he was doing, whereas if they had known they would not have permitted him to enter. Josephus’ detail that Noah emigrated to another country is unique with him. According to Ginzberg (1925:5:178 n.25), he introduced it presumably in order to explain how the ark had come to rest in Armenia, whereas Noah had lived in Palestine.

Both here and in Ant. 1.99 Josephus remarks that God loved Noah for his righteousness but omits the biblical statement that he was perfect (Hebrew ‮תמים‬‎, LXX τέλειος). Philo (Quod Deus Immutabilis Sit 25.117) quotes the LXX and consequently praises Noah to the highest degree (De Abrahamo 5.27), since he says that justice is the chief of the virtues. Inasmuch as Noah was perfect, Philo (De Abrahamo 6.34) declares that he possessed all the virtues; and yet he qualifies this view by remarking that the statement that Noah was perfect in his generation indicates that he was not absolutely good but only in comparison with the men of his time (De Abrahamo 7.36). Bib. Ant. 3.4 describes Noah as “a just man and unblemished in his generation,” but he, too, qualifies this praise of Noah by saying that Noah found grace and mercy (3.4), implying that Noah did not really deserve all the kindness and concern shown to him by God, whereas the Bible speaks more positively about Noah in declaring that he found favor in the eyes of the Lord (Gen. 6:8). The rabbis similarly found themselves in a dilemma. To declare Noah, the ancestor of all non-Jews (“sons of Noah”) perfect, would, indeed, raise a question as to where Moses and the Torah marked any advance. Indeed, there is a debate in the Talmud as to how righteous Noah really was. One view, that of the second-century Rabbi Nehemiah (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 30.9) and of the third-century Resh Laqish (Sanhedrin 108a), is that Noah deserves even greater praise, since he was righteous in a wicked generation. On the other hand, the third-century Rabbi Judah (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 30.9) and Rabbi Joḥanan ben Nappaḥa (Sanhedrin 108a) remark that Noah was righteous only in comparison with those of his time. Rabbi Joḥanan goes so far as to declare that Noah was so lacking in faith that if the water of the Flood had not reached his ankles he would not have entered the ark (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 32.6). Perhaps one factor in this debate was the fact that the Church Fathers looked upon Noah as a type of the Christ and stressed that he was pleasing to God despite the fact that he was not circumcised (Justin, Dial. Try. 138). See Lewis (1984:175-76). Josephus, likewise seeking to steer an even course between excessive praise for the father of the Gentiles and a disdainful sneer, remarks here and in Ant. 1.99 that God loved Noah for his righteousness but omits the statement that he was perfect. The very first problem that confronts the reader of the biblical narrative of the Flood is to explain why God, Who is perfect and presumably unchanging, should have changed His mind and repented that He had created humankind (Gen. 6:6). The oldest manuscripts of the LXX have that God “was angry” (ἐνεθυμήθη, “took to heart,” “was concerned”); other manuscripts read “pondered,” presumably to avoid this problem. Philo is clearly troubled by the theological problem and attacks those who regard the passage as meaning that God changes His mind (Quod Deus Immutabilis Sit 5.21-22). Indeed, he says explicitly that those who interpret the words to mean that God repented are wrong, since God is without change. Rather, the meaning is that God was concerned or reflected on the reason why He had made man. Similarly, the rabbis translate, “And the Lord was comforted that He had made man on the earth” (Sanhedrin 108a), although some left the anthropomorphism intact and translated “repented,” citing, in typically Midrashic fashion, an analogy with a father who rejoices when a son is born to him although he knows that he will eventually die (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 27.4). One of the rabbis, Rabbi Nehemiah (ibid.), however, is troubled by this, and translates the verb “repented” as “was consoled”; he explains that God was consoled that He had not created man as an angel, since then He would have brought about a revolt of the angels against Himself. Another, Rabbi Levi (ibid.), explains it to mean that God was comforted that He had made man from the earth and that he would presumably, therefore, be subject to death. Bib. Ant. 3.3 piously quotes the passage as it appears in the Hebrew text and translates “repented” (penitet me). Such a notion is an obvious anthropomorphism, as admitted by such medieval commentators as Ibn Ezra and Naḥmanides. It is not surprising that Celsus, Marcion, and Ḥiwi al-Balkhi later cite the passage in support of the charge that God is not omniscient. Josephus, in a fashion often paralleled elsewhere, seeking to avoid such theological hornets’ nests, solves the problem by omitting the passage altogether. This extra-biblical statement, not found in Gen. 6:7, has its parallel in Ovid (Met. 1.250-52), who similarly notes Zeus’ promise to replace the wicked race of men with another race of wondrous origin not like the earlier one, as well as in Aeschylus’ Pr. 248-49 (232-33). Neither Philo nor Bib. Ant. nor the rabbis have any parallel to Josephus’ comment, offered to defend God against the charge of mere negativism. Josephus’ addition that God had resolved to create another race may have been inspired by God’s word to Moses (Exod. 32:10) after the sin of the Golden Calf. Josephus is here basing himself on the biblical verse (Gen. 6:3) that states that God reduced mortals’ “days” to 120 years. Cf. Bib. Ant. 48.1, that, commenting on the death of Phinehas, whom it identifies with Elijah, remarks that God told him that he had overpassed the 120 years that were ordained for all men. Elsewhere Josephus states that the duration of human life continued to diminish until the birth of Moses, after whom the limit of age was fixed by God at 120 years (Ant. 1.152). The rabbis realized the problem in regarding this as a limitation of man’s life-expectancy to 120 years, inasmuch as after this time, in the cases of the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the years of their lives exceeded 120. Hence, they looked upon the 120 years as the span of time during that man has an opportunity for repentance; so Targum Onqelos and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Gen. 6:3, ’Abot de-Rabbi Natan A 32. So also Philo (Quaestiones in Genesin 1.91) remarks that the 120 years was the limit for those who, living at that time, were later to perish in the Flood “after so great a number of years, that a benevolent benefactor prolonged, allowing repentance for sins.”

Greek ὑποθεμένου. This is closely paralleled by Apollodorus (1.7.2), whose date is uncertain, though he was probably a contemporary of Josephus. He states that Deucalion constructed an ark on the advice (ὑποθεμένου) of Prometheus. There is a curious similarity between the language introducing Lucian’s account of how Deucalion was saved (De Syria Dea 12) and Josephus’ language here. Lucian says that Deucalion’s salvation occurred in this wise (ἡ δὲ σωτηρίη ἥδε ἐγένετο).

The word for “ark” used by Josephus, λάρναξ, is the word used by classical writers of Deucalion’s ark (e.g., Apollodorus 1.7.2; Lucian, De Syria Dea 12), rather than the word κιβωτός used in the LXX (Gen. 6:14 ff.) and in Philo (De Plantatione 11.43). Josephus apparently adopted the word directly from Nicolaus of Damascus, whom he quotes (Ant. 1.94-95)—even to the point of giving the number of the book (96) where the passage occurs in Nicholaus’ history—as saying that many refugees found safety on a certain mountain in Armenia at the time of the flood, including a man, transported in an ark, “who would be the one of whom Moses, the lawgiver of the Jews, wrote” (Ant. 1.95). One factor that led Josephus to select his word for Noah’s ark may have been his desire to use a word different from that that he uses for the Ark of the Covenant. That Josephus’ choice of the word for Noah’s ark is significant is to be seen from the fact that when the same word “ark” (‮תבה‬‎) occurs in the Bible (Exod. 2:3) for the container where Moses’ mother placed him when he was an infant, whereas the LXX renders it by the word θίβις (presumably derived from the Hebrew), Josephus, perhaps because he wished to use a unique word for Moses’ ark, does not use the word that he had used for Noah’s ark, but instead employs the word πλέγμα (“plaited basket”) (Ant. 2.224), even though λάρναξ would appear to be the appropriate word for a basket in that a baby is exposed, to judge from Simonides (37.1), Apollonius of Rhodes (1.622), and Diodorus Siculus (5.62). Three stories in the Bible (Gen. 6:16). Philo (De Vita Mosis 2.11.60) also says that the ark had four stories. The seven animals apparently refer to clean animals, while others were restricted to two each; but Josephus makes no clear reference to this distinction and perhaps seeks to avoid it, inasmuch as the Noahides were bound by seven commandments but not by the dietary laws generally (Sanhedrin 56a).

Beasley-Murray (1962: 259) notes that the same compound verb (διασώζω) is used by Wis. 14:5 in describing Noah’s rescue.

Hebrew ‮קינן‬‎ (Gen. 5:9), LXX Καινᾶν, Josephus Καινᾶς. Hebrew ‮אנושׁ‬‎ (Gen. 5:6), LXX Ἐνώς, Josephus Ἄνωσος.

Nodet (20) says that the reference is to Noah’s role as the first-born and hence of the chief of his clan from his very birth. Josephus regularly refers to the Macedonian names of the months that were especially in vogue since the inauguration of the Seleucid era in 312 B.C.E. The equivalence with the Jewish (Babylonian) names is, however, questionable. Hebrew ‮מרחשׁון‬‎. The Talmud (Rosh Hashanah 11b-12a) records a dispute at the end of the first century C.E. between Rabbi Joshua ben Ḥananiah, who identifies the second month as Iyar, and Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, who identifies it, as does Josephus, as ‮מרחשׁון‬‎. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Gen. 7:11 agrees with Rabbi Eliezer. Jub. 6:22 and Philo (Quaestiones in Genesin 2.31) agree with the view of Rabbi Joshua in placing the beginning of the Flood in the month of Iyar.

Josephus regularly uses the Macedonian names of the months. So also Philo (Quaestiones in Exodum 1.1): “[(Scripture) thinks it proper to reckon the cycle of months from the vernal equinox.” Goudoever (1959:4 n. 13), however, notes that Josephus starts his account of the sacrifices offered on the various festivals with the festival of the seventh month (Ant. 3.239). See Exod. 12:2 and Josephus (Ant. 2.318). I.e. Tishri. However, Josephus’ statement here that Tishri is the beginning of the year for secular affairs disagrees with the rabbinic statement (Tosefta, Rosh Hashanah 1:5) that, with reference to selling and buying, Nisan, not Tishri, is reckoned as the beginning of the year. Hence, according to the Tosefta, if one should buy or sell a house for “this year,” without further specification, the sale is valid until Nisan. See Belkin (1940:211, n.65). Cf. Mishnah (Rosh Hashanah 1:1): “There are four new years. On the first of Nisan is the New Year for kings and for festivals. On the first of Elul is the New Year for the tithe of cattle. Rabbi Eleazar and Rabbi Simeon, however, place this on the first of Tishri. On the first of Tishri is the New Year for years [i.e., for determining the validity of documents], for release and jubilee years, for plantation and for [tithe of] vegetables. On the first of Shebat is the New Year for trees, according to the ruling of Beth Shammai; Beth Hillel, however, place it on the fifteenth of that month.” Belkin (1940:211 n.65) correctly notes that Josephus’ statement that Nisan is considered the New Year with reference to divine worship disagrees with the rabbinic source above, that sets the first of Tishri as the beginning of the year for divine judgment and worship. From this passage in Josephus, Aalen (1951:126) deduces that Josephus is unaware that the first of month of Tishri is the festival of the New Year; but the fact that Josephus elsewhere (Ant. 3.239) cites the special sacrifices of the day as described in the Pentateuch (Num. 29:1-6) would seem to indicate that he realized that it was a holiday. This is according to the LXX; but according to the Hebrew text (Gen. 7:11) it was on the seventeenth day of the month. Nodet (21 n.4) explains the difference by noting that, since according to Gen. 8:14 the earth was dry on the twenty-seventh day of the second month, the Flood lasted for exactly one year. According to the rabbinic tradition (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 33.7), the Flood lasted for a full solar year; and since the difference between the lunar and solar year is about eleven days, this would mean that the Flood would have started in the previous year on approximately the sixteenth (or seventeenth) day of the month. Hence, the LXX and Josephus attempted to harmonize the dates of the beginning and end of the Flood.

This is the figure in the best manuscripts and represents the total according to the figures that Josephus himself gives for the patriarchs. These are generally (except for Methuselah and Lamech) in accord with the LXX. Other manuscripts have totals of 2656 (SPL), 1656 (the figure according to the Hebrew text), and 1056 (Epitome). According to Bib. Ant. 1.2 ff. the total is 2506. See the table for the patriarchs, according to the Hebrew, LXX (and Josephus), and Biblical Antiquities in Feldman (1971:lxxxiii). The total lifetime of the patriarchs is the same in both the Hebrew text and the LXX (and Josephus), but, in general, a given patriarch is one hundred years older in the LXX (and Josephus) at the time of the birth of his first-born.

According to Gen. 5:3, Adam was 130 years old when he fathered Seth. The Greek indicates that it was Seth who lived 930 years, but later in this section we read that Seth lived 912 years; hence the reference must be to Adam. Johnson (1969:30-31), after comparing Josephus’ genealogy of the patriarchs with the Hebrew Masoretic text, the LXX, the Samaritan version, the Book of Jub., and the Assumption of Moses, concludes that Josephus is very probably consciously imitating Berosus. Hebrew ‮אנושׁ‬‎ (Gen. 5:6), LXX Ἐνώς, Josephus Ἄνωσος. The Hebrew text (Gen. 5:6), as well as Bib. Ant. 1.5, states that Seth was 105 when he fathered Enosh. This is an addition by Josephus. Hebrew ‮קינן‬‎ (Gen. 5:9), LXX Καινᾶν, Josephus Καινᾶς. According to Bib. Ant. 1.7, Enosh was 180 when he fathered Kenan. According to Gen. 5:9, Enosh was ninety years old when he fathered Kenan. The reference must be to Seth. Bib. Ant. 1.5 agrees with the LXX and Josephus in stating that Seth lived 707 years after he fathered Enosh; but this would give a total life span for Seth of 812 in Biblical Antiquities.

According to the manuscripts of Bib. Ant. 1.9 Kenan lived 1250 years; but if, with Jacobson 287, we adopt the emendation of Cohn (1898:281) in reading CLXX instead of DXX, his life span would be 900 years (170+ 730). Hebrew ‮מהללאל‬‎ (Gen. 5:12), LXX Μαλελεήλ, Josephus Μαλάηλος. So also Bib. Ant. 1.11. Hebrew ‮ירד‬‎ (Gen. 5:15), LXX Ἰάρεδ, Josephus Ἰάρεδος.

Some manuscripts (notably O) read 969; but the Hebrew and the LXX read 962. So also Bib. Ant. 1.13. Hebrew ‮חנוך‬‎ (Gen. 5:18), LXX Ἐνώχ, Josephus Ἄνωχος. Whereas in most cases there is a difference of one hundred years between the Hebrew text and the LXX as to the age when a given patriarch gave birth to a son, here the Hebrew text, the LXX, Josephus, and Bib. Ant. 1.13 are all in agreement. The Hebrew (Gen. 5:24) and Bib. Ant. 1.16 say that “Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him.” The LXX says that “Enoch was well pleasing to God and was not found because God transposed him.” Josephus mentions only Enoch’s unusual end. In the New Testament (Heb. 11:5) we read: “By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death; and he was not found, because God had taken him.” According to Jub. 4:23 and 1 Enoch 70:3-4, Enoch’s abode is in paradise. According to rabbinic tradition in Midrash Hagadol 1.123 (ed. Margulies, p. 132), Enoch, Moses, and Elijah serve as angels in heaven. Josephus uses the expression “returned to the Divinity” in describing the disappearance of Moses when he went to get the tablets of the Law (Ant. 3.96) and in describing his death (Ant. 4.326). Josephus does not say that God took the initiative in translating him but rather that he escaped a normal death and burial. So Tabor (1989:227), who suggests (229) that Josephus declares that Enoch returned to the divinity because Josephus treats the early chapters of Genesis as a somewhat typical “golden age” in that humans are in close and friendly contact with the gods and that, in any case, the many traditions that developed around Enoch in Jewish circles were simply too widespread to be ignored. Kraft (1978:256) says that the summary treatment accorded Enoch by Josephus is somewhat startling and may reflect his hesitancy about commenting on eschatological themes. Josephus, he thinks, must have known various extra-biblical traditions about Enoch, since he knew them about so many other biblical figures.

So also Bib. Ant. 1.18, but 167 in the LXX (Gen. 5:25). Bosse (1908:37) points out that the reason for Josephus’ modification of the LXX here is that, according to the LXX’s chronology, Methuselah did not die until fourteen years after the Flood, whereas, according to the Bible, only Noah and his immediate family survived. Hebrew ‮מתושׁלח‬‎ (Gen. 5:21), LXX Μαθουσάλα, Josephus Μαθουσάλας. Hebrew (Gen. 5:21) 65th year. Josephus agrees with the LXX and Bib. Ant. (1.15). Hebrew ‮למך‬‎ (Gen. 5:25), LXX Λάμεχ, Josephus Λάμεχος.

According to Gen. 5:31, Lamech lived 777 years. According to the manuscript tradition of Bib. Ant. 1.21, Lamech lived 767 years. Nodet (23 n.2) suggests that the text of Josephus should be restored to read 777 (7 [and 70] and 700), [and 70] having dropped out through homoeoarcton. According to the LXX, he lived 753 years. Some manuscripts read 82nd or 182nd year. The Hebrew text (Gen. 5:28) reads 182nd.

Sterling (1992:306) says that this presupposes that Josephus’ readers will consult the biblical text. He concludes that these readers are most probably Jews, though he admits that scholarly non-Jews might also be included. Johnson (1969:31 n.1) suggests that this caveat is issued in recognition of certain difficulties that arise from a comparison of the total ages of the figures and the year of the flood.

As Nodet (23 n.5) remarks, the passage is obscure. Weill translates: “It was in the seventh month, the seventh day, that the waters began to decline.” Nodet (23) translates “the waters ceased progressively to decline.” Josephus had said (Ant. 1.80) that the rain began in the second month. Since it lasted for forty days, before ceasing in the seventh month, this would bring the total number of days of the Flood to more than 150. Gen. 8:4 identifies this as the mountains of Ararat. So also Jub. 5:28 and the Gen. Apocryphon 10:12. Targum Onqelos identifies this as Qardo, Targum Neofiti and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan as Qardon. This latter is probably to be identified with Carron, that, according to Josephus (Ant. 20.24-25), is the district in Adiabene that possessed the remains of Noah’s ark, as well as with the mountain of the Cordyaeans, that, according to Berosus, still contained a portion of the ark.

Gen. 8:7 says merely that the raven went to and fro until the waters were dried up, but does not mention whether or not the raven returned to Noah. The LXX specifically states that the raven did not return until the waters were dried up. Josephus mentions sending out the dove only once; Gen. 8:8, 10, 12 says that Noah sent out the dove three times. The statement that it was seven days after he had sent out the raven that Noah sent out the dove is not found in Gen. 8:8, that says merely that he sent out a dove. However, such a statement is found in rabbinic tradition (Seder ‘Olam 4, ed. Ratner, p. 20).

The statement that the dove returned smeared with mud is not found in Gen. 8:11, but does appear in Berosus (ap. Syncellus, 53-56). According to Gen. 8:11, it was an olive leaf. Presumably, Josephus is following the LXX, that states that the dove had a leaf of olive, a sprig (κάρφος, that is, a small piece of wood), in her mouth. Josephus’ statement here that Noah took a common meal with his household is in agreement with Jub. 7:6 and the Gen. Apocryphon 12:16. Josephus has omitted the statement (Gen. 8:16) that it was God who told Noah to leave the ark at this point. Cf. Ant. 20.25, that describes the district of Carron (perhaps Gordyene on the Armenian border east of the sources of the Tigris), that, Josephus says there, possesses the remains of the ark in that Noah is said to have been saved, “remains that to this day are shown to those who are curious to see them.” On Josephus’ interest in still visible “archaeological remains” see also Ant. 1.151 and 10.264-65. Rabbinic tradition (Sanhedrin 96a) reports that the Assyrian king Sennacherib found a board from Noah’s ark and that Haman used a board from the ark in constructing his gallows for Mordecai (see Midrash Panim Acherim B 5 [in Sammlung Agadischer Commentare zum Buche Ester, ed. Buber, pp. 72-73]) and parallels cited by Rappaport [96 n.61]).

While Josephus is eager to establish the historicity of the Flood he does not actually equate Noah with Deucalion of the Greek flood, as, indeed, Philo (De Praemiis et Poenis 4.23) does. Josephus makes no such equation, presumably because he wished to keep the Pentateuch’s words “pure from every unseemly mythology that is found among others” (Ant. 1.15). That others had made the equation of Noah with Deucalion seems clear from the statement of the Church Father Theophilus in the second century that both had called mankind to repentance (Autol. 3.29). Theophilus also inveighs against those who had said that Noah’s Flood was as local as Deucalion’s (Autol. 3.29). Indeed, Celsus (ap. Origen, Contra Celsum 1.19, 4.11, 4.42) bitterly attacks Jewish writers who alter the Deucalion story. That Josephus, however, did identify Noah with the survivor of the Babylonian flood story is clear from his statement here that the Flood and the ark are mentioned by all who have written histories of the barbarians. That he did so is further clear from the passage in his work Apion (1.130), in that he states that Berosus mentions the ark in that Noah was saved when it landed on a mountain in Armenia. In the passage in question, Berosus refers to Xisuthrus, rather than Noah, as we see from Syncellus, who here quotes Berosus; but the fact that Josephus relates it as pertaining to Noah shows that he (and presumably his readers) had identified the two. Berosus (ca. 330-250 B.C.E.) was, according to Tatian (Oratio ad Graecos 36), a priest of Bel in Babylon who translated into Greek the standard Babylonian work on astronomy and astrology. About 281 B.C.E. he wrote in Greek a history of Chaldea (or Babylonia), in at least three books, that Josephus cites at length in his Apion 1.128-53 and that began with creation and extended to Berosus’ own time. The work is dedicated to the Syrian king Antiochus I. Portions of an abridgement by the first century B.C.E. Alexander Polyhistor of Berosus’ account of the Babylonian flood and the survival of the hero Xisuthros have been preserved through Eusebius’ Chronica, the Greek text of that, though itself lost, has been preserved in excerpts by the ninth-century Syncellus. The full text of Eusebius is available only in an Armenian translation. Berosus’ work was apparently little read in antiquity; and, with few exceptions, those, such as Josephus and the second century C.E. Abydenus, who quote Berosus, cite him not directly but from the abridgement made by Polyhistor. Josephus cites Berosus by name on six other occasions besides the present passage: Ant. 1.107, 1.158, 10.20, 10.34, 10.219-26, Apion 1.129-53, the last at great length. Schwartz (1897:309-16), however, concludes that Josephus knew him only through Alexander Polyhistor (first century B.C.E.) or King Juba of Mauretania (first century B.C.E.). For a translation with commentary of all of the remaining fragments of Berosus see Burstein (1978). Wacholder’s theory (1962), that Nicolaus was Josephus’ source not only for his account of Herod but also for the books of the Antiquities that parallel the Bible, rests chiefly on the four citations from Nicolaus (Ant. 1.94-95, 1.108, 1.159-60, 7.101-3) in these early books. But it seems highly questionable to erect such a theory on the basis of these few short fragments. Moreover, one may well wonder how a non-Jew such as Nicolaus could have been acquainted with the numerous traditions that Josephus has incorporated in his history. Finally, it would seem remarkable that the Byzantine excerpters, who are usually interested in Jewish matters and who are our chief source for the fragments of Nicolaus, should have neglected to include a single such fragment dealing with the biblical period. Such a fragment as the one about Abraham’s reigning in Damascus (Ant. 1.159) might have been included by Nicolaus as a passing reference in his account of the kings of Damascus, his native city, in that he took such pride. Or Gordyaeans, mentioned by Plutarch (Luc. 26, 29), a people of Armenia on the left bank of the Tigris River in Kurdistan. Plutarch (Alex. 31) mentions the mountains of the Gorthyaeans (probably to be identified with the Gordyaeans) between Armenia and Mesopotamia. Rabbinic tradition (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 33.4, Targum Onqelos and Jerusalem Targum on Gen. 8:4, Tosefta-Targum on 2 Kings 19:37) mentions Kardu (Korduene in Armenia) as the mountain where the ark rested; so also, as Ginzberg (1925: 5:186 n.48) remarks, Berosus has Xisuthros, Noah’s equivalent, come out of his ship in Korduene. In antiquity bitumen was used for medicinal purposes, particularly for closing bleeding wounds; see Galen (De Simplicium Medicamentorum Temperamentis ac Facultatibus 11.2.10).

Otherwise unknown, not to be identified with Hieronymus of Cardia, who is mentioned by Josephus (Apion 1.213-14). Mnaseas of Patara in Lycia in Asia Minor, who flourished ca. 200 B.C.E., is described by Suidas (s.v. Ἐρατοσθένης) as a pupil of the great geographer and historian Eratosthenes. He was the author of a collection of mythological tales. He is mentioned by Josephus as having established the antiquity of the Jews (Apion 1.215-16) and as telling a story of how the Jews were gullible enough to believe a certain Idumean named Zabidus who promised to deliver Apollo into their hands (Apion 2.112-14). In the latter story he asserts that the Jews kept the golden head of a pack-ass in the Temple. He is thus the first known writer to mention the ass-worship of the Jews. Nicolaus of Damascus (ca. 64 B.C.E. to the beginning of the first century C.E.), a non-Jew born in Damascus, was a Peripatetic philosopher and rhetorician who served as a teacher of the children of Antony and Cleopatra. He also served as the teacher of Herod in philosophy and rhetoric and was his adviser during the last ten years of the latter’s reign. Availing himself of his connections with leading Romans, he accompanied Herod on his journeys, defended the interests of Jewish communities before the Roman administrators, succeeded in repairing relations between Herod and Augustus, and played a leading role in the judicial proceedings against Herod’s son Antipater. After the death of Herod he defended Archelaus, Herod’s son and successor. Upon Herod’s urging he wrote a history of the world in 144 books, now lost except for fragments, that served as a major source for Josephus, who cites him especially for the reign of Herod. Fragments of his autobiography have been preserved by Constantinus Porphyrogenitus. He also wrote a biography of Augustus. Thackeray (ad loc.) suggests that since Nicolaus is the last name in the list of authorities, Josephus has taken over the other names from him and has no first-hand knowledge of their works. See Wacholder (1962).

Minyas is to be identified with the Minni, mentioned by Jer. 51:27 in immediate juxtaposition with Ararat as one of the nations summoned by God to attack Babylon. It is located in an area south of Lake Urmia in northwestern Iran and is the land of the Manneans. This would seem to contradict Josephus’ own statement (Ant. 1.76-77) that all of humankind were obliterated in the Flood except for Noah and his family. Elsewhere (Ant. 20.24-25) Josephus states that the remains of the ark are still to be seen in a district called Carron, presumably identical with Korduene in Mesopotamia near the Armenian border, where rabbinic sources (Targum Onqelos on Gen. 8:4) and Berosus agree that the ark came to rest. Neither Philo nor Biblical Antiquities nor the rabbis cite external evidence for the historicity of the Flood, nor do they claim that the remains of the ark are still to be seen.

Cf. Plato (Tim. 23B), where the aged Egyptian priest tells Solon that though the Greeks remember only one deluge, there were many earlier. Presumably these are the same sacrifices mentioned in Ant. 1.92. When Noah emerges from the ark, Gen. 8:20 declares simply that he built an altar unto the Lord, but it gives no reason for the sacrifice that Noah then proceeds to offer. Neither does Bib. Ant. 3.8, who simply quotes the biblical text. Philo (Quaestiones in Genesin 2.50 on Gen.8:20) asks why Noah did so when he had not been ordered to do so, and replies that it was an act of gratitude. The rabbis also ask how Noah was able to arrive at the idea of sacrificing, and they typically, with their emphasis on the process of reasoning, conclude (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 34.9) that he was able to deduce it logically from the fact that God had commanded him to take into the ark more clean than unclean animals, the surplus being presumably for the sacrifices later to be offered. Another explanation, to be sure, found only in late sources (see Ginzberg:1925, 5:186, n.49, who cites Zohar Ḥadash Noah 22d [ed. Margolioth] and parallels), is that Noah brought the sacrifice because he sought forgiveness for his sins. Josephus, here attempting to give a reasonable explanation, states that Noah offered a sacrifice to beseech God not to send another flood. The figure of Noah gains in stature in Josephus through the fact that he does not sacrifice to God silently, as in the Bible (Gen. 8:20), but is concerned with the future of the human race and, like Abraham (Gen. 18:23-30), reasons with God here to maintain the primitive good order of nature and not to send another calamity upon humankind. Whereas in the Bible (Gen. 8:21-22) the attention is focused on God, Who promises not to make any wholesale destruction of the human race in the future, in Josephus the attention shifts to Noah. In Gen. 9:11 God makes His promise without reference to Noah; but Josephus exalts Noah by having God say that it is at Noah’s petition that He has decided to refrain in the future from exacting such a penalty for the crimes of humans. Noah thus becomes a champion of humankind, similar to Abraham, asking God not to send another flood, so that humans may devote themselves to recultivating the earth and building cities—the hallmark of civilization.

Weill and Thackeray (ad loc.) read παθόντες (“having suffered”) instead of μαθόντες (“having learned”).

In Noah’s atoning for the land Josephus agrees with Jub. 6:2 and the Gen. Apocryphon 10:13. This positive attitude toward building cities contradicts the negative view in Josephus’ condemnation of Cain for building a city (Ant. 1.62).

There is an obvious anthropomorphism in the biblical statement (Gen. 8:21), retained in the LXX, that God smelled the sweet savor of Noah’s sacrifice. Philo (De Congressu Quaerendae Eruditionis Gratia 21.115) removes the anthropomorphism by explaining that the word “smelled” means “accepted,” “for God is not of human form, nor has He need of nostrils or any other parts as organs.” Likewise, Bib. Ant. 3.8 removes the anthropomorphism by paraphrasing “and it was accepted” by the Lord as an odor of rest. Josephus here avoids the problem by omitting this detail and by stating simply that Noah sacrificed to God and that God, Who loved him for his righteousness, signified to him that He would grant his prayers. A reader might have found an allusion to the doctrine of original sin in the passage (Gen. 8:21) on that this portion of Josephus is based, in that God says that “he will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake, for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth.” Philo (Quaestiones in Genesin 2.54 on Gen. 8:21) seems to subscribe to a doctrine of original sin when he declares that man’s inclination toward evil exists from his youth, “that is all but from his very swaddling bands, as if he were to a certain extent united, and, at the same time, nourished and grown, with sins.” Bib. Ant. 3.9 quotes the biblical passage without further exposition. On the other hand, in answer to the question of the Emperor “Antoninus,” Rabbi Judah the Prince was at first ready to subscribe to the view that the evil impulse bears sway over a man even from the formation of the embryo, and only later promulgated the view that the evil impulse holds sway only from the moment of birth (Sanhedrin 91b). On the other hand, the rabbis insist that the impulses natural to men are not in themselves evil (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 9.7). Josephus, seeking to avoid theological controversy, omits this passage completely from his paraphrase.

A theological problem arises when we ask why God should have created man only to destroy him in the Flood. In Gen. 6:13 God justifies this action with the single statement to Noah that He is doing so because man has filled the earth with violence. Josephus here anticipates the objection that it would have been sensible (σῶφρον, “discreet,” “prudent,” “temperate”) for God not to have created man rather than to create him and later destroy him. One is reminded of the famous debate, that lasted for two and a half years, between the Schools of Hillel and Shammai as to whether it would have been better if man had never been created (‘Erubin 13b). Thackeray (ad loc.) remarks that it is strange that God should speak of His piety and suggests that the reference is to His respect for His creatures or to His holiness. But the latter meaning is not found in extant Greek literature. The meaning would appear to be “piety and virtue toward Me.” So Schalit (ad loc.). Note the significance of the fact that the generation obliterated by the Flood had been guilty of ὕβρις and that the punishment meted out by God is to be viewed as νέμεσις, as in a Greek tragedy.

One of the anomalies of Jewish law is that in the case of the prohibitions of blasphemy, murder, and theft, the Noahides (“Sons of Noah,” that is, gentiles) are subject to greater legal restrictions than are Jews. Thus, for example, the killing of a fetus by a non-Jew is regarded as murder (Sanhedrin 57b), but this is not so regarded if done by a Jew. But it would have been embarrassing, presumably, to expect more of gentiles than of Jews, and hence Josephus omits any such interpretation. On the Noahide laws see Gärtner (1955:78 n. 1) and Lichtenstein (1981). Josephus omits the blessing that God gives to Noah and his sons: “Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth” (Gen. 9:1), just as he does the earlier such blessing (Gen. 1:28). Josephus, like the LXX, understands this to mean that what is prohibited is eating blood drawn from a living animal. The Hebrew understands this to mean flesh cut from a living animal. See the discussion in Sanhedrin 59a.

Paul (1985:473-80) argues that Josephus’ substitution of the word παῦλα (“pause,” “rest,” “cessation,” “truce”) for the word ‮ברית‬‎ (Gen. 9:9, LXX διαθήκη) is due to his desire to dissociate himself from the New Testament’s emphasis on the “new covenant.” However, if Josephus were writing an anti-Christian manifesto we would have expected him to be more open about it, since he had nothing to fear from the Christians at the time that he wrote the Antiquities, inasmuch as they were few in number and were hardly held in favor by the Emperor Domitian, during whose reign Josephus issued his work. Moreover, the fact that Josephus (Ant. 20.198-200), in a passage whose authenticity has seldom been questioned, is so laudatory of James, the brother of Jesus, is hardly consistent with a polemic against Christianity. The avoidance of the term διαθήκη would rather seem to be due to Josephus’ desire to avoid the national implications of the covenant and to view Judaism as a religion rather than as a national entity. Josephus carefully avoids stating that God created the rainbow (Gen. 9:13); indeed, the rabbis are troubled that God should have set the rainbow in the cloud as a kind of afterthought of the Flood and that He seemingly had not had the foresight to do so earlier; hence they declare (’Abot 5:6) that God created the rainbow on the eve of the Sabbath of creation. Josephus’ solution, as we see here, is to state that God displayed the rainbow, that presumably had been created long before. Moreover, in Gen. 9:16 there is a clearly anthromorphic picture in God’s statement that He will look upon the rainbow that He may remember His covenant with humankind. Josephus here reduces the anthropomorphism by having God state that by His bow He will indicate the truce from destruction by flood that humans will enjoy. Though Josephus would seem to refer here to the belief of the Babylonians, his Hellenistic readers would most probably have thought of the Greek gods Artemis and Apollo, both of whom bore the epithet τοξοφόρος, “bow-bearer.” Indeed, Homer’s favorite epithet for Apollo is “far-darting” (ἑκηβόλος). To be sure, the rainbow is to the Greeks (e.g., Hom., Il. 17.547) a portent of war and thus has the very opposite connotation to that of the rainbow in Genesis. Philo, perhaps because of this identification of the rainbow with war, argues that the bow that is spoken of in this biblical passage cannot be the rainbow (that he refers to as the “girdle of Aramazd [=Zeus]”), inasmuch as the bow in Genesis has its own special nature and substance, whereas the rainbow does not (Quaestiones in Genesin 2.64 on Gen. 9:13-17).

The great year was supposed to equal from 12,000 to 15,000 years. Cf. Cicero (Nat. Deor. 2.51) and Tacitus (Dial. 16). Weill (ad loc.) notes that Berosus reckoned world history in three cycles of 60, and 600, and 3600 years; and he identifies the middle cycle of 600 years as the great year of that Josephus speaks here. Van der Waerden (1952:140-43) concludes that the 432,000 (sic) years before the Flood equal one-half of Berosus’ great year. On the great year in Berosus see Schnabel (1923:261), Eliade (1959:87, 107), and Burstein (1978:15). Tannery (1893:306-22) concludes that that the number 600 mentioned here indicates a Chaldean origin and corresponds to a Jewish lunar-solar period that was postulated shortly before the time of Josephus. Sterling (1992:261), however, though inclined to think that Josephus took the idea of the great year from Berosus, admits that he might have picked it up from Stoic philosophy. As Bidet (1904:16) notes, the idea of the great year with a fire and a flood [cf. Ant. 1.70-71], announced and perhaps produced by a conjunction of all the planets in the same sign, is, indeed, found among opinions attributed to the Stoics: Von Arnim (1903-24:2:no. 625, 628), Heraclitus (Allegoriae 25, 53), Firmicus Maternus 3.1.9. From the Stoics, through Poseidonius as an intermediary, the idea came to Latin authors, such as Varro (see Censorinus, De Die Natali 18.11) and Virgil (Ecl. 4.34). There may be a connection between the great year and the tradition found in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 97a) that the world is to exist for six thousand years. Schalit (19, n. 96) sees in this last reason a typically Hellenistic motif, that of the εὐεργέτης, the benefactor. One finds the term as a title conferred on such kings and emperors as Antigonus, Ptolemy V Epiphanes, and Trajan.

Manetho was an Egyptian priest who lived in the third century B.C.E. He was the first Egyptian to write a history of Egypt in Greek. The work is lost, but a number of fragments, quoted in Josephus’ essay Apion, give an Egyptian version of the exodus, namely that the Israelites were expelled as lepers and polluted persons under the leadership of a certain Osarsiph, who is identified with Moses. Mochus, who lived in perhaps the second century B.C.E., wrote a history of Phoenicia in Phoenician. He is mentioned by the famous second-century B.C.E. philosopher and polymath Poseidonius. A contemporary historian, Laetus, according to Tatian (Oratio ad Graecos 37), translated his work into Greek. This Phoenician historian is otherwise unknown. He is mentioned again in Ant. 1.119. Naber (1885: 353-54), noting that in one of the manuscripts the name is spelled Ἑκταῖος, suggests that the reference is actually to Hecataeus of Abdera. He is also mentioned in Ant. 1.94.

Famous eighth century B.C.E. Greek poet, author of Opera et Dies, a pessimistic didactic poem, dealing with farm life and containing moral precepts, as well as a description of the five ages in the history of man; and Theogonia, on the genealogy of the gods. The reference is probably to Hecataeus of Miletus, a historian and geographer who flourished ca. 500 B.C.E. and who was the chief predecessor of Herodotus. His work is lost. The names from Hesiod to Nicolaus are apparently given in descending chronological order; and since Hellanicus lived somewhat later than Hecataeus of Miletus but much earlier than Hecataeus of Abdera, who flourished ca. 300 B.C.E., it is Hecataeus of Miletus who is here referred to. So Naber (1885:353). Hellanicus of Mitylene, who lived in the fifth century B.C.E., was a chronologist who wrote a number of monographs on the history of various parts of Greece, on Persian history, and the Trojan War, that are lost. Acusilaus of Argos wrote a work called Genealogies, that combined local with panhellenic legends and that attempted to correct Hesiod. The work is lost. Ephorus of Cyme in Asia Minor, who lived in the fourth century B.C.E., was a pupil of the famous orator Isocrates. He wrote a history in thirty books of all of Greece down to his own time. His work is lost, but he was a major source for Diodorus. This sentiment is found frequently (e.g., Ant. 2.348, 3.81, 3.268, 322, 4.158, 8.262, 10.281, 17.354, 19.108, War 5.257) in Josephus when he mentions data, especially miracles, that he realizes many of his readers will doubt as preposterous. The formula or its equivalent is also found in Herodotus (2.123, 3.122.1), Thucydides (6.2.1), Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Ant. Rom. 1.48.1), and Lucian (Quomodo Historia Conscribenda Sit 60). However, as Ladouceur (1983:27) points out, whereas Dionysius (1.48.4), for example, nowhere insists on his own point of view, Josephus (Ant. 1.105) here does, and, moreover, presents a series of proofs from a large number of writers (Ant. 1.106-8).

Hebrew ‮שׁם‬‎ (Gen. 9:18), LXX Σήμ, Josephus Σήμας. Hebrew ‮יפת‬‎ (Gen. 9:18), LXX Ἰάφεθ, Josephus Ἰάφθας. Hebrew ‮חם‬‎ (Gen. 9:18), LXX Χάμ, Josephus Χάμας. In Gen. 5:32 and 9:18 the sons are listed in the order Shem, Ham, and Japheth. In Ant. 1.141 Ham is referred to as Noah’s youngest son; in Gen. 9:24 he is referred to as his young son, that the LXX renders as “younger.” So also rabbinic tradition (Midrash Hagadol [ed.Margulies, p. 153]). He is also referred to as the youngest son in Jub. 7:10. There is an apparent contradiction in the Bible itself in that Japheth (Gen. 10:21) is referred to as the oldest, whereas, as noted above, Shem is listed first in Gen. 5:32 and 9:18. Guttmann (1928:8) suggests that Josephus may have had an apologetic motive in advancing the importance of Japheth, who, according to the rabbinic interpretation of Gen. 9:27 (see Megillah 9b), was the ancestor of the Greeks. According to Gen. 5:32, Noah was 500 years old when he fathered Shem, Ham, and Japheth. He was 600 years old when the Flood began (Gen. 7:6). A similar account appears in Plato’s description of the development of society after the Greek deluge. Those who escaped, he remarks, were only hill shepherds, “small sparks of the human race preserved on the tops of mountains” (Leg. 3.677B1-3). A natural fear rang in their ears at first, preventing their descent from the heights into the plains. This seems to imply that there were others who survived the Flood, besides the immediate family of Noah. A similar fear of another deluge is be found in Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 11, who assigns this as the reason why Nimrod was able to gain ascendancy to rule the entire world.

Franxman (95) concludes that this indicates that Josephus was acquainted with the Targumic tradition, inasmuch as whereas the Hebrew text reads that they journeyed from the East (‮מקדם‬‎) to Shinar, Targum Onqelos on Gen. 11:2 reads: “And it was in their migrations at the beginning (‮בקדמיתא‬‎) that they found a plain in the land of Babel.” Hebrew ‮שׁנער‬‎ (Gen. 11:2), LXX Σενναάρ, Josephus Σεναάρ. In Jub. 10:26 Shinar is connected with ‮נער‬‎, “emptied.” According to the third-century Resh Laqish (Shabbat 113b) and the third-century Rabbi Joḥanan (Zebaḥim 113b), Shinar is so called because all the dead of the Flood were shaken out (i.e. deposited) there (‮ננערו שׁם‬‎). The fact that Josephus has recast the biblical account into the form of a colonization movement leads Sterling (1992:259) to conjecture that he was influenced by Hecataeus’ Αἰγυπτιακά, that had a colonization account that included the Jews (ap. Diod. 28.2-3). Bib. Ant. 6.1 similarly predicts that the generation of the Tower of Babel would later be fighting one another. The reasons given by God in urging the descendants of Noah to send out colonies are those that led to the founding of many Greek colonies, namely an increasing population and the consequent threat of internal strife. See, e.g., Herodotus’ account (1.94) of the founding of Tyrrhenia by the Lydians. To be sure, the Midrash (Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 24) also notes a rapid increase in population, remarking that women gave birth to sextuplets; here again there is a play on words on Shinar (‮נער‬‎=youth). But the Midrash says nothing about the founding of colonies. Cf. Midrash Gen. Rabbah (36.4), that, as Nodet (ad loc.) remarks, has a play on the name Shinar as a land devoid of precepts. In attaching the precepts to the land, Shinar is opposed to the land of Israel.

Cf. the rabbinic tradition (Tosefta Soṭah 3:10, Midrash Num. Rabbah 9.24 and parallels), that asserts that the generation of the Tower of Babel were proud only of their material goods that God had granted to them.

Cf. Pseudo-Philo 6.1, quoting the generation that built the Tower of Babel: “Behold, it will come about that we will be scattered from each other and in later times we will be fighting each other. Therefore, come now, let us build for ourselves a tower.” The desire to prevent warfare, though to be sure against the common enemy, is also found in Sefer Hayashar 6 (ed. Dan, pp. 68-69), as cited by Jacobson (1:354).

Hebrew ‮נמרד‬‎ (Gen. 10:8), LXX Νεβρώδ, Josephus Νεβρώδης. Cf. the comment about Nimrod in Philo (Quaestiones in Genesin 2.82): “The impious man is none other than the enemy and foe who stands against God. Wherefore it is proverbial that everyone who is a great sinner should be compared with him as the chief head and fount.” Levine (1993:61) notes that Josephus, in this extra-biblical detail, has here given a good definition of “insolence” (ὕβρις) similar to that in Ant. 1.73, namely too great a confidence in one’s own powers. He notes that Josephus has here tied together two tales in Genesis—the Flood and the Tower of Babel—by citing their common denominator of ὕβρις. Philo (De Confusione Linguarum 47.117) also speaks of the crime of the generation of the Tower of Babel as ὕβρις, but he connects the crime of that generation with the offspring of Cain (De Confusione Linguarum 25.122). Bib. Ant. 6.14 speaks of Nimrod’s search for the men who refused to participate in the building of the Tower of Babel. The Jerusalem Targum on Gen. 10:9 refers to Nimrod as a rebel and a sinner, as does Midrash Gen. Rabbah 37.2. Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 24, like Josephus here, connects Nimrod with the Tower of Babel and portrays him as being insolently contemptuous of God. Cf. Bib. Ant. 6.2: “They said to each other, ‘Let us take bricks and let each of us write our names on the bricks.’” Vermes (1973: 77 n.2) remarks that whereas in Gen. 10:9 Nimrod is referred to as a mighty hunter, in the Palestinian Targumim “hunter” is interpreted as “rebel” or “sinner.” Similarly, the Midrash Gen. Rabbah 37.2 understands “hunter” metaphorically: “He snared the people by words.” Nodet (ad loc.) asserts that the context requires that the reference be to Nimrod’s virtue, not to their own; but since Nimrod is here depicted as urging the people to rebel against God, the argument that Josephus is ascribing to Nimrod might well be that the people should not feel that their newly gained prosperity was due to God but rather to their own powers. Josephus here presents his depiction of the generation of the Tower of Babel (Ant. 1.113-19) in terms of ὕβρις and νέμεσις. Following the typical Greek sequence of prosperity, insolence, and punishment, Josephus notes here their prosperity (εὐδαιμονεῖν), then their insolence (ὕβρις), and finally their punishment through their discord that God created among them. The fact that Josephus (Ant. 1.100) repeats the idea that the generation obliterated by the Flood had been guilty of ὕβρις (οἷς ἐξύβριζον) shows that he is looking upon the punishment meted out by God as the νέμεσις that follows the ὕβρις of a Greek tragedy. Similarly, when the Hebrews decide to fight against the Canaanites in defiance of Moses, they insist that it was thanks to their own valor that God had in the past given them their liberty (Ant. 4.2).

Philo (De Gigantibus 15.66) asserts that Nimrod took up arms against his own friends and withstood them in open war. According to the rabbinic tradition (Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 24), the generation of these rebels first renounced God and then chose Nimrod as their king. Josephus here, like Bib. Ant. 6.1 (though in 7.1 there is mention of a city and a tower), speaks of building only a tower, whereas Gen. 11:4 speaks of building a city and a tower. So also Ant. 1.98. The Bible does not connect Nimrod with the building of the Tower of Babel, but this is apparently to be inferred from the statement (Gen. 10:10) that the beginning of his kingdom was Babel. The extra-biblical statement that he taught mankind to have contempt for God is paralleled in rabbinic tradition (‘Erubin 53a, Ḥagigah 13a, Pesaḥim 94b; Ḥullin 89a, ‘Abodah Zarah 53b, Midrash Gen. Rabbah 23.7, 26.4, and 42.4, Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 34, cited by Ginzberg [1925:5:201 n.88]), that refers to him as the instigator of the building of the Tower of Babel and the wicked man who stirred the whole world to rebellion against God. On Nimrod in the post-biblical tradition see van der Toorn and van der Horst (1990:1-29). Philo (Quaestiones in Genesin 2.82) depicts him as making war on heavenly things and as building walls and towers on earth against heaven, and regards him as the prototype of the “great sinner.” Nimrod is also connected with the Tower of Babel in Bib. Ant. 6.14.

So also in the rabbinic tradition (Sanhedrin 109a; see parallels cited by Rappaport, 98 n. 72) we hear that the builders of the tower said, “Let us build a tower, ascend to heaven, and cleave it with axes, that its waters may gush forth.” One of the parties involved in the building of the tower is quoted as saying, “Let us ascend and wage war [with God].” The motif that it is slavery to submit to God is likewise voiced by Zambrias (Zimri) (Ant. 4.146).

So also Jub. 10:21. Nodet (ad loc.) remarks that one of Josephus’ sources, such as Berosus or Nicolaus of Damascus, must have referred to the ziggurats, that were not completed or in ruins. Josephus, presumably because this was too obvious an anthropomorphism, omits the statement (Gen. 11:5) that God came down to see the city and the tower that the people were building.

Josephus here portrays the punishment inflicted by God upon the builders of the Tower of Babel as factional strife (στάσις, “discord,” “dissension,” “civil war,” “revolution,” “internal feud,” a word not found in the LXX of Gen. 11:9). Similarly, in his treatment of the rebellion of Korah (Num. 16) Josephus remarks that it was a sedition (στάσις) “for that we know of no parallel, whether among Greeks or barbarians” (Ant. 4.12), clearly implying that information about seditions was familiar to his readers. Likewise, in discussing the consequences of the seduction of the Hebrew youth by the Midianite women, Josephus remarks that the whole army was soon permeated by a sedition (στάσιν) far worse than that of Korah (Ant. 4.140). So Gen. 11:9: “Therefore, its name was called Babel, because there the Lord confused [from Hebrew ‮בלל‬‎, “to confuse”] the language of all the earth.”

The word that Josephus uses here for “difference of languages,” ἀλλοφωνία, is found only here in all of extant Greek literature. The passage in Sibylline Oracles (3.97-104) reads as follows: “But when the threats of the great God are fulfilled with that he once threatened men when they built the tower in the land of Assyria... They were all of one language and they wanted to go up to starry heaven. But immediately the Immortal One imposed a great compulsion on the winds. Then the winds cast down the great tower from on high, and stirred up strife for mortals among themselves. Therefore, humans gave the city the name Babylon.” (trans. by John J. Collins, in Charlesworth [1983:1:364]). The passage is quoted from Alexander Polyhistor by Eus., Pr. Ev. 9.17-18. Lactantius (Inst. Div. 1.6) ascribes it to the Erythraean Sibyl, who is often identified with the Cumaean Sibyl. The Scholia on Plato (Phaedrus 244 B) ascribe it to the Hebrew Sibyl. Collins (364 n. o) remarks that even if Josephus had access to a Babylonian source it does not follow that the Sibyl also drew on that source. The Sibyl appears here to have combined the story of the building of the Tower of Babel with the Greek myth of the giants Otos and Ephialtes, who piled Mount Pelion on Ossa on Olympus in their effort to reach heaven (Hom., Od. 11.307-20). The fact that Josephus here uses the plural “gods” shows that he has taken this passage not from the Sibylline Oracles (3:97-104), that dates from the second century B.C.E., where the singular is used, but rather from a pagan author, who connected the third Sibyl with the Tower of Babel, and to whose work Josephus had access. See Stade (1895:161-62), who considers the possibility that the passage in Genesis went back to an older polytheistic presentation of the incident, and that Josephus had access to this account. Most likely this is a loose paraphrase taken from the first century B.C.E. Alexander Polyhistor (ap. Syncellus, p. 46 [81]). Müller (Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum 2.502) believes that Alexander owes his paraphrase to Berosus. The winds are not alluded to in Gen. 11:8, but they are mentioned in Jub. 10:26.

Phoenician historian cited by Josephus (Ant. 1.107). ”The Warlike,” an epithet of Ares. There is no passage in extant literature where the epithet is applied to Zeus; but after Homer it apparently came to mean simply “warlike” and was applied to Dionysus (Lyrica Adespota [ed. T. Bergk] 108); and hence may have been applied to Zeus also.

Cf. Paul’s speech on the Areopagus (Acts 17:26): “And He made from one every nation of men to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their habitation.”

Cf. Josephus’ exasperation with the Greeks (Apion 1.6-18) as historians of antiquity.

On Josephus’ table of nations (Ant. 1.122-47) see Arldt (1917:264-317) and Maier (1991:187-94). Borst (1957:1:170-74) notes that Josephus’ table of nations does not contain all the contemporary peoples because the Bible has antiquarian, not actual, interest for Josephus. Alexander (1974:53) stresses that “fundamental to Josephus’ toponomy is the belief that the biblical account of the origin of nations is primary; it is not only historically true and ancient, but preserves above all others the original names and places of settlement of the peoples of the world.” In this respect Josephus is like the Greek historians who presupposed the primacy of their traditions. Indeed, Josephus, as we see in his essay Apion (1.6-27), protests against the Greek historians, who, in his opinion, because of their failure to keep public records and because of their regard for style rather than accuracy, are untrustworthy as antiquarians. As Momigliano (1982:555) writes, “What is remarkable is the energy and independence with that the Jews turned Greek ideas upside down.” Josephus here is, in general, as noted by Franxman (101), following Jub.. Schmidt (1990:119-34) notes that in both Jub. (8:11-9:15) and Josephus there is a three-way division of the world, corresponding to the three continents, and corresponding to the areas occupied by the descendants of Noah’s three sons. Hebrew ‮יפת‬‎ (Gen. 10:1), LXX Ἰάφεθ, Josephus Ἰάφθα. Perhaps there is a connection with Greek Iapetos, the father of Prometheus. According to the LXX (Gen. 10:2), Japheth had eight sons, since it includes Elishah, who, according to both the Hebrew and the LXX of Gen. 10:4, was a son of Javan, the son of Japheth. A range of mountains in southeastern Asia Minor, northwest of Tarsus. Kallai (1967:203-7) concludes that so far as geography is concerned Josephus does not, in general, have original traditions for the period prior to the Babylonian Exile that could illustrate the biblical texts. A range of mountains (now known as Giaour Dagr) in Asia Minor. It is separated from the Taurus by the valley of the Jihun and its continuation, the Gulf of Alexandretta. It forms the limit between Cilicia and Syria. Franxman (102) suggests that in coupling Taurus and Amanus Josephus was influenced by Strabo, who couples them on two occasions (Geog. 11.12.1-2, 12.2.2). Cf. Jerahmeel 31.3, 5. The Don River in European Russia in the north Caucasian area. In antiquity it was regarded as the boundary between Asia and Europe. It is likewise mentioned in connection with Japheth by Jub. 8:25, 8:28, 9:8. According to Jub. 8:12, its source is in “the Waters of the Abysses,” that is, the Ocean in the east, as well as in the mountains of Rafa (8:12, 28). It runs east to west into the Sea of Me’at and then into the Great Sea (8:12), that is, into the Black Sea, that is regarded as an extension of the Great Sea. See Alexander (1982:201). City in southern Spain, now known as Cadiz. It is likewise mentioned in connection with Japheth by Jub. 8:26 and 9:12. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, Jerusalem Targum, and Targum Neofiti add to the list of the seven sons of Noah (Gen. 10:2) “and the names of their provinces,” and proceeds to list these provinces. This list is found, with minor variations, in Midrash Gen. Rabbah 37.1. Maier (1991:188) notes that the details here given by Josephus correspond more closely to political and geographical realities of his own day than to what is found in Jub..

Hebrew ‮גמר‬‎ (Gen. 10:2), LXX Γαμέρ, Josephus Γόμαρος. Galatia is an inland district of central Asia Minor bounded by Bithynia and Paphlagonia on the north, by Phrygia on the west, by Lycaonia and Cappadocia on the south, and by Pontus on the east. The Galatians had apparently wandered out of the Balkans after the decline of the Phyrgians in the third century B.C.E. and are mentioned in 1 Macc. 8:2 and 2 Macc. 8:20. After many changes in their relationships to the neighboring states of Pontus, Cappadocia, and Pergamum, they eventually, early in the second century B.C.E., became a Roman vassal state and finally, under Augustus, a Roman province. See Stähelin (1924) and Maier (1991:189). Borst (1957:1:123) says that they are doubtless to be identified with the Cimmerians. In the rabbinic tradition (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 37.1) the fourth-century Rabbi Samuel bar Ammi identifies Gomar with ‮אפריקי‬‎, presumably the province of (north) Africa; but since Africa would seem to be the area associated with Ham, Galatia is usually identified with Phyryia. Hebrew ‮מגוג‬‎ (Gen. 10:2), LXX Μαγώγ, Josephus Μαγώγης. The Scythians of Herodotus lived in the south-eastern part of Europe between the Carpathian mountains and the Tanais (Don) River. In the time of the Roman Empire they occupied the greater part of northern Asia. During Josephus’ lifetime they constituted a neutral political entity in the region of the Bosporus, though Anderson (1932:8) insists that in using the term Scythians as equivalent to Magog, Josephus was clearly placing Magog north of the Caucasus. The equation is found in a number of Church Fathers cited by Anderson (1932:8 n.2). Josephus (War 7.90) mentions the Sarmatians as a very numerous tribe of Scythians who crossed the Danube and attacked the Romans in Moesia but who were defeated by the general, Rubrius Gallus, sent by Vespasian. Josephus also (War 7.245) refers to the Alani as a tribe of Scythians who inhabited the banks of the river Tanais and Lake Maeotis (the Sea of Azov). He says (Apion 1.64) that the Scythians have become known through the navigators of the Black Sea. He speaks of them (Apion 2.269) as delighting in murdering people, being little better than wild beasts, yet upholding their national customs. Jerahmeel (31.1) agrees with Josephus’ equation of Magog and the Scythians, as does Hölscher (1949:49, 71). Borst (1957:1:123) says that the identification of their locale is unclear but that apparently it is in the vicinity of Media, perhaps Armenia. Midrashic tradition (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 37.1) identifies Magog with Germania. Noting that Josephus here equates Magog with the Scythians and that he is the first author who refers to the pass in the Taurus range south of the Caspian Sea that Alexander the Great closed with iron gates, Pfister (1914) presents the thesis that the legend that Alexander’s gate was built to exclude Gog and Magog originated in Alexandria in the first century. Anderson (1932:20 n. 1) contends that if the legend originated in the time of Josephus the later variations in understanding the terms Gog and Magog could hardly have come into being.

Hebrew ‮יון‬‎ (Gen. 10:2), LXX Ἰωύαν, Josephus Ιαύανος. He is identified with the Greek Ion, the son of Apollo (or Xuthus) and the ancestor of the Ionians. He is the grandson of Hellen (the eponymous ancestor of the Hellenes). Hebrew ‮מדי‬‎ (Gen. 10:2), LXX Μαδαί, Josephus Μάδος. The identification with the Medes is also found in midrashic tradition (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 37.1). So also Javan refers to all the Greeks in the LXX (Isa. 66:19, Ezek. 27:13). Borst (1957:1:123) says that they are the Ionian Greeks, presumably those of the southern coast of Asia Minor. In midrashic tradition (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 37.1) Javan is identified with Macedonia. Hebrew ‮תבל‬‎ (Gen. 10:2), LXX Θοβέλ, Josephus Θεόβηλος. They have been identified with the Τιβαρνοί, mentioned by Herodotus (3.94) as comprising, together with the Moschi, one of the peoples in one of the provinces of the Persian Empire and as having served in the army of King Xerxes (7.78). These Iberians lived in the center of the isthmus between the Black and Caspian Seas in a part of what is today Georgia. Maier (1991:192) thinks that perhaps the Colchians, who inhabit the southeastern coast of the Black Sea, are included among the Iberians. The Iberians played an important role in the formation of the Roman province of Pontus-Cappadocia until the expansion of neighboring Armenia. Borst (1957:1:123) thinks that they may be a portion of the Hittites of southwestern Cappadocia. Midrashic tradition (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 37.1) identifies the area as Bithynia. Since Bithynia and Iberia are neighboring regions the difference would appear to be minor. Elsewhere Josephus mentions the fact that Mithridates, the king of Pontus, when pursued by the Roman Lucullus, fled to the Iberians (Ant. 13.421). He also mentions that the Emperor Tiberius offered large sums of money to the kings of the Iberians and their neighbors the Albanians to come out plainly for war against the Parthians (Ant. 18.97). Cf., however, Lida de Malkiel (1970a:9-48) on the influence of this passage in Josephus on Isidore of Seville and later Spanish authors, notably the thirteenth-century Rodrigo Ximenez de Rada, archbishop of Toledo.

Borst (1957:1:123) localizes them in Phrygia. Hebrew ‮משׁך‬‎ (Gen. 10:2), LXX Μοσόχ, Josephus Μέσχος. Cappadocia originally embraced all of northeastern Asia Minor east of the River Halys and north of Mt. Taurus, extending north to the Black Sea and northeast to Old Malatia and Armenia Minor. Later it was divided into Pontus and Cappadocia proper. It played a part in Jewish history through the marriage of its rulers with the family of Herod. Midrashic tradition (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 37.1) identifies the area with the province of Moesia in the lower Danube (see Krauss:1914, 2). Ancient Eusebeia, later renamed Caesarea during the reign of Tiberius. Hebrew ‮תירס‬‎ (Gen. 10:2), LXX Θίρας, Josephus Θείρης. Josephus Θείρας. Skinner (1930: 199-200) conjectures that they are identical with the Mediterranean pirates who gave their name to the Etruscans (see Herodotus 1.94, who tells how they emigrated to Tyrrhenia from Lydia). Thrace originally comprised the area bounded on the north by the Danube, on the south by the Propontis and the Aegean, on the east by the Black Sea, and on the west by the Strymon River. Later the name was applied to a more limited territory, south of Mount Haemus. Rabbi Simon ben Pazzi identifies them with the Persians, but the other rabbis agree with Josephus in identifying them as the Thracians (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 37.1). Others, as noted by Borst (1957:1:123), suggest identifying them with the Tyrsenians and the Etruscans.

Hebrew ‮אשׁכנז‬‎ (Gen. 10:3), LXX Ἀσχανάζ, Josephus Ἀσχανάξης. Franxman (106 n. 28) suggests that the name Naxos resembles the last half of Aschanaxes. The term Ashkenaz later refers to tribes who lived north of the Thracians. Here, however, the term probably refers to the area of the later Roman province of Bithynia, as suggested by Franxman (105) and Maier (1991:189), that was also known as Ascania from the lake of the same name (Strabo 12.4.5). Borst (1957:1:123) thinks that they may refer to the Cimmerians or Scythians or Phrygians or Armenians. Perhaps the reference is to the Ῥηγῖνοι, mentioned by Herodotus (7.171), who inhabit a portion of southern Italy. Cf. Philo (De Aeternitate Mundi 26.139), who gives the derivation of the name of Rhegium, located at the tip of southern Italy, from its being split off (ἀνερράγη) from Sicily. Puech and Quispel (1954:40-41) cite a letter to Rheginos in the gnostic Codex Jung. Midrashic tradition (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 37.1) identifies the area as the province of Asia (Minor). Schalit (1968:101) suggests that these are inhabitants of the regiones into that Asia Proconsularis was divided at the time of Sulla and who were consequently known as Regienses (cf. Pliny [Hist. Nat. 5.113, 11.95]). Franxman (105), with good reason, objects that on this understanding they would be settled in sections of territory that were occupied by other descendants of Japheth and that the term represents a political unit rather than a people. He (106) remarks that Rhegium, as we know from Strabo (Geog. 6.1.6, 6.2.2), was founded by Chalcidians (from Euboea), and that Josephus is here subtly but deliberately identifying the descendants of Aschanaxes with the Chalcidians. Ptolemy mentions a Rhegion in Moesia Inferior south of the Danube River on the Black Sea (3.10.10). Maier (1991:189-90) concludes that the Gomar group established themselves in central and northwestern Asia Minor, in that Ashkenaz inhabited the most northwestern area. Other suggested identifications (Borst [1957:123]) are with the Cimmerians, Scythians, Phrygians, Bithynians, or Armenians. Hebrew ‮ריפת‬‎ (Gen. 10:3), LXX Ριφάθ, Josephus Ῥιφάθης. Paphlagonia was a region in Asia Minor that under the Romans formed part of the province of Galatia, south of Bithynia, east of Phrygia, west of Pontus, and north of Lycaonia and Cappadocia. Borst (1957:1:123), Franxman (106), and Maier (1991:190) accept this identification. Rabbinic tradition variously identifies the area with ‮פרכוי‬‎ (Fragmentary Targum on Gen. 10:3, that Krauss [1914:2] equates with the Paphlagonians) and with Adiabene in Mesopotamia (Gen. Rabbah 37.1). Hebrew ‮תגרמה‬‎ (Gen. 10:3), LXX Θοργαμά, Josephus Θυγράμης. On this identification see Maier (1991:172, n. 60). Borst (1957:1:123) thinks that Josephus locates them on the Euphrates or West Armenia near Tarsus. Nodet (ad loc.) suggests an identification with Tegarama, that is mentioned in Assyrian texts and that is near Carkemish. Skinner (ad loc.) says that Togarmah is traditionally associated with Armenia. Midrashic tradition (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 37.1) identifies the area with Germania. Inasmuch as the same rabbinic tradition identifies the area inhabited by Magog as Germania, one of the rabbis, Rabbi Barekya, suggests that Germanicia is meant; and Krauss (1914:3) locates this in Commagene in Asia Minor; Jastrow (1903:1:270) suggests a possible identification with the Cimmerians.

Josephus mentions three sons, but he omits a fourth, Dodanim (LXX Ρόδιοι, Gen. 10:4). Perhaps the omission is due to the fact that Josephus was troubled by the discrepancy between the spelling in Gen. (‮דדנים‬‎) and that in Chr. (1:7, ‮רודנים‬‎). Whereas in Jub. 9:2-6 Asia Minor is assigned to Shem, rather than to Japheth, in Josephus it is given to Japheth. Schmidt (1990:132) suggests that the ideological purpose served by this revision in the Table of Nations in Jub. was to take a stand against the hellenized reformers of the second century B.C.E. For Josephus, on the other hand, Hellenism is a reality with that Judaism had to come to terms. Consequently, he substitutes the Greek names of both nations and places for the traditional ones. Hebrew ‮אלישׁה‬‎ (Gen. 10:4), LXX Ἐλισά, Josephus Ἁλισᾶς. The Targum Neofiti, Jerusalem Targum, and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Gen. 10:4 refer to their country as Elas (Ἐλλάς). Maier (1991:191) calls this equation with the Aeolians and hence with the northernmost group in the region astonishing. In the Roman period the identification of the Aeolians with Lesbos was no longer current; rather the term “Aeolians” referred to the province of Asia. It is known as the name of the islands supplying Tyre with blue and purple and (Ezek. 27:7). Thackeray (ad loc.) remarks that Conder’s identification of Elishah with the Alasia of the Tel-Amarna tablets is now widely accepted, but Nodet (ad loc.) challenges this. Other suggested identifications are with Crete, Carthage, Sicily, southern Italy, Cyprus, or an island near Cilicia (Borst, 1957:1:123). Midrashic tradition (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 37.1) identifies the area with Hellas, that Krauss (1914: 3) identifies with Aeolis. In the Targum on Ezek. 27:7 Elishah is equated with Italia, the reference being, in all probability, to Magna Graecia. Hebrew ‮תרשׁישׁ‬‎ (Gen. 10:4), LXX Θάρσεις, Josephus Θάρσος Perhaps to be identified with Ταρτησός in southern Spain, later identified with Gades (Cadiz), discovered, according to Herodotus (1.163) by the Phocaeans from Ionia. Josephus himself (Ant. 9.208) identifies Tarshish (Jonah 1:3) as Tarsus in Cilicia in southeastern Asia Minor (cf. 2 Macc. 4:30); and here in our passage, too, he specifically mentions Cilicia as the later name of Tarsus. Josephus further mentions Cilicia (Ant. 13.374) as the place from that Alexander Jannaeus’ mercenaries came. However, where Tarshish is mentioned (1 Kgs. 22:48) as the place whose ships King Jehoshaphat made to go to Ophir for gold, Josephus (Ant. 9.17) speaks of trading-stations of Thrace. In this latter case Marcus (1937: ad loc.) suggests that Josephus has connected (or confused) Tarshish with biblical Tiras (Gen. 10:2). Midrash Gen. Rabbah 37.1 identifies Tarshish with Tarentum in southern Italy. Midrashic tradition (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 37.1) likewise identifies Tarshish with Tarsus. Borst (1957:1:123) thinks that more probably the identification is with Tartessos in Spain. The identification with the Tyrhennians seems less probable.

Hebrew ‮כתים‬‎ (Gen. 10:4), LXX Κήτιοι, Josephus Χέθιμος. Passages such as Num. 24:24, Isa. 23:12, Jer. 2:10, Ezek. 27:6, and Dan. 11:30 refer to the maritime setting of Kittim. Its identification specifically with Cyprus, accepted by Borst (1957:123), may be questioned in view of the reference to it in 1 Macc. 1:1 as the birthplace of Alexander the Great. Targum Onqelos on Num. 24:24 identifies it with Rome. The fact that the Dead Sea Pesher of Hab. (2:12) speaks of the Kittim as coming from far coastlands to overcome Israel would also seem to identify them with the Romans. Though the preponderance of rabbinic tradition (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 37.1, Jerusalem Targum and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Num. 24:24) identifies the area as Italy, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Gen. 10:4 identifies it as Achaea, that is, Greece. Other suggested identifications are with the Aegean islands, Peloponnesus, and Macedonia (Borst [1957:123]). On the various theories as to the identification of the Kittim see Braverman (1978:117-18) and Baker (1992:4:93). Citium (modern Larnaka) is a town on the island of Cyprus. Nodet (ad loc.) notes that Citium is mentioned in Phoenician inscriptions.

As Thackeray (ad loc.) remarks, this is the reason why Josephus regularly, and with few exceptions, omits lists of strange biblical names, e.g., Ant. 7.369, 11.68, 11.152, 12.57. Strabo (Geog. 3.3.7 and 14.4.18) similarly explains why he omits the lists of “barbarian” names. I.e., ‮נח‬‎ in Hebrew (Gen. 5:29), LXX Νῶε, Josephus Νῶχος. I.e., in Greek the endings of a proper name will vary depending upon the case, whereas in Hebrew the spelling always remains the same.

Cohen (1979:39-41) remarks that in his rearrangement of the biblical material Josephus follows the “thematic” school, in accordance with the Hellenistic historical tradition, as noted by Avenarius (1956: 119-27), that is, he brings into juxtaposition items that belong together on the basis of subject, regardless of their chronology or source. Thus here Josephus connects the genealogies of Noah, Ham, and Canaan (Ant. 1.130-42), that are separated in the Bible. On the children of Ham, see Epstein (1892:82-98), who concludes that, compared to Josephus, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan appears to possess a more extended geographical knowledge and makes distinctions that are ignored by Josephus. He notes that Josephus is sometimes obliged to leave the biblical name without explanation, while Pseudo-Jonathan does give explanations. See Ant. 1.122. The modern Jebel Libnan mountain range in Syria. I.e., from the Mediterranean Sea to the Indian Ocean.

Hebrew ‮כושׁ‬‎ (Gen. 10:6), LXX Χούς, Josephus Χουσαῖος. Cush is regarded as a province of Arabia in Asia by the Targum Neofiti and the Jerusalem Targum. Others have suggested seeking them in southwestern Iran or even in the Bantu region.

Alternative reading (Manuscripts SPE): Mestraeans. Hebrew ‮מצרים‬‎ (Gen. 10:6), LXX Μεσραίν (Μεστραείμ), Josephus Μερσαῖοι. I.e. Palestine, though Josephus is actually writing in Rome. Hebrew ‮פוט‬‎ (Gen. 10:6), LXX Φούδ, Josephus Φούτης. The name Phut appears in Coptic in the form of Phaiat as the place between the Canopic arm of the Nile River and the Libyan mountains. Borst (1957:124) thinks that an identification with the region south of the Red Sea is most probable. A possible identification of Phut with Punt in Somalia has been suggested by Westermann (1984:511) and Simons (1959:2:75), but Hölscher (1949:25) concludes that this is unacceptable from a philological point of view, since the feminine ending t cannot be equated with the Hebrew tet, as well as from a historical point of view, inasmuch as the Egyptians never had soldiers from Punt. The LXX (Jer. 46:9 = LXX 26:9) renders Put by Libyans; and Simons suggests that Put and the Libyans (Nah. 3:9) refer to the same people. Hölscher (1949: 26n.2) cites as confirmation of the equation of Put and Libya a fragment of an Egyptian text discussed by Posener (1936:70, 186-87).

Mauretania, a country in northwest Africa, modern Morocco. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, like Josephus here, associates Mauritanus with Phut. Hölscher (1949: 26 n.8) notes that Pliny (Hist. Nat. 5.13) and Ptolemy (4.1.3) refer to a river Phthouth in western Mauretania but remarks that Mauretania lies too far west to be the location of biblical Put. This is Niese’s emendation. The manuscripts read Mes(t)ramos. Ant. 1.239-41.

Hebrew ‮כנען‬‎ (Gen. 10:6), LXX Χαναάν, Josephus Χαναναῖος. Cush, called Chousaios in Ant. 1.131. Hebrew ‮סבא‬‎ (Gen. 10:7), LXX Σαβά, Josephus Σάβας. The Sabaeans were located either in Ethiopia or in southern Arabia. Josephus (Ant. 2.249) identifies Saba as the capital of the Ethiopian kingdom and as the city between the White Nile and the Blue Nile that the Persian king Cambyses later called Meroe. Hebrew ‮חוילה‬‎ (Gen. 10:7), LXX Εὐιλά, Josephus Εὐίλας. Targum Neofiti and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan identify them as the people of India. That Josephus identified Havilah as India is clear from the fact that where Gen. 2:11 speaks of the river Pishon, that encompasses the land of Havilah, Josephus speaks of the Phison, that runs toward India and is called by the Greeks the Ganges River (Ant. 1.38). One of the descendants of Shem is Havilah (Gen. 10:29), whom Josephus refers to as Εὐίλης, that is, Havilah (Ant. 1.147); but Josephus does not connect him with the Havilah who is descended from Ham. Gaetulia is a district in northern Africa comprising the area from the Atlantic Ocean to the oases in the northern part of the Sahara Desert. It is inhabited by the Berber race. Hebrew ‮סבתה‬‎ (Gen. 10:7), LXX Σαβαθά, Josephus Σαβάθης. A tribe located somewhere in South Arabia or Ethiopia. It has been identified by Tuch (1871:176) with Sabata, the capital of Ḥadramaut in southern Arabia. Josephus mentions the Astabaras River as a tributary of the Nile in connection with Moses’ campaign in Ethiopia (Ant. 2.249).

‮סבתכא‬‎ (Gen. 10:7), LXX Σαβαθακά, Josephus Σαβάκτας. These people are located either in southern Arabia or Ethiopia. The form of the name in the LXX, Sabakatha, corresponds to Shabakat, very similar to that of a place, Shabaka, in the region of Ḥadramaut in southern Arabia. Hebrew ‮רעמה‬‎ (Gen. 10:7), LXX Ῥεγμά, Josephus Ῥάμος. The location of this people would appear to be in southern Arabia, especially since they are coupled with Sheba and since the products that they traded, according to Ezek. 27:22, included the best of all kinds of spices. A particular identification has been suggested with Ragmatum, the capital of the oasis of Nagran in northern Yemen; this would fit in well with the LXX’s spelling of the name. Hebrew ‮דדן‬‎ (Gen. 10:7), LXX Δαδάν, Josephus Ἰουδάδας. Dedan is associated by Targum Neofiti and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan with Mezag, that is Mazaka, a city of the Meschenians, according to Josephus (Ant. 1.125), founded by Meshech, the son of Japheth. Dedan is located in one of the major oases in northwestern Arabia. The caravans of Dedan were famous (Isa. 21:13). The people were noted merchants, as we see from Ezek. (38:13), who associates them with Sheba and the merchants of Tarshish. Dedan is also the name of the son of Jokshan (the son of Abraham by Keturah), but Josephus does not identify him with Joudadas here. Hebrew ‮שׁבא‬‎ (Gen. 10:7), LXX Σαβά, Josephus Σαβαῖος. The name occurs again in Gen. 10:28 as a descendant of Shem and in Gen. 25:3 as a descendant of Abraham and Keturah, but Josephus does not associate them with Sheba here. These are a people, it would seem, in southwestern Arabia. The names of Seba, the son of Cush and Sheba, and Sheba are coupled in Ps. 72:10. Hebrew ‮נמרד‬‎ (Gen. 10:8), LXX Νεβρώδ, Josephus Ναβρώδης. His name is spelled Νεβρώδης when he is previously mentioned (Ant. 1.113). Ant. 1.113-15.

Hebrew ‮מצרים‬‎ (Ant. 1.132), LXX Μεσραίμ, Josephus Μερσαῖος (alternate reading Μετραῖος). Hebrew ‮פלשׁתים‬‎ (Gen. 10:14), LXX Φυλιστιίμ, Josephus Φυλίστινος. See Feldman (1990:1-23).

Hebrew ‮לודים‬‎ (Gen. 10:13), LXX Λουδιίμ, Josephus Λουμαῖος. The Bible (Gen. 10:22) also mentions a son of Shem named Lud, but neither the Bible nor Josephus connects them with each other. Lud is associated with Cush (Ethiopia) and Put (Libya) in Jer. 46:9; consequently, it seems likely that Lud is to be placed in northern Africa. Another possible identification is with the Lydians of Asia Minor, whose origins and language are uncertain. Hebrew ‮ענמים‬‎ (Gen. 10:13), LXX Ἐνεμετιίμ, Josephus Ἀναμίας. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan refers it to a place west of Alexandria. The plural ending would seem to indicate that it refers to the name of a people. Borst (1957:124) suggests an identification with a southern Egyptian oasis or the region of the Nile delta. Hebrew ‮להבים‬‎ (Gen. 10:13), LXX Λαβιίμ, Josephus Λάβιμος. In Ant. 1.133 his name is given as Libys (cf. 2 Chr. 12:3). Hebrew ‮נפתחים‬‎ (Gen. 10:13, 1 Chr. 1:11), LXX Νεφθαλιίμ, Josephus Νέδεμος. The Targum on Chronicles reads ‮פנטסכינאי‬‎ and thus identifies it with Pentaschoinon, that is located in the northeastern delta region of Egypt. In any case, it refers to some place in Egypt in the delta region or somewhat south of the delta region, though others identify it with Ethiopian Napata. Hebrew ‮פתרסים‬‎ (Gen. 10:14, 1 Chr. 1:12), LXX Πατροσωνιίμ, Josephus Πεθρώσιμος. The fact that the name (spelled as Pathros) is coupled with Mizraim and Cush (Isa. 11:11) would suggest a location in southern Egypt between Lower Egypt and Ethiopia. Hebrew ‮כסלחים‬‎ (Gen. 10:14), LXX Χασλωνιίμ, Josephus Χέσλοιμος. Although Josephus ignores it, the plural Hebrew ending would seem to indicate the name of a people. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan identifies them as coming from Cyrene. Borst (1957:124) suggests that they are to be placed perhaps in the vicinity of the oasis of Amon. The biblical text itself indicates that the Philistines came forth from them, whereas Amos 9:7 states that the Philistines came forth from Caphtor, that in Gen. 10:14 follows immediately after this statement about the Casluhim. Wainright (1956:199-210) argues for an identification with Cappadocia. Perhaps an earlier group of Philistines came from Casluhim; or perhaps the Casluhim were Egyptians who migrated to Crete and from there came to Palestine. Hebrew ‮כפתרים‬‎ (Gen. 10:14), LXX Καφθοριίμ, Josephus Χέφθωμος. According to Jer. 47:4 and Amos 9:7 the Philistines came from Caphtor. Caphtor is generally identified with Crete, but others have suggested Cyprus. Ant. 2.238-53.

Hebrew ‮צידן‬‎ (Gen. 10:15, 1 Chr. 1:13), LXX Σιδών, Josephus Σιδώνιος. Weill, Schalit, and Nodet (ad loc.) all add the word “still,” since without it the implication is that the name was changed, at least to some degree. Nodet suggests that perhaps Josephus transcribed the name as Σιδάνιος. The rabbinic tradition has an alternative spelling for the name: ‮ציידן‬‎. Hebrew ‮חמתי‬‎ (Gen. 10:18), LXX Ἀμαθί, Josephus Ἀμαθοῦς. Hamath, a city in Syria on the Orontes River, modern Hama. The name Epiphaneia is found in Pliny, Hist. Nat. 5.82. The city was so named after the second-century B.C.E. Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Hebrew ‮ארודי‬‎ (Gen. 10:18), LXX Ἀράδιος, Josephus Ἀρουδαῖος. The city of Arvad, modern Ruad, is located on an island off the northern coast of Phoenicia. It was founded in the seventh century B.C.E. by exiles from Sidon (Strabo, Geog. 16.2.13). According to Ezek. (27:8, 11) it supplied rowers and guards for Tyre. Hebrew ‮ערקי‬‎ (Gen. 10:17), LXX and Josephus Ἀρουκαῖος. A town on the Phoenician coast, north of Tripoli, known as Irqata, Roman Caesarea of Liban, modern Tell Arqa.

Hebrew ‮חוי‬‎ (Gen. 10:17, 1 Chr. 1:15), LXX and Josephus Εὐαῖος. The Hivites inhabited the central and northern regions of Palestine. According to the Jerusalem Targum (on Gen. 10:17) they were inhabitants of Tripoli in Lebanon. Hebrew ‮חת‬‎ (Gen. 10:15, 1 Chr. 1:13), LXX and Josephus Χετταῖος. They are identified as the Hittites who inhabited Canaan, but they are apparently distinct from the large group of Hittites who inhabited a huge territory embracing Asia Minor. Hebrew ‮יבוסי‬‎ (Gen. 10:16), LXX Ἰεβουσαῖος, Josephus Ἰεβουσαῖος. The Jebusites inhabited the hill country of Canaan in Benjaminite territory. Their chief city was Jerusalem. Hebrew ‮אמרי‬‎ (Gen. 10:16), LXX and Josephus Ἀμορραῖος. Despite the fact that they are said here to be descended from Ham, their language is Semitic. Their original homeland was the region from the Euphrates River to the Khabur and Balikh river valleys in Syria south of the Anatolian mountains. Hebrew ‮גרגשׁי‬‎ (Gen. 10:16, 1 Chr. 1:13-14), LXX and Josephus Γεργεσαῖος. They were indigenous to Canaan when Joshua conquered them. Hebrew ‮סיני‬‎ (Gen. 10:17, 1 Chr. 1:15), LXX Ἀσενναῖος, Josephus Σειναῖος. They inhabited northern Canaan. They are apparently distinct from the Sinites who are mentioned by Isa. 49:8-26, who came from a distant land, far to the south in Egypt toward the border with Ethiopia (Ezek. 29:10, 30:6). Hebrew ‮צמרי‬‎ (Gen. 10:18, 1 Chr. 1:16), LXX and Josephus Σαμαραῖος. They apparently inhabited an area in Phoenicia between Arvad and Tripoli.

The episode of the drunkenness of Noah raises the question why, if it was Ham who had seen his naked father, Noah pronounced a curse not upon the culprit but upon Ham’s son Canaan. Philo (Quaestiones in Genesin 2.77 on Gen. 9:27) asks this question and replies, though with no biblical basis, that both father and son had practiced the same wickedness and, secondly, that actually the father, Ham, in any case, felt greatly saddened by the fact that his son Canaan had been cursed. Elsewhere Philo (De Sobrietate 10.44-11.51) goes to great lengths to explain that Canaan had actively participated in the insult and that wherever Ham is a name for vice in the quiescent state, Canaan is the name for vice when it passes into active movement. Some rabbis (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 36.7) explain that Noah could not curse Ham himself because the latter had already been blessed by God (Gen. 9:1). Others (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 36.7) say that Canaan deserved to be cursed because it had been he who had drawn the attention of Ham to Noah’s nakedness and drunkenness. Still others (Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 23) actually declare that it was Canaan who had castrated Noah. Josephus, however, realizing that such interpretations are not readily derived from the plain meaning of the text, prefers to abide by the literal meaning of the text and explains very simply and reasonably that Noah did not curse Ham himself because of his nearness of kin. To justify the severity of the punishment, Josephus adds that Ham showed the sight of his naked father to his brothers with mockery, a detail paralleled in Philo (De Sobrietate 7.32). Rappaport (13-14, 99-100 n. 74) notes a parallel in rabbinic tradition to this juxtaposition of the statement of the various conquests by the descendants of Ham and the account of Noah’s curse of Canaan, namely the account (Sanhedrin 91a) of how the Africans (i.e. the Phoenicians of Carthage) pleaded before Alexander the Great, declaring that Canaan and its coasts (Num. 34:2) belonged to them, whereupon a certain Gebiha ben Pesisa answered them by noting that Noah’s curse of Canaan declared that Canaan was to be a servant of servants unto his brethren, and hence whatever property a slave acquires belongs to his master. So also Philo (Quaestiones in Genesin 2.65) explains that Scripture tells the story of the Noah’s curse of Canaan so that “those who are able to see from afar” may understand that God will take away the land of the Canaanites after many generations and give it to the chosen and God-beloved race. The midrashic tradition (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 61.7) likewise finds a connection between the curse that Noah uttered against Canaan and the loss of their land by the Canaanites.

Not his youngest but rather the one whose genealogy is given last in the Bible. In the LXX, in the New Testament (Luke 3:36), and Jub. 8:1, there is a sixth son, Kainan. Hebrew ‮עילם‬‎ (Gen. 10:22), LXX Αἰλάμ, Josephus Ἔλυμος. At their height the Elamites inhabited the area from the Caspian Sea to the Persian Gulf and from Mesopotamia to the deserts of Kavir and Lut. The Elymaeans (Elamites) are a non-Semitic people. Hebrew ‮אשׁור‬‎ (Gen. 10:22, 1 Chr. 1:17), LXX Ἀσσούρ, Josephus Ἀσσούρας. Nineveh, the later capital of Assyria. Josephus (Ant. 9.208) mentions it again as the name of the kingdom to that the prophet Jonah was commanded to go by God. Because the inhabitants could count on regularity of rainfall, agriculture flourished. Moreover, the rivers had abundant fish. Furthermore, Assyria was located at the crossroads of both East-West and North-South trade routes. Its kings established and maintained excellent roads.

Hebrew ‮ארפכשׁד‬‎ (Gen. 10:22), LXX Ἀρφαξάδ, Josephus Ἄρφαξάδης. According to Gen. 11:10, Shem was a hundred years old when he fathered Arphachshad. The connection between Arpachshad and the Chaldeans comes from the last part of his name, Chesed, whence Chasdim (“Chaldeans”). Hebrew ‮ארם‬‎ (Gen. 10:22), LXX Ἀράμ, Josephus Ἄραμος. The fact that Aram is two generations earlier than Eber, the eponymous ancestor of the Hebrews, would be an acknowledgement that the Arameans are an older people than the Hebrews and that the Aramaic language is older as well. This is apparently correct. Jub. says that the Aramaeans live in Mesopotamia between the Chaldeans to the south and the Assyrians to the north. Targum 1 Chr. 1:17, influenced by the similarity of sounds, incorrectly identifies their land with Armenia. Hebrew ‮לוד‬‎ (Gen. 10:22, 1 Chr. 1:11), LXX Λούδ, Josephus Λούδας. In Gen. 10:13 we find Ludim as one of the sons of Mizraim, the son of Ham. Several other texts (e.g., Jer. 46:9) seem to associate Lud with Egypt. It is uncertain whether there is any relationship between the two Lud’s. Inasmuch as the Lydians inhabited Asia Minor, there would seem to be a geographical problem in Josephus’ locating a Semitic people there. Franxman (115) says that it is surprising that in a work pretending to be seriously devoted to the facts as they are, this particular lack of harmonization should occur. However, the Lydian language, that has not yet been deciphered, is definitely not Indo-European and may yet turn out to be Semitic. Others (Borst:1957, 125) locate the Lydians in southern Mesopotamia.

Hebrew ‮עוץ‬‎ (Gen. 10:23, 1 Chr. 1:17), LXX Ὤς, Josephus Οὔσης. Nodet says that this Uz is doubtless the same as Uz, the first-born of Nahor (Gen. 22:21), but there is a tremendous discrepancy in time between them. A region in northern Transjordan. Strabo (Geog. 16.2.16 and 16.2.20) also associates Trachonitis and Damascus. Here refers to northern Syria. Apparently, during the Persian period at least, Coele-Syria was the name given to the entire area of what is today Syria and Israel. Indeed, in Herodotus (3.91), Coele-Syria is the name given to the fifth satrapy of the Persian Empire and refers to the lands between the Euphrates and the Mediterranean from Cilicia to Egypt. The term came to be restricted, it would seem, to the southern part of Syria when King Ptolemy Lagus of Egypt conquered this part of Syria in 301 B.C.E. However, as used by Polybius (5.34.6), the term covers the whole area between Egypt and Cilicia. Strabo (Geog. 16.2.21.756) recognizes two senses of the term: in the broader sense, he says, it included the territory from Egypt to Arabia, while in the narrower sense it was limited to the territory marked off by the Libanus and the Antilibanus., Bikerman (1947: 265) notes that the word Coele Syria is employed by Josephus only in some additions taken from his extra-biblical sources. He further remarks that the term includes all that that, in the interior of Syria, does not possess a separate name. See Schalit (1954:64-77), Sartre (1988:15-40), and Feldman (1990a:3-6). Hebrew ‮חול‬‎ (Gen. 10:23, 1 Chr. 1:17), LXX Οὔλ, Josephus Οὖρος (Niese’s emendation). Most manuscripts (ROMLE) of Josephus, however, give his name as Ὄτρος; perhaps there is a connection with Otene, a part of Armenia (Pliny, Hist. Nat. 6.42). Whereas in Genesis he is the second son of Aram and the grandson of Shem, in 1 Chronicles he is the seventh son of Shem and the brother of Aram. Others identify it with Aleppo (Borst [1957:125]). Hebrew ‮גתר‬‎ (Gen. 10:23, 1 Chr. 1:17), LXX Γαθέρ, Josephus Γεθέρης. According to the genealogy in Genesis he is the son of Aram and the grandson of Shem; but according to the genealogy in Chronicles he is the son of Shem and the brother of Aram. Bactria was a province of Persia. Hebrew ‮משׁ‬‎ (Gen. 10:23), LXX Μοσόχ, Josephus Μήσας. Mons Masius (Strabo, Geog., 11.14.2 and 16.1.22), as Franxman (115) remarks, is a chain of mountains that forms the northern boundary of Mesopotamia and extends almost directly east-west. In the corresponding passage in 1 Chr. 1:17 his name is given as Meshech; and he is listed as a son of Shem and a brother of Aram, rather than, as in Genesis, as a grandson of Shem and a son of Aram. In the Samaritan Pentateuch his name is given as Massa, that is identical with that of one of the sons of Ishmael (Gen. 25:14). His geographical location would then be the same as that of Mesha (Gen. 10:30) in southern Arabia. Lit. Spasinus’ Camp. It is Palmyrene Karak Aspasina or Karka, the capital city of the tiny kingdom of Charakene. Cf. Ptolemy 6.3.2 (Χάραξ Πασινοῦ) and Dio 68.28.4 (ὁ Χάραξ ὁ τοῦ Σπασίνου καλούμενος). It lies between the mouths of the Tigris and the Euphrates. The young Izates, later to become king of Adiabene, was sent there by his father to protect him from the hatred of his brothers (Ant. 20.22, 34).

Hebrew ‮שׁלח‬‎ (Gen. 10:24, 1 Chr. 1:18), LXX Σαλά, Josephus Σέλης. According to the LXX, he is the son of Kainan and the grandson of Arphaxad (Arpachshad). Hebrew ‮עבר‬‎ (Gen. 10:24), LXX Ἕβερ, Josephus Ἕβερος. So also, in the midrashic tradition (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 42.8), Rabbi Nehemiah derives the word “Hebrew” (Gen. 14:13) from Eber (Gen. 10:24). Hebrew ‮יקטן‬‎ (Gen. 10:25), LXX Ἰεκτάν, Josephus Ἰούκτας. His descendants are found in southwestern Arabia. Hebrew ‮פלג‬‎ (Gen. 10:25, 1 Chr. 1:19), LXX Φαλέγ, Josephus Φάλεγος. His descendants inhabited the Aramaic-speaking north. The reference is either to the dispersion resulting from the building of the Tower of Babel or to the separation of the Semites of the north from those of the south.

Hebrew ‮אלמודד‬‎ (Gen. 10:26, 1 Chr. 1:20), LXX Ἐλμωδάδ, Josephus Ἐλμόδαδος. He is the ancestor of a south Arabian tribe that has not been identified, perhaps in South Yemen. Hebrew ‮שׁלף‬‎ (Gen. 10:26, 1 Chr. 1:20), LXX Σαλέφ, Josephus Σάλεφος. He is the ancestor of a south Arabian tribe, perhaps in Yemen. Hebrew ‮חצרמות‬‎ (Gen. 10:26, 1 Chr. 1:20), LXX Ἀσαρμώθ, Josephus Ἀζερμώθης. He is the ancestor of a south Arabian tribe and of the country Ḥadramaut inhabited by it. According to the popular etymology, the name signifies “abode of death,” since it was “fearfully unhealthy and always fatal to those who work there” (Periplus maris Erythraei 29). Hebrew ‮ירח‬‎ (Gen. 10:26, 1 Chr. 1:20), LXX Ἰαράχ, Josephus Εἰράης. Ancestor of a tribe in south Arabia, perhaps in Yemen. Since the word in Hebrew means “month” or “moon” it may allude to the worship of a moon divinity. Hebrew ‮הדורם‬‎ (Gen. 10:27, 1 Chr. 1:21), LXX Ὁδορρά, Josephus Ἐδώραμος. Ancestor of a tribe in south Arabia, perhaps in Yemen. Hebrew ‮אוזל‬‎ (Gen. 10:27, 1 Chr. 1:21), LXX Αἰζήλ, Josephus Οὐζάλης. Ancestor of a tribe in south Arabia, probably in Yemen. Hebrew ‮דקלה‬‎ (Gen. 10:27, 1 Chr. 1:21), LXX Δεκλά, Josephus Δάκλης. Ancestor of a tribe in southern Arabia. The name indicates that the place was rich in date palms (Hebrew ‮דקל‬‎), probably in Yemen. Hebrew ‮עובל‬‎ (Gen. 10:28, 1 Chr. 1:22), Josephus Ἤβαλος, omitted by LXX. Ancestor of a tribe in southern Arabia, probably in Yemen. Hebrew ‮אבימאל‬‎ (Gen. 10:28, 1 Chr. 1:22), LXX Ἀβιμεήλ, Josephus Ἀβιμάηλος. Ancestor of a tribe in southern Arabia, perhaps in Yemen. Hebrew ‮שׁבא‬‎ (Gen. 10:28, 1 Chr. 1:22), LXX Σαβεύ, Josephus Σάφας. The name appears also (Gen. 10:7, 1 Chr. 1:9) as the son of Raamah the son of Cush the son of Ham. See Ant. 1.135. The name also appears as a descendant of Abraham and Keturah (Gen. 25:3, 1 Chr. 1:32, Ant. 1.238). It is also a place name in East Africa, identified with Meroe, but to be distinguished from Sheba. Hebrew ‮אופר‬‎ (Gen. 10:29, 1 Chr. 1:23), LXX Οὐφίρ, Josephus Ὀφίρης. Ancestor of a tribe in southern Arabia, perhaps Yemen. The question has been raised as to the relationship of this country with the one famous for its gold, at least from the time of King Solomon (1 Kgs. 9:28), that Josephus (Ant. 8.164) identifies with India and that he there, like the LXX on 1 Kgs. 9:28, spells Σώφειρα very similarly to the LXX on 1 Kgs. 9:28 (Σωφηρά). On the spelling see Lindblom (1920:108-17). Hebrew ‮חוילה‬‎ (Gen. 10:29, 1 Chr. 1:23), LXX Εὐιλά, Josephus Εὐίλης. Ancestor of a tribe in southern Arabia, probably in Yemen. Havilah is also the name of a son of Cush the son of Ham (Gen. 10:7, 1 Chr. 1:9, Ant. 1.134). Hebrew ‮יובב‬‎ (Gen. 10:29, 1 Chr. 1:23), LXX Ἰωβάβ, Josephus Ἰόβηλος. Ancestor of a tribe in southern Arabia, in Yemen. Tributary of the Indus River in northwest India and Afghanistan, now known as the Kabul River. See Arrian, Anab. 5.1.1. Strabo (Geog. 15.1.26-27) says that the Cophes and the Seres are found in India. One manuscript reads Seria, in that case the reference would probably be to northwestern China or a land adjacent to the Indian Ocean (see Pliny, 6.54; Pausanias, 6.26.8). Strabo (Geog. 15.1.34 and 37) indicates that the Seres inhabit India. As Thackeray (ad loc.) points out, the corresponding biblical verse says that they dwelt from Mesha toward Sephar, the mountain of the East; and he remarks that the names are probably Arabian. However, the LXX understood Sephar to be equivalent to Ophir and thus to point to the Far East.

Hebrew ‮רעו‬‎ (Gen. 11:18-21, 1 Chr. 1:25), LXX Ῥαγαῦ, Josephus Ῥεούς. He is not identified with any particular place in northern Mesopotamia. Hebrew ‮שׂרוג‬‎ (Gen. 11:20-23, 1 Chr. 1:26), LXX Σερούχ, Josephus Σεροῦγος. It is possible to relate the name to a location in northern Syria. Hebrew ‮נחור‬‎ (Gen. 11:22-25, 1 Chr. 1:26), LXX Ναχώρ, Josephus Ναχώρης. The name is perhaps related to Nahur, that is located near Harran on the plain of the Upper Balikh River in Mesopotamia. Hebrew ‮תרח‬‎ (Gen. 11:24-28, 1 Chr. 1:26), LXX Θάρα, Josephus Θέρρος. Hebrew ‮אברם‬‎ (Gen. 11:27), LXX Ἅβραμ, Josephus Ἅβραμος. Note that the LXX and Josephus spell his name as Habram. As to the genealogical status of Abraham, already Pseudo-Eupolemus states that he excelled all men in nobility of birth (εὐγένεια, ap. Eus., Pr. Ev. 9.17.3). Josephus here adds to the biblical narrative in reporting that Abraham was the tenth generation after Noah. Other manuscripts read 292, that is the figure according to the Hebrew text. The LXX, with that Josephus agrees in most respects, has a total of 1072. The actual total, if one adds the figures given by Josephus, is 993.

According to the Hebrew text, Nahor fathered Terah at the age of 29 (Gen. 11:24); according to the LXX he was 79. According to the Hebrew text Serug was 30 when he fathered Nahor (Gen. 11:22); according to the LXX he was l30. Wacholder (1968:453) admits that Josephus used the LXX for the chronology of the antediluvian period but argues that he used the Hebrew for the postdiluvian period and that Niese and Thackeray are wrong in adopting the readings of two of the manuscipts, R and O, rather than those of the other manuscripts. We may note that Josephus’ individual figures for the Noahides as to their age when they fathered their first-born, correspond in all the manuscripts with the LXX in four cases, with the Hebrew alone in one case, with both the LXX and Hebrew in one case, and with neither in three cases. The fact that for the antediluvian period Biblical Antiquities agrees with the Hebrew twice, with the LXX (and Josephus) three times, with both twice, and with neither three times, and that for the postdiluvian period there is no relation between Biblical Antiquities and either the Hebrew or the LXX or Josephus would seem to indicate that there were a number of traditions with regard to chronology, and that Josephus’ source for this remains to be recovered. He is referred to as Reous in Ant. 1.148. According to the Hebrew text Reu was 32 when he fathered Serug (Gen. 11:20); according to the LXX he was 132.

Cohen (1963-64:320-21) notes that the chronological material in Ant. 1.148-150 is extremely confused. First (Ant. 1.148-49) Gen. 11:16-26 is paraphrased in biblical order. Then (Ant. 1.149-50) the genealogy starts over again and encompasses Gen. 11:10-24, this time however starting from the latest descendant and working backwards, and with Reu’s (Reous’) name changed to Roumos. Pfeiffer (1957:245-53) notes Josephus’ similarity to the LXX in his chronology of the patriarchs before the Flood and the differences after the Flood. Meysing (1967:295-99) concludes that Josephus’ chronology is fragile, inconsistent, and confused, and that numerology lies behind this chronology.

Hebrew ‮הרן‬‎ (Gen. 11:26), LXX Ἀρράν, Josephus Ἀράνης, to be distinguished from the place ‮חרן‬‎ (Gen. 11:31), that is spelled differently. Hebrew ‮לוט‬‎ (Gen. 11:27), LXX Λώτ, Josephus Λῶτος. Hebrew ‮שׂרי‬‎ (Gen. 11:29), LXX Σάρα, Josephus Σάρρα. Hebrew ‮מלכה‬‎ (Gen. 11:29), LXX and Josephus Μελχά. Hebrew ‮אור‬‎ (Gen. 11:31), LXX χώρα (“land”), Josephus Οὐρῆς. The word ‮אור‬‎ may mean “furnace.” Josephus quite clearly identifies Sarai with Iscah, the daughter of Haran (Gen. 11:29), just as the rabbinic tradition (Sanhedrin 69b, Megillah 14a, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Gen. 11:29, Seder ‘Olam 21 [ed. Ratner, p. 89], Midrash Psalms 118.11 [ed. Buber, p. 484]) and Bib. Ant. 23.4 do. A later passage in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan identifies her as Abraham’s first cousin, the daughter of his paternal uncle. Another biblical text (Gen. 20:12), followed by Jub. 12:9, identifies Sarah as Abraham’s half-sister, the daughter of Terah by another wife. A source of embarrassment in the biblical account of Abraham is that Sarah, whom he married, was thus actually his own half-sister (Gen. 20:12). Such a marriage was forbidden for a Jew according to the Sinaitic revelation (Lev. 18:9), and it would appear scandalous that the father of the Israelites had so disregarded the Torah and that the Israelites were consequently descended from an incestuous union, as Vermes (1966-68:88) notes. According to rabbinic tradition, such a marriage was apparently permitted for a Noahide, that is before the revelation at Sinai, as Rashi (ad loc.) notes in his commentary. The reader who held Abraham to the standards of the law revealed at Sinai or one acquainted with the tradition (recorded later) that Abraham observed the Torah even before the revelation at Sinai, would have found such a marital relationship hard to justify. This relationship is, however, necessary because in the biblical version Abraham tells Abimelech (Gen. 20:5) that Sarah is his sister and, when confronted by Abimelech with his apparent deceit, insists that she is, indeed, his sister. Josephus here avoids the embarrassment by stating that Sarah was Abraham’s niece, so that consequently their marriage is a perfectly legitimate one by later Sinaitic standards. So also in the rabbinic tradition, as cited by Rappaport (100, n. 77): Sanhedrin 69b, Megillah 14a, and parallels. Segal (1991-92:425) notes that in having Abraham marry a niece, Josephus similarly implies (Ant. 11.295) that Mordecai married a niece, namely Esther (so also LXX, Esther 2:7).

The Bible (Gen. 11:31) does not give any reason why Terah left Ur. The reason given by Josephus, namely, Terah’s mourning for the death of his son Haran, is not paralleled in any other extant source. In Ant. 1.281 Josephus says that Abraham left Mesopotamia when he was driven out by his kinsfolk. Hebrew ‮חרן‬‎ (Gen. 11:31), LXX and Josephus Χαρράν, the Carrhae of Pliny (Hist. Nat. 5.87), near Edessa in upper Mesopotamia. Josephus differentiates between Haran, the brother of Abraham, whose name he spells Ἀράνης, and Haran, the place in Mesopotamia, whose name he spells Χαρράν. Cf. Ant. 1.75, where, in accordance with Gen. 6:3, we read that when God decided to destroy the human race through the Flood he decided to create another race with a limit on life expectancy of 120 years. Here he combines this with the statement (Deut. 34:7) that Moses was 120 years old when he died.

Hebrew ‮עוץ‬‎ (Gen. 22:21), LXX Ὤξ, Josephus Οὖξος. Hebrew ‮בוז‬‎ (Gen. 22:21), LXX Βαύξ, Josephus Βαοῦξος. Hebrew ‮קמואל‬‎ (Gen. 22:21), LXX Καμουήλ, Josephus Μαθούηλος (alternative reading Μαούηλος). Hebrew ‮כשׂד‬‎ (Gen. 22:22), LXX Χασάδ, Josephus Χάζαμος. Hebrew ‮חזו‬‎ (Gen. 22:22), LXX Ἀζαῦ, Josephus Ἀζαοῦος. Hebrew ‮פלדשׁ‬‎ (Gen. 22:22), LXX Φαλδές, Josephus Ἰαδελφᾶς. Hebrew ‮ידלף‬‎ (Gen. 22:22), LXX Ἰεδλάφ, Josephus Ἰαδαφᾶς. It appears that the name of Pildash has dropped out; and what we have here are two versions of the name of Jidlaph, the second being a correction of the first. Hebrew ‮בתואל‬‎ (Gen. 22:22), LXX Βαθουήλ, Josephus Βαθουῆλος. Hebrew ‮טבח‬‎(Gen. 22:24), LXX Ταβέκ, Josephus Ταβαῖος. Hebrew ‮גחם‬‎ (Gen. 22:24), LXX Γαάμ, Josephus Γάδαμος. Hebrew ‮תחשׁ‬‎ (Gen. 22:24), LXX Τοχός, Josephus Τααῦος. Hebrew ‮מעכה‬‎ (Gen. 22:24), LXX Μωχά, Josephus Μαχᾶς. Hebrew ‮ראומה‬‎ (Gen. 22:24), LXX Ῥεῆμα, Josephus Ῥοῦμα. Hebrew ‮רבקה‬‎ (Gen. 22:23), LXX and Josephus Ῥεβέκκα. It is remarkable, as noted by Murphy (1993: 50), that the name of Rebekah is never mentioned by Biblical Antiquities. Hebrew ‮לבן‬‎ (Gen. 28:5), LXX Λάβαν, Josephus Λάβανος.

The statement that Abraham adopted Lot has no parallel in any other existing work except the Chronicles of Jerahmeel 35.1, that elsewhere also seems to have drawn upon Josephus. The concept of adoption was apparently unknown in the days of the Pentateuch. Rappaport (100-1, n. 78), however, argues from various biblical accounts, such as those of Jacob, Manasseh, and Ephraim, that there were Jewish adoption laws, just as one finds in the code of Hammurabi. Cf. Aptowitzer (1927:215-16). As has been often noted, adoption of a child is frequently followed by the birth of a natural child to the adoptive parents. Cf. Kardimon (1958:123-26). The Greek or Roman reader would expect a hero, if childless, to adopt a son in order to ensure the maintenance of his name and estate (one thinks, for example, of the adoption of Oedipus by King Polybus of Corinth). This was the policy also of the Roman Emperors, even at times—as in the case of Claudius’ adoption (εἰσεποιήσατο) of Nero (Josephus, War 2.249 and Ant. 20.150)—when there was a legitimate (γνήσιον) son. And this latter is precisely what Josephus, in his concern to appeal to his audience, says that Abraham did. Thus, whereas the Bible (Gen. 12:5) and the rabbis (see Rappaport [100-1, n. 78]) say nothing to imply that Abraham adopted Lot, Josephus (Ant. 1.154), perhaps, as Rappaport suggests, inspired by an institution known to him from Roman law, says that Abraham, having no legitimate (γνησίου) son, adopted (εἰσεποιήσατο) his nephew Lot. According to the Hebrew text (Gen. 12:4) it was from Haran that Abram departed at the age of seventy-five. Note the similar phrase, φρονεῖν ... δεινόν, applied by Teiresias to Oedipus (Soph., Oed. Tyr. 316). In his portrait of Abraham Josephus is clearly attempting to disprove the contention of such influential intellectuals as Apion (Apion 2.135) that the Jews had not produced any geniuses, inventors in arts and crafts or eminent sages. Cf. Apollonius Molon, cited in Apion 2.148 as saying that the Jews are the only people who have contributed no useful invention to civilization. τοῖς ἀκροωμένοις, a phrase used especially of students who listen to lectures in the philosophical schools (see Liddell-Scott-Jones [1940: 56, s.v. ἀκροάομαι]). On Abraham’s powers of persuasion cf. Ant. 1.161 and 167. Spilsbury (1994:43) suggests that, in presenting Abraham as a philosopher, Josephus may be capitalizing on the view, perhaps still current in his time, of the Jews as a race of philosophers (see Aristotle, ap. Clearchus of Soli, ap. Josephus, Apion 1.179; Theophr., De Pietate, ap. Porph., Abst. 2.26; Megasthenes, Indica, ap. Clem., Strom. 1.15.72.5). Note the similar phrase, φρονεῖν ... δεινόν, applied by Teiresias to Oedipus (Soph., Oed. Tyr. 316). Even Apollonius Molon, who called the Jews the most witless (ἀφυεστάτους, “most untalented”) of barbarians (ap. Josephus, Apion 2.148), refers to Abraham as wise (σοφόν) (ap. Eus., Pr. Ev. 9.19.2).

Note the same words (φρονείτω μεῖζον, “loftier thoughts”) applied by Creon to his son Haemon (Soph., Ant. 768). Josephus here uses the word demiurge (δημιουργός). Likewise, in blessing Jacob, Isaac invokes God as creator (δημιουργέ) of universal being (Ant. 1.272). So also David addresses God as creator (δημιουργόν) of things human and divine (Ant. 7.380). See Schlatter (1932:4) and Weiss (1966:50). Though Josephus does use this word here, as well as in Ant. 1.272, with reference to God as creator of the universe, Weiss contends that we cannot draw any real conclusions as to Josephus’ theory of His function. The fact, however, that he uses the word δημιουργός, that was so prominent in Plato, the most popular philosopher during the Hellenistic period, would seem to indicate that the word had the connotations for him that it has particularly in the Tim. 40C. Josephus, however, also uses this word in referring to the craftsmen who constructed the Tent in the wilderness (Ant. 3.106, 200) and artisans generally (Ant. 3.289), as well as to the craftsman of the memorial of the decree of the proposed translation of the Pentateuch (Ant. 12.35). Finally, the word is used of those Greek painters and sculptors who design figures of their imagination [Apion 2.252]). As Ginzberg (1925: 5:210, n. 16; and 217-18, n. 49) has remarked, the Apocalypse of Abraham (chapter 7), Jub. 12:17, and the midrashic sources (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 39.1 [ed. Albeck, p. 365]) stress the fact that Abraham arrived at the idea of monotheism through his own reasoning about the heavenly bodies and their creator who directed them. See the citations in Rappaport (15, no. 65) and in Beer (1859:102, n. 30). Midrash Num. Rabbah 14.2 mentions three men who acquired knowledge of God “by themselves”—Abraham, Job, and Hezekiah. The fourth, according to this tradition, will be the Messiah. In the midrashic sources (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 38.13) Abraham arrives at his proof by observing how the elements subdue one another: water subdues fire and, in turn, is subdued by earth, that is dried up by the sun, that is obscured by clouds, etc., so that finally only God, who made all these elements and heavenly bodies, is worthy of worship. Knox (1935:58) compares the account of the laws of Zaleucus of Locri, the Pythagorean, in Diodorus (12.20): “In the prelude to his legislation he said that those who dwelt in the city must believe in the existence of the gods and, observing in their minds the heaven and its order and arrangement, must believe that these things are not the work of chance or of men, and reverence the gods as being the cause of all that is good in the life of man, and keep their souls free from all evil, since the gods rejoice not in the sacrifices and lavishness of the wicked but in the good and righteous actions of virtuous men.”

Pseudo-Eupolemus (ap. Eus., Pr. Ev. 9.17.3), dating perhaps from the first half of the second century B.C.E. (Holladay 1983:159-60), states that Abraham discovered both astrology and Chaldean science. If we may date Recension B of Pseudo-Orpheus as early as the second century B.C.E., as the latest editor, Holladay (1996:61-62), is inclined to do, Josephus, in portraying Abraham, as expert in astronomy, was also preceded by Pseudo-Orpheus (ap. Clem. Strom. 5.14.123.2 and Eus., Pr. Ev. 13.13.50), who speaks of “a unique figure [presumably Abraham, though Clement takes the passage to refer to either Abraham or Isaac], by descent an offshoot of the Chaldean race; for he was expert in following the course of the sun and the movements of the spheres around the earth, as it rotates in a circle regularly, all on their respective axes, and with wind, He [God] creates currents around both air and stream” (see the commentary by Holladay [1996:181-85]). Abraham is here depicted by Josephus as combatting the view, held by the Chaldeans, that it is the celestial phenomena that are the originating cause of all that happens and that they alone determine the future. Their view is paraphrased in similar language by Philo, De Migratione Abrahami 32.179. In De Migratione Abrahami 32.181, Philo, like Josephus, stresses that the Pentateuch differs from the Chaldeans’ opinion about God, “holding that neither the universe nor its soul is the primal God and that the constellations or their revolutions are not the primary causes of the things that happen to men.” See Wolfson (1947:1:176-77, 329 and 2: 78), citing Philo (De Migratione Abrahami 32.179), who attributes to the Chaldeans certain conceptions of God that are definitely Stoic, as Colson and Whitaker (1929:1:478) likewise comment. It is common enough for Philo to attribute to biblical characters certain views or antecedents of views of Greek philosophers; thus, for example (De Posteritate Caini 11.35), the view that the human mind is the measure of all things is ascribed to Protagoras as an offspring of Cain’s madness. Wolfson (1947:1:167-171) likewise shows how, under the guise of “champions of the mind” and “champions of the senses,” Philo (Legum Allegoriae 3.25.81 and De Specialibus Legibus 1.61.334-62, 337) ascribes the same Protagorean doctrine to the Moabites and the Ammonites and hence treats them allegorically as symbolizing this view. I am indebted for several points in connection with this proof of Josephus for the existence of God to the late Professor Wolfson, who informed me in a letter that his unpublished second volume of The Philosophy of the Church Fathers contains a full-length discussion of this Stoic argument for the existence of God. Whence did Josephus derive his version of this proof for God’s existence? It is significant that the proof (Ant. 1.156) for the existence of God that Josephus attributes to Abraham reflects the form promulgated by the Greek philosophic schools, notably the Stoics, but going back to Anaxagoras, who first presented the teleological argument that the orderly state of the universe manifests a design perfected by the rational power of an infinite mind.A thorough check of ancient proofs for the existence of God indicates that Josephus is the only known figure in the history of ancient philosophy who changed the Platonic (Leg. 12.966E) and Stoic argument for the existence of God, which was based upon the regularity of celestial phenomena, into an argument based upon certain irregularities observed in these phenomena. The standard commentaries and books about Josephus, however, all omit mention of the originality of this argument on the part of Josephus. His sophisticated argument is that if the heavenly bodies had been endowed with independent power (δυνάμεως) they would have provided (προνοῆσαι: a favorite Stoic word, cf. Epictetus 2.14.11) for their own uniformity (εὐταξία: a favorite Stoic word). Cf. Sextus Empiricus (Phys. 1.26), who notes the proof of God’s existence that some (ἔνιοι, presumably the Stoics) have offered from the orderly movement of the heavenly bodies (εὔτακτον τῶν οὐρανίων κίνησιν). Since they lack this quality of uniformity, one must suppose a commander (τοῦ κελεύοντος: another favorite Stoic image; cf. Epictetus Ench. 7) who directs them, and that when they work together (συνεργοῦσι) for man’s benefit (χρησιμώτερον), they do so not by virtue of their own authority but through the power of God. So also the Stoic Balbus in Cicero (Nat. Deor. 2.15) speaks of the usefulness (utilitatem) of the sun, moon, and stars. Lactantius (Inst. Div. 1.2.5) likewise speaks of the arrangement and usefulness (dispositione et utilitate) of the heavenly bodies as proof of providential guidance.Among the four arguments for the existence of God presented by Cleanthes the Stoic, as cited by Balbus the Stoic in Cicero (Nat. Deor. 2.14-15), the third is from unusual phenomena in the sublunar world, such as storms, plagues, earthquakes, comets, and abnormal animal and human prodigies; while the fourth, and according to Balbus, the weightiest reason, is from the regularity of movement of the celestial bodies, thus presupposing a divine Intelligence, who, in language reminiscent of Josephus’ commander, is said to preside over these bodies and to be obeyed by them (qui praesit et cui pareatur). Josephus was apparently dissatisfied with the Stoic view of God as a kind of prisoner within His own system, acting by necessity, and wished to prove that God is an absolutely incorporeal being endowed with free will. Philo, who repeats the teleological argument of the Stoics (Legum Allegoriae 3.32.97-99; De Specialibus Legibus 1.6.33-35), apparently thought it unnecessary to change their argument, since he made God’s freedom of will clear in other ways. That Josephus combats the Stoics here is hinted at by the reference to the Chaldeans (Ant. 1.157) in the section immediately after the one containing Abraham’s proof for God’s existence. The Chaldeans, whom Josephus describes as opposed to Abraham’s views, are in Philo (De Migratione Abrahami 32.179) prototypes of the Stoics.It should be noted, however, that the Stoic arguments in Cleanthes (ap. Cicero, Nat. Deor. 2.13-15) for the existence of God are not presented as proofs, but rather as historical or anthropological data as to how primitive humanity arrived at its conception of God. The belief in God, remarks Cleanthes, is universal. He lists four reasons why this belief arose and developed. One reason is that men were terrorized by such phenomena as thunder and earthquakes and were impressed by the uniformity in the movement of the heavens. That this is not a proof for the existence of God is evident from Lucretius’ similar anthropological description as to the origin of belief in the gods (5.1183-87). Lucretius, who emphatically rejects the notion that the gods control the phenomena of the heavens, nonetheless records that people noticed the orderly succession of the heavenly bodies and seasons and ascribed them to the gods. Josephus, by contrast, presents Abraham as an innovator, not only in his conception of God as one, but also in deliberately setting out to prove His providential nature.In any case, we may say that Josephus has taken Cleanthes’ third argument from the irregularity of sublunar phenomena and extended it to the heavens themselves. Pease (1958:582, ad 2.14) remarks that eclipses are strangely omitted from the list of examples cited by Cleanthes for his third argument, despite their notoriously terrifying character. That there is, however, no significance in this omission may be seen from the fact that approximately a century after Josephus, Sextus Empiricus (Phys. 1.24) does include them in noting the retort of Democritus, the forerunner of the Epicureans (cf. Cic., Nat. Deor. 1.120), to those philosophers, whom he does not name but who are presumably the forerunners of the Stoics (as seems clear from the arguments of the third-century Christian Lactantius, Inst. Div.7.3, who is here reflecting Stoic arguments (see Wolfson [1966:362-63]). The Stoics concluded, against Epicurus or Democritus, from the marvelous events in the world—notably thunderings, lightnings, collisions of stars, eclipses, etc.—that the gods were the authors of these phenomena. Thackeray (77) in his note on Josephus, Ant. 1.156, cites, as examples of the irregularity that Josephus might have had in mind, the varying hours of sunrise and sunset and the phases of the moon. But these are visible phenomena that come under the category of Cleanthes’ third argument, not his fourth. An example of the irregularities in question would be, rather, the fact that some spheres move from east to west, while others move from west to east. Alternatively, we may say that Josephus has taken Cleanthes’ fourth argument and includes exceptions as part of the teleological system.Josephus’ argument from irregularities in celestial phenomena to show that God acts freely by will and design and not by necessity entered the mainstream of philosophy; cf. Wolfson (1941:119-30), who notes the use of this argument in Islam by Ghazali and in Judaism by Judah Halevi and Maimonides. The argument is likewise found in Thomas Aquinas, Contra Gentiles 3.64, Amplius, Eorum.Philo’s Abraham (De Abrahamo 15.71) has a different proof for the existence of God, namely not from observation of the courses of the heavenly bodies but by the analogy that just as there exists a mind in man so there must be one in the universe. See Sandmel (1956:181, n. 228). On Josephus’ unique proof for the existence of God from the predictable irregularity of heavenly phenomena and its relation to Stoic proofs see Feldman (1968a:145-49).

As one who was persecuted and who was ready to be a martyr to his faith, Abraham is presented by Josephus as similar to Noah. This would seem to contradict the view (Gen. 12:1, Acts 7:2-3, Heb. 11:8-9) and Josephus’ statement (Ant. 1.154) that it was upon the bidding of God that Abraham left Chaldaea. Later, however, when God appears to Jacob in a dream (Ant. 1.281) He reminds him of the fact that Abraham had been persecuted by his kinsmen in Mesopotamia and that it was He who had led Abraham from Mesopotamia to Canaan. The Book of Judith (5:8), without specifically mentioning Abraham by name, says that since the Hebrews refused to follow the gods of their fathers and worshipped God alone, the Chaldeans cast them out. Bib. Ant. 6.11-18, describes in vivid detail the persecution of Abram by the Chaldeans and, in particular, his being cast into a fiery furnace. The midrashic tradition (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 38.13) describes a trial of Abram before Nimrod. Josephus here, as in Ant. 1.281, combines the tradition of the persecution of Abraham with the tradition that he left because he was commanded by God to do so. One should accordingly modify Rappaport’s statement (100, n. 83), that Josephus wished to make both Noah and Abraham martyrs for their faith, and that in this he agreed with the rabbinic Agada. Both Josephus and Bib. Ant. 8.1, perhaps out of anti-Samaritan motives, omit Abram’s stay at Shechem and Bethel (Gen. 12:6-8), that the Samaritans equated with their sacred Mount Gerizim. Pseudo-Eupolemus, usually regarded as a Samaritan (ap. Eus., Pr. Ev. 9.17.5), on the other hand, says that Abraham was received as a guest by the city of Shechem at the “temple Argarizin,” clearly a reference to the sacred mountain of the Samaritans. See Holladay (1983:1:157-87; and Sterling (1992:187-206). Josephus here, like Jub. (13.9), eager that Abraham’s piety not be impugned, adds specifically that Abraham actually did offer a sacrifice. It is significant that the rabbis (Sanhedrin 89b), commenting on this episode, portray Satan as charging Abraham with impiety in not having offered any sacrifice on his altar and therefore contending to God that he should be tested with the command to offer his own son Isaac as a sacrifice.

Actually, only the ninth generation after the Flood. Cf. Ps.-Eup. (ap. Eus., Pr. Ev. 9.17.3), Artapanus (ap. Eus., Pr. Ev. 9.18.1), and Ant. 1.156, 167. The early Greek philosophers, notably Thales, are depicted as well versed in science, especially astronomy; Abraham conforms to this model. The fourth-century Firmicus Maternus (Mathesis 4, Prooemium 5) couples Abraham with Orpheus as an astrologer and refers to him as defining the position of the moon and of the sun (Mathesis 4.18.1). Knox (1935:56) infers that in citing this passage from Berosus, Josephus was acquainted with the tradition that Abraham was the father of astrology.

Hecataeus of Abdera, who flourished ca. 300 B.C.E. See Ant. 1.108. There has been considerable debate as to the authenticity of this work ascribed to Hecataeus. Lewy (1932:117-32) argues for the authenticity of most of the passages ascribed to Hecataeus; Schaller (1963:15-31) argues against their authenticity; while Gager (1969:130-39) argues for their authenticity. However, Lewy (1932:119) and Gager (1969:132 n.7) believe that the work of Hecataeus being referred to here is actually a Jewish apologetic forgery from a later date. Clement of Alexandria also refers to this book, but there is considerable doubt as to whether it even existed, let alone as a separate work. The prevailing view of scholars is that if it did exist, it was the work of a Jewish apologist, especially since, at least in the passages from it cited by Clement, it contained clearly spurious lines ascribed to Sophocles that have a monotheistic ring in their attack on idolatry. See Stern (1974:1:20-24), especially 22; Holladay (1983:1:279). For a survey of the various views of scholars on the authenticity of this work see Sterling (1992:81-83). So also LXX’s rendering of ‮נשׂיא‬‎ (“prince,” Gen. 23:6). Cf. Philo, De Abrahamo 44.261; De Virtutibus 39.216, 218.

Cf. Pomp. Trog., ap. Justin, Hist. Phil. 36, Epitome 2.1-3: “The origin of the Jews was from Damascus, the most illustrious city of Syria.... The name of the city was given by King Damascus.... After Damascus, Azelus, and then Adores, Abram, and Israhel were their kings.” Georgi (1986:75 n. 137) argues that a Jewish origin of these traditions of Nicolaus and Pompeius is likely, since these texts read like propaganda for Judaism. He holds that a Syrian origin for the thesis that Abram had been king of Damascus is unlikely, since the Syrians felt themselves to be superior to the Jews. The tradition of a place named after Abram is also found in Bib. Ant. 6.18, that states that, after Abram was saved from the fiery furnace in connection with the incident of the Tower of Babel, “They named that place after the name of Abram and in the language of the Chaldeans ‘Deli,’ that means God.” Vermes (1973: 88 n. 1) notes that in the Hebrew translation of Pseudo-Philo (Chronicles of Jeraḥmeel) the name of the place is given as “the God of Abram.” Nevertheless, as Jacobson (1:371) has noted, this cannot be identified with the place here mentioned near Damascus, since the passage in Biblical Antiquities is apparently speaking about Babel. Pompeius Trogus, who lived from the end of the first century B.C.E. to the beginning of the first century C.E. (ap. Justin, Hist. Phil. 36, Epitome 2.1-3) says that the actual origin of the Jews is from Damascus and that Abram and Israhel (sic) were among the early kings of Damascus. Denk (1908, 265), citing Augustine, Qu. in Hep. 1.161, 1.171, and Jerome, Tr. in Ps. 1 (p. 9, 7-8), identifies the place as Abramium, the site where Abram was buried. Most scholars assume that the reference here to “Abram’s dwelling-place” has been taken by Josephus from Nicolaus of Damascus, but Nestle (1906: 282) disputes this.

Levine (1993:62-63) suggests that Josephus here stresses, in an extra-biblical addition, the prosperity of the Egyptians because it is congenial to the pattern of wealth leading to ὕβρις leading to punishment. In Josephus’ version of this episode in the War (5.379) there are a number of details that are found neither in the Bible nor in Josephus’ version here in the Antiquities. There it is not Abram who goes down to Egypt because of a famine but rather Pharaoh, who is identified as Necho, who, to be sure, is actually a Pharaoh of a much later date (the conqueror of King Josiah of Judah [2 Kgs. 23:28-30 and 2 Chr. 35:20-27]), who invades Palestine with a large army and takes Sarai captive. There, we are told (War 5.380), Abram had 318 officers under him, each with an army of boundless size. Abram, instead of going to war, prayed to the place of the Temple and consequently received Divine aid. Necho, in awe of the spot where the Temple was to be built and trembling at his visions of the night, fled. There is no mention of an outbreak of disease and political disturbance. Rather, Necho is afflicted with visions during the night; and after prostrating himself before the place of the Temple he releases Sarai after one night’s absence—all of that details are not to be found either in the Hebrew version or in the Antiquities. We may surmise that Josephus’ version in the War, since it comes in a speech supposedly delivered by Josephus himself in order to persuade his countrymen to give up the struggle against Rome, is intended to provide a precedent for the effectiveness of prayer and peaceful submission. See Schwartz (1990:29-30).According to the Bible (Gen. 12:10), the only reason for Abram’s descent into Egypt is that he was beset by a famine in Canaan, whereas in the Antiquities there is an additional motive, namely to engage in dialogue with the Egyptian priests. On the Egyptians’ reputation for wisdom see 1 Kgs. 4:30 and also the midrashic tradition (Midrash Num. Rabbah 19.3). We see, in the case of the contact of Apollonius of Tyana, Josephus’ older contemporary, with the Magi, the Indians, and the Egyptians (ap. Philostratus, Vita Apollonii 1.26, 3.16 ff., and 6.10 ff.), that the Hellenistic wise man typically visits foreigners, both to learn from them and to teach them. Josephus similarly tells of a learned Jew who came to visit Aristotle in Asia Minor to converse with him and to test his learning, but who, in the end, imparted to Aristotle something of his own (Apion 1.176-82). Indeed, one is reminded of Josephus’ own experience in trying out the three sects—Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes—found among the Jews to see that one would please him the most (Life 10-11). The only comparable passage in the Talmud is one telling of Joshua ben Ḥananiah’s contest with the Athenian sages (Bekorot 8b); but there the contest is apparently not for the sake of conversion but rather of physically annihilating the opponent. The Jews in Hellenistic times were sometimes accused of being provincial and narrow-minded—above all, by such leading Stoics as Poseidonius and Apollonius Molon (ap. Josephus, Apion 2.79, 145-50). These Stoics may have seen the Jews as often successful rivals to their own missionary efforts. Cf. Horace, Sat. 1.4.142-43; Juvenal 14.96-106; Tacitus, Hist. 5.5.1; Feldman (1993a:288-341). It is in the spirit of Hellenistic philosophic disputations that Abram is here said to be ready to adopt the Egyptian priests’ doctrines if he finds them superior to his own (cf. Philodemus, Volumina Rhetorica 2.146 [Sudhaus]), or, if he should win the debate, to convert them to his beliefs. This episode has no parallel in any other account of Abram. The rabbis, like Josephus, speak of Abram as a missionary (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 39.14); but with them there is no philosophical setting in the Hellenistic style of real debate, including a willingness to be converted if defeated in argument. Instead, the picture is of a missionary proceeding systematically to make converts. On Abram as a missionary model see Sandmel (1956:77, 85) and Georgi (1986:77-78 n. 153).

Similarly, it may be noted, the Genesis Apocryphon (col. 19, lines 14-21) attempts to justify Abram’s deceit: it speaks of a dream in that Abram sees two trees, a cedar and a palm, with a group of men planning to cut down the cedar (representing Abram) and to leave the palm (representing Sarai). Thereupon the palm, in tears, warns the men that if they cut down the cedar they will be cursed.

Here, as he customarily does, Josephus spells the name of Pharaoh Φαραώθης. In the corresponding account of this incident (War 5.379) he spells it Φαραώ. On another occasion (Ant. 8.151) he spells it Φαραώ (alternative readings in the manuscripts, Φαραών, Φαραώνης). One of the characteristics of Josephus’ narrative of Abram to that there are many parallels elsewhere in his work is the introduction of erotic elements reminiscent of the Hellenistic novels. To create more of the romantic interest that his Hellenistic readers craved, Josephus, in connection with his sojourn in Egypt, speaks in terms of the fulfillment of Abram’s suspicions, whereas the Bible (Gen. 12:14) merely says: “And it came to pass.” The Bible (Gen. 12:15) reports that the princes of Pharaoh saw Sarai and praised her to Pharaoh; Josephus magnifies the extent of her beauty and arouses the reader’s expectations by the statement that upon her arrival in Egypt Sarai’s beauty was noised abroad. Indeed, the picture is of a town crier proclaiming that a famed beauty has arrived. There are many rabbinic parallels to Josephus’ magnifying of Sarai’s beauty. See the citations in Ginzberg (1925:5:220, n. 68, and 221, n. 69). A fuller description of Sarai’s beauty, including an erotic description of her body, is now to be found in the Genesis Apocryphon, col. 20, lines 2-8. Whereas the Bible states merely that “the woman was taken into Pharaoh’s house,” Josephus increases the erotic element by noting Pharaoh’s eagerness (σπουδάσας, where the force of the aorist tense perhaps justifies Thackeray’s translation, “was fired with a desire”) to see her; hence Josephus shifts the emphasis from the princes of Pharaoh who saw Sarai to Pharaoh himself, who is smitten with eagerness to see her. The Genesis Apocryphon (col. 20, lines 8-9) likewise shifts the emphasis to the reaction of Pharaoh when he hears the report of the princes; it also reports his eagerness to have her brought to him in haste and adds that when he saw her he was amazed at all her beauty.

Similarly, in the Genesis Apocryphon, 20.16-18, we read: “That night God Most High sent him [Pharaoh] a pestilential spirit to afflict him and all the men of his household, an evil spirit, that kept afflicting him and all the men of his household. He was not able to approach her, nor did he have intercourse with her, though he was with her [?] for two years.” The theme of civil strife (στάσις) is Josephus’ addition, in line with a motif found frequently in both the War and the Antiquities on the dreadfulness of civil strife. Cf. Pseudo-Eupolemus, ap. Eus., Pr. Ev. 9.17.7, where, as in Josephus, the Pharaoh consults his diviners (μάντεις) when he is unable to have intercourse with Sarai, and they, in turn, tell him that the woman is not a widow. In the Genesis Apocryphon (col. 20) we similarly read of an invitation to all the sages, magicians, and healers of Egypt (see Vermes [1973:114]), that Vermes suggests derives from an association with Pharaoh’s magicians in Exodus. Cf. the midrashic tradition (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 41.2), according to that Sarai herself told Pharaoh that she was a married woman. Levine (1993:85-86) suggests that in his frequent use of the concept of hybris (here the verb “to outrage” [ὑβρίσαι]) Josephus wishes to show the piety of the Israelites and the wickedness of their enemies and may well be answering the charge, as mentioned by Pliny the Elder (Hist. Nat. 13.46), characterizing the Jews as “a race remarkable for their contempt (contumelia) for the divine powers.”

The erotic interest is here further aroused by a face-to-face meeting of Pharaoh with Sarai, at that, in terror, he asks her who she is and who this man is whom she has brought with her. The Genesis Apocryphon (col. 20), by contrast, in narrating the tale of the restoration of Sarai to Abram, puts the emphasis not on Pharaoh in his terror but on Abram in his grief for Sarai, who “prayed and supplicated and entreated God,” complaining to God with flowing tears. Josephus offers the dramatic impact of a direct confrontation between Pharaoh and Sarai, whereas the Genesis Apocryphon (col.20) has Lot function as the intermediary between Abram and Pharaoh’s prince Hyrcanus, informing him why Abram cannot pray to have the plague alleviated. There is no meeting between Pharaoh and Sarai in the Bible itself either; there (Gen. 12:18) Pharaoh summons Abram and complains about the deceit that he has practiced. In Gen. 12:18-19 the tone of Pharaoh is that of outrage; here he is, on the contrary, apologetic. Moreover, in the Bible (Gen. 12:18) there is no indication as to how Pharaoh learned that Sarai was actually Abram’s wife, whereas here it is clear that it is Sarai herself who informed him. See Freund (1991:58). That Pharaoh wished to marry Sarai is Josephus’ addition. Josephus here phrases Pharaoh’s charge and his excuse in more romantic terms: it was in the belief that Sarai was Abram’s sister that he had set his affections (σπουδάσαι, “make haste,” “be eager,” “be serious,” “be earnest”) on her, and that he had aimed to contract a marriage alliance (συγγένειαν) with her rather than to outrage (ἐξυβρίσαι) her in a transport of passion (κατ’ ἐπιθυμίαν ὡρμημένος, i.e., having rushed headlong into passion). Biblical Abram’s dealings with Pharaoh might well be regarded as an instance of misanthropy; Josephus therefore takes pains to defend him and the Jews against these charges. Pharaoh, for his part, is excused, as we have seen, in connection with Sarai, as having acted under the impulse of passion. He is portrayed as generous toward Abram, not, as in the Bible (Gen. 12:16), before the discovery that Sarai is his wife, when he obviously would have ulterior motives, but as a good Greek or Roman host who sends his guest away with abundant gifts (Ant. 1.165) after he learns that he cannot keep Sarai. So also in Josephus’ version of this story in War 5.381, in the Genesis Apocryphon (col. 20), and in Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 26. In the version in the Genesis Apocryphon Abram receives the gifts after he cures the king of his affliction by praying for him. Similarly (Ant. 1.209), Josephus, for apologetic reasons, omits the biblical passage (Gen. 20:9) in which Abimelech rebukes Abram for deceiving him in identifying Sarai as his sister. Abram. According to an alternative reading, he [Pharaoh] gave permission [to Abram] to associate with the most erudite of the Egyptians. Whereas in the Bible (Gen. 12:20) when Pharaoh returns Sarai to Abram he sets him on his way, here Abram remains and consorts with Egyptian scholars. In the Bible, reference is made to the wisdom of Egypt, that is surpassed only by Solomon’s wisdom (1 Kgs. 5:10); and the rabbis expand on this by recounting the incident of the Pharaoh Necho’s unsuccessful attempt to outwit Solomon (Midrash Num. Rabbah 19.3). But there is nothing in rabbinic lore of a journey by Abram to Egypt to imbibe Egyptian wisdom. In this Josephus makes Abram parallel to Pythagoras, who, according to Aristoxenus (fragment 13, Wehrli), traveled to Egypt and, according to Isocrates (Bus. 28), became a disciple of the priests there, studying their sacrifices and cult practices and later introducing their philosophy to the Greeks. To be sure, Isocrates later (33), in effect, admits that this tale was invented; but that it was accepted as true is indicated by a certain Antiphon (ap. Diog. Laer. 8.3), who tells how Pythagoras learned the secrets, especially the mathematical secrets, of the Egyptian priests. Indeed, according to Iamblichus (Vita Pythagorica 11), Pythagoras spent twenty-two years in Egypt. See von Fritz (1963:180-86) and Philip (1966:189-91). Burnet (1945:15-24), together with most historians of Greek philosophy, discounts the idea that the Greeks borrowed their philosophy from the Egyptians, contending that Herodotus would not have omitted mentioning this tradition if he had known it, since it would have confirmed his own view that Greek religion and culture went back to Egyptian origins. Plato, who was awed by the antiquity of the Egyptians (Rep. 4.435E and Tim. 22A), implies that they had no gift for philosophy, “that is ascribed chiefly to our own part of the world,” and that, in contrast with the Greeks, they were especially noted for their love of money (Rep. 4.435E). Georgi (1986:78 n. 154) remarks that the term ἀρετή (“[virtue”), as applied to Abram (already mentioned in Ant. 1.155), means far more than moral or philosophical virtue. He notes that the correlation with δόξα (“reputation”) shows that this is a term of great praise. According to Josephus, after Pharaoh discovers the identity of Abram, Abram consorts (or, according to a variant reading, is given permission to consort) with the most learned of the Egyptians (Ant. 1.165). As a result, his excellence and reputation, like those of Solon, who similarly is said to have visited Egypt (Plato, Tim. 21E), become more manifest. The conclusion of the episode of Abram and Sarai in Egypt is not, as in the Bible, with its stress on the narrative aspect, their hasty dismissal by Pharaoh or, as in the Genesis Apocryphon (col. 20)—a passage reminiscent of the conclusion of the Sarai-Abimelech episode stressing God’s role—, Abram’s prayer to God to remove the plague from Pharaoh. On the contrary, in Josephus the pericope ends as Abram’s Egyptian excursion had begun, with emphasis on Abram the scientist and philosopher conversing with the Egyptians.

Presumably, Josephus is here contrasting the disunity of the Egyptians with the unity of religious belief and uniformity of customs prevalent among the Jews, a point he makes also in Apion 2.179-81. This alleged unity is rather surprising in view of the fact that Josephus himself notes (Ant. 18.11-25) four sects of Jews and the major differences dividing them. Reading διαπτύσσων (Thackeray’s emendation [1930, 2:158 s.v.]). The manuscript reading διαπτύων would mean “spitting upon,” and seems altogether out of character with the picture of Abram being presented by Josephus. The midrashic tradition speaks of Abram’s disputations not with the Egyptians but with his father and with Nimrod (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 38.13). Abram’s powers of persuasion are likewise celebrated by the rabbis, though not in connection with Egyptian wise men but rather with the visitors to his tent, whom he seeks to convert to monotheism (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 39.14). He (Sifre Deut. 313 on Deut. 32:10) is described as so good a missionary that he succeeds in making God known as king of the earth as well as of heaven. In particular, there are a number of references (’Avot de-Rabbi Natan B 26 [ed. Schechter, p. 54], Midrash Num. Rabbah 14.11, Pesiqta Rabbati 43 [ed. Friedmann, pp. 181-82]) to the success of Abram and Sarai in Haran, where they “created souls.” There may be a parallel to this aspect of Abram in the Genesis Apocryphon (col. 19, line 24), that speaks of three Egyptian nobles and of goodness, wisdom, and truth (though it is not clear whether these are Abram’s or their qualities). Abram proclaims his words before them, perhaps pointing out their errors. But the Apocryphon lacks the Hellenistic flavor of Josephus, for there is no picture of Abram conferring with each philosophic sect of the Egyptians and of coming to convince or to be convinced.

Both Plato and Isocrates in the fourth century B.C.E. had emphasized the importance of mathematics not only for its practical value but also as a training for sharpening the mind. See Marrou (1956:73, 83). In line with the emphasis on science and mathematics (cf. Marrou:176-85), Josephus presents Abram as the one who taught the Egyptians the very sciences for that they later became so famous. Significantly, Josephus does not portray Abram as teaching the Egyptians about his monotheism, presumably because this would expose Josephus to the charge of seeking to proselytize—a charge about that the Romans were particularly sensitive, as we see from the expulsions of the Jews from Rome for attempting missionary activities in 139 B.C.E., in 19 C.E., and during the reign of Claudius. See Feldman (1993a:300-4). Astronomy was a science of that the Egyptians had previously been ignorant and that was to become the most popular of the four branches of mathematics in Hellenistic times (Marrou [1956:182])—the one that aroused the most curiosity because of the practical importance of astrology. The importance of astronomy to Josephus is obvious, for even in his discussion of the early patriarchs such as Noah he adds to the biblical narrative by saying that they were permitted to live long lives not only because they were beloved by God and because of their diet and their merits, but also to give them an opportunity to progress in their knowledge of astronomy and geometry, for “they could not have predicted accurately if they had not lived 600 years, since the great year is completed through so great a period.” (Ant. 1.106). Having come from Chaldea, Abram, as we see from Philo (De Migratione Abrami 32.178), must have been acquainted with astronomy and astrology, for that the Chaldeans were so famous. Pseudo-Eupolemus (ap. Eus., Pr. Ev. 9.17.3) asserts that Abram actually discovered astrology and that (9.17.8) while he was living in Heliopolis with the Egyptian priests he introduced them to astrology. He is also said to have taught the Phoenicians astrology (9.18.2). Artapanus, (ap. Eus., Pr. Ev. 9.18.1) says that Abram taught Pharaoh astrology. In Josephus, however, it is not Pharaoh but the Egyptian philosophers and scientists whom Abram instructs. According to Jub. 12:16-17, Abram discovered the laws of astronomy. The rabbinic tradition (Yoma 28b) states that Abram’s mind knew great astronomical speculation and consequently the exact hour of the afternoon prayer. Baba Batra 16b quotes the second-century Rabbi Eleazar of Modiim as saying that Abram possessed the power of reading the stars, for that he was much sought after by the potentates of East and West. Tosefta Qiddushin 5:17, commenting on Gen. 24:1, “God blessed Abram in all things,” explains that He blessed him with great knowledge of astrology. The reputation of Abram as an astrologer may be seen in the astrological work (Anth. 2.28) of the second-century Vettius Valens, who refers to Abram as “most wonderful,” and as the author of books in that he discovered various astrological findings and tested them. A similar tribute to Abram as an astrologer is to be found in the fourth-century Firmicus Maternus (Mathesis 4, Prooemium 5), who couples Abram with the much-revered Orpheus as an astrologer, and again (Mathesis 4.17.2) calls Abram “divine.” Elsewhere (Mathesis 4.18.1), moreover, Abram is referred to as defining the position of the moon and of the sun. Philo, it is interesting to note, grants Abram’s knowledge of astronomy; but in an effort to make of him a purer philosopher, he asserts that in leaving Chaldea he departed from his absorption with the visible world and entered the contemplation of the invisible and the intelligible world (De Abramo 15.68-71). Cf. Sandmel (1956:144). While some of the rabbinic sources acknowledge Abram’s greatness as an astrologer, most of them state that God counseled Abram to give up his interest in astrology. See the rabbinic passages cited by Wacholder (1963:103, n. 130), who concludes that the belief concerning Abram’s mastery of astrology was a major motif of Jewish folklore. A similar picture of Abram as inventor of sciences is also found with regard to Moses. Thus Eupolemus says that Moses was the first wise man and that he invented the alphabet (ap. Eus., Pr. Ev. 9.26.1).

Cf. Apion 1.14, where Josephus remarks that the first Greek philosophers to treat of astronomy, such as Pherecydes of Syros, Pythagoras, and Thales, “were, as the world unanimously admits, in their scanty productions the disciples of the Egyptians and Chaldeans.”

An indication of a diminished role for God is to be seen in Josephus’ omission of the passage (Gen. 13:3-4) recording Abram’s return to the altar that he had built at Bethel and of his calling there upon the name of the Lord. Genesis Apocryphon col. 21 significantly does not omit this detail but records that Abram rebuilt the altar at Bethel and gave thanks to God there for all the wealth and goods that He had given him. Amaru (1980-81:206) calls attention to the contrast between Josephus here, who makes no reference to the land covenant, and the biblical narrative (Gen. 13:14-17), in that God promises Abram the land that he sees in all directions. Josephus, perhaps because the political implications of this promise in his own day were an implicit justification for a Jewish state independent of the Romans, judiciously omits this passage completely. In contrast, the Genesis Apocryphon, that has no such apologetic motives, not only includes God’s promise but greatly elaborates it.

Hebrew ‮חברון‬‎ (Gen. 13:18), LXX Χεβρών, Josephus Ναβρῶ (Latin Nabroth). Josephus spells the name variously: Ναβρῶ, Ναβρών, Νεβρωνία, Γιβρών, Ἑβρών, Ἑβρωνία, Χεβρών, Χεβρωνία, Ἰεβρών. Josephus here omits Abram’s building of an altar to the Lord at Hebron (Gen. 13:18), an account that is actually elaborated by the Genesis Apocryphon, col. 21. Num. 13:22 states that Hebron was built seven years before Zoan in Egypt. Zoan is the Greek Tanis. It is first mentioned in the twenty-third year of Ramesses XI of the twentieth Dynasty (ca. 1183 B.C.E.). See Redford (1992:6:1106-7). Josephus (War 4.530) tells us that according to the statements of its inhabitants Hebron is of greater antiquity than any other in the country, being even older than Memphis in Egypt and being reckoned to be 2,300 years old. According to Josephus (Ant. 8.155), the builder of Memphis was Menes, who, we are told, lived many years before Abram, who, in turn, lived more than 1,300 years before Solomon. This would give a date for Menes of approximately 2,270 years before the beginning of Solomon’s reign. Now it is true that the Bible itself (Num. 13:22) later notes that Hebron was built seven years before Zoan in Egypt; but the important point is that this comparison is made in connnection with the life of Abram, who thus gets associated with the greatest antiquity. According to the Bible (Gen. 13:10), Lot beheld the “circle” of the Jordan, that is, where the Jordan broadens out at its southern end. The reading ἦν ἀγαθή (“was good”) is strange. Niese conjectures ἦν ἀπαθής (“was unharmed”), but Schreckenberg (1967-69:65) offers a more likely emendation, ἤνθει (“flourished”), that offers a more direct contrast to ἠφάνισται (“has been obliterated”). Franxman (133) notes that this is the only place in Josephus’ version (Ant. 1.169-70) of Genesis 13 where God is mentioned. On the other hand, we may note, in the Hebrew text of chapter 13, God (or the Lord) is mentioned no fewer than six times. Ant. 1.194-95, 202-3.

The attack on luxurious wealth was a topos of the moral philosophers, and Josephus frequently develops the theme that excessive wealth leads to sin. This picture of the causes of sin is found in Josephus’ extra-biblical detail here about the growth in wealth and population of Sodom. Josephus later (Ant 1.194) repeats these details and elaborates on them; the Sodomites, he says, were overweeningly proud of their large population and wealth; and this led, according to a formula of Solon’s (frag. 3, lines 5-29)—to their becoming insolent toward men and impious toward God, so that they forgot the benefits that they had received from Him. According to rabbinic tradition (Sanhedrin 109a, Tosefta Soṭah 3:11, Sifre Deut. 43, Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 25, Midrash Tannaim 32.15 [ed. Hoffmann, p. 194]), the rebelliousness of the Sodomites stemmed from their abundant wealth. Philo, De Abramo 26.134, similarly ascribes the evil of the Sodomites to their wealth and quotes the saying of Menander that the chief beginning of evils is goods in excess (so also Philo, Quaestiones in Genesin 4.43). The rabbinic midrashim (see Ginzberg 1925:5:237, n. 155, and Rappaport 103, n. 91 for citations) speak of the riches of Sodom and Gomorrah, but Josephus’ terminology is clearly that of classical Greek tragedy. Note that in the biblical text Sodom is simply a city or a city-state, whereas according to Josephus it is the capital of an empire governed by five kings. Hebrew ‮ברע‬‎ (Gen. 14:2) (LXX Βαλλά), ‮ברשׁע‬‎ (LXX Βαρσά), ‮שׁגאב‬‎ (LXX Σενναά), ‮שׁמאבר‬‎ (LXX Συμοβόρ), ‮בלע‬‎ (LXX Βαλάκ).

Gen. 14:1 mentions the four kings who fought against Bera, the king of Sodom, and his allies, as being the kings of Shinar, Eliasar, Elam, and Goyim, whereas Josephus speaks of them all as Assyrians.

Hebrew ‮אמרפל‬‎ (Gen. 14:1) (LXX Ἀμαρφάλ, Josephus Ἀμαραψίδης), ‮אריוך‬‎ (LXX Ἀριώχ, Josephus Ἀρίοχος), ‮כדרלעמר‬‎ (LXX Χοδολλογομόρ, Josephus Χοδολλάμορος, ‮תדעל‬‎ (LXX Θαργάλ Josephus Θάδαλος). Josephus fails to mention that the reprisal expedition of the Assyrians (Gen. 14:5) occurred a year after the rebellion.

Like the LXX and the Targumim, Josephus here identifies the Rephaim, who are mentioned in the Bible, with the Giants. As Franxman (134 n. 7) points out, it is strange that Josephus should here mention the descendants of the giants (clearly the offspring of the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men” who are mentioned in Gen. 6:1-4), since these people were presumably destroyed in the Flood. Moreover, where Josephus first mentions these offspring (Ant. 1.73) he says that the deeds that tradition ascribes to them resemble those of the giants of Greek tradition, thereby implying only that the biblical figures were not “giants.” Note the fact that Josephus here omits (Gen. 14:7) that the four kings attacked all the country of the Amalekites. In the geographical context of this passage, as Maier (1994:115) notes, the Amalekites are to be located in the region of Kadesh in the western part of the Arabah. Maier (1994:116) suggests that Josephus’ omission of the reference to the Amalekites is due to his aim of excluding any relationship between the region south of Judea and the territory of the Amalekites and thus placing them outside the Roman realm. There is an apparent contradiction in the biblical text in that we are informed (Gen. 14:10) that the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled and fell into the bitumen pits; and yet, a few verses later (Gen. 14:17) we hear, without further explanation, that the king of Sodom, apparently resurrected, went out to meet Abram. Of course, the Bible could have explained, but does not do so, that it was the successor of the dead king who went out to meet Abram. Josephus neatly avoids this problem by omitting mention of the statement that the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled and fell. I.e., the Dead Sea. Like the Bible (Gen. 13:10) Josephus regarded the Dead Sea as having taken the place of the valley of the Sodomites. Mieses (1929: 445-46) asserts that Josephus is the first to remark that the Dead Sea is where Sodom formerly stood; but Heinemann (1929:450-51) notes that before Josephus Strabo (Geog. 16.2.44.764), whose source is apparently Poseidonius, had stated that by reason of earthquakes and of eruptions of fire and of hot waters containing asphalt and sulphur the lake (i.e. the present Dead Sea) burst its bounds.

Josephus (Ant. 1.203) tells of the destruction of Sodom but describes the Dead Sea only in War 4.476-82. Whereas the Bible says merely that Lot dwelt in Sodom and was taken prisoner by the Assyrians, with the implication that he did not participate in the fighting (Gen. 14:11-12), Josephus explains that his capture took place when Lot loyally came, as Abram was to come after him, to aid the Sodomites as a fighting ally (Ant. 1.175).

The feelings of fear and pity and his concern not merely for his nephew but also for the Sodomites are Josephus’ novelistic addition to the biblical text (Gen. 14:14), that simply states that when Abram heard that his nephew Lot had been taken captive he armed his servants and pursued the enemy. On the other hand, in the Bible it is clear (Gen. 14:14) that Abram undertook his expedition against the Assyrians solely in order to rescue Lot, while in the Gen. Apocryphon (col.22, line 5) Abram weeps for his nephew and shows compassion for his friends and neighbors the Sodomites. Abram’s concern for the Sodomites is particularly noteworthy in view of their own reputation for misanthropy, that is attested in the Wisdom of Solomon (19.13-14) and in rabbinic literature (Sanhedrin 109a-b, Tosefta Soṭah 3:12, Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 25). Indeed, only the Zohar (1.112b), codified in the thirteenth century, agrees with Josephus in positing Abram’s friendship with the Sodomites.

Such details are extra-biblical. Nodet (ad loc.) suggests that it would take five days for a forced march without horses or camels to negotiate the distance from Sodom to Dan, a distance of about 250 kilometers, and that this shows Josephus’ knowledge of the country. According to Judg. 18:29, the name of the city was originally Laish, but it was renamed Dan after the arrival of the Danites. So also Ant. 5.178. Cf. Bekorot 55a: “Why is it called ‮ירדן‬‎ [Jordan]? Because it comes from Dan.” I.e., the word Jordan is a combination of dry (“went down”) plus Dan. Nodet explains that Josephus is referring to the two watersheds that constitute the sources of the Jordan River, from Lebanon (Ḥasbani) and the foot of Mount Hermon (Dan, Banyas); the latter is the smaller of the two sources of the Jordan (Ant. 5.178). Such details are extra-biblical. Philo, De Abramo 40.233, has a very similar account in content, though not in vocabulary: “So he [Abram] pressed forward eagerly and never abated his speed until, watching for his chance, he attacked the enemy by night when they had supped and were preparing to go to sleep. Some fell helpless victims to him in their beds, others who took arms against him were completely annihilated, and all were mightily overcome more by his courage of soul than by the resources at his command.” To be sure, Philo does not speak of the drunkenness of the Assyrians or of those who fled (see Sandmel [1956:64, n. 253]). Philo insists that Abram trusted not in his small force but in God, whereas for Josephus it is a personal triumph of generalship by Abram himself. The rabbis diverge utterly from this picture, for they speak of an angel named Night attacking the enemy, thus downplaying the picture of Abram the general (Sanhedrin 96a). They stress the miraculous side of this whole episode, by noting that Abram himself was actually a giant (Midrash Tanḥuma 17 [ed. Buber, p. 74] and parallels cited by Ginzberg [1925:5:225, n. 97]), that the victorious battle with the kings took place on the fifteenth of Nisan (the night reserved for such miracles [Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 17]), that all the weapons thrown at Abram miraculously proved fruitless (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 42.3, Midrash Psalms 110.2 [ed. Buber, p. 466]), that the planet Jupiter made the night bright for him (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 42.3 and parallels cited by Ginzberg [1925:5:225, n. 98]), and that the 318 men who, according to Gen. 14:14, assisted him really consisted of his servant Eliezer alone, the numerical value of the letters of whose name adds up to 318 (Midrash Tanḥuma 16 [ed. Buber, p. 73] and parallels cited by Ginzberg [1925, 5:224, n. 93]). Whereas Josephus’ picture of Abram is of one unafraid of blood and, in fact, ready to slay the enemy in their beds, the rabbis depict him as in deep anguish that he had killed innocent descendants of his enemies (Midrash Tanḥuma 19 [ed. Buber, pp. 75-76] and Midrash Tanḥuma Lek Leka 15 [ed. Buber, p. 65]); and it is consequently necessary for the rabbis to have God soothe Abram’s conscience in this matter (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 44.4-5). To them, in brief, Abram’s victory is really a victory for God, with the emphasis on the supernatural help that he had received. Josephus, by contrast, looks upon it as a human victory of a masterful general and sees in it lessons for the student of military science; Abram’s success, he says, proves that military victory depends not on numbers and multitude of hands but on the zeal (“eagerness”) and mettle (“nobility,” “excellence”) of the combatants (Ant. 1.178). Later, to be sure, when, according to Josephus’ addition to the biblical narrative, God appears to Amram, who is to be the father of Moses, in a dream (Ant. 2.214), it is God’s help to Abram in this campaign that is recalled, though even there Josephus mentions all the prowess that Abram displayed (“behaved in a manly, upright fashion”) in war. In his description of David’s surprise attack on the Amalekites and of his massacre of them, Josephus similarly adds that he fell upon some who, under the influence of strong drink, were plunged in sleep (Ant. 6.363). See Feldman (1984:43-49).

Josephus omits the biblical statement (Gen. 14:13) that a nameless person who had escaped told Abram that Lot had been taken captive. The midrashic tradition (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 14.8) identifies this escapee as the giant Og. Hebrew ‮חובה‬‎ (Gen. 14:15), LXX Χωβά, Josephus Ὠβά. Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre (Gen. 14:13, 24).

2 Sam. 18:18 refers to a pillar set up here by Absalom in the King’s Valley. Josephus (Ant. 7.243) also refers to this and says that it is two stades from Jerusalem.

Hebrew ‮שׁלם‬‎ (Gen. 14:18), LXX Σαλήμ, Josephus Σολυμᾶ. In referring to Melchisedek as the king of Solyma, Josephus may be reflecting the tradition alluded to in Manetho’s reference to the Jews as Solymites (ap. Apion 1.248), as well as in Tacitus (Hist. 5.2.3), one of whose theories of the origin of the Jews identifies them with the Solymi, who are mentioned by Hom. (Il. 6.184, Od. 5.283) and who are said by Tacitus to have founded a city named Hierosolyma after their own name. Mackay (1948-49:121-30) discusses the evidence for identifying Salem with the area of Shechem, as is favored by the LXX (Gen. 33:18) and Jub. (30:1), or with Jerusalem, as is favored by Josephus and the Targumim here. Mackay (1948-49:122) says that the tradition found in Josephus smacks of anti-Samaritanism. Hebrew ‮מלכי־צדק‬‎ (Gen. 14:18), LXX and Josephus Μελχισεδέκ. On Melchisedek see Horton (1976:82-83). Philo (Legum Allegoriae 3.25.79), Josephus elsewhere (War 6.438), as well as Heb. 7:2, likewise translate the name as “righteous king.” Horton (1976:85) suggests that Josephus knew the passage in Philo, but the similarities are too general. In Gen. 14:18 Melchizedek is termed “priest of God Most High.” So also in Philo, Legum Allegoriae 3.26.82. Psalm 110:4, that speaks of “a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek,” would seem to imply that he was the priest-king of Jerusalem. Elsewhere (War 6.438) Josephus states that Melchizedek was the first to officiate as priest of God and the first to build the Temple, as well as the one who gave the city previously called Solyma the name of Jerusalem. He refers there to Melchizedek as a Canaanite chief (δυνάστης). Spilsbury (1994:50 n.67) conjectures that Josephus omits to call him thus here because he mentions disparagingly Esau’s marriage to the daughters of two Canaanite chieftains (δυναστευόντων) (Ant. 1.265). Delcor (1971:115-35) comments on the relatively little success that the figure of Melchizedek had in biblical literature, ascribing this to his Canaanite origins; but cf. the importance ascribed to him in Heb. 5:6, 6:20, 7:1-17. He notes that even the Hasmonean priests (Ant. 16.163) avoided calling themselves priests of the order of Melchizedek, referring to themselves merely as “priests of the Most High God,” alluding, no doubt, he says, to the God of Melchizedek. Horton (1976:82-83) notes that the idea of War 6.438 that the first Temple was built by Melchizedek is dropped by Josephus here and wonders whether this may not represent a sacred account about the Temple in Jerusalem. Some manuscripts (ROP) read “he called,” indicating that, as in War 6.438, it was Melchizedek who called the city Hierosolyma. The same etymology of Jerusalem as being a combination of the Greek ἱερός + Solyma is found in War 6.438. In Ant. 7.67 it is said to be a combination of ἱερόν (temple) + Solyma. The identification of Salem with Jerusalem is already found in Psalms 76:3. The rabbinic tradition (Targum Onqelos, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, Targum Neofiti, and Fragmentary Targum on Gen. 14:18, Midrash Gen. Rabbah 43.6, 56.10, and Midrash Psalms 76.3 [ed. Buber, p. 171]) likewise knows the identification of Salem with Jerusalem.

It is not clear from the Bible (Gen. 14:20) whether Abram gave the tenth or received it from Melchizedek. Pseudo-Eupolemus (ap. Eus., Pr. Ev. 9.17.6) says only that Abram received gifts from Melchizedek. See Wacholder (1963:106). Josephus is here in line with the Gen. Apocryphon (col. 22, line l7) and Jub. (13.25-27) in interpreting this passage to mean that Abram gave a tenth to Melchizedek. So also rabbinic tradition: Nedarim 32b, Soṭah 5a, Midrash Gen. Rabbah 43, cited by Wacholder (1963:106). Since, according to the Genesis Apocryphon, the tithe was given from the actual war loot, only Abram could have given it: the loot was in his custody. This is no business arrangement consisting of a return for the lavish hospitality tendered by Melchizedek to Abram’s army; it is the normal Greek way of reciprocating hospitality. It is significant for the emphasis placed by Josephus on the proper action of a host and of his eagerness to aggrandize Abram that Josephus follows the Bible (Gen. 14:19) in having Melchizedek first extol Abram and thereafter bless God. This sequence is sharply criticized by the rabbis (Nedarim 32b, Midrash Lev. Rabbah 25.6, cited by Ginzberg [1925:5:226, n. 104]), who remark that because of it Melchizedek was deposed from his priesthood, that office passed over to Abram, with whose descendants it thereafter remained.

Loader (1990:99) notes that whereas Josephus here adheres to Gen. 14:22-24 in reporting that Abram refused to accept the gifts from the king of Sodom, Philo (De Abramo 40.235) omits this, though, to be sure, he does mention it in Legum Allegoriae 3.8.24. Hebrew ‮אשׁכל‬‎ (Gen. 14:24), LXX Ἐσχώλ, Josephus Ἔσχων. Josephus follows the LXX in placing this name before those of the other two comrades of Abram. Hebrew ‮ענר‬‎ (Gen. 14:24), LXX Ἀὐνάν, Josephus Ἔννηρος. Hebrew ‮ממרא‬‎ (Gen. 14:24), LXX Μαμβρῆ, Josephus Μαμβρῆς.

Gen. 15:1 does not give any reason why God rewards Abram. In Gen. 15:8 Abram, in obvious doubt that he will inherit Palestine, in accordance with God’s promise, asks God for a sign. The rabbis (Nedarim 32a) take him to task severely for this and comment that because of this lack of faith, Abram was punished by having his descendants serve as slaves in Egypt for 210 years. Ginzberg (1925:5:227-228, n. 110) remarks that Philo (Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres 20.99) insists that Abram did show trust in God here; and the majority of the Church Fathers, notably Origen, Theodoret, Ephraem, and Augustine, feel likewise. They explain that Abram wished merely to know how the promise made to him would be fulfilled. The prevalent tendency in rabbinic literature, however (e.g., Nedarim 32a and parallels, as well as Jerome on Isaiah 43:27), is to blame Abram for his lack of trust in God here. In Josephus’ version Abram asks God what pleasure can be afforded to him by all the materials that have been vouchsafed to him since he has no heir to succeed him. When God, however, assures him that a son will be born to him, he does not ask for a sign but rather proceeds immediately to offer a sacrifice to God. In Gen. 15:8-11 in order to reassure Abram that he will inherit Canaan God tells him to divide a heifer, she-goat, ram, turtle-dove, and pigeon; these are not designated a sacrifice as such either in the Bible or in Bib. Ant. 23.6-7, the latter of that proceeds to explain the symbolic significance of these particular animals and birds.

This detail is lacking in Gen. 15:11. Gen. 15:13 declares that Abram’s descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs; in his addition to this text Josephus would seem to be saying that it is not the Jews who are the bad neighbors but rather the other peoples in whose midst they dwell. Josephus omits the statement in Gen. 15:14 that Abram’s descendants will serve the nation (i.e. Egypt), and that God will judge that nation, as well as the statement that they will leave with great substance. Gen. 15:13 does not specify Egypt. According to Exod. 12:40 the sojourn in Egypt lasted 430 years. Josephus reconciles this apparent discrepancy by remarking (Ant. 2.318) that the Israelites left Egypt 430 years after Abram’s arrival in Canaan. Josephus here omits the miraculous scene (Gen. 15:17) in that after sunset a thick darkness suddenly descends upon the animals that Abram has sacrificed and a flaming torch passes through them. There is no indication here, as there is in Gen. 15:18, that God made a covenant at this point with Abram and that the land is a gift from God, but rather that it will be won—and presumably lost—on the field of battle. There is also no indication as to the extent of the land (vs. Gen. 15:18-21), that, if the biblical statement is taken literally, would imply that the Jews not only have a claim to an independent state but also regard it as a matter of divine promise that their state should extend far beyond the borders of Judea. Thus, there is less emphasis on God’s promise of Palestine to Abram, in line with Josephus’ view that an independent state is hardly a sine qua non for Jews, and certainly not when it requires a revolutionary war against the Romans. On the other hand, Josephus, seeking to build up a picture of Abram and of his descendants as fighters rather than as mere inheritors, has God predict (Ant. 1.185) that his posterity will vanquish the Canaanites in battle and take possession of their land and cities; this contrasts with the biblical statement (Gen. 15:17-21), in that God promises the land. Apologetic purposes dictated the omission in Josephus (Ant. 1.185) of God’s prediction to Abram that the Israelites would leave Egypt with great substance (Gen. 15:14), since this would imply that the Israelites were guilty of theft. In his paraphrase of the passage (Exod. 12:35-36) mentioning that the Israelites despoiled the Egyptians before their departure from the land, Josephus continues this apologetic strain by explaining (Ant. 2.314) that the Egyptians “even honored the Hebrews with gifts, some in order that they might depart more swiftly, others from neighborly relations with them.”

Note that Josephus postpones his mention of the oak, that is mentioned in Gen. 13:18, until after his version of Gen. 15. The antiquity of Abram is here emphasized by Josephus’ statement that Abram was living near the oak called Ogyges, whereas the Bible speaks of the oaks (terebinths) of Mamre (Gen. 13:18). Elsewhere, to be sure, Josephus follows the LXX in referring to the oak of Mambre (Ant. 1.196). The “autochthon” Ogyges (Ogygus) was a primeval mythical king of Athens who is said to have survived the flood that destroyed the rest of the human race and, according to tradition, was the earliest name cited in Athenian history. So Adler (1989:16, n. 9). His date is so early that, according to Varro, it marks the end of the “indeterminate” period that extended from the very beginning of the human race to the first flood, that, in turn, marks the beginning of the “mythic” period (ap. Censorinus, De Die Natali 21.1-2). According to one version, cited by the third-century Christian historian Sextus Julius Africanus (ap. Eus., Pr. Ev. 10.10.23), it was not until 94 years had elapsed after the flood of Ogygus that we find the appearance of Prometheus, who is said in the legend to have formed man. That Josephus associated this oak with remote antiquity may be deduced from his statement elsewhere that six stadia (about three fourths of a mile) from the city of Hebron there is shown a huge terebinth-tree, that is said to have stood there ever since the creation of the world (War 4.533). See Grottanelli (1979:42-45), who notes that the adjective “Ogygian” means “age-old” or “primeval,” as in War 4.533, where we read that the oak has stood there ever since creation. It also evokes a mythical flood-complex that is similar to some of the biblical Abram traditions. Though Abram is not associated with a flood, he is associated with a divine punishment in the form of a natural calamity that destroyed a large portion of humanity at Sodom and Gomorrah; in fact, Lot’s daughters thought that only Lot had been spared (Gen. 19:31). Ogygia is also the name of the island where the goddess Calypso tried to detain Odysseus (Hom., Od. 5.57-62). Pelletier (1980:211-15) concludes that it was the officers of Alexander the Great’s armies and the men of letters who followed them who hellenized the oak of Mamre in giving it the name of Ogyges, from a poetical adjective, ὠγύγιος, expressing an antediluvian origin found as early as Hesiod (Th. 806). Josephus, who is the only writer who designates a tree by a proper individualized name, knew this name, he suggests, through the archives of Roman officers in the Imperial palace that he was able to consult. Delcor (1970:111) calls attention to the fact that according to a tradition reported by Pausanias (1.38.7), Ogyges was considered the founder of Eleusis, and Josephus thus placed the oak of Ogyges in relation to the Eleusinian Mysteries. Ginzberg (1925:5:235 n.137) notes that Jerahmeel 35.5 quotes from Josippon that the oak of Abram in Mamre continued to exist until the reign of Theodosius, when it withered, and that whoever took of its wood did not experience illness until the day of his death. Cf. de Vaux (1952:754-55), who notes parallel references to the oak of Mamre in Jub. 14:11, Apocalypse of Baruch 4:4 and 6:1, 4 Esdras 3:14, and Paraleipomena Ieremiou (4 Baruch) 4:6. In Gen. 16:2 it is Sarai, rather than Abram, who is distressed at not having children. On the whole, Josephus idealizes the matriarchs, as Bailey (1987: 154-79) demonstrates. This idealization is in contrast with Josephus’ generally contemptuous attitude towards women. See Feldman (1986:115-20).

Hebrew ‮הגר‬‎ (Gen. 16:3), LXX Ἄγαρ, Josephus Ἀγάρη. Gen. 16:2 says nothing about God’s commanding Sarai at this point, though perhaps this is an anticipation of Gen. 21:12. Josephus’ version serves to legitimate what might appear an act of adultery as instigated by Sarai herself. However, midrashic tradition (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 45.2), in the name of the fourth-century Palestinian Rabbi Yose, asserts that Abram listened to Sarai because she was inspired by the holy spirit. Josephus, by remarking that Sarai acted on God’s command in giving Hagar to Abram, is in effect presenting her as a prophetess (so also in rabbinic literature [Megillah 14a]) and is thus giving to Sarai’s deed a greater weight (see Rappaport, 103, n. 90).

Josephus thus makes Hagar conform to his paradigm of ὕβρις and its consequences. See Levine (1993:64-65). By using the word ἔγκυμον for “pregnant” Josephus calls to mind the fullness that is often attendant on ὕβρις. The incident of Abram’s expulsion of Hagar, that might appear to show how pitiless Sarai and Abram were, is retold by Josephus with touches that help to make this act seem more defensible. Gen. 16:4 says that “when Hagar saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes.” Josephus presents Hagar in darker colors as guilty of and as having the boldness to break out into insolence at Sarai, assuming the air of a queen (as though her unborn son would inherit Abram’s dominion). Seeking to keep Abram from being caught between the Scylla of disregarding Sarai’s feelings and the Charybdis of disregarding Hagar’s, Josephus here omits Sarai’s attack on Abram for listening to Hagar’s insults in silence, as well as her appeal to the Lord for revenge on her handmaiden (Gen. 16:5). By modifications such as these, Josephus casts a more favorable light on Sarai. See Bailey (1987:159).

Josephus justifies Abram’s ultimate decision by having the angel (Ant. 1.189-90), in a considerable addition to Scripture (Gen. 16:9), berate Hagar by explaining that her present plight was due to her being inconsiderate and presumptuous toward her mistress. Furthermore, the angel warns her that if she continues to disobey God she will perish, whereas she can attain a happier life through self-control.

Since Ishmael is the ancestor of the Arabs and Josephus seeks to avoid attacks on non-Jews wherever possible, it is not surprising that in the angel’s prediction (Ant. 1.190) to Hagar about her unborn son, Josephus omits the biblical details (Gen. 16:12) that he will be a wild ass of a man and that he will constantly be involved in fighting. Similarly, Josephus (Ant. 1.220) omits the biblical statement (Gen. 21:20) that Ishmael dwelt in the wilderness and became an archer. The rabbis interpret this statement to signify that Ishmael robbed travelers (See Rashi’s commentary ad loc.). In this addition to Scripture, Josephus presents Abram and Sarai in a more favorable light by noting that they forgive Hagar after she returns to them. Philo (De Mutatione Nominum 37.202) understands the name to mean “hearing God.”

One of the charges against the Jews even by someone such as Plutarch, who was relatively sympathetic to them, was that they were superstitious. Cf. Plutarch, Sup. 8.169C: “But the Jews, because it was the Sabbath day, sat in their places immovable, while the enemy were planting ladders against the walls and capturing the defences, and they did not get up, but remained there, fast bound in the toils of superstition as in one great net.” Thus, to the Greeks, the addition of an alpha to the name of Abram (Gen. 17:5) would seem difficult to comprehend, as Philo’s efforts (De Mutatione Nominum 9.66-10.76) to explain the matter make clear (so Sandmel [1956:66, n. 277]). Moreover, Josephus may well have been sensitive to the scoffing, noted by Philo (De Mutatione Nominum 8.60-62), of those who ridiculed the change of names of Abram to Abram. Hence, Josephus simply omits this change completely. For similar reasons, as appears from Philo’s strained efforts to explain the change of Sarai’s name to Sarai (Gen. 17:15, Philo, De Mutatione Nominum 11.77-80), Josephus omits her change of name also. Josephus’ retention of the change of name of Jacob to Israel (Ant. 1.333) and of Joseph to Zaphenath-paneah (Ant. 2.91) perhaps results from his wish to aggrandize the reputation of the Jewish people. Josephus is careful not to remove the spotlight from Abram; and so, whereas in Gen. 17:16 God twice states that He will bless Sarai, so that “she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her,” Josephus centers the blessing on Abram, saying that he will have a son by Sarai and that great nations and kings will spring from him. Gen. 17:1-16 tells how God appeared to Abram, reassured him that he was to become the father of a multitude of nations, and changed his name from Abram to Abram to signify this. In Gen. 17:8 God assures him that He will give him all the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession; the seal of this covenant is to be the circumcision that he is now commanded to perform upon himself and upon every male born in his family. Very significantly, in Josephus’ version here there is no mention of the change of name and its implications, and Canaan is described not as a divine gift but rather as a land to be won by human effort in war—something that his readers could well understand (cf. Ant. 1.185). The limits cited of the land are more modest, extending only from Sidon to Egypt (Ant. 1.191), rather than from the Euphrates to Egypt (so Gen. 15:18), perhaps because Jewish territory never actually reached the Euphrates, and Josephus did not wish to have his divine prediction contradicted by the historical facts (so Sandmel [1956:66, n. 278]).

Since he wishes to diminish the explicit role of God in his narrative and since, as a Jew who spent the latter half of his life in the Diaspora and who sought an accommodation with the Romans, Josephus seeks to reduce the centrality of the land of Israel, he omits the fact that circumcision is a sign of the covenant between God and Abraham (Gen. 17: 8), in which God promises the land to Abraham’s posterity. It is true that Josephus here states that the purpose of circumcision is to prevent the Israelites from mixing (συμφυρόμενον, “confuse,” “confound”) with others. So also Tacitus (Hist. 5.5.2), to be sure disparagingly, remarks that the Jews adopted circumcision to distinguish themselves from other peoples by this difference. Cf. Heinemann (1940:397). Likewise, Midrash Num. Rabbah 10.1: “All the deeds of Israel separate them from the nations of the world.” Schalit (ad loc.) cites Jub. 15:26-32 as giving a similar reason; but there is nothing comparable there, since Jub. mentions merely that God did not ordain this practice among the non-Israelites. Josephus was, however, evidently well aware that his statement here might lead to a charge of misanthropy, and so he immediately adds that he will explain elsewhere the reason, that is, presumably, the rational or symbolic meaning of this practice. The motive of circumcision as a way of avoiding assimilation, as Sandmel (1956:66, n. 279) correctly remarks, is lacking in the rabbinic writings. To be sure, the rabbis (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 46) do portray Abraham as fearing that circumcision will deter candidates for conversion to Judaism; but this, of course, is totally different from the reason given by Josephus, who is concerned not with winning converts—a movement that had aroused great bitterness in Roman circles, as we see from the banishment of Jews from Rome on two and possibly three occasions (see Feldman [1993a:300-4])—but rather with keeping born Jews from assimilating. Biblical Antiquities is closer here to the biblical narrative and to the rabbis than is Josephus’ account, for even though he has vastly abbreviated the whole narrative of Abraham, he twice (7.4 and 8.3) mentions and gives the terms of the covenant between God and Abram. He likewise (8.3), unlike Josephus, mentions the change of name of Abram and Sarai. Presumably in the projected work on customs and causes that Josephus did not live to write but that is alluded in a number of places in the Antiquities: see note on 1.25 and list of references cited there. Petersen (1958:259-74) argues that Josephus wrote all the works that he had planned and that most of the references in the Antiquities to contemplated works are to the essay Against Apion. However, Against Apion can hardly be the projected discussion of theology and halakhah, since those subjects are merely incidental to that treatise. Altshuler (1978-79:226-32) suggests that Josephus revised Book 3 of the Antiquities and included there his material on theology and halakhah. This, however, likewise seems unlikely in view of the promise that Josephus makes at the end of his work (Ant. 20.268) that the projected work will be a separate one in 4 books. On Josephus’ apologetic motives in explaining circumcision see Heinemann (1940:385-400).

The Hebrew (Gen. 17:18) is generally understood to mean “Oh that Ishmael might live in your sight.” Josephus understands the Hebrew word ‮לו‬‎ as an interrogative. Gen. 17:20 says nothing about Ishmael’s living a long life. Josephus separates ‮שׁנים‬‎ from ‮עשׂר‬‎ and understands ‮שׁנים‬‎ to mean years of life. In Gen. 17:17, when God tells Abraham that Sarah will give birth to a son, he laughs in disbelief and questions inwardly whether a child can be born to such aged parents; Josephus, realizing that this might be construed as a lack of faith on the part of Abraham, omits this incident. The Greek hero is also depicted as showing gratitude, that is still another aspect of justice, to his benefactors. Accordingly, whereas in Gen. 17:22, after God promises Abraham a son with whom he will establish His covenant, God is spoken of as leaving Abraham and no mention is made of any expression of gratitude by Abraham, Josephus here says that Abraham rendered thanks to God for His words. The Sodomites, by contrast, are charged (Ant. 1.194) with being impious toward God, since they show no gratitude for the benefits that they have received from Him.

Josephus, in this extra-biblical addition, stresses the wealth of the Sodomites because it fits in with his recurring theme that excessive wealth leads to ὕβρις. See Levine (1993:64). Josephus also notes the wealth of the various cities in the land of Sodom in the War (4.483). The wealth of the Sodomites is already cited by Ezek. 16:49: “Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.” So also the rabbinic tradition (Tosefta Soṭah 3:12) stresses the satiety of the Sodomites and asserts (Sanhedrin 109a) that they became haughty only on account of the prosperity that God had lavished upon them. Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 25 also mentions the fruitfulness of the land of Sodom and the prosperity that the Sodomites derived from it. See other rabbinic passages cited by Rappaport (104, notes 92-94). Philo (De Abramo 26.134) similarly declares that they owed their extreme license to the never-failing lavishness of their sources of wealth, since their land was very fertile and produced a prolific harvest every year. Josephus likewise, in an extra-biblical addition (Ant. 5.132), ascribes the decline of the Israelites in the period of the judges to their increased wealth. The failure to show hospitality is regarded in rabbinic tradition (Tosefta, Soṭah 3:11-12) as an indication of impiety. Several of the manuscripts here (ROMLE) read ἀλλήλους, that is, they shunned normal relations with each other but rather indulged in homosexual relations. By attacking the Sodomites as hating foreigners (μισόξενοι) and as declining all intercourse with others, Josephus shows that such an attitude is utterly unacceptable. The same picture of the Sodomites, though they are not mentioned by name as such, emerges in the Wisdom of Solomon (19:13-14): “For justly did they suffer by their own wickedness, for they practiced a yet harsher hatred of strangers. For certain persons did not receive them that knew them not when they came, but these enslaved guests that did them kindness.” The fact that Josephus uses the word μισόξενοι with regard to the Sodomites that others had directed against the Jews themselves (cf. Hec. ap. Diod. 40.3.4: ἀπάνθρωπόν τινα καὶ μισόξενον Βίον) emphasizes Judaism’s opposition to misanthropy. The rabbis, in discussing the Mishnaic passage (Sanhedrin 10:3) stating that the people of Sodom have no portion in the world to come, quote the Sodomites as saying (Sanhedrin 109a), “Since the bread that comes forth from our earth has the dust of gold, why should we suffer wayfarers, who come to us only to deplete our wealth?” According to the tradition noted by the fourth-century Raba (ibid.), they used to cast envious eyes at wealthy men, place them near a leaning wall, thrust it upon them, and then go and take their wealth.

So also Philo, De Abramo 27.140. Presumably, the punishment is measure for measure, since, according to Philo (De Abramo 26.134), the source of the Sodomites’ wealth (and hence of their insolence) was their deep-soiled and well-watered land that annually produced a prolific harvest of all kinds of fruits. A real question as to God’s justice arises, since Abraham seems to get the better of God in their dialogue, especially given that the sins of the Sodomites are presented so briefly and in such general terms (Gen. 18:20). Josephus, accordingly, here presents much more of a justification for God’s extreme intended action, in that he enumerates very specifically the sins of the Sodomites: overweening pride, insolence toward men, impiety toward God, ingratitude toward God for the benefits that they had received from Him, hatred toward foreigners, and arrogance.

According to rabbinic tradition (Baba Meẓi‘a 86b, Midrash Gen. Rabbah 50.2, Jerusalem Targum on Gen. 18:2), the angels were Raphael, Michael, Gabriel, the first charged to heal the wound of Abraham after his circumcision (or to rescue Lot), the second to tell Sarai that she was to bear a son, and the third to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. Abram cannot be associated with homey details that lack nobility. Hence, when Abraham entertains the three angels here, he is seated not in the tent door (Gen. 18:1) but before the door of his courtyard (αὐλῆς), in a Greek type of house (so Thackeray, ad loc.). For similar reasons Josephus omits the detail about Abraham’s inviting them to wash their feet (Gen. 18:4). There is a serious problem in the biblical text (Gen. 18:1-3) in that it starts out by stating that God appeared to Abraham at Mamre but then goes on to say that when he lifted up his eyes he saw three men standing near him, whom he then proceeds to address as “My Lord.” Josephus resolves this problem by totally omitting God’s visit to Abraham. Philo (De Abramo 25.132) explains that Abraham discourses with the visitors as though they were one rather than three. Secondly, Josephus does not speak of the three visitors as men or God but rather as angels (Ant. 1.196) whom Abraham takes for strangers. He further clarifies the matter by having the angels (Ant. 1.198) finally reveal themselves as messengers of God. Josephus here emphasizes Abraham’s hospitality by stating that he took them for mere strangers. Philo (Quaestiones in Genesin 4.10) also stresses Abraham’s hospitality in noting that even though he had many slaves he insisted on personally preparing the meal for his guests. For midrashic parallels on the elaboration of Abraham’s hospitality see Ginzberg (1925:5:235, n. 140, and 5:248, n. 223).

Josephus enhances Abraham’s hospitality by having Abram himself sacrifice and cook the calf, whereas in Gen. 18:7 he gives it to his servant to prepare it. Gen. 18:8 states that Abraham offered the visitors curds and milk together with the calf that he had prepared. Josephus omits the curds and milk perhaps because he found it difficult to believe that Abraham, who, though he lived before the revelation of the Torah, was said (Mishnah Qiddushin 4:14, Yoma 28b) to observe the Torah, could have served his visitors meat and dairy together, since this is prohibited (Exod. 23:19, 34:26, Deut. 14:21; cf. Ḥullin 105a). Whereas Gen. 18:8 says plainly that the angels visiting Abraham ate the food that he offered them, Josephus avoids this anthropomorphism by declaring that the angels merely gave him to believe that they ate. So also Philo, De Abramo 23.118. In Testament of Abram 4 the angel Michael hesitates to eat, and his food is eaten by a devouring spirit. Similarly, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Targum Neofiti on Gen. 18:8, Baba Meẓia 86b, Midrash Gen. Rabbah 48.14, Midrash Eccl. Rabbah 3.14. But there is another rabbinic tradition (Seder Eliyahu Rabbah 13 [ed. Friedmann, p. 59], Midrash Psalms 8.2) that God opened the mouths of the angels and that the angels did, in fact, eat as a reward for the preparations that Abraham had made in their behalf. Whereas in Gen. 18:9 the angels are speaking to Abraham, in 18:10 the text reads “And he said,” implying that it is either one of the angels or God Himself who is speaking. According to the latter passage, the speaker promises that he will return and that Sarah will have a son when the season comes around. The rabbis heighten the miracle by having one of the angels visiting Abram draw a line on the wall and declare that Isaac will be born when the sun returns to this line (see Sandmel [1956:67, n. 290]). But here in Josephus it is the angels rather than God who make this declaration, and they leave the time of their return indefinite (so also Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Gen. 18:10), stating merely that they would return some day in the future (εἰς τὸ μέλλον) to find that Sarah had given birth to a son. When the birth occurs (Ant. 1.214), Josephus says merely that it occurred during the following year.

Inasmuch as Sarah is so closely identified with Abram, the fact that Sarah shows lack of faith in laughing (Gen. 18:12) when the angels predict that she will give birth to a son and the further fact that she then lies (Gen. 18:15) in denying that she has laughed are a definite blot on the character of Abraham and Sarah. It is seemingly a further defect in her character when she explains (Gen. 18:12) that not only is she old but that her husband is also, the latter remark being superfluous and perhaps an insult to Abraham. To compound the problem, the Bible (Gen. 18:13) has a scene in that God confronts Abraham and, in apparent indignation, asks why Sarai laughed and then, reporting the words of Sarah, omits her motivating statement that her husband was old. Josephus here resolves these problems by omitting the role of God altogether and by having the discussion take place between only the angels and Abraham and Sarah, by having Sarah smile rather than laugh, by omitting the scene in that Sarah denies that she had laughed, and by not having God confront Abraham at all with Sarah’s lie, thus omitting God’s seeming dissimulation in reporting Sarah’s words. The Hebrew text (Gen. 18:12) reads: “After I have grown old, shall I have pleasure?” The LXX reads: “The thing has not as yet happened to me even until now.” Josephus would appear to be following the sense of the Hebrew text. The concept that one angel cannot fulfill two missions is found in rabbinic literature (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 50.2, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Gen. 18:3, Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 25). Philo (De Abramo 28.142) also notes that of the three visitors only two went on to Sodom; he then (28.143) asserts that the third was, in his opinion, “the truly Existent, who held it fitting that He should be present to give good gifts by His own agency, but should leave the execution of the opposite of good entirely in the hands of His potencies acting as His ministers.”

Josephus’ portrayal of Abraham as showing pity for his friends the Sodomites (cf. Ant. 1.176) answers the charge repeated by Tacitus (Hist. 5.5.1) that Jews feel only hate and enmity toward anyone who is not of their religion. The fact that the Sodomites are depicted in even blacker colors in Josephus than in the Bible glorifies still more the figure of Abraham for his pity toward them and for his praying in their behalf. This Divine statement resolves the question left unanswered in Gen. 18:32 as to whether there are ten good men in the city of Sodom. To present, as does Gen. 18:16-33, a picture of Abraham bargaining with God might appear degrading both to the lofty, just character of God and to the noble character of Abraham. Josephus here omits the anthropomorphic details of the bargaining process (Gen. 18:23-32) and instead says merely that Abraham, in sympathy with the Sodomites, implored God not to destroy the good along with the wicked. Thus, as Loader (1990:102) remarks, with the simple statement that Abraham kept quiet, Josephus neutralizes the daring tenacity with that the Abraham of Genesis 18 keeps on talking back to God.

The motif of Abraham’s hospitality is also found in Philo (De Abramo 23.114). The rabbis similarly state that Lot learned from Abraham (Pirqe de Rabbi-Eliezer 25, Midrash Gen. Rabbah 50.4, and Tanḥuma Vayera 15 [ed. Buber, p. 93], cited by Sandmel [1956:68, n. 298] and Rappaport [105, n. 97]). The rabbis, as Sandmel (1956:68, n. 294) adds, remark that the angels accepted Abraham’s offer of hospitality immediately, whereas they had to be persuaded by Lot (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 50.4). Josephus, on the other hand, omits the biblical statement (Gen. 19:2) that at first the angels declined to accept Lot’s hospitality and only later accepted it after being urged by Lot; but the rabbis speak in general terms of hospitality, whereas Josephus specifies that Lot learned to be φιλάνθρωπος, presumably in answer to those who called the Jews misanthropic. Lot is here depicted as having learned from Abraham to be hospitable and most kindly; so also Tanḥuma Vayera 15 (ed. Buber, p. 93), Midrash Gen. Rabbah 50.4, Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 25; and this adds to the status of his teacher Abraham, who is further aggrandized by Lot’s championing of moderation (σωφρονεῖν) in his advice to the Sodomites (Ant. 1.201).

In Gen. 19:11 it is the angels who strike the Sodomites with blindness, whereas here it is God Himself who does so. Lot’s stature is diminished in the Bible by his hesitating to leave Sodom even after God’s warning (Gen. 19:16), but Josephus omits this detail. There would appear to be an embarrassing contradiction in the biblical narrative, where we are initially told (Gen. 19:8) that Lot magnanimously offered the Sodomites his own daughters “who have not known man” so that they might not molest the strangers who had come to visit him and with whom they were seeking to have homosexual relations. A few verses later (Gen. 19:14), however, we are told that Lot spoke to his sons-in-law “who have married his daughters,” urging them to leave, since God is about to destroy the city. The LXX has the corresponding γαμβρούς, “sons-in-law,” and clearly states that they had married Lot’s daughters (τοὺς εἰληφότας τὰς θυγατέρας αὐτοῦ). Josephus (Ant. 1.202) solves the problem by speaking not of Lot’s sons-in-law but rather of his daughters’ suitors (μνηστῆρες). One midrashic solution (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 50.9, Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 25) is to understand that Lot actually had 4 daughters, 2 of them married and 2 of them betrothed. Jerome, in his Vulgate on Gen. 19:14, reads qui accepturi erant, “who were about to marry,” thus adopting the rabbinic solution; Ephraem Syrus, 1.135, follows Josephus’ solution. Josephus omits Lot’s arguments with the angels about his place of refuge (Gen. 19:17-22), since such statements would appear to indicate a lack of faith.

In Gen. 19:24 we read that God rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire out of heaven. The notion of brimstone and fire falling from heaven would seem to stretch the reader’s credulity. Josephus here, accordingly, has God hurl his thunderbolt (βέλος) upon the cities in a way reminiscent of Zeus’ punishments. Indeed, the same word is used of Zeus’ thunderbolt in Pindar (Nem. 10.8) and in Aeschylus (Pr. 360, 373, 917); the same word is also used in connection with the darts hurled by Apollo (Hom., Il. 1.51-52) against the Achaeans. Thackeray (ad loc.) remarks that Josephus’ phrase recalls Herodotus 4.79: “The god hurled a thunderbolt upon this [house], and it was utterly destroyed by fire.” War 4.483-85. There (War 4.484) Josephus remarks that vestiges of the divine fire and faint traces of five cities are still visible and that one may see ashes reproduced in the fruits that, though seemingly edible, dissolve into smoke and ashes upon being plucked. Philo, De Abramo 27.140 and De Vita Mosis 2.10.56, remarks that “to this day” the flame that consumed Sodom goes on burning. Abraham’s faith is contrasted by implication with the lack of it shown by Lot’s wife, who, we are told here in one of Josephus’ additions to the Bible (Gen. 19:26), despite God’s express prohibition, continually turned around in her flight from Sodom because she, like a Jewish Pandora, was curious (πολυπραγμονοῦσα, “was meddlesome”) to observe its fate. Her curiosity is also implied in Luke 17:32. That Lot’s wife was turned into a pillar of salt is Josephus’ way of warning that one must not meddle in God’s business, even as Abram at the binding of Isaac accepts God’s command and does not question His motives. The biblical statement (Gen. 19:26) that Lot’s wife became a pillar of salt when she looked back as Sodom was being destroyed would certainly have seemed incredible to a rationalistic reader. Of course, Josephus might have omitted altogether her turning into a pillar of salt, but in this case he chose to answer the doubts of readers by asserting here that he himself had seen this pillar, that was still extant in his day. So also Wis. 10.7. The rabbis (Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 25, Fragmentary Targum on Gen. 19:26) also note that the pillar of salt still stands and declare (Berakot 54a) that one who sees the pillar of salt of Lot’s wife should give thanksgiving and praise to God.

The reader of the Bible may well wonder why, if Lot had risked his life by fighting as an ally of the Sodomites (Ant. 1.175) and was so hospitable toward strangers that he was ready to offer the Sodomites his two daughters in order to save the strangers from them (Gen. 19:8), it is only because God remembered Abraham that He rescued Lot (Gen. 19:29). Once again Josephus here resolves the problem by simply omitting the statement that God rescued Lot because he remembered Abraham. Perhaps the omission here of the biblical statement (Gen. 19:27-28) that Abraham looked on at Sodom’s destruction is due to Josephus’ desire to avoid the charge that in this respect Abraham was no better than Lot’s wife and that God was unfair in punishing one but not the other. In Gen. 19:15-22 there is a long conversation in that Lot and his family linger, and Lot himself expresses fear that he will die, thus showing lack of faith. There is a further problem in that there is a sudden shift within the same verse (Gen. 19:17) from mention of the angels in the plural to the singular, “He said,” implying a reference to God in Lot’s reply, “No so, my Lord” (Gen. 19:18). Josephus here avoids this problem by omitting the dialogue with the angels completely and stating merely that Lot himself escaped with his daughters. Josephus here sees a connection between ‮צוער‬‎ and ‮צער‬‎, “small.” So also Targum Onqelos and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Gen. 19:20.

The rabbinic tradition also reports that Lot’s daughters thought that the entire world had been destroyed (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 51.8, Pesiqta Rabbati 42 [ed. Friedmann, p. 176]) as at the time of the Flood. The scene in that Lot’s daughters have intercourse with their own father (Gen. 19:30-38) is, indeed, an embarrassment, inasmuch as Lot, after all, is the nephew of Abraham, the founder of the Jewish people and inasmuch as one of the sons born of this union, Moab, is the progenitor of Ruth, the ancestress of none other than King David himself. The only excuse offered in the Bible (Gen. 19:31) for the action of the daughters is their belief that there are no other men left in the world. Josephus (Ant. 1.205) presents a better case for Lot himself, adding (Ant. 1.204) that after the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah he was isolated from humanity and that he passed a miserable existence suffering from lack of food. Such details are readily derivable from the Bible (Gen. 19:30) (so Sandmel [1956:69, n. 302]); but they are not cited there, whereas Josephus takes pains to do so. Likewise, Josephus makes a better case for the daughters, stating that they had acted to prevent the extinction of the race. Gen. 19:31 is less explicit. Loader (1990:103), citing Shutt (1961:11-12), says that this testifies to the “careful composition and sustained effort” found in Josephus’ work and that is an ideal example of Josephus’ philosophy of history (Ant. 1.23-24), that humans should strive to participate in God’s perfect virtue and that God punishes those who do not accept this. Significantly, Josephus here departs from the book of Jubilees, that elsewhere is a source for him and that bitterly attacks Lot and his daughters (Jub. 16:8) for committing a sin “such as had not been on the earth since the days of Adam till his time.” He omits the unsavory details of the biblical narrative whereby the daughters get their father drunk on successive nights, as well as the conversation between them. The notion that Lot’s daughters thought that the whole world had been destroyed is echoed also in rabbinic passages, as well as in Origen, Jerome, Ambrose, and Ephraem, cited by Rappaport (106, n. 101), Rahmer (1861:30), and Ginzberg (1925:5:243, n. 188). Indeed, according to Nazir 23b, Baba Qamma 38b, Midrash Gen. Rabbah 51.8-10, Midrash Ruth Rabbah 5.14, and Pesiqta Rabbati 42 (ed. Friedmann, p. 176), the daughters of Lot performed a God-fearing deed, even a special mitzvah. But other rabbinic passages (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 51.9 and Midrash Num. Rabbah 20.23) and Jub. 16:8 regard the act as one of deliberate lewdness (Rappaport, 107, n. 101). Aptowitzer (1927), cited by Rappaport (107, n. 101), presents the rather far-fetched conjecture that the debate among the rabbis on the guilt of Lot’s daughters reflects a controversy between the anti-Hasmoneans, who were partisans of David, descended from Lot’s son Moab through Ruth, and their Hasmonean opponents. Christian writers, according to this view, who were likewise interested in Jesus’ unblemished descent from David, attempted to elevate the stature of Lot and his daughters (2 Pet. 2:7; Clem., Ep. 11.1, etc.). We would, however, have to explain why Josephus, who was himself descended from the Hasmoneans (Life 2), should have sought to diminish the guilt of Lot’s daughters. Josephus totally omits the tale of Lot’s drunkenness (Gen. 19:32-33), that he obviously regarded as unseemly and as reflecting poorly on his adoptive father Abraham. The etymologies of the name of Moab and Amman are not found in the Hebrew text (Gen. 19:37-38), but they are almost identical with those found in the LXX, that read “from my father” and “son of my race,” respectively.

See Ant. 1.145.

The reader of the Bible may also wonder at the seeming duplication of the incident with Pharaoh and Sarai (Gen. 12:10-20) and the incident with Abimelech and Sarah (Gen. 20:1-13), in both of that a king becomes enamored of Sarai, and Sarai is said to be Abram’s sister. Josephus (Ant. 1.207) anticipates this objection by stating quite openly, in connection with the second episode, that Abraham here practiced the same dissimulation as before, and from the same motive, namely fear. Abimelech, king of Gerar, is depicted by Josephus less favorably than Pharaoh, though with similar romantic additions. Thus, whereas the Bible (Gen. 20:2) says simply that Abimelech sent and took Sarah, Josephus speaks of him here as being in love (ἐρασθείς) with her and prepared to seduce (φθείρω, “destroy,” “corrupt,” “lure”) her. In contrast to Pharaoh, who intends an honorable marriage with her (Ant. 1.165) rather than to outrage her in a transport of passion (ἐπιθυμίαν), Abimelech has a lustful intent (ἐπιθυμίας).

At this point the Bible (Gen. 20:3-4) says nothing about Abimelech being beset by disease, and it is only later (Gen. 20:17) that we read that God healed Abimelech. Apparently, Josephus has fused this account with that of Pharaoh (Gen. 12:17), who was beset with great plagues because he had taken Sarah. Gen. 20:4 specifically says that Abimelech had not approached Sarah; but Josephus here says that he had lustful intentions toward her and was restrained only by the disease inflicted upon him by God. The role of God is de-emphasized in this story of Abimelech and Sarah. In Gen. 20:3 it is God who warns Abimelech that he faces death; here Josephus, the rationalist, introduces physicians who dramatically despair of his life. This paraphrase perhaps was not fashioned quickly and somewhat carelessly, as alleged by Sandmel (1956:70, n. 306), but rather seems a deliberate attempt by Josephus to diminish God’s role and to present the story in naturalistic terms. Whereas the LXX (Gen. 20:4) uses the word ἥψατο to indicate that Abimelech had not gone near Sarah, Josephus here uses the word ὑβρίζειν (“to do violence”). Philo (De Abramo 19.98) uses a compound of this verb in his parallel account of Pharaoh and Sarah, indicating that Pharaoh returned Sarah to Abraham untouched by ὕβρις. As in the case of Pharaoh, God sends a grievous disease as punishment, but this disease is inflicted directly on Abimelech, thus focusing attention on him vis-à-vis Sarah, whereas in the Bible (Gen. 20:17) it is sent upon his wife and maidservants. Josephus omits God’s statement to Abimelech in the Bible (Gen. 20:7) that Abraham is a prophet who will bring about the king’s cure through his prayer. One can readily see, from such apologetic works as the Letter of Aristeas and Josephus’ own Against Apion, that Jews such as Josephus were particularly proud of the fact that non-Jews such as Aristotle, Theophrastus, Megasthenes, and Ptolemy Philadelphus acknowledged the wisdom of God, the Torah, and the Jews. Josephus exemplifies this trend in the Antiquities also; thus, whereas in Gen. 20:4-7 Abimelech complains to God that he is innocent and God answers by acknowledging his innocence and by instructing him what to do, Josephus (Ant. 1.208) has Abimelech, a non-Jewish king, acknowledge the power of God by having him tell his gentile friends that it was God who had brought the disease upon him to vindicate the rights of his guest. Josephus, ever concerned with apologetics, thus gives credit to the gentile Abimelech, who then notes that God had promised to show himself gracious thereafter, once Abraham had been reassured concerning his wife.

There is greater romantic interest in the episode as Josephus tells it, since Abimelech, in his self-defense, claims that he was unaware of the identity of Sarah and speaks to the husband, Abraham, of the abducted woman, rather than to God (Gen. 20:4). While it is true that Gen. 20:4 states that Abimelech had not come near her, this is a parenthetical remark of the narrator, whereas in Josephus there is much more emphasis on Abimelech’s role, since it is Abimelech who directly assures Abraham and offers God and Sarah’s conscience as witnesses that he has not violated her. For apologetic reasons Josephus omits the biblical passage (Gen. 20:9) in that Abimelech bitterly remonstrates with Abraham for deceiving him. Cf. Ant. 1.165, where Josephus, in an addition to Gen. 12:18, protects the reputation of Pharaoh by saying that he had actually intended to marry Sarah rather than to give way to lust for her.

In Josephus the figure of the merciful Abraham looms larger, and it is Abimelech who directly begs him to act indulgently toward him and to win God’s favor. Abraham then shows his devotion and kindness to Abimelech, for, according to Josephus’ version here, in contrast to the biblical one (Gen. 20:14-15), where Abimelech invites Abraham to stay, Abimelech gives him a choice of leaving or staying, and Abraham chooses to stay to show that he was in no way responsible for the king’s illness but was eager for his recovery (Ant. 1.211).

According to Josephus (Ant. 1.151), Sarai was Abraham’s niece, whereas, according to the Bible (Gen. 20:12) she was Abraham’s half-sister, the daughter of his father. Ginzberg (1976:342) notes that the view that Sarai was Abram’s niece is also found among the rabbis and the Church Fathers; cf. Ginzberg (1900: 1:98-100). The word ἀδελφή, however, as Thackeray notes (ad loc.) may be used in the sense of kinswoman (see Job 42:11). In the Bible there would seem to be a gratuitous insult to non-Jews in Abraham’s remark (Gen. 20:11), justifying his lying to Abimelech about his relationship to Sarah, that he thought that surely the fear of God was lacking in that place. In his interpretation of the biblical command (Exod. 22:27) forbidding derision of or blaspheming the gods recognized by others, Josephus elsewhere (Apion 2.237) acknowledges that other nations are God-fearing, since the reason that he gives for this injunction is that the Jews respect the very word “God.” Here Josephus’ apology (Ant. 1.211) for Abram in his parallel to Gen. 20:11 is in much more general terms: without such dissimulation he tells Abimelech that he would have felt it unsafe to sojourn in the country, i.e., his Abraham says nothing about the fear of God being absent in that place.

Hebrew ‮באר שׁבע‬‎ (Gen. 21:31), LXX φρέαρ ὁρκισμοῦ, “well of administration of an oath,” Josephus Βηρσουβαί. Here Josephus combines two episodes involving Abimelech (Gen. 20 and 21:22-33) that are separated in the Bible by the account of the birth of Isaac and the expulsion of Hagar and Ishmael (Gen. 21:.1-20). Josephus here introduces a romantic aspect into the covenant between Abimelech and Abraham by having it entered into after the episode of Abimelech and Sarah rather than, as in the Bible, after a dispute concerning a well (Gen. 21:22-34), that he omits altogether. In his eagerness not to give offence to non-Jews, Josephus here omits the apparent sarcasm in Abimelech’s obscure and possibly compromising remark to Sarah (Gen. 20:16) that he has given her “brother” a thousand pieces of silver, that is to serve as “a covering of the eyes” for all who are with Sarah. He likewise here omits what might be regarded as a crude compensation by Abimelech for the injury to Sarah cited in Gen. 20:16, where the sense seems to be that Sarah’s honor has now been completely rehabilitated (so Skinner [1910:319]).

So also Apollonius Molon (ap. Eus., Pr. Ev. 9.19.3) notes that the name of the son of Abraham, when translated into Greek, signifies Γέλως, that is, laughter. Philo (De Abramo 36.201, De Mutatione Nominum 45.261) gives a very positive association to the name of Isaac, noting that it signifies the feeling that he raised in Abraham, “that feeling is most surely joy.” Ant. 1.198. There, however, it is not God but one of the angelic visitors who makes the prediction. Josephus seems here to interpret Gen. 18:10 as ascribing the prediction to God. Josephus strives to diminish the lack of faith shown by Sarah in the matter by remarking that she smiled (μειδιασάσης) when she heard the prediction of the angels that she would become a mother, whereas Gen. 18:12 says that she laughed within herself, and similarly the LXX states that she laughed (ἐγέλασε). When, consequently, Josephus gives the meaning of the name Isaac (Ant. 1.213), he says, to be sure, that it means “laughter” (γέλωτα), but explains that the name was given because Sarah had smiled (μειδιᾶσαι) when God said that she would give birth. Finally, wishing to omit all reference to Sarah’s laughter, he passes over (Ant. 1.213) Sarah’s statement (Gen. 21:6), after she gives birth to Isaac, that God had made laughter (i.e. joy) for her, and that everyone who will hear of her giving birth to Isaac would laugh (i.e. rejoice) on account of her.

Lit., “a child is born of the two of them in the last year.” According to Ant. 1.197, the angelic visitors tell Abraham that they would return in the future and find that she had become a mother. As Nodet (ad loc.) remarks, the literal sense here, namely that the child was born in the last year of the life of the two of them, seems impossible, since both Abraham and Sarah lived for many years thereafter. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Gen. 18.10, 14, renders: “I shall return to you in the coming year, and you will still be alive.” Thackeray (ad loc.) renders: “The child was born in the year after [that prediction].” Franxman (153), however, objects that this would indicate that Sarah was 91 and Abraham 101 at the time of Isaac’s birth, whereas according to Gen. 21:5 Abram was 100 at the time of Isaac’s birth. Abraham is prompt in obeying God’s commands; and so in restating the contents of Gen. 21:4, that Abraham circumcised Isaac when he was eight days old, Josephus adds here that Abraham and Sarah did so promptly (εὐθύς). Millar (1993:27) notes that Graeco-Roman observers applied the term “Arab” to a variety of peoples in the vast area between northern Mesopotamia and the Arabian peninsula, while being aware of the many different tribal names used by them. Nor did they bother to construct a common descent for all Arabs. Eph‘al (1976:225) notes that while the term “Arab” is used in the Bible to denote nomadic individuals or peoples, nowhere do we find there an explicit identification of the Ishmaelites and Arabs. Therefore, as Millar (1993:32) remarks, Josephus’ introduction of the equation here is a deliberate editorial decision on his part. The descent of the Arabs from Abraham is also to be found in Apollonius Molon (ap. Eus., Pr. Ev. 9.19.2). In Jub. 20:11-13 we read that the descendants of Ishmael and Keturah mingled with each other and that their name was called Arabs and Ishmaelites. Presumably in the projected work, that Josephus did not live to write, on customs and causes; see Ant. 1.25 and list of references cited there.

Inasmuch as Sarah was so closely identified with Abraham, and since Abraham so loyally listened to Sarah, one might well criticize Abraham as well as Sarah for the latter’s strong opposition to Ishmael. In Gen. 21:9 Sarah’s reason for asking Abraham to banish Hagar and the latter’s son Ishmael is that she had seen Ishmael making sport (‮מצחק‬‎), that the rabbis interpret to mean that he was engaging in one or another of the three unpardonable sins of idolatry, incest, or intended murder of Isaac. See Tosefta Soṭah 6:6 and Rashi’s commentary ad loc. The picture of Ishmael making sport of Isaac is found also in Jerome (see Rahmer [1861:311]). Since this might be construed as a not-so-veiled attack upon non-Jews generally, Josephus here gives a totally different and very plausible reason for Sarah’s opposition to Ishmael, namely, that he might do injury to her son Isaac after Abraham’s death. On Ishmael’s persecution of Isaac see Gal. 4:29, as well as Midrash Deut. Rabbah 4.5 and parallels, cited by Ginzberg (1925:5:246 n.211). In defense of Sarah, we are told that at first, when Ishmael was born, she cherished him with an affection no less than if he had been her own son, seeing that he was being trained as heir to the chieftaincy.

Sarah is here depicted as not so contemptuous of Hagar’s servile status and as not so harsh in the penalty that she recommends for Hagar and Ishmael. In Gen. 21:10 she tells Abraham “to cast out the bondwoman and her son.” In Josephus she does not speak of Hagar as a bondwoman. And, indeed, when she decides that Ishmael must be sent away, she seeks here merely to have him, in the fashion familiar from Greek history, found a colony (εἰς ἀποικίαν). When, after the birth of Isaac, Sarah (Gen. 21:10) urges her husband to cast out Hagar and Ishmael because of Ishmael’s behavior, the Bible (Gen. 21:11) reports that this request was very grievous in Abraham’s eyes. Josephus here stresses Abraham’s compassion much more, stating that at first he actually refused to consent to Sarah’s proposal (though Josephus has made this itself more reasonable), thinking that nothing could be more brutal (ὠμότατον, “most savage,” “fierce,” “cruel,” “harsh”) than to send off an infant child (νήπιον) with a woman destitute of the necessities of life. The rabbis (Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 30) likewise note the difficulty of this decision, remarking that it was the most severe trial of Abram up to that point. The fact that Abraham refers here to Ishmael as an infant child (νήπιον) and that Josephus adds (Ant. 1.217) that Ishmael was not yet able to go alone, when actually he is an adolescent at least 16 years old, underscores Abraham’s concern for Ishmael. Abraham was 86 when Ishmael was born to him (Gen. 16:16), and he was 100 when Isaac was born (Gen. 21:5). Sarah’s request to banish Ishmael occurred after Isaac was weaned, that, according to tradition (Mishnah Giṭṭin 7:6, 75b; Ketubot 60b, Yebamot 43a), would take place after the child had lived 24 months. Josephus omits mention of Isaac’s weaning as the occasion for Sarah’s demand, whereas in the Bible the incident of Sarah’s attempt to banish Hagar and Ishmael is recounted (Gen. 21:9) immediately after the mention of the weaning of Isaac (Gen. 21:8). According to Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 30, Ishmael was 24; according to Midrash Gen. Rabbah 53 he was 27.

Niehoff (1996:34-35) notes that whereas other exegetes, such as Heb. 11:17-18 and Jerusalem Ta‘anit 2.4.65d, struggle with the apparent contradiction between God’s assurance (Gen. 21:12) that Abraham’s descendants will be named through Isaac and God’s instruction to sacrifice Isaac, Josephus is the only exegete who solves the problem by simply omitting God’s assurance here and in Gen. 12:2.

There is a striking parallel between the scene in that the fleeing Hagar places her child Ishmael, who is at his last gasp, under a tree and wanders away so that he will not die in her presence, and the scene in Euripides’ Hercules Furens 323-24, in that Amphitryon asks that he and his wife be slain so that at their last gasp they may not see their children calling upon their mother (ὡς μὴ τεκν’ εἰσίδωμεν ψυχορραγοῦντα καὶ καλοῦντα μητέρα). In particular, we may note the presence of the same rare word, in almost the same form, ψυχορραγοῦν in Josephus, ψυχορραγοῦντα in Euripides, “lying at the last gasp,” in both passages. The play Hercules Furens seems to have been a favorite of Josephus (Thackeray [108 n.a], Thackeray [1929: 117-18]), or, if we accept Thackeray’s theory, of Josephus’ assistant. To soften the charge that might have been made against Abraham for cruelty toward Hagar and Ishmael, Josephus (Ant. 1.218) says nothing of their losing their way (contrast Gen. 21:14). Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Gen. 21:14 depicts this even more vividly, as Sandmel (1956:71, n. 317) has remarked, than does the biblical text. That moving scene (Gen. 21:16) in that Hagar lifts up her voice and weeps is omitted by Josephus (Ant. 1.218), since it would apparently cast an unfavorable reflection on Abraham as pitiless.

The miracle whereby, when Hagar and Ishmael are devoid of water, God opens her eyes so that she sees a well (Gen. 21:19), is lessened and to a great degree rationalized here, in that it is not God Himself who opens her eyes but an angel who tells her of a spring close by, just as shepherds are introduced who through their care help her escape her miseries. Josephus seems to have in mind the wording of Gen. 16:7, where, we are told, an angel found Hagar near a fountain of water. Sarah’s harshness is lessened by the omission (Ant. 1.219) of Ishmael’s weeping or prayer (Gen. 21:17). Whereas in the Bible (Gen. 21:18) an angel reassures Hagar when she has been banished by Abraham by telling her that God will make her child into a great nation, Josephus here very carefully has the angel tell her vaguely that great blessings await her through the preservation of her child. Josephus was aware of the tradition that Ishmael was the ancestor of the Arabs (Ant. 1.221). He notes that the sons of Ishmael occupied the huge expanse of territory known as Nabatea between the Euphrates and the Red Sea; and hence he realized that the biblical promise to Hagar would indicate that the Arabs would become a great—and obviously independent—nation. But this could happen only if the province of Arabia revolted against the Roman Empire, a situation that Josephus, the loyal Roman citizen, could hardly countenance. The phrase that Hagar met some shepherds is Josephus’ addition.

On the word that Josephus uses here, γύναιον, see Ant. 1.257, 2.210, and 2.225, 3.6, 4.148, 5.136, 5.138, 5.142, 5.143, 5.276, and 5.333. Cohen (1963-64:316) notes that in Ant. 1-5 the word always indicates a young wife with tenderness or kindred emotions, but that it does not appear with this connotation in Books 6-10, where it is simply a synonym for γυνή in the sense of a witch (Ant. 6.329, 330, 332) or an old woman (Ant. 7.182, 184) or a woman vehemently disapproved of (Ant. 8.318). It is used in Ant. 14.354 with reference to wretched women leading their infants with tears. In Ant. 14.369 it has no particular nuance. In Ant. 19.129 it refers to silly women who, together with children, slaves, and some soldiers, refuse to believe that Gaius had been assassinated. Cohen concludes that the particular occurrences of the word may be ascribed to stylistic idiosyncracies rather than to the needs of the subject matter at hand. Millar (l993:34) remarks that while Josephus never explicitly derives his identification of the descendants of Ishmael as Arabs from the name of this son of Ishmael, he does identify Nabatene as the land of the Arabs (Ant. 1.221). Ancient writers might have believed such a connection even if modern philologians do not. Hebrew ‮נבית‬‎ (Gen. 25:13-15) (LXX Ναβαιώθ, Josephus Νεβαιώθης), ‮קדר‬‎ (LXX Κηδάρ, Josephus Κήδαρος), ‮אדבאל‬‎ (LXX Ναβδεήλ, Josephus Ἀβδέηλος), ‮מבשׂם‬‎ (LXX Μασσάμ, Josephus Μάσσαμος), ‮משׁמע‬‎ (LXX Μασμά, Josephus Μάσμασος), ‮דומה‬‎ (LXX Ἰδουμά, Josephus Ἰδουμᾶς), ‮משׂא‬‎ (LXX Μασσῆ, Josephus Μάσμησος), ‮חדד‬‎ (LXX Χοδδάδ, Josephus Χόδαμος), ‮תימא‬‎ (LXX Θαιμάν, Josephus Θαίμανος), ‮יטור‬‎ (LXX Ἰετούρ, Josephus Ἰετοῦρος), ‮נפישׁ‬‎ (LXX Ναφές, Josephus Νάφαισος), ‮קדמה‬‎ (LXX Κεδμά, Josephus Κάδμασος).

Also known as the Red Sea. According to the Bible (Gen. 25:18) the descendants of Ishmael dwelt in the territory from Havilah (presumably southern Arabia [see Ant.1.147]) to Shur (perhaps the northern part of the Sinai Desert), “that is opposite Egypt in the direction of Assyria.” The Nabateans were a Semitic people who established a kingdom in the territory of Edom in Transjordan that centered at Petra. Since they have left no written records, we rely on such late sources as the fourth-century B.C.E. Hieronymus of Cardia (Historia Diadochorum, ap. Paradoxographus Florentinus, De Aquis Mirabilibus 33; ap. Diod. 19.95), the second-century B.C.E. 1 Macc. (5:25, 9:35), the first-century B.C.E. Diodorus (2.48.6, 3.43.5), the first-century B.C.E. Strabo (Geog. 16.2.34.760), the second-century C.E. Appian (Mith. 106.498), the second-century C.E. Apuleius (Flor. 6), and especially Josephus for our information about them. The attempt here by Josephus to connect them with Nebaioth has been rejected by most scholars on linguistic grounds. See Hammond (1973) and Bowersock (1983). The association of ἀρετή with Abraham is so close in this passage that Thackeray (ad loc.) remarks: “One cannot resist the suspicion of a preposterous connexion of the name Arab with the first two letters of ἀρετή and of Ἄβραμος.”

Josephus omits the passage (Gen. 21:22-33) concerning the agreement reached between Abraham and Abimelech, perhaps because it would detract from the centrality of the trial of Abraham that follows. In Josephus’ version the required sacrifice is all the greater inasmuch as Isaac is not merely loved but passionately loved (ὑπερηγάπα) (Ant. 1.222). The same verb is used with similar effectiveness in the description of the extraordinary enchantment that Pharaoh’s daughter experienced at the size and beauty of the little child, Moses, in the basket on the Nile River (Ant. 2.224). Josephus’ reading of μονογενῆ would seem to indicate that he was rendering the Hebrew ‮יחידך‬‎, “[your only one” (Gen. 22:2), rather than the LXX’s ἀγαπητόν, “beloved.” It is interesting that whereas the LXX render ‮יחידך‬‎ by ἀγαπητόν (“beloved”), presumably because the translators were troubled by the fact that Isaac was not, in fact, Abraham’s only son, Josephus, who generally follows the LXX in this portion of Scripture, has μονογενῆ (“only-born”), to emphasize that Isaac was, for practical purposes, in terms of his carrying on the family tradition, Abraham’s only son. Interestingly, Philo (De Abramo 32.168), combining both the Hebrew and LXX versions, speaks of Isaac as Abraham’s only (μόνος) and beloved (ἀγαπητός) son. It is significant that in the biblical episode most closely parallel to the readiness of Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, namely Jephthah’s sacrifice of his daughter, she is termed (Judg. 11:34) an only child (‮יחידה‬‎), as indeed she is; and there the LXX renders this word by μονογενής, as does Josephus (Ant. 5.264), since there is no problem about there being another child in Jephthah’s family, whereas Abraham did have another son, Ishmael. The same language of great love (ὑπερηγάπησε) is used by Josephus in his description (Ant. 12.195) of Joseph the Tobiad’s love for his son Hyrcanus, “as if he were his only (μόνου) son,” a phrase similar to that used of Isaac (μονογενῆ, “only-born,” Ant. 1.222). Josephus has a similar usage of μονογενής in the sense of “favorite,” “best loved,” or “one who has no equal,” in his description (Ant. 20.20) of Izates, who was not an only child but was treated as if he were. Cf. Winter (1953:335-65). Although the rabbis (e.g. Sifre Deut. 313) also remark on Abraham’s overwhelming love for Isaac, Josephus carefully explains that Abraham’s great love for his son was due to the fact that Isaac was born (Ant. 1.222) on the threshold of his father’s old age (ἐπὶ γήρως οὐδῷ), using a phrase very familiar to any reader of Homer or Hesiod, whose combined writings constituted, in effect, the Bible of the Greeks. In Homer the phrase is particularly associated with the aged Priam, that most pathetic of all characters, who addresses his son Hector before the latter goes off to do battle with Achilles that will bring about his death. While Priam himself is still “on the threshold of old age” (ἐπὶ γήραος οὐδῷ, Il. 22.60), his sons have perished before him. Homer (Il. 24.487) uses the same phrase when Priam addresses Achilles, begging him to return his son Hector’s body, reminding him that Achilles’ father was as old as he (Priam), “on the deadly threshold of old age” (ὀλοῷ ἐπὶ γήραος οὐδῷ). That this phrase (ἐπὶ γήραος οὐδῷ) is a Homeric favorite can be seen from the fact that it is found as well in Od. 15.246 and 23.212. Similarly, Odysseus, speaking as a stranger to the faithful swineherd Eumaeus, asks about his (Odysseus’) father Laertes, whom he had left behind twenty years earlier already on the threshold of old age (Od. 15.348). The proverbial nature of the expression “upon the threshold of old age,” as the height of the pathetic in life, is seen in the passage in Herodotus 3.14, where he tells how Psammenitus, king of Egypt, did not weep when he saw his daughter degraded and his son going to his death, but broke into tears when he saw one of his companions who had lost his possessions and was begging “on the threshold of old age” (ἐπὶ γήραος οὐδῷ). The familiarity of the expression is also seen in the way in that a still middle-aged Socrates, speaking to the old man Cephalus at the beginning of Plato’s Rep. 1.328E, says, “I would gladly learn of you what you think of this thing, now that your time has come to it, the thing the poets mean by ‘on the threshold of old age (ἐπὶ γήραος οὐδῷ).” That this is a stock description of a helpless person is clear from the fourth century B.C.E. Lycurgus (Leoc. 40), who speaks of “hurrying about helplessly on the threshold of old age (ἐπὶ γήρως οὐδῷ).” That thesaurus of popular sayings, Menander (ca. 342-291 B.C.E.) (fragment 671, Kock), states that “it is most pitiable when on the threshold of old age (ἐπὶ γήρως οὐδῷ) just character has received the shock of an unjust fortune.” Finally, Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Ant. Rom. 8.35.3), in describing the evils of war, mentions that parents upon the threshold of old age become slaves instead of free men. Schalit (2:39, 250) declares that the expression was certainly due to Josephus’ Greek assistants; but Josephus’ statement (Apion 1.50) that he had fellow-workers for the sake of the Greek style occurs in his discussion of the composition of the Judean War. The very fact that the phrase is found also in Dionysius of Halicarnassus, who lived at the end of the first century B.C.E., would indicate that this had become characteristic of Greek works by this time, not that it was the work of a special assistant. Apparently, to judge from Philo’s comment (De Abramo 33.178), there were “quarrelsome critics” who did not consider Abraham’s action in connection with the sacrifice of Isaac (Ant. 1.222-36) to be great or wonderful; and Josephus is therefore particularly concerned to stress Abram’s faith during the episode. So also Philo (De Abramo 32.168), who, like Josephus, in his introduction to the account of the ‘Aqedah, describes Isaac as a child who was excellent of soul (τὴν ψυχὴν ἄριστος) and who showed perfection of virtues beyond his years. Josephus’ use of the word θεραπεία (Ant. 1.222) in emphasizing Isaac’s filial obedience may well have brought to the mind of his readers who admired Plato a passage in the Leg. 10.886C6-9, where Plato is critical of the traditional theogony of the Greeks on the ground that it depicts the gods as not showing proper attendance (θεραπείας) on and respect (τιμάς) for parents. The Stoics, too, emphasized this quality, as we see in Epictetus’ remark (Ench. 30): “Is a certain man your father? In this are implied taking care of him, submitting to him in all things, receiving his reproaches.” Significantly, the very first quality of Isaac’s character that Josephus sees fit to mention here is precisely the one, veneration for one’s ancestors (τῆς...τῶν πατέρων θεραπείας), that both his Hellenistic Greek and his Roman audience would have appreciated the most. The word θεραπεία, that Josephus uses here, implies service, attendance, attention, favor, esteem, veneration, respect, homage, and reverence. Thackeray (ad loc.) renders it as “filial obedience,” but the fact that Josephus uses the plural, πατέρων, indicates that he has in mind Isaac’s reverence for his ancestors generally and not merely for his father. Le Déaut (1963:186) comments on the horror that an account such as this of Abraham’s readiness to sacrifice his own son would have aroused in his pagan readers. Theophrastus (ap. Porph., Abst. 2.26), in a passage otherwise very complimentary to the Jews, since he calls them philosophers by race, remarks that “the Syrians, of whom the Jews constitute a part, also now sacrifice live victims according to their old mode of sacrifice; if one ordered us to sacrifice in the same way we would have recoiled from the entire business.” Indeed, Jaeger (1938:139) thinks that Theophrastus may have had the ‘Aqedah in mind in making such a statement. Josephus was not beyond omitting embarrassing passages, such as the making of the golden calf (Exod. 32; omitted in Ant. 3.99-100); and so if he chose to include this pericope and even to embellish it, he may have done so because of its association with the later site of the Temple and the Paschal sacrifice.

It is ironic that in this brief pericope (Ant. 1.222-36) Josephus on five occasions (1.223, 224, 228, 234, and 236) uses either the noun for happiness (εὐδαιμονία), the verb “to be happy” (εὐδαιμονήσειν), or the adverb “happily” (εὐδαιμόνως), employing it with reference to Abraham’s happiness in the first three instances and to Isaac’s in the latter two, whereas both have been on the very edge of unspeakable disaster. The pathetic irony of the fact that Abraham seeks happiness only through his son, while that son is about to be sacrificed, recalls a similar irony in Euripides’ Iph. Aul., with its comparable situation of a father pondering whether to sacrifice his child. Euripides, in an attempt at irony, has the chorus, upon catching sight of Queen Clytemnestra and her daughter as they approach in a chariot, start their ode (590-91), “ἰώ, ἰώ, μεγάλαι μεγάλων εὐδαιμονίαι” (“Oh, oh! great happiness of the great!”). There is particular irony in the fact that Abraham seeks to leave his son unscathed (ἀπαθῆ, “not suffering,” “unaffected,” “without feeling”); for the word that Josephus uses here (Ant. 1.223) has two very different meanings, both of that are actually applicable to Isaac. One is “unscathed” or “not suffering”; and, indeed, while Isaac will end up unharmed, actually Abraham does set out to sacrifice him. On the other hand, Isaac, in his utter faith, appears “emotionless” only in the sense that he will not object to the sacrifice, while actually welcoming his self-immolation enthusiastically. The word is also effective because, ironically, this is the word that God uses (Ant. 1.46) in describing the life of bliss, “unmolested by all ill,” that Adam and Eve had forfeited because they had disobeyed God’s injunction not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. When Abraham in Josephus (Ant. 1.223) declares his hope that he will leave his son Isaac unscathed (ἀπαθής) when he (Abraham) dies, we should note that the term ἀπαθής and the corresponding noun ἀπάθεια (freedom from emotional disturbance) are particularly common Stoic terms for freedom from emotion. Cf., e.g., Dionysius of Heraclea the Stoic (third century B.C.E.) 3.34; Arrian, Epic. Diss. 4.6.34; Antipater of Tarsus the Stoic 3.109; Philodemus, De Stoicis (Herculanensia Volumina 339.7). Daly (1977:58) is hardly correct in his comment that “worthy of note [in Josephus’ account] is the absence of the Stoic flavor so prominent in Philo and especially 4 Maccabees.” Indeed, for the Stoics to make love (ἔρως) subservient to friendship (φιλοποιίας; cf. Diogenes Laertius 7.130 and Cicero, Tusc. Disp. 4.33.70-4.34.73) was part of the pursuit of ἀπάθεια (Ferguson [1959, 68]); and, in truth, the whole ‘Aqedah, with its emphasis on freedom from emotion, is a prime example of how Josephus makes Jewish values coincide with those of the Stoics. In this primeval Utopia all things that contribute to enjoyment and pleasure spring up spontaneously through God’s providence (πρόνοια, a standard Stoic term), men have long lives, and old age does not soon overtake them (Feldman [1968:341]). Similarly, Isaac himself, in Josephus (Ant. 1.276), using the same two words “happy” and “being unmolested,” prays to God to protect his son Jacob, preserve him from every touch of ill (ἀπαθῆ κακοῦ), and grant him a blissful (εὐδαίμονα) life. Josephus thus presents Abraham as seeking for Isaac the Stoic goal of happiness as identified with ἀπάθεια. Niehoff (1996:35 n. 22) notes that Josephus’ word here for “attained” (ἔτυχεν) implies a certain degree of chance. This minimizes Abraham’s right to the fulfillment of his hopes; rather, according to Josephus, it is through Abraham’s good fortune and God’s good will that he attains his hopes. What follows is, in effect, a drama, in form somewhat like the Book of Job or Euripides’ Hippolytus, commencing with a prologue, in that God appears to Abraham; then comes the play proper, so to speak, containing a dialogue between Abraham and Isaac, and an epilogue, in that God commends Abraham and predicts the glorious future of his descendants. The Bible (Gen. 22:1), as Alexander (1988:115) remarks, begins the narrative of this test of Abraham by God with the vague words “after these things.” Josephus, in typical midrashic fashion, clarifies this by enumerating the benefits that God had bestowed upon Abraham and thus justifies the test. The implication is that having given these benefits to Abraham, God was justified in withdrawing them. In enumerating the benefits that He has bestowed upon Abraham before a theophany Josephus is here following biblical precedent (e.g. Exod. 6:2-4, 20:2).

As Spilsbury (1994:55-56) points out, whereas in the Bible (Gen. 22:1-2) God simply commands Abraham to sacrifice his son, here in Josephus the matter is presented in the form of a transaction. Such a relationship between God and man would be familiar to a Greek or Roman audience. This word, implying by his own hand, is omitted, to be sure, by some of the manuscripts (MSPE), but retained in Niese’s edition. Le Déaut (1963:186-87) emphasizes that this episode is presented by Josephus as a true sacrifice and a cultic act, bathed in a liturgical atmosphere, with scrupulous observance of the rites, such as we find also in the Targumic version of the passage. As Niehoff (1996:35 n. 24) remarks, Josephus here uses the term ἱερεῖον, that normally refers to an animal for sacrifice, rather than the term ὁλοκάρπωσις, that is used by the LXX to refer to a presentation of a whole burnt-offering. That Josephus intended the account of the ‘Aqedah to be not simply the story of Abraham’s faithfulness to God and Isaac’s obedience to God and to his father but also to have contemporary implications is clear from the fact that he here specifies that God told Abram to take his child up to Mount Moriah, whereas the Bible (Gen. 22:2) is more vague in having God tell Abram to offer his sacrifice “upon one of the mountains of that I shall tell you.” The LXX, that is the text that Josephus seems to be following in this pericope for the most part, has “to the lofty land” (εἰς τὴν γῆν τὴν ὑψηλήν), with no mention of Moriah, perhaps because μωρία in Greek means “folly”; Josephus would have been well aware, given the similarity of the words Μώριον and μωρία, of the possible sneer that Abraham’s taking his son to a “mountain of folly” might evoke from Greek readers. (For an example of this type of anti-Jewish attack see Apion’s attempt [Josephus, Apion 2.21-27] to connect the word “Sabbath” with the disease of the groin called σαββώ in Egypt.) The mention of Moriah would appear to indicate that Josephus is here following the Hebrew text (Gen. 22:2), that speaks of the land of Moriah. That Josephus goes out of his way to mention Mount Moriah and to state (Ant. 1.226) that it was there that King David (actually Solomon) later built the Temple seems thus to be deliberate. As a priest who had undoubtedly ministered in the Temple, Josephus emphasizes that it was upon the site of Abram’s supreme act of faith that the Temple was built; this Temple remained the central focus of the Jewish religion until its destruction in the year 70. Josephus stresses the connection of Moriah with the Temple at a later point in his history (Ant. 7.333), where he states that David purchased a site for the Temple in the very place where Abraham had brought his son Isaac to sacrifice him as a burnt offering, and where he refers the reader to his earlier account. Clearly, Josephus intends to have the reader associate the readiness of Abraham to sacrifice his son with the sacrifices that were, in effect, surrogate offerings at the site of the Temple itself. But in his eagerness to avoid theological issues as much as possible, Josephus omits a direct statement causally connecting the ‘Aqedah with these sacrifices. Indeed, in his statement that the Temple was built on the site of the ‘Aqedah, Josephus not only avoids stating that David built the Temple on Mount Moriah because Abraham had bound his son there, but also goes out of his way to say (Ant. 7.333) that “it happened” (συνέβη) that the Temple was built on the very place where the ‘Aqedah had occurred. The rabbis, of course, stress the causal relationship of the two events. See Midrash Gen. Rabbah 55.9, and other citations in Ginzberg (1925:5:253, notes 249 and 253). Daly (1977:58) finds it strange that Josephus makes no association with the Temple sacrifices, not even the Passover; but Josephus’ purpose here is to present an historical narrative. To connect the sacrifice of Isaac with Passover, as do the rabbis (Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael Pisha 11 on Exod. 12:13 [ed. Horovitz, p. 39]) and the Book of Jub. (17:15-16, 18:3, 49:1), would have involved a theological discussion, that Josephus generally avoids. Bib. Ant. 18.5, 32.1-4, like the LXX, omits the fact that the planned sacrifice of Isaac took place in the land of Moriah. On the other hand, the Samaritan text of Gen. 22:2 reads ‮המרַאַה‬‎, that could have been an allusion to Morah, a place near Shechem. Josephus’ elaboration of the ‘Aqedah was perhaps influenced by contemporary events, namely, by the martyrdoms in the days of the Maccabees and by the mass suicides at Jotapata and at Masada. Because he himself had refused to allow his life to be taken at Jotapata (War 3.391), Josephus had to be careful here to explain how God could have commanded the taking of Isaac’s life. In Gen. 22:12 it is only after Abraham has actually put forth his hand to slay Isaac that God declares that He now knows that Abraham fears God, “seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me.”

One would have expected, as we find in the version of Kierkegaard in his Fear and Trembling, that Abraham would have had some doubts about the sacrifice. According to the midrashic sources (Tanḥuma, Shelaḥ 27 [ed. Buber, pp. 72-73]), Abraham did not have any doubts but was merely afraid that he would not stand up to the test the next time. But Josephus is more of an apologist for Jewish individuals, himself and Abraham among others, than of Jewish theology or theodicy; and so we are told bluntly here that Abraham thought that nothing could justify disobedience to God. It is significant that in obeying the divine command Abraham is presented as a kind of Stoic philosopher who reasons that all that befell His favored ones was ordained by His providence (προνοίας, a favorite Stoic word). In his stress on πρόνοια here Josephus may well be answering the Epicureans (the rabbis, too, found the Epicureans abhorrent, as we see from the saying, “Know what to answer the Epicurean” [ʾAbot 2:14]). In the conclusion of his paraphrase of the Book of Daniel, Josephus (Ant. 10.278) significantly states that the fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecy proves “how mistaken are the Epicureans, who exclude Providence (πρόνοιαν) from human life and ... say that the world runs by its own movement without knowing a guide or another’s care.” This whole passage sounds like a quotation from a Stoic handbook. Josephus here adds that Abraham told no one in his household, not even his wife Sarah, about his resolve to sacrifice Isaac, lest they should attempt to hinder him from attending to God’s service. We may note a parallel between Josephus and Euripides’ Phoenissae, where the father refuses to carry out his duty of sacrificing his child. In that case, however, it is the victim, Menoeceus, who conceals from his father the knowledge that he is about to sacrifice himself for his country. To be sure, Philo (De Abramo 32.170) also adds that Abraham told no one of the divine command; but Josephus is unique in giving the reason for this silence and thus stressing Abraham’s virtue. The rabbis, on the other hand, declare either that Abraham told Sarah nothing (Midrash Eccl. Rabbah 9.7) or that he told her that he was taking Isaac with him to study with Shem and Eber (Tanḥuma Vayera 22, Sefer Hayashar 9 [ed. Dan, p. 117]) or that the angel Sammael, while Abraham and Isaac were gone on their mission, told Sarah that Isaac had actually been sacrificed (Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 32). Josephus, however, had a difficult enough time in trying to justify the deceit practiced by Abraham on Pharaoh and on Abimelech in hiding from both of them the fact that Sarah was his wife; he seeks to avoid having Abraham deceive Sarah as well. Although we are dealing here with an argumentum ex silentio, whose tenuous nature should be recognized, Josephus may well have sought to avoid the inevitable equation in this respect of Abraham with Agamemnon, who, according to Euripides (Iph. Aul. 98), attempted to deceive his wife Clytemnestra by writing a letter to her asking her to send their daughter Iphigenia to be married to Achilles, whereas his real intention was to sacrifice her. In contrast to Abraham, who at worst is guilty merely of withholding information from his wife as to what he intends to do to Isaac, and whose silence is excused (Ant. 1.225) by Josephus on the ground that he did not wish to be hindered from carrying out God’s command, Agamemnon resorts to outright lying. Contrast his description of how he acted, when he heard Calchas’ oracle (Iph. Aul. 94-98), with Menelaus’ account (359-60) of Agamemnon’s reaction. The idea of having Clytemnestra brought to Aulis as the dutiful mother and wife, determined to give her daughter a proper wedding, is certainly Euripidean; and Josephus may well be reacting to this motif. Although this contrast between Sarah and Clytmenestra is another argumentum ex silentio, it becomes more plausible when it is coupled with other parallels between Josephus and Euripides’ Iphigenia Aulidensis. Hebrew ‮נעריו‬‎ (Gen. 22:3, “his young men”), LXX παῖδας”), Josephus οἰκετῶν (“servants”). As Alexander (1988:116) notes, Josephus thus explains why Abraham rose early and performed such menial acts as saddling the donkey and chopping the wood, namely to avoid arousing the suspicions of his wife and members of his household.

According to 2 Chr. 3:1, Mt. Moriah, the place where Arauna’s threshing-floor was located and that David had selected for the Temple, is the site of Solomon’s temple. Alexander (1988:115) suggests that Josephus may have deduced the equation of Mount Moriah with the site of the later Temple from the statement (Gen. 22:14): “So Abraham called the name of that place ‘The Lord will provide’; as it is said to this day, ‘On the mount of the Lord it shall be provided.’” The Targum on 2 Chr. 3:1 specifically states that Abraham was ready to sacrifice Isaac on the site of the future Temple. So also Targum on Song of Songs 3:6. Josephus himself (Ant. 7.333-34) says that Abraham brought his son Isaac upon the site of the threshing-floor that David bought from Arauna and that when God accepted David’s sacrifice there David resolved to build the Temple on that site. On the identification of the Temple mount with the place where Abraham was ready to sacrifice his son Isaac see Midrash Gen. Rabbah 55.7 and parallels, cited by Ginzberg (1925:5:253 n.253). Le Déaut (1963:186) remarks that it would be strange if Josephus, in identifying the site of the ‘Aqedah with the Temple mount, did not have in mind an association of the act that Abraham was about to accomplish and the liturgical sacrifices of the Temple, in particular the Paschal sacrifice. Hence, one is tempted to suggest that he thought of the ‘Aqedah as occurring on the fifteenth of Nisan, the first day of Passover, as does the Book of Jub. (18.3). In Gen. 22:5 Abraham appears to be disingenuous in telling the young men who accompany him to the scene of the sacrifice of Isaac that he and Isaac will worship and return to them; the rabbis (see Ginzberg [1909:1:279; and 1925:5:280, n. 239]) and Ephraem Syrus explain this deception by saying that Abraham is here prophesying unconsciously that they will return. Josephus characteristically, for apologetic reasons, omits this statement.

One major addition to the biblical account of the ‘Aqedah is Josephus’ statement that Isaac was 25 years old at the time. Davies and Chilton (1978:521-22) suggest that the age of 25 is to be interpreted as the minimum for active military service, as is implied in the Dead Sea War Scroll (1 QM 7.1-3), and that Josephus is thus depicting Isaac as a voluntary martyr facing death with joy like an adult warrior. As Davies (1977:41-42) notes, in the Bible (Num. 8:24) 25 is the lower age limit for a Levite’s service in the Tent of Meeting. Furthermore, the lower age limit for officers at Qumran (see the Damascus Document 10.6) is also 25. But the implication that Josephus admires voluntary martyrdom would not accord with his own strong opposition to this view at Jotapata, although it would seem that Josephus does represent the Romans as admiring such voluntary martyrdom at Masada (War 7.405; see, however, the contrary view of Ladouceur [1987:95-113, especially 104-106]). Davies and Chilton suggest that Isaac is the prototype of those who were active in the war against the Romans. They theorize that martyrs’ deaths during this revolt against the Romans in 66-70, when the minimum age for military service was probably 25, influenced Josephus’ presentation of Isaac. But Hayward (1981:132, n. 30) correctly objects that there is no evidence that 25 was then the minimum age for service. Moreover, Josephus’ opposition to the war was so fundamental that such an association is hard to accept in view of Josephus’ obvious admiration for Isaac. Davies and Chilton further conclude that Josephus cannot be used as evidence for any pre-Christian Jewish doctrine, since his work is contemporary with or sometimes even posterior to the New Testament. But there are so many places where Josephus agrees with aggadic traditions that ultimately, in at least some cases, predate the New Testament, that this claim seems unconvincing. More likely, the age of 25 is to be seen as the minimum age for judges in the community (see Damascus Document 10.6). My student, Larry Moscovitz, in an unpublished paper, has ingeniously suggested another solution to the mystery of Josephus’ source for Isaac’s age. He notes that according to the Adler manuscript of Midrash Gen. Rabbah 56.8, as well as Elijah Gaon of Vilna’s emendation in Seder ‘Olam 1 (ed. Ratner, p. 7 n. 38), Isaac was 26 at the time of the ‘Aqedah. This tradition is based upon the fact that Abraham spent 26 years among the Philistines and that Isaac was born after his first year there. Inasmuch, however, as Gen. 22:1 says that the ‘Aqedah occurred “after these things,” and supposing that “these things” refers to the time immediately after Abraham’s leaving the Philistines, Isaac would have been 25 at that time. In Jub. 17:15 he is said to be 23. Isaac’s age at the time of the ‘Aqedah is variously given in rabbinic literature (37, 36, 27, 26). Cf. Midrash Gen. Rabbah 55.5. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Genesis 22:1 declares that Isaac was 37 at the time of the ‘Aqedah. Josephus mentions his age presumably because he considered it important to make clear that Isaac was not a mere lad but a grown young man, able to make a deliberate choice. This item is particularly important to Josephus in view of the fact that Iphigenia, with whom Isaac would certainly be compared by his Greek readers, does heroically consent to be sacrificed in Euripides’ play. Josephus thus departs from the biblical narrative, that refers to Isaac as a lad (‮נער‬‎, Gen. 22:5). Philo (De Abramo 32.176) refers to Isaac as a child (παιδός), using a word that is related to the diminutive form found in the LXX (Gen. 22:12), but that often refers to a child in relation to descent, and hence can actually denote an adult. Josephus thus further heightens the contrast between Isaac and Iphigenia, who is depicted as a young girl scarcely of marriageable age, considerably younger apparently than 25, perhaps no more than 12 to 14 years old. In Iphigenia at Aulis Euripides seems to be calling attention to the compromising self-centeredness that is characteristic of human nature, and appears to be extolling the child’s view represented by Iphigenia (Ferguson [1968:157-63]), whereas Josephus stresses that Isaac’s action in submitting enthusiastically to sacrifice is the pious decision of a mature man. In addition, as Ferguson also notes, it is chance that controls the action of Euripides’ play. On the contrary, in Josephus nothing is left to chance, and everything happens as ordained by Providence (Ant. 1.225). The fact that Isaac is a grown man who deliberately acts as he does diminishes the horror that such a story would arouse in Josephus’ readers, to judge from Lucretius’ comments (1.101: “tantum religio potuit suadere malorum”) in his retelling of the parallel story of Iphigenia. On the other hand, Josephus, in his own parallel account of Jephthah’s sacrifice of his daughter (Ant. 5.264-66), does not give her age because he is not seeking to diminish the horror of the act, but instead castigates Jephthah for his rashness in making the vow to sacrifice the first creature to greet him after his victory in war. Agamemnon is comparable to Jephthah, in that he, too, was not commanded to sacrifice his daughter, and he, too, was militarily ambitious, whereas neither of these factors holds true for Abraham. The drama here is increased by virtue of the fact that whereas in the Bible it is Abraham who builds the altar for the sacrifice (Gen. 22:9), in Josephus’ version it is Isaac who constructs the altar for his own sacrifice. Another parallel between the accounts of Josephus (Ant. 1.227) and of Philo (De Abramo 32.172-76), that increases the drama of the situation, has been noted by Brock (1981:13), namely that Isaac’s question about what sacrifice Abraham was about to offer is posed at the site of the ‘Aqedah itself rather than on the way up to it, as in Gen. 22:7.

Missing from Josephus is the most important word in the biblical account, that is picked up in later rabbinic references to the incident: ‮עקד‬‎ (“bound,” Gen. 22:9), a hapax legomenon in the Bible. Alexander (1988:114) suggests that Josephus omits this because he was concerned lest the binding be construed as evidence of Isaac’s reluctance. Franxman (161) remarks that we shall doubtless never know what gave rise to the tradition, that Josephus has either invented or followed, that has Abraham deliver a homily to Isaac rather than to tie him up. The physical binding of Isaac, however, would probably have seemed too much for a Greek audience and would have been incriminating for Abraham. Philo, too, omits any mention of the actual binding, although he at least does describe Abraham as placing Isaac on the altar, whereas this detail also is omitted by Josephus (Sandmel [1956:73, n. 337]). Cf. Midrash Gen. Rabbah 56.8 and Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 31. The fact that Josephus stresses Abraham’s address to Isaac and does not have him making any appeal to God contrasts with the rabbinic emphasis on Abraham’s address to God, in that Abraham notes that although he could have argued against the divine decree, he did not do so; he pleads that God will defend the descendants whom Isaac is destined to have when they get into trouble (Jerusalem Talmud, Ta‘anit 2.4 [ed. Krotoschin, p. 65d]; Midrash Gen. Rabbah 56.15, and other passages cited by Marmorstein [1920: 76]). The fact that Josephus does not have such an appeal, fraught as it is with the problem of theodicy, is again in line with his effort to avoid theological problems, that he apparently intended to deal with in a separate work (Ant. 1.25, 4.198, 20.268). Abraham’s calm and reasoned approach also contrasts with Agamemnon’s pitiful apology in Euripides (Iph. Aul., 1255-75), in that he bewails his dilemma and claims that if he does not do the will of the goddess Artemis and sacrifice his daughter, his angry army will slaughter him and his family. Agamemnon’s speech—to judge from the Elder Seneca, Suas. 3, where we have a sample of such an address— and Abraham’s speech in Josephus are apparently examples of the progymnasmatic (preparatory) exercise called ethopoeia. See Spengel (1854). Of the four rhetoricians whom Spengel cites—Theon, Pseudo-Hermogenes, Aphthonius, and Nicolaus—Theon, the oldest, is probably Aelius Theon, who would have been a younger contemporary of Josephus. Theon (Spengel [1854:2:60-130]) describes fifteen exercises designed to prepare a student not only for declamations but also specifically for writing history and poetry. One of the progymnasmatic exercises of Aphthonius (Spengel [1854:2:21-56, no. 11]) presents the words that Niobe might have uttered after her children had been slain. In such a situation, we are told, a parent’s remarks should be concerned with the present, past, and future (as, indeed, those of Abraham are in Ant. 1.228-231). One of the earliest progymnasmatic exercises taught by the grammarians involved the reading of a single episode from myth, poetry, or history, with particular attention to the Isocratean virtues of the narrative art—clarity, brevity, and plausibility—and the six elements of agent, action, time, place, manner, and cause—qualities particularly discussed in Lucian’s Quomodo Historia Conscribenda Sit and especially aimed at by Josephus in his retelling of the ‘Aqedah episode. Although narratives based on mythological excerpts were more common, we do have exercises on papyri that are based on actual historical episodes. On progymnasmatic exercises see Marrou (1956:194-205), North (1956:234-42), and Clark (1957:177-212). While it is true that the address of a father to a son is not a distinctive type in classical rhetoric, the portrayals of the character of a father and of a son are features of ethopoeia; and progymnasmatic exercises occasionally created situations in that a father might address a child, as, for example, in the Elder Seneca. Balch (1974; 1975:187-92; and 1982:102-22) has noted that Josephus, in his defense of the Jewish constitution (Apion 2.145-295), follows the standard rhetorical pattern for such encomia as described most fully in the later handbook by the third-century Menander of Laodicea (in Spengel [1885:3: 331-446]). Theon, in his preface, notes the utility of rhetorical exercises for the writing of history; and we may recall Cicero’s famous remark (Leg. 1.5) that history is an opus...unum... oratorium maxime. On this phrase see Feldman (1951: 149-69). It is especially dramatic to have Abraham here recall his prayers for a son who would grow to manhood and become his heir, while he is about to place Isaac on the altar.

Josephus views the sacrifice, as noted by Le Déaut (1963:187) as a return to God. The theme that God is now asking Abraham to return the present, Isaac, that He had given to Abraham, is also found in Philo (Quod Deus Immutabilis Sit 1.4). A somewhat similar thought, that Abraham is returning God’s gift to Him, appears, according to Pseudo-Philo, in Abram’s statement to Isaac at the ‘Aqedah: “Behold now, my son, I am offering you as a burnt-offering and am delivering you into the hands of the one who gave you to me” (Bib. Ant. 32.2; cf. 23.8). Le Déaut (1963:187), citing John 13:1, looks upon it as a sort of Passover sacrifice. Bib. Ant. 32.2, like Josephus here, already has Abraham openly tell Isaac at this point that he is to be the victim. Josephus most dramatically mentions Isaac’s good birth at the moment that Abraham is about to sacrifice him. Abraham here asks his son to bear this consecration (καθιέρωσιν) as befits one of noble birth (γενναίως).

There is clearly a lacuna in the Greek, and the phrase “out of the course of nature” should be supplied. Bib. Ant. 32.3 likewise speaks of God deeming Isaac worthy of a special form of death. See Jacobson (2:869). This trait of being born in an extraordinary way and of leaving life in a similarly extraordinary way is common in biographies of Greek and Roman heroes, notably Heracles, Oedipus, Theseus, and Romulus. It is particularly dramatic that in his address here to Isaac when the latter is about to be sacrificed, Abraham says that it is most appropriate that since Isaac was born out of the course of nature he should not die in the manner that most people die but amid prayers and sacrificial ceremonies.

This is an allusion to the immortality of the soul in line with the doctrine expounded by Socrates in his last days, as seen in Plato (Apol., 41C and Phaedo). Josephus may have been eager here to appeal to his pagan readers, who would have recognized this as a Pythagorean or Platonic belief. We may, in Josephus’ account of Eleazar ben Jair’s speech at Masada (War 7.344), note the expression of a similar Platonic belief that death gives liberty to the soul. Cf. Rivkin (1971:62-63), who concludes that since Josephus here, in inserting a belief in the immortal soul and in its immediate access at death to God, has not only taken liberties with the biblical text but has also fashioned his account out of some other source, that source must have been an oral teaching, and he is thus giving preference to an haggadic fact over a biblical fact, even though the biblical fact was written and older and dictated by God Himself. An extremely powerful note of irony may be seen in Josephus’ reference here to the fact that Abraham declares that Isaac, whom he is about to sacrifice, was to be a protector (κηδεμόνα) and a stay of his old age (γηροκόμον) (Ant. 1.231). It is significant that Josephus employs the same word for “protector” (κηδεμόνος) (Ant. 3.98) that is used with reference to Moses, whose absence for forty days creates rumors of his death; in the latter case the Israelites are in deep distress, imagining themselves bereft of a protector (κηδεμόνος), the like of whom they would never meet again. Elsewhere the term “protector” (κηδεμόνα) is used of God Himself, whom David blesses as the guardian of the Jewish people (Ant. 7.380). See the comment by Franxman (160 n.14) on this speech by Abraham: “The rhetorical complexity of the chain of thoughts put into Abraham’s mouth by Josephus contrasts violently with the directness and simplicity of the original.” Josephus heightens the heroism of Isaac in having him rush (Ant. 1.232) upon the altar, thus presenting a more favorable comparison with Iphigenia.

Isaac expresses a similar thought in Bib. Ant. 32.3: “What if I had not been born into the world to be offered as a sacrifice to Him who made me?” Cahn (1966:296) attempts to see Messianic implications in Josephus’ account of the intended sacrifice of Isaac, who, in an extra-biblical addition here, declares his willingness to die at God’s command. Athanasius (Hom. Pas. 6.8) notes that the idea of Isaac’s readiness to offer his life to save the Jewish people was current in Jewish circles (we may cite Shabbat 89b), thus foreshadowing the parallel between Isaac and Jesus. We may note that 4 Maccabees (1:11, 17, 19-23, 18:24) expounds the view that the suffering of the righteous martyr is an expiation for the sins of the community. Cf. Midrash Gen. Rabbah 56, where, when Abraham prepared to bind Isaac, the latter expresses the fear that his body may shrink from the knife so that the sacrifice may prove unworthy. Isaac’s extra-biblical statement, that has no rabbinic parallel, is that even if the command to be sacrificed had been the brainchild of his father alone, it would have been impious to disobey it. In this Josephus may have had in mind the basic pattern in pagan sacrifice, as seen, for example, in Euripides’ Bacchae, that required that the sacrificial animal should press forward voluntarily as a sign that it is willingly led by the god. Riesenfeld (1947:87, n. 30) cites the passages in Josephus and Bib. Ant., as well as Jub. 17:15-18:19, 1 Maccabees 2:52 and 4 Maccabees 13:12 and 16:20, as evidence that the importance of the sacrifice of Isaac in Jewish Haggadah is not due to rabbinic reaction to the Christian dogma of the redemption but dates from pre-Christian times. In this glorious scene, wholly invented by Josephus, Isaac, when told of his father’s intention to sacrifice him, matches the supreme faith of his father by receiving his words bravely and joyfully. Similarly, in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Gen. 22:10, Isaac tells his father: “Bind me properly lest I tremble from the affliction of my soul and be cast into the pit of destruction and there be found profaneness in your offering.” So Pesiqta Rabbati (40.6, ed. Friedmann, p. 171a), and Sefer Hayashar 9 (ed. Dan, p. 121), cited by Jacobson (1:583). 4 Macc. 16:20 likewise speaks in praise of Isaac for not flinching when he saw his father’s hand descending upon him with a sword; but Josephus is unique in noting the joy with that Isaac rushed to his death. Perhaps, too, Bib. Ant. 18.5 refers not to Abraham’s willingness to obey God but to Isaac’s willingness to be sacrificed, since he says that “he” resisted not. So also in Bib. Ant. 40.2 Jephthah’s daughter says to her father, “Have you forgotten what happened in the days of our fathers when the father placed the son as a burnt offering and he did not dispute him but gladly gave consent to him, and the one being offered was ready and the one who was offered was rejoicing?” There is likewise a parallel in Iphigenia’s attitude (Eur., Iph. Aul. 1375-1401).

In Josephus it is God Himself rather than, as in Gen. 22:13, an angel who addresses Abraham and produces a ram to take the place of the sacrificial human victim, presumably because the subject was too important to be left to even the best of God’s deputies. So also Philo (De Abramo 32.176) says that God the Savior stopped the deed half-way with a voice from the air. Likewise, Bib. Ant. 32.4 states that God sent forth His voice from on high telling Abraham not to slay his son. Similarly, Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 31 and Sefer Hayaihar 9 (ed. Dan, p. 122, cited by Jacobson (2.869). In this remarkable addition to the biblical account, God Himself presents the apology that it was “from no craving for human blood” (ἐπιθυμήσας αἵματος ἀνθρωπίνου) that He had given the order to Abraham. In this God would seem to be in direct contrast to Artemis, who, according to the chorus (whether as the voice of the poet himself or the average spectator) in Euripides’ Iph. Aul. 1524-25, “rejoices in human sacrifices” (cf. Sansone [1978:35-36]), who calls attention to Euripides’ Iph. Taur. 221-28: “I bloody the altars with the fate of strangers, who cry out piteously and shed piteous tears,” and 258-59, “The altar of the goddess has not yet been reddened by streams of Greek blood.” Sansone stresses Iphigenia’s ambivalence in that, on the one hand, she cannot believe that Artemis requires human sacrifice and denounces the goddess who demands such a thing (385-91), while, on the other hand, she is prepared to sacrifice a Greek, although she thinks Greeks less suitable to be sacrificed than non-Greeks. Similarly, in connection with Jephthah’s sacrifice of his daughter, Josephus (Ant. 5.266), in an extra-biblical addition, remarks that such a sacrifice was neither sanctioned by law nor pleasing to God. Criticisms of ancient notions about the gods delighting in sacrifice were widespread in the Hellenistic world; to judge from such writers as Lucretius (1.101), there were pagans who could not accept the idea that the gods delighted in blood. In connection with Abraham’s readiness to sacrifice his son Isaac, Josephus, perhaps because Jews had been charged with, in effect, a blood libel by Damocritus (Suidas, s.v. and Apion ap. Josephus, Apion 2.91-96), goes to great lengths to demonstrate, in this speech (Ant. 1.233-36), put into the mouth of God rather than an angel as in Gen. 22:11, that the God of the Jews does not crave human blood. Josephus here stresses the difference between the purpose of sacrificing children in pagan mythology and Abraham’s motive in the case of Isaac. In every extant instance of the former, the sacrifice was for the sake of the country, whether to alleviate a famine, as in the case of Leos’ sacrifice of his three daughters (Pausanias 1.5.2); or a plague, as in Aristodemus’ sacrifice of his daughter (Pausanias 4.9.4-5); or a drought, as in the sacrifice of Phrixus, in whose place, as with Isaac, the god sent a ram— whence the famous golden fleece of the Jason story (Apollodorus 1.9.1-2; Herodotus 7.197; cf. Spiegel [1967:9-12]). Similarly, in Heliodorus (Aeth. 10.16) King Hydaspes resolves to sacrifice his daughter Chariclea for the sake of his country. In the case of Rome, we hear of the self-sacrifice of Marcus Curtius (Livy 7.6.4) and of Decius Mus (Livy 8.9) and his son (Livy 10.28), all three bringing victory to the nation by plunging into the midst of the enemy. Another point of difference is that in the case of Phrixus, for example (Apollodorus 1.9.1), he is forcibly brought to the altar by his father, King Athamas of Boeotia, who had been pressured by the inhabitants of the land to do this in order to relieve the drought, under the threat (Herodotus 7.187) that they would sacrifice Athamas himself if he refused to sacrifice Phrixus; Isaac, on the contrary, proceeds willingly, and Abraham is under no duress from family or kin to sacrifice him. Philo (De Abramo 35.197) and, by implication, Josephus compare Abraham with other fathers, highlighting two major points of difference: first, the latter gave their children to be sacrificed for the safety of their country or armies; and secondly, they could not bear the sight and left to others the grisly task of the killing itself. Euripides, in particular, seems to have been preoccupied with the concept of human sacrifice, treating it in no fewer than seven plays of that we know: in Iphigenia Aulidensis, retrospectively in Iphigenia Taurica, in the sacrifice of Polyxena in the first half of Hecuba and in the first half of Troades, in the sacrifice of Macaria in the first half of the Heracleidae, in the sacrifice of Menoeceus in the Phoenissae, and in the sacrifice of Otionia in the fragmentary Erechtheus. The sacrifice of Iphigenia is also alluded to by Clytemnestra in Euripides’ Elec. 1024-25, while the slaying of Aegisthus is viewed as a sacrifice, as we see from the fact that he is slain with the sacrificial knife at a sacrifice (Elec. 785 ff., 816, 838). A similar sacrificial theme appears likewise in the Alcestis, where after King Admetus’ parents refuse to die in his stead, his wife Alcestis heroically does so. So also, from one point of view, the slaying of King Pentheus by his mother Agave and the other Maenads in the Bacchae may be regarded as a sacrifice to the god Dionysus. Cf. Schmitt (1921).

In this addition to Gen. 22:12, God promises Abraham, in words reminiscent of man’s goal in Aristotle’s Eth. Nic. 1.7.1098A19, that his son will live happily (εὐδαιμόνως) to a very old age and will bequeath to a virtuous offspring a great dominion (μεγάλην ἡγεμονίαν) that will increase in wealth. There is a striking contrast between the life of Isaac, on the very verge of being cut short in its prime, and the extreme old age that God predicts to Abraham Isaac will attain. Note that God’s promises to Abraham are made in Josephus before the ram is sacrificed, whereas in the Bible (Gen. 22:16-18) they are made after the sacrifice. Note also that Josephus has combined the two divine interventions (Gen. 22:11-12, 15-18).

In Josephus God’s prediction replaces the biblical promise (Gen. 22:17-18) that in Abraham’s seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed. The goal of the Greek hero is to be held in everlasting (αἰώνιον) remembrance (μνήμην). This was vouchsafed also to Abraham and the other founders of the Jewish people as stated here by Josephus, in an addition to Scripture (Gen. 22:12), where it is the reward for the faith that Abraham showed in being willing to sacrifice his son Isaac in the ‘Aqedah. Josephus’ fullest statement, that is made here, of God’s promise of the supremacy that Abraham’s descendants will exercise is found in God’s remarks to Abraham before the appearance of the ram at the climax of the ‘Aqedah, in other words in a purely religious rather than a political context. Josephus’ Roman hosts would have resented a political context. See Ant. 1.185, 191.

The scene of the ram caught in a thicket by its horns may have seemed grotesque and too much of a miracle for a rationalizing Greek mind. Hence, Josephus omits this and states merely that God brought the ram from obscurity into view, with the clear implication that the ram had always been there. Josephus does not explicitly tell us, as does the Bible (Gen. 22:13), that Abraham offered the ram in place of his son, perhaps again because he sought to avoid the theological implication that the ram was a surrogate for the sins of man. Josephus, eager though he might have been elsewhere to downgrade the importance of theology, felt that here he had to answer those who might have difficulty in understanding such a divine command in the first place, especially since the practice of human sacrifice was rare in classical, let alone Hellenistic, times (Pearson [1913:6:847-49]). Still, Josephus seems to be protesting too much and, indeed, appears himself to have found the manner in God’s test of Abraham to be a bit embarrassing (Franxman, 161). In any case, inasmuch as God expressly forbids Abraham to slay his son and says that He has no craving for human blood, Josephus may be implicitly countering the possible claim that Isaac actually was slain or at least wounded. See Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 31 and other citations in Ginzberg (1925:5:251, n. 243). See also Spiegel (1967:2-8 and passim); and Vermes (1973:204-8). In the third-century Dura synagogue painting and in the sixth-century Beth Alpha synagogue the ram is not caught in the thicket by its horns but stands quietly next to, or is tethered to, a tree, as if it had always been there, perhaps reflecting the rabbinic tradition (’Abot 5:6) that it had been created at twilight on the eve of the Sabbath of creation for its future use. Cf. Bregman (1982:308); and Gutmann (1983:92-93). As to Josephus’ source for the fact that God Himself would provide (‮יראה‬‎) the lamb for the burnt-offering (Gen. 22:8), and that Abraham called the name of the place “The Lord will provide” (‮יראה‬‎) (Gen. 22:14), Bib. Ant. 32.4 also has God Himself addressing Abram. In the sixteenth-century Yiddish epic ‘Aqedat Yiẓhaq, presumably following the eleventh or twelfth century Midrash Vayosha, the angel Raphael twice calls upon Abraham not to go through with the sacrifice of his son, but Abraham refuses, saying that God Himself must give him this command. But when the angel insists that he, an angel, can do nothing without God’s command, Abram obeys him. Cf. Matenko and Sloan (1968). The embrace is Josephus’ addition. The ending of Josephus’ version of the ‘Aqedah, that is a “lived happily ever after” finale, so typical of Hellenistic novels (so Schalit [2:40, n. 265]), is Josephus’ addition to the Bible. Schalit cites similar happy endings in Xenophon of Ephesus, Ephes. 5.15, and Apollonius of Tyre, Erotica 43. We may perhaps add the ending of the Book of Job. Note that in Gen. 22:19 Abraham and Isaac are said to return to Beer-sheba, whereas in Josephus they return to Sarah, perhaps to emphasize that they had not forgotten her despite the fact that they had not told her in advance about their plans.

In Gen. 23:3 we read that it is the sons of Heth (i.e. the Hittites) who offer a burial-ground for Sarah. Since Heth (Chettaios in Josephus) is the son of Canaan (Ant. 1.139) and since Hebron is in Canaan, this change is readily understandable. A similar change from the biblical Hittites (Gen. 26:34 and 36:2) to Canaanites is made elsewhere by Josephus (Ant. 1.265, 277). The final proof of Sarah’s importance comes when she dies and she is buried at public expense (δημοσίᾳ), though Josephus greatly reduces the account in Gen. 23 of negotiations. As Schalit (3:40, n. 267) has noted, only select individuals received such a burial, for example, those who died fighting for their country (Thuc. 2.34) or a great patriot such as Timoleon (cf. Nepos, Tim. 5). Hebrew ‮עפרון‬‎ (Gen. 23:8), LXX Ἐφρών, Josephus Ἔφραιμος.

Hebrew ‮קטורה‬‎ (Gen. 25:1), LXX Χεττουρά, Josephus Κατούρα. Franxman (163) speculates that this characterization of the sons of Keturah, that is an addition made by Josephus, may have occurred to Josephus because of the name of Zimran (Zembranes in Josephus), that might have suggested strength (Hebrew ‮זמרה‬‎: perhaps Franxman means ‮זרע‬‎). Josephus may have in view the description of them by Cleodemus as quoted by Alexander Polyhistor that he cites in Ant. 1.240. The same phrase, δεινὸς συνιέναι (“clever in understanding”), is used by Josephus with reference to Abram himself (Ant. 1.154); apparently Josephus would have us believe that his sons inherited this quality. Hebrew ‮זמרן‬‎ (Gen. 25:2) (LXX Ζεμράν, Josephus Ζεμβράνης), ‮יקשׁן‬‎ (LXX Ἰεξάν, Josephus, Ἰαζάρης), ‮מדן‬‎ (LXX Μαδάν, Josephus Μαδάνης), ‮מדין‬‎ (LXX Μαδιάμ, Josephus Μαδιάνης), ‮ישׁבק‬‎ (LXX Ἰεσβόκ, Josephus, Λουσούβακος), ‮שׁוח‬‎ (LXX Σωύε, Josephus Σοῦος). According to the Hebrew (Gen. 25:3, 1 Chr. 1:32), it is Jokshan rather than Shuah who fathered Sheba and Dedan. Hebrew ‮שׁבא‬‎ (Gen. 25:3) (LXX Σαβά, Josephus Σαβακίνης), ‮דדן‬‎ (LXX Δαιδάν, Josephus Δαδάνης). The LXX mentions an additional son, Θαιμάν. Hebrew ‮לטושׁם‬‎ (Gen. 25:3) (LXX Λατουσιίμ, Josephus Λατούσιμος), ‮אשׁורם‬‎ (LXX Ἀσσουριίμ, Josephus Ἄσσουρις), ‮לאמים‬‎ (LXX Λοωμίμ, Josephus Λούουρις). The order in both the Hebrew and LXX texts is Asshurim, Letushim, and Leummim. Before these three the LXX adds Ραγουήλ and Ναβδεήλ. Josephus transfers to Medan (Madanes in Josephus) the sons of Midian (Madianes in Josephus): Hebrew ‮עיפה‬‎ (Gen. 25:4) (LXX Γαιφά, alternative reading Γεφάρ, Josephus Ἠφᾶς), ‮עפר‬‎ (LXX Ἀφέρ, Josephus Ἐώφρην), ‮חנך‬‎ (LXX Ἐνώχ, Josephus Ἄνωχος), ‮אבידע‬‎ (LXX Ἀβιρά, Josephus Ἐβιδᾶς), ‮אלדעה‬‎ (LXX Ἐλραγά, alternative reading Θεργαμά, Josephus Ἐλδᾶς). A problem with regard to Abraham’s reputation for justice arises because the Bible (Gen. 25:5-6) ascribes to Abraham an apparently unequal treatment of his sons. He is said to have bequeathed all that he had to Isaac and to have given only gifts to his sons by Keturah. Josephus, for apologetic reasons, omits altogether this distribution of his property by Abraham.

The Arabian coast of the Red Sea, though it may refer also to the opposite coast. The southwest coast of the Arabian peninsula. The so-called Red Sea. Josephus, Ant. 1.133, had promised to explain later how the country came to be called Africa.

Author, from Miletus in Asia Minor, in Greek of treatises De Iudaeis and Libyca, fragments of that have been preserved by Eus. (Pr. Ev. 9.17-39). He derived his knowledge of the Jews from many Hellenistic Jewish writers, among them Demetrius, Eupolemus, Artapanus, Cleodemus-Malchus, Aristeas, Philo the epic poet, and Ezekiel the tragedian, as well as from such pagan writers as Timochares and Apollonius Molon. The fragment quoted here probably comes from his work Libyca. See von Gutschmid (1890:2:182). Walter (1966:316) is convinced that Josephus did not know Polyhistor’s De Iudaeis and concludes (p. 317) from the fact that in Ant. 1.158-60 he cites Berosus, Hecataeus, and Nicolas but not Polyhistor that he did not know Polyhistor’s work on the Jews. Plutarch (Sert. 9.8-10) speaks of Heracles’ son Sophax, from whom was born Diodorus, who conquered several nations of Africa and who was an ancestor of King Juba. Our passage transposes the generations in speaking of Diodorus as a son of Heracles and of Sophon, the ancestor of Sophakes, as the son of Diodorus. As Denis (1970:176) remarks, Cleodemus’ source cannot be Plutarch or Juba, who is cited by Plutarch, since they lived after Polyhistor. He suggests that the source is Glaphyra, who was the daughter of Archelaus, king of Cappadocia, and who was the wife of Alexander the son of Herod and was the second wife of Juba and who claimed to be descended on her father’s side from Temenus, one of the descendants of Heracles (War 1.476). In Apion 1.41 Josephus speaks of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets in the reign of Artaxerxes (presumably an indication that Josephus, like the Rabbis (Seder ‘Olam Rabbah 21 [ed. Ratner, pp. 89-90]), regarded Esther, who lived in the reign of Artaxerxes, whom Josephus identifies as the biblical Ahasuerus, as a prophetess—the last to compose a biblical book under prophetic inspiration). This presents a problem, since Cleodemus’ date is usually given as somewhere between 200 B.C.E. and 50 B.C.E. (Holladay [1983:246 and 249n.17]); but Josephus is here quoting Alexander Polyhistor, who presumably did not have Josephus’ qualms about applying the term “prophet” to a more recent figure. Another possibility is that proposed by Krämer (1968:794), who states that the meaning of προφήτης here is “teacher” or “exegete” and cites as parallels Diogenes (in Lucian, Vitarum Auctio 8), Diod. Sic. 1.2, and Sextus Empiricus (Math. 1.279). However, this is hardly likely, inasmuch as Cleodemus is here called “the” prophet; and, in any case, the instance of Diogenes is clearly satirical. Moreover, in Diodorus and Sextus Empiricus the reference is not to a person but to a study of history and to grammar respectively as being “prophets.” Freudenthal (1875:133) looks upon the appellation of prophet applied to Cleodemus as further proof of his non-Jewish status. Such a title, he says, would have been inappropriate and unlikely for a Jew so syncretistic. Perhaps the name “Malchus” refers to Cleodemus as a ‮מלאך‬‎, i.e. a messenger, that is another name for a prophet. This is the only fragment that survives of the works of Cleodemus Malchus, and nothing is known of the author himself. Most scholars, most recently Holladay (1983:1:246-47), view him as a Jew, since his second name (Malchus) is Semitic and since he praises Abraham so highly, in regarding him as the ancestor of all other cultures, namely those of Africa and Assyria, and even as prior to the greatest Greek hero, Heracles. Stern (1984:3:18) concludes that a Hellenistic Jewish environment that produced writers such as Artapanus, Eupolemus, and Pseudo-Eupolemeus could well have produced Cleodemus and notes that the kinship that Cleodemus maintains to have existed between Abraham and Heracles has its counterpart in the tradition of kinship between Jews and Sparta, in that Abraham played a part (1 Macc. 12:20-23 and Josephus, Ant. 12.225-28). Freudenthal (1875:131-36) argues that he was a Samaritan on the grounds that the name Malchus, while Semitic, is not demonstrably Jewish (Josephus mentions three other people named Malchus [Ant. 13.131-32; War 3.68; War 1.274-76, 278, 286, 360, 440, Ant. 14.370-75, 390, 15.167-68, 171-73, 175], all of them Arabs), that Heracles was worshipped by the Samaritans on Mount Gerizim, and that the syncretistic nature of the fragments rules out a Jew, let alone one who is designated a prophet, especially in view of the demise of the prophetic movement in the Hellenistic-Roman period. Others, most recently Wacholder, (1974:7, 44, 46, 53-55, 95; and 1963: 87 n. 27), have argued that he was a pagan on the grounds that Moses is referred to as their lawgiver, that a Jew would not be referred to as a prophet during this period, since prophecy was alleged to have ceased with the destruction of the First Temple, and that Josephus quotes him as if he were a pagan. (On Josephus’ view that prophecy ceased in the reign of Artaxerxes [Apion 1.41], as corroborated by the rabbinic tradition [Seder ‘Olam Rabbah 21 (ed. Ratner, pp. 89-90)], see Feldman [1990:400-7] and Gray [1993: 7-34]). Momigliano (1975:93) concludes that his Jewish origin is only probable.

Apheras apparently corresponds to Ephah, Soures corresponds to Shuah, and Japhras corresponds to Epher. In Eusebius’ quotation of this fragment (Pr. Ev. 9.20.3-4) Assouri occurs instead of Sures, and this would appear to correspond to Asshurim. Elsewhere (Ant. 1.143) Josephus says that Asshur, the son of Shem’s son Elam, gave his name to his subjects, the Assyrians. Nodet (54, n. 2) concludes from the phraseology, “the two others,” that the author, perhaps Alexander Polyhistor, is seeking to counter the view that Japhras and Apheras, whose names are so similar, are actually a doublet. He notes that Gen. 25:4 mentions two of the grandsons of Keturah as Ephah and Epher, whose names are very similar in spelling. No such city is known in antiquity. The legend about Heracles’ expedition in Africa is mentioned by King Juba in his Libyan history (ap. Plutarch, Sert. 9.8-10), as well as by Pliny (Hist. Nat. 5.1), Strabo (Geog. 17.3.2), and Pomponius Mela (3.106). There we learn that Antaeus’ widow, Tinga, bore a son, Sophax, to Heracles, and that Sophax’s son Diodorus subdued many African nations with a Greek army recruited from the Mycenaean colonists whom Heracles had settled there. Aphranes has not been mentioned previously, and it is therefore unclear whether Japhras or Apheras is meant. In Eusebius’ text of this fragment he is equated with Japhras. Wacholder (1963:99) is incorrect in citing this passage in support of his view that Pseudo-Eupolemus, in attempting to glorify Abraham by pointing out that he was descended from giants, was reflecting a popular view among Hellenistic-Jewish writers. In this passage Josephus is speaking about Abraham’s descendants who joined Heracles and one of whom married him, and not about his ancestry from the giants. Perhaps there is some connection between this and the statement in 1 Macc. 12:10, 20 and 14:20-23 and 2 Macc. 5:9 and Ant. 12.226 (the letter of Areios, the Spartan king, to Onias), that the Spartans were regarded as descended from Abraham. Similarly, in the decree of the people of Pergamum cited by Josephus (Ant. 14.255), there is mention that in the time of Abraham the ancestors of the Pergamenes were friends of the Hebrews. On a possible connection of Abraham with the Greeks see Freudenthal (1874:1: 130-36, 215). We may conjecture that this notion connecting Abraham with the Greeks may have contributed to the bracketing of the Jews and the Brahmans (Abraham would equal Brahman with a prothetic vowel) found in Megasthenes, Indica (ap. Clem., Strom. 1.5.72.5; cf. Aristotle, ap. Clearchus of Soli, De Somno, ap. Josephus, Apion 1.179, who declares that the Jews are descended from the Indian philosophers).

So Gen. 25:20. In Gen. 24:3-4 we read only that Abraham instructs his servant not to take a wife for Isaac from the Canaanites but from Abraham’s birth-place, whereas here Josephus specifically indicates that it is Rebekah whom Abraham wishes to have as a wife for Isaac. I.e. the daughter of Bethuel (Ant. 1.153). Thackeray (4:xv) notes that the neat style of Josephus’ “Sophoclean” assistant is traceable in the wooing of Rebekah (Ant. 1.242 ff.) and of Rachel (Ant. 1.285 ff.). Josephus completely omits (here and 1.253) the mention of the angel (Gen. 24:7) who, according to Abraham’s instructions to his servant Eliezer, would be sent by God to guide Eliezer on his way.

Josephus is clearly writing for a predominantly non-Jewish Greek and Roman audience, as we see here in his description of how an oath is taken in the Near East. Yet, he does not cite the reason given in the Bible (Gen.24:3) why Abraham requires his servant to take it, namely to make sure that he will not take a wife for Isaac from the Canaanites. One may conjecture that Josephus omits such a reference in order that he may not appear too provincial. Abraham is depicted as a wealthy man, as indeed such a great man should be by Hellenistic standards, who, unlike the equally wealthy Sodomites (Ant. 1.194), does not fall prey to sin but, on the contrary, illustrates the correct use of riches. His wealth is seen particularly in the unusual quality of the gifts that he sends to Rebekah’s family. Whereas the Bible mentions simply that Eliezer took with him ten camels and “all good things of his master’s in his hand” (Gen. 24:10), Josephus reports that the gifts that he took were wholly unobtainable in those parts and of inestimable value (ἐκτιμημένα, “honored highly”). We later learn that Eliezer (though he is not actually mentioned by name) brought with him women’s apparel of great price (Ant. 1.250).

As Franxman (165) notes, in indicating that the trip was prolonged, Josephus stands opposed to other traditions, notably Midrash Gen. Rabbah 59.11, that states that Eliezer arrived at his destination on the same day on that he set out. On Josephus’ interest in climate see also Ant. 3.1-2, War 1.298, 3.312, 3.413, 3.506-21, 4.452-75.

The statement that Rebekah reprimanded the other maidens (who are not mentioned at all in the Bible) for their lack of generosity toward the stranger is Josephus’ addition and thus accentuates Rebekah’s own kindness. Philo (De Posteritate Caini 44.146-52) likewise emphasizes Rebekah’s hospitality. Surprisingly, in view of the importance attached to women’s beauty in antiquity, Josephus here omits mention of the biblical statement (Gen. 24:16) that Rebekah was very fair to look upon and a virgin (though Rebekah herself alludes to the latter point in Ant. 1.248). On the other hand, he stresses even more than the Bible (Gen. 24:17-20) her extraordinary hospitality; and the servant commends her for her nobility (εὐγενείας) and sheer goodness (χρηστότητος).

Rappaport (20) suggests that Josephus probably deduced that Bethuel was dead from the fact that the Bible (Gen. 24:53, 55) mentions only Rebekah’s brother and mother. However, Gen. 24:50 specifically notes that Laban and Bethuel directly address Abraham’s servant and tell him to take Rebekah with him. Rappaport (108, n. 107) notes that several modern commentators regard this latter biblical passage as an error or a gloss, but he himself points out that the Haggadah (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 60.12) mentions the violent death of Bethuel, who had died that night (ibid. 60.5).

Gen. 24:22 states that Eliezer gave Rebekah a gold ring weighing a half shekel and two bracelets for her arms weighing ten gold shekels. Josephus has here, in the interests of modesty, reduced these very precious gifts to a necklace and some ornaments, presumably to avoid the suggestion that Eliezer was, in effect, trying to bribe her. A man in Greek society must not give gifts to a woman whom he does not know, and so, whereas in the Bible Abraham’s servant gives gifts to Rebekah (Gen. 24:22) before he learns her identity, in Josephus he first learns her identity (Ant. 1.248) and only then, since she has won the contest of courtesy and hospitality and he is sure that she is the one intended for Abraham’s son (Ant. 1.242), produces the gifts.

This considerable expansion of the servant’s question about lodging in Gen. 24:23 is perhaps designed to play down the presumptuousness of that question. Eliezer’s offer to pay for his lodging is Josephus’ addition, unparalleled in rabbinic tradition.

In Gen. 24:31 it is Laban who does this. In the Bible (Gen. 24:33), Eliezer declares that he will not eat until he has discharged his errand; but the good guest must eat first, as we see, for example, when Telemachus visits Nestor (Od. 3.67-68); and so Josephus (Ant. 1.252) reverses the biblical order. Whereas in the Bible, Eliezer begins his narrative to Laban and to Rebekah’s mother by stating that he is Abraham’s servant (Gen. 24:34), Josephus’ Eliezer starts by giving Abraham’s genealogy and by pointing out his kinship to his hosts.

Perhaps there is some significance in Josephus’ specific omission here of reference to the Canaanite women (Gen. 24:37), namely to show that Abraham, as father of the Jewish people, was not close-minded. Cf. Josephus’ similar omission of Abraham’s instruction to his servant to this effect in Gen. 24:3. The importance of genealogy is here illustrated by Josephus’ inserted statement that though, in view of his prominence, Abraham might have selected the wealthiest of women for his son Isaac, he did not deem it fitting to make such a match, but, instead, with much zeal sought a woman of the proper family (γένος) who was related to him (Ant. 1.255). Josephus similarly adds to the Bible, in his summary of the laws relating to marriage, that in taking a wife one should not be influenced by the size of the dowry (Apion 2.200).

Josephus greatly compresses the whole sequence of Gen. 24:34-67 in which the servant gives his account of his mission and its consequences and, in particular, omits the biblical statement (Gen. 24:67) that Isaac was thus comforted after his mother’s death.

A similar picture emerges from the pseudepigraphic Testament of Abraham, where, in the longer recension (chapter 4), the angel Michael complains to God that he is unable to announce to that just man that he is to die, for there has not been seen upon the earth “his like, pitiful, hospitable, just, true, God-fearing, abstaining from every evil deed.”

On the word that Josephus uses here, γύναιον, see Ant. 1.220, 2.210, and 2.225. Josephus omits the biblical statement (Gen. 25:21) that Rebekah was barren. Nodet (56 n. 3) points out that since Abraham was 100 years old (Gen. 21:5) when Isaac was born and since Isaac was 40 years old when he married Rebekah (Gen. 25:20) and since Abraham was 175 when he died (Gen. 25:7), Rebekah had not given birth for at least 35 years after her marriage, whereas we read (Gen. 25:26) that Isaac was 60 (and thus Abraham was 160) when she gave birth to Esau and Jacob (Gen. 25:24). Hence, Josephus must be mistaken in stating that Rebekah gave birth to the twins after the death of Abraham, having been misled by the fact that the Bible mentions their birth after the statement of Abraham’s death. In Gen. 25:23 it is Rebekah who inquires of God, and it is to her that God indicates that she will bear twins. Note Josephus’ adept handling of Jacob and Esau. In the first place, even before their birth, Josephus here omits all mention of the struggle (Gen. 25:22) between them within the womb of Rebekah (the Hebrew ‮ויתרצצו‬‎ indicates that they crushed one another). Whereas the oracle, according to the Hebrew (Gen. 25:23b), declares that the older shall serve (‮יעבד‬‎) the younger, and whereas the LXX likewise reads “will serve” (δουλεύσει), Josephus here, in order to avoid suggesting that that the descendants of Esau are destined to be slaves to the Jews, writes that “he that to appearance was the lesser would excel (προτερήσειν, “come before”) the greater.” Targum Onqelos renders ‮יעבד‬‎ by the word ‮ישׁתעביד‬‎, “will be subjected to.” Aberbach and Grossfeld (1982:151) comment, on this rendering, that Jewish national pride required that in the Messianic future Rome should not only “serve” Judea but that Rome should actually be subjugated to the Jews. Cf. Groibart (1935:75-81). Here Josephus follows the import of the LXX (Gen. 25:23b), which reads that Jacob will ὑπερέξει (“be above”) Esau rather than the Hebrew ‮יאמץ‬‎ (“be stronger”) and thus avoids the embarrassing prophetic implication that Rome will ultimately be militarily weaker than the Judea which it had just defeated in a protracted war (66-73/74).

The Bible declares that Esau came out ruddy (‮אדמוני‬‎), “all over like a hairy garment” (Gen. 25:25); the LXX faithfully renders this as indicating that he came out “red, hairy all over like a skin” (πυρράκης, ὅλος, ὡσεὶ δορὰ, δασύς); and Targum Onqelos similarly states that he came out “red, like a hairy mantle all over.” Josephus, on the other hand, speaks of Esau’s hairiness but says nothing about his redness (Ant. 1.258). In antiquity there was a general prejudice against ruddy or red-haired persons. See Gaster (1969:165-66); and Feldman (1988-89:123-24). Slaves apparently were conventionally said to have red hair, as we see from the description of three of them in Roman comedies (Plaut., Asin. 400, Ps. 1218; Ter., Phormio 51); and slaves often bore the name Rufus (“Red”). To be sure, Duckworth (1952:89) asserts that there seems to be no good authority for the claim that slaves always wore red wigs in plays. A clue, however, to the fact that this was normally the case may be seen in Plautus’ Capt. 648, where Philocrates, though a free young man, is described by his countrymen as having “somewhat reddish hair” (subrufus), presumably because he had been disguised as a slave earlier in the play. In the Middle Ages Judas Iscariot is represented as having red hair. On hairiness as a mark of savagery see Speiser (1964:196) and Vawter (1977:288). The rabbis associate redness with the shedding of blood. See Ginzberg (1928:6:247, n. 13) and Feldman (1988-89:123-24). Philo (Quaestiones in Genesin 4.160), consistent with his practice of denigrating Esau, remarks that Esau’s ruddy body and hairy hide were a sign of his character as a savage man who raged furiously in the manner of a wild beast. That Josephus was aware of the negative connotation of redness may be seen in his rendering (Ant. 6.164) of the passage (1 Sam. 16:12) in which David is described as ruddy (‮אדמוני‬‎; the same word is used to describe Esau in Gen. 25:25). The LXX, here as in the case of Esau, renders the Hebrew word by πυρράκης, that is, “fiery red”; but Josephus speaks, rather, of David’s complexion as “golden” (ξανθός, “yellow with a tinge of red, fair”). Josephus, aware of the connections of redness with bloodshed and apparently concerned not to imply that the descendants of Esau, the Romans, were slaves, thus totally omits Esau’s redness and remarks merely that he was excessively hairy (Ant. 1.258). The word ξανθός, we may further note, is used by Josephus (Ant. 2.2 and 3) with reference to the “tawny” pottage that Jacob gave to Esau in exchange for his rights as a first-born son. Hence, in referring to David as ξανθός, far from associating David with the Messiah who will overthrow the Roman Empire, Josephus, farfetched as it may seem, may be connecting David with Rome, which is said to be identified with Esau or Edom. See Feldman (1989a:137-38). Somehow, that one of the patriarchs should have been swayed by love of food in his attitude toward his children must have seemed unbecoming to Josephus, and so, in his paraphrase of this passage (Gen. 25:28), we read here only that the father loved the older son, with no reason given, even though it is the way of the rational Josephus generally to give reasons where these are lacking in the Bible. Presumably Josephus is here connecting the name of Esau with the Hebrew word ‮שׂער‬‎ (see also Ant. 1.336), but the etymology is doubtful. The Hebrew (Gen. 25:25) connects his name with the fact that Esau’s skin was like a hairy mantle (‮אדרת שׂער‬‎). Josephus, presumably because it would indicate that Jacob, the ancestor of the Jewish people, was aggressive, omits the biblical explanation (Gen. 25:25) of the name of Jacob as arising form the fact that he had taken hold of Esau’s heel (‮עקב‬‎). Philo (De Congressu Quaerendae Eruditionis Gratia 12.61) says that the name of Esau is derived either from an oak (presumably ‮עץ‬‎) or from “a thing made up” (presumably ‮עשׂה‬‎, “made”), but these etymologies are far-fetched. At this point in the Bible (Gen. 25:29-34) we have the account of Jacob’s purchase of the birthright from Esau. Josephus, however, postpones until Ant. 2.2-3 even mentioning the incident until after the reconciliation between Jacob and Esau, since, we may conjecture, if he had mentioned it in its proper biblical time frame this would have served to build up a cumulative dossier of evidence that Esau was really unworthy of Isaac’s blessing, inasmuch as he had such a low opinion of his birthright as to sell it.

Josephus here omits the biblical statement (Gen. 26:1) that this was the second famine in the land, the first being in the days of Abraham, perhaps because to a critical audience it would seem too coincidental that a famine occurred in the lifetime of Abraham and that another occurred during the lifetime of his son Isaac. Even where Isaac is depicted as following in Abraham’s footsteps, as, for example, here in his decision to go down to Egypt in time of famine (Gen. 26:2), where God prohibits him from doing this, Josephus is careful to give a plausible reason for this (not mentioned in the Bible), namely that that country was fruitful. Gerar, a Philistine town in the western Negeb on the southern border of Canaan near Gaza. In Gen. 26:1 Isaac goes to Gerar before God speaks to him. Thackeray translates “in view of his [Abimelech’s] former friendship and hospitality to Abraham,” but the genitive Ἀβράμου would seem to require “of Abraham.” This reference to the friendship between Abraham and Abimelech (Gen. 21:31-32; Ant. 1. 212) is an addition by Josephus, who is clearly aware that his readers would realize the similarity in the episodes of Abraham and of Isaac with Abimelech. Thus he attempts to co-ordinate the two episodes and to distinguish them from one another, as Nodet (57 n.1) remarks, on the one hand making reference to Abraham’s alliance with Abimelech but, on the other hand, omitting the seemingly embarrassing scene (Gen. 26:7-11) where Isaac claimed that Rebekah was his sister but was discovered fondling her. Though the Bible depicts Isaac as practicing an extraordinarily similar deceit on the same Abimelech (Gen. 26:6), Josephus, seeking to avoid presenting Isaac as a duplicate of his father and, in particular, eager to avoid the charge that one of the forefathers was guilty of duplicity, omits that deceit altogether (Ant. 1.259). Moreover, Josephus apparently thought that it would be too much of a coincidence for a father and a son to practice the same deception on the same man. His omission is all the more understandable, since while Abraham could justify his deceit in declaring Sarah to be his sister, given that, according to Gen. 20:12, she actually was his half-sister, Isaac’s statement to the same effect is completely untrue (Gen. 26:7). Jub. 24 also omits this incident. Josephus omits the biblical mention (Gen. 26:15) of the fact that the Philistines spitefully filled with earth all the wells that Abraham’s servants had dug. If Jews are hated, Josephus, with a clear eye to the situation of his own day, explains this as due to envy. Thus, in relating Isaac’s encounter with Abimelech (Gen. 26:6-15), Josephus here emphasizes that the chief cause of the friction that prevented Abimelech from maintaining his former feelings of friendship, hospitality, and benevolence was envy when he saw God showering Isaac with favors. Similarly, we note that after the death of Joseph, according to Josephus’ addition, the Egyptians became bitterly disposed toward the Israelites through envy (φθόνον) of their prosperity (Ant. 2.201).

I.e. “ravine,” “gully.” Gen. 26:17 speaks of the “valley” (‮נחל‬‎) of Gerar. The LXX says that Isaac rested in the valley (φάραγγι) of Gerar; and Josephus, influenced by the presence of the definite article with the noun φάραγγι in the LXX, understands φάραγγι as the name of a place. Franxman (178, n. 7) suggests that Josephus adopted the LXX’s version by way of a middle term, i.e. the frequent usage of the article in Hebrew to turn a common noun into a proper noun. Whereas in the Bible we read that Isaac redug the wells that his father had dug and gave them the same names (Gen. 26:18), Josephus says nothing here about his redigging Abraham’s wells—having previously omitted reference (Gen. 26:15) to the Philistines’ having filled these in—, let alone giving them the same names, even though by doing so he might have emphasized Isaac’s reverence for his father and Isaac’s own modesty. Philo (Quaestiones in Genesin 4.194), on the other hand, who, in answer to the question why Isaac gave the wells the same names as had his father, responds that the wise man is the enemy of self-love. In the Bible the herdsmen of Gerar contend with Isaac’s herdsmen (Gen. 26:20), whereas here in Josephus it is Isaac himself whom they attack. Furthermore, Isaac displays a wise conciliatory spirit: when the herdsmen attack him he seeks to avoid a fight by departing, even to the point of allowing them to claim a victory (κεκρατηκέναι). Thus Isaac gains security (ἄδειαν, “fearlessness,” “freedom from fear”) by reasonable (εὐγνώμονι, “considerate,” “sensible,” “prudent,” “judicious”) calculation (λογισμῷ, “reasoning,” “cool, sensible reflection,” “deliberation,” “thought,” “prudence,” “intelligence,” “understanding”). In the biblical account, which speaks of the herdsmen of Gerar striving with Isaac’s herdsmen, it is clear that Isaac’s herdsmen fought back.

Whereas the Bible depicts the struggle for this second well as one between the respective herdsmen of Gerar and of Isaac (Gen. 26:21), in Josephus it is Isaac himself to whom they do violence.

Hebrew ‮רחבות‬‎ (Gen. 26:22), Josephus Ῥοωβώθ, i.e., “broad places,” LXX Εὐρυχωρία, “open space,” “free room.” Hebrew ‮עשׂק‬‎ (Gen. 26:20), i.e. dispute, Josephus Ἔσκον. The LXX translates the name as ἀδικία, “injustice.” Hebrew ‮שׂטנה‬‎ (Gen. 26:21), i.e., hatred, Josephus Στένα (Niese’s reading: the manuscripts read Σύαιννα or Σύεννα). The LXX similarly translates the name as ἐχθρία, “enmity.” One means by which Josephus seeks to “improve” upon the biblical narrative is through providing better motivation and through increasing the plausibility of events. In the case of Isaac, the reader will naturally ask why if the digging of two wells led to contention with the herdsmen of Gerar (Gen. 26:18, 21), there was no quarrel over the third well (Gen. 26:22). Josephus explains this by saying here that this was due to accident (αὐτομάτου, “chance”). We may note that Josephus omits the passage (Gen. 26:23-25) that mentions that Isaac went to Beersheba, where God appeared reassuringly to him and where his servants dug yet another well. Presumably the reason for this omission is that Josephus did not want to interrupt his account of Isaac’s dealings with Abimelech; perhaps also he found the biblical account repetitious and did not want to add to the feeling of enmity between Isaac and Abimelech, which the account of the digging of another well might have done.

Lest the reader conclude that Jews never fight back (cf. Ant. 1.260-61), in Josephus’ paraphrase of the scene in which Abimelech seeks reconciliation with Isaac (Gen. 26:27), Abimelech is here said to be afraid that Isaac would turn to avenge himself for his injuries. Hebrew ‮פיכל‬‎ (Gen. 26:26), LXX Φικόλ (alternative reading Φιλώχ), Josephus Φίλοχος. Gen. 26:26-31 mentions that Abimelech came not only with Phicol but also with his friend Achuzzath, that Abimelech mentioned a previous oath that they had taken and a covenant that they had made and the peace with which Isaac had been sent away, that Isaac and Abimelech took another oath confirming their covenant, that they celebrated this with a feast, and that they stayed overnight. All this is omitted by Josephus. Franxman (179) explains this omission by asserting that Genesis does not seem to underscore the strong feelings involved, whereas Josephus definitely does. On the other hand, we may suggest that Josephus, seeking not to blacken the reputation of Abimelech further and to smooth over relations between him and Isaac, does not want to remind the reader that Abimelech and his men, in preventing Isaac from digging wells, had been false to their previous oath and covenant.

Josephus omits the account (Gen. 26:32-33) of the further digging of a well in Beer-sheba presumably because it would seem to be a duplication of the description (Gen. 21:22-32; see Ant. 1.212) of the incident of the well involving Abraham and Abimelech.

In his presentation of Esau’s relationship with his father Isaac, Josephus arouses more sympathy for Esau. In the first place, whereas the Bible unabashedly admits that Isaac favored Esau because he loved to eat his venison (Gen. 25:28), Josephus carefully omits this reason, as he does already in Ant. 1.258 (his parallel to Gen. 25:28), and declares simply that his father especially favored him (ἐσπουδάκει, “pursue with zeal,” “spend all one’s energies,” “spare no effort”) (Ant. 1.265). Hebrew ‮עדה‬‎ (Gen. 36:2) (LXX Ἀδά, Josephus Ἄδα), daughter of ‮אילון‬‎ (LXX Αἰλών, Josephus Ἥλων); ‮אהליבמה‬‎ (LXX Ὀλίβεμα, Josephus Ἀλιβάμη), daughter of ‮ענה‬‎ (LXX Ἀνά, omitted by Josephus), daughter of ‮צבעון‬‎ (Gen. 36:2) (LXX Σεβεγών, Josephus Εὐσεβεών). The LXX here speaks of Anah as the son of Zibeon. The Hebrew later speaks of Anah as the son of Zibeon (Gen. 36:24) and as the father of Aholibamah (Gen. 36:25). Rashi, commenting on Gen. 36:2, concludes that Zibeon had sexual relations with his daughter-in-law, the wife of Anah, and that Oholibamah issued from this relationship; hence the children are all bastards. According to Gen. 26:34, when Esau was forty years old he married Judith, the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Basemath, the daughter of Elon the Hittite. Josephus, however, here bases himself on the statement that Esau married two Canaanite women, Adah the daughter of Elon the Hittite and Aholibamah the daughter of Anah the daughter of Zibeon the Hivite (Gen. 36:2). Josephus, nevertheless, speaks of Aholibamah as the daughter of Zibeon.

Though aware of the biblical prohibition of intermarriage (Deut. 7:3) and its contemporary danger, Josephus realized that too strenuous an objection to intermarriage would play into the hands of those opponents of the Jews who had charged them with misanthropy. In the case of Esau, whereas the Bible uses very strong language in stating that Esau’s wives were “a bitterness of spirit” (‮מרת רוח‬‎, Gen. 26:35), Josephus states that Isaac, quite clearly the man who sincerely seeks to have peaceful relations with his neighbors as we have seen in his dealings with Abimelech (and in this respect the representative of the Jewish people of Josephus’ own day as well) and not wishing to be at enmity with his son through ordering him to separate himself from these women, resolved to hold his peace, just as he will do when he realizes that Jacob has wrested the blessing from Esau (Ant. 1.274). Josephus, clearly seeking to minimize the matter, omits these marriages altogether (Ant. 1.266) and instead mentions Esau’s later marriages with two Canaanite women (Gen. 36:2). The statement that Isaac decided to be silent is Josephus’ addition, presumably intended to explain Isaac’s continued preference for Esau. It also elevates Isaac’s character, emphasizing his self-control.

In Gen. 27:2 Isaac says, “Behold, I am old. I do not know the day of my death.” There is no indication that old age prevents his attending to religious obligations. Thackeray (ad loc.) suggests that the meaning seems to be that Isaac could not procure a sacrifice himself. Ginzberg (1925:5:283 n. 89) proposes that the reason why Isaac, though the first-born of his mother and as the first legitimate child of his father (since Ishmael was the son of a bondwoman), was not able to act as a priest himself was that his blindness disqualified him. Schreckenberg (1967-69:65-66) offers θηρεύειν (“to hunt”) as an emendation in place of θεραπεύειν τὸν θεόν (“to minister to God”), since Isaac certainly was not too old to serve God; rather because he was old and blind he could not go hunting and hence asked Esau to do so for him.

In Gen. 27:3-4 Isaac’s motive in sending Esau to hunt game for him is merely to obtain food that he loves to eat. In Josephus his motive is a spiritual one, presumably to be able to have an animal to sacrifice to God, as Franxman (182 n. 11) suggests. Tachauer (1871:56) connects this motive with the haggadic tradition (Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 32 and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Gen. 27:1) that couples this event with Passover and that asserts that of the two kids brought by Jacob to Isaac one was the Paschal sacrifice and the other Isaac’s supper; but, as Rappaport (109 n. 109) indicates, Josephus’ language is much too general to make such a connection. Further sympathy is aroused for Esau in Josephus’ portrayal of the scene in which Isaac blesses Jacob and Esau. In the first place, whereas in the Bible Isaac asks Esau to bring him venison so that “my soul may bless thee before I die” (Gen. 27:4), in Josephus here it is not Isaac who will bless Esau but God Himself whom Isaac will beseech to support and assist Esau throughout his life.

In his presentation of Esau’s relationship with Isaac, Josephus arouses more sympathy for Esau, perhaps because of the tradition that Esau was the ancestor of Josephus’ beloved Romans.The equation of Esau and Edom is found in the Bible (Gen. 25:30; 36:8); and Josephus, in an extra-biblical addition, specifically equates Edom with Idumea (Ant. 2.1-3). The Book of Jub. (37-38), dating from the second century B.C.E., develops at length the tradition of the warfare between Jacob and Esau and the death of Esau in that conflict. At the end of the account in Jub. we have the implicit equation of Edom with Idumea in the statement: “And the sons of Edom have not got quit of the yoke of servitude that the twelve sons of Jacob had imposed upon them until this day” (Gen. 38:14). This affirmation would seem to reflect a long-standing conflict (see Charles 1913:2.219-22).Perhaps there is a hint of the equation of Esau and Rome in an enigmatic passage of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (Gad 7:4), which warns against accumulating wealth by evil means as did Esau. Perhaps the author is here alluding to the rapacity of Rome (one thinks, for example, of Verres, the infamous governor of Sicily, whom Cicero prosecuted in the first century B.C.E.). Inasmuch as portions of the Testaments of Levi, Judah, and Naphtali have been found among the Qumran scrolls, we can probably date the above reference to the period between the second and first centuries B.C.E.; but its equation of Esau and Rome is, to be sure, at best problematic. Another possible piece of evidence for the equation is 1 Enoch 89:12, dating from as early as the second century B.C.E. (since this part of Enoch was found among the Qumran scrolls), which speaks of a black wild boar born of a bull. The boar is Esau (so Charles 1913:2.252); and the standard of the Roman legion had as its emblem a boar (whence the designation of Rome as “the boar out of the wood”) (see Ginzberg 1925:5.294, n. 162). That the Romans were thought of as the descendants of Esau is possibly to be seen also in 4 Esdras (10:8; so Heinemann 1939-40:193), which was apparently written at about the same time as the Antiquities (so Stone 1992:611). There is quite likely a reference to the equation in Philo (De Vita Mosis 1.43.242), who speaks of the feud between Jacob and Esau as “renewed by the nation so many generations later.” Zunz was the first to suggest that the equation of Edom and Rome arose on the basis of the Idumean origin of Herod, who, having received his kingship in Rome, was able to maintain it only with the help of the Roman authorities, and who thus brought about the destruction of the land and the exile of the Jewish people (Zunz 1845:484). However, there is no evidence to confirm this conjecture, and this despite the fact that we know more about Herod than about almost any other figure from antiquity. Schlatter suggests that the equation reflects an anti-Herodian attack by the Zealots, who needed the support of prophecy to justify their taking up arms against Rome; and this equation was later appropriated by the rabbis (Schlatter 1955:255-56). There is, however, no evidence to support this view (see G. Cohen 1967:21, n. 7); indeed, since Josephus favored Rome and, as a descendant of the Hasmoneans, hated Herod, it is unlikely that he would have credited the equation of Herodian Edom with Rome.It was perhaps inevitable that those two great peoples of antiquity, the Jews and the Romans, each of which considered itself to be divinely chosen and destined for a unique history, would come to be associated with each other (see G. Cohen 1967:25-26), though the question remains as to why the cipher used for Rome was Edom or Esau and not, for example, Babylon, which was later to be identified as the prototype of Rome (1 Pet. 5:13; Rev. 14:8, 16:19, 17:2, 17:5, 18:2, 18:10, 18:21). The first rabbi who is cited as clearly identifying Rome with Esau and Edom is Rabbi Akiva (ca. 50-135), a somewhat younger contemporary of Josephus, who explains the verse (Gen. 27:22) “The voice is the voice of Jacob, but the hands are the hands of Esau” as illustrating the anguished cry of Jacob, that is, the Jewish people, because of what the hands of Esau, that is, presumably the Romans, had done to them (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 65.21). The fact that in the middle of the second century Rabbi Simeon bar Yoḥai is said to have commented, in an obvious allusion to the contemporary struggle between the Jews and the Roman Empire at whose hands he suffered so much: “It is a well-established tradition (halakah): Esau hates Jacob” (Sifre Num. 69 [ed. Horovitz, p.65]) would seem to indicate that the equation of Esau and Rome was already axiomatic; hence, it seems reasonable to suppose that it was known half a century earlier when Josephus was writing. When, at the end of the second century, the Roman Emperor Antoninus (whose identity is debated) asked Rabbi Judah the Prince whether he (Antoninus) will enter the world to come, inasmuch as, according to the prophet Obadiah (1:18), there will be no remnant to the house of Esau, he is assured by the rabbi that this applies only to those whose evil deeds are like those of Esau (‘Abodah Zarah 10b).The rabbis, at a later time, commented with particular bitterness on the acquisitiveness of Roman administrators. Cf. the remark of the third-century Rabbi Judah ben Rabbi that at first Esau (who is here identified with Rome) turned down the presents that Jacob offered him (see Gen. 33:9-10), but that this was merely a pretense, and that, in fact, while pretending to refuse the gifts, he stretched out his hands to accept them (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 78.12). Note also the remark of the Palestinian Rabbi Levi in the third century: “The eyes of Edom [i.e. Rome] are never satisfied” (Midrash Eccl. Rabbah 1.7.9). It is more likely that Philo is thinking of the tension between the Jews and the Romans in his own day, in whose attempted resolution he played such a key role in the embassy to Gaius Caligula, than of the quarrel between Judea and the Idumeans (Idumea being the nation of those descended from Edom, another name for Esau), especially since he does not mention, in his extant works, the equation of Esau and Edom nor the Idumeans of his own day. Schlatter (1955:255-56) suggests that the equation of Edom with Rome is paralleled by the similar equation at about the same time in Palestinian Judaism between Babylon and Rome, as seen, for example, in 1 Pet. 5:13. Most recently, Hayward (1993-94:177-88) has suggested that the statement in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Genesis 27:31 that Esau presented his father with a cooked dog on Passover in place of the proper offering may be explained once we realize that Esau is a cipher for Rome and that the Romans sacrificed dogs at popular festivals such as the Lupercalia and the Robigalia. The fact that red dogs were sacrificed annually in Rome should likewise be correlated with the identification of Esau with Edom, “the red one.” We may here note that the book of Josippon (1.2), written in 953 but perhaps dependent upon good sources of information, some of which are no longer extant, has a story about Esau’s grandson Zepho (otherwise unknown), who accompanies Aeneas on his expeditions in Italy, becomes king of the Kittim, has a grandson Latinus (the name of Aeneas’ father-in-law), and eventually has a descendant Romulus, who founds the city of Rome. Esau reciprocates the devotion that his father showed toward him, an attribute that would have struck a responsive chord particularly among the Romans, who valued the pietas that constituted the cardinal trait of their founder Aeneas as represented in the great national poem, Virgil’s Aeneis (e.g., 1.10), and as reflected especially in the loving care of Aeneas for his father Anchises in the scene of the departure from Troy (Virgil, Aen., Book 2, lines 634 ff.). Thus, whereas the biblical passage (Gen. 27:5) states that Esau went (‮לילך‬‎) to the field to get venison for Isaac, Josephus presents him as acting with much greater enthusiasm, saying that he sped (ἐξώρμησεν, “rushed,” “started rapidly”) to the chase (Ant. 1.269). One of the rabbis, the first-century patriarch Simeon ben Gamaliel, a direct contemporary of Josephus, is quoted as paying Esau the supreme compliment when he declares: “All my lifetime I attended upon my father, yet I did not do for him a hundredth part of the service which Esau did for his father” (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 65.16; cf. Midrash Deut. Rabbah 1.15). The second-century Judah bar Ilai declares that Jacob feared that Esau had been more righteous than he because he had kept two commandments that he, Jacob, had neglected, namely living in the Holy Land and attending to his parents (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 76.2). The third-century Rabbi Simlai (some report the dictum, rather, in the name of his contemporary Rabbi Abbahu) presents a scenario in which God rebukes Isaac for speaking kind words to the wicked Esau after the latter had cried when he discovered that Jacob had received Isaac’s blessing (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 67.5). Isaac’s reply to God’s charge that Esau is wicked is that Esau had acted righteously in honoring his parents. Indeed, the rabbis remark that the good fortune that the Romans enjoy on earth is due to the great respect that their ancestor, Esau, showed toward his father (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 65.16). Josephus here omits Rebekah’s listening in on Isaac’s words to Esau (Gen. 27:5), as well as her statement (Gen. 27:13) that the curse should be upon her if the plan that she mentions to Jacob does not succeed. Note that there is no mention in Josephus of savory food in his report of Rebekah’s instructions to Jacob to fetch two kids so that she may prepare tasty food for Isaac, “such as he loves” (Gen. 27:9), since this would detract from Isaac’s spiritual qualities. Josephus transfers the blame for the deception of Isaac completely to Rebekah, even though, in general, he drastically reduces the role of Rebekah.

The deception practiced by Jacob is minimized: it is only Jacob’s arm that is covered by a goat skin, and he is not dressed in Esau’s choicest garments (Gen. 27:15).

Josephus, in his version, tries to avoid apparent difficulties in the biblical text. Thus, in the account of Isaac’s blessing of his sons, we read that Isaac blessed Jacob (Gen. 27:23); and then immediately thereafter we find Isaac asking Jacob, “Are you really my son Esau?” (Gen. 27:24) Surely, the reader would think that Isaac should have asked that question before blessing Jacob. Philo recognizes this as a problem by asking “Why is it that he blessed him and (then) says, “Art thou my son Esau?” His answer is that it is God who did the blessing through the prophet (Quaestiones in Genesin 4.212). The matter is cleared up in Josephus’ version by the simple expedient of omitting the question, “Are you really my son Esau?” Note that Josephus likewise omits Jacob’s false and embarrassing statement (Gen. 27:19) that “I am Esau, your first-born.” Similarly, Josephus omits the question as to how the meal could have been prepared so quickly, as well as Jacob’s deceptive answer (Gen. 27:20). Indeed, in Josephus (Ant. 2.173) God Himself justifies Jacob’s theft of the blessing, saying that it was He who had given the princedom to him rather than to Esau. Similarly, Jub. 26:13 avoids having Jacob lie to his father; instead he says, “I am your son.”

Downing (1982:548-49) notes parallels between Ant. 1.272-73 and the Christian community prayer in Acts 4:24-30 in statement of intent, invocation of God as creator, appeal to special ancestral relationship, acknowledgment of recent help to supplicant, assertion of faith in providential control, major petition to God to live up to expectations, appeal to God to be concerned with His honor, and request for miracles. Josephus refers to God here as Lord of all eternity (παντὸς αἰῶνος, a term familiar to us from Plato’s Timaeus 37D) and creator (δημιουργός, a term familiar to us likewise from Plato’s Timaeus 40C) of universal being (τῆς ὅλης οὐσίας, a Stoic phrase). Cf. the use of the latter word in Ant. 1.155. See Wolfson (1947:1:277, 300, 320-321; and 2:106). Spilsbury (1994:58-59) notes that Josephus has introduced here the element of “transaction.” The biblical text seems to impute to Isaac, to judge from the blessing that he gives to Jacob, much too great a concern with the smells of this world (Gen. 27:27). Josephus resolves the difficulty by omitting such materialistic blessings here.

The manuscripts read: “keep this child well-disposed to me.” Isaac’s prayer, in his blessing of Jacob, that peoples should serve (‮יעבדוך‬‎) him and that nations should bow down to him (the latter half of which becomes in the LXX “let rulers [ἄρχοντες] bow down to you” (Gen. 27:29), would clearly not be well received by the peoples, nations, and rulers of the world, including, of course, the contemporary Romans. Philo’s solution is to interpret the passage allegorically: it is the nations of the soul that are to be ruled by reason, while the princes are those who preside over and are in charge of heterodox principles (Quaestiones in Genesin 4.216-17). Josephus resolves the problem by omitting all mention of the subservience of nations and rulers and by substituting a prayer that Jacob will be a terror to his foes and a treasure and delight to his friends. One is reminded of the definition of justice imputed to Simonides, namely doing good to friends and harm to enemies (Plato, Rep. 1.332D). Nodet (58 n. 3) remarks that the blessing, as found in Josephus, recalls that of Abraham for Jacob in Jub. 22:28-30. As to Josephus’ portrayal of Jacob’s courage, we may note a striking parallel here between Isaac’s prayer for Jacob in Josephus, that God should make him a terror to his foes (φοβερὸν...ἐχθροῖς ) and a treasure and a delight (κεχαρισμένον) to his friends, and Hector’s prayer for his son, Astyanax (Hom., Il. 6.476-81), that he be distinguished among the Trojans and that his mother rejoice (χαρείῃ, from the same root as Josephus’ word κεχαρισμένον) in her soul. Furthermore, whereas Isaac, according to the Hebrew, in the blessing tells Jacob that “peoples shall serve you and nations bow down to you” (Gen. 27:29), Josephus, though he has an expanded version of the blessing, omits this statement altogether (Ant. 1.272-73), presumably because he does not want his Roman patrons to think that the Jews look forward to revenge for the loss of their Temple and of their independence.

When Isaac realizes that Jacob has wrested the blessing from Esau, whereas the Bible says that he trembled exceedingly (Gen. 27:33), Josephus here, seeking to reduce the tension between the two brothers, states that “perceiving his error, Isaac held his peace.” Moreover, the biblical Isaac (Gen. 27:35) says bluntly that Jacob came with guile. Josephus’ version, here, as in Ant. 1.266, emphasizes rather Isaac’s self-control. In Gen. 27:34 the reaction of Esau is much stronger. We read that he uttered a great and exceedingly bitter cry.

Akin to the qualities of humanity and kindness is the virtue of showing sympathy for the deprived. Isaac exhibits this quality here, in an extra-biblical addition, when he is moved (“be grieved,” “be sad,” “be indignant,” “be angry,” “be embittered”) by the tears of Esau, who has come for the blessing that he has already given to Jacob. Cf. Isaac’s detachment in his remark in Gen. 27:35. Philo, on the other hand, objects to the view that Isaac was moved to pity by seeing Esau in tears, since, he says, the wise man feels pity for all but prays only for the deserving (Quaestiones in Genesin 4.233). Rather, he suggests, Isaac was moved by Esau’s repentance. Isaac’s blessing of Esau is much more positive in Josephus than it is in the Bible (Gen. 27:39-40), particularly that he would be renowned in strength, labor, and war, and that his reputation would last forever. Secondly, the scene of the blessing is much more elaborate and poignant in the Hebrew than in Josephus’ paraphrase, presumably because Josephus sought to diminish the friction between the descendants of Jacob and Esau. In particular, Josephus omits from the blessing of Esau the statement that he shall live by the sword and the prediction that he will some day break Jacob’s yoke from off his neck (Gen. 27:40); instead, we have here the much milder assertion that Esau will be renowned for strength of body in arms and in labors of all kinds. One is reminded of Virgil’s statement in the proem to his epic (Aen. 1.10) in which he speaks of Aeneas, the ancestor of the Romans, undergoing so many labors (tot adire labores), as well as of Aeneas’ own statement to his son Ascanius just before he goes forth to the final battle with Turnus that he (Ascanius) should learn manliness and true labor (verumque laborem) from him and luck from others (Aen. 12.435). Nonetheless, it is surprising that after eliminating previous references to Esau’s “serving” Jacob (Gen. 25:23, 27:29) he has retained it here (Gen. 27:40), while eliminating the statement that he would eventually cast off the yoke of Jacob from his neck.

Other manuscripts read “wishes,” “curses,” instead of “blessings.” In general, for apologetic reasons, Josephus downplays Esau’s anger. Whereas we are told in the Hebrew text of Gen. 27:43 that Rebekah told Jacob that Esau intended to kill him and whereas she persuaded Jacob to flee to Laban in order to escape the furious wrath of Esau, Josephus makes no mention of Esau’s intention of killing Jacob (Ant. 1.276), as well as of the report of this to Rebekah and her persuasion of Jacob to flee Esau’s murderous intention; and it is Isaac whom Rebekah persuades to take a wife for Jacob from his kinsfolk in Mesopotamia, thus obtaining an opportunity for Jacob to leave. Again, whereas the Bible records Esau’s pledge to slay Jacob as soon as their father dies (Gen. 27:41), Josephus omits this pledge and says merely that Jacob was in terror of his brother, who wished to avenge himself for being deprived (the word that Josephus uses, διαμαρτίας, is a very mild one, referring merely to a mistake or a disappointment) of the benediction (Ant. 1.276). In Gen. 27:46 Rebekah mentions to Isaac the fear that Jacob will marry a Canaanite woman, but there is no express indication, as there is here, that she persuades Isaac to see to it that Jacob does not, though in the following verse (Gen. 28:1) Isaac calls Jacob and tells him not to marry a Canaanite.

Some manuscripts add: “against the wish of his father”; but this would be hard to understand in view of the statement at the end of this paragraph that Ishmael married Basemath because he saw Isaac’s vexation at his former marriages. According to Gen. 28:9, Esau married Mahalath the daughter of Ishmael; and yet in Gen. 26:34 we read that Esau had already married Basemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite. What complicates the problem is that elsewhere (Gen. 36:2-3) Esau is said to have had three Canaanite wives—Adah the daughter of Elon the Hittite, Oholibamah the daughter of Anah, and Basemath the daughter of Ishmael. Is Adah the same as Basemath? Since, according to Gen. 36:3, Basemath the daughter of Ishmael is mentioned as one of the wives whom Esau took from the daughters of Canaan, how can she be identical with the Mahalath the daughter of Ishmael (Gen. 28:9) whom Esau married after he saw that the daughters of Canaan were evil in the eyes of Isaac his father? Nodet (59 n.1) resolves this problem by suggesting that the text here in Josephus perhaps be emended (though he does not adopt it in his final text) and that Elon be read for Ishmael, so that the Basemath whom Esau is said here to have married first becomes the daughter of Elon, while the second Basemath (Mahalath, Gen. 28:9), whose father is not mentioned here, is the daughter of Ishmael. Abraham (1997:5-6) suggests that Esau married two women named Basemath, but that he renamed the second wife Mahalath since the first Basemath was displeasing to his parents. Even when Esau finally does reform and marries his relative Basemath (Hebrew ‮מחלת‬‎), it is clear in the Bible that he does so because he realizes that the Canaanite women were evil in the eyes of his father and because he follows the example of Jacob in seeking a mate from his kin (Gen. 28:9). Josephus, on the contrary, specifically states here that Esau had already married her prior to Jacob’s leaving to take a wife for himself from his kinsfolk in Mesopotamia. In stating that Isaac and his family were not well disposed to Esau’s marriages with Canaanite women, Josephus uses restrained language, for apologetic reasons, since the Jews in Josephus’ day had been accused by writers such as Juvenal and Tacitus of hating non-Jews. Hebrew ‮מחלת‬‎ (Gen. 28:9), LXX Μαελέθ (other manuscripts, Μασεμάθ), Josephus Βασεμάθη. The statement that Esau was especially fond of Basemath is Josephus’ addition to Gen. 36:3 and helps to cast him in a more favorable light, since it indicates Esau’s effort to please his parents. Significantly, we find the same verb (σπουδάσας) used of Esau’s fond relationship with his wife Basemath as in Isaac’s regard for Esau (Ant. 1.265), an indication that in this relationship Esau matched the devotion that his father showed toward him.

One blot on Isaac’s record for wisdom could perhaps be seen in his decision to send his son Jacob to take a wife from one of the daughters of Laban, the brother of Rebekah (Gen. 28:2). One might well suppose that since he was related to Laban by marriage he would have known of Laban’s celebrated greed and craftiness, and one might wonder, therefore, about the wisdom of sending his son to such a swindler. Josephus resolves the matter here by asserting that it was Rebekah who sent Jacob to her brother’s house, with Isaac consenting (ἐπιτρέψαντος, “permit,” “allow,” “grant,” “submit”) to the marriage in compliance with his wife’s wishes. Whereas Gen. 28:3 has Isaac invoke God’s blessing on Jacob to “make you fruitful and multiply you, that you may become a company of peoples,” and (Gen. 28:4) to inherit the land that God gave to Abraham, Josephus here, aware that the Romans were sensitive about the great expansion of the Jewish population especially through proselytism, omits this. Josephus here supplies a reason why Jacob slept in the open air (Gen. 28:11). One may wonder why Josephus speaks of Jacob’s hatred (μῖσος) toward the Canaanites, since this would lend credence to the charge of Jewish misanthropy. Perhaps the answer is that this hatred is directed solely at the Canaanites, in view of their inexcusable violence to the wells that Isaac had dug (Gen. 26:18-21; Ant. 1.260-61).

The Hebrew (Gen. 28:11) says that Jacob took one of the stones to serve as his pillow. The rabbinic tradition (Ḥullin 91b), noting that later in this chapter we are told (Gen. 28:18) about the stone that Jacob had used for his pillow, declares that the stones began quarreling with one another, each one seeking to be the stone upon which the righteous Jacob would rest his head, whereupon all the stones were merged into one stone. When it comes to miracles, whereas the Bible (Gen. 28:12) speaks of angels ascending and descending in Jacob’s dream, Josephus, rationalizing, declares that Jacob thought that he saw a ladder reaching from earth to heaven; and instead of angels he speaks of phantoms (ὄψεις, “appearances,” “visions,” “apparitions”) of nature. These phantoms are further compared to mortals, but are said to be more august (σεμνότερον). Moreover, he has them descending since angels would not be ascending from earth to heaven prior to their descent from heaven.

When God appears to Jacob in a dream (Gen. 28:13), in the Hebrew text He identifies Himself thus: “I am the Lord, the God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac.” In Josephus’ version here God does not identify Himself at all as the God of Abraham and of Isaac but rather, in addressing him, emphasizes Jacob’s outstanding genealogy.

In contrast to the Bible (Gen. 28:13), in which God promises to give to Jacob and to his descendants the land on which he lies, Josephus here makes the promise more vague by referring not to the land but to “a destiny” and by saying nothing about the gift to his descendants.

In an extra-biblical addition here, God urges Jacob to show courage (θαρρῶν) on his forthcoming journey to Mesopotamia, whereas in the Bible God says simply that He will be with Jacob wherever he goes (Gen. 28:15). Whereas Gen. 28:14 declares, in God’s promise in Jacob’s dream, that his seed will be “as the dust of the earth,” and that “thou shalt spread abroad to the west and to the east and to the north and to the south,” Josephus here predicts that the number of Jacob’s direct descendants (υἱοῖς) will be vast (as, indeed, was the case at the time when Josephus was writing), but is careful to avoid any suggestion that they will seek to convert others to Judaism. Even the Josephan God’s promise to Jacob that He will grant dominion over the land to his children indicates nothing more than that the descendants of Jacob will have power or strength in the land of Canaan, though not necessarily political independence there. It would seem that this passage contradicts the view that Josephus is careful to avoid “land theology,” that is, God’s gift of land to the Israelites; but as we see in Ant. 1.284, this is presented as a prediction rather than as a promise. Moreover, presumably because the Romans were so sensitive about proselytism by Jews, Josephus is careful to omit any hint (Gen. 28:3-4, 14) that Jews will seek to convert others to Judaism, though he does hint at the spread of the Jewish people beyond the borders of Canaan.

When Jacob is awakened out of his sleep, he says, in the biblical text (Gen. 28:16): “Surely the Lord is present in this place, and I knew it not.” Josephus totally omits this reference to God. Josephus here significantly omits Jacob’s fear (Gen. 28:17) after his dream about the angels going up and down a ladder; in Josephus Jacob is “overjoyed” (περιχαρής) at these visions and promises. Hebrew ‮ויצק‬‎ (“poured oil upon,” Gen. 28:18). So also the LXX: “[poured olive-oil.” Gen. 28:19 adds that the former name of Bethel was Luz. Though Josephus is generally interested in presenting alternative names, especially when there is a history behind them, he omits this, perhaps because he wants to avoid the LXX’s rendering as Oulamlous. Franxman (187 n.17) notes that in Greek οὐλαμός refers to a throng of warriors and that the word thus suggests something sinister about the place. LXX (Gen. 28:22) οἶκος Θεοῦ (“house of God”); Josephus, θεία ἑστία (“divine hearth”).

Gen. 29:2 notes that there was a great stone upon the mouth of the well, but Josephus omits this and consequently also omits the statement (Gen. 29:10) that Jacob rolled away the stone from the mouth of the well.

The statement that it was not possible not to know such a man as Laban, which is Josephus’ addition, serves to build up the personality of Laban further and adds to the drama of the encounter between Laban and Jacob. Jacob has introduced an element of suspense, which is a hallmark of the Greek romances, in his account here of the meeting of Jacob and Rachel. In Josephus’ addition the shepherds wonder that Rachel has not yet arrived, and thus there is, as Villalba I Varneda (1986:233) remarks, an air of mystery that is not to be found in the biblical account (Gen. 29:1-14).

Rachel’s reaction with childish delight is highly reminiscent of the reaction of Nausicaa (Hom., Od., Book 6), when the stranger, Odysseus, tells her whence he has come and she offers to supply him with his wants. The biblical text (Gen. 29:12) here is very brief. In contrast, Josephus presents the whole scene as a dialogue consisting of reported speech (Ant. 1.287), followed by direct speech (Ant. 1.288-90), followed once again by reported speech (Ant. 1.291-92). Moreover, whereas Gen. 29:10-11 reports very simply that when Rachel arrived at the well, Jacob rolled the stone from the mouth of the well, watered Laban’s flock, kissed Rachel, and wept, Josephus has added considerable drama to the situation: the shepherds point out Jacob to Rachel and tell her why the stranger has come. She, in turn, reacts with childish delight and asks him a series of questions: who he is, whence he has come, and why he has come. Josephus then adds a romantic flavor to the scene by noting that Jacob is amazed by her beauty and is overcome with love for her.

Just as in Xenophon of Ephesus’ novel (Ephes. 1.3.12) the hero Habrocomes and the heroine Anthia fall in love at first sight, as does a wealthy merchant named Psammis from India (3.11) and the man, Anchialus (4.5) who is in charge of guarding Anthia, so Jacob here is said, in an extra-biblical remark, to have been overcome not so much by the fact of his kinship (Gen. 29:12) as by his love (ἔρωτι) for Rachel. That this is an erotic love is clear from Josephus’ use of the word ἔρωτι. Significally, Josephus uses this same word to describe Jacob’s love for Rachel on no fewer than three other occasions (Ant. 1.298, 302, 303). A similar change may be seen in Josephus’ version of the Esther story, where, in place of the Bible’s statement that “the king loved Esther above all the women” (Esth. 2:17), we read (Ant. 11.202) that the king fell in love with the maiden (πεσὼν τῆς κόρης εἰς ἔρωτα). The theme of love at first sight is common in the Greek romances: see Parthenius 1.1, Chariton 1.1.6-7, Achilles Tatius 1.4.2-5, and Heliodorus 3.5.4-5. While it is true that the Bible (Gen. 29:17) does mention Rachel’s beauty, as well as Jacob’s love for her (Gen. 29:20, 30), Josephus’ version is more romantic, since here he falls in love with her at first sight. The romantic flavor is enhanced by Josephus’ statement here that Rachel’s beauty was such as few women of those days could show, in contrast to the Bible’s remark (Gen. 29:17) that she was merely of beautiful form and fair to look upon. Moreover, just as Odysseus, after first considering whether he should throw his arms around Nausicaa’s knees, decides that she might take offense at such immodest behavior, so Jacob, in Josephus’ version here, refrains from kissing Rachel almost immediately upon meeting her (cf. Gen. 29:11), presumably because, at least in Josephus’ time, such an act would be regarded as inappropriate in public. Indeed, according to rabbinic tradition (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 70.13), his kissing of Rachel led bystanders to whisper about him, whereupon Jacob wept in repentance for his act.

Hebrew ‮הרן‬‎ (Gen. 11:27), LXX Ἀρράν, Josephus Ἀρράνης. Hebrew ‮נחור‬‎ (Gen. 11:22), LXX Ναχώρ, Josephus Ναχώρης. Hebrew ‮תרח‬‎ (Gen. 11:24), LXX Θάρα, Josephus Θέρρος. Josephus is here consistent with his previous statement (Ant. 1.151) that Sarah is the daughter of Haran, since he identifies Sarah with Iscah (Gen. 11:29). When Jacob first meets Rachel, as we see here in Josephus, he gives his genealogy at some length (Ant. 1.288-90), in a scene reminiscent of Glaucus and Diomedes (Hom., Il. 6.123-231), since genealogy is so important for Josephus, as we see in his autobiography (Life 1-6), whereas in Gen. 29:12 we read simply that Jacob told Rachel that he was her father’s brother and that he was Rebekah’s son.

The romantic flavor of the meeting scene is enhanced here by a number of Josephus’ additions to the biblical text (Gen. 29:11-12), namely, that Rachel, as young people are wont to do, recalls what she had previously heard her father tell of the story of Rebekah, that she knew that her parents were longing to have word of her, that out of filial affection she burst into tears and flung her arms around Jacob, that after tenderly embracing him she said that he had brought the most cherished and keenest of pleasures to her father and to all her household, since her father was devoted to the memory of Jacob’s mother and dwelt upon it and since his coming would appear to him worth more than every blessing in the world. The meeting of Jacob and Rachel is much more romantic in Josephus than it is in the Bible. In the biblical account (Gen. 29:12-13) Rachel goes to call her father, Laban; and Laban comes out to meet Jacob, embraces and kisses him, but she does not speak a word. In Josephus here it is she and not Laban who speaks; and she weeps, and embraces Jacob. Moreover, it is she and not Laban who conducts Jacob to their house (Ant. 1.293). Similarly, it will be recalled, it is Rebekah who takes the initiative in introducing the stranger (Ant. 1.252).

Like Homer’s Nausicaa, Rachel bids Jacob to come straight to her father, following her lead.

Whereas in Gen. 29:15-19 the negotiations between Jacob and Laban for Jacob’s marriage with Rachel are unusually brief, Josephus, building up the romantic aspect, has a much more extensive account (Ant. 1.294-300).

The Greek word which Josephus uses here, σοφία, usually means wisdom and hence might be a compliment to Rebekah.

This genealogical detail is Josephus’ own addition and reflects the importance of genealogy for him.

Other manuscripts (RO) read “foraging” in place of “prerogatives.”

I.e. Laban. The romantic element is enhanced here by the protraction of the negotiations (Ant. 1.298) between Jacob and Laban, thus emphasizing Jacob’s love for Rachel. Gen. 29:18 declares simply that Jacob loved Rachel and said that he would serve Laban for seven years in order to win her as his wife. In Josephus’ version here Jacob says that he will gladly remain with Laban and that he will endure any labor in order to please him. Such a statement is reminiscent of the willingness of Greece’s great national hero, Heracles, to wrestle with the rival suitor, Achelous, who had the power of changing himself into various shapes, in order to win the hand of Deianira. Jacob’s love for Rachel is, moreover, a physical love (ἔρως); and it is this, according to Josephus, that motivates him to speak thus.

Gen. 29:15 speaks of the wages that Laban proposes, whereas Josephus omits all discussion of wages.

Whereas Gen. 29:18 and 20 simply indicate that Jacob served Laban for seven years for Rachel, Josephus (Ant. 1.300) gives a reason for these years of service, namely so as to give proof of his worth (ἀρετῆς, “excellence, virtue”). Such a motive is reminiscent of the story of Heracles, who performed twelve labors for Eurystheus in order to prove himself deserving of immortality. According to some of the manuscripts (MSPL) it is Jacob who accepted the proposal.

In Gen. 29:17 Leah is described merely as having weak eyes, whereas here in Josephus she is described as being devoid of beauty. According to rabbinic tradition (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 70.16), she was not ugly; rather, her eyes became weak because she wept continuously, inasmuch as she, the elder daughter, had been promised to Esau, the elder son. The reverse transformation, we may comment, is found in the case of Vashti, who in the Bible (Esth. 1:11) is described merely as “fair to look upon” (as is Rachel), but of whom Josephus (Ant. 11.190) states that she “surpassed all women in beauty.” The romance is heightened here by Josephus’ emphasis on Laban’s deceit in substituting Leah for Rachel. In Josephus’ version Jacob is completely unaware beforehand of the deceit being practiced upon him by Laban. Diamond (1984:211-13) suggests that the reason why Jacob was able to spend the entire night with Leah before realizing that he had been duped was that he was drunk from the wedding banquet, as indicated here by Josephus. He notes the convention in biblical prose first coined by Martin Buber and Franz Rosenzweig and known as Leitswortstil, in Jacob’s remark here in his paraphrase of Gen. 29:26, in which he uses the same two terms, ‮בכירה‬‎ and ‮צעירה‬‎, which are employed (Gen. 19:30-38) in connection with the older and younger daughters of Lot in a similar scene. The passage here is reminiscent of a famous scene from Greek mythology, the relations between Theias (Cinyras), who is drunk, and his daugher Myrrha, which resulted in the birth of Adonis (Ovid, Met. 10.298-518).

Hebrew ‮לאה‬‎ (Gen. 29:16), LXX Λεία, Josephus Λεία. Weill, in his translation (1900:ad loc.), assumes that there is a lacuna caused by the copyist in the manuscript transmission, since we would expect the text to identify the motive at this point. Nodet (ad loc., n. 5), however, suggests that the omission on the part of Josephus was deliberate, in order to diminish both the naiveté of Jacob and the knavery of Laban. According to the Bible (Gen. 29:26), the reason that Laban gave for substituting Leah for Rachel was that it was not the custom in his region to give in marriage the younger before the older daughter. Jacob’s version here is more romantic than the biblical statement (Gen. 29:27), inasmuch as in Josephus Jacob works seven years for Rachel before receiving her, whereas in the Bible he does so after receiving her. Ginzberg (1925:5:295, n. 166) suggests that Josephus’ version arose from a misunderstanding of the Hebrew ‮שׁבע‬‎ (Gen. 29:27), which means both “week” and “septinate” generally.

Hebrew ‮זלפה‬‎ (Gen. 30:9), LXX Ζελφά, Josephus Ζέλφα. Hebrew ‮בלהה‬‎ (Gen. 30:3), LXX Βαλλά, Josephus Βάλλα. According to Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Gen. 29:24 and 29 and Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 36, Bilhah and Zilpah were Laban’s daughters by a concubine. According to Midrash Gen. Rabbah 74.13, they were Laban’s daughters, without further indication of their origin. Philo (De Congressu Quaerendae Eruditionis Gratia 6.31), on the other hand, speaks explicitly of Bilhah and Zilpah as slaves and concubines and contrasts them with Leah, who produces health in the body, noble living and justice in the soul. Josephus says nothing of Jacob’s hatred for Leah (Gen. 29:31) but rather accentuates the positive, namely his passion (ἔρως) for Rachel. Gen. 29:31 says that “the Lord saw that Leah was hated, and He opened her womb,” whereas Josephus here puts the emphasis on Leah’s feelings rather than God’s. Moreover, perhaps because he was trying to protect Jacob’s reputation, Josephus omits the statement that Jacob hated Leah.

In Gen. 29:32, after giving birth to Reuben, Leah expresses merely the confidence that Jacob will love her; in Josephus Jacob actually is drawn toward her. Hebrew ‮ראובן‬‎ (Gen. 29:32), LXX Ῥουβήν, Josephus Ῥουβῆλος. Josephus’ spelling, Roubel, of the name of Reuben is the same as that found in the Syriac version. Franxman (193, n. 22) suggests that the explanation of Josephus’ etymology for the name is that the biblical phrase employs ‮רה‬‎ with the preposition prefix ‮ב‬‎ so that the meaning is that “the Lord has looked with pity upon my affliction. Nodet (ad loc., n. 2) suggests a derivation of the name from ‮ראויבאל‬‎ or ‮ראביאל‬‎ (“God has considered me worthy,” “worthy of God”) or, more probably, from Leah’s own words upon the birth of her son, “the Lord has looked upon (‮ראה‬‎) my affliction.” Schalit (ad loc.), basing himself upon the rendition of the rest of this verse, ‮יאהבני אישׁי‬‎ (“my husband will love me”), by Targum Onqelos as ‮ירחמנני בעלי‬‎, “my husband will pity me,” suggests that the name of Reuben is derived from ‮רחומאל‬‎, “pity of God.” The spelling “Roubel” is also found in an inscription from Palestine (CII 1175); see N.G. Cohen (1969:90). Hebrew ‮שׁמעון‬‎ (Gen. 29:33), LXX and Josephus Συμεών; one of the manuscripts (M) of Josephus here reads Σεμεών. Hebrew (Gen. 29:33): “because the Lord heard (‮שׁמע‬‎) that I was hated.” Hebrew ‮לוי‬‎ (Gen. 29:34), LXX Λευί, Josephus Λευίς. Gen. 29:34: “Now this time will my husband be joined (‮ילוה‬‎) to me.” Hebrew ‮יהודה‬‎ (Gen. 29:35), LXX Ἰούδα, Josephus Ἰούδας. Gen. 29:35: “This time will I praise (‮אודה‬‎) the Lord.”

Whereas in the Bible Jacob loses his temper (Gen. 30:2) in his anger against Rachel when she tells him (Gen. 30:1) either to give her children or to let her die, Josephus here omits this episode completely. Philo also ascribes this quality of moderation to Jacob, noting that he was unflagging in self-discipline (ἄσκησιν: De Congressu Quaerendae Eruditionis Gratia 6.24). Indeed, he says that Jacob is named on the basis of his discipline, as Esau is from his folly (De Sacrificiis Abelis et Caini 4.17-18; cf. De Congressu Quaerendae Eruditionis Gratia 31.175-76). In fact, Philo actually derives Esau’s other name, “Edom,” from “flame-colored” or “earthy” and says that the name was given to him because he was intemperate and unrestrained in character (Quaestiones in Genesin 4.168). Hebrew ‮דן‬‎ (Gen. 30:6), LXX and Josephus Δάν. Gen. 30:6: “God has judged (‮דנני‬‎) me.” Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Gen. 30:6 connects Dan with Samson, who was consecrated as a Nazirite; consequently, Schalit (ad loc.) suggests that Josephus here shows acquaintance with the midrashic tradition connecting Dan with Samson. Hebrew ‮נפתלי‬‎ (Gen. 30:8), LXX Νεφθαλί, Josephus Νεφθάλεις. Other manuscripts (MSPL) read ἀμηχάνητος (“helpless”). This quality of cleverness is to be seen here in Jacob’s wife Rachel, as we can deduce from the extra-biblical addition giving the source of the name Naphtali, namely that Rachel had outmanoeuvred (ἀντιτεχνάσασθαι) the fecundity of her sister Leah, whereas the biblical text states simply that the name Naphtali is derived from the mighty wrestlings (‮נפתולי‬‎, “twistings”) with which Rachel had wrestled with her sister and prevailed (Gen. 30:8). The LXX renders the verse “God has helped me, and I wrestled with my sister and prevailed.” Josephus’ etymology, as Nodet (ad loc.) remarks, is closer to the root ‮פתל‬‎, “tortuous,” “crooked”.

Hebrew ‮גד‬‎ (Gen. 30:11), LXX Γάδ, Josephus Γάδας. Hebrew ‮גד‬‎ (“good fortune,” Gen. 30:11); LXX τύχῃ (“chance,” “luck”). As Skinner (1930: ad loc.) remarks, this is the name of the Aramaean and Phoenician god of luck. Hebrew ‮אשׁר‬‎ (Gen. 30:13), LXX Ἀσήρ, Josephus Ἄσηρος. Gen. 30:13: “For my happiness (‮באשׁרי‬‎).” Thackeray (ad loc.) suggests that the name may possibly be related to the Canannite goddess Asherah. One of the manuscripts (L) adds: τῇ Λείᾳ (“to Leah”).

Gen. 30:14 speaks simply of mandrakes (‮דודאים‬‎, LXX μανδραγορῶν. Josephus equates them with love-apples, perhaps bearing in mind that Aphrodite, the goddess of love, is, according to Hesychius, known by the epithet Μανδραγορῖτις, “she of the mandrake.” The mandrake, a plant of the potato family, is known for its poisonous properties and its supposed virtue in facilitating pregnancy (cf. Augustine, Faust. 22.56).

Jacob’s love for Rachel is emphasized by the fact that after Leah wins from Rachel the right to spend the night with Jacob, Jacob agrees to do so here in order to please Rachel. In contrast, Gen. 30:16 gives no reason why Jacob agrees. Hebrew ‮ישׂשׂכר‬‎ (Gen. 30:18), LXX Ἰσσάχαρ, Josephus Ἰσσαχάρης (Ἰσακχάρης, Ant. 2. 178). Gen. 30:18: “God has given me my hire (‮שׂכרי‬‎).” Hebrew ‮זבלון‬‎ (Gen. 30:20), LXX and Josephus Ζαβουλών. Gen. 30:20: “God has endowed (‮זבדני‬‎) me with a good dowry (‮זבד‬‎); now my husband will honor (‮יזבלני‬‎) me.” Josephus apparently connects the name with ‮חבל‬‎, “pledge.” Hebrew ‮דינה‬‎ (Gen. 30:21), LXX Δῖνα, Josephus Δεῖνα. Hebrew ‮יוסף‬‎ (Gen. 30:24), LXX Ἰωσήφ, Josephus Ἰώσηπος. Josephus here omits Rachel’s comment (Gen. 30:22-23), when she gives birth to Joseph, that “God has taken away my reproach.” Gen. 30:24: “May the Lord add (‮יסף‬‎) to me another son.”

Josephus here minimizes Jacob’s deception, as he has done in connection with Jacob’s obtaining of Isaac’s blessing (Ant. 1.271), by omitting the passage (Gen. 30:25-31:17) detailing the negotiations between Jacob and Laban in which Jacob asks Laban for permission to leave and succeeds, through elaborate deception involving the selective breeding of Laban’s flock, in obtaining the better flock. In addition, apparently because, like Cicero (De Divinatione), he was skeptical of such divination, Josephus has eliminated the Bible’s reference to Laban’s statement that he has learned by divination that God has blessed him because of Jacob (Gen. 30:27). Similarly, Josephus omits reference to Joseph’s cup as used for divination (Gen. 44:5). Josephus’ presentation of this as Jacob’s desire to depart for his own home (πρὸς αὐτόν) may be another omission of land-covenant theology. In Gen. 30:25 Jacob asks Laban to send him away, “that I may go unto my own place, and to my country (‮ולארצי‬‎).”

These are the teraphim, which, according to Zech. 10:2, were used for divination. They are apparently similar to the Roman Penates, the gods that were regarded as protectors of the house. Rachel’s motive in taking the teraphim, namely to serve as a bargaining tool with Laban, is an addition by Josephus. According to rabbinic tradition (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 74.5, Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 36), Rachel’s motive in taking the teraphim was to detach Laban from idolatry; this is here implied by Josephus’ addition that Jacob had taught her to despise the honoring of such gods. On the other hand, according to Tanḥuma 12 (p. 128) and Palestinian Targum on Gen. 31:19, followed by most of the major commentators—Rashbam, Ibn Ezra, Qimḥi, Naḥmanides—Rachel did believe in the efficacy of the teraphim; and her motive in stealing the teraphim was that they should not tell Laban that Jacob had fled, since the teraphim do speak, at least according to Zechariah 10:2. Among modern scholars, Frazer (1923:244) suggests that she stole them because she feared that the gods might resent and punish the injury done to Laban. Skinner (1910:396) and others suggest that she wanted to enjoy the protection of her household gods now that she had left her home. See Greenberg (1962:239). As a motive for Rachel’s theft of the teraphim Greenberg (1962:246-48) suggests the relevance of a passage in Josephus (Ant. 18.344) that mentions that the wife of a Parthian general, after the death of her husband and after she had been taken captive, “took along the ancestral images of the gods belonging to her husband and to herself—for it is the custom among all the people in that country to have objects of worship in their house and to take them along when going abroad. She, too, therefore, secretly carried them off in observance of her national custom in these matters.” Of course, this incident deals anecdotally with a Parthian custom and at a date in the first century C.E., close to two millennia later; but as Greenberg (1962:247 n. 26) indicates, on the strength of archaeological evidence from Iraq and central Asia and from meager literary indications, the existence of household cults among the Parthians in which idols figured may be reasonably inferred. If the narrator of the biblical story in Genesis is silent about the motive of Rachel’s theft, the most likely explanation is that the narrator regarded it as self-evident to his readers.

According to Gen. 31:22, Laban was informed on the third day that Jacob had fled. According to Gen. 31:23, this was the mountain of Gilead.

The statement that God in the dream told Laban to make a treaty with Jacob and that He declared that He would join Jacob if Laban would go to war with him is a Josephan addition to Gen. 31:24 and 31:29.

There is increased pathos, a characteristic of both Greek tragedy and novels, in Laban’s statement here about Jacob’s ingratitude to him. In Gen. 31:25-30 Laban asks Jacob why he fled away secretly and did not give him an opportunity to kiss his children good-bye. In Josephus there is increased dramatic feeling here in Laban’s pathetic appeal to Jacob in which he reminds the latter that he gave his daughters in marriage to him in order to increase his affection for him and berates him for his lack of regard for his (Jacob’s) own mother and his kinship with Laban and his wives and his children who are Laban’s grandchildren. The pathos is further increased by Laban’s accusation that Jacob, his kinsman, the son of his sister, the husband of his daughters, and the guest and sharer of his hearth and home, had dealt with him according to the laws of warfare, plundering his property, inciting his daughters to flee from their father, and making off with the sacred objects of his family.

When Jacob replies to Laban’s objection to his attempt to escape from him, he speaks, in a long extra-biblical addition here (cf. Gen. 31:31-32), not in nationalistic terms but rather in terms of love of native land (πατρίδος), which, he says, is innate (ἐμφῦσαι) in all.

Jacob here has substituted love for fear (Gen. 31:31) as the motivating force behind the decision of Jacob’s wives to accompany him on his flight from Laban. In the biblical passage Jacob says to Laban that he fled with his wives (Laban’s daughters) because he was afraid that Laban would take his daughters from him by force. Things are much more romantic in Josephus’ version, where it is not Jacob’s but his wives’ decision, based on their affection for him and particularly for their children, that leads them to accompany him. Josephus appeals to the general state of things when he remarks that such affection is that which wedded wives are wont to have for their husbands.

Laban’s imposition of grievous tasks upon Jacob here is reminiscent of the tasks imposed upon several famous mythological heroes, notably Heracles, Jason, and Bellerophon. Other manuscripts (SPLM) read “might have fled.”

According to Gen. 30:32, Jacob is to remove every existing speckled and spotted lamb and every brown sheep, as well as every spotted and speckled goat, whereas in Josephus’ version he is to take those that are born white or black.

As compared with his biblical source (Gen. 31:8-9), Josephus has greatly increased the deceit practiced by Laban. On the other hand, Josephus omits the account (Gen. 30:37-43) of the means, namely placing rods before the flocks, whereby Jacob was able to get the flocks to conceive streaked, speckled, and spotted animals.

Josephus abridges his biblical source (Gen. 31:31-32), in particular omitting the anger of Jacob and the details of the agreement with Laban. Surprisingly, he omits the biblical statement (Gen. 31:32) that Jacob did not know that Rachel had stolen the teraphim.

I.e., because of her alleged state of impurity she would not desecrate objects of worship that she had been taught to reverence (Ant. 1.310). Josephus adds to the romantic motif by having Jacob swear to Laban (there is no counterpart in Gen. 31:51-53) that he will love his daughters as part of his pact with him. Josephus develops the same motif in his account of David’s speed in fulfilling Saul’s demand of six hundred heads of Philistines in lieu of a dowry (Ant. 6.203; cf. 1 Sam. 18:27).

That the pillar was in the form of an altar is a Josephan addition, perhaps inspired by the sacrifice in Gen. 31:54. Hebrew ‮גלעד‬‎ (Gen. 31:47, “heap of witness”), Josephus Γαλάδης (M: Γαλάδην, other mss. Γαλαδηνή). The LXX does not transliterate the proper noun here but rather translates it as “witness heap.” Hebrew ‮גלעד‬‎ (Gen. 31:48), Josephus Γαλαδηνή. Josephus has Hellenized the name.

Whereas, according to the biblical text, Jacob, on his return to Canaan after his reconciliation with Laban, meets angels (Gen. 32:2), Josephus here says that he had visions (φαντάσματα, “spectres,” “apparitions,” “phantoms”) that inspired him with good hopes. Hebrew ‮מחנים‬‎ (Gen. 32:3, “two camps”), LXX Παρεμβολαί (“encampments”), Josephus θεοῦ στρατόπεδον (“camp of God”).

Jacob’s instructions to his messengers are much more conciliatory than in Gen. 32:4-5, containing, as they do, the extra-biblical details that he had left the country of his own free will, thinking it wrong to live with Esau while his wrath persisted, and that he was now entrusting himself into his hands, holding it the greatest of blessings to share with his brother what God had given to him. The scene in which Jacob and Esau are reconciled (Gen. 33:1-16) becomes in Josephus a central event, which he here narrates in great detail. To the biblical account (Gen. 32:4-5) Josephus adds that Jacob instructed his messengers to tell Esau that he now deemed that the long interval of time during which they were separated was actually sufficient to make reconciliation possible.

Josephus here refers anachronistically to the foot-soldiers of Gen. 32:7 as “hoplites,” employing the word used to designate heavily armed Greek infantrymen, so called after their shields (ὅπλα), about whom we first hear in the seventh century B.C.E. See Sealey (1976:29). Before the confrontation with Esau, Jacob (Gen. 32:10-13) prays at length to God and declares (32:10) his unworthiness of all the kindness and truth that He has shown to him. Josephus omits the wording of the prayer and simply declares here that Jacob committed to God his hope of salvation. Other manuscripts (OMSP) read: “in order that he might save those unharmed.” Jacob’s preparations for the encounter involve a full-blown military strategem, giving Josephus, the military general in Galilee, an opportunity to display his knowledge of military strategy (Esau has not merely 400 men, as in Gen. 32:7, but 400 armed men).

The Bible states merely that Jacob sent messengers before him to Esau and then divided the people that were with him so that if Esau should smite one band the other might be able to escape (Gen. 32:4, 8-9). Josephus here, in an addition to the Bible, depicts Jacob as a military strategist and a master of reconnaissance techniques by noting that he sent forward a party to obtain full and precise information and then sent one group in advance and bade the rest follow closely behind so that if the advance guard were overpowered those in the rear might come to their aid. A similar portrayal of Moses as a skilled general may be seen in Josephus’ extra-biblical description of his organization of his army against the Amalekites (Ant. 3.47), of his strategy (Ant. 3.42) in attacking them at the outset before they were too strong, of his preparations for the battle (Ant. 3.50), and of his ability to lead a good retreat (Ant. 4.9).

Jacob here shows his generosity when he sends, as a gift to his brother Esau, a multitude of animals such as would be treasured on account of their rarity.

Jacob, seeking reconcilation, directs the envoys to address Esau affably.

Hebrew ‮יבק‬‎ (Gen. 32:23), LXX Ἰαβόχ, Josephus Ἰάβακχος. In Gen. 32:25 it is a “man” who wrestles with Jacob, but a few verses later (Gen. 32:31) Jacob says that he has seen God face to face. Josephus similarly (Ant. 5.213, 277) speaks of an “apparition” (φάντασμα) where the Hebrew text (Judg. 6:11, 13:3) refers to an angel of God. At this point Josephus omits the biblical statement (Gen. 32:26) that Jacob’s hip was dislocated during the wrestling with the angel, but he does mention it in Ant. 1.334.

Some manuscripts (MPL) read “that he had prevailed over small [forces].” Josephus’ sophisticated readers might well object to the biblical statement (Gen. 32:29), in the explanation of Jacob’s new name Israel, that Jacob had striven with God; and so Jacob says here that he had defeated an angel of God. Confronted with the apparent contradiction between the statement of Gen. 32:25, that a man wrestled with Jacob, and that of Gen. 32:29, that Jacob had wrestled with God and with man, and Jacob’s affirmation (Gen. 32:31) that he had seen God face to face, Josephus here declares that Jacob had defeated an angel (the word ἄγγελος, meaning both “angel” and “messenger,” retains the ambiguity) of God. The assurance that the angel here gives Jacob is not in terms of a future nation but rather that his progeny (γένος) will never be extinguished and that no mortal will surpass him personally in strength. Connected with this quality of courage, the great hero must show prowess. Hence, Josephus emphasizes Jacob’s great display of strength in overcoming the angel (Ant. 1.332); Josephus adds that the angel bids him rejoice in his achievement and not to imagine that it was a puny (μικρόν) adversary whom he had mastered. So also Philo declares that Jacob exercised himself in mastering the laborious life (De Sobrietate 13.65) and praises him for his practice of toil and endurance (De Somniis 1.20.120-2l). Jacob, says Philo, is the symbol of labor (πόνου) and progress (προκοπῆς: De Sacrificiis Abelis et Caini 36.120). Such virtues would have been especially appreciated by a Roman audience, who might well have been reminded of Aeneas’ instructions to his son Ascanius just before he leaves for the final battle with Turnus, that he should learn luck from others but toil from himself and from Hector (Virgil, Aen. 12.435-36). In contrast, Philo’s Esau is the bad man, who, when he sees the props on which he rests conquered and robbed of strength by the reason which corrects them, must in natural consequence find the bonds loosened which knit his strength together (De Sacrificiis Abelis et Caini 24.81). Whereas in the Bible it is Jacob who demands that the angel bless him (Gen. 32:27), in Josephus here it is the angel himself who takes the initiative to bless him. Likewise, the Bible declares that the angel, after Jacob has wrestled with him, blessed Jacob without indicating the contents of the blessing (Gen. 32:30), whereas in Josephus the angel assures him that his race will never be extinguished and that no mortal man will surpass him in strength (ἰσχύος).

That is, “he who strives with God” (Gen. 32:29). Whereas Gen. 32:29 states that Jacob’s name will from now on be Israel “because you have striven with God and with men,” in Josephus’ version the struggle with men (which might, presumably, include the Romans) is significantly omitted from the explanation of the name. Likewise, as in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Gen. 32:29, Josephus presents the struggle not with God, as in the Bible, but with an angel of God. Hence, Josephus has given us a “gereinigten” text, where the name Israel omits the direct confrontation with God Himself. See Butterweck (1981:51-56). In Gen. 32:30 Jacob asks the man with whom he wrestled what his name is and says nothing about a request to determine what his own fate would be.

Josephus has translated the Hebrew ‮פניאל‬‎ of Gen. 32:31 and transliterated ‮פנואל‬‎ of Gen. 32:32. The LXX has only the translation, εἶδος Θεοῦ, “face of God.” Whereas Gen. 32:31 explains the etymology of the name of the place, Penuel, where Jacob had wrestled with the angel, as due to the fact that he had seen God face to face there, Josephus here gives its meaning as “the face of God” without explaining the reason for the name, presumably because he sought to avoid the anthropomorphism of seeing God face to face. This is the sciatic nerve (‮גיד הנשׁה‬‎), which, according to the Jewish dietary laws, must be removed before any animal, other than a bird, can be prepared for consumption. Josephus here is in accord with the LXX’s version of Gen. 32:33, ἕνεκα τούτου οὐ μὴ φάγωσιν οἱ υἱοὶ Ἰσραὴλ τὸ νεῦρον ὃ ἐνάρκησεν ὅ ἐστιν ἐπὶ τοῦ πλάτους τοῦ μηροῦ, “The sons of Israel do by no means eat of the sinew that was benumbed, which is on the broad part of the thigh.” From this Frankel (1851:52-53) deduces that the LXX held that only that sinew that had been affected was prohibited, and that this is in accord with the view of Rabbi Judah (Ḥullin 90b, Pesaḥim 83b) that the reference is to only one thigh, that consequently the prohibition of the thigh sinew is operative only in respect to one thigh, and that reason indicates that this is the right thigh. However, the Hebrew likewise has the definite article in referring to “the thigh,” the only difference being that the Hebrew does not state specifically that it is the thigh that was injured, whereas the LXX and Josephus do state specifically that it is the sinew that was injured from which Jews abstain. Revel (1923-24:300-1) notes that whereas rabbinic tradition (Mishnah Ḥullin 7:1 ff.), as well as the LXX (see Frankel [1851:52]) and the Samaritans (see Geiger [1877:3:298]), interprets Gen. 32:33 as a command forbidding the use of the nervus ischiadicus, Josephus explains the verse not as a command but as the origin of a custom in deference to the patriarch Jacob. This is also the view of many Karaite authorities, e.g. Aaron ben Joseph, Sefer ha-Mivḥar Gen. 57a; Aaron ben Elijah the Younger, Keter Torah ad loc. 72a; Elijah ben Moses Bashyazi, Adderet Eliyahu 21.

Josephus here presents Jacob as a military man, as we see, for example, in the way that Jacob separates himself from his wives so that they may watch the battle from afar in a manner reminiscent of the scene in Homer’s Ilias, Book 3.161-242. N.G. Cohen (1963-64:312-14) has studied the occurrences of this word προσκυνέω (“to prostrate”) in Josephus and concludes that while 64 [actually 69] of the 84 [actually 98] occurrences of this word in the complete works of Josephus are to be found in the portion of Josephus paralleling the Bible (Ant. 1-11.297 [actually 303]), only 6 [actually 5] appear in Books 1-5, whereas in the portion of the LXX paralleling those books (Gen.-1 Sam. 4) the word occurs 60 times.

In the Hebrew the whole reconciliation scene is fraught with ambiguity. Was Esau sincere? In particular, the word ‮וישׁקהו‬‎, “and he [Esau] kissed him [Jacob]” (Gen. 33:4), which, in the Masoretic Text, is dotted and hence apparently involves some doubt, led to a fundamental dispute among the rabbis as to Esau’s sincerity. See Lieberman (1950:43-46). Josephus, ever eager to diminish the tension between them, declares outright that Esau approached Jacob with no thought of treachery (Ant. 1.335). As for the key word “kissed,” which led to such disagreement among the rabbis, Josephus eliminates it, stating instead that Esau embraced (ἀσπασάμενος) Jacob and questioned him concerning the crowd of children around him (Ant. 1.336). We may note one final touch: in Gen. 33.8-11 Jacob has to insist that Esau accept the gifts that he is offering him, and Esau finally does so. In Josephus there is no mention of Esau’s initially refusing or of his finally accepting the gifts (Ant. 1.335-36), presumably because the Greeks thought ill of someone who would refuse gifts, as exemplified in a major theme of Homer’s Ilias, Achilles’ refusal of the gifts offered by Agamemnon in Book 9.643-55, in contrast to his acceptance of the gifts offered by Priam in Book 24.594-95. Hebrew ‮שׂעיר‬‎ (Gen. 33:14), LXX Σηίρ, Josephus Σάειρα. Thackeray (ad loc.) says that δασεῖαν, “bushy” is probably a gloss. Nodet (ad loc.), noting that the usual gender of geographical place names is feminine, remarks that this feminine adjective is not suspect.

Hebrew ‮סכת‬‎ (Gen. 33:17, the meaning of which is, indeed, “booths”), LXX Σκηναί (“tents”). Josephus here does not give the Bible’s name, Sukkot, but rather, like the LXX, the meaning alone, Σκηναί (“tents”). Hebrew ‮שׁכם‬‎ (Gen. 33:18), LXX Σήκιμα, Josephus Σίκιμον”. According to Gen. 34:1, Dinah went out to look about among the daughters of the land. Josephus’ addition, that the Sikimites were holding a festival, may have come from Theodotus, who wrote a poem in hexameters dealing with Shechem, portions of which are quoted by Eusebius from Alexander Polyhistor. According to Theodotus (ap. Eus., Pr. Ev. 9.22.4), generally thought to be a Samaritan, Dinah came to Shechem when there was a great festival because she wanted to see the city. Elsewhere Josephus (Apion 1.216) mentions a Theodotus who refers to the Jews. It is largely on the basis of the mention of a festival by both Theodotus and Josephus that Kippenberg (1971:56 n.123, 90) concludes that Theodotus is Josephus’ source here. In fact he theorizes that Theodotus is Josephus’ source for the foundation of the community of Shechem. His assertion that Josephus agrees with Theodotus partly verbatim is exaggerated. In particular, Josephus uses a different word (ἑορτή) for the key term, “festival,” from that used by Theodotus, πανήγυρις. A late rabbinic tradition (Sefer Hayashar 13 [ed. Dan, p. 154] and Sekel Tov on Gen. 34:1 [ed. Buber, p. 189]) likewise speaks of a festival of women. Note that Josephus (Ant. 2.45) likewise adds that it was at the approach of a festival that Potiphar’s wife made illness her excuse to her husband and used the opportunity to solicit Joseph. Hebrew ‮שׁכם‬‎ (Gen. 34:2), LXX Συχέμ, Josephus Συχέμμης. Hebrew ‮חמור‬‎ (Gen. 34:2), LXX Ἐμμώρ, Josephus Ἔμμωρος.

Another delicate topic connected with Jacob on which Josephus walked a tightrope, so to speak, was with regard to intermarriage. In dealing with the request of Hamor for the hand of Dinah (Gen. 34:6), Josephus carefully balances the fact that it is unlawful for Jacob to marry off his daughter to a foreigner against the fact that the petitioner was of high rank; and so, in an extra-biblical addition, he has him sagely ask permission here to hold a council on the matter.

Josephus makes no mention of the Shechemites’ offer to the Israelites to open the land to them and to arrange marriages with them, since this would presumably have aroused the readers’ sympathies for the Shechemites. Josephus here omits the condition, recounted at some length in the biblical text (Gen. 34:14-24), namely that the males of the Shechemites be circumcised, insisted upon by Jacob’s sons. By omitting this Josephus makes the action of Simeon and Levi appear not as treachery in violating an agreement that the Shechemites had entered into but rather as revenge for the rape of their sister. Moreover, whereas in the Bible (Gen. 34:13) all the sons of Jacob are described as speaking deceitfully to the Shechemites, in Josephus the deceit is restricted to Simeon and Levi.

This festival, like the one mentioned in Ant. 1.337, is an addition by Josephus. Whereas in Gen. 34:25-26 Simeon and Levi kill the Shechemites on the third day after their circumcision, when they were in pain, and thus may be accused of a cowardly action, in Josephus they attack them, in a surprise military action, when they had overly indulged in feasting. For apologetic reasons, since Jacob was identified as the ancestor of the Jewish people, Josephus takes care to stress that Simeon and Levi, in massacring the Shechemites, acted without their father Jacob’s permission. If we ask why Josephus is so critical of the zealous acts of Simeon and Levi whereas he approves of the zealousness of Phinehas (Ant. 4.152-55), we may suggest that he is sensitive about relations with non-Jews, whereas he approves of strict enforcement of moral standards with regard to Jews. Moreover, Josephus may have been influenced by the fact that Phinehas, like himself, was a priest; and the biblical text (Num. 25:13) states specifically that God rewarded Phinehas for his zealotry by granting him and his descendants the covenant of a perpetual priesthood.

In Gen. 34:30 Jacob rebukes his sons because their action has brought him personal trouble, and there is no indication that he is really angry with them, let alone aghast at the enormity of their deeds. Perhaps Josephus’ stronger language is influenced by Jacob’s words (Gen. 49:7) in his blessing of Simeon and Levi (which Josephus, Ant. 2.194, there omits) in which he curses their anger and denominates their wrath as cruel. Gen. 28:22, Ant. 1.284. Josephus introduces God here where the Hebrew text lacks reference to Him. This is because he seeks to free Jacob from the serious charge of condoning idolatry; thus, whereas Gen. 35:2 puts into Jacob’s mouth the instruction to get rid of the strange gods, which would make it seem that he already knew of their presence among his household, in Josephus here it is God who bids Jacob undertake the purification of his tents, thus disclosing the matter to him for the first time.

Gen. 35:4, however, speaks of all the strange gods that were in the hands of Jacob’s household, presumably a reference to the statues that they had in their possession from the spoil of Shechem. In the Bible this is mentioned much earlier (Gen. 31:32). Hebrew ‮שׁכם‬‎ (Gen. 35:4), LXX Σήκιμοι, Josephus Σίκιμα. The role of God is diminished in Josephus’ omission here of the terror of God that befell the cities through which Jacob journeyed (Gen. 35:5), as well as in the omission of the second theophany at Bethel (Gen. 35:9-13). Ant. 1.284. Whereas in the Hebrew (Gen. 35:11) God at Bethel tells Jacob that “a nation and a company of nations shall come from you, and kings shall spring from you”—a passage the political significance of which, especially in view of the recent revolt of the Jews against the Romans, might well be offensive to the Romans—Josephus here quietly omits the whole scene.

Biblical (Gen. 35:16) ‮אפרתה‬‎, located in the environs of the village of Bethlehem. There may be significance in Josephus’ comment that Rachel alone did not have the honor of burial in Hebron, since the Bible (Gen. 35:19-20) gives no indication that her not being buried there is a mark of dishonor. Perhaps this is Josephus’ way of criticizing her deceiving Laban about the teraphim. Josephus omits the biblical statement (Gen. 35:20) that the pillar upon Rachel’s grave “is there to this day,” since such a statement would imply that the passage was written long after the revelation of the Pentateuch. Hebrew ‮בנימין‬‎ (Gen. 35:18), LXX Βενιαμίν, Josephus Βενιαμείν. Gen. 35:18 declares that Rachel called the child ‮בן-אוני‬‎, i.e., “the son of my lamentation.” The name “Benjamin” means “son of the right hand.” Thus Josephus is clearly mistaken in his explanation of the name.

Josephus omits the biblical account of Reuben’s incest with Bilhah, his father’s concubine (Gen. 35:22). The Talmud (Megillah 25a) indicates that this is one of the passages in the Bible that are read in the synagogue but not translated.

It is awkward that Josephus tells the reader here where Hebron is located when he has already mentioned Hebron two paragraphs earlier (Ant. 1.343) without indicating its location. The death of Rebekah is not recorded in the Bible; it is only later (Gen. 49:31) that we read that she was buried in the field of Machpelah where Isaac was buried.

It is truly ironic that in longevity Isaac, who was on the verge of being sacrificed by Abraham, should, as pointed out by Josephus, have even surpassed Abraham, who lived 175 years (Ant. 1.256). We may recall that God Himself (Ant. 1.234), according to Josephus, had predicted that Isaac would attain to extreme old age. According to the Hebrew Bible and the LXX (Gen. 35:28) Isaac lived 180 years. Thackeray (ad loc.), noting that Josephus closes this book at the end of Genesis 35, remarks that the third-century Berlin Fragment of Genesis likewise ends at this same chapter. Its subscription there, γένεσις κόσμου, “Beginning of the World,” would seem to indicate that the Greek Genesis was divided at this point.

Josephus does not give the reason found in the biblical text (Gen. 36:7), namely that the wealth of Jacob and Esau was too great for them to live together and that their herds of cattle were too large for their land. Josephus appears to look upon the division of territory between Jacob and Esau as one of inherited land, whereas Gen. 36:7 simply states that their possessions were too great for them to dwell together, without any indication that their property had been inherited. There is no indication either in the Bible or in Josephus (Ant. 1.336) that Esau had previously occupied Hebron. Hebrew ‮שׂעיר‬‎ (Gen. 36:8), LXX Σηίρ, Josephus Σαείρα. The Hebrew and LXX texts refer to the place as Mount Seir. Josephus (Ant. 1.336, following Gen. 33:16) has already mentioned that Esau withdrew to Seir. The equation of Esau and Edom is found in Gen. 25:30, 36:8; Josephus, in an extra-biblical addition, here specifically equates Edom with Idumea. The Book of Jubilees (37-38), dating from the second century B.C.E., develops at length the tradition of the warfare between Jacob and Esau and the death of Esau in that conflict. At the end of the account in Jubilees (38:14) we have the implicit equation of Edom with Idumea in the statement: “And the sons of Edom have not got quit of the yoke of servitude that the twelve sons of Jacob had imposed upon them until this day.” This affirmation would seem to reflect a long-standing conflict (see Charles [1913:2:219-22]). It is not clear whether Idumea is an area distinct from Seir. It appears from Gen. 37 that Seir is outside of Canaan. According to Ant. 1.336 Esau also gave its name to Seir, the word referring to his shaggy hair. Hebrew ‮אדום‬‎ (Gen. 25:30), LXX Ἐδώμ, Josephus Ἄδωμος. The episode that follows, in which Esau sells his birthright to Jacob, is in Gen. 25:29-34 placed before the division of the land (Gen. 36:7) that Josephus mentions above.

By noting that Esau was still a lad (παῖς) at the moment of the sale, Josephus generates more sympathy for him; Genesis omits this remark. Whereas the parallel Hebrew text states that Esau was tired (‮עיף‬‎, Gen. 25:29), Josephus here uses stronger language, implying extreme fatigue (πόνου) (“toil,” “strain,” “exertion”) and hunger (λιμώττων, “starving”). Franxman (218-19) notes that Josephus agrees with Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (on Gen. 25:29) and Targum Neofiti (on Gen. 25:29) in indicating at this point, rather than later (at Gen. 25:34) as in the Bible, that it was a dish of lentils that Jacob was preparing. He also suggests that since the Targumim are in Aramaic, Josephus was thinking in Aramaic terms in giving the name of Esau as Adom, for the Aramaic word for “red” is ‮אדם‬‎. But Josephus did not get the Aramaic word from this particular context, inasmuch as the Aramaic Targumim here render the word “red” (Gen. 25:30) as ‮סמוקא‬‎. There is no indication in the Hebrew (Gen. 25:34) that it was a midday meal that Jacob had prepared. Franxman (219) suggests that since, according to Gen. 25:34, Jacob gave Esau bread with the pottage, and since the word “bread” (Hebrew ‮לחם‬‎) is rendered in the LXX on two other occasions (Gen. 43:25, 1 Kgs. 4:22) by Greek words that indicate a noon meal, ἀριστᾶν and ἄριστον respectively, the reference here is to a noonday meal. The Hebrew text might tempt one to despise Esau, who was ready to sell so precious a status as his birthright for boiled pottage (‮נזיד‬‎, Gen. 25:29); Josephus makes Esau’s deed more plausible, since in his account the food in question is a dish of lentils of rich (σφόδρα, “especially”) tawny hue, which still further whetted his appetite. The statement that Esau desired the lentils all the more because of its reddish color is Josephus’ addition to add to the drama of the situation. If, as we suggest (Feldman [1988-89:130-33]), Esau was already in Josephus’ time regarded by the rabbis as the ancestor of the Romans, it is just possible that the Romans had heard of this identification and that Josephus is being careful not to offend his Roman patrons here. Thus he diverges from the biblical text, for example, in not having Esau ask to swallow down (‮הלעיטני‬‎ [Gen. 25:30], implying voracious eating) the pottage but rather asserting simply that Jacob gave him food (τροφήν). So also the LXX reads γεῦσον, that is, “taste” (Gen. 25:30); and this may suggest the LXX’s influence. The Targum Onqelos renders “Give me now some of that red stuff to taste.” In the Hebrew the second half of Gen. 25:34 presents a staccato succession of five verbal forms calculated to emphasize Esau’s lack of manners and judgment, i.e., he ate, drank, rose up, went his way, and finally despised (‮ויבז‬‎) his birthright (Speiser [1964:195]); the Targum Neofiti adds two other negative statements to the description of Esau, namely that he despised not only his birthright but also the concept of resurrection of the dead and the world to come. Finally, the LXX says that “he held it cheap” (ἐφαύλισεν). All this is missing from Josephus’ account, presumably because he is being careful not to denigrate Esau. And yet, true to his careful balancing act, Josephus follows the LXX (Gen. 25:31; cf. 25:33) in having Esau ask Jacob to “give in return” (ἀπόδου) the birthright, rather than to sell it to him, the implication being that Jacob really had a right to it in the first place, thus mitigating his guilt. Philo goes much further than Josephus in defending Jacob’s deception of his brother. He cites the parallel of athletes, whose use of deceit and trickery in contests is considered honorable (Quaestiones in Genesin 4.228).

The statement that Jacob kept on forcing Esau to sell him the birthright is Josephus’ addition. In the Bible (Gen. 25:33) he merely asks Esau to swear. Whereas in the Hebrew text Jacob merely asks Esau to sell him the birthright (Gen. 25:31), Josephus arouses more sympathy for Esau, inasmuch as he explicitly states that Jacob took advantage (χρησάμενος) of Esau’s famished state and forced (ἠνάγκαζε) him to sell it. Josephus mentions Esau’s hunger three times in this brief section, whereas the Hebrew text does not refer to it at all. Hence, the sale appears more justifiable as a matter of sheer survival for Esau. Most striking of all, however, is that Josephus says nothing about Esau’s despising his birthright (Gen. 25:34). Philo remarks that while the literal meaning of Jacob’s statement “Sell me this day your birthright” (Gen. 25:31) suggests Jacob’s greed in wishing to deprive Esau of his rights, the allegorical meaning, preferred by Philo, is that an abundance of possessions brings about sin for a wicked man (i.e. someone like Esau) but is necessary for the righteous man alone (Quaestiones in Genesin 4.172). Elsewhere Philo justifies Jacob’s acquisition of the birthright by noting that Esau had a servile character and that, therefore, the birthright and blessings were inappropriate for him, since he was sunk in boundless ignorance (Legum Allegoriae 3.69.192-70.195). Pseudo-Philo completely omits the actual barter of the birthright (Bib. Ant. 32.5-6). As noted above (Ant. 1.258), Josephus omits there, in the account of Esau’s birth, the biblical statement (Gen. 25:25) that Esau came out “ruddy,” perhaps because redness was associated with slavery and Josephus was careful not to make disparaging remarks about his patrons, the Romans, who were said, at least by the rabbis, to be descendants of Esau. Here, however, he refers to the “ruddy” (ξανθήν, Ant. 2.2) pottage and the ruddiness (ξανθότητα) of the pottage as the source of Esau’s name Edom, which means “red.” Though Josephus (Ant. 2.3) indicates that the usual word for “red” is ἐρυθρός, he carefully indicates that Edom, though his name means “red,” was so called because of the ξανθότης of the pottage. (Another possible explanation for Josephus’ choice of language is that he sought to avoid the Bible’s duplication in tracing the “red” of Edom both to Esau’s color and the red pottage.) The fact that Josephus (Ant. 6.164) refers to David as ξανθός would indicate that this is not a term of opprobrium. See Feldman (1988-89:123-25). Gen. 25:30 simply states that Esau was called Edom because of the redness of the pottage that he received from Jacob. Josephus here dramatizes the situation by adding that Esau was so called in jest by his comrades. Hebrew ‮אדם‬‎, Josephus ἄδωμα. That the country was called Edom after the name given to Esau is Josephus’ addition. Josephus Ἰδουμαία. Whether the name is derived from ‮אדם‬‎, “red land,” or ‮אדמה‬‎, “earth,” has been disputed. It stretched from the south of the Judea to the northern part of the Negev and from the Dead Sea to the cities of Gaza, Ashkelon, and Ashdod.

Hebrew ‮יעושׁ‬‎ (Gen. 36:5), LXX Ἰεούς, Josephus Ἰάους, Bib. Ant. (8.5) Auz. Hebrew ‮יעלם‬‎(Gen. 36:5), LXX Ἰεγλόμ, Josephus Ἰόλαμος, Bib. Ant. (8.5) Ioollam. Hebrew ‮קרח‬‎ (Gen. 36:5), LXX Κόρε, Josephus Κορῆος, Bib. Ant. (8.5) Coro. Hebrew ‮אהליבמה‬‎ (Gen. 36:5), LXX Ἐλιβεμά, Josephus Ἀλιβάμη, Bib. Ant. (8.5) Elibema. Hebrew ‮אליפז‬‎ (Gen. 36:4), LXX Ἐλιφάς, Josephus Ἀλιφάζης, Bib. Ant. (8.5) Elifan. Hebrew ‮עדה‬‎ (Gen. 36:4), LXX Ἀδά, Josephus Ἄδασα, Bib. Ant. (8.5) Ada. Hebrew ‮רעואל‬‎ (Gen. 36:4), LXX Ῥαγουήλ, Josephus Ῥαουήλ, Bib. Ant. (8.5) Rugil. Hebrew ‮בשׂמת‬‎ (Gen. 36:4), LXX Βασεμμάθ, Josephus Βασαμάθη, Bib. Ant. (8.5) Bassemeth. The Bible (Gen. 26:34) and Bib. Ant. (8.5) mention an additional wife of Esau, Judith (Bib. Ant., Iudin); and Biblical Antiquities here adds that Judith bore Tenacis and Ieruebemas. Sefer Hayashar (cited by Jacobson [1996:390]) mentions that she gave birth to two daughters but does not mention sons. Bib. Ant. 8.5 mentions still another wife, Manem, but she seems to be identical with Basemath, since Biblical Antiquities, like Gen. 28:9 and Josephus (Ant. 1.277) cites her as the daughter of Ishmael. Bib. Ant. 8.5 adds that she gave birth to Tenetde and Thenatela.

Hebrew ‮תימן‬‎ (Gen. 36:11), LXX Θαιμάν, Josephus Θημανός, Bib. Ant. 8.5 Teman. Hebrew ‮אומר‬‎ (Gen. 36:11), LXX Ὠμάρ, Josephus Ὄμερος, Bib. Ant. 8.5 Omar. Hebrew ‮צפו‬‎ (Gen. 36:11), LXX Σωφάρ, Josephus Σόφους (Niese’s emendation; Ὄφους, manuscripts), Bib. Ant. 8.5 Zepho. Hebrew ‮געתם‬‎ (Gen. 36:11), LXX Γοθόμ, Josephus Ἰόθαμος, Bib. Ant. 8.5 Gatam. Hebrew ‮קנז‬‎ (Gen. 36:11), LXX Κενέζ, Josephus Καναζός, Bib. Ant. 8.5 Cenaz. Hebrew ‮עמלק‬‎ (Gen. 36:12), LXX Ἀμαλήκ, Josephus Ἀμαλῆκος, Bib. Ant. 8.5 Amalek. The statement that Amalek was a bastard is Josephus’ addition. Hebrew ‮תמנע‬‎ (Gen. 36:12), LXX Θαμνά, Josephus Θαμνάης. Josephus omits the long list of the other descendants of Esau (Gen. 36:20-42). In general, Josephus is not inclined to present long lists of names (cf. Ant. 2.176), except, as for example in the case of the seventy descendants of Jacob, to refute canards, such as that the Israelites are not of Mesopotamian but of Egyptian origin.

The names of Gobolitis and Amalikitis are not mentioned in Gen. 36:6, which simply states that Esau went into “a land” from the face of his brother Jacob. Targum Neofiti (on Gen. 14:6) and the Genesis Apocryphon (21:29) agree with Josephus in regarding Gebal as a region of Edom. Ant. 3.40 mentions the inhabitants of Gobolitis and Petra who are called Amalekites. Ant. 9.188 mentions the campaign of Amaziah, king of Judah, against the nations of the Amalekites, Edomites, and Gabalites, clearly differentiating the three peoples. According to Psalms (83:5-8), Gebal and Amalek conspired together with the tents of Edom and the Ishmaelites, Moab, the Hagrites, Ammon, Philistia, Tyre, and Assyria. On two occasions Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (on Gen. 32:4 and 36:8) renders Seir by Gabla. Maier (1994:117) notes that Josephus here tries to give the impression that the Gobolites and Amalekites occupied a certain (eastern) part of a territory once called in its entirely Idumea. During Josephus’ lifetime this was still outside the Roman Empire and was a constant source of trouble for the Romans. Thus Josephus has identified the Amalekites as an actual enemy of Rome. Josephus (Ant. 2.6) omits the biblical statement (Gen. 36:31), since it implies that it was written long after the event, when the Israelites did have kings, that “these are the kings who reigned in the land of Edom before any king reigned over the Israelites.” During the period of the Second Temple Idumea extended approximately from the southern portion of Judea to the northern portion of the Negev and, on the east, from the Judean desert or the Dead Sea to the provinces of Gaza, Ashkelon, and Ashdod on the west. As Nodet (ad loc.) notes, one should not underestimate the difficulty that Josephus experienced in coordinating biblical data with contemporary geography.

One of the most important qualitities of the great hero, such as a Midas or an Oedipus, is that he should be wealthy. Hence, Josephus stresses Jacob’s prosperity, as we can see from his remark here, unparalleled in his biblical source (compare Gen. 37:1), that it befell to Jacob to reach a degree of prosperity (εὐδαιμονίας, “good fortune,” “blessing,” “well-being,” “wealth”) hardly attained by any man and that in riches (πλούτῳ) he surpassed the inhabitants of the country. This is particularly important, inasmuch as one of the charges frequently made against the Jews in antiquity was that they are a nation of beggars (Lysimachus, ap. Josephus, Apion 1.305); Martial, 12.57.1-14; Juvenal, 3.10-16, 296; 6.542-47). Note that Josephus also stresses Abraham’s wealth (Ant. 1.243). Likewise, when he first introduces Korah Josephus asserts as part of his claim to leadership the fact that he is wealthier than Moses (Ant. 4.14). Furthermore, he calls attention to the great wealth of Solomon (Ant. 8.185) and Josiah (Ant. 10.73). That Jacob was envied because of the virtues of his children is Josephus’ addition (Gen. 37:1). Since Jacob is the direct ancestor of the Jewish people, the envy directed toward him is probably to be viewed as predictive of the envy directed toward the Jews after him. Josephus is clearly aware (Ant. 14.265) that envy had been aroused against the Jews by the special privileges that the Romans had affirmed and constantly reaffirmed in decree after decree of the Senate, Imperators, resolutions of cities, and rescripts of provincial governors, which he cites in the fourteenth book of his Antiquities. The theme of envy toward biblical personalities—Joseph (Ant. 2.10, 13, 27), Moses (Ant. 2.255), David (Ant. 6.193), Abner (Ant. 7.31), Daniel (Ant. 10.250)—is a frequent one in Josephus’ additions in his biblical paraphrase. Indeed, the theme that success brings envy is found throughout Josephus; see Mason (1991:225-26 n. 64). This emphasis on the theme of envy is doubtless influenced by Josephus’ own experience in being subjected to the envy of his arch-enemy John of Gischala (Life 85, 122, 189; War 2.614). See Niehoff (1992:91-93) and Feldman (1993:337-50). These qualities ascribed to Jacob’s sons are an extra-biblical addition.

Where Josephus does, in an editorial comment, introduce the role of God, it is in a Stoic-like guise as Providence, as we see, for example, in his preface to the Joseph narrative here, that God (designated as a neuter abstraction, τὸ θεῖον) showed such providential care (πρόνοιαν) for Jacob that He made even events that seemed to him deplorable become the source of the utmost felicity. On the πρόνοια theme, which pervades the Antiquities, see Attridge (1976:71-76).

On the Joseph pericope see Sprödowsky (1937), who compares Josephus’ account of Joseph with that of the Bible and concludes that Josephus has drawn upon an older source, in which he sees the Alexandrian-Jewish tradition. Niehoff (1992:84-110) concludes that Josephus’ highly sympathetic treatment of Joseph’s youth is further developed by attributing to him typical qualities of Israelite heroes. She stresses that because of the numerous parallels to his own life, Josephus has paraphrased these qualities in distinctly autobiographical terms. Finally, it is especially Joseph’s connection with the Egyptians that Josephus shapes in accordance with his apologetics of Judaism against contemporary anti-Semitism. Feldman (1992) attempts a comprehensive analysis of Josephus’ portrayal of Joseph, and stresses that Josephus here was particularly concerned to answer anti-Jewish charges that the Jews had not produced any illustrious men and that they were guilty of misanthropy. That the figure of Joseph should interest Josephus so greatly as to take up half of the second book of the Antiquities (2.9-167, 189-93, 198-200) should not surprise us both because of his prominence in the Book of Genesis itself and because he is Josephus’ namesake. See Daube (1980:18-36). Cf. Braun (1934) and Moehring (1957). Indeed, the similarities between the tremendous vicissitudes in Joseph’s life and those of Josephus and, in fact, of the whole Jewish people, are striking. Furthermore, the story of the rise to power of the Jew under a foreign king is found in several other biblical accounts, notably those of Daniel, Esther, and Zerubbabel. (On the relationship between Esther and Daniel and the story of Joseph see Rosenthal [1895:278-90; 1897:125-28]; and Gan [1961-62: 144-49]). The analogy between Joseph and Josephus is remarkable: both are depicted as child prodigies (Ant. 2.9, Life 8), both show extraordinary insight in interpreting dreams (Ant. 2.63-90), both are cast out by jealous brothers (or fellow Jews, in the case of Josephus) to a foreign land (Egypt and Rome respectively), and both are deeply involved in politics. Not only, however, does Josephus at various points enlarge upon and contract the biblical Joseph narrative considerably, but in this case he also adds greatly to its rhetorical, dramatic, emotional, and ironic features, so much so that it almost becomes a Hellenistic proto-novel, a century before the earliest complete extant Greek novel. The discovery of the Ninus romance, dating from no later than the first century C.E., and hence approximately contemporary with Josephus, shows that the typical motifs of these novels must go back to an earlier period. See Perry (1967:153-54).It is instructive to compare the sheer length of the Joseph episode (Gen., chapters 37, 39-48, 50) in the Hebrew, LXX, and Josephan versions (Ant. 2.9-167, 189-93, 198-200). In the Hebrew it comprises 627 lines, in the LXX 856, and in Josephus 1025. This gives a ratio of Josephus to the Hebrew of 1.63 and of Josephus to the LXX of 1.20 (the ratio of the LXX to the Hebrew is 1.37). In contrast, Bib. Ant. 8.9-10 has abbreviated the story of Joseph into two paragraphs. Moreover, Josephus has greatly expanded the portion of the narrative dealing with Joseph’s dreams and subsequent enslavement (Gen. 37.1-35; Josephus, Ant. 2.9-38); here the Hebrew has 57 lines, the LXX 78, and Josephus 186. This gives a ratio of Josephus to the Hebrew of 3.26 and to the LXX of 2.38 (the ratio of the LXX to the Hebrew is 1.37). In emphasizing the handsomeness of Joseph, Josephus is clearly appealing to his Greek readers (see Sprödowsky [1937:17]). In the formulations of the rhetoricians Hermogenes, Aphthonius, and Theon the one common denominator that is singled out under the heading of “deeds of the body” is beauty (Neyrey 1994:183-87). In his consistent emphasis upon the handsomeness of his heroes, Josephus reminds us of the importance of physical beauty for Homer, as, for example, in the scene where the Greeks run to gaze upon the stature (φυήν) and admirable form (εἶδος ἀγητόν) of Hector after he has been slain by Achilles (Il. 22.370). This stress on the importance of physical beauty reminds one of Plato’s remark that the philosopher-kings should be, so far as possible, the most handsome (εὐειδεστάτους) persons (Rep. 7.535 A11-12). Furthermore, Socrates’ closing prayer in the Phaedrus (279) is that his outer and inner beauty may be as one. This seems to be a stock remark about the future great man, as we see, for example, in the statement of Apollonius-Iamblichus (10, p. 11, lines 6-7; cf. Apuleius, Flor.) that everyone turned (ἐπέστρεφε) to look at the boy Pythagoras; indeed, the verb that he uses for those who gazed is the same as that employed by Josephus in his addition that all who turned to look at the child Moses were amazed at his beauty (Ant. 2.231) (Lévy [1927:141]). In the very earliest of biographies, Isocrates’ Evagoras (22-23), we find the attributes of beauty and bodily strength as the sine qua non for the hero; thus he reports that Evagoras from his youth was endowed with these qualities and that they increased as he became older. Likewise, we hear that when the twins Romulus and Remus became men, they showed themselves both in dignity of aspect (μορφῆς) and elevation of mind “not like swineherds and neatherds, but such as we might expect those to be who are born of royal race and are looked to be the offspring of the gods” (Dion. Hal., Ant. Rom. 1.79.10). On the importance in the Hellenistic period of having a king look the part of a king see Goodenough (1928:72). This emphasis on beauty is paralleled by Josephus’ addition concerning the angels who came to Lot and who are said to excel in handsomeness of appearance (Ant. 1.200). That the hero must be handsome appears from the description of Jacob’s sons (Ant. 2.98), of whom Josephus says that it was impossible for any commoner to have reared such distinguished figures (τὰς μορφὰς οὕτως ἐπιφανεῖς) when even kings found it hard to raise the like. Josephus stresses that it was both because of his comely appearance and his dexterity that Potiphar’s wife became enamored of Joseph (Ant. 2.41). (Cf. a similar emphasis on Moses’ beauty [Ant. 2.231]). The same quality is stressed by Pharaoh’s daughter Thermuthis when she first beholds the infant Moses and is enchanted by his size (and beauty (Ant. 2.224). She speaks of both his divine beauty (μορφῇ...θεῖον) and outstanding intellect (φρονήματι γενναῖον) (Ant. 2.232), the very nouns that are used by Dionysius of Halicarnassus to designate the excellence of Romulus and Remus (Ant. Rom. 1.79.10). Josephus adds that when Moses was three years old, God gave wondrous increase to his stature, so that passers-by could not avoid being amazed at his beauty of form (εὐμορφίας) when they beheld him (Ant. 2.231). We are further told that it often happened that persons meeting him as he was borne along the road turned (ἐπιστρέφεσθαι), being attracted by the appearance of the child, and neglected their serious affairs in order to give their time to gazing at him (Ant. 2.231). Consequently, he held his beholders spellbound with his bountiful and undiluted childish charm. We may also perceive the importance of beauty for Josephus and his audience in the remark that Og “had a stature and beauty such as few could boast” (Ant. 4.98), which he adds to the biblical account (Deut. 3:11).In another addition, the angel that appears to Manoah’s wife is described as a handsome (καλῷ) and tall (μεγάλῳ) youth (Ant. 5.277). Josephus’ version of 1 Sam. 9:2 adds considerably to its picture of Saul, who is not only young and tall but also best in shape (Ant. 6.45). Josephus adds to the biblical narrative in noting that Saul took as his bodyguards young men who excelled (διαφέροντας) in stature (μεγέθει) and beauty (κάλλει) (Ant. 6.130), whereas the Bible says merely that when Saul saw any mighty or valiant man, he joined him to himself (1 Sam. 14:52). The beauty (κάλλος) and stature (μέγεθος) of the Amalekite king Agag are cited as reasons for Saul’s decision to spare him (Ant. 6.137). Josephus also stresses David’s handsomeness, particularly his ruddy color and his piercing eyes (Ant. 6.164). He emphasizes Absalom’s handsomeness when he adds that “he had not suffered any loss of beauty through serious lack of care proper to a king’s son, but was still remarkable and distinguished among all for his looks (εἴδει) and bodily stature (μεγέθει), and surpassed even those who lived in great luxury” (Ant. 7.189). The Bible states that Jacob favored Joseph over all his other sons because he was the son of his old age (Gen. 37:3); Josephus here, most significantly, says, rather, that he was beloved of his father both for the beauty of his person (σώματος) and for virtuous qualities of soul, since he was endowed with exceptional understanding (φρονήσει). The rabbis note that one of the factors that led Jacob to favor Joseph was the latter’s beauty of person (Gen. Rabbah 84.8). Josephus further tells us that Joseph owed his beauty to his being the son of Rachel (Ant. 2.9), who was similarly known for her exceptional beauty (Ant. 1.288). A similar linking of Joseph’s features with Rachel’s appears in Gen. Rabbah. As Niehoff (1992:85-86), however, notes, the midrashic comment is cited in connection with the attraction of Joseph’s beauty for Potiphar’s wife, whereas Josephus mentions the similarity with Rachel in order to explain why Jacob so favors Joseph. In any case, as she notes, in Palestinian exegesis, notably the Testament of Joseph 18:4 and Tanḥuma 5 (ed. Buber, p. 179), Joseph’s beauty is likened more to Jacob’s than to Rachel’s, and this lessens the erotic dimension that so characterizes Josephus’ version. The rabbinic tradition is troubled by the biblical statement that Joseph was the son of Jacob’s old age when this title should have been ascribed rather to Benjamin, who was younger than Joseph (Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 38). The solution that the rabbis propose is that the phrase refers to the future time when, in Jacob’s old age, Joseph would be the savior of the family from famine. Targum Onqelos (on Gen. 37:3) interprets the phrase as referring to Joseph’s wisdom, based on the Talmud’s statement that the term ‮זקן‬‎ (“old”) is an abbreviation for ‮זה קנה חכמה‬‎ (“this one has acquired wisdom”) (Qiddushin 32b). According to the second-century Rabbi Nehemiah, as cited in the Midrash, the reference is to the halakhic wisdom that Jacob had imbibed from his studies with Shem and Eber and that he, in turn, transmitted to Joseph (Gen. Rabbah 84.8). See Rappaport (22 and 109, n. 110) for other rabbinic parallels. Josephus is here indicating that Joseph owed his handsome appearance to his descent from his mother Rachel. On Rachel’s extraordinary beauty see Ant. 1.288. Philo notes that Jacob observed in Joseph the wisdom (φρόνημα) that resulted from his good birth (εὐγενές) (De Josepho 1.4). The Testament of Joseph (14:3) likewise refers to Joseph as well-born (εὐγενής). Even those most antagonistic to the Jews, such as Chaeremon (Apion 1.290), spoke of Joseph as a sacred scribe (ἱερογραμματέα), a position that, of course, presupposed a great deal of sacred and esoteric knowledge. Josephus, in paraphrasing the biblical statement that Jacob loved Joseph more than all his other children because he was the son of his old age and consequently made him a coat of many colors (Gen. 37:3), omits, at this point, two of these data, namely that Joseph was the son of Jacob’s old age and that Jacob made him a coat of many colors. Such a statement would have cast Jacob, the ancestor of the Jewish people, in a bad light in preferring one child over other children. Instead he substitutes here the information that Jacob favored Joseph because of his beauty and because of his virtuous qualities (ἀρετήν) of soul, “for he was endowed with exceptional understanding (φρονήσει).” It is significant that in his emphasis on Joseph’s wisdom Josephus uses no fewer than six different synonyms— σοφία (Ant. 2.87), σύνεσις (Ant. 2.63, 65, 76, 80, 91), δεξιότης (Ant. 2.41), φρόνησις (Ant. 2.9, 87), φρόνημα (Ant. 2.40), and λογισμός (Ant. 2.53, 72, 198). It is the quality of φρόνησις, with its connotations of intelligence, sagacity, practical wisdom, and understanding, that Josephus ascribes to Joseph over and over again (Ant. 2.9, 46, 87) (so Paul [Dec. 1981:41-47]) and that, coupled with his mention of Joseph’s φρόνημα (Ant. 2.40) (“reason,” “intelligence,” “intellect,” “thinking”) and λογισμός (“skillful calculation,” “cool and sensible reflection,” “reasonable and deliberate thought”), would lead his Greek readers to view Joseph as representing Greek culture and concepts. In his brief comparison of the Testament of Joseph with Josephus’ account of Joseph, Smith (1975:136) states that while it is true that both the Testament of Joseph and Josephus mention Joseph’s virtue, in the former the term most frequently used is σωφροσύνη, while in the latter this term does not occur (actually, it occurs three times [2.48, 59 (ironically of Potiphar’s wife), and 69]); and instead Josephus uses more varied terminology in referring to Joseph’s wisdom. This use of φρόνημα and λογισμός may help to account for Josephus’ alleged authorship of the Fourth Book of Maccabees, with its theme that pious reason masters passion. Philo (De Josepho 1.4) likewise singles out Joseph’s exceptional wisdom as one of the sources of Jacob’s preference for him, since he says that Jacob observed in him a noble spirit (φρόνημα εὐγενές) that rose above ordinary conditions.

Here at the very beginning of his narrative of Joseph, Josephus, in an extra-biblical comment, generalizes, from the envy that the brothers felt toward Joseph, that men are thus jealous of the successes even of their nearest relatives. See Ant. 2.7. We may wonder, too, why Josephus, who omits such embarrassing episodes as those of Judah and Tamar and the building of the golden calf, does not simply omit the jealousy that Joseph’s brothers felt toward him, inasmuch as this would reflect badly on the Jewish people, who are the direct descendants of these brothers. The answer perhaps is that the story of Judah and Tamar and the episode of the golden calf are internal matters affecting only the Jewish people, whereas the envy of the brothers had international repercussions in that it led to Joseph’s being sold into slavery in Egypt and the eventual slavery of the Israelites themselves and the contest between the Israelites and the Egyptians. Another possible explanation is that Josephus is working out a major literary theme, and this is a good opportunity to illustrate it. Elsewhere also Josephus generalizes on the force of jealousy. Thus he remarks (Ant. 6.267), in connection with Saul, that when men attain power they first honor those who have toiled in their service but then envy them the honors that they have conferred and deprive them of these on malicious charges that their extravagance renders incredible. Again, in connection with Daniel, he adds the editorial comment (Ant. 10.250) that men are jealous when they see others held by kings in greater honor than themselves. See Mason (1991:225-26 and notes 64-66). Likewise, in connection with Antigonus (Ant. 13.310) he concludes that “there is nothing more powerful than envy and calumny, nor anything that more easily disrupts friendship and the ties of nature than these influences.” Joseph, for his part, would appear to lack one of the key attributes of a great leader, namely maturity, since, at least at the beginning of the biblical narrative (Gen. 37:2), he is a lad (‮נער‬‎, LXX νέος, “young”), a mere seventeen years old. When Josephus, however, introduces the figure of Joseph here to his reader, he omits completely the statement that he was a mere lad of seventeen. Whereas the Bible presents Joseph most unattractively as a childish and immature “tattletale” on his brothers rather than, at that point, as a modest individual doing good deeds (Gen. 37:2), Josephus omits the biblical statement that Joseph brought an evil report of his brothers to their father. The Midrashic tradition attributes Joseph’s troubles to his immature and effeminate ways, such as painting his eyes, curling his hair, and walking with a mincing step (Gen. Rabbah 84.7, 87.3). One of the key areas in which the ancients believed that wisdom was particularly shown was in the interpretation of dreams. See Oppenheim (1956) and Gnuse (1996:34-128). Dreams and prophecy were regarded as closely related in antiquity; and they, together with omens, signs, and portents, are said to be the means by which the demonic communicates with humans (Smith 1987:246). In Homer (Il. 1.63) Zeus himself is the sender of dreams. In Hesiod’s Theogonia (211-13) dreams have a divine origin, since we see that at the very beginning of things Night, the child of primordial Chaos, gives birth to the family of dreams. As for the Romans, their autobiographies (note, for example, those of Sulla and Augustus) are filled with dreams, as indications of divine concern for the subject (S.J.D. Cohen 1979:109).That the ability to interpret dreams was much prized in antiquity is clear, furthermore, from the fact that Aeschylus (Pr. 485) includes the discovery of the rules of oneiromancy among the chief inventions for which human beings are indebted to Prometheus. Prophets (μάντεις) and “Chaldeans” were supposed to be expert in interpreting dreams. According to the much revered Diotima in Plato (Symp. 203A), a person who knows how to judge dreams is a “spiritual man” (δαιμόνιος ἀνήρ), in contrast to one who is versed in anything else, whether in science or a trade, who is merely a technician. That there were professional dream-interpreters is clear from Theophrastus’ statement (Char. 16.11) that it is characteristic of a superstitious person that when he has a dream he goes to a dream-interpreter. There were handbooks of dream-interpretation, one of which, that of the second-century C.E. Artemidorus, has come down to us. In the third century B.C.E. in Ptolemaic Egypt, the interpretation of dreams had developed into an almost stereotyped technique in direct succession to ancient Egyptian tradition (Hengel 1974:2:162, n. 846).Josephus himself must have been attracted to this aspect of Joseph’s activity because of his (Josephus’) alleged ability (War 3.352), via the interpretation of dreams, to prophesy the future. Thus we hear (Life 208-10) that when Josephus decided to quit his generalship in Galilee he was encouraged by a dream that predicted that that which was now grieving him would promote him to greatness and felicity; and, as a result, he consented to continue. At Jotapata (War 3.351-54) when he was caught between the Roman general urging him to surrender and the hostile crowd threatening him if he did, Josephus was reminded of the dreams that he had had night after night in which God had foretold to him the fate of the Jews, on the one hand, and the destiny of the Romans, on the other. He then remarks about himself that he was an interpreter of dreams, skilled in divining the meaning of ambiguous Divine utterances. Inasmuch as Josephus comments here on the connection between the interpretation of dreams and prophecy, it is possible that his ability (War 3.399-408) to predict Vespasian’s ascension as emperor was likewise the result of a dream. See Gray (1993: 58-69) and Mason (1994:184-90).Josephus was particularly interested in Joseph’s dreams because he identified himself with Joseph to a considerable degree. In particular, his dealings with John of Gischala must have reminded him of the brothers’ jealousy toward Joseph. He, too, was exiled from his native land, and he, too, reached considerable prominence in a foreign court.We may also see Josephus’ interest in dreams in that he records no fewer than forty-four dreams (and their truth and fulfillment in every case). Indeed, it is significant that whereas there is also an ancient tradition (e.g. in Homer, Od. 19.560 ff.) that not all dreams are truthful and that dreams might mean the opposite of what they said (Brelich 1966:295-96), in Josephus dreams are always true. For example, note Josephus’ accounts of the dreams of Theopompus (Ant. 12.112), which diverted him from translating the Pentateuch into Greek, of Herod (War 1.328, Ant. 14.451), which warned him of the imminent death of his brother, and of Archelaus and of his wife Glaphyra (War 2.112-16, Ant. 17.345-53). For an extensive traditio-historical analysis of dreams in Josephus see Gnuse (1996).

The reader may well wonder how Joseph, who apparently had no experience as an agricultural administrator, could have managed to oversee the crops of so vast a country as Egypt. In the Bible we do read that in his youth Joseph was feeding the flock with his brothers (Gen. 37:2), but there is no mention of his learning about crops. Josephus, however, very subtly changes the focus from flocks to crops, stating that he had been sent out with his brothers to gather in the crops at midsummer. The fact that Josephus comments on the uniqueness of the dream is an indication that he wishes the reader to believe that he is presenting this objectively and from an authorial perspective. In Gen. 37:5 we are told merely that he told his brothers; Josephus adds drama and irony by adding why he told his brothers. The verb that Josephus, following the LXX, uses here, προσκυνεῖν, is employed in connection with the Persian custom of prostrating oneself before the ruler and that , in the view of a writer such as Herodotus (e.g. 1.119, 8.118), who writes at length about the Persian invasions of Greece, is equated with slavery. In his concern to enhance further the personality of Joseph, Josephus exaggerates Joseph’s power. The biblical version describes the sheaves of Joseph’s brothers as bowing down to his sheaf (Gen. 37:7), whereas here the sheaves actually run up and bow down like slaves before their masters.

In contrast to Josephus’ picture of the deliberate silence of the brothers, Gen. 37:8 has them burst out with the statement: “Are you indeed to reign over us? Or are you indeed to have dominion over us?” There is increased suspense in Josephus’ version of the brothers’ reaction to Joseph’s dreams. In Gen. 37:11 we learn merely that the brothers envied Joseph; Josephus says, more portentously, that the brothers understood that the vision predicted that Joseph would exercise power and majesty and supremacy over them but that they revealed nothing of this to Joseph, pretending that the dreams were unintelligible to them. The Midrash (Tanḥuma 2 [p. 145]) has a tradition that the brothers joined with God in pronouncing an anathema on whoever would mention to their father their understanding of Joseph’s dream. Whereas the biblical text declares that his brothers hated Joseph both because of his dreams and because of the evil report of them that he had conveyed to their father (Gen. 37:8), Josephus, who is eager to eliminate Joseph’s boasting, omits the words “for his dreams and for his words.” The Bible cites three reasons for the enmity of the brothers toward Joseph, namely the evil reports which Joseph had made concerning them, their father’s favoritism in giving him a coat of many colors, and Joseph’s two dreams which were interpreted by Jacob to mean that the brothers would some day be subservient to him (Gen. 37:2-11). Josephus omits the first two of these reasons, perhaps to avoid casting Joseph as a tattletale or Jacob as showing favoritism.

Whereas Gen. 37:9 says very simply that Joseph dreamed yet another dream, Josephus elaborates by declaring that it was God who sent the second dream in order to counteract the jealousy of the brothers and by asserting that the second vision was far more marvellous than the first. Josephus may here be appealing to a Roman intellectual audience. The Stoics among them, at least, would have regarded dreams as having a divine origin (see Cicero, Div. 1.70-71]). See Dodds (1951:120). This view was accepted even by such Peripatetics as Cratippus, despite Aristotle’s denial (Div. per Somnum 463B15 ff., 464A20 ff.) that dreams are of divine origin. The statement that the sun, the moon, and the stars came down to earth is Josephus’ addition. Again Josephus here uses the verb προσκυνεῖν, which conjures up the image of Oriental prostration before a ruler.

Integrally connected with the virtue of justice is the responsibility to be honest. Joseph, in Josephus’ portrayal, is not only completely honest but even in recounting his dreams to his brothers suspects no malice on their part. There is a striking resemblance between Josephus’ version and the comment of Rashi (on Gen. 37:10), who is here, as so often elsewhere, reflecting Midrashic tradition, that Joseph repeated the dream to his father in the presence of his brethren. Again, Gen. 37:10 states merely that Joseph told the dream to his father; Josephus adds that he asked him to interpret its significance.

Gen. 37:10 says that Jacob rebuked (‮ויגער‬‎, “scolded”) Joseph. Sometimes, however, as Nodet (ad loc.) notes, this verb is rendered in the LXX by ἐπετίμησεν, which can mean both to rebuke and to honor and hence may be understood in accord with Josephus’ statement here of Jacob’s reaction to the dreams. Philo (De Josepho 2.9), however, remarks that Jacob, fearing that Joseph had made a serious mistake, chided him severely. Josephus in numerous places adds to the biblical text in stressing the wisdom of Jewish leaders; and this is certainly true of Jacob. In particular, Josephus, in an addition to the biblical text, here highlights the fact that Jacob grasped the significance of Joseph’s dream and sagely (μετὰ σοφίας) and unerringly (οὐκ ἀσκόπως, “not by chance”) divined its import. In his interpretation of Joseph’s dream, Jacob predicts that his son will have prosperity (“good fortune,” “happiness”), employing the same word (εὐδαιμονίαν) that Josephus himself had used to describe Jacob (Ant. 2.7). Whereas in the Bible there is no mention, when Jacob evaluates Joseph’s dream, of God’s role in fulfilling its message (Gen. 37:10), in Josephus Jacob affirms that God is using the dream to promise that the time will come when Joseph will be honored by his parents and brethren. Whereas in Gen. 37:10 Jacob expresses amazement that he and Joseph’s mother and brothers would bow down to him, in Josephus Jacob analyzes the dream in the most positive sense, namely that it presaged good fortune for Joseph in that Joseph’s parents and brothers would pay homage to him.

That there is an innate logic in dreams is clear from Jacob’s explanation here of the meaning of Joseph’s dreams. He explains that the moon and the sun represent, respectively, Joseph’s mother and father and adds, in an extra-biblical remark, that the former (the feminine principle) gives increase and nourishment to all things, while the latter (the masculine principle) molds their form and implants their stores of strength in them; the stars represent Joseph’s brothers, who borrow their strength from the sun and moon. Thus Jacob, like Joseph, is presented as not only an interpreter of dreams but also, in an extra-biblical addition, as one who understood the rationale behind the interpretation he gives. The Midrash (Gen. Rabbah 84.12, Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 38) also has the tradition that Jacob recognized in Joseph’s dreams the future of his son. Thackeray (ad loc.) notes that the Hebrew text (Gen. 37:9) speaks of eleven stars without the definite article, whereas Josephus does have the definite article. He concludes that the absence of the article makes it improbable that there was any allusion to the signs of the zodiac in the mind of the biblical author, whereas it is expressly mentioned by Philo (De Somniis 2.16.112) and is implied in Josephus here; but, as Nodet (ad loc.) remarks, Philo (De Somniis 2.16.111), in the passage just before this, speaks of eleven stars without the article. Philo, in commenting upon the Pentateuch, had adopted an ambivalent approach toward Joseph, perhaps reflecting Philo’s own ambiguous attitude toward involvement in politics. Goodenough remarks that the portrayal of Joseph in Philo’s essay De Josepho is so contradictory to everything that Philo says in several of his other essays that he wonders why no one has yet claimed that it comes from a different author (Goodenough 1938:43). Thus, on the one hand, Philo elsewhere remarks that Joseph’s dreams of the sheaves and the stars reveal the vainglorious nature of Joseph’s character (De Somniis 2.1.5-7, 2.4.30-5.33, 2.6.42, 2.12.78, 2.14.93-99, 2.15.105, 2.16.110-16, 2.19.138; cf. De Agricultura 13.56) and makes other disparaging comments about those dreams, whereas the same dreams are given a positive interpretation in De Josepho (2.5-11, 18.95).

The statement here that Jacob shrewdly (οὐκ ἀσυνέτως, “not without understanding,” “cleverly,” “with discernment,” “clairvoyantly”) interpreted the vision is an extra-biblical addition. Gen. 37:11 cryptically remarks that Jacob kept the matter in his mind. Likewise, Philo (De Josepho 2.5) and Testament of Joseph (2:10) emphasize the brothers’ envy and hatred toward Joseph. The preaching about the need for brotherly love is Josephus’ addition.

Gen. 37:11 says merely that the brothers envied Joseph. Josephus’ language here is much stronger. The statement that their harvest labors (see Ant. 2.11) were ended is Josephus’ addition, since Gen. 37:12 speaks only of the brothers’ feeding their father’s flocks. Nodet (ad loc.) suggests, following the Midrashic tradition (Gen. Rabbah 84.12) that there may be a reference here to the Festival of the Ingathering (Exod. 23:16, Tabernacles), but there is nothing explicit about this in Josephus’ text. One of the devices of which Josephus was particularly fond in his paraphrase of the Bible is irony. Thus, it is surely ironic that, in an extra-biblical comment, Joseph’s brothers decide upon their scheme to kill Joseph while they are harvesting (whereas in Gen. 37:12 they are feeding their father’s flock), since it is precisely through overseeing harvests of grain that Joseph was to become the mighty vizier of Egypt. The description of the agricultural virtues of Shechem is Josephus’ addition. The statement that this region is particularly good for growing fodder will again strike the reader as ironic, inasmuch as the brothers will later be going down to Egypt to obtain grain from Joseph. On Josephus’ interest in soil, fertility, and agriculture in general see Ant. 2.264-65; 4.85, 100; 5.77-78; 8.174; 9.7; 15. 96, 299-316; 16.142-43, 271-73; 17.340; 18.31, 272-74, 283-84, 287; 20.25; War 1.138, 417; 2.200, 592; 3.42-44, 50, 516-21; 4.84, 458-75. Josephus has here omitted Jacob’s question to Joseph (Gen. 37:13): “Are not your brothers pasturing the flock at Shechem? Come, I will send you to them.” Inasmuch as Joseph did not actually find them at Shechem, Josephus saw no particular point in including this. Moreover, there is an apparent contradiction between Jacob’s assumption in the Bible that his sons are feeding their flocks in Shechem and the statement here that they had given their father no warning that they had departed to Shechem. We may well ask why Jacob would suppose that his sons were in Shechem when Josephus, in this extra-biblical statement, says explicitly that they did not reveal in advance to their father that they were going there. The fact that the brothers have not told Jacob in advance where they will be going adds to the suspense of the narrative.

Similarly, note as an outstanding theme in Josephus’ autobiography (Life 276), that “suspecting nothing” he almost fell into the hands of his opponents in Galilee, who had planned to ambush him. See Niehoff (1992:96). There is both better motivation and added drama in Josephus’ version of why Joseph went to visit his brothers when they were feeding their father’s flocks (Gen. 37:12-13). In the Bible Jacob bids Joseph, in very vague terms, to see whether all is well with his brothers (Gen. 37:14); in Josephus’ version there is a very good and concrete reason why Jacob sends Joseph, namely that he is very worried because no one has come to him from the flocks who can give him certain news of his sons (Ant. 2.19). The drama is certainly increased by Josephus’ statement that as a result of such lack of news Jacob conceives the gloomiest forebodings concerning them. The drama of the brothers’ plot against Joseph is all the greater because, as Niehoff (1992:96) has remarked, Josephus creates a discrepancy between the reader’s and the characters’ knowledge, since the protagonists of the story are ignorant of the imminent threat that Josephus has just outlined to the reader. It might seem that Josephus detracts from the courage of Jacob by imputing fear to him here as his motive in sending Joseph to his brothers; so also the rabbinic aggada (Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Gen. 37:13, Sefer Hayashar 14 [ed. Dan, pp. 188]). But undoubtedly he felt that, unlike the Scripture, he had to supply a good reason for Jacob’s sending Joseph to his hostile brothers. Consequently, he explains, as do the rabbis, that Jacob was apprehensive about the brothers, perhaps because he feared that the Hivites would come and kill them as Simeon and Levi had killed Hamor and Shechem and the inhabitants of their city (see Gen. 34:26). Josephus has introduced here an element of suspense in Jacob’s anxiety when his sons betake themselves to Sikima (Shechem) without previously alerting him to their departure thither, with the result that he conceives the gloomiest forebodings concerning them. This, in turn, supplies a much better motivation than does the Bible (Gen. 37:13), which simply says that Jacob told Joseph: “Are not your brothers pasturing the flock at Shechem? Come, I will send you to them,” for Jacob’s sending of Joseph to see what had befallen his brothers. Josephus here omits the incident (Gen. 37:15-17) reporting that a nameless man encountered Joseph and directed him to the place where the brothers were. Such an incident would appear to detract from the drama of the direct confrontation of Joseph with his brothers.

In Gen. 37:18 we read that even before Joseph came near and when, indeed, he was afar off, the brothers already conspired to slay him. This casts the brothers in an even worse light, whereas in Josephus their decision to do away with Joseph is a result of more sudden impulse. The condemnation of the brothers for viewing Joseph not as a relative but as an enemy and the statement that they burned with impatience to do away with him are Josephus’ additions to Gen. 37:18 and serve, as Guttmann (1928:14-15) remarks, to increase the drama of the scene.

The treatment of Joseph by the brothers is considerably gentler in Josephus than it is in the Bible. In particular, we may note that whereas Reuben’s advice not to slay him is confined in the Bible to two verses (Gen. 37:21-22), in Josephus (Ant. 2.29) we are told that he made many appeals and entreaties in an attempt to save him; and, in fact, Josephus assigns to Reuben two speeches covering eleven paragraphs (Ant. 2.21-31) in which he presents argument after argument pointing out the outrageousness of his brothers’ proposal to kill Joseph and trying to deter them.

Actually, Rachel was already dead (Gen. 35:16, Ant. 1.343), but this is consonant with Joseph’s dream (Gen. 37:10, Ant. 2.13, 16), as interpreted by Jacob, that predicted that the sun and the moon (that is, Joseph’s father and mother) would bow down to him. Nodet (ad loc.) suggests that Josephus’ mention of Rachel’s death (Ant. 1.343) must have been inserted after the redaction of the account of the sale of Joseph, or at least independently of it. The rabbis explain this inconsistency by noting that every dream contains some absurd data (Berakot 55b); alternatively, they suggest that the reference in the dream is to Bilhah, who had brought up Joseph as though she were his mother (Gen. Rabbah 84). Dibelius (1956:177 n. 71) cites several similar incongruities in ancient literature, such as the contradictions among the portrayals of the conversion of Paul in Acts 9:3-19, 22:6-16, 26:12-18, and the reference in Appian (Lybica 64.283) by the speaker, Publius Cornelius, in Rome to a speech that Scipio had made a little while before in the camp before the envoys from Carthage. He concludes that such speeches exist independently in their own right and are not bound to the historical events in the setting in which we find them.

Nodet (ad loc.) is troubled that Joseph is here referred to as the youngest (νεωτάτου) child, when actually Benjamin was the youngest. But the superlative of the adjective may also be translated simply as “very young.” Note the extra-biblical appeal to logic in the arguments of Reuben here to his brothers. As Nodet (ad loc.) remarks, repentance (μετάνοια) in Josephus often indicates a change of opinion that is more rational than properly religious. This (Ant. 2.23-24) picks up explicitly the main thesis of the prologue (Ant. 1.20) and fits in with the entire philosophical thrust of the Antiquities, for μετάνοια has the same sense in philosophy, i.e., conversion of mind.

This is a Semiticism, as noted by Schalit and Nodet (ad loc.), since the word μιανάντας signifies pollution in a religious sense, as does the Hebrew ‮חלל‬‎. On divine ubiquity see Ant. 8.108, 227.

The Bible states that when Reuben returned to his brethren, he says, “The lad (‮הילד‬‎) is gone,” which the LXX renders as παιδάριον, “little boy,” the diminutive of παῖς (Gen. 37:30). Such language would certainly detract from the stature of Joseph, inasmuch as the word παῖς frequently has the meaning of “slave” or “servant,” while the above diminutive would be even more degrading and dehumanizing; hence Josephus omits the reference altogether. See Hug (1956:374-400, especially 374), who notes that the term παῖς occurs particularly with reference to domestic servants, and Gibbs and Feldman (1985-86:295-96). Finley (1980:96) appositely cites the passage in which Aristophanes (Vesp. 1297-98, 1307) invents an etymology for this term from the word παίειν, “to beat,” a joke pointing up harsh reality. When the Bible tells us that Potiphar brought in a Hebrew servant (‮עבד‬‎, LXX παῖς) to work for him (Gen. 39:17), Josephus omits the term completely (Ant. 2.56). In Gen. 39:14 the Hebrew has ‮אישׁ‬‎, “man,” whereas the LXX reads παῖδα, “servant.” Whereas in the Bible the butler remarks that there had been with him in prison a Hebrew lad (‮נער‬‎, LXX νεανίσκος, “young man”), a servant (‮עבד‬‎, LXX παῖς) of the captain of the guard (Gen. 41:12), Josephus, seeking to avoid these degrading terms for Joseph, omits them completely.

Note again Josephus’ emphasis on the theme of envy. See Ant. 2.7, 10, etc.

In Gen. 37:21-22 Reuben makes a single appeal to the brothers to cast Joseph into a pit in the hope that he would be able to return and rescue him and bring him back to his father. In Josephus he first makes an appeal to deter them from killing Joseph. When he fails to convince them, he makes a second appeal, this time to get them not to kill him directly but to allow him to die through exposure in a pit.

Josephus’ Joseph shows the quality of courage through his endurance (ὑπομονή, “patience”) in distress. Thus, whereas in the Bible, Joseph, according to this reminiscence of the incident by the brothers, pleads with his brothers for his life when they seek to kill him (Gen. 42:21), Josephus here carefully omits this detail because he wishes to present a Stoical Joseph who is silent in adversity. Whereas in Gen. 37:24 the brothers are said to have thrown Joseph into the pit, the treatment of Joseph by the brothers is considerably gentler, as seen, for example, here in the fact that they did not throw him in but that Reuben lowered him and did so gently. Nodet (ad loc.) suggests that the strengthening of Reuben’s role in the drama recalls the role of Josephus himself during the war against the Romans in seeking to persuade his countrymen to give up their mad attempt in fighting against the Romans. Josephus omits mention of the fact that Joseph is wearing his beautiful coat of many colors at the time when the brothers plot against him (Gen. 37:23), since, presumably, if Joseph were depicted as wearing that coat, he would appear to be taunting them. Another factor that may have influenced Josephus to omit mention of the coat of many colors here is that, for Philo, at least, such a coat symbolizes the variability and falseness of the politician and the combination of a very tiny portion of truth with many and large amounts of lies, probabilities, plausibilities, and conjectures, “out of which spring up all the sophists of Egypt, augurs, ventriloquists, soothsayers, proficients in decoying, charming, and bewitching, whose insidious artifices it is no easy task to escape” (De Somniis 1.38.219-23). Goodenough (1928:48, n. 20) notes that the association of the variegated coat with tyranny was probably a proverbial element in the current philosophy of kingship. See Dio Chrysostom (Orat. 1.70, 81). As for the pit being almost entirely without water, Josephus was apparently troubled by the seemingly redundant biblical statement (Gen. 37:24) that the pit was empty and that there was no water in it. The rabbis (Shabbat 22a) explain that while it did not contain water it did have serpents and scorpions. Thackeray (ad loc.) suggests that the word ἱκανῶς (“sufficiently,” “almost entirely”) in Josephus may be due to a misreading of κενός (“[empty”), which is found in some manuscripts of the LXX. Nodet (ad loc.) suggests rather that the source may be the Hebrew itself, which reads ‮ריק‬‎ (“empty”) but which with different vocalization would read ‮רק‬‎ (“only”). Josephus omits the statement that the brothers sat down to eat (Gen. 37:25). Gen. 37:29 does not explicitly state that Reuben had left but merely asserts that when Reuben returned to the pit he found that Joseph was not there. Josephus here is explicit in adding that Reuben left for the purpose of finding grounds suitable for pasturage.

In Gen. 37:25 it is not Judah alone but all the brothers who see the Ishmaelite caravan coming. The explicit identification of Arabs as Ishmaelites is not found in the Hebrew text or in the LXX. A difficulty lies in the biblical account of the sale of Joseph by his brothers. First we hear of the brothers’ proposal to sell him to the Ishmaelites (Gen. 37:27); but in the next verse we read that the Midianites sold Joseph to the Ishamelites. The rabbis resolve this apparent discrepancy by remarking that the brothers first sold Joseph to the Midianites, who, in turn, sold him to the Ishmaelites (Sefer Hayashar 14 [ed. Dan, pp. 191-92]). Josephus resolves this awkward dilemma by omitting mention of the Midianites altogether (Ant. 2.34). Artapanus (ap. Alex. Poly. ap. Eus., Pr. Ev. 9.23.1) likewise omits mention of the Midianites; but in his version Joseph anticipates his brother’s plot and asks the Arabs (Ishmaelites) to transport him to Egypt. Josephus may here be following the LXX, which uses the definite article for the Midianites, thus apparently identifying the Midianites and the Ishamaelites. The identification of the Ishmaelites with the Arabs is likewise seen in Ant. 1.221. Nodet (ad loc.) suggests that the identification of the Ishmaelites with the Arabs permits Josephus to include the Midianites implicitly. Gen. 37:25 states that the Ishmaelites were carrying spice, balm, and ladanum. Schreckenberg (1967-69:66) suggests that instead of Σύρα (“Syrian wares”) μύρα (“myrrh”) should be read, since that would seem to be a more likely combination with spices. Hebrew ‮גלעד‬‎ (Gen. 37:25), LXX Γαλαάδ, Josephus Γαλαδηνή. Indeed, in the rabbinic tradition, the confrontation between Joseph and his brothers is depicted as a veritable war between superpowers, in which Judah especially represents the Jewish people (Gen. Rabbah 91.6, 92.8, 93.6-8).

There is irony in the extra-biblical remarks of Judah when he tries to persuade his brothers not to kill Joseph but to sell him into slavery. In the Bible he asks what they would profit from slaying him, since he was, after all, their brother (Gen. 37:26-27). Josephus has Judah urge them to sell Joseph to the Ishmaelites, since thus, banished to remote exile, he would die among strangers, while their own consciences would be clear. The irony here, of course, is that not only Joseph but also they themselves were destined to die among strangers and that, like Oedipus, none of them could escape their fate. Even in terms of sheer monetary value Joseph is of greater importance in Josephus’ version than he is in the Bible. In the Bible he is sold for twenty shekels of silver (Gen. 37:28), which, according to Lev. 27:5, is the price of a male slave between the ages of five and twenty. This becomes twenty pieces of gold in the LXX version, but in Josephus the sum here is twenty minas, which is fifty times the value of twenty shekels. Indeed, Nodet (ad loc.) suggests that Josephus’ figure is simply intended to tell the reader that Joseph was being sold for the value of a slave. See Kindler (1971:696) and Steinberg (1971:383). In the Testament of Joseph he is sold for eighty pieces of gold. So in Gen. 37:2.

This motive on the part of Reuben is an addition by Josephus. Josephus adds to the drama of the situation by representing Reuben as calling out to Joseph and getting no answer and so fearing that the brothers had in the meantime put him to death. Reuben is seen in an even better light here through Josephus’ addition that he heaped abuse on his brothers for their (supposed) action. The statement that the brothers pointed out to Reuben what they had done is Josephus’ addition. In Gen. 37:29 Reuben rends his clothes when he returns and discovers that Joseph is missing from the pit. In Josephus’ version the guilt of the brothers is somewhat diminished in that they inform Reuben what had happened, so that he ceases his lamentation.

In Gen. 37:31 we read, without further introduction or explanation, that the brothers took Joseph’s coat, killed a he-goat, and dipped the coat in its blood. The drama is increased in Josephus’ version in that the brothers keep on seeking what they should do in order to escape suspicion by their father. This is the first mention by Josephus of Joseph’s famous coat of many colors, which, according to Gen. 37:3, Jacob had made for him as a sign of his preference for him among his sons. Josephus has no equivalent of the ‮פסים‬‎ of the Hebrew nor of the ποικίλον (“of many colors”) of the LXX.

Josephus adds to the pathos of the situation by referring to Jacob as an old man. The picture is reminiscent of the aged Priam, who in Homer (Il. 24.405-23) comes to grips with the fact that his favorite son, Hector, has been killed. In Gen. 37:33 there is no indication that Jacob had received any prior information about his son Joseph. The statement made by the brothers that they had not seen Joseph nor learned what misfortune he had experienced is Josephus’ addition. In Gen. 37:32 the brothers say nothing about their suspicion that Joseph had been killed by an animal, though this is perhaps anticipated from Jacob’s statement (Gen. 37:33) that a beast had devoured Joseph. In Gen. 37:32 the drama is increased in that the brothers claim not to know whether Joseph had put on the coat when he left home. In Gen. 37:32, moreover, there is an apparent contradiction in the statement that the brothers sent Joseph’s coat to their father and that they brought it to him. Josephus here resolves this by omitting the statement that they sent the coat and by having them merely bring the coat to him.

There is added suspense in Josephus’ version of Joseph’s disappearance and irony in Jacob’s unsubstantial hopes. As Josephus would have it, when Joseph’s brothers had dipped Joseph’s tunic in goat’s blood, they came to their father, who had already, in an amplification added by Josephus, received news of his son’s misadventure. Josephus then paints a scene of Jacob cherishing hope that his son had been kidnapped; but the suspense is ended when he sees the tunic dipped in blood. Note that it is rational reflection (λογισμόν, “calculation”)—a quality paramount in Joseph also (Ant. 2.53)—that leads Jacob, in a Josephan addition, to abandon the thought that Joseph had been kidnapped.

The statement that Jacob, in his mourning for Joseph, felt as if he were the father of only one son is Josephus’ addition. As Nodet (ad loc.) indicates, the verb “sat” (ἐκαθέζετο) is a Semiticism, referring to the Jewish practice of sitting in mourning. Whereas Gen. 37:35 introduces the concept of Sheol (which the LXX has translated as the pagan “Hades”), in having Jacob say that he must go mourning into the grave, Josephus here omits the reference, perhaps because of its pagan connotation, and states simply that Jacob sat in sackcloth, heavy with grief. According to Gen. 37:35, the children who comforted him included all his sons and daughters. Josephus here omits totally the episode of Judah and Tamar (Gen. 38), presumably because of its embarrassing connotations, since Judah, through having relations with his own daughter-in-law, became the ancestor of the kings of Judah, and since David and the messiah, according to rabbinic tradition (see Ginzberg 1925:5.336 n.92) and the New Testament (Matt. 1:3), are said to be descended from this relationship with Tamar.

Hebrew ‮פוטיפר‬‎ (Gen. 39:1), LXX Πετεφρής, Josephus Πεντεφρής (variant Πετεφρής). Josephus here omits the biblical statement (Gen. 37:36) that Potiphar was a eunuch, perhaps because the term ‮סריס‬‎ was also a general term for “officer” or because the narrative that follows about his wife would seem to be inconsistent with his being a eunuch. So also Ant. 2.78. The Hebrew phrase, ‮שׂר הטבחים‬‎ (Gen. 39:1), means literally “chief of cooks” or “chief of butchers,” and came to refer to “executioner” or “chief of the bodyguards.” The LXX equivalent here (Gen. 37:36, 39:1) means “chief cook.” Philo (Legum Allegoriae 3.84.236, De Josepho 5.27), Bib. Ant. (8.9), and Jubilees (34:11) likewise mention him as the chief of Pharaoh’s cooks. The Vulgate in Gen. 37:36 reads magistro militum, “master of the soldiers” and in Gen. 39:1 reads princeps exercitus, “chief of the army.” Hebrew ‮פרעה‬‎ (Gen. 39:1), LXX Φαραώ, Josephus Φαραώθης. Bib. Ant. 8.9 says that the brothers sold Joseph into Egypt to Potiphar, whereas both the Bible and Josephus indicate that the brothers had no part in the direct sale of Joseph into Egypt. Plato (Rep.), as is well known, places great stress on the education of rulers. To the biblical narrative (Gen. 39:1), Josephus here adds that Potiphar held Joseph in the highest esteem and that he gave him a liberal education (παιδείαν ... ἐλευθέριον), presumably in the seven liberal arts (Ant. 2.39). Marrou (1964:528 n.5) dates the first appearance of the liberal arts “septenary” between Dionysius of Thrace and Varro in the first century B.C.E. These liberal arts were divided into two groups—the trivium, consisting of grammar, rhetoric, and dialectic, and the quadrivium, consisting of geometry, arithmetic, music, and astronomy. Significantly, as Mendelson (1982:4) notes, Philo mentions all of these studies in one context or another and never mentions other studies in passages referring to secular education. As Niehoff (1992:103) notes, this addition by Josephus here reflects contemporary circumstances, inasmuch as, in Roman times, it was not uncommon for a talented slave to be educated by his master. Here again Josephus, who enjoyed a similar education, is portraying Joseph as his forerunner. Philo likewise says that while in Potiphar’s house Joseph received the training that was to stand him in good stead when he would become a statesman, namely in household management, since a house is, in effect, a miniature city (De Josepho 8.38). Joseph thus receives an education which, in Josephus’ presentation, is superior even to that of Moses, inasmuch as Josephus is content with the briefest of comments about Moses’ upbringing (he does not specify education), namely that Moses was brought up (ἐτρέφετο) with the utmost care (ἐπιμελείας), so that the Hebrews rested their highest hopes upon him for their future, while the Egyptians viewed his progress with misgiving (Ant. 2.236). In general, Josephus takes pains to stress the accomplishments of his biblical heroes by de-emphasizing the role of God in their actual achievements. Thus, whereas the biblical narrative declares that Potiphar, Joseph’s master, saw that the Lord was with him (Gen. 39:3), Josephus here omits God’s role and simply states that Potiphar held Joseph in the highest esteem, presumably because of his efficiency and fidelity. Moreover, Josephus here omits the biblical statement (Gen. 39:5) that God blessed everything in Potiphar’s house and field for the sake of Joseph.

Siegfried (1883:235-36) notes a parallel to this motif in 4 Macc. 1:1: “As I am going to demonstrate a most philosophical proposition, namely that religious reasoning (λογισμός) is absolute master of the passions, I would willingly advise you to give the utmost heed to philosophy.” Cf. Ant. 2.53, 72. The statement that Joseph did not allow his change of fortune to make him abandon his virtue is an addition by Josephus. The outstanding incident in which Joseph displays self-control is in refusing the advances of Potiphar’s wife (Ant. 2.42). So also in Philo (Legum Allegoriae 3.84.237-86.242; De Migratione Abrahami 4.19, 21; and De Somniis 2.15.106). In view of Philo’s generally unfavorable evaluation of Joseph, his stress on his self-control in the incident with Potiphar’s wife (De Josepho 9.40) and during his stay in prison (De Josepho 16.87) is all the more remarkable. In the Bible we read merely that “after a time his master’s wife cast her eyes upon Joseph” (Gen. 39:7); but there is no indication of Joseph’s strength of character prior to this episode. On the other hand, in Josephus we are told that even when his fortune changed for the better during his slavery to Potiphar and he was given a liberal education and placed in charge of Potiphar’s household, Joseph did not abandon his virtue but displayed how the trials of life can be surmounted by a noble spirit (φρόνημα), where it is genuine and does not simply accommodate itself to passing prosperity. Thus, whereas in the biblical narrative, just before Potiphar’s wife makes her advances, Joseph’s good looks are emphasized (“Joseph was handsome and good-looking”) (Gen. 39:6), Josephus omits reference to Joseph’s good looks; and it is Joseph’s virtue which Josephus chooses to stress at this moment. Joseph’s moderation is likewise stressed by the Testament of Joseph (4:1-2, 6:7, 9:2, 10:2-3), 4 Maccabees (2:2-3), Joseph and Asenath (2:48, 50, 69, 4:9), and Philo (De Josepho 9.40, 11.57, 16.87). Bib. Ant. 43.5 goes out of its way to contrast Joseph with Samson, who “has not paid attention to Joseph my servant, who was in a foreign land and became the crown of his brothers because he was not willing to profane his seed.”

Josephus follows the biblical narrative in not giving the name of Potiphar’s wife. Sefer Hayashar 14 (ed. Dan, p. 199), dating from perhaps the thirteenth century, gives her name as Zulaika. Philo (De Josepho 9.40) likewise says that Potiphar’s wife was wrought up to madness by the beauty (εὐμορφία, “handsomeness,” the same word used by Josephus here) of the young Joseph. The Testament of Joseph (18.4) likewise refers to Joseph’s beauty. Although the biblical text does not make an explicit connection between the mention of Joseph’s beauty and the fact that Potiphar’s wife fell in love with him, Nodet (ad loc.), following Rashi, suggests a causal connection, noting the significance of the fact that the biblical text starting in verse 7 uses the word ‮אחר‬‎ rather than ‮אחרי‬‎. It is significant that whereas in the Bible it is Joseph’s beauty alone (underscored with the duplicate phrase, ‮יפה־תאר‬‎ [“of beautiful form”] and ‮ויפה מראה‬‎ [“fair to look upon”]) that attracts Potiphar’s wife (Gen. 39:6-7), in Josephus’ version it is not only his comely appearance (εὐμορφίαν) but also his dexterity (δεξιότητα, “sharpness, cleverness”) that leads her to become enamored of him.There is a striking similarity between Josephus’ account of Potiphar’s wife’s initiative in approaching Joseph and Phaedra’s initiative in the earlier version of Euripides’ Hippolytus in soliciting Hippolytus (Hadas 1959:152). Apparently, the Phaedra-Hippolytus theme was very popular, as we can gather from the remark of Pausanias (1.22.1) that “everybody, even a foreigner who has learnt the Greek tongue, knows about the love of Phaedra,” and so we may assume that Josephus and many of his readers would have been acquainted with it as well. The theme recurs in a number of myths— Sthenoboea (Antea) and Bellerophon, Astydamia and Peleus, Demodice and Phrixus, Philonome and Cyenus, and Damasippe and Hebrus. The popularity of this motif may be seen in its frequent appearance in the later Hellenistic novels, such as Heliodorus’ Aethiopica, where we have the story of Demaenete and Cnemon. The explanation as to why Potiphar’s wife thought that she would succeed in persuading Joseph to have relations with her is Josephus’ addition. The fact that Josephus (Ant. 2.41-59) has expanded the episode of Joseph and Potiphar’s wife (Gen. 39:7-20) from 22 lines in the Hebrew (Gen. 39:7-20) (32 lines in the LXX) to 120 shows the great interest and importance that this episode held for him. Hadas (1959:155) exaggerates when he claims that Josephus has expanded five verses into five pages; actually, he has expanded fourteen verses into four and a half pages. This gives the extraordinary ratio of Josephus to the Hebrew of 5.45 and to the LXX of 3.75 (the ratio of the LXX to the Hebrew is 1.45). Indeed, this pericope is the most highly expanded of all the Josephan episodes pertaining to Joseph and of almost all the biblical episodes paraphrased by Josephus. Moreover, Josephus has given the episode the style and psychology of a Greek novel, stripping it of all specifically Jewish features. Braun (1938:92) postulates the indebtedness of Josephus to the Phaedra myth as treated by Euripides and to rhetorical and erotic motifs found in later Greek novels. He concludes that Josephus Hellenizes biblical and haggadic tales so that they become something completely new and different, whereas the Testament of Joseph Judaizes alien elements. The very beginning of this episode is more romantic in Josephus’ version. Whereas in Gen. 39:7 we are told that Potiphar’s wife cast her eyes upon Joseph and said “Lie with me,” in Josephus she becomes enamored of him, declares her passion, and proposes an illicit union (Ant. 2.41-42). Josephus likewise expands on her plans, namely her thought that if she disclosed her passion to him, she could easily persuade him to have intercourse with her, since he would deem it a stroke of fortune to be solicited by his mistress. Daube (1980:27-28) suggests that Josephus’ treatment of the episode of Joseph and Potiphar’s wife was influenced by the parallel of his own life; but, as Niehoff (1992:101) remarks, while the parallel (Life 424) cited by Daube does mention slanders based on envy of his career, there is no reference in this latter passage to charges of sexual harassment; and hence the parallel, though suggestive, is rather tenuous.

This comment, that Potiphar’s wife was looking at his external status rather than at his internal character, is Josephus’ authorial addition. Gen. 39:7 simply states that Potiphar’s wife cast her eyes upon Joseph. Josephus here is much more romantic in speaking of her passion for Joseph. Josephus’ phraseology here (λόγους προσφερούσης περὶ μίξεως) is almost identical with that of Philo (De Josepho 9.40: περὶ μίξεως λόγους προσέφερεν). Here again Josephus uses the word ὕβρις, with reference to what Joseph considered an outrageous proposal of sexual relations with his mistress, whereas the LXX uses the verb ἐμπαίζω (Gen. 39:14, 17), “to mock.” In Gen. 39:8 we read that when Potiphar’s wife makes her advances, Joseph refuses (‮וימאן‬‎), which the LXX renders “he was unwilling” (οὐκ ἤθελεν); Josephus uses stronger language and has Joseph turn a deaf ear (παρέπεμπε, “dismiss,” “disregard”) to her entreaties. Cf. Apollodorus (1.9.28), who uses the verb παραπέμπω in the sense of putting away one’s wife. Josephus thus precludes the view of those rabbis (Jerusalem Talmud, Horayot 2.5, 46d; Gen. Rabbah 87.7, 98.20) who assert that Joseph was actually at the point of yielding to temptation and that only the appearance of his father and/or his mother in a vision cooled his passion and prevented him from sinning. Moreover, connected with Joseph’s quality of φιλανθρωπία is the virtue of showing gratitude. Thus we find that Josephus, in an extra-biblical addition, states that Joseph refused the overtures of Potiphar’s wife not merely because of the immorality of her request but also because it would be an outrage to the host who had honored him so highly. Indeed, ironically, when Potiphar’s wife accuses Joseph to her husband, she charges him with ingratitude in that he had forgotten the benefits that he had received from Potiphar (Ant. 2.56). Significantly, in Gen. 39:9 Joseph presents two reasons for declining the proposal of Potiphar’s wife, namely his obligations toward Potiphar and toward God; Josephus omits the latter, thus emphasizing further the temptation as one of passion.

Whereas in the Bible Joseph explains why he must refuse the request of Potiphar’s wife (Gen. 39:8-9), in Josephus he himself takes the initiative to try to convince her to govern her passion (κρατεῖν τοῦ πάθους). The key word here is πάθος, which occurs three times in this passage and has the double meaning of “passion” and “suffering.” This double meaning continues throughout Josephus’ Joseph pericope. Thus the term πάθος has the meaning “suffering” in Joseph’s statement to the butler that wine banishes sufferings (πάθη) (Ant. 2.66). It signifies rather passion or emotion in those passages where Joseph bursts into tears of emotion (πάθους) (Ant. 2.109, 2.123, 2.160). Joseph’s address to Potiphar’s wife is, in effect, Josephus’ editorial on the theme that reason must prevail over passion. The notion of the hopelessness of Potiphar’s wife’s satisfying her desire is Josephus’ addition. The same term (ὑπομένειν) used to describe Joseph’s quality of endurance found here and in Ant. 2.50 also appears in the Testament of Joseph (2:7, 10:2, and 17:1), as noted by Smith (1975:136). Significantly, when Potiphar’s wife approaches Joseph, he responds here, in a manner reminiscent of a Jewish or Christian martyr, that he will endure (ὑπομενεῖν) anything rather than be obedient to her immoral behest. It is most remarkable that Joseph, who so steadfastly withstands the temptation of Potiphar’s wife, is, nevertheless, in Philo depicted as having a love of bodily pleasure (De Somniis 2.2.16). Elsewhere, however, Philo occasionally finds positive things to say about Joseph. Thus, in De Somniis (2.15.106-7) he praises him for his rejection of bodily pleasures as represented by Potiphar’s wife and for his continence and zeal for piety while he was in exile in Egypt. The De Josepho, apparently addressed to Gentile readers, praises Joseph as the ideal politician who had done so much for Egypt, whereas in the other treatises, addressed to Jews, he is depicted as the champion of materialism to which they were so prone. But the very fact that in such treatises as De Somniis and De Migratione Abrahami (4.17 vs. 29.158) he can have both positive and negative things to say about Joseph calls such a thesis into question. More likely Philo truly felt ambivalent about Joseph.

The fact that Potiphar’s wife’s passion was increased by his opposition is Josephus’ addition and serves to add to the intensity of the description. According to Gen. 39:10, Potiphar’s wife spoke to Joseph day after day. We can see the heightened erotic interest in the contrast between the biblical statement that Joseph did not listen to her daily solicitations (Gen. 39:10) and Josephus’ version that the woman’s love was only the more magnified by his unexpected opposition.

The romantic element is increased by Josephus’ addition that Potiphar’s wife solicited Joseph during a festival. A festival is also the occasion for a boy to fall in love with a girl according to the opening of Musaeus’ Hero et Leander. So also the rabbinic tradition cites the details of the festival and the pretended illness of Potiphar’s wife (Sotah 36b; cf. Gen. Rabbah 87.7, Song of Songs Rabbah 1.1.1, and Pesiqta Rabbati 6.2). Rashi (on Gen. 39:11) deduces that it was a festival day from the fact that the biblical text says ‮כהיום הזה‬‎, that is, “on a certain day.” It is interesting to observe that Josephus also elsewhere adds to the biblical account the detail of a festival in order to increase the erotic element, notably in connection with the seduction of Dinah (Ant. 1.337) and the riddle of Samson (Ant. 5.289). Philo (De Josepho 10.50) does not mention a festival; rather he asserts that Potiphar returned from the market on the day that his wife accused Joseph. The theme of feigned illness is also found in the Pseudepigraphic Testament of Joseph (7.1-2), though, as Smith (1975:135) notes, only in Josephus is it made clear that this is a device used by Potiphar’s wife for being alone with Joseph. In Gen. 39:11 we are simply told that on one particular day there was no one else in the house. Josephus’ version here is much more romantic in that it is Potiphar’s wife who hunts for isolation in order to seek out Joseph. Whereas Gen. 39:12 states simply that she caught him by his garment, saying, “Lie with me,” Josephus depicts her addressing Joseph even more importunately and extensively than before. Her second invitation, she insists, is being made with even greater ardor than the first, as evidenced by the fact that she, like Phaedra in Euripides’ Hipp. (271 ff.), had feigned illness and had preferred talking to him rather than attending the festival which was then going on. See also Testament of Joseph (7.2), Apuleius (Met. 10.2), and Braun (1938:73). Such a medley of passion and reason, promises and threats is precisely the kind of speech that we find being delivered by Phaedra and her nurse in Euripides’ play (Hipp. 176-524). A further romantic extra-biblical touch occurs in the weeping of Potiphar’s wife after she speaks to Joseph, notwithstanding which, Josephus remarks, Joseph succumbed neither to pity nor to fear (Ant. 2.50). The motif of a threat of death, on the one hand, and a promise of greater authority, on the other hand, is found also in the story of Gyges (Herodotus 1.11). As Braun (1938:48) has noted, similar promises and threats occur in the variants of the Phaedra legend, namely in the novels of Xenophon of Ephesus (1.16.4, 2.52.2), of Heliodorus (1.10, 7.20, 25), and Achilles Tatius (5.11.6, 5.14.2). A similar combination of promises and threats is found in the Testament of Joseph (3.1-2). Likewise, in Ovid’s Heroides (4.163-64) Phaedra promises that her whole court will be slaves to Hippolytus. We find an echo of such perceptions of feminine psychology in the depiction of Dido in Virgil (Aen., Book 4).

The depiction of Potiphar’s wife’s passion is made all the more effective by Josephus’ remark that this passion has forced her to lower herself in seeking a liaison with a mere slave.

It is extremely ironic that the word “reasons” (λογισμοῖς, “arguments”) is used by none other than Potiphar’s wife, who is the very opposite of rational, in reference to her first overtures to Joseph which he had rejected.

A similar argument is found in the Testament of Joseph 3:2. In the Testament of Joseph (3:1) Potiphar’s wife likewise adds threats vis-à-vis the biblical account.

The Greek φέρωνται, “be borne,” seems ambiguous. The meaning may be either “if they proceed vigorously from the truth,” or “if they depart strongly from the truth.” The reader might well wonder why Potiphar would be so ready to believe his wife, and Josephus thus implies the answer in terms of his excessive submissiveness to his wife.

In Gen. 39:15 there is no indication that Potiphar’s wife wept when Joseph refused her and fled. Rather, she later calls the men of her house and claims that he fled when he heard that she had called out. Here the scene is much more poignant in that she reinforces her request to Joseph with tears. One is reminded of Dido’s pathetic, tearful appeal to Aeneas (Virgil, Aen. 4.314). This is Josephus’ authorial remark. As Niehoff (1992:105) demonstrates, the most detailed parallel to Josephus’ account of the episode of Potiphar’s wife and Josephus, including especially authorial remarks, is to be found in the Testament of Joseph.

Weill (ad loc.) and Thackeray (ad loc.) reject “and the need to remain hidden if the wickedness should not be known” as an obscure gloss. Nodet (ad loc.), however, notes that these words are found in all the manuscripts and that the symmetry of the clauses “fear of being discovered” and “need to remain hidden” argues for authenticity.

Whereas in the Bible Joseph exclaims that adultery would be a sin against God (Gen. 39:9), in Josephus’ version he resorts to rational argument in trying to convince Potiphar’s wife to desist from her advances. Gen. 39:12 states merely that when Potiphar’s wife caught him by his garment and invited him to have relations with her, Joseph left his garment in her hand and fled without saying a word; in Josephus’ version, however, Joseph takes advantage of the opportunity to preach a sermon to Potiphar’s wife—and to the reader—about the transient pleasure of lust and the subsequent remorse that she would feel and to moralize. In making Joseph admonish Potiphar’s wife, Josephus in effect, transfers to him the role of the nurse, who is Phaedra’s confidant in Euripides’ Hippolytus (Braun [1938:77]).

Note the similar phrasing in Ant. 2.29. A major attribute connected with wisdom, as we see in Thucydides’ (2.60) portrait of the ideal statesman, Pericles, is the ability to persuade. Joseph’s speaking ability is seen particularly in the extra-biblical address that he makes to Potiphar’s wife in response to her advances. It is particularly effective for Josephus to have Potiphar’s wife endeavor to convince Joseph to yield to her because of the excess of passion (πάθους) that she feels for him (Ant. 2.46). Whereas in Gen. 39:8-9 Joseph’s arguments in refusing the advances of Potiphar’s wife are that he cannot be disloyal to his master and violate the dictates of piety, the Josephan Joseph uses rational arguments (Ant. 2.43, 51-52) in his attempt to turn her passion (πάθος) into the path of reasonableness (λογισμόν). So also Philo represents Joseph as speaking to Potiphar’s wife at length and wisely (φιλοσοφοῦντος, “loving wisdom, pursuing knowledge”) when she approaches him (De Josepho 10.49). Likewise, in the Testament of Joseph (7:5), Joseph argues that if, as she is threatening to do, she kills herself, the concubine of her husband will beat her children. Similarly, Philo, in his summary of Joseph’s abilities, stresses his power of language, as shown in his interpretations of dreams, in the fluency of his addresses, and in the persuasiveness accompanying them, which secured the voluntary obedience of every one of his subjects (De Josepho 44.269). Cf. Ant. 2.40 and 4 Macc. 1:1. When Joseph turns down Potiphar’s wife a second time, the scene in Josephus is much more passionate than it is in the Bible. Whereas in the latter we do not read of her immediate reaction to Joseph’s rejection of her proposal (Gen. 39:12), Josephus states that she displayed a more violent ardor and, flinging her arms about him, would even have resorted to force. Josephus then, attempting an analysis of feminine psychology, adds the remark that this method of avenging herself for so grievous a slight and of accusing Joseph in advance seemed to Potiphar’s wife to be alike wise and womanly (γυναικεῖον). Philo likewise has a more passionate scene, noting, like Josephus, that Potiphar’s wife was ready to employ violence (De Josepho 9.41). The Testament of Joseph (8:2) states that she forcibly drew Joseph to have relations with her. Support for the view that Josephus had the Testament of Joseph before him when he rewrote the biblical account of Joseph may be found in the fact that Josephus (Ant. 2.61), like the Testament (2:3), uses δεσμοφύλαξ for “keeper of the prison,” whereas the LXX (Gen. 39:21, 40:3) has ἀρχιδεσμοφύλαξ, as does Philo (Quod Deus Immutabilis Sit 24.111, 25.116, etc.).

In Gen. 39:12 we read only that Joseph fled. Here Josephus adds to the passion of the scene by remarking that Joseph fled in rage. The rabbis (Soṭah 36b) are divided as to whether Josephus was actually ready to submit to the advances of Potiphar’s wife. In interpreting Gen. 39:11, “One day, when he went into the house to do his work,” the third-century Rav says that it really means that he entered to do his work, whereas Shmuel says that he went to satisfy his carnal desires. Josephus has increased the drama of the incident (cf. Gen. 39:12) by adding that Potiphar’s wife actually held Joseph, and that he threw away his garment before he leaped from the room. Josephus adds these psychologizing reflections. The misogynistic remark about womanish (γυναικεῖον) counsel reminds one of Josephus’ comment (Ant. 1.49) that God punished Adam for yielding (ἥττονα, “being inferior”) to a womanish (γυναικείας) counsel. One is likewise reminded of Josephus’ attack on women in connection with the betrayal of the riddle by Samson’s wife, that nothing is “more deceitful than a woman who betrays our speech to you” (Ant. 5.294). This generalization about womanish counsel recalls Odysseus’ remark (Hom., Od. 11.436-39), after Agamemnon has described how he met his death through the contrivance of his wife Clytemnestra, that Zeus, from the first, visited hatred upon the house of Atreus because of the counsels of women (γυναικείας βουλάς).

Whereas Gen. 39:17 lacks any psychological assessment of Potiphar’s wife when her husband arrives, Josephus describes her despondency: she sat with downcast eyes (κατηφής, “dejected,” “ashamed”), angry, and confused (συγκεχυμένη, “fallen into disorder or consternation,” “put out of countenance,” “overthrown,” “destroyed”). In Gen. 39:14-15 Potiphar’s wife first calls the men of her house to tell them of the attempted seduction and only thereafter informs her husband. Josephus omits her informing the men of her house and thus enhances the drama by having an immediate and direct confrontation between husband and wife. Nodet (ad loc.) finds the omission strange, but perhaps Josephus thought that the members of the household would find less credible the story told by Potiphar’s wife, inasmuch as they were not in the house at the time when the alleged incident occurred (Gen. 39:11). Moreover, he may have preferred to follow the pattern of Euripides’ Hippolytus and to concentrate on the reaction of Potiphar and his wife. Gen. 39:19 says merely that Potiphar heard the words of his wife; it tells us nothing of her husband’s reaction to her condition, whereas Josephus here adds to the pathos by matching his confusion with hers: he was distressed (ταραχθέντι, “disturbed,” “confounded,” “bewildered,” “shocked,” “put to confusion”) at her appearance. Both the Testament of Joseph (7:2) and Josephus, as noted by Smith (1975:135), portray Potiphar as questioning his wife about her appearance, but in the former this is related to her feigned illness, while in Josephus it is part of her accusation of Joseph. Whereas, in her statement to the men of her house, Potiphar’s wife makes a snide remark about the Jewishness of Joseph (“he has brought among us a Hebrew to insult us,” Gen. 39:14), Josephus omits this prejudicial comment and instead concentrates on the romantic aspect. In the Hebrew version Potiphar’s wife simply presents, without any preface, her version of what Joseph had attempted to do to her; Josephus, on the other hand, has her begin with an imprecation to her husband, “May you die...” Finally, Josephus has elaborated the two brief lines of the Hebrew text of the speech of Potiphar’s wife to her husband (Gen. 39:17-18), having her emphasize in particular Joseph’s ingratitude and hypocrisy.

Here, in the usual formula, Joseph’s ὕβρις is attributed to his prosperity and ingratitude. See Levine (1993:67).

So Thackeray (at loc.). Nodet (ad loc.) remarks that the word ἄρα introduces an explanation real or supposed, but the phrase ὡς δέον indicates that it is a supposition.

In Gen. 39:18 Potiphar’s wife merely tells her husband that Joseph had left his garment with her. Whereas the Bible fails to explain why Potiphar made such a hasty decision to punish Joseph without even giving him an opportunity to answer (Gen. 39:19), Josephus tells us that after she had ceased to speak she showed Potiphar the cloak that Joseph had left. The weeping is Josephus’ dramatic addition to the biblical account. Josephus adds the extra-biblical romantic touch that Potiphar was moved by his wife’s story and by what he himself saw. Realizing that the reader might still wonder at Potiphar’s unfairness, he explains that Potiphar was unduly influenced by his love for her, and hence was not careful to investigate the truth. In Gen. 39:19 all we hear concerning Potiphar’s reaction to the accusation is that his anger was kindled.

There is added irony in Josephus’ extra-biblical remark that after casting Joseph into prison Potiphar was prouder than ever of his wife, testifying to her decorum (κοσμιότητα) and sobriety (σωφροσύνην). Of course, as the reader knows, it is her very lack of these qualities that led her to make advances to Joseph and to accuse him of attempted rape. These qualities are precisely those that would more justly apply to Joseph, as, indeed, we find in Philo (De Josepho 9.40).

Here, for the first time in this episode, Josephus introduces God; but whereas in Gen. 39:21 we are told that God was with Joseph and showed him steadfast love, in Josephus it is Joseph who takes the initiative in putting his life totally into God’s hands. Rather than yield to her threats Joseph chooses, like the Stoics to whom Josephus may well be appealing, to submit silently, to suffer unjustly, and to endure even the most severe penalty; and he is consequently condemned to undergo (ὑπομένειν) a malefactor’s fate. We find a similar motif in the Testament of Joseph (2:7, 10:1-2, 10:6, 17:1-2, 18:3), as well as in Philo (De Josepho 41.246-50). Philo (De Josepho 41.247), in contrast to Josephus, makes no mention of Joseph’s entrusting his cause to God while he was in prison, stressing rather his self-restraint and silence.

It is this juxtaposition of handsomeness, as seen in the dignity of his features (ἀξίωμα τῆς μορφῆς), and intellectual excellence, as reflected in the diligence (ἐπιμέλειαν) and fidelity with which he carried out the tasks that were assigned to him, that, according to Josephus here, attracted him to the keeper of the prison where Joseph was confined by Potiphar. The same combination of qualties makes him attractive to Potiphar’s wife, according to Josephus (Ant. 2.41). Gen. 39:21 says simply that it was because God was with Joseph that he won the favor of the keeper in the prison. This same juxtaposition of handsomeness of body and intellectual ability appears in the pagan Pompeius Trogus (ap. Justin, Hist. Phil. 36, Epitoma 2.11), who remarks that Moses, whom he terms Joseph’s son, inherited from his father knowledge and comeliness (pulchritudo). We may note, on the contrary, that the rabbis do not thus juxtapose the beauty and intelligence of Joseph; for them he is the very paragon of beauty, so that if someone offers as an excuse for not studying the Torah the fact that he is handsome and distracted by sensual passion, their answer is: “Were you perchance more beautiful than Joseph?” (Yoma 35b). In Gen. 39:22 the keeper of the prison puts Joseph in charge of all the prisoners; in Josephus here Joseph is relieved of his chains and he is given food that is superior to that given to the rest of the prisoners.

Josephus is concerned with clarifying the motivation of events that, in the Bible, are sometimes left unexplained. Thus we read that Joseph came to the butler and the baker after they had had their dreams without any indication as to how he had established a close relationship with them (Gen. 40:6; Gen. 40:4 indicates only that Joseph served them). Josephus, aware of this problem, explains that since they were fellow-prisoners, they would fall into conversation during any cessation of their hard labors and discuss the reasons why they had been incarcerated.

In Gen. 40:5 we are told in the same verse that both the cupbearer and the baker dreamed a dream, and that Joseph noticed their sadness, whereupon they explained that they had both dreamed a dream and had found no one to interpret it. That he was especially honored by the Pharaoh is Josephus’ addition to Gen. 40:1, presumably to give a more rational basis to the Pharaoh’s decision to favor him rather than the baker. Presumably Josephus is here reflecting the Roman practice of binding prisoners to one another; cf. Cato (ap. Gell. 11.18.18) and Plautus (Capt. 442). Thackeray (ad loc.) prefers to see a reference to the contemporary practice, as indicated in Ant. 18.196, of binding a prisoner to the person who guarded him, as we see in the case of Agrippa I. Here we see that the butler assumes that a wise man will ipso facto be adept in interpreting dreams. The notion that such nightmares are due to God is Josephus’ addition.

According to Gen. 40:11, the cup was in the butler’s rather than Pharaoh’s hand. That the cupbearer strained out the must is Josephus’ addition. That the king received the drink gladly is Josephus’ addition.

That dreams contain predictions of the future is Josephus’ addition. Josephus, in this extra-biblical addition, explains rationally the reason why the cupbearer would be restored to the king’s service.

It is precisely because Joseph is highly rational that he is able to explain the significance of both the butler’s and baker’s dreams, as well as of that of the Pharaoh. The reader of the biblical narrative will undoubtedly wonder how Joseph was able to come to the conclusions that he did in interpreting the two former dreams. The answer is not forthcoming in the Bible itself (Gen. 40:11); but Josephus gives us the clue when he declares that in the dream the butler saw the king receive the wine gladly (κεχαρισμένως) (Ant. 2.64). Wine, he explains here, betokens fidelity and friendship and hence is a favorable omen. The theme that wine banishes sorrows and brings delight is a commonplace, as seen particularly in the speech of the guard (cf. 1 Esdras 3:17-24, Ant. 11.38-42).

Josephus omits Joseph’s request (Gen. 40:14) to the cupbearer to mention him to Pharaoh, perhaps because he does not want his readers to think that Jews seek special treatment from rulers.

Whereas, according to Gen. 40:15, Joseph, in his self-defense to the butler, says merely that he has done nothing that would justify his being cast into the dungeon, in Josephus’ version here he explicitly states that it was for virtue’s sake and for sobriety (σωφροσύνης) that he was condemned. One of the charges against the Jews in Josephus’ own day was that of dual loyalty (see, e.g., Apion 2.38). That Jews are, indeed, loyal to their masters is the theme, for example, of Joseph’s extra-biblical addition in his statement to the butler that even the lure of his own pleasure would not induce him to dishonor his master Potiphar. Gen. 40:15 says nothing about the cupbearer’s reaction to Joseph’s analysis of his dream.

There is no indication here in the Hebrew text (Gen. 40:16) that the chief of the bakers was a slave, but in Gen. 40:20 we read that Pharaoh made a feast for all his servants and lifted up the head of the chief of the bakers among his servants (‮עבדיו‬‎).

In Gen. 40:16 we read that there were three baskets of bread. Josephus is troubled by the fact that the third basket (Gen. 40:17) actually contains all sorts of baked food rather than bread. He resolves the problem by stating that there were two baskets full of bread and that the third contained various delicacies. Gen. 40:17 states merely that the birds were eating out of the uppermost basket. Josephus’ version is more dramatic: the birds devour everything and pay no attention to the baker himself who is trying to frighten them away.

Gen. 40:18 merely presents Joseph’s interpretation of the baker’s dream. Josephus here adds to the drama by noting, as he did with the cupbearer’s dream, the expectation of the dreamer. When he comes to interpret the dream of the baker it is through rational reflection (λογισμῷ) that Joseph is able to analyze its import. The reader would wonder how Joseph was able to come to the conclusion that he reached, and the Bible is of little help (Gen. 40:17). In Josephus, however, we are given the clue that enabled Joseph to analyze the import of the dream, namely that when the birds flew down and devoured the baskets of bread and dainties they were heedless of the baker’s efforts to scare them away (Ant. 2.71). It is this kindness and thoughtfulness of Joseph that Josephus stresses in a number of extra-biblical comments. Thus, when Joseph interprets the dream of the baker, he begins by assuring him that he would have wished to present him with good news (so also Philo [De Josepho 18.94]) but that unfortunately he cannot do so. There is no such thoughtful and sympathetic preface in the biblical account (Gen. 40:18).

Gen. 40:19 states that Pharaoh would lift up the head of the baker and hang him on a tree. The LXX and Philo (De Josepho 18.96) say that he would be decapitated and hanged from a tree. Josephus omits the decapitation and has him put to death by the Roman method of crucifixion. See Thornton (1972:130-31), who notes that Josephus (Ant. 11.208) also has changed the biblical remark (Esth. 2:23) that the eunuchs Bigthan and Teresh, who had plotted against King Ahasuerus, were hanged on the gallows to a statement that they were crucified. He remarks that Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 3.28.152) similarly speaks of crucifixion where the Bible (Deut. 21:22-23) refers to the penalty of hanging. In Gen. 40:20 we are told only that Pharoah, on the occasion of his birthday, made a feast for all his servants; Josephus adds that he celebrated the birthday with a sacrifice. Philo (De Josepho 18.97), like the biblical text in the Hebrew and the LXX, does not mention the sacrifice.

This is Josephus’ addition. The role of God is heightened in Josephus’ version of the release of Joseph from prison. In Gen. 41:1 we read only that at the end of two full years Pharaoh had a dream. Josephus, however, ascribes the initiative to God, who devises a means for bringing about Joseph’s release from prison.

In the Bible the content of the two dreams is mentioned twice, first (Gen. 41:1-7) when Pharaoh dreams, and second (Gen. 41:17-24) when he recounts his dream to Joseph. Josephus, realizing the redundancy, includes the second account only, namely when the king recounts it to Joseph. A question that the reader of the Bible may well ask is how the Pharaoh was able to determine that Joseph had interpreted his dream correctly. There is no hint in Gen. 41:1-7 on this point, but Josephus notes that Pharaoh recalled some portion of the interpretations, as well as the dreams themselves, and hence was able to confirm Joseph’s explanation as correct. So also the Midrashic tradition (Midrash Hagadol Gen. 41.15 [ed. Margulies, p. 709]; Midrash Aggadah [ed. Buber, p. 96]). Similarly, Dan. 2:1 states that Nebuchadnezzar had dreams; Josephus (Ant. 10.195), realizing that Nebuchadnezzar could not have known whether the interpretation of the dreams by the Chaldean stargazers was correct unless he had heard the interpretation itself as part of the dream, adds, as here, that God Himself revealed the interpretation also in his sleep but that when he arose from his bed he forgot it. In Gen. 41:8 we read only that Pharaoh’s spirit was troubled by the dream. Josephus is much more emphatic: Pharaoh is grieved since the dreams seemed calamitous to him. In Gen. 41:8 we read only that Pharaoh summoned the wise men of Egypt. Josephus uses stronger language and is more specific. Pharaoh summons the most learned (λογιωτάτους, “most erudite,” “most educated,” “most reasonable”). It is significant that whereas others (for example, Pompeius Trogus [ap. Justin, Hist. Phil. 36, Epitome 2.7]) had portrayed Joseph as proficient in the art of magic, whereby he gained great favor with the Pharaoh, Josephus carefully omits the biblical passage in which Pharaoh states that he consulted the Egyptian magicians in order to have them interpret his dreams (Gen. 41:8, 24). Instead, we are given a contest of wise men. The fact that Joseph surpasses them is evidence that he was more erudite than they.

In Gen. 41:8 we read only that none of the wise men could interpret the dreams to Pharaoh. Josephus is more dramatic, since we are told that, as a result of the failure of the wise men, the king was still more dismayed than he had been previously. In Gen. 41:9 we are not told what motivated the chief of the butlers to suggest to Pharaoh that he summon Joseph to interpret his dreams. Here we see that it is the consternation of Pharaoh that actually overcame the butler and led him to remember Joseph and his skill in interpreting dreams.

This is apparently an anachronism, since we do not know of another instance where the ancient Egyptians practiced crucifixion. Whereas in Gen. 41:12 the butler remarks that there had been with him in prison a Hebrew lad (‮נער‬‎, LXX νεανίσκος, “young man”), a servant (‮עבד‬‎, LXX παῖς), captain of the guard, Josephus, seeking to avoid these degrading terms, omits them completely. So also Reuben (Ant. 2.26) omits the Bible’s reference to Joseph as a child (Gen. 37:30).

Gen. 41:12 lacks the statement made here by the cupbearer that Potiphar was responsible for Joseph’s imprisonment. On the other hand, the cupbearer makes no mention of the fact that he himself had been imprisoned by the Pharaoh’s orders (Gen. 41:10). It is particularly effective that Joseph’s high birth is mentioned not by a fellow Hebrew but by an Egyptian, Pharaoh’s butler, who, in an extra-biblical comment, here remarks that Joseph ranked, alike by birth and by his father’s fame, among the foremost of the Hebrews. On the contrary, in Gen. 41:12 the butler speaks disparagingly of Joseph as a Hebrew lad (‮נער‬‎). In Gen. 41:9-13 the butler simply reports to Pharaoh that Joseph had succeeded in interpreting accurately the dreams of the baker and of himself. Josephus adds the butler’s proposal.

Gen. 41:14 says only that Pharaoh sent for and called Joseph and says nothing about giving these orders to his attendants. In addition to defending the Jews against attacks by non-Jews, Josephus also felt the need to answer charges by Jews themselves that biblical figures had compromised the laws of Judaism. Thus Gen. 41:14 states that when Pharaoh sent for Joseph from the dungeon where he had been confined by Potiphar, Joseph shaved himself. Josephus, aware that shaving was against Jewish tradition (Lev. 19:27, 21:5), might have justified the action by saying that he did so to honor the sovereign (so also the Midrash Gen. Rabbah [89.9]). Instead, however, he omits explicit mention of shaving altogether, restricting himself to a general statement that the officers gave Joseph their “attentions” (τημελήσαντες, “look after,” “take care”) in accordance with the king’s orders. Indeed, in Josephus’ version, the fact that the Pharaoh does not have Josephus shaven and given a change of clothes before appearing before him emphasizes the dispatch with which Pharaoh proceeded.

In Gen. 41:15 there is no mention that the Pharaoh took Joseph by the hand. This adds a warm personal note and thus presents the Pharaoh even more positively. When we are informed that the Egyptian king told his dream to Joseph, the Hebrew (and the LXX) does not tell us how he addressed him (Gen. 41:15), but Josephus has Pharaoh refer to him more respectfully as a “young man” (νεανία). Whereas in Gen. 41:15 Pharaoh is impressed with Joseph’s ability to interpret the dreams but shows no particular warmth toward him, Josephus’ Pharaoh here is clearly a more winning personality in that he actually takes Joseph by the hand and commends him for his excellence (ἄριστος) and extreme sagacity (σύνεσιν ἱκανώτατος) in asking him to interpret his dreams. Pharaoh’s assurance to Joseph at this point that he should suppress nothing through fear and that he need not flatter him is clearly patterned on the parallel scene in Homer (Il. 1.84-91) in which Achilles gives very similar assurances to Calchas. The literate reader would probably see a parallel between Calchas and Joseph as prophets. In Gen. 41:16 Joseph, even before being told the contents of the dream, tells Pharaoh that it is not he but God who will give the interpretation of the dream.

In Gen. 41:17 Pharaoh states that in his dream he was standing on the banks of the river. In Gen. 41:2 the fat cows emerge from the river and feed in the meadow. In Josephus they do not emerge from the river but walk away from it to the marshland. Whereas in Gen. 41:3 the seven lean cows come up after the fat cows, in Josephus the scene is more dramatic, since the lean cows come to meet the fat cows. Josephus omits the biblical statement (Gen. 41:19) that the lean cows were such as Pharaoh had never seen in all the land of Egypt for ugliness. The reader of the biblical narrative might well wonder how Joseph was able to interpret Pharaoh’s dreams as predicting a famine. In Josephus’ version the king specifically mentions that the lean cows had been painfully weakened by the famine, thus suggesting the interpretation that Joseph will make.

In Gen. 41:21 Pharaoh says that he awoke. Josephus is more dramatic in that Pharaoh is awakened. In Gen. 41:8 it is not until the following morning that the Pharaoh is troubled by his dream. The story here is more dramatic, since he is awakened from his very sleep in a state of bewilderment. Whereas Gen. 41:21 says merely that Pharaoh awoke after the first dream, Josephus adds to the biblical narrative (Gen. 41:22) that the second dream (like Josephus’ version of Joseph’s second dream, Ant. 2.13) was far more marvellous than the first, and that this dream terrified and disquieted him yet more.

Whereas the seven good ears of corn in the dream are described in Gen. 41:22 as full and good, Josephus is considerably more vivid, describing their heads as already toppling and bent beneath the load of grain and its ripeness for harvest. Josephus here omits the statement of Pharoah (Gen. 41:24) that he told the dreams to the magicians but that there was none who could explain them to him. The reader may well wonder how Joseph was able to infer from Pharaoh’s dream that there would be a lack of water thus causing a famine. In Gen. 41:23 we read that the thin ears of corn have been blasted with the east wind. Here in Josephus’ version of the dream he makes no mention of the blast from the east wind as causing the emaciation of the ears of corn; instead we read by way of intimation of Joseph’s interpretation that the ears of corn are weak from lack of water. In Gen. 41:24 we are not told of Pharaoh’s reaction to this dream, whereas Josephus is more dramatic in informing us that it caused him dread (ἔκπληξιν, “fright,” “consternation,” “bewilderment”).

When Joseph interprets Pharaoh’s dreams, in Gen. 41:16 he says that this interpretation comes from God; but Josephus, who is interested in building up the character of Joseph and in highlighting his wisdom, totally omits the role of God and presents the explanation as Joseph’s own. Likewise, whereas Gen. 41:25, 28 stress that God had used the vehicle of a dream in order to tell Pharaoh what He was about to do, Josephus omits this reference to God’s role. And even when Joseph does subsequently mention God it is not to state that God uses the vehicle of the dream to predict what He will do but rather to forewarn men so that they may use their human sagacity (συνέσει) to alleviate the trials that will befall them (Ant. 2.86). On the other hand, in Dan. 2:28, it is to God that Daniel ascribes the explanation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream; and God plays the same role in Josephus’ version (Ant. 10.203). The explanation for this apparent inconsistency with Josephus’ treatment of Joseph’s interpretation of Pharaoh’s dream is, it would seem, that Josephus is eager to build up his political figure, namely Joseph, especially in answer to those critics, particularly those from Egypt of which Joseph had been viceroy (see, for example, the Acta Alexandrinorum), who had bitterly attacked Jewish influence in high places. The statement describing the cattle as animals born to toil at a plough is Josephus’ addition. As Franxman (242) remarks, this relates the cattle to the whole theme of food production, which is central to Joseph’s function as second to Pharaoh.

Josephus here omits the biblical statement (Gen. 41:30) that during the years of famine the plentifulness of food during the previous seven years will be forgotten. Joseph’s role as an effective leader and administrator is aggrandized by Josephus when he adds that the task of providing relief during the years of famine will prove to be exceedingly difficult (σφόδρα δυσκατόρθωτος). Joseph’s role is all the more important in that the Bible’s mention of overseers to manage the Egyptian economy during the successive periods of plenty and famine (Gen. 41:34) is omitted here.

Whereas in Gen. 41:21 the lean cows, even after they have eaten the fat cows, still look as bad as at the beginning, Josephus adds that they continue to be hungry, thus signifying that this indicates that during the years of famine there will be continued difficulty in providing relief to the people. The explanation of God’s purpose in sending dreams, namely that thus people can take precautions to lighten the effects of disaster, is Josephus’ addition. That Joseph was famous for his ability to interpret dreams may be seen in the statement of Philo the Epic Poet, who refers to Joseph as an interpreter (θεσπιστςή, “prophet”) of dreams (ap. Alex. Poly. ap. Eus., Pr. Ev. 9.24.1). It may likewise be discerned in the comments of the first-century Pompeius Trogus in his brief history of the Jews (ap. Justin, Hist. Phil. 36, Epitoma 2.6-10). Pompeius connects Joseph’s extraordinary ability (excellens ingenium), his shrewd nature (sollerti ingenio), his mastery of the art of magic, and his extreme sagacity (sagacissimus) in prodigies with the fact that he was first to establish the science (intellegentiam) of interpreting dreams, so that nothing of divine or human law seems to have been unknown to him. He appends the remarkable statement that Joseph’s admonitions seemed to proceed not from a mortal but from a god. It is this skill in dream interpretation that helps to explain the identification of Joseph with the Hellenistic Egyptian god Serapis, who was so prominent during this period and in whose cult the interpretation of dreams was developed into a fixed technique. An anonymous rabbi in the Talmud also knows this identification of Joseph with Serapis, deducing this from the fact that Joseph became a prince (‮סר‬‎) who appeased (‮מפיס‬‎) the whole world (‘Abodah Zarah 43a). This identification is also found in Tertullian (Nat. 2.8 and Spec. Syr. 89), Melito (Apol. ([ed. de Otto]), Firmicus Maternus (De Errore Profanarum Religionum 13.2) (who derives the name Serapis from Σέραπις, i.e. “son [actually great grandson] of Sarah”), Paulinus Nolanus (Carm. 19.100 ff.), and Suidas (s.v. “Σέραπις,” ed. A. Adler, 4 [Leipzig: Teubner, 1938], p. 325). This strange identification of Joseph with Serapis perhaps arose both from their close association with the interpretation of dreams and from the similarity of sound between Serapis and Osarsiph, the alternate name of Joseph, according to Manetho (ap. Josephus, Apion 1.238-50, 265, 286). See Sachs (1854:2:99); Drexler (1886:2.1:433); Krauss (1898-99:2:412); Blaufuss (1910:19); Lieberman (1950:137-38, especially 137, n. 87); Gutman (1963:2: 109-10); and Hengel (1974:2:139, notes 647 and 648). It is perhaps because of this identification that Jews generally achieved the reputation of being skilled in interpreting dreams. Thus we find the first-century Antonius Diogenes (ap. Porphyry, Vita Pythagorae 11) declaring that it was from the Hebrews that the famed philosopher Pythagoras learned the exact knowledge of dreams. That Jews were known as interpreters of dreams may be seen as well from Juvenal’s bitter comment (Sat. 6.546-47) that “a Jew will tell you dreams of any kind you please for the minutest of coins.” The fourth-century Julian (Con. Gal. 340A) observes how ancient was the practice among the Jews, which he castigates as witchcraft, of sleeping among tombs in order to obtain dream visions.

That it is precisely Joseph’s ability at interpreting dreams that was the source of his reputation for wisdom may be seen in the fact that, according to Josephus’ addition, it is after Joseph interprets Pharaoh’s dreams that Pharaoh marvels here at his discernment (φρόνησιν) and wisdom (σοφίαν). Philo, too, connects the interpretation of dreams with wisdom when he has Jacob say: “My soul has a prophetic inkling that my dreams will not forever remain veiled in obscurity, for in this youth [i.e. Joseph] there are signs and indications of wisdom (σοφίας)” (De Josepho 20.106). It is this characteristic of Joseph’s wisdom that is stressed by both Philo and Josephus, in contrast to the Testament of Joseph, as Hollander (1981:60-61) notes. Moreover, we admire Josephus’ Pharaoh, inasmuch as he expresses his appreciation to Joseph with much greater enthusiasm, in not merely stating that Joseph was discreet and wise (Gen. 41:39) but actually marvelling (θαυμάσαντος) at the latter’s sagacity (φρόνησιν) and wisdom (σοφίαν). Josephus here has the Pharaoh interrupt with his expression of admiration, whereas in Gen. 41:33 there is no such interruption, and Joseph goes on directly to advise Pharaoh to appoint an administrator over Egypt. Niehoff (1992:88) notes that the quality of φρόνησις (practical wisdom) is relatively rare with regard to human protagonists in Josephus’ Antiquities but that it is applied almost exclusively, yet abundantly, with regard to Solomon (e.g., Ant. 8.23, 34, 42, 165, 171). The combination of φρόνησις and σοφία is applied to Solomon on three occasions (Ant. 8.34, 42, 171) and to no one else except Joseph here. Both Potiphar’s wife (Ant. 2.46) and Pharaoh here mention this quality of φρόνησις as an indication of Joseph’s competence. Whereas in Gen. 41:33 it is Joseph who volunteers the advice to Pharaoh as to how to cope with the forthcoming famine, namely by appointing a discreet and wise man over the land of Egypt, in Josephus’ version it is Pharaoh himself who takes the initiative to ask Joseph how to make provision for the famine, whereupon Joseph, in his reply here, suggests and counsels him how to conserve grain during the years of plenty.

We see here Joseph’s ability at persuasion especially when he suggests (ὑπετίθετο, “proposed,” “enjoined,” “instructed,” “demonstrated,” “advised,” “inspired”) and counsels (συνεβούλευε) Pharaoh how to prepare for the years of famine and when he urges (παρῄῖνει) him to take the grain and store it.The student of the Bible is confronted with a real problem when he reads that Joseph proposed that during the seven years of plenty each farmer be required to give a fifth of his produce (Gen. 41:34). The question arises how seven fifths would be sufficient for the seven lean years that are yet to come; a more logical requirement would have been that each be required to give half of his produce. Targum Onqelos on this passage interprets the word ‮חמשׁ‬‎ (“a fifth”) as “in haste,” as in Exod. 13:18. Josephus neatly resolves the problem by having Joseph advise that the Egyptians reserve all their surplus for emergencies, without specifying the actual amount. Josephus omits the biblical statement (Gen. 41:33) in which Joseph advises Pharaoh to search out a wise man and set him over the land of Egypt, presumably because this would appear to be a less than subtle hint that Joseph looked upon himself as the man to administer the land thus. Again, whereas in Gen. 41:38 Pharaoh subsequently consults his servants as to the choice of overseers, in Josephus there is no mention of such overseers, presumably because Josephus subscribed to the view found in Herodotus (3.82), as well as in Plato (Rep. 6.500E1-4), and as seen in the leadership of Moses, that the rule of the one best man is the highest ideal. Josephus felt a need to answer adversaries of the Jews such as Manetho (ap. Josephus, Apion 1.238-50), who had charged that Osarsiph (who is apparently to be identified with Joseph) had ruined the land of Egypt by committing such egregious sacrilege as polluting shrines and persecuting practitioners of the Egyptian religion. Such predecessors of Josephus as Artapanus (ap. Alex. Poly. ap. Eus., Pr. Ev. 9.23.2) had stressed how haphazardly the Egyptians had farmed the land prior to the advent of Joseph because the countryside had not been divided into allotments, with the consequence that the weak were treated unfairly by the strong. They had further emphasized how much Joseph had done for Egypt as the first to subdivide the land, to fix these subdivisions with boundaries, to render much of the waste land tillable, and to assign some of the arable land to the priests—a clear indication that he was not guilty of sacrilege. In addition, Artepanus, in particular, had noted that it was Joseph, as Pharaoh's administrator, who had discovered measures and who was consequently deeply beloved by the Egyptians because of these accomplishments.

Pharaoh’s appreciation for Joseph is particularly to be seen in the fact that Josephus spells out the fact that the Pharaoh doubly (ἀμφοτέρων) admired Joseph. When Pharaoh decides to entrust to Joseph the task of preparing for the years of famine, the biblical text stresses that the factor that leads Pharaoh to his decision is the recognition that the spirit of God is in Joseph (Gen. 41:38) and that God has caused him to know what is to come to pass (Gen. 41:39). In Josephus’ version, by contrast, there is no mention of God; and Pharaoh expresses, rather, his admiration for Joseph’s wisdom in interpreting the dream and for his counsel. Whereas in Gen. 41:38 Pharaoh consults with his servants before choosing Joseph to administer the land, in Josephus he does so directly. That Joseph, the prototype of the Jewish public servant, turns out to be an ideal administrator, on the one hand loyal to his sovereign and on the other hand concerned for the welfare of the Egyptian people, is clear from this passage in Josephus’ paraphrase of the Bible. In the Hebrew Pharaoh tells Joseph: “You shall be over my house, and all my people shall order themselves as you command” (Gen. 41:40). Josephus here adds that Pharaoh gave Joseph the power to act as he thought fit “both for the people of Egypt and for their sovereign.”

In Gen. 41:42 Pharaoh gives Joseph his ring, fine linen clothes, and a golden chain around his neck as symbols of his authority. Here the symbols of Joseph’s authority are the royal seal and purple robes. Similarly, Philo mentions that Pharaoh bestowed upon Joseph the royal seal and a sacred robe (De Josepho 21.120). Josephus is careful to stress Joseph’s loyalty to the Pharaoh even when, presumably because of his tremendous achievement in saving the country from starvation, he might have achieved the rule for himself and, in fact, had been robed in purple by the king. Josephus carefully omits the biblical statement (Gen. 41:44) in which Pharaoh tells Joseph that without him no man might lift up hand or foot in all of Egypt, since this would seem to make Joseph too powerful. To be sure, in Joseph’s dreams the sheaves bow down to him like slaves before their masters (Ant. 2.11); and those dreams in which the sun, the moon, and the stars make obeisance to him (Ant. 2.13) are interpreted by Jacob to mean that a time would come when Joseph would be held worthy of veneration by his parents and brothers (Ant. 2.15). And yet, Josephus carefully avoids all indication that anyone bows down to Joseph. Thus, whereas the Bible declares that Pharaoh made Joseph ride in the second chariot behind him and that the cry was uttered before him ‮ךרבא‬‎, that is “bow the knee” (Gen. 41:43), Josephus here follows the LXX in omitting mention of “Abrech” and its explanation. According to Gen. 41:49, Joseph heaped up corn as the sand of the sea until he left off numbering it. Josephus, apparently regarding this statement as going to excess, omits it. The description of Joseph fetching the grain from the Egyptian farmers, while rationing to each as much as was necessary for sowing and sustenance, is Josephus’ addition. So also Ant. 2.88. One of the characteristics of a great leader, as seen notably in Plato’s Respublica, is the ability to deceive the people in the interest of the common weal. Thus in Plato (Rep. 3.414B-415C) the guardians are to resort to a noble lie in order to get the masses to accept their station in life. Josephus’ Joseph does not, to be sure, resort to outright deceit, but he does, during the years of plenty, as seen here, mete out to each Egyptian farmer enough for sowing and sustenance, without revealing the reason why he acts as he does. This secrecy is absent in the biblical narrative (Gen. 41:43). Philo, in a fragment from the fourth book of his Legum Allegoriae (J.R. Harris, Fragments of Philo, 8), similarly defends the right of the statesman to conceal the truth from the populace, “for the reason that the hearer is often aroused to opposition by hearing what is not flattering, and flatly refuses to obey the truth, so that no improvement is accomplished.”

Hebrew ‮צפנת פענח‬‎ (Gen. 41:45), LXX Ψονθομφανήχ, Josephus Ψονθομφάνηχος. The Jews had been accused by such opponents as Apion of not producing any illustrious men distinguished in wisdom (ap. Apion 2.135). Consequently, whereas Gen. 41:45 simply states without explanation that Pharaoh gave Joseph the name ‮צפנת פענח‬‎, Josephus makes a special point of explaining that the name means “Discoverer of Secrets” and that it was given to Joseph in view of his amazing (παράδοξον) intelligence (συνέσεως). We thus come to admire Pharaoh himself more because of the recognition that he gives to the erstwhile slave and prisoner. In this explanation Josephus is in close accord with Targum Onqelos and with Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, as well as with the Peshitta, on this verse: “And Pharaoh called the name of Joseph ‘the man to whom mysteries are revealed.’” Compare also the Midrash Gen. Rabbah (90.4): “The name connotes ‘he reveals things that are hidden and easily declares them.’” Despite the apparent Egyptian origin of the name, the first part of the name, ‮צפנת‬‎, in Hebrew means “hidden things.” The second part, ‮פענח‬‎, is a hapax legomenon in the Bible and presumably means “revealer” or “interpreter.” Philo states that Pharaoh gave this name to Joseph in virtue of his ability to interpret dreams (De Josepho 21.121). Such a marriage was one that gave distinction and support to a man ambitious of advancement. Whereas Gen. 41:45 declares very simply that Pharaoh gave him Asenath, the daughter of Potiphera, the priest of On (so the Hebrew; LXX: the priest of Heliopolis), for a wife, Josephus here introduces three changes in this one statement. In the first place, we are told that it was a most outstanding (ἀξιολογώτατον, “most worthy of mention, most remarkable”) marriage. Secondly, the father of Potiphera is referred to not as the priest of On (though there is good reason to believe that Josephus had the Hebrew as well as the Greek text of the Bible available), a place otherwise unknown, but rather, as in the LXX, as priest of Heliopolis. This was a well-known community where Onias had built his temple (Josephus, War 1.33, 7.426; Ant. 12.388, 13.65, 70, 285; 14.40; 20.236) and where, according to Manetho (ap. Josephus, Apion 1.250), Moses was born. According to Herodotus (2.3), the priests of Heliopolis were the most learned of the Egyptians when it came to historical records. According to Strabo, Heliopolis was long the university of the Egyptians, the chief center of their learning (17.1.29.806). The philosophers Pythagoras and Plato, the renowned lawgiver Solon, and the distinguished astronomer Eudoxus were all said to have studied there. Thirdly, we are informed that Asenath was yet a virgin, a point of obvious importance to Josephus, as we can see from his addition to the Bible that Saul’s daughter Michal, whose heart David won, was still a virgin (1 Sam. 18:20; Ant. 6.196) and from the fact that Josephus takes care to mention that his first wife was a virgin (Life 414). Hebrew ‮פוטי פרע‬‎ (Gen. 41:45), LXX Πετεφρῆ, Josephus Πεντεφρής. He thus has the same name, according to Josephus’ spelling (Ant. 2.39), as Potiphar, the Egyptian who had bought Joseph. The Hebrew, however, differentiates Potiphera from Potiphar. Jubilees (40.10), Twelve Testaments, Joseph (18.3), and the rabbinic tradition (Sotah 13b, Midrash Gen. Rabbah 86.3), nevertheless, identify the two. The rabbinic tradition wonders how a eunuch could be the father of a daughter and explains that either she was Potiphar’s adopted daughter or that she was born before he was made a eunuch by the angel Gabriel as punishment for purchasing Joseph for an immoral purpose. Hebrew ‮אן‬‎ (Gen. 41:45), LXX Ἡλίου πόλις, Josephus Ἡλιούπολις. Whereas the Hebrew (Exod. 1:11) asserts that the Israelites built the treasure cities of Pithom and Raamses, the LXX (Exod. 1:11) adds “and On, which is Heliopolis.” In Gen. 41:45 the Pharaoh is represented not as assisting in bringing about the marriage but as directly giving Asenath as a wife to Joseph. The genealogy of the hero’s wife is of prime importance, as we can see from Tacitus’ remarks about the illustrious birth of his mother-in-law (Agricola 6). Such a marriage, he says, was one that gave distinction and support to a man ambitious for advancement. Asenath’s virginity plays an important role in the Pseudepigraphic Joseph and Asenath, as it generally does in the Hellenistic romances. See Burchard (1985:203, note j).

Hebrew ‮מנשׁה‬‎ (Gen. 41:51), LXX Μανασσῆ, Josephus Μανασσῆς. The Hebrew text (Gen. 41:51) explains the meaning of the name Manasseh: “For God has made me forget all my hardship and all my father’s house.” Hebrew ‮אפרים‬‎ (Gen. 41:52), LXX Ἐφραίμ, Josephus Ἐφραίμης (alternative readings, Ἐφράδης, Εὐφράης, Niese Ἐφράνης). The reference presumably is to Joseph rather than to Ephraim. Whereas Gen. 41:51-52 notes the role of God in the names given to Joseph’s sons Manasseh and Ephraim, Josephus omits the role of God. In Gen. 41:52 the etymology of Ephraim’s name is quite different: “For God has made me fruitful in the land of my affliction.” Plaut (1867:23) suggests that Josephus may be deriving the name from ‮פרע‬‎, “to count.” The LXX explains the name as signifying “increased.” Nodet (ad loc.) remarks that Josephus seems to derive the name from ‮פרע‬‎ in the non-biblical sense of “pay” or “reward.” He suggests that perhaps there is here a discreet allusion to the identity of the two Potiphars, who differ from one another as ‮פרה‬‎ differs from ‮פרע‬‎. However, he concludes that the simplest solution is to suppose that Josephus has derived it from the root ‮פדה‬‎, “redeem” or “ransom,” reading the letter daled instead of a resh; but this seems hard to imagine, since Josephus certainly knew that the name of Ephraim contained the letter resh. Franxman, (246) suggests that the Greek verb ἀφαιρέω, when used in the middle voice, has a meaning in Plato and the orators of “to take away for oneself,” which comes very close to the etymological sense given by Josephus to the name of Ephraim.

There is greater excitement in Josephus in that the onset of the famine is sudden, a detail missing in Gen. 41:54 (so also in the rabbinic tradition [Midrash Gen. Rabbah 90.6]); consequently, the farmers felt the famine more heavily and all flocked to the king’s gates. Josephus here omits the biblical statement (Gen. 41:54) that during the seven years of famine there was famine in all lands, but that in all the land of Egypt there was bread. This seems to be contradicted by the following statement (Gen. 41:55) that all the land of Egypt was famished, so that the people cried to Pharaoh for bread. The fact, however, that Joseph had stored the grain meant that the people of Egypt throughout the land had bread. The midrashic tradition (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 90.6) reports that all the grain that the Egyptians had themselves unlawfully stored up rotted, except for that of Joseph.

In Gen. 41:55 when the people of Egypt cry to Pharaoh for bread he tells them to go to Joseph and do what he tells them to do. In Josephus Pharaoh calls Joseph directly. In this extra-biblical comment, once the famine starts in Egypt, Joseph, in selling grain to the people, proves himself by common consent to be the savior (σωτήρ) of the people. Nodet (ad loc.) notes that the title σωτήρ is anachronistic and a royal title, as we see from the cries that hailed Vespasian as σωτήρ when he arrived in Rome to become emperor (War 7.71). This motif, that Joseph made grain available to foreigners, is repeated in Ant. 2.95 and 101. Josephus’ portrait of Joseph is particularly intended to answer the charge that Jews are selfish, being concerned only with fellow Jews. Indeed, according to the Midrash, Joseph refused to sell grain to those Egyptians who would not be circumcised (Midrash Gen. Rabbah [85.2, 90.6, 91.5]). In Gen. 42:2 there is no mention of the fact that when Joseph was administering the distribution of grain during the years of famine, the market was open to foreigners, since, presumably, selling grain to outsiders under such circumstances was not the normal and expected practice. Josephus, however, introduces the extra-biblical remark that Joseph opened the market not only to his own nation but also to strangers, since, we are told, he—and, by extension, the Jewish people whom he clearly represents—believed that all men, by virtue of their kinship, should receive aid from those in prosperity. He thus exemplifies the ideal, made so famous by Alexander the Great, that all men are brethren by virtue of having a common father (Plut., [Alex. 27]). Joseph is thus presented, as Nodet (ad loc.) remarks, as a cosmopolitan Hellenistic philosopher and as a Stoic sage. Joseph’s conduct, says Philo (De Josepho 6.29), illustrates that this world is a “megalopolis,” and that “it has a single polity and a single law, and this is the word or reason of nature, commanding what should be done and forbidding what should not be done.” He ascribes the same attitude to God and Moses (De Opificio Mundi 4.19, De Vita Mosis 2.9.51), noting that they chose to begin the Pentateuch not with the foundation of a man-made city but rather with the genesis of the megalopolis, that is, the world-city.

Gen. 41:56 would seem to be exaggerating when it states that the famine that afflicted Egypt actually extended over all the face of the earth. Josephus reduces the expanse of the scourge to the whole continent. So also Midrash Gen. Rabbah 90.6 says that the areas affected by the famine outside of Egypt were Phoenicia, Arabia, and Palestine. In Gen. 42:2 Jacob says merely that he had heard that there were provisions in Egypt. There is no indication that these would be sold to foreigners. Indeed, the implication is clear that normally grain would not be sold to foreigners during a famine. Gen. 42:4 identifies Benjamin merely as Joseph’s brother. By noting that Benjamin had the same mother as Joseph Josephus emphasizes the particularly close ties between them.

Whereas the Bible states that the brothers bowed down before Joseph (Gen. 42:6, 43:26, 50:18), Josephus omits the bowing down (Ant. 2.96, 120, 197), despite Joseph’s dream (Ant. 2.11) that they would some day do so; indeed, it is Joseph who does service to the king. So also Philo (De Somniis 2.14.99): “To God alone should be given the real prostrating and honor.” In Gen. 42:6 we hear only that Joseph was governor of the land. Josephus adds here that he was so influential that nothing was done without Joseph’s permission. This statement is Josephus’ addition.

The reader of the Bible may well wonder why Josephus’ brothers did not recognize him while he knew them (Gen. 42:8). Josephus adds these reasonable explanations. A similar point is made in the rabbinic tradition, which declares that the reason why the brothers did not recognize Joseph was that when they had sold him he was beardless, whereas now he had a beard (Baba Meẓia 39b, Yebamot 88a, Ketubot 27b, Midrash Gen. Rabbah 91.7, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Gen. 42:8). The statement that his exalted role prevented their recognizing him seems unique with Josephus, although it recurs in the later Sefer Hayashar (14 [ed. Dan, p. 225]). Whereas the biblical narrative declares that when the brothers came to him in Egypt Joseph remembered the dreams in which they had bowed down to him (Gen. 42:9), Josephus’ Joseph omits this hint of gloating. Franxman (251) expresses surprise that, with all the care that Josephus clearly takes to make his story a series of credible and explicable incidents, he did not begin the confrontation of Joseph and his brothers in Egypt with a question by Joseph as to the visitors’ provenance, as does Gen. 42:7. The reason perhaps is that Josephus wishes to emphasize that so great was Joseph’s lack of prejudice against foreigners that such a question did not even occur to him. Likewise, whereas the Bible declares that Joseph spoke roughly (LXX σκληρά, “harshly”) to his brothers when they first came to Egypt (Gen. 42:7, 42:30), Josephus omits the rough speech and says merely that Joseph proceeded to test their feelings on affairs in general, thus giving a motive, lacking in the Bible, for Joseph’s seemingly strange actions. Josephus then further explains Joseph’s actions by noting, in an extra-biblical comment (Ant. 2.99), that he proceeded thus in order to discover news of his father and to learn the fate of his younger brother Benjamin because he feared that the brothers might have conspired against Benjamin as they had against him.

Similarly, the rabbinic tradition (Sefer Hayashar 14 [ed. Dan, p. 225], Midrash Gen. Rabbah 91.6, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Gen. 42:5) reports Joseph’s asking the brothers why when they came to buy grain they entered the city through ten different gates. This would seem to justify Joseph’s apparent suspicion that they were spies. According to the midrashic tradition (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 91.5), the brothers, upon entering Egypt, hid themselves in the crowd so that they should not be recognized, inasmuch as their father had advised them not to enter together through a single gate; they should enter through various gates so as not to attract the envious attention of the people, so handsome and strong were they. The remark on the beauty of Jacob’s sons and hence, indirectly, on Jacob’s handsomeness is Josephus’ addition. It is found also in the midrashic tradition (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 91.6). It would appear to be based on an interpretation of Gen. 42:1, where Jacob says to his sons: “Why do you look at one another?” The implication is that they are conspicuous because they are handsome. This leads to the advice given to them by Jacob that they enter the city by various gates (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 91.6). The compliment that it was not possible for an ordinary person to have raised such handsome children is Josephus’ addition. Josephus omits the brothers’ statement (Gen. 42:13) to Joseph that they are twelve brothers, that their youngest brother was with their father, and that one of their brothers was “no more,” the last being an ambiguous remark.

This motive is Josephus’ extra-biblical addition and serves to exonerate Joseph from the charge of treating his brothers cruelly. At this point in the biblical narrative (Gen. 42:15) Joseph tells the brothers that he will test them to determine whether or not they are spies by demanding that they send one of them to fetch their brother. There is, however, no hint in the Bible that Joseph was suspicious that his brothers had inflicted harm on his younger brother. The fact that Josephus adds this remark again serves to exonerate Joseph from the charge of being cruel in his interrogation of his brothers.

There is increased drama in the scene in which Joseph’s brothers first come down to Egypt and are accused by Joseph of being spies (Gen. 42:9). The biblical version mentions nothing explicitly about their apprehension at this moment, whereas Josephus dramatizes the scene considerably, remarking that they were in trepidation and alarm, believing that the gravest danger was hanging over their heads. I.e. Joseph. At this point in the Bible (Gen. 42:17-18) Joseph incarcerates the brothers for three days and then tells them that they will live if they leave one of them as a bound hostage in prison while the rest proceed home and return with their youngest brother. Perhaps Josephus omitted this sequence because he considered it undeservedly cruel on the part of Joseph. In Gen. 42:10 there is no mention of Reuben as the spokesman for the brothers. Rather, when Joseph accuses them of being spies and demands that they return with their youngest brother (Gen. 42:20), they castigate one another, reminding themselves of what they have done to Joseph (Gen. 42:21). Then (Gen. 42:22) Reuben reminds them of what he had warned them at that time. The speech of Reuben to Joseph, however, is Josephus’ addition.

Cf. Judah’s declaration (Ant. 2.145) that God had brought the brothers to their depth of misery so that it would give Joseph an opportunity to exercise this quality of beneficence (φιλανθρωπία, “humanity,” kindness,” “benevolence,” “grace,” “clemency”). Cf. Ant. 2.94. This is a Josephan addition, clearly intended to demonstrate Joseph’s (and, by implication, the Jews’) humane concern for all humankind. If so, this would be consonant with Jubilees (35:15-38:10), which mentions a series of misfortunes that followed the sale of Joseph: the deaths of Bilhah, Dinah, Rebekah, Isaac, and Leah, and the war between Jacob and Esau.

In Gen. 42:11, when the brothers first meet Joseph and are accused of being spies, they tell him that they are sons of one man without mentioning the name of their father. In Gen. 42:7 the brothers state that they are from Canaan but nowhere indicate that they are Hebrews. This information, that the twelve sons were born from four wives, is not in the Hebrew or Greek text (Gen. 42:13).

In Gen. 42:13 the brothers never specifically state that Joseph is dead; rather they say that he is “no more.” Another possible translation is: “the misfortune that followed his death.” The statement that Jacob lamented greatly over the loss of his son (Joseph) and that the brothers suffered misfortune with (or after) the death of their brother is Josephus’ addition (Gen. 42:13).

This suggestion is not in Gen. 42:13, though it is perhaps implied by the fact that Joseph then proceeds (Gen. 42:14-16) to order that the brothers send one of their number to bring back Benjamin and thus prove whether they have spoken the truth.

Josephus’ extra-biblical notice that Joseph at this point has learned that his father and younger brother are alive adds to the drama and suspense of the story. According to the Sefer Hayashar 14 (ed. Dan, p. 227), the brothers were sent to prison by a guard of seventy men. Gen. 42:17 gives no reason for Joseph’s seemingly capricious action in imprisoning his brothers for three days; Josephus here, as is his usual wont, explains why he did so.

The reader of the biblical text might well be critical of Joseph for demanding that the brothers leave one of their number as a hostage (Gen. 42:19). In the Hebrew and Greek texts Joseph seems utterly unfeeling as he takes his brother Simeon and binds him before the eyes of the other brothers (Gen. 42:24). In Josephus’ version this apparent cruelty is mitigated by the assurance that Joseph gives to the brothers that the detained brother would undergo no violence. Josephus puts the brothers in a better light by adding that they continuously lamented what they had done to Joseph. Josephus, seeking to present Joseph in the best light, omits the biblical threat by Joseph (Gen. 41:20) that he would put them to death as spies unless their words were verified.

The statement that the brothers wailed and continuously lamented because of what they had done to Joseph and that God is consequently punishing them is Josephus’ addition to the biblical text (Gen. 42:21-22). In an extra-biblical addition, Reuben, in a modification of his biblical words castigating his brothers for what they had done to Joseph, rebukes them for their regrets, since such regrets can be of no profit to Joseph. In Gen. 42:22 there is no mention of Reuben’s exhortation to his brothers to bear what they must, nor is there any indication that all this was God’s way of punishing them.

Gen. 42:23 explains that the reason why they thought that Joseph did not understand their language was that an interpreter was present. The Greek noun here, μετάμελος, “contrition,” “repentance,” is rare, being found only in Thucydides (7.55), the first-century B.C.E. and C.E. historian Conon (23.3), the fifth-century B.C.E. epistolographer Themistocles (Ep. 4.1), the sixth-century orator Choricius (p. 214B), and the LXX (Prov. 11:3), aside from Josephus, in whose works it appears no fewer than three times in addition to this passage (Ant. 8.362, 18.299. 19.260). The fact that the only extant major author aside from Josephus who uses this word is Thucydides may be an indication that it was Thucydides who inspired Josephus to use it. Reuben is here declaring, in effect, that the brothers cannot lament as victims without recognizing their responsibility for the actions that brought them to this condition. Other manuscripts read: “for the deeds, as if they had not themselves decreed those deeds.” In Gen. 42:22 Reuben reminds his brothers that he had warned them not to sin against Joseph and that they are being punished now because they did not listen to him. Josephus here adds that they are being punished by God.

There is added pathos in the scene in which Joseph, not wishing at first to reveal himself to his brothers, turns away from them and weeps (Gen. 42:24, 43:30). The pathos is all the greater because, as Niehoff (1992:99) has noted, Josephus describes Joseph as so overcome by emotion that he bursts into tears even before he becomes self-aware and turns away from his brothers. Gen. 42:24, to be sure, mentions that Joseph burst into tears, but it does not, as does Josephus, explain why, namely his distress in seeing that his brothers are so upset.

Josephus makes no mention of Joseph’s binding Simeon before their eyes (Gen. 42:24); we are told simply that Joseph detained Simeon as a hostage, since Josephus is careful not to put Joseph in a bad light. In the Sefer Hayashar 14 (ed. Dan, p. 227), when Simeon is arrested, there is a great deal of screaming and scuffling. Neither the Bible nor Josephus gives a reason why it is Simeon whom Joseph chooses to detain, but the midrashic tradition (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 91) explains that Joseph wished to separate him from Levi so that the two of them might not conspire to kill him. There is also a tradition (Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, Zebulun 4) that it was Simeon who was particularly angry with his brothers for not slaying Joseph; and this would explain why Joseph chooses to detain Simeon. Josephus omits the biblical statement (Gen. 42:25) that Joseph ordered that the brothers be given provisions for the way, presumably because it is obvious. Josephus omits the scene (Gen. 42:27-28) in which the brothers discover the money that has been placed in their sacks and the effect that this discovery has upon them, namely to cause their hearts to fail them. Josephus postpones until later (Ant. 2.113) the discovery of the money in the sacks when they entreat Jacob to send Benjamin with themselves to Egypt.

The brothers omit, however, the biblical statement (Gen. 42:30) to their father that Joseph had spoken roughly, presumably because Josephus seeks to protect the reputation of Joseph. In their report to Jacob the sons omit Joseph’s statement (Gen. 42:34) that if they bring Benjamin to him he will allow them to trade in Egypt.

This statement, which adds drama to the situation, is Josephus’ addition. Josephus omits Jacob’s statement (Gen. 42:38) that if anything should befall Benjamin they would bring down his gray hairs with sorrow to Sheol. Cf. his omission of a similar statement in Gen. 37:35.

In Gen. 42:37 Reuben offers to allow his two sons to be slain if he does not bring Benjamin back to Jacob. In Josephus Reuben, indeed, offers his sons but does not specify that they are two in number, the reason being perhaps that he actually had four sons (Gen. 46:9). In Gen. 42:27 one of the brothers discovers the money in his sack, it would seem, shortly after they leave Joseph. In Josephus here they discover the money in all of their sacks and only after they arrive at their home in Canaan. Presumably, Josephus was troubled by the thought that if the brothers were as honest as they claimed they should have returned the money as soon as they discovered it. It appears that Josephus is here reproducing Gen. 42:35 and wishes to avoid the duplication of the two discoveries of the money (Gen. 42:27, 35).

In Gen. 43:2 we read that after the brothers have eaten the grain that they had brought from Egypt Jacob tells them to go once again to Egypt to buy more. Josephus is more specific: Jacob was pressured by necessity.

In Gen. 43:1 we read only that the famine was severe. In Josephus the drama and suspense are greater in that the suffering grows worse from day to day. Whereas here it is the sons who entreat their father Jacob to send them to Egypt to buy grain, in Gen. 43:2 it is Jacob who tells his sons to do so.

This characterization of Judah is Josephus’ addition. That Judah spoke frankly to his father is Josephus’ addition here. In Gen. 43:3-5 Judah urges Jacob to send Benjamin on the grounds that Joseph had insisted on this; he does not reassure his father, as we find here in Josephus. Some manuscripts, as well as the Latin version, omit the negative μή, and would thus render “to be fearful about dangers.” This statement by Judah, reassuring his father Jacob, is a Josephan addition.

Nodet (ad loc.) argues that “unreasonably” is better taken with “deprive,” since this is more in accordance with Judah’s logic. Note that in the Bible Judah’s appeal to his father is based on the necessity to obey Joseph’s orders, whereas here he appeals to Jacob’s sense of reason. Judah’s statement urging his father to think of Simeon’s safety is Josephus’ addition. This statement in which Judah asserts that his father should trust God regarding Benjamin and Judah is a Josephan addition. Josephus here omits Judah’s last remark to his father (Gen. 43:10) that if they had not delayed the brothers would have been able to make the trip twice to Egypt. Judah’s pledge to end his life if he is unsuccessful is a Josephan addition.

Thackeray and Schalit (ad loc.) add “to them”; Weill (ad loc.) adds “to him.” Neither is to be found in the Greek. The phrase “from the Canaanites” is Josephus’ addition. Perhaps the reference is to balsam. Perhaps the reference is to oil of cinnamon. Thackeray (ad loc.) suggests that the reference probably is to pistachio nuts. Josephus omits the gum and almonds mentioned in Gen. 43:11 as gifts sent by Jacob on this occasion. He also specifies a little myrrh of the balanos tree and a little honey. Josephus omits Jacob’s prayer (Gen. 43:14) that God may give the brothers mercy before the man (i.e. Joseph).

Whereas in Gen. 43:14 Jacob is concerned that his sons should bring back Benjamin and Simeon, in Josephus here he is concerned also that all his sons should return. There is heightened pathos in Josephus’ account of the fulsome weeping both by Jacob and his sons upon the departure of the latter to Egypt, and of the worries that both Jacob and his sons had. Josephus here adds that they spent an entire day in grief before they finally left, leaving their father behind broken-hearted. In Gen. 42:38, by contrast, there is not a single word actually describing the emotional state of Jacob and his sons upon their departure.

Josephus omits the scene (Gen. 43:16-17) in which Joseph sees Benjamin and tells his steward to bring the brothers into his house and to prepare the dinner that he wishes to share with them. Presumably, Josephus was troubled by the fact that a few verses later (Gen. 43:29) when Joseph sees Benjamin he asks, “Is this your youngest brother of whom you spoke to me?” If he had seen him earlier it would seem unlikely that he would not recognize Benjamin, and so Josephus omits the earlier scene. This apology (Gen. 43:19-22) is considerably abbreviated in Josephus version, since he wishes to focus upon the confrontation of Joseph and his brothers. This is in accord with Josephus’ earlier account (Ant. 2.113). According to Gen. 43:21, the brothers assert that it was when they came to an inn that they discovered the money in their sacks. The biblical version would raise the question why, if they found the money when they came to an inn, they did not return immediately to Egypt to give back the money.

In Gen. 43:23 the steward tells the brothers that “your God and the God of your father must have put treasure in your sacks.” Josephus apparently felt that the steward, presumably a pagan, would not have ascribed such an action to God and in any case wishes to focus upon the human aspects and consequently omitted it. The rabbinic tradition stresses the kindness that Joseph showed to Simeon. See Midrash Gen. Rabbah 91.7-8, 92.4, and the other passages cited by Ginzberg (1925:5:348, n. 220). Thackeray and Nodet (ad loc.) render “made him presentable” and compare the similar attention given to Joseph (Ant. 2.79) when he was released from prison, but the Greek says only that the steward took care that Simeon would be with his brothers. Josephus here omits the statement (Gen. 43:24) that the steward brought the brothers into Joseph’s house and gave them water with which to wash their feet and food for their donkeys. Josephus, eager to stress Joseph’s loyalty to Pharaoh, expands upon Gen. 43:26 by stating that he came from his attendance (θεραπείας, “service,” “attention,” “homage,” “allegiance,” “concern”) upon the king. Josephus here once again omits the biblical statement (Gen. 43:26) that the brothers bowed down to the ground before Joseph.

Once again, the Bible (Gen. 43:28) says that the brothers prostrated themselves; again Josephus omits this detail. Other manuscripts (ROE) read: he was his (humble) servant. The acknowledgement that God directs all human events (cf. Ant. 1.14, 20) is to be seen in this paraphrase of the scene in which Joseph greets his younger brother Benjamin. In Gen. 43:29, when Joseph sees Benjamin he says, “God be gracious to you, my son,” whereas in Josephus their emotional meeting evokes not a blessing for Benjamin alone but the theological acknowledgement that God presides over all.

Whereas Gen. 43:30 says only that Joseph sought a place to weep, Josephus here gives the reason why Joseph weeps, namely out of emotion (πάθους). That this was the evening meal is likely from the fact that after the meal (Ant. 2.124) the brothers retire to rest. By contrast, in Gen. 43:16, Joseph tells his steward that the brothers are to dine with him at noon. Whereas, according to Gen. 43:32, separate tables were set for Joseph and for the brothers and for the Egyptians, because, we are told, the Egyptians were not permitted to eat bread with the Hebrews (according to Targum Onqelos and Jerusalem Targum [ad loc.], the reason was that the Hebrews ate the flesh of animals to which the Egyptians paid divine worship), Josephus says nothing here about such separate tables and omits the statement that it is an abomination for the Egyptians to eat together with the Hebrews, presumably to emphasize his theme of universal brotherhood. (Cf. the Tobiad romance [Ant. 12.173], where Jews and Egyptians eat together.) Josephus may thus be trying to counteract the violent hostility between the Jews and the Egyptians that prevailed during the first century, when he lived. As to their seating arrangement, Gen. 43:33 indicates that they were seated according to age; Josephus here replaces this with the assertion that they were seated as they had been when they were with their father. In stating that they reclined when they ate Josephus reflects the practice of his own period. He omits the statement (Gen. 43:33) that the brothers looked at each other in amazement, since it is not clear what the source of their amazement was. According to the rabbinic tradition (Gen. Rabbah 92.5), the brothers marvelled at the fact that Joseph, raising his cup as if to acquire knowledge therefrom, assigned places to his brothers according to their dignity and age. According to the Hebrew Bible and the LXX (Gen. 43:34), Benjamin’s portion was five times as great as any of theirs.

Josephus omits the biblical statement (Gen. 43:34) that the brothers became drunk (the usual translation, “were merry,” is a circumlocution) with him, presumably because it would not seem befitting for Joseph and his brothers to be depicted thus. Josephus is also perhaps troubled by the thought that they would have drunk wine that might have been consecrated by gentiles for idol worship and hence strictly forbidden, at least as viewed by the Talmudic code (see ‘Abodah Zarah 31a), even though such a concept at that time might have been an anachronism. In Gen. 44:34 there is no indication that the brothers went to sleep after the meal. Perhaps Josephus introduces this element in order to explain how Joseph’s silver cup could have been introduced into the sack of Benjamin without his or his brothers’ awareness. The pericope comprising the final test of Joseph’s brothers ending with Judah’s speech before Joseph (Gen. 44:1-34; Josephus, Ant. 2.124-59) is of clear importance to Josephus. Here the Hebrew has 53 lines, the LXX 73, and Josephus 217 in the Loeb Classical Library text. This yields a ratio of Josephus to the Hebrew of 4.09 and to the LXX of 2.97 (the ratio of the LXX to the Hebrew is 1.38). Josephus omits the biblical statement (Gen. 44:5) that the cup was allegedly the one which Joseph used for divination, presumably because divination is strictly prohibited in Deut. 18:10-11.

Gen. 44:2 gives no reason as to why Joseph directed that his silver cup be placed in the sack of Benjamin. Josephus defends Joseph’s actions by remarking that he deposited his favorite drinking-cup in Benjamin’s sack in order to see whether the brothers had learned their lesson and would stand by Benjamin or whether they would abandon him, as they had once done to Joseph himself, as soon as their own innocence was established. So also in Ant. 2.161 Joseph asserts that his motive here was to test their brotherly love. A similar explanation of Joseph’s motive is found in Philo (De Josepho 39. 232), who adds that Joseph feared that the brothers might have fallen into that natural estrangement that the children of a stepmother often show to the offspring of another wife who was no less esteemed than their own mother. A similar motive occurs in Jubilees 42:25.

In Gen. 44:4-5 it is Joseph himself who tells the steward to follow the brothers and to ask, “Why have you returned evil for good? Why have you stolen my silver cup [the Hebrew lacks this question]? Is it not from this that my lord drinks, and by this that he divines?” In Josephus there is no mention that Joseph ordered his steward to pursue the brothers, let alone that he ordered him to ask these questions. Rather, when the horsemen surround the brothers, they themselves take the initiative to berate them. The following scene, in which Joseph’s brothers are surrounded by horsemen. is much more picturesque in Josephus than in Gen. 44:6, where we are told simply that the superintendent of Joseph’s house overtook them. Whereas Gen. 44:6 says merely that Joseph’s steward overtook them and spoke to them, in Josephus’ version Joseph elaborates the pursuers’ sarcasm (Ant. 2.129). The scene continues dramatically with the statement that the brothers mocked at these speeches and expressed their astonishment at the levity with which this servant dared to accuse them (Ant. 2.130). The biblical text has no mention of such mockery (Gen. 44:7).

Cf. Gen. 44:4-5. The emphasis in Josephus is on Joseph’s hospitality (ξενίαν, “lodging”) and generosity (φιλοφροσύνην, “friendliness,” “kindness,” “benevolence”). There is irony in the extra-biblical charge that the loving-cup that in the biblical text Joseph uses for divining and that the brothers are accused of carrying off (Gen. 44:5) is the very one in which Joseph had pledged their health (so also Philo [De Josepho 36.213]).

In Gen. 44:6 the steward upraids the brothers but does not actually threaten them. Rather it is the brothers who, in their confidence that they have done nothing wrong, offer that the one in whose possession the cup is found should be put to death. In Josephus the scene is more dramatic. It is not merely one steward but a group of horsemen who surround the brothers and who, indeed, threaten them with punishment. In Gen. 44:4-5 we read only that Joseph gave orders to his steward to overtake the brothers and to accuse them, whereas Josephus introduces God into the picture. Franxman (260) suggests that the reference to divine omniscience here is intended to counteract the reference to divination allegedly indulged in by Joseph with his loving cup. This is a major theme in the Antiquities, e.g. 1.20, 10.276, etc. The insults and taunts by the servant are Josephus’ addition and add color to the situation.

Josephus highlights the irony of the situation in having the brothers scoff at the frivolous chatter of the servant.

Josephus omits the biblical statement (Gen. 44:9) of the brothers that whoever had the loving cup should die and that all of them should become the slaves of Joseph. Such a statement would seem impetuous and extreme. Here in Josephus the brothers, being so very confident, take the initiative to ask that the horsemen search them, whereas in Gen. 44:9 they use the passive voice: “With whomever of your servants it be found, let him die.”

Gen. 44:12 gives no reason why the search began with the oldest and ended with the youngest; Josephus, as usual, gives reasons for actions, namely, in this case, in order to give the appearance of a most thorough search.

There is considerable build-up of suspense in Josephus’ added description (contrast Gen. 44:11-12) of the relief that each brother felt when the cup was not found in his sack. Whereas Gen. 44:12 tells us nothing of the feelings of the brothers while Benjamin’s sack was being searched, Josephus, the student of psychology, dramatizes the scene considerably by remarking that though they had been freed from fear so far as they themselves were concerned, the brothers were anxious about Benjamin, though they felt confident that the cup would not be in his sack. The statement that the brothers abused the searchers for interfering with their return adds to the drama of the situation and is Josephus’ addition.

There is added pathos in the scene in which Joseph’s goblet is found in Benjamin’s sack. Gen. 44:13 says merely that the brothers rent their clothes, loaded their donkeys, and returned to the city. Josephus describes a more vivid scene, noting that they forthwith gave way to groans, lamentations, and mourning.

The irony comes to the fore in Josephus’ remark that what aggravated the misery of Joseph’s brothers after the cup had been found in Benjamin’s sack was that they had been balked by jealous fortune just at the moment when they seemed to be free of their tragedies.

In Gen. 44:13 at this point the brothers load their donkeys and return to the city, whereas here the scene is much more dramatic, with the horsemen arresting Benjamin and leading him to Joseph himself. There is further emphasis on Joseph’s generosity in Josephus’ paraphrase of the biblical passage in which Joseph berates his brothers and exclaims: “Do you not know that such a man as I can indeed divine?” (Gen. 44:15; cf. 44:5). Josephus omits reference to Joseph as a diviner, since this is contrary to the commandment in the Bible (Deut. 18:10-11): “There shall not be found among you ... any one who practices divination, a soothsayer, or an augur, or a sorcerer, or a charmer, or a medium, or a wizard, or a necromancer.” In Josephus’ version Joseph asks what they thought of his generosity (φιλανθρωπίας) or of God’s watchful eye (προνοίας) in daring to act thus toward their benefactor (εὐεργέτην). In the Bible Joseph makes no reference to God’s watchful eye, since it would hardly be likely that an Egyptian—as Joseph presents himself at this point— would allude to God thus; rather it is Judah, as one would expect, who in the following verse (Gen. 44:16) refers to God’s omniscience in finding out the brothers’ sinfulness. Hence Josephus, it would seem, creates a problem already solved by the Bible. On God’s watchful care, according to Josephus, see Ant. 1.20, 10.276, etc., and Attridge (1976:71-107).

In Gen. 44:14, when the brothers come before Joseph they fall before him to the ground, as indeed they had prostrated themselves before him three times previously (Gen. 42:6, 43:26, 43:28); but here, as in these other instances, Josephus says nothing about their prostrating themselves. Moreover, here the brothers offer themselves to suffer punishment in place of Benjamin, whereas in Gen. 44:16 they offer to be slaves in addition to Benjamin. Finally, the Bible here has Judah act as the spokesman for the brothers. This thought, that if Joseph had survived, God had seen to it that he was avenged, is a Josephan addition, and is particularly effective because of its irony. These recollections at this point by the brothers of what they had done to Joseph are Josephus’ addition. Reuben had also rebuked them previously (Ant. 2.107). In Gen. 44:16, however, at this point he does not speak. Rather it is Judah who now humbly offers that all the brothers be made servants to Joseph.

Josephus expands on Joseph’s justice and magnanimity in his paraphrase of the biblical passage in which Joseph states that only the brother in whose sack the goblet was found will be detained (Gen. 44:17). In Josephus’ version Joseph’s justice is much more explicit. In the first place, we are told, as if the scene were a court of justice, that Joseph acquitted (ἀπολύοντος) them on the ground that they were guiltless. He then explains very reasonably the motives that govern Joseph’s sense of justice, namely that it would be no more reasonable to release Benjamin for the sake of his innocent comrades than to ask them to share the penalty of the guilty thief. In Gen. 44:17 Joseph merely tells the brothers to return in peace to their father. Here in Josephus Joseph shows true hospitality in offering them protection in their travel homeward.

The drama is greatly increased by the brothers’ speechlessness owing to their emotion. Cf. Joseph’s refusal to display his emotion (Ant. 2.123). Judah has been described earlier (Ant. 2.116) as bold by nature in other respects. Cf. Testament of Judah 2-7.

Nodet (ad loc.) cites a similar rhetorical appeal by Herod to Octavian (Ant. 15.187-93) in which, after Octavian’s defeat of Antony at the battle of Actium, he openly admits his guilt in previously allying himself with Antony. In the biblical version of Judah’s speech (Gen. 44:18) he declares that Joseph is like Pharaoh. Josephus omits such a statement since it presents a Jew as ambitious to attain the highest power in the great land of Egypt. Josephus strives to make emphatically clear that Joseph had no design of supplanting the Pharaoh. The rabbinic tradition actually speaks of Joseph as having been appointed “king in Egypt” (Sifre Deut. 334.3). The LXX resolves this delicate problem by reading μετὰ Φαραώ, which may mean “after Pharaoh” or “with Pharaoh,” but which the Vulgate renders as “after Pharaoh.” As Vermes (1973:11) remarks, a major difference between the biblical account and that of Josephus is that in the former Judah offers himself for Benjamin’s salvation, whereas in Josephus he speaks in the name of all his brothers. Whereas in Gen. 44:18 Judah’s speech begins with an appeal to Joseph not to let his anger burn against him, and whereas Philo’s version of the speech (De Josepho 38.222) likewise begins with an appeal to Joseph not to give way to his wrath, Josephus here does not mention or even allude to Joseph’s wrath. Rather, it is his generosity that is emphasized. It is only later (Ant. 2.141) that he is told to take virtue as his counsellor in place of wrath. Further on (Ant. 2.146), Judah appeals to Joseph to refrain from wrath on the ground that in doing so he would following in the path of God. The emphasis in Judah’s speech in his appeal to Joseph’s generosity is underscored by the fact that he refers here to Joseph’s χρηστότης (“generosity,” “kindness,” “friendliness”), a quality in Joseph to which he likewise appeals later in the speech (Ant. 2.157). Note that in Gen. 44:18-23 Judah in his speech rehearses at length the dealings of Joseph with the brothers when they came to Egypt; in Josephus this is omitted, and instead we have a poignant appeal to Joseph’s generosity.

This appeal to Joseph’s own nature is Josephus’ addition. In this appeal to Joseph not to let his anger get the better of him Josephus is reminiscent of Homer’s account of the embassy to Achilles, and, in particular, the account of Meleager (Il. 9.529-49), who overcame his anger when his wife appealed to him. It is the quality of magnanimity (μεγαλόφρων, “highmindedness,” “generosity,” “liberality”) that Judah appeals to here. This is a synonym for the quality of generosity (χρηστότης), which he appeals to elsewhere in his speech (Ant. 2.140, 157). Whereas in Gen. 44:19-34 Judah, in his appeal to Joseph, makes mention time after time of their father in the hope of arousing a sense of pity in Joseph for Jacob, Josephus’ Judah, to be sure, also seeks to win pity for his father, but the chief point of his appeal is to Joseph’s sense of magnanimity. Philo (De Josepho 38.222-31), is much closer to the biblical version in reviewing the history of the brothers’ recent dealings with Joseph and with Jacob, but likewise has an appeal to Joseph’s magnanimity.

Just as he appeals to Joseph’s generosity (Ant. 2.140, 157) and magnanimity (Ant. 2.141), so Judah appeals here, and, indeed, no fewer than six other times in this speech (Ant. 2.143, 147, 151 [twice], 153, 157), to his graciousness (χάρις, χαρίζομαι, “kindness,” “grace,” “favor”).

It is to Joseph’s generosity (χρηστότης) that Josephus’ Judah appeals after Joseph’s goblet is found in Benjamin’s sack (Ant. 2.140-41; such an appeal is absent from Gen. 44:18-34).

It is to Joseph’s sense of generosity (φιλάνθρωπος, “humanity,” “benevolence,” “grace,” “favor,” “clemency”) and its synonyms (χρηστότης, μεγαλοφροσύνη) and χάρις, that Judah constantly appeals in this speech. It is precisely these qualities that are the outstanding virtues of the ideal ruler, as we see, for example, in Xenophon’s biography of Agesilaus (8.3-4) and in many passages in Aristotle’s Ethica Nicomachea. Indeed, whereas Deut. 23:20 simply states the prohibition against charging interest on loans and does not give a reason, Josephus (Ant. 4.266) uses the occasion to explain the reason, namely that it is not just or fair to draw a revenue from the misfortune of a fellow-countryman and that, on the contrary, one should welcome the gratitude of such persons and the reward that God has in store for such an act of generosity. Furthermore, says Josephus in an extra-biblical addition (Ant. 4.236-37), one should even invite others, Jews and gentiles, entreating them to accept as guests the bounty that God has given one, for one must not account as expenditure that which out of liberality one lets men take, because God bestows this abundance of good things not for our enjoyment alone, but that we may also share them generously with others, and He desires that by these means the special favor that He bears to the people of Israel and the bounty of His gifts may be manifested to others also. In fact, whereas the Bible (Deut. 25:3) prescribes whipping the guilty without indicating the offense involved, Josephus (Ant. 4.238-39) applies this penalty to the case of one who has violated these laws pertaining to generosity, because through slavery to lucre he has outraged his dignity. After their afflictions in Egypt, he remarks, Jews should take thought of those who are in a similar situation. Thus, it is significant that in his final eulogy of David’s character (Ant. 7.391) Josephus stresses that David was just and humane, qualities that, he says, are especially applicable to kings. It is in reply to current charges that Josephus’ version (Ant. 8.117) of King Solomon’s prayer at the dedication of the Temple specifically denies that the Jews are inhuman by nature or unfriendly to those who are not Jews and declares that they wish that all men equally should receive aid from God and enjoy His blessings. That God’s role is central in all events concerning Joseph is clear also from the fact that when Judah appeals to Joseph he admits—clearly expecting Joseph to appreciate such an admission—that it was God who had brought the brothers to such a depth of misery.

In Gen. 44:29 and 31 we read that if Joseph were to inflict harm upon Benjamin, he and they would bring down Jacob’s gray hairs in sorrow to Sheol. This is omitted by Josephus, despite the vast increase in the length of Judah’s speech, perhaps because Josephus and some of his readers recognized the associations of Sheol as the pagan land of the dead. Similar language in Gen. 37:35 and 42:38 is likewise omitted by Josephus.

As N.G. Cohen (1963-64:321-22) remarks, though the bare outline of the story is identical in the Bible and in Josephus, since Jacob is expected to reach an untimely end in both versions, the reasons and circumstances differ. Whereas in the Bible Jacob is expected to die of sorrow and emotional shock over the loss of his son, in Josephus he will take his own life because of the chagrin brought upon the family name. Cohen remarks on the significance of this change, since suicide under such circumstances was regarded as appropriate in the Greco-Roman but not in the Jewish tradition. In the Greek novels, though admittedly this is a motif found elsewhere as well, we frequently hear of the heroes and heroines threatening to take their own lives because of disgrace. Cf., e.g., the threat, in Xenophon of Ephesus’ novel, Ephesiaca, by Antheia to commit suicide when she is bought by a brother-master. Similarly, whereas in Gen. 44:31 Judah tells his brother Joseph that if Jacob were not to see Benjamin with the brothers upon their return from Egypt “your servants will bring down the gray hairs of your servant, our father, with sorrow to Sheol,” implying that he would die of grief, in Josephus here Judah says that Jacob will hasten to render himself insensible, that is, he will commit suicide. To Josephus’ pagan audience such a suicide would have been deemed appropriate, though from the point of view of Jewish law it would be deemed murder. See the bibliography and my discussion of this topic with regard to the suicide of the defenders of Masada in Feldman (1984a:779-89 and 966).

Judah assumes that Joseph (though he does not realize at that point that it is Joseph to whom he is speaking) is a logical person, since it is to this faculty of reasoning (λογισμός) that he appeals in his arguments (Ant. 2.143 and 151).

This appeal, in particular, is ironic, without Judah realizing it, since, indeed, in listening to Judah’s appeal, Joseph will be honoring his father, Jacob. The appeal to Joseph, who, as a father, would be presenting a gift to himself in honoring Judah’s father and who, consequently, would be protected by God, the Father of all, is unique to Josephus. He stresses that in showing pity on his father Jacob he will, in effect, be in partnership with God Himself.

This is contrary to what Judah had promised his father (Ant. 2.117), namely that if he failed to bring back Benjamin safe and sound, he himself would lay down his life together with him. The argument that Judah is better suited than Benjamin to serve Joseph as a slave because of Benjamin’s youth is Josephus’ addition, as is almost everything in this extraordinarily long speech by Judah.

As we have seen elsewhere, Josephus avoids mention of prostration, but here at the conclusion of his long and passionate speech, Judah throws himself down at the feet of Joseph and is followed by his brothers, who likewise prostrate themselves. Thus, the prediction in Joseph’s first dream, according to which his brothers would prostrate themselves, is fulfilled. By reserving prostration to this point, Josephus makes it seem more climactic than in the Bible, where the brothers repeatedly prostrated themselves previously. In Gen. 44:34 it is Judah alone who offers to substitute for Benjamin. The height of drama is reached in Judah’s appeal to Joseph. The fact that Josephus has included such an appeal is an indication that, in his eyes, Joseph was the kind of person who would be moved to pity by such words. After the conclusion of Judah’s speech, Gen. 45:1 continues with the statement that Joseph could not restrain himself. Josephus, however, continues with a dramatic scene in which Judah throws himself at Joseph’s feet, whereupon he is joined in prostration by his brothers. There is nothing of such prostration in the Bible at this point (vs. Gen. 44:14). Furthermore, the statement that the brothers offered themselves to die at this point is Josephus’ innovation. The drama is further increased by the extra-biblical description of the remorse that the brothers felt when Joseph embraced them; they were plunged into tears and grief for their plottings (Ant. 2.166; cf. Gen. 45:15).

In Gen. 45:1 we read only that at this point Joseph could not control himself. Josephus here is more explicit in noting that he was betrayed by his emotion (πάθους, “pathos”) and was no longer able to keep up the appearance of anger. In effect, like Achilles in Homer (Il., Book 24), his anger has finally been assuaged.

In his reply Joseph, in a comment that has no biblical parallel (Gen. 45:3 ff.), does, indeed, show his magnanimity by commending his brothers for the affection that they had shown to their brother Benjamin. Lest the reader think that Joseph had shown cruelty toward his brothers by subjecting them to this ordeal, Josephus explains that it was merely to test their brotherly love that he had done so. Joseph then immediately, in an addition to the biblical narrative, declares that he remembers their sins against him no more (Ant. 2.162) and asks them to forget the past (Ant. 2.163); on the contrary, he magnanimously tells them that they were actually God’s assistants in bringing His purposes to pass and that he consequently is grateful to them. At this point, whereas Gen. 45:15 simply says that his brethren talked with him, Josephus has Joseph demonstrate his generosity more openly by mention of festivity (εὐωχίᾳ, “good cheer,” “feasting,” “faring sumptuously,” “feeding well”) (Ant. 2.166). This magnanimity on the part of Joseph is, by implication, reminiscent of Josephus’ benevolent dealing with his great rival, John of Gischala (Life 82).

The statement that, beyond all hope, Joseph has learned of the well-being of his father is a Josephan addition to the biblical text. The statement that Joseph here promises his brothers to forget what they had done to him is Josephus’ addition. Joseph’s gratitude to his brothers for acting as assistants in bringing God’s purposes to their current issue is extra-biblical. Again, whereas in Gen. 45:8 Joseph tells his brothers that God has made him a father to Pharaoh and lord of all his house and ruler over all of Egypt, Josephus, seeking to avoid the apparent boasting, says here, more vaguely, only that God is responsible for the present situation.

Joseph’s appeal to his brothers to forget what they had done to him and his words of consolation to his brothers, that their actions should cause them no pain, since their plans were not fulfilled, is Josephus’ addition.

In Gen. 45:13 Joseph tells his brothers that they should tell their father of all his splendor in Egypt. Here in Josephus we read only that Joseph tells his brothers merely to reveal “these things” to Jacob, since Josephus seeks to avoid the impression that Joseph is addicted to boasting. In Gen. 45:9 we are informed merely that Joseph told his brothers to make haste in going to their father. Here Joseph explains the reason for this haste, namely that their father not be consumed with brooding over them and die before coming to Joseph.

Whereas in Gen. 45:9-11 Joseph tells the brothers to urge their father to come to Egypt, Josephus here tries to persuade the brothers directly to take their father and their families. Josephus also omits here his promise (Gen. 45:10) to have the entire family settle in Goshen, perhaps because of its presumptuousness in usurping Pharaoh’s prerogative. Cf. Gen. 45:18.

Josephus omits the biblical statement (Gen. 45:14) that Joseph fell upon Benjamin’s neck. Presumably, this would show undue favoritism for Benjamin, the very sin on the part of his father in connection with Joseph that led to his being sold into slavery. In Gen. 45:14 it is Joseph who weeps upon the necks of Benjamin and his other brothers. Here it is the brothers who are plunged in tears recalling the grief that they had caused Joseph. The Hebrew text (Gen. 45:3) says that when Joseph first revealed himself to his brothers they were dismayed (‮נבהלו‬‎, “alarmed,” “terrified”). The LXX reads ἐταράχθησαν (“troubled,” “thrown into confusion”). Josephus’ term, τιμωρία, here indicates “vengeance” or “punishment.” Gen. 45:15 says nothing of the effect upon them of Joseph’s speech other than that his brothers then spoke with him. In Josephus they show much more appreciation for the generosity (εὔγνωμον, “reasonableness,” “leniency”) of Joseph and remorse for what they had done to him. The statement that Joseph and his brothers proceeded to a banquet is a Josephan addition.

Gen. 45:16 says that the news that Joseph’s brothers had come was pleasing in Pharaoh’s eyes; Josephus increases this pleasure: in his version Pharaoh was greatly pleased. The statement that the Pharaoh was pleased with the news that Joseph’s brothers had come as if it were something that had happened to him personally is a Josephan addition and is clearly complimentary to Pharaoh. In Gen. 45:21 we read that Joseph gave the brothers wagons, according to Pharaoh’s command, and provisions for the journey. In Josephus it is the Pharaoh himself who gives the gifts to the brothers, and the rich contents of the wagons are spelled out. Josephus omits Pharaoh’s invitation (Gen. 45:18) to have Jacob and his descendants come to Egypt and to settle in the best of the land of Egypt. Josephus omits the details of the gifts that Joseph sent for his father: ten donkeys laden with the best things of Egypt and ten donkeys laden with grain and bread and other food (Gen. 45:23). One might wonder at Joseph’s favoritism toward his younger brother Benjamin in giving him five changes of clothing and three hundred shekels of silver (Gen. 45:22). The LXX increases this figure to three hundred pieces of gold, whereas Joseph gives the other brothers only a single change of clothing. Josephus states merely that Joseph favored Benjamin with more than the rest. In Gen. 45:24, when Joseph sends his brothers on their way, he exhorts them not to quarrel with one another. This would hardly be complimentary to the brothers, who were the ancestors of the twelve tribes, and so Josephus omits it.

The scene is more poignant in Josephus’ version in that we are told that even now Jacob was continuing to mourn for the loss of Joseph. In Gen. 45:26 the brothers tell Jacob merely that Joseph is alive and is ruling over all of Egypt. Josephus embellishes this by having the brothers cite Joseph’s brilliant prosperity and the fact that he has practically all the administration of Egypt in his hands. Josephus is careful, however, to avoid repeating the scriptural statement of Joseph’s brothers to Jacob that Joseph was the ruler of all the land of Egypt (Gen. 45:26); instead, Jacob is told that Joseph shares (συνδιέπων, “administering something with someone”) the government of Egypt with the king and has almost the whole charge of it in his hands. Likewise, in an extra-biblical addition, when God describes to Jacob Joseph’s status in the administration of Egypt He says that He had made him lord of Egypt and that he differed only slightly (ὡς ὀλίγῳ) in status from the king (Ant. 2.174).

In Gen. 45:26, by contrast, when Jacob hears that Joseph is still alive, “his heart fainted, for he did not believe them.” Josephus, however, is eager to stress Jacob’s complete faith in God’s actions. Whereas Gen. 45:27 says that Joseph sent wagons in which to carry Jacob, a few verses later we hear that it is Pharaoh who had sent the wagons (Gen. 46:5). The LXX resolves this problem by stating in the latter passage that it was Joseph who had sent the wagons. Josephus simply omits both passages. Jacob’s excited rush to Joseph is Josephus’ dramatic enhancement of Gen. 46:1.

I.e. Beersheba. In Gen. 46:1-4 Jacob offers sacrifices, and God speaks to him. In Josephus Jacob offers sacrifices, but God appears to him only after we are told of his fears (see Gen. 46:3) of what settling in Egypt will mean for his posterity. In Gen. 46:1 we are told specifically that Jacob sacrificed to the God of his father Isaac. Josephus, apparently troubled by this restriction of God, has him sacrifice to a more generic God.

Gen. 46:3-4 has God assure Jacob that He will accompany him to Egypt and that he will bring him up again. There is no mention there, however, of Jacob’s thoughts on this occasion. Josephus describes Jacob’s fears, clearly reflecting contemporary attitudes in the Diaspora in Josephus’ own time, that the Jews will be so enamored of living in Diaspora that they will never want to return to Palestine and reclaim it, as God had promised, and that, in fact, they will be annihilated, presumably by assimilation. Josephus also gives us a psychological portrait of Jacob’s personal fears that he will die before seeing his son Joseph.

Cf. Gen. 28:13. In Gen. 46:2, when God calls upon Jacob, the latter’s reply is “Here am I.” Josephus’ more critical-minded, rationalistic readers might well ask why in response to a voice Jacob should thus have identified himself instead of asking the voice to identify itself. Hence, as we see here, in Josephus’ version Jacob asks God to identify Himself. In this Josephus is apparently following the LXX version, according to which Jacob’s reply is τί ἐστιν, that is, “What is it?” Apparently, Josephus was led to paraphrase the text thus because in His reply God begins by identifying Himself, as if He had been asked who He was. This review of the history of the patriarchs and of God’s help to them is Josephus’ innovation at this point.

Here Josephus seems to be saying that in desiring to bless Esau as the first-born, Isaac was not acting in accordance with the will of God. This would seem to justify Jacob’s apparent theft of the birthright.

Here once again (cf. Ant. 2.168) Josephus, in an extra-biblical addition, is careful not to assert that Joseph is equal in power to the Pharaoh, perhaps to dissociate Jews from extreme ambition.

Whereas in Gen. 46:3, God declares that He will make a great nation of Jacob in Egypt, the word “nation” is significantly omitted here in Josephus, who has God announce a long era of dominion (ἡγεμονία) and glory for his posterity. The phrase “long era” implies a time limitation here; and in any case the language of covenanted land is absent (Amaru [1980-81:209]).

There is no indication in the biblical text (Gen. 46:5) of Jacob’s reaction to his dream. Josephus, however, specifies how encouraged he was. This is the number in the Hebrew text (Gen. 46:27) also. So also Exod. 1:5. In the LXX, as well as in Acts (7:14), however, the number is 75. Bib. Ant. 8.11 gives the number as 72. See Jacobson (1996: 396-97). Josephus is eager to avoid burdening his readers with long lists of names, even though this would add to the historicity of his account. Thus, for example (Ant. 7.369), whereas 1 Chr. 27:1-34 gives a long list of the names of David’s army officers and administrators, Josephus says that he has not thought it necessary to mention their names. Again, whereas Ezra 10:18-44 gives the names of the priests, Levites, and Israelites who had put away their non-Jewish wives and the children whom they had borne, Josephus (Ant. 11.152) asserts that he has not thought it necessary to give their names. Likewise, presumably for the same reason, Josephus (Ant. 12.57) states that he thinks that it is unnecessary to report the names of the 70 elders who translated the Pentateuch into Greek.

In his essay Against Apion (2.28-32) Josephus refutes Apion’s assertion that the Jews are Egyptians by race. In their relation to Jews, says Josephus (Apion 2.31), Egyptians either feign to be kinsmen of the Jews in order to gain prestige or they drag the Jews into their ranks in order to share their bad reputation. Cf., e.g., Tacitus (Hist. 5.2.2), who presents as one of the theories of the origins of the Jews the view that in the reign of Isis the superfluous population of Egypt, headed by Hierosolymus and Iuda, poured into the neighboring lands. According to Plutarch (Is. et Osir. 31), Typhon, the Egyptian god Set, the god of the wilderness, of eclipses, storms, and darkness and the demonic author of all evil who had murdered and cut to pieces his brother Osiris, fled from battle for seven days on the back of a donkey, after which he became the father of Hierosolymus and Iudaeus. This view seems to reflect the biblical statement (Exod. 1:7): “But the descendants of Israel were fruitful, and increased greatly; they multiplied and grew exceedingly strong, so that the land was filled with them.” See Feldman (1991:346-48).

Hebrew ‮חנוך‬‎ (Gen. 46:9), LXX Ἐνώχ, Josephus Ἀνώχης, Bib. Ant. 8.11 Enoch. Hebrew ‮פלוא‬‎ (Gen. 46:9), LXX Φαλλούς, Josephus Φαλούς, Bib. Ant. 8.11 Fallu. Hebrew ‮חצרן‬‎ (Gen. 46:9), LXX Ἀσρών, Josephus Ἐσσαρών, Bib. Ant. 8.11 Asrom. Hebrew ‮כרמי‬‎ (Gen. 46:9), LXX Χαρμί, Josephus Χάρμισος, Bib. Ant. 8.11 Carmin. Hebrew ‮ימואל‬‎ (Gen. 46:10), LXX Ἰεμουήλ , Josephus Ἰούμηλος, Bib. Ant. 8.11 Namuel. Hebrew ‮ימין‬‎ (Gen. 46:10), LXX Ἰαμίν, Josephus Ἰάμεινος, Bib. Ant. 8.11 Iamin. Hebrew ‮אהד‬‎ (Gen. 46:10), LXX Ἀώδ, Josephus Πούθοδος, Bib. Ant. 8.11 Doth. Hebrew ‮יכין‬‎ (Gen. 46:10), LXX Ἰαχίν, Josephus Ἰαχῖνος, Bib. Ant. 8.11 Iachim. Hebrew ‮צחר‬‎ (Gen. 46:10), LXX Σαάρ, Josephus Σόαρος; Bib. Ant. omits his name. Hebrew ‮שׁאול‬‎ (Gen. 46:10), LXX Σαούλ, Josephus Σααρᾶς, Bib. Ant. 8.11 Saul. Josephus omits the biblical statement here that Shaul was the son of a Canaanite woman. Hebrew ‮גרשׁון‬‎ (Gen. 46:11), LXX Γηρσών, Josephus Γολγόμης, Bib. Ant. 8.11 Getson. Hebrew ‮קהת‬‎ (Gen. 46:11), LXX Καάθ, Josephus Κάαθος, Bib. Ant. 8.11 Caath. Hebrew ‮מררי‬‎ (Gen. 46:11), LXX Μεραρί, Josephus Μαράιρος, Bib. Ant. 8.11 Merari. Hebrew ‮שׁלה‬‎ (Gen. 46:12), LXX Σηλώμ, Josephus Σάλας, Bib. Ant. 8.11 Selon. Hebrew ‮פרץ‬‎ (Gen. 46:12), LXX Φαρές, Josephus Φάρεσος, Bib. Ant. 8.11 Phares. Hebrew ‮זרח‬‎ (Gen. 46:12), LXX Ζαρά, Josephus Ἐζελεός, Bib. Ant. 8.11 Zara. Josephus here omits the biblical statement that Judah’s sons Er and Onan had previously died. Hebrew ‮חצרן‬‎ (Gen. 46:12), LXX Ἀσρών, Josephus Ἐσρών, Bib. Ant. omits the name. Hebrew ‮חמול‬‎ (Gen. 46:12), LXX Ἰεμουήλ, Josephus Ἄμουρος, Bib. Ant. omits the name. Hebrew ‮תולע‬‎ (Gen. 46:13), LXX Θωλά, Josephus Θούλας, Bib. Ant. 8.11 Tola. Hebrew ‮פוה‬‎ (Gen. 46:13), LXX Φουά, Josephus Φρουρᾶς, Bib. Ant. 8.11 Fua. Hebrew ‮יוב‬‎ (Gen. 46:13), LXX Ἰασούβ, Josephus Ἴωβος, Bib. Ant. 8.11 Iob. Hebrew ‮שׁמרן‬‎ (Gen. 46:13), LXX Ζαμβράμ, Josephus Σαμάρων, Bib. Ant. 8.11 Sombran.

Hebrew ‮סרד‬‎ (Gen. 46:14), LXX Σερέδ, Josephus Σάραδος, Bib. Ant. 8.11 Sared. Hebrew ‮אלון‬‎ (Gen. 46:14), LXX Ἀλλών, Josephus Ἤλων, Bib. Ant. 8.11 Elon. Hebrew ‮יחלאל‬‎ (Gen. 46:14), LXX Ἀλοήλ, Josephus Ἰάνηλος, Bib. Ant. 8.11 Iaillel. Actually, the number is 32. The rabbinic tradition tries to account for the missing person. For example, Baba Batra 123a declares that Dina had a twin sister. Midrash Gen. Rabbah 94.9 suggests other possibilities: God Himself, Jochebed, Hushim the son of Dan, and Serah the daughter of Asher. At this point Gen. 46:16-18 gives the names of the descendants of Zilpah, whom Laban gave to Leah; but Josephus lists them (Ant. 2.182-83) after the descendants of Bilhah, whom Laban gave to Rachel.

Josephus (Ant. 2.177) had said that Joseph had already departed in advance, the implication being that he and his children are not included in the enumeration that follows. Hebrew ‮מנשׁה‬‎ (Gen. 46:20), LXX Μανασσῆ, Josephus Μανασσῆς, Bib. Ant. 8.14 Manassen. Hebrew ‮אפרים‬‎ (Gen. 46:20), LXX Ἐφραίμ, Josephus Ἐφραίμης, Bib. Ant. 8.14 Effraim. Josephus was apparently in quite a quandary whether to emphasize the role of Joseph as a Jew who had saved the Egyptian economy or to de-emphasize it, inasmuch as the Samaritans, whom Josephus so despised, identified Joseph as their ancestor. Note, for example, Josephus’ bitter remark, twice repeated (Ant. 9.291, 11.341), that the Samaritans alter their attitude according to circumstances, so that when they see the Jews prospering they call them their kinsmen, claiming (obviously falsely, from Josephus’ point of view) that they are descended from Joseph; but when they observe the Jews in trouble they say that they have nothing in common with them and declare themselves to be of a different race. See further Feldman (1992a:23-45). Josephus, who was himself a priest and who consequently gives such a tremendous amount of attention to the Tent and to the priesthood in his Ant. (3.102-257), looked upon the Samaritans as arch-heretics, whose sacrificial cult centered on Mount Gerizim rather than on Jerusalem (Feldman 1992a:23-31). We may note that whereas the Hebrew text and the LXX give the names of the sons and grandsons of Joseph’s sons, Ephraim and Manasseh (Gen. 46:20), Josephus omits this information here perhaps because the Samaritans looked upon themselves as descended from Ephraim and Manasseh. To this day the Samaritans are divided into three clans, bearing the names of Joseph, Ephraim, and Manasseh. Hebrew ‮בלע‬‎ (Gen. 46:21), LXX Βαλά, Josephus Βόλος, Bib. Ant. 8.14 omits. Hebrew ‮בכר‬‎ (Gen. 46:21), LXX Χοβώρ, Josephus Βάκχαρις, Bib. Ant. 8.14 omits. Hebrew ‮אשׁבל‬‎ (Gen. 46:21), LXX Ἀσβήλ, Josephus Ἀσαβῆλος, Bib. Ant. 8.14 Esbel. Hebrew ‮גרא‬‎ (Gen. 46:21), LXX Γηρά, Josephus Γήλας, Bib. Ant. 8.14 Gela. Hebrew ‮נעמן‬‎ (Gen. 46:21), LXX Νοεμάν, Josephus Νεεμάνης, Bib. Ant. 8.14 Nanubal. Hebrew ‮אחי‬‎ (Gen. 46:21), LXX Ἀγχίς, Josephus Ἴης, Bib. Ant. 8.14 omits. Hebrew ‮ראשׁ‬‎ (Gen. 46:21), LXX Ῥώς, Josephus Ἄρως, Bib. Ant. 8.14 omits. Hebrew ‮מפים‬‎ (Gen. 46:21), LXX Μαμφίν, Josephus Νομφθής, Bib. Ant. 8.14 Abocmefec. Hebrew ‮חפים‬‎ (Gen. 46:21), LXX Ὀφιμίν, Josephus Ὀππαῖς, Bib. Ant. 8.14 omits. Hebrew ‮ארד‬‎ (Gen. 46:21), LXX Ἀράδ, Josephus Ἀροδος, Bib. Ant. omits.

Hebrew ‮יחצאל‬‎ (Gen. 46:24), LXX Ἀσιήλ, Josephus Ἑλίηλος, Bib. Ant. 8.12 Betaal. Hebrew ‮גוני‬‎ (Gen. 46:24), LXX Γωυνί, Josephus Γοῦνις, Bib. Ant. omits. Hebrew ‮יצר‬‎ (Gen. 46:24), LXX Ἰσσάαρ, Josephus Σάρης, Bib. Ant. omits. Hebrew ‮שׁלם‬‎ (Gen. 46:24), LXX Συλλήμ, Josephus Σέλλιμος, Bib. Ant. 8.12 Surem. Hebrew ‮חשׁים‬‎ (Gen. 46:23), LXX Ἀσόμ, Josephus Οὖσις, Bib. Ant. 8.12 Usi.

At this point in Gen. 46:23 we are given the names of the children of Bilhah and their descendants. Hebrew ‮צפיון‬‎ (Gen. 46:16), LXX Σαφών, Josephus Ζοφωνίας, Bib. Ant. 8.13 is corrupt. Hebrew ‮חגי‬‎ (Gen. 46:16), LXX Ἀγγίς, Josephus Οὔγις, Bib. Ant. 8.13 is corrupt. Hebrew ‮שׁוני‬‎ (Gen. 46:16), LXX Σαυνίς, Josephus Σοῦνις, Bib. Ant. is corrupt. Hebrew ‮אצבן‬‎ (Gen. 46:16), LXX Θασοβάν, Josephus Ζάβρων, Bib. Ant. is corrupt. Hebrew ‮ערי‬‎ (Gen. 46:16), LXX Ἀηδίς, Josephus Εἰρήνης, Bib. Ant. is corrupt. Hebrew ‮ארודי‬‎ (Gen. 46:16), LXX Ἀροηδίς, Josephus Ἐρωίδης, Bib. Ant. is corrupt. Hebrew ‮אראלי‬‎ (Gen. 46:16), LXX Ἀροηλίς, Josephus Ἀριήλης, Bib. Ant. 8.13 Sariel.

Hebrew ‮ימנה‬‎ (Gen. 46:17), LXX Ἰεμνά, Josephus Ιώμνης, Bib. Ant. 8.13 omits. Hebrew (‮ישׁוה‬‎ (Gen. 46:17), LXX Ἰεσουά, Josephus Ἰσούσιος, Bib. Ant. 8.13 omits. Hebrew ‮ישׁוי‬‎ (Gen. 46:17), LXX Ἰεούλ, Josephus Ἠιούβης, Bib. Ant. 8.13 omits. Hebrew ‮בריעה‬‎ (Gen. 46:17), LXX Βαριά, Josephus Βάρης, Bib. Ant. 8.13 omits. Hebrew ‮חבר‬‎ (Gen. 46:17), LXX Χοβόρ, Josephus Ἀβαρός, Bib. Ant. 8.13 omits. According to Gen. 46:17 ‮חבר‬‎ and ‮מלכיאל‬‎ were the grandsons of Asher. Nodet (ad loc.) suggests that Josephus read ‮חבר ומלכיאל‬‎ [‮ושׂרה אחתם ובני בריעה‬‎] ‮ובריעה‬‎ but omitted by homoeoteleuton the words in brackets. Hebrew ‮מלכיאל‬‎ (Gen. 46:17), LXX Μελχιήλ , Josephus Μελχίηλος, Bib. Ant. 8.13 omits. The midrashic tradition (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 94.9) counts 70 including Jacob, presumably because there are actually only 32 rather than 33 descendants of Leah (Gen. 46:15, Ant. 2.179).

In Gen. 46:28 we read that Jacob had sent Judah before him. In the Hebrew text (Gen. 46:28) this is the land of Goshen. The LXX, as Philo (De Josepho 42.256), refers to it as the city of Heroes, as Josephus does here. In Gen. 46:28 and 47:11 it is called the land of Rameses. There is no indication in Gen. 46:30 that Jacob, overcome by emotion, almost died. Rather, the Bible quotes Jacob as saying, “Now let me die, since I have seen your face.” By saying that Jacob almost died from joy Josephus adds greatly to the emotion of the scene. He adds still more emotion with his addition that Joseph revived his father at that point. In the confrontation between Joseph and his brothers, Josephus, on the one hand, is careful to show Joseph’s humanity by having him burst into tears from emotion (Ant. 2.109, 2.123, 2.160); but lest Joseph appear to lack self-control Josephus makes clear that while he was human enough to exhibit emotion (παθεῖν), he was, nonetheless, careful to show enough self-control that he was not completely overcome by it.

The statement that Joseph was gentle in bidding his father to travel on is Josephus’ addition. In Gen. 46:31 Joseph tells his brothers that he will go to Pharaoh to tell him that his father and brothers and their families have arrived. In Josephus he shows his enthusiasm by hurrying to Pharaoh. Whereas Gen. 47:1, when Pharaoh is told that Joseph’s father and his family have come to Egypt from Canaan, says nothing of Pharaoh’s reaction, Josephus’ Pharaoh arouses positive feelings on the part of the reader by virtue of the warm reception that he gives to Jacob and the latter’s sons. According to Gen. 46:34, Joseph told his brothers that when asked by Pharaoh what their occupation was, they should reply that they are owners of cattle, inasmuch as being shepherds, their actual occupation, was an abomination to the Egyptians. Josephus’ Pharaoh here asks Joseph what the occupation of the brothers is so that he, magnanimously, may permit them to continue in that work.

By contrast, the biblical text is confusing, inasmuch as Joseph himself (Gen. 46:32) tells Pharaoh that his brothers and their families are shepherds, “for they are owners of cattle.” Similarly, when Pharaoh asks them their occupation (Gen. 47:3) they reply that they are shepherds, thus apparently not heeding Joseph’s advice as given in Gen. 46:34. Not only in the treatise Against Apion but also in his Antiquities Josephus constantly seeks to answer anti-Jewish canards. This was particularly necessary in connection with Joseph, inasmuch as the scene of Joseph’s activities was Egypt, which had once been overrrun by the Hyksos and which was the hotbed of anti-Jewish attacks on the part of intellectuals such as Manetho, Chaeremon, Lysimachus, and Apion. One wonders whether the revulsion that the Egyptians are here said to feel toward shepherds may not have been a result of their domination by the Hyksos, whose very name means “king shepherds” (Apion 1.82). However, there is some doubt as to whether sheep were really an abomination to the Egyptians, because a certain Renny, nomarch of El Kab, had 100 sheep among his other animals (Helck 1955). Josephus, on the other hand, has Joseph tell Pharaoh directly and apologetically that his brothers are good shepherds and that they follow this calling so that they may not be separated from each other and may look after their father. Joseph likewise presents the novel economic factor that they engage in this occupation in order to ingratiate themselves to the Egyptians by not competing with them, since Egyptians are forbidden to occupy themselves with the pasture of livestock. Josephus omits the biblical statement (Gen. 47:6) in which Pharaoh tells Joseph that if he knows any able men among his brothers he should put them in charge of Pharaoh’s cattle, since this would seem to contradict Josephus’ view that the Egyptians did not engage in pasturing livestock. Niehoff (1992:l09) says that Joseph advises his brothers to integrate themselves with the Egyptians, but the word which Josephus (Ant. 2.186) here uses, προσφιλεῖς, means to be dear to, that is, to ingratiate themselves with the Egyptians. The fact that Pharaoh permits Jacob and his sons to live in Heliopolis and to pursue their own pasturage is an indication that he accepted their wish not to be integrated into Egyptian society. He thus answers the charge of those opponents of the Jews who apparently claimed that Jews constituted an economic threat to the Egyptians’ livelihood. I have argued that economics was a major factor in the hatred exhibited by non-Jews toward Jews in Alexandria in the popular attack on the Jews in 38 C.E. See Feldman (1988a:23; 1993a:113-17). Josephus also offers here a defense of the “cliquishness” of the Hebrews in living together, apart from other peoples, namely that they wished to look after their aged father.

In Gen. 47:7 Jacob blesses Pharaoh. In Josephus he goes further and blesses his kingdom, thus answering those who claimed that the Jews were a disloyal element who were guilty of dual loyalties (see, e.g., Apion 2.38).

Josephus here omits Jacob’s statement to Pharaoh in Gen. 47:9 that his years have been few and evil, perhaps because this makes him sound ungrateful to God. Gen. 47:10 says nothing about Pharaoh’s reaction to this statement by Jacob. Josephus omits the biblical statement (Gen. 47:11) that this was the best of the land. The Hebrew text (Gen. 47:11) reads: “in the land of Rameses.” Heliopolis was so called from the worship of solar deities (helios = sun) associated with it. It is located near the southern end of the Nile Delta. According to Manetho, as quoted by Josephus (Apion 1.250), Moses was born and served as a priest (Apion 1. 238) in Heliopolis. From this identification of Heliopolis, Davies (1979:8) concludes that the starting point of the exodus was Heliopolis. He suggests that a biblical basis for Josephus’ reference to Heliopolis may be found in Gen. 45:10, where Joseph says that his family should be “near him,” and from Gen. 41:50-52, which implies that Joseph’s home was close to modern Cairo, since his home was at On, known in the Hellenistic age as Heliopolis. Josephus, however, following the LXX, also identifies Goshen with Heroopolis (Gen. 46:28, Ant. 2.184). This appears to contradict the statement (Ant. 2.186) that it was forbidden for the Egyptians to deal with pasturage of sheep. Nodet (ad loc.) reconciles the passages by suggesting that the Egyptians forbade pastoral activity for themselves but not for foreigners. This would seem to be supported by Philo’s comment (De Josepho 42.257) that when Jacob and his sons came to settle in Egypt, Pharaoh, learning that they were owners of cattle, appointed them keepers of his own, and also put into their charge innumerable flocks and herds of goats, oxen, and sheep.

Gen. 47:13 does not mention the lack of rain and river irrigation. However, in Egypt it almost never rains. Perhaps Josephus is describing a permanent condition in Egypt. Gen. 47:13, in describing the famine that beset Egypt, states merely that there was no bread in all the land and that Egypt and Canaan languished because of the famine. Josephus is much more explicit in describing what caused the famine. He gives both natural causes (the Nile River no longer watered the land, inasmuch as it had ceased to rise, and there was no rain) and human causes (the Egyptians had taken no precautions against the possibility of famine). Josephus here omits the biblical detail (Gen. 47:14) that he brought the money into Pharaoh’s house, presumably since that is obvious. In Gen. 47:15-16, when the Egyptians, in desperation, come to Joseph to ask for food, he tells them to give him their cattle. In Josephus there is no indication that Joseph had made this demand, presumably because this would make him appear greedy; rather, the people take the initiative to buy the grain with their herds and slaves. The mention of slaves is Josephus’ addition. Josephus abbreviates greatly the negotiations between Joseph and the people of Egypt (Gen. 47:15-19).

Josephus is here reflecting the economic state of Egypt under the Ptolemies, under which the king claimed to own the entire soil of Egypt, except the lands of Naucratis, Alexandria, and Ptolemais. The entire land was divided into two categories: king’s land farmed by royal peasants, that is, the “king’s people”; and land in grant, that is, land in effect leased even perpetually from the king in return for rent. See Tarn and Griffith (l952:187-89). Josephus here is clearly following the Hebrew text (Gen. 47:21) as we have it, which declares that Joseph removed the Egyptians to the cities, whereas the LXX states that he made slaves of them. The LXX, as Nodet (ad loc.) notes, was apparently translating a Hebrew text that was almost identical with ours except that in two places it had a daled where the Masoretic text has a resh (the two letters are very similar in appearance). Thus, our Hebrew text reads: ‮העביר אתו לערים‬‎ (“he removed them to the cities”); whereas the Hebrew text behind the LXX read ‮העביד אתו לעבדים‬‎ (“he brought the people into bondage to him for servants”). Gen. 47:21 gives no reason why Joseph removed the people to the cities, whereas Josephus, in typical fashion, explains the reason.

This extra-biblical detail is Josephus’ own addition. Thackeray (ad loc.) notes a close parallel with one of Josephus’ favorite authors, Thucydides (2.61), who, in describing the effects of the great plague that afflicted Athens, asserts that the unexpected enslaves the spirit. Josephus himself (Ant. 3.56) uses similar language in describing the effect of the Israelite victory in battle over their enemy, the Amalekites: “for they enslaved not the persons only of their assailants but also their spirit.” The same thought is found in the words of Cassius Chaerea, the leader of the conspiracy to assassinate the Emperor Gaius Caligula (Ant. 19.42), whom he describes as one who makes the Romans slaves in body and mind. This detail is Josephus’ addition.

This picture of Joseph, the friendly administrator, is Josephus’ addition. So is the statement that he waited until the famine had ceased before proceeding to each city. Joseph’s persuasive ability appears here in his success in exhorting the inhabitants of Egypt, after the cessation of the famine, to cultivate their land assiduously while paying a fifth of their produce to the king in return for the land which he had given them. Josephus felt a need to answer adversaries such as Manetho (ap. Josephus, Apion 1.238-50), who had charged that Osarsiph (who is apparently to be identified with Joseph) had ruined the land of Egypt by committing such egregious sacrilege as polluting shrines and persecuting practitioners of the Egyptian religion. Such predecessors of Josephus as Artapanus (ap. Alex. Poly. ap. Eus., Pr. Ev. 9.23.2) had stressed how haphazardly the Egyptians had farmed the land prior to the advent of Joseph because the countryside had not been divided into allotments, with the consequence that the weak were treated unfairly by the strong. They had emphasized how much Joseph had done for Egypt as the first to subdivide the land, to fix these subdivisions with boundaries, to render much of the waste land tillable, and to assign some of the arable land to the priests—a clear indication that he was not guilty of sacrilege. The importance of Joseph’s land reforms becomes clear when we realize that similar pioneering land reforms and agricultural “firsts” were attributed to Sesostris (Herodotus 2.107, Diod. 1.54.3, 6), Isis (Diod. 1.14.1, 27.3-4), and Osiris (Diod. 1.15.6, 8; 17.3, 18.4). Josephus emphasizes the generosity that Joseph as an administrator showed to the Egyptian farmers, adding the detail, not found in the Bible (Gen. 47:23), that after the famine had subsided Joseph bestowed upon the inhabitants in perpetuity the land that they had ceded to the king and that he might actually have reserved for his own benefit.

The joy felt by the Egyptians at Joseph’s munificence, which redounds so greatly to Joseph’s credit, is Josephus’ addition. It is not clear whether the land was owned by Pharaoh but leased to the Egyptians or whether the Egyptians owned the land and merely paid taxes to Pharaoh. According to Gen. 47:23, Joseph tells the Egyptians that he had bought the land for Pharaoh and the people were merely working it. Josephus, however, seems to indicate that the people were owners (κυρίους) of the land. The statement that this was beyond the hopes of the people is Josephus’ addition. Josephus uses the example of Joseph’s fidelity to Pharaoh to answer, implicitly, the charge that Jews are disloyal to the government, noting that when the famine had abated Joseph repaired to each city and bestowed upon the Egyptians in perpetuity the land that they had previously ceded to the king and that he himself might have held and reserved for his own benefit. Consequently, Josephus concludes, Joseph both increased his own reputation with the Egyptians and their loyalty to their sovereign. Gen. 47:26 states that Joseph made the king’s ownership of the land a statute “to this day.” Josephus omits here the biblical statement (Gen. 47:27) that the Israelites in the land of Goshen gained possessions and multiplied exceedingly in numbers.

One aspect of Joseph’s character that might well seem to call for reproof is his failure to visit his father more frequently during the 17 years that Jacob spent in Egypt. Thus, according to Gen. 48:1 Joseph had to be informed that his father was ill. There is a rabbinic tradition that the reason why Joseph had to be told this was that he visited his father so infrequently (Pesiqta Rabbati 3 [ed. Friedmann, p. 10b]). Such neglect would not redound to Joseph’s credit; it is not surprising that Josephus omits this verse completely and instead states merely that Jacob fell sick and died. The extended account of the deaths of Jacob and of Joseph (Gen. 47:28-50:26, Ant. 2.194-98) is obviously of minimal interest to Josephus; here the Hebrew has 132 lines, the LXX 219, and Josephus 36. This gives a ratio of Josephus to the Hebrew of .27 and to the LXX of .16 (the ratio of the LXX to the Hebrew is 1.66). This is due largely to the fact that the 83 Hebrew lines of Jacob’s blessings are printed as poetry, with each line being the equivalent of approximately half a line. Jacob is said by Josephus to have the wisdom of a prophet in his prediction as to how each of his sons’ descendants was destined to find a habitation in Canaan (Ant. 2.194). Moreover, in his account of Jacob’s death (Ant. 2.194) Josephus has him prophesy that each of his descendants is destined to find a habitation (κατοικεῖν) in Canaan; but there is no mention of an independent state for them. Nor does he mention Jacob’s criticisms of the sons, as in the case of Reuben, Simeon, and Levi (Gen. 49:3-7). In the account of Jacob’s blessings for his sons, Josephus (Ant. 2.194) does not mention the name of God even once, whereas in Gen. 49 God is mentioned 4 times (Gen. 49:19, 24, 25 bis). Striking, too, is Josephus’ omission (Ant. 2.194) of Jacob’s blessing for Judah (Gen. 48:8-10) predicting his militarism and sovereignty. Furthermore, inasmuch as the increase in number of the Jews, particularly through proselytism, had caused great anguish to some Romans, Josephus (Ant. 2.194) omits Jacob’s statement to Joseph (Gen. 48:4) that God would make him fruitful and multiply, would make of him a multitude of people, and would give his descendants the land of Canaan as an “eternal possession.”

Whereas in Gen. 49:22-26, in Jacob’s blessing of Joseph, there is no mention of Jacob’s praising Joseph because he had not harbored malice toward his brothers, in Josephus Jacob praises Joseph for this very reason and specifically commends him for being generous (χρηστός) in loading them with presents such as some would not have given even to requite their benefactors. In the blessing of Joseph, Gen. 48:15 has Jacob mention God twice, whereas in Josephus (Ant. 2.195) there is no mention of God. In Gen. 48:5 it is Jacob who says that Ephraim and Manasseh will be his on a par with his own sons, whereas here Josephus says that Jacob charged his own sons to give parity to Ephraim and Manasseh and to let them share in the division of Canaan. Josephus omits Jacob’s blessing of Ephraim and Manasseh (Gen. 48:16) that they would grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth. We may deduce that Josephus omits the blessings that Jacob confers upon Ephraim and Manasseh (Gen. 48:12-20), both because Ephraim and Manasseh are claimed by the Samaritans as their ancestors and because Josephus is concerned not to detract from the centrality of Joseph. Josephus eliminates Jacob’s request that the angel who had redeemed him from all evil should bless Ephraim and Manasseh (Gen. 48:16). He also omits the extended scene (Gen 48:13-20) in which Jacob crosses his hands, placing his right hand upon Ephraim, who was the younger of the sons, and to which Joseph objects, perhaps because this would interject a negative element into the deathbed scene. Whereas Gen. 48:12 indicates that Joseph bowed down before Jacob, and whereas the LXX declares that Ephraim and Manasseh did so (προσεκύνησαν), in Josephus there is no προσκύνησις here either by Joseph or by his sons. The reason for this is that such obeisance (προσκύνησις) represents a quasi-divine honor of the sort that was customary among the Persians. Alexander the Great had obtained it (Arrian, Anab. 4.10.5-12.5), but it was viewed by the Greeks as the antithesis of liberty in politics and religion (see Horst [1932:112-16, 126-27]; and Greeven [1959: 6:763]). To be sure, προσκύνησις did not actually imply that the person so honored was regarded as a god (Austin [1981:22-23]), but the Greeks often mistakenly believed this to be the case. At any rate, in Josephus the term usually implies worship of God or of an Oriental king and frequently has a pejorative connotation, as with the prostration demanded by Haman (Ant. 11.209, 210, 230, 277).

Josephus omits Jacob’s request that Joseph put his hand under Jacob’s thigh and swear that he will bury him not in Egypt but in the land of his fathers (Gen. 47:29-31). This encomium for Jacob is Josephus’ addition. In Gen. 50:5-6 Pharaoh grants Joseph’s request to bury Jacob in Canaan, inasmuch as Jacob had made Joseph swear to do so and since he pledges to return. The presumption is that such a request was extraordinary. Josephus here omits the reason why Pharaoh granted the request and thus places Pharaoh in an even better light. Gen. 50:2 indicates that after Jacob’s death it was Joseph who commanded his servants to embalm his father, whereas Jewish tradition, certainly in Josephus’ day if we are to judge from the findings of archaeologists, was opposed to such tampering with the dead. To be sure, some rabbis justified the embalming of Jacob as having been done in accordance with Jacob’s own instructions; but Rabbi Judah the Prince, the redactor of the Mishnah at the end of the second century, criticized it (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 100.3). Josephus resolves this problem by omitting here all mention of Jacob’s embalming and by stating merely that Joseph conveyed his father’s corpse to Hebron and there gave it sumptuous burial, without further specification. There is a similar difference of opinion with regard to Joseph’s own embalmment (Gen. 50:26), carried out, according to one opinion, by Egyptian physicians, but, according to another, by his brothers (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 100.11). Here, too, Josephus resolves the matter by omitting, as does the LXX (Gen. 50:26), all mention of Joseph’s embalmment. Josephus also omits that the Egyptians wept for Jacob for 70 days (Gen. 50:3). In general, Josephus has here greatly abbreviated the biblical account of mourning for Jacob, the funeral procession, and has omitted the stop at Atad for more lamentation (Gen. 50:1-13).

In Gen. 50:14, on the contrary, we read that Joseph and his brothers returned to Egypt, with no indication that they were reluctant to return. In Gen. 50:16-17 the brothers at this point send a message to Joseph stating that before he died their father had told them to ask Joseph to forgive them. Josephus omits this request by the brothers and the statement by Jacob, perhaps because the Bible itself had not previously reported it. He also omits the statement that the brothers prostrated themselves before Joseph and their assertion that they were his servants (Gen. 50:18). He likewise omits Joseph’s reply to his brothers (Gen. 50:19): “Fear not, for am I in the place of God?” Josephus goes beyond the Bible in emphasizing Joseph’s generosity toward his brothers even after Jacob’s death by remarking that although they were reluctant to return with him after the burial of Jacob because they feared that Joseph would now feel less reluctant to seek vengeance for their mistreatment of him, Joseph, in fact, is said to have granted them great possessions and never ceased to hold them in the highest regard, whereas the Bible (Gen. 50:21) states merely that Joseph promised to provide for the brothers and their children. Joseph is similarly praised in the Testament of Joseph (17:5) for his generous treatment of his brothers even after Jacob’s death. So also Philo (De Josepho 43.264).

In this brief extra-biblical eulogy of Joseph, it is significant that the first quality that Josephus singles out is that he directed all affairs by the dictates of reason (λογισμῷ). Cf. Ant. 2.53, 72. Josephus’ editorial comment, in his encomium of Joseph, that Joseph used his authority sparingly seems directed to those who, in Josephus’ own day, had charged the Jews with aggressively seeking to enhance their influence. Gen. 50:26 states that Joseph was embalmed; but Josephus, as in the case of Jacob’s embalming, is aware of the objections of Judaism to embalming, and thus omits this detail.

The statement that the brothers had lived happily in Egypt is Josephus’ addition. So also Jubilees (46.9) and Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Reuben (7). Likewise, the rabbinic tradition (Mekilta de Rabbi Ishmael, Beshallaḥ Introduction [ed. Horovitz, p. 80], Mekilta Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai 14 [ed. Epstein, p. 17], Midrash Gen. Rabbah 100.11) agrees that the bones not only of Joseph (Exod. 13:19) but also of his brothers were eventually brought for burial in Hebron. Likewise, Acts (7:15) speaks of Jacob and “our fathers” as dying in Egypt and being carried back for burial in the tomb that Abraham had bought.

So also Polybius (39.7.7) refers to Egyptian profligacy and laziness. Herodotus (Book 2) admires the Egyptians, despite the fact that the “customs and laws that they have established are, in most cases, contrary to those of all other men.” See Lloyd (1990:215-44). However, the majority of writers, both Greek and Roman, are much less sympathetic toward them. Aeschylus (frag. 373 Radt) says that they are clever in weaving tricks; for the writers of comedy, Cratinus (frag. 378) and Aristophanes (Thes. 922), αἰγυπτιάζειν, “to be like an Egyptian” signifies “to be sly and crafty”; for Sophocles (Oed. Col. 337) to follow Egyptian practices is to do things in a way opposite to that of other people, since men there sit at home weaving, whereas women go out and attend to business. Plato (Rep. 4.436A1-3) speaks of love of money as prevalent among Egyptians. Polybius (15.33.10) describes them as terribly cruel. Philo (De Agricultura 14.62) asserts that the spirit of the Egyptians is by nature arrogant even beyond that of other men; and Pliny the Younger (Pan. 31.2) speaks of them as a conceited and insolent nation. Plutarch (Is. et Osir. 72), Quintus Curtius (4.1.30), Dio Cassius (51.17.1), and Flavius Vopiscus (Script. Hist. Aug., Quadrigae Tyrannorum 7.4) describe them as fickle. Plato (Leg. 12.953E) speaks of their xenophobia in excluding strangers from meals and sacrifices. In particular, the anonymous author of the Bellum Alexandrinum (7.2) in the first century B.C.E. speaks sarcastically about the people of Alexandria: “If I were briefed to defend Alexandrians and to establish that they are neither deceitful (fallaces) nor foolhardy (temerarii), I could make a long speech, but it would be a wasted effort.” See Reinhold (1980:97-103) and Bohak (1997). The blame is thus placed here not on Pharaoh but rather on the Egyptians in general. Josephus changes the biblical statement (Exod. 1:7) that Israel in Egypt “was fruitful and increased greatly” into one that the Egyptians became bitterly disposed towards the Hebrews through envy of their prosperity (εὐδαιμονίας), omitting all mention of their increase in numbers, presumably because he is sensitive to the tremendous increase in the number of Jews during the first century B.C.E. and the first century C.E. and its implications. On envy as a recurring theme in Josephus see Feldman (1993;337-50). On proselytism see Feldman (1993a: 288-341).

Josephus appears to be following the Hebrew text (Exod. 1:7), “the land was filled with them,” whereas the LXX reads, “the land multiplied them.” Exod. 1:7 speaks of the increase of the Israelites in numbers and strength but does not speak of their tremendous wealth—a contemporary charge in Josephus’ day (see Feldman 1993a:107-13)—and does not say that this was at the Egyptians’ expense. Josephus also omits the biblical statement (Exod. 1:10) that the Egyptians feared that in the event of war the Israelites would join their enemies—in effect, the charge of dual loyalty (cf., e.g., Apion 2.38). Though Exod. 1:8 clearly states that after the time of Joseph there arose a new king who did not know Joseph, the Talmud (Soṭah 11a), while noting the simple interpretation that the king was really new, also presents the view that he was not really new but that his decrees were made new. When Josephus comes to that portion of the Bible detailing the sufferings of the Israelites in Egypt, he is careful to avoid the identification of the Pharaoh of this oppression with the Pharaoh who had appointed Joseph to high estate, in order to emphasize that not all Pharaohs are identical. Indeed, he very carefully remarks here that not only was there a new king but that the kingdom had now passed to another dynasty. Artapanus (ap. Eus., Pr. Ev. 9.27.1) says that after Abraham (he means Jacob) and his son Mempsasthenoth (a name for Joseph apparently, perhaps equivalent to Zaphenathpaneah, Gen. 41:45) died, the king of the Egyptians died as well, and his son Palmanothes (we know of no Egyptian king by this name) succeeded him. It is this Palmanothes, he says, who dealt harshly with the Israelites. Here Josephus uses the word ἐνύβριζον, while in three other places (Ant. 2.268, 4.3, and 4.242) he uses the word ὕβρις with reference to the Egyptians’ insolent treatment of the Israelites. Significantly, the LXX nowhere characterizes the Egyptians’ treatment of the Israelites as ὕβρις. Philo, like Josephus influenced by the Hellenic tradition, has God refer to the intolerable outrages (ὕβρεις) of the Egyptians toward the Israelites (De Vita Mosis 1.14.72).

Exod. 1:11 specifies that the Israelites built for Pharaoh store cities, Pithom and Raamses. The LXX speaks not of store cities but “strong cities” and adds “On, which is Heliopolis.” The statement that the Israelites were forced to build walls and ramparts so as to prevent the river from forming pools when it overflowed its banks is Josephus’ addition. According to Exod. 1:11, the Israelites built store cities, Pithom and Raamses, for Pharaoh. That the Israelites were commanded to construct canals, walls, ramparts, and pyramids is Josephus’ addition. This statement of the reason why the Egyptians forced the Israelites to build pyramids is Josephus’ addition.

This is in accordance with God’s prediction to Abram (Gen. 15:13) that his descendants would be sojourners in a land that was not theirs and that they would be oppressed there for 400 years. Elsewhere, however, Exod. 12:40 states that the length of the Israelites’ stay in Egypt was 430 years. Bib. Ant. 9:3 likewise leaves one with the contradiction, since, on the one hand, it quotes God’s prediction to Abram that his descendants would be afflicted in a land not their own for 400 years; but immediately thereafter it states that 350 years had elapsed since God spoke these words to Abram. Since Amram, however, is here speaking just before the birth of Moses, and since Moses was 80 years old when he led the Israelites out of Egypt, this would indicate a total of 430 years. The rabbis account for the apparent contradiction by noting that God spoke to Abram 30 years before Isaac’s birth; so Mekilta de-Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai 27 (ed. Epstein, p. 34) and parallels cited by Ginzberg (1925:5:420, n. 126). Rappaport (25) asserts that with this extra-biblical comment Josephus the apologist is seeking to present the Israelites as particularly patriotic. Similarly, the Midrashic tradition (Midrash Num. Rabbah 15.20) states that the Israelites went immediately to their work and labored with all their strength. This statement of a contest, in effect, between the Egyptians and the Israelites as to who could outlast the other is Josephus’ addition.

The episode which follows (Ant. 2.205-17) is Josephus’ expansion of the biblical narrative (Exod. 1:15-22). It is significant that Josephus here refers to the Egyptian prophet as a “sacred scribe” (ἱερογραμματεύς) rather than as a soothsayer (μάντις). Josephus, as I have noted elsewhere (Feldman 1990:386-422), like the LXX, uses the word μάντις and its cognates when referring to heathen soothsayers. The μάντις, as Rose (1914:4:796) remarks, is not an inspired prophet but rather a craftsman (δημιουργός), coupled with physicians and carpenters by Homer (Od. 17.384). Thus Josephus uses the term μάντις with reference to Balaam (Ant. 4.104 [bis], 112, 157) or to the Egyptian seers in general (Ant. 2.241; Apion 1.236, 256, 257, 258 [bis], 267, 306). It is particularly effective that at the very beginning of his long narrative of Moses, one of the Egyptian sacred scribes, a non-Jew, who, as Josephus remarks, possessed considerable skill in accurately predicting the future, foretells the birth of a child who will surpass all men in virtue (ἀρετῇ) and who will win everlasting renown. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Exod. 1:15, as noted by McNamara (1966:93-96), speaks of a dream of Pharaoh interpreted to him by the chief magicians, Jannes and Jambres, as signifying that “a son is about to be born in the congregation of Israel through whom the entire land of Egypt is to be destroyed.” So also, like Josephus here, Numenius (ap. Eusebius, Pr. Ev. 9.8.1) uses the same term “sacred scribes” (ἱερογραμματεῖς) with reference to Jannes and Jambres as those who had predicted Moses’ birth. The only significant difference between Josephus’ version and that of the Targum is that Josephus mentions one anonymous sacred scribe, whereas the Targum mentions Jannes and Jambres. Bloch (1879:61-66) cites a number of later midrashim that have a similar version. The Chronicles of Moses, written in the early Middle Ages (quoted by Jellinek [1853:1-11]), dates the dream in the one hundred and thirtieth year after the descent of the children of Israel into Egypt. According to this version, one of the princes warned Pharaoh that a child would be born to the Israelites who would destroy all of Egypt and advised him to kill every boy born to the Israelites. According to Sefer Hayashar 19 (ed. Dan, pp. 284-86), dating, to be sure, from the thirteenth century, it is Balaam who explains Pharaoh’s dream and who predicts that the child to be born would not only devastate all of Egypt but lead the Israelites out of Egypt. According to Yalqut Shimoni Exod. 164 (ed. Heyman, pp. 11-12), dating from the thirteenth century, the interpreter of the dream is a eunuch of the king. The rabbinic tradition (Sanhedrin 101a, Soṭah 12b, Midrash Exod. Rabbah 1.18) has not a dream of Pharaoh but a prediction by astrologers that a woman is already pregnant with a child who will be the savior of the Israelites, though they do not know whether he is an Israelite or an Egyptian, whereupon Pharoah orders that all newly born males, both Israelite and Egyptian, should be cast into the river. Bloch (1879:66-67) notes the similarity of motif in Matthew 2:1-18, where we hear of a prediction by star-gazing wise men that a savior is to be born and of King Herod’s decree that all male children two years and younger in the region of Bethlehem are to be killed. See also Vermes (1955:89), who notes that there is a similar miraculous and providential framework here and in the dream of Amram (Ant. 2.215) and in Miriam’s dream in Bib. Ant. 9.10. Fascher (1927:86-87) identifies prophecy by the sacred scribes with the method of astrology ascribed by Diodorus (1.73.4) to the Egyptian priests. Herrmann (1970:121-22) suggests the possibility that the tradition embodied in Josephus’ account here may have influenced the account of the massacre of the innocents in Matt. 2:1-19. Though he often closely parallels the rabbinic midrashic tradition, Josephus does not have the tradition (Soṭah [12a-b] and parallels) that the astrologers told Pharaoh the exact day when the redeemer of Israel would be born, even though they could not say whether he would be an Egyptian or a Hebrew. The Samaritan tradition (see MacDonald [1964:151]), which often parallels that of Josephus and of the rabbis in midrashic details, has a passage in the Book of Asatir, which, in almost the very words of Josephus (Ant. 2.207), cites an Egyptian scribe who foretells that from the loins of Levi “will come one who will be mighty in faith and in knowledge, that the heaven and the earth will hearken to his word, and that by his hands will come the destruction of Egypt.” J. Cohen (1993:47) suggests that the annunciation of the birth in Josephus, which significantly does not include any direct threat to the king, was influenced by a desire to make this fit in with the details of the biblical account, according to which the king died of natural causes (Ant. 2.277). Josephus uses the key word ἀρετή (“virtue,” “excellence”) on no fewer than twenty-one occasions with reference to Moses: Ant. 2.205, 238, 243, 257, 262; 3.12, 65, 67, 69, 74, 97, 187, 188, 192, 317, 322; 4.196, 320, 321, 326, 331. There is a similar prediction by Pharaoh’s astrologers in the rabbinic tradition (Sanhedrin 101b, Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 48). Buchanan (1977:110-22) suggests that the fact that the story of the announcement to Pharaoh of the forthcoming birth of Moses is found here means that it is possible that this was known to the author of the Gospel of Matt. (2:1-16) and may have provided the inspiration or details used in the birth narrative of Jesus.

In Josephus’ version the blame is placed not upon Pharaoh but upon one of Pharaoh’s sacred scribes who predicts the birth of one who would abase the sovereignty of the Egyptians. In view of this, the reader is not likely to censure the king, who, we are told here, was alarmed (δείσας, “was afraid”) and who, consequently, as we are reminded, on this sage’s advice, rather than on his own initiative, ordered all male children to be drowned in the river. See Feldman (1993b:59-62). According to rabbinic tradition (Soṭah 12a), Pharaoh issued the decree that the males not only of the Israelites but also of the Egyptians should be put to death. Bib. Ant. 9.1 adds that the females are to be kept alive so that they may be given to the Egyptians’ slaves as wives and comments that this is what seemed worst before God. Midrash Exod. Rabbah 1.18 states that the Egyptians allowed the females to live so that they might take them as wives for themselves. The biblical text (Exod.1:15) indicates that there were two Hebrew midwives and gives their names. Josephus was apparently troubled by the question as to how two midwives could supervise so huge a population of the Israelites, since, according to Exod. 12:37 the number of adult men alone who left Egypt was 600,000; hence he does not specify the number of midwives. Josephus’ Pharaoh is perhaps less cruel than the Bible’s Pharaoh, inasmuch as in Exod. 1:15 he gives orders to the Hebrew midwives to put the male children to death, whereas Josephus has him give the orders to Egyptian midwives, explaining that Pharaoh did so because women who were his compatriots were not likely to transgress his will. Nodet (ad loc.), however, remarks that the Hebrew text is ambiguous and can be understood either as “to the Hebrew midwives” or “to the midwives of the Hebrews” (so also the LXX) and does not necessarily exclude Egyptian midwives. Significantly, Josephus does not indicate whether or not the midwives obeyed the king’s order. Note also that Josephus reverses the biblical order, since he puts the decree that the males be cast into the river before his instructions to the midwives. Moreover, he does not specifically state that the midwives were to put the males to death; rather, he says that they were to observe the deliveries of the Hebrew women. J. Cohen (1993:56) observes that the role of the midwives is totally absent in Jubilees, Ezekiel the Tragedian, Philo, and Bib. Ant.

Rappaport (25) suggests that Josephus makes the midwives Egyptians in order to avoid the charge that Jews do not obey the law of the land. Another apologetic factor that may have led Josephus to depict the midwives as Egyptian is that he wished to show that Pharaoh could not have imagined getting Israelite women to act as his agents in putting babies to death. If Pharaoh enforces his decree by declaring that those mothers who ventured stealthily to save their offspring should be put to death along with their babies, the non-Jewish reader might feel at least some understanding for such enforcement in the name of the importance of obedience to the law, just as the reader of Sophocles’ Antigone must identify to some degree with Creon’s position: non-obedience to the law, even if one feels that the law is unjust or immoral, is an invitation to something worse, namely anarchy. Even if this Pharaoh lacks self-control in his personal behavior and in this respect is surely subject to censure, one might argue that he, qua ruler, should be obeyed.

Similarly, in Ezekiel the Tragedian (frag. 1, lines 12-13), we find the statement that Pharaoh issued a proclamation for the Hebrew race to throw its male children into the river. So also Jubilees (47:2) and Acts 7:19. In this episode we can see the influence of the tragedians in the increased dramatization of the plight of the Israelites.

Josephus’ lack of emphasis on God may be seen in a number of passages. And yet, his treatment of the role of God vis-à-vis Moses would seem to contradict this tendency to de-emphasize the Divine. But we may comment that such a theme as making Moses the founder of his nation would be readily recognized by Josephus’ literate audience as closely paralleling the story of Romulus and Remus (among others), who likewise were exposed at birth and yet managed to survive and become the founders of the Roman nation. The fact, then, that Amram decides to entrust his child’s fate to Divine Providence (Ant. 2.219) makes Moses parallel to these distinguished forefathers of the Romans. This is a common theme also in Greek mythology, where fate takes the place of the will of God; thus, for example, Oedipus could not avoid fulfilling the oracle’s prophecy that he would kill his father and marry his mother; and Acrisius could not avoid being killed by the son, Perseus, of his daughter, Danae. On the importance of the theme of fate in Josephus see Moore (1929:371-89), Martin (1981:127-37), and Mason (1991:384-98).

Hebrew ‮עמרם‬‎, LXX Ἀμβράμ, Josephus Ἀμαράμης. In the Bible Amram’s name is not mentioned until much later (Exod. 6:20). J. Cohen (1993:49) notes the significance of this fact, which makes Amram into a major figure, while his wife, Jochebed, becomes a marginal character. Josephus omits the biblical statement (Exod. 2:1) of the marriage of Amram and Jochebed. Josephus was perhaps troubled by the apparent implication of the biblical narrative that Moses was the first-born child of Amram and Jochebed, whereas actually Aaron and Miriam were older than he. According to rabbinic tradition (Soṭah 12a, Midrash Exod. Rabbah 1.19), Amram was the greatest man of his generation. According to one view (Midrash Exod. Rabbah 1.13) he was the head of the Sanhedrin. His noble birth is also mentioned in rabbinic tradition (Sifre Num. 67, Midrash Exod. Rabbah 1.8). Gaster (1927:74) notes that the fact of Moses’ being in the seventh generation from Abraham is a distinct feature of Samaritan chronology. We find similar aggrandizement of the father’s status in Josephus’ added remarks about Gideon (Ant. 5.213), “one of the foremost among the tribe of Manasseh”; Jephthah (Ant. 5.157), “a mighty man by reason of the valor of his forefathers”; Samson, son of Manoah (Ant. 5.276), “the most notable of the Danites and without question the first in his native place”; and Kish (Ant. 6.45), “a man...of good birth.” Significantly, Gideon, Jephthah, and Samson are the three judges who are singled out by the rabbis (Rosh Hashanah 25b) as three of the least worthy leaders of the Israelites. On the word that Josephus uses here, γύναιον, for “wife,” see Ant. 1.220, 1.257, and 2.225. In rabbinic tradition (Soṭah 12a and parallels cited by Ginzberg [1925:5:394, n. 27]), Amram, because of Pharaoh’s decree, divorced his wife, whereupon all the Israelites divorced their wives. Thereupon Miriam, his daughter rebuked him, saying that his decree was actually more severe than Pharaoh’s. As a result he took his wife back, and the other Israelites did likewise. Bib. Ant. (9.1) represents the elders of the people as recommending that husbands should not have relations with wives, whereupon Amram (9.2-5) objects, reminding the Israelites of God’s promise to Abraham and declaring his decision to have relations with his wife.

Whereas Exod. 2:1-2 states merely that “a man from the house of Levi went and took to wife a daughter of Levi” and the woman conceived, Josephus here adds the motive for Amram’s fathering a child and his prayer to God.

Amram’s dream is a Josephan addition. The rabbinic tradition likewise knows of a prediction of the birth of Moses, but it is through a prophecy of Miriam and not through a dream (Soṭah 12b-13a, Megillah 14a, and parallels) that her mother was destined to bear a son who would save the Israelites, who would be cast into the waters, and through whom the miracle of the crossing of the Sea of Reeds, as well as other miracles, would be accomplished. Bib. Ant. 9.10 reports that Miriam had a dream in which God instructed Miriam to tell her parents that through the child who would be born God would work miracles and would save the Israelites. In Bib. Ant. 9.7 there is no mention of Amram’s dream; rather, we are told that Amram’s plan to have relations with his wife and to hide the pregnancy for three months was pleasing to God and that He resolved that He would do wonders through the child to be born. In Bib. Ant. 9.4 it is Amram himself who urges the elders of the Israelites not to despair of the future. After Amram makes known to the elders that he has decided to have relations with his wife, God (9.7-8), in a statement similar to that here in Josephus, indicates that the child about to be born will perform miracles and will serve Him forever. The Samaritans also have a tradition, which, though preserved only in a fourteenth-century poem, is most likely based on a much earlier source, according to Gaster (1927:73) and MacDonald (1964:160), that when God had decided that Moses was to be born He sent an angel to Amram and that during Amram’s intercourse with his wife the Lord (that is, the angel) was with him. In accord with the divine will, Amram’s wife gave birth to a son called “The Man” (i.e. “Son of Man”). When he was born, men joyfully gathered together proclaiming that the “Lord of the world,” “the faithful one of the Godhead,” “the Man of God” had come, of whom God says that “This is the one whom I have chosen.” Josephus, on theological grounds, could not, it would seem, hold such a view of Moses, which is almost Christological in its language. Moreover, Josephus, as always, has apologetic aims; the key phrase in his divine prediction about Moses, which is conspicuously absent from the much embellished Samaritan account, is that Moses will be remembered even by foreign peoples (Ant. 2.216); and, indeed, in his essay Against Apion Moses is the great example of the cultured Jew who had profound influence upon the statesmen and philosophers of other nations.

Ant. 1.239. In mentioning the bequeathing of Trogloditis to the descendants of Keturah at this point before the bequeathing of Canaan to Isaac Josephus is not following the Bible’s chronological order.

Gen. 14:14-16, as amplified by Josephus (Ant. 1.176-78). That wealth was one of the outstanding characteristics of Jacob for Josephus (see Ant. 2.7) is clear from the fact that when God speaks to Amram, the father of Moses, to encourage him in the face of the terrible decrees of Pharaoh, He reminds him that Jacob had become famous among an alien people for the height of that prosperity (εὐδαιμονίας) that he attained in his lifetime and that he left to his children. On the theme of εὐδαιμονία in Josephus see Feldman (1984-85:218-19) and Mason (1991:184-86). According to Ant. 2.183, there were 71 including Jacob, but in Ant. 2.176 Josephus, as here, says that there were 70 in all (οἱ πάντες ἑβδομήκοντα). So also Exod. 12:37, Num. 12:21.

Cf. Virgil, Aen. 1.607-9, where Aeneas expresses his gratitude to Queen Dido of Carthage for her hospitality: “So long as rivers will run into seas, so long as shadows will traverse the slopes on mountains, so long as the sky will feed the stars, always will your honor and name and praises remain.” On the fame of Moses among foreigners see Gager (1972:25-79), who notes the very positive reference to him as a philosophical lawgiver by Hecataeus of Abdera, Poseidonius, Strabo, Pompeius Trogus, Pseudo-Longinus, Numenius, Porphyry, and Pseudo-Galen. In addition, we should note that the name of Moses as a figure of great authority appears so frequently in magical documents and in treatises on alchemy that we are in quandary as to whether a given document is Jewish or Greek or Egyptian or syncretistic (Gager 1972:134-61). Indeed, he was the one figure in Jewish tradition who was well known to the pagan world. His connection with Egypt undoubtedly gave him a certain notoriety, especially during the Hellenistic period. Philo, writing within the Alexandrian milieu, asserts that while the fame of Moses’ laws had spread throughout the world, not many knew him as he really was, since Greek authors had not wanted to accord him honor, in part out of envy and in part because the ordinances of local lawgivers were often opposed to his (De Vita Mosis 1.1.1-2). Josephus declares that Apollonius Molon, Lysimachus, and others, partly from ignorance and partly from ill will, had cast aspersions upon Moses and his code, maligning him as a charlatan (γόητα) and as an impostor (ἀπατεῶνα) (Apion 2.145). The opponents of the Jews, according to Josephus, had apparently also reviled Moses as utterly unimportant (φαυλότατος) (Apion 2.290). Braun (1938:68) has pointed out the significance of the omission of Moses’ name from the list of Oriental national heroes cited by Plutarch (Is. et Osir. 24.360P), otherwise a relatively impartial authority. We may see a sample of this attempt to denigrate Moses in the remarkable comment of Alexander Polyhistor (ap. Suidas, s.v. Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ Μιλήσιος) that the laws of the Hebrews had been composed by a Hebrew woman Moso. In an age and place where grammarians and Homeric scholars were leaders of the intellectual community, one of the important figures of the intellectual scene in Alexandria in the first half of the first century C.E., Apion, known for his glosses on Homer and Philo’s counterpart as a leader of the Alexandrian anti-Jewish delegation to the Emperor Gaius Caligula, was a major advocate of such revisionist views of Moses.Apparently, Moses was so well known that pseudo-Longinus (Subl. 9.9), dating, it is generally thought, from the first half of the first century C.E. (Stern 1974:1:361), refers to him as the lawgiver (θεσμοθέτης) of the Jews, “no chance person” (οὐχ ὁ τυχὼν ἀνήρ) a phrase also used of him by Strabo (16.2.36.761)—,”since he understood and gave expression to the power of the divinity as it deserved.” It would seem that “Longinus” felt that Moses was sufficiently well known that he does not need to refer to him by name here. Mommsen (1885:5:494) suggests that “Longinus” was a Hellenized Jew, but it seems more likely that he was a non-Jew, especially in view of the fact that he speaks of “us Greeks” (12.4). At the end of the first century, Josephus’ contemporary Quintilian (3.7.21), like “Longinus,” deems it unnecessary to name Moses but rather refers to him merely as “the founder of the Jewish superstition.” Likewise, the Script. Hist. Aug. (Vita Claudii 25.2.4-5) mentions Moses by name as having lived 125 years, without bothering to introduce him further to the reader, as if he were well known. This is Josephus’ addition, perhaps motivated by the fact that Josephus himself was a priest and therefore descended from Aaron, Moses’ brother. On Josephus’ abiding interest in the priesthood see Blenkinsopp (1974:239-62), Feldman (1990:419-21), and Mason (1991:270-71).

Hebrew ‮יוכבד‬‎, LXX Ἰωχαβέδ, Josephus Ἰωχαβέλη. Her name is not mentioned in the biblical text until Exod. 6:20. Thackeray (ad loc.) suggests that the spelling Jochabel for Jochebed arises from the confusion of the Greek letters Δ and Λ, which are so similar in shape. The whole vision sequence is Josephus’ addition.

The source of this extra-biblical tradition is probably the biblical statement (Exod. 1:19) of the midwives to Pharaoh that the Hebrew women are vigorous and are delivered of their babies before the midwives arrive. The rabbinic tradition (Soṭah 12a, Midrash Exod. Rabbah 1.20) goes so far as to say that Jochebed, Moses’ mother, gave birth without any pain—a proof, according to the second-century Rabbi Judah bar Ilai, that righteous women are not included in the decree pronounced upon Eve (Gen. 3:16). Josephus says merely that Jochebed did not feel violent pain. Von Ranke (1883:30 ff.) theorizes that it was from Josephus that the rabbis derived their tradition that Jochebed gave birth without labor pains; but, aside from the fact that Josephus generally avoids exaggeration and rationalizes for his non-Jewish audience, the rabbis never mention Josephus, and there is no indication that they knew his works. Moreover, there is a rabbinic tradition (Midrash Exod. Rabbah 1.19, Baba Batra 120a) that whereas Jochebed was 130 years old when she gave birth to Moses, “the marks of youth came back to her, her flesh was again smooth, the wrinkles were straightened out, and her beauty returned.” There are also traditions (Midrash Exod. Rabbah 11.20, Midrash Deut. Rabbah 11.10) that when he came out of his mother’s womb Moses was already circumcised, that when he was only three days old he not only walked but even talked with his parents, and that he actually refused to drink milk from his mother’s breasts until she had received her payment from Pharaoh’s daughter. There is also a tradition (Midrash Exod. Rabbah 1.20) that at the moment of the child’s appearance the whole house was flooded with light, i.e., the light that God had created at the beginning of creation but had kept hidden, anticipating the wickedness of the generation of the deluge and of the Tower of Babel, who were unworthy of it. If he knew such traditions Josephus chose to omit them, presumably because he felt that his readers would find them hard to believe. In Bib. Ant. 9.5 Amram advises the elders of the Israelites not to decree that husbands separate from their wives inasmuch as when their wives conceive they will not be recognized as pregnant until three months have passed. The rabbinic tradition (Soṭah 12b, Exod. Rabbah 1.20, and parallels) notes that Jochebed had been pregnant for three months when she separated herself from Amram. Midrash Gen. Rabbah 85.10 remarks that a woman does not become noticeably pregnant until the end of the third month. In Exod. 2:2 it is Moses’ mother who hides him for three months. Josephus here follows the LXX, which says that they—that is, Moses’ father and mother—hid him for three months. So also Heb. 11:23.

Here Josephus adds the reason why Amram felt that he could no longer hide the child. Similarly, Philo (De Vita Mosis 1.3.10) explains: “Since, as is often the case under a monarch, there were persons prying into holes and corners, ever eager to carry some new report to the king, his parents, in their fear that their efforts to save one would but cause a larger number, namely themselves, to perish with him, exposed him with tears on the banks of the river.” A key Stoic term, πρόνοια (“care,” “providence”), plays a crucial role in Josephus’ accounts of both Abraham and of Moses. See Attridge (1976: 71-107). We have already noted Amram’s confidence in God’s providence, as seen in his decision here tO place the infant Moses in an ark in the Nile River rather than to continue to rear him in secret. In Josephus it is Amram, rather than his wife Jochebed (Exod. 2:2), who hides the infant Moses, thus taking upon himself the tremendous risk of incurring the wrath of Pharaoh while also winning for himself the reputation for courage that the Bible itself attributes to Jochebed. In an extra-biblical detail, Josephus explains why Amram (again, rather than Jochebed) chose to put the baby in a basket upon the river, namely to commit the salvation of the child to God. This is particularly effective because generally Josephus de-emphasizes the role of God, presumably in order to win the favor of his rationalistic readers. As J. Cohen (1993:49) aptly puts it, the nameless man of the house of Levi (Exod. 2:1) becomes Amram, a major figure, whereas his wife, Jochebed, becomes a marginal character. Similarly, as Cohen also notes, the figure of the father becomes more dominant in the rabbinic midrash.

Exod. 2:3 speaks of a basket of bulrushes. Bib. Ant. 9.12 speaks of an ark (so also the LXX, θίβις) and adds that it was made from the bark of a cedar tree. This statement about the size of Moses’ ark is Josephus’ addition.

This statement as to why Moses’ ark was smeared with asphalt is Josephus’ addition. In Exod. 2:3 it is Moses’ mother alone who places him in a basket, which she puts among the reeds at the river’s brink. The statement that Moses’ parents put his ark upon the river so as to place him into God’s hands is Josephus’ addition. In Exod. 2:5 the basket containing Moses remains among the reeds; there is no indication that it is carried by the river, let alone that swimmers have to fetch it from the river (Ant. 2.224). In the fresco of the synagogue in Dura-Europos, as in Josephus, the ark is to be seen in the river itself. Midrash Exod. Rabbah 1.21 states specifically that Jochebed cast Moses into the river itself so that the astrologers might think that he had already been cast into the water and hence would not search for him. Hebrew ‮מרים‬‎ (Exod. 15:20), LXX Μαριάμ, Josephus Μαριάμη. Miriam’s name is not cited here in the present context in the Hebrew, where, in fact, her name is not mentioned until Exod. 15:20. In Exod. 2:4 we read that Moses’ sister placed herself afar off, but there is no indication as to who told her to do so. Presumably Josephus was concerned that Jochebed might be accused of abandoning her child. The statement that Miriam went along beside the ark as it was borne is Josephus’ addition.

Josephus realizes that his readers would be aware of the many cases in mythology and history (e.g., Perseus, Oedipus, Romulus, and Cyrus) where the fates could not be thwarted. Cf. Ant. 2.209 for a similar statement.

It is instructive to compare Josephus’ comments here with those of the rabbinic tradition (Soṭah 12b, Midrash Exod. Rabbah 1.24) on the scene in which Moses is exposed in the river in a basket. In the latter we have a scenario in which the angels ask God how He can permit Moses to die when he is destined to sing a song of praise to Him after the crossing of the Sea of Reeds. Josephus would have found a scene with angels difficult to make credible to his sophisticated audience. What we have is Josephus’ editorial comment that via the rescue of Moses God showed that human intelligence is of no worth in the face of the divine will. Contrast Bib. Ant. 9.7, who, in citing the predictions of Moses’ birth, enumerates the signs that God will perform through him, with Josephus, who puts the stress rather on Moses as the deliverer of the Israelites.

The princess’s name is not given in the Bible. In the Book of Jubilees (47:5) her name is Tharmuth, almost identical with the name found here. Syncellus (1.227) cites two names, Thermouthis and Pharie. Artapanus (ap. Eus., Pr. Ev. 9.27) refers to her as Merris. In 1 Chr. (4:18) and in the Talmud (Megillah 13a) her name is given as Bithiah. In 1 Chr. (4:18) she is said to have married Mered, the son of Ezrah of the family of Caleb. According to Midrash Lev. Rabbah 1.3, she became a proselyte and married Caleb. According to Exod. 2:5, Pharaoh’s daughter came down to bathe at the river. Josephus attempts to make his narrative more appealing to his Greek readers by introducing romantic motifs. Thus, the scene in which Josephus (Ant. 2.224) introduces Pharaoh’s daughter playing by the river bank is reminiscent of a similar scene describing Nausicaa at the shore of Phaeacia in Homer (Od. 6.100 ff.). Bib. Ant. 9.15 and Midrash Hagadol (on Gen. 23:1, ed. Margulies, p. 369) add that Pharaoh’s daughter came down to the river in accordance with what she had seen in a dream. According to Exod. 2:5, Pharaoh’s daughter sent her maid to get the child. According to Bib. Ant. 9.13 and rabbinic tradition (Soṭah 12a, Midrash Exod. Rabbah 1.24), Pharaoh’s daughter noticed that the child was born circumcised. In Exod. 2:6 we read that Pharaoh’s daughter took pity on him; in Josephus she is impressed with his size and beauty. Philo (De Vita Mosis 1.4.15) says that the princess both approved of his beauty and took pity on him.

One of the major devices in Greek tragedy is the use of irony, as we see notably in Sophocles’ Oedipus Tyrannus (see Aristotle [Poetica 11.1452A12-52B8]). Josephus introduces this motif most effectively at several points in his narrative. Thus, whereas Exod. 2:5 simply indicates that Pharaoh’s daughter sent her maid to fetch the baby Moses, Josephus points out the irony in the situation in that the very persons who by reason of Moses’ birth had decreed the destruction of all children of Hebrew parentage were made to condescend to nourish and tend him. On the word that Josephus uses here, γύναιον for “little woman,” see Ant. 1.220, 1.257, 2.210.

So also in midrashic tradition (Midrash Exod. Rabbah 1.30). Revel (1923-24:301) suggests that Josephus may here be of the opinion, later espoused by the Karaites, that the nursing of a Hebrew infant by a gentile woman is prohibited. Josephus here tries to explain how Miriam happened to be present. Exod. 2:7, after noting Pharaoh’s daughter’s statement that this was one of the Hebrews’ children, then continues, without further explanation: “Then his sister said to Pharaoh’s daughter.” Philo adds merely that Pharaoh’s daughter, after opening the basket, realized that it would not be safe to take the infant to the palace and wondered what to do, whereupon Miriam guessed her difficulty and offered to find a Hebrew nurse (De Vita Mosis 1.4.15-16). The rabbinic tradition, on the other hand, declares that though Pharaoh’s daughter, Thermuthis, handed the infant Moses to all the Egyptian women he would not take their breasts (Soṭah 12b, Midrash Exod. Rabbah 1.25). The rabbinic tradition here has the infant Moses exclaim: “Shall a mouth that will speak with the Shechinah suck what is unclean?” (The text reads “He said,” and some commentators identify the speaker as God; but the nearest noun in the previous sentence is Moses; and, indeed, God is not mentioned at all.) A similar remarkable utterance is found in the Samaritan Book of Asatir (9.13), which declares that Moses would drink only of undefiled milk, the implication being that he had refused the milk of Egyptian nurses. In Josephus it is Miriam who tells Thermuthis that it is useless to summon women who have no ties of kinship with the child.

This scene in Josephus is more lively than in Exod. 2:8, where the princess simply tells Miriam to go to fetch a nurse for the baby. Josephus, obviously aware that the princess would not have given the baby to his own mother if she had known the identity of the woman who had been called, is careful to add that she was known to no one. There is increased drama in the picture of the infant Moses who gleefully fastens upon the breast of his mother. Exod. 2:9 says simply that after Jochebed arrived, the princess told her to take the baby and nurse him. Josephus, aware that the reader would have wondered why the princess would have given the baby to someone whom she did not know and whose ability to nurse the child she had not witnessed, adds here that the child clung to Jochebed’s breast.

This is the first half of the name of Moyses (Mouses). According to Exod. 2:10, Pharaoh’s daughter named the child Moses “because I drew him out (‮משׁיתהו‬‎) of the water.” Josephus apparently wonders that an Egyptian would give a name derived from Hebrew and consequently gives an Egyptian etymology for the name. Elsewhere (Apion 1.286) Josephus, in refuting Manetho’s assertion that Moses’ name was Osarsiph, insists that his name signifies “one saved out of the water,” and repeats that “water is called by the Egyptians μῶυ.” Philo (De Vita Mosis 1.4.17) likewise says that the Egyptians call water μῶυ. This agrees with a Coptic etymology: mōu, “water,” ouaiṣi, “save.” Goodenough (1953-68:9:223 n.196) suggests that Philo and Josephus reflect an account that originated in Hellenistic Egypt, and that this etymology was substituted by readers of the LXX, who also spoke Coptic, since the original Hebrew etymology became meaningless in Greek translation. The name may have an Egyptian origin: mw, “water,” ḥsy, “exalted,” which is transcribed in papyri as ἑσιῆς, hence the Greek spelling of Moses’ name, Μωυσῆς. See Griffiths (1953:225-26). In actuality, however, the name apparently comes from the Egyptian verb msy, “to give birth,” and frequently appears as “Mose” with the name of a god, for example, Tuthmosis (“Toth is born”) and Rameses (“Re is born”). According to Exod. 2:10, it is Pharaoh’s daughter alone who gave Moses his name.

Inasmuch as Josephus’ literate audience was likely to be well versed in philosophy, it should not be surprising that just as Abraham is depicted by Josephus as a Stoic-like philosopher who proves the existence of God (Ant. 1.156), so Moses is here presented as a Stoic-like sage, remarkable for his contempt for toils (πόνων καταφρονήσει), a typically Stoic phrase. Like Demetrius (ap. Eus., Pr. Ev. 9.29.2), Philo (De Vita Mosis 1.2.7), and the rabbis (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 19.7, Midrash Song of Songs Rabbah 5.1, Pesiqta de-Rav Kahana 23.10 [ed. Mandelbaum, p. 344]), Josephus here presents the extra-biblical addition that Moses was the seventh generation after Abraham. Cf. Ant. 2.178. Some editors regard these last two sentences as an interpolation, but they are in accordance with the genealogy given in Exod. 6:16-18. Thackeray (ad loc.) regards the statement that Moses was in the fourth generation from Jacob as being in conflict with the 400 years’ stay of the Israelites in Egypt (Gen. 15:13, Ant. 2.204). Nodet (ad loc.), however, asserts that these sentences are intended to make clear that despite the fact that he bore an Egyptian name Moses was a Hebrew.

Cf. Luke 2:46-47: when Jesus was 12 his parents “found him in the Temple, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions; and all who heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers.” The detail that the child showed his excellence in his games is paralleled by the anecdote of Cyrus, the king of Persia, who as a mere child played at being king and who ordered one of the village boys to be beaten because he had disobeyed his command (Herodotus 1.114). To be sure, Nodet (ad loc.) reads παιδείαις with several manuscripts (OMSPA1L) in place of παιδιαῖς, the reading of a single manuscript (R), which has been adopted by all other editors, including Niese, Naber, and Thackeray. If so, the meaning would be that Moses showed his maturer excellence in his educational activities rather than in his childish games. But the sixth-century Latin version ascribed to Cassidorus, reading infantia, clearly favors the reading adopted by the other editors, as does the context, which speaks of Moses’ extraordinary precociousness in his early years. In Moses’ third year, presumably after he had completed the standard nursing period of two years (cf. Mishnah, Nedarim 2:1 and Ketubot 60a). Such a wondrous increase, far from making the whole story of Moses less credible, might well have been viewed by Josephus’ audience as a fulfillment of the advice given by Aristotle (Rhetorica 3.14.7.1415A-B), that one should (presumably, up to a point) include the marvelous in one’s discourse, inasmuch as this will draw attention to one’s subject. In the rabbinic tradition we are told that since Exod. 2:6 says not that the infant but that the lad was crying, the child, though an infant, had a lad’s voice (Tanḥuma Shemot 8.9, p. 213). Furthermore, we hear that when he was only 3 months old he prophesied and declared that he was destined to receive the law amid flames of fire (Midrash Rabbah Deut. 11.10). Again, when Moses was but 5 years old he appeared as though he were 11 years of age (cf. Yalquṭ 165 [ed. Heyman, p. 28]). Midrash Exod. Rabbah 1.27 also reports his unusual growth. Indeed, he is said to have grown to a height of 10 cubits, that is 15 feet (Bekorot 44a). Philo (De Vita Mosis 1.5.18) likewise asserts that he grew and thrived without a break. Philo discourses at even greater length than does Josephus on the physical and mental precociousness of the child Moses (De Vita Mosis 1.5.18-24). Philo is more eager to present Moses as the prototype of the philosopher-king, and hence stresses that even as an infant he did not engage in fun, frolic, and sport but rather applied himself to learning and seeing what was sure to profit the soul.

Similarly, the Midrash states that because Moses was so beautiful everyone wished to look upon him, and whoever saw him could not turn from him (Midrash Exod. Rabbah 1.26 on Exod. 2:10, Tanḥuma Shemot 8 [p. 213]; cf. Sir. 44:22-45:1). According to the midrashic tradition (Tanḥuma Exod. 8 [p. 213]), such was Moses’ beauty that Pharaoh’s daughter did not allow him to leave the palace, since whoever saw him could not detach himself from the sight. Stephen (Acts 7:20) likewise refers to Moses’ charming (ἀστεῖος) appearance. Philo stresses his beauty in several contexts (De Vita Mosis 1.2.9, 1.4.15, 1.5.18). Rabbinic tradition has a similar remark in connection with Joseph, to the effect that when Joseph traveled through Egypt as viceroy, maidens threw gifts at him to make him turn his eyes in their direction so as to give them an opportunity to gaze upon his beauty (Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 38). Josephus, however, in his appeal to his rationalistic readers, avoids the exaggeration of the rabbis, who compare Moses’ beauty to that of an angel (Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 48.21).

The childlessness of Pharaoh’s daughter, unmentioned in the Bible, similarly heightens the interest in her discovery of the infant Moses. Artapanus (ap. Eus., Pr. Ev. 9.27.3) also states that she was barren. Philo (De Vita Mosis 1.4.13) reports that the princess had been married for a considerable time but had never conceived a child, though she naturally desired one, particularly a son, to succeed to her father’s kingdom. Both Philo and Josephus may have drawn this detail from Artapanus. That the princess adopted Moses is Josephus’ addition. The whole scene that follows is Josephus’ addition. This is all the more effective, coming from a non-Jew; in the Bible it is Moses’ mother Jochebed who is said to have seen that her child was goodly (‮טוב‬‎—a word that the LXX renders as ἀστεῖον (“townbred,” “polite,”, “good,” “pretty,” “graceful,” “charming”) (Exod. 2:2). Josephus here employs the same nouns (μορφή and φρόνημα) in the description of the infant Moses by Pharaoh’s daughter that are used by Dionysius of Halicarnassus in describing Romulus and Remus (Ant. Rom. 1.79.10). Apparently, this tradition of Moses’ beauty had even reached the non-Jewish world, inasmuch as we find Pompeius Trogus (ap. Justin, Hist. Phil. 36, Epitome 2.11), who lived at the end of the first century B.C.E. and at the beginning of the first century C.E., stating that Moses’ beauty of appearance (formae pulchritudo) recommended him. This is Josephus’ addition.

We see here a very human side to Pharaoh, and consequently have much more feeling for him, in Josephus’ elaboration (cf. Exod. 2:10) of Pharaoh’s affectionate clasping (προσστερνισάμενος) of the infant Moses when Pharaoh’s daughter presents him to him. Midrash Exod. Rabbah (1.26), Midrash Deut. Rabbah (11.10), and parallels similarly tell how Moses took the crown from Pharaoh’s head and threw it down. Flusser (1971:63-67) notes a similar narrative in a Byzantine work, Palaea Historica, dating from not before the ninth century (in Vassiliev [1893:227-28]). There it is Moses who takes Pharaoh’s crown (as in the rabbinic tradition) and tramples upon it. Consequently, one of the noblemen who advise Pharaoh suggests that gold and a burning torch (rather than an onyx stone and a burning coal, as in the rabbinic tradition) be placed before Moses, whereupon Moses chooses the torch and puts it into his mouth (there is no mention of the role of the angel Gabriel in saving Moses, as in the rabbinic tradition). But the differences between the Josephan and rabbinic versions here are instructive. In Midrash Exod. Rabbah 1.26 it is Moses who takes the crown from Pharaoh’s head and places it upon his own as a clear intimation that he would some day displace Pharaoh. Here in Josephus, it is Pharaoh himself who proceeds to place the crown upon Moses’ head. It is only at this point that we have Josephus’ parallel to Moses’ act of flinging the crown to the ground and trampling upon it. In Sefer Hayashar 19 (ed. Dan, p. 289) Moses is put to the test to see whether he is truly a threat to the Egyptian throne, by having a burning coal and an onyx stone placed before him to see which he will choose. If Josephus had included such an incident it would have reinforced the view that the Jews were aggressive, since, according to the Midrash, while Moses actually stretched forth his little hand toward the onyx stone it was redirected by the angel Gabriel toward the live coal. Thereupon Moses burnt his hand, lifted it to his mouth, and burnt part of his lips and tongue, thereby incurring the speech impediment that the Bible ascribes to him (Exod. 4:10). Had Josephus reproduced the tradition of Moses’ seizing Pharaoh’s crown, the parallel tradition of Zagreus, that is Dionysus, who, soon after his birth, ascended the throne of his father Zeus and mimicked him by brandishing lightning in his little hand, might well have suggested itself to his pagan audience (Nonnus, Dionysiaca 6.269 and 27.228). Josephus, we may guess, was particularly sensitive to the charge of Jewish aggressiveness that such a presentation would suggest because the Jews had been twice expelled from Rome because of their bold (apparently missionary) tactics, first in 139 B.C.E. (see Val. Max. 1.3.3) and next in 19 C.E. (Ant. 18.81-84; Tacitus, Ann. 2.85.4; Suetonius, Tib. 36.1; Dio Cassius 57.18.5a). Hence, even when Moses removes from his head the crown that Pharaoh had placed upon it, Josephus is careful to add that he does so out of mere childishness (νηπιότητα). Note the role of providence (πρόνοια)—a key Stoic term and a major theme of the Antiquities—in preserving Moses’ life (cf. Ant. 2.236).

The Midrash (Exod. Rabbah 1.26) similarly reports that the Egyptian astrologers stated that they feared that this child, who had taken Pharaoh’s crown and placed it upon his head, was the one who would deprive him of his rule, whereupon some wanted to behead him and others wanted to burn him.

Significantly, we are told here not only that the king’s daughter, who was raising Moses, snatched him away to safety, but that the king himself delayed to slay him from a hesitation induced by God. Such hesitation, even if induced by God, would redound to the Pharaoh’s credit in the eyes of Josephus and of his readers. The Bible is extraordinarily brief about Moses’ education during his youth, contenting itself with stating merely that “the child grew” (Exod. 2:10). By contrast, Philo, concerned to portray the legislator of the Jewish people as a kind of philosopher-king in the Platonic tradition, declares that to educate Moses teachers arrived from various countries and from the provinces of Egypt, while others were summoned from Greece under promise of high reward (De Vita Mosis 1.5.21). In a short time Moses advanced beyond their capacity to teach him and, in true Platonic fashion, he exemplified the principle of ἀνάμνησις, as described in Plato’s Meno: his seemed a case rather of recollection (ἀνάμνησις) than of learning; indeed, he himself devised and propounded problems that his teachers could not easily solve. Philo enumerates the subjects—arithmetic, geometry, and music, as well as hieroglyphics and religion (notably the Egyptians’ reverence for animals, to which they paid divine honors)—that the Egyptian teachers taught Moses, and informs the reader that the Greeks taught him the rest of the liberal arts, while still others instructed him in Assyrian letters (presumably Aramaic) and the Chaldean science of astronomy (De Vita Mosis 1.5.23). According to Acts 7:22, Moses was instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians. Perhaps Josephus would have been embarrassed to say with Philo that Moses, who insisted on a monotheism with no representation of the Divine, had been taught hieroglyphics and the details of the Egyptian worship of animals. That the Hebrews at this point placed their hope completely in Moses is Josephus’ addition.

Josephus must have been embarrassed by the fact that Moses, the great leader of the Jewish people, was actually a murderer, who showed such lack of respect for judicial procedure that he took the law into his own lands in his impulsive slaying of the Egyptian overseer (Exod. 2:11-12). Artapanus (ap. Eus., Pr. Ev. 9.27.18) seeks to defend Moses by presenting a scenario in which Moses, in self-defense, slays a certain Chanethothes, who had been designated by the jealous Pharaoh to kill him. Philo adds that the Egyptian overseers were exceedingly harsh and ferocious, comparable in their savagery to venomous animals, and that the Egyptian whom Moses slew was the cruelest of all (De Vita Mosis 1.8.43-44). Moses killed him, says Philo, “because he not only made no concession but was rendered harsher than ever by his exhortations, beating with breathless promptness those who did not execute his orders, persecuting them to the point of death and subjecting them to every outrage” (De Vita Mosis 1.8.44). Philo observes: “Moses considered that his action in killing him was a righteous action. And righteous it was that one who only lived to destroy men should himself be destroyed.” Elsewhere, Philo interprets it allegorically (Legum Allegoriae 3.12.37). Josephus, as he does so often, when confronted with such embarrassing material, simply omits the incident. This explanation as to why the Egyptians did not kill Moses, in view of his apparent threat to the kingship, is Josephus’ addition. Another possible translation, based on certain inferior MSS (RO), cited by Thackeray (ad loc.) is: “But since there was no apparent motive why he should be killed, whether by the king, whose relative he was by adoption, or by any other who had greater hardihood in the interests,” etc.

The sole biblical basis for the lengthy episode of Moses’ Ethiopian campaign is a single verse: “And Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses on account of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married; for he had married an Ethiopian woman” (Num. 12:1). One view, found in Midrash Exod. Rabbah (1.27), is that the Cushite woman is Zipporah the Midianite, Moses’ first wife; this would be supported by Demetrius (ap. Eus., Pr. Ev. 9.29.3) and Ezekiel the Tragedian, 59-64, who identify Midian and Ethiopia. That a single word (‮כשׁית‬‎, “Ethiopian”) could have given rise to so far-reaching a legend is the assumption of Geiger (1857:199) and Halévy (1927:114). Rappaport (117:n.141) disputes this and contends, rather, that the legend merely leaned on this word. But, we may remark, midrashic exegesis is full of just such lengthy explanations.Josephus has resorted to this extraordinary expansion for several reasons. In the first place, the episode supplies a case history both of the causes of Jew-hatred and of the benefits that the Jews have given to society. On the one hand, it admirably illustrates Josephus’ contention that the two basic feelings of those prejudiced against Jews are hatred (μῖσος) and envy (φθόνος): the Egyptians, by appointing him as their general in the extremely dangerous campaign against the Ethiopians, hoped, like Proetus with Bellerophon or David with Uriah, to rid themselves of Moses by guile (Apion 1.224). On the other hand, the episode shows how much the Egyptians actually owed to the Israelite leader Moses, for he was able to save the Egyptians from the threat posed by their most dangerous foe (Ant. 2.281-82). Once the Egyptians are saved by Moses, however, Pharaoh, motivated by envy of Moses’ generalship and by fear of seeing himself abased, decides to murder Moses (Ant. 2.255). Josephus thus shifts the reason for Pharaoh’s wrath from his umbrage at Moses’ murder of the Egyptian (Exod. 2:11-15) to envy of his military ability. Josephus may be implicitly answering such anti-Jewish writers as Manetho by suggesting that the Egyptians, rather than calumniating the Jews, should be grateful to them for the aid rendered to them by the Jews through Moses; Jews actually are patriotic, as seen in the instance of Moses, who risked his life to save the Egyptians from the Ethiopian threat.In the second place, the episode disproves the contention that the Jews are cowards who are militarily inept. On the contrary, Moses turns out to be a brilliant strategist who is fearless in battle against the Ethiopians; and the Jewish people can thus look back with pride upon having such a founding father. This point is especially effective, since even so great a military leader as the Persian king Cambyses (Herodotus [3.17-26]), having been unsuccessful in his attempt to conquer Ethiopia, had to make an ignominious retreat to Egypt (Herodotus [3.25]), and had succeeded in conquering only the area immediately adjacent to Egypt (Herodotus [3.97]). Indeed, the Ethiopians had a reputation for being invincible (Strabo [16.4.4]); and even Alexander the Great had failed to overcome them. Consequently, as Holladay (1983, 1:235, n. 56) points out, victories over the Ethiopians became a frequent motif for enhancing the standing of heroes, e.g. Osiris (Diod. [1.17.1, 18.3-4]), Sesostris (Diod. [1.55.1, 1.94.4]; Herodotus [2.110]; Strabo [16.4.4]), and Semiramis (Diod. [2.14.4]).Thirdly, Josephus seeks by means of the episode to provide more flesh and blood to his portrait of the Israelite leader Moses. Given the biblical text alone, we may well wonder what qualifications a shepherd such as Moses had to lead hundreds of thousands of Israelites in a trek through an unknown desert and in military struggles against numerous nations. The Ethiopian episode, in effect, turns out to be a proving ground for Moses, since already here he shows military sagacity in leading an army through a desert against a foe renowned for bravery and military excellence (Ant. 2.244). To some degree Josephus may have modeled Moses’ campaign against the Ethiopians upon the biblical data of Moses’ campaign across the Sinai desert.Fourthly, whereas the ibis was considered by the Egyptians to be divine, Josephus, confronted with the Egyptian claim that their religion was of extreme antiquity, portrays the ibis as being merely a very useful part of Moses’ strategy to overcome the snakes infesting the desert.Fifthly, the episode provides romantic interest for Josephus’ readers. Indeed, Ethiopia always had romantic associations for the Greeks and Romans, inaccessible as it was and hence, as seen, for example in the later novel by Heliodorus, linked with all sorts of marvels in the Greek and Roman mind (see Snowden [1970]). Here, too, there is an apologetic strain, in that Moses abides by his agreement and marries the Ethiopian princess, whereas in the parallel stories of the Graeco-Roman legendary and historical traditions, the hero typically, as noted below, betrays the traitoress.

This is hardly the place to enter into an extended discussion of Josephus’ source for this episode, the literature on which is considerable, See, in particular, the following: Braun (1938); Flusser (1971); Halévy (1927); Lévy (1907); Rajak (1978); Rappaport (1930); Runnalls (1983); Shinan (1978); and Silver (1973-74). Wiedemann (1900:171-75) mentions a graffito in which we learn that under the Nineteenth Dynasty, in the time of Rameses II, Ethiopia, then an Egyptian province, had an Egyptian governor named Mesui, whose identification with Moses has been proposed; Wiedemann thinks that the two were interchanged in a half-historical Egyptian tale. This may be the historical basis of Josephus’ tale, though Lévy (1907:205) objects on chronological and other grounds to the identification of Mesui and Moses. Nevertheless, he postulates (p. 206) that Artapanus’ account reflects an historical conquest of the Upper Nile.As to Josephus’ source there are four major theories: (1) Josephus derived it from a now-lost midrash. This is the view of von Ranke (1883:3.2.18); Heller (1928:631); Rappaport (28-29 and 117, n. 143); and Schalit (1:lxxi). The fact that a parallel for Moses’ marriage with the Ethiopian princess is not found in Artapanus but appears only in midrashim would argue for this explanation. As to why it is not found in the older midrashim and, indeed, does not appear in rabbinic literature until the eleventh century (Jerusalem Targum Num. 12:1 and parallels cited by Rappaport [117, n. 143]) suggests that perhaps the portrayal of Moses, the Levite, as a war hero was expunged by the opponents of the Levite Hasmoneans. The Hasmoneans, however, looked upon themselves as Kohanim (priests), from whom the Levites sprang, rather than as Levites; and, in any case, Moses was such a national hero that such censorship seems unlikely. Another problem with this theory is that these rabbinic sources depict Moses as fighting on the side of the Ethiopians, marrying the widow of the Ethiopian king, refraining from relations with her, and reigning as king of Ethiopia for forty years; but in Josephus, Moses attacks the Ethiopians and marries the daughter of the king, while there is no mention of the other midrashic details. On the other hand, Frankel (1851:119, n. k) conjectures that the Ethiopian episode in the late midrashim was borrowed from Josephus through Josippon; but Josippon, in the extant version, does not have any such episode. (2) Josephus had an Alexandrian Jewish source, which was, as Braun (1938:26-27) postulates, a pro-Jewish reply to an Egyptian account, such as is found in (pseudo-)Manetho. This source is usually identified as Artapanus (ap. Eus., Pr. Ev. 9.27. 7-10); so Bloch (1879:60-62), Freudenthal (1874-75:169-70), Ginzberg (1925:5:409-10, n. 80), and Heinemann (1935:372). Sterling (1992:270-76) has set forth the accounts of Artapanus and Josephus in synoptic fashion, concluding that there are no verbal parallels and that in their details almost all the episodes differ. (Note, incidentally, that both Artapanus and Josephus are silent about Moses’ slaying of the Egyptian overseer.) But Artapanus omits the crucial story of Moses’ marriage with the Ethiopian princess. Halévy (1927:115) asserts that he did so for apologetic reasons, inasmuch as he did not want to make Moses figure in a love story; but, in view of the fact that Artapanus does attribute to Moses such un-Jewish conceptions as the introduction of the worship of cats, dogs, and ibises (ap. Eus., Pr. Ev. 9.27.4), we may assume that he was seeking to impress his pagan audience, who certainly would have appreciated such a love story as that of Moses and Tharbis. Moreover, Artapanus attributes to Moses the foundation of Meroe, so named from Merris, Moses’ adoptive mother, whereas Josephus (Ant. 2.249) says that Meroe drew its name from the sister of Cambyses. Finally, Josephus never mentions Artapanus, though he surely had ample opportunity to do so, particularly in his apologetic treatise Against Apion. Lévy (1907:201) postulates that both Artapanus and Josephus borrowed from Pseudo-Hecataeus, who tells of the campaign of Sesostris against the Ethiopians (ap. Diod. 1.54). Braun (1938:99-100) agrees that Josephus’ story of Tharbis derives from a pre-Artapanean version, and that the omissions in Artapanus himself can be explained in light of Artapanus’ habit of selectivity in citing only religious and cultural data rather than warlike and erotic events of his sources. Willrich (1895:168-69) adopted this view, but later retracted it (1900:111-14). Hölscher (1916:1959) postulates a lost Alexandrian midrash as Josephus’ source both for this addition and for many other changes in his paraphrase of the Bible. Schalit (1:xlviii-xlix) concludes that both Artapanus and Josephus derive from a common source (he suggests Alexander Polyhistor), but that Josephus’ version represents a later stage of its development. Wacholder (1962:58) suggests that the source was Nicolaus of Damascus, since the interweaving of romance and warfare and an anti-Egyptian bias are salient characteristics of Nicolaus’ presentation. The view that Josephus had an Alexandrian Jewish source is plausible, inasmuch as a story about a war between Egypt and Ethiopia would be of particular relevance to the Egyptians, for whom the Ethiopians were a perpetual, never conquered, foe. Walter (1967-68:70-71) concludes that Josephus is dependent upon Artapanus but that he has greatly modified that account and has drawn material from other sources. Still, we may wonder, though admittedly the argumentum ex silentio is hardly conclusive, why Philo, who writes at such length apologetically about Moses in his De Vita Mosis and is particularly concerned to answer the charges of Jew-haters, does not repeat this story, which would have served to answer so many of their contentions. The romantic motif may have come from the Ninus Romance, which, according to Rattenberg (1933:211-57) and Braun (1938:9), dates from the first century B.C.E. (3) Josephus modelled the story, or at least the Tharbis episode, on one or more popular stories drawn from mythology or legend: Salia, the Etruscan princess who was abducted by Cathetus, who was madly in love with her (Alexander Polyhistor, ap. Plut. [Parallela Graeca et Romana 40B (315EF)]); the Amazon Antiope, who falls in love with Theseus and surrenders the city to him (Pausanias [1.2.1]); the Roman Tarpeia, who opened the gate of the Roman fortress to the Sabine Titus Tatius, whom she loved (Livy 1.11; Ovid, Fasti 1.261 ff.; Dion. Hal., Ant. Rom. 2.38; Prop. 4.4); Scylla, who pulled out the purple hair that grew on her father’s head and on which his life depended, so that Minos, whom she loved, might capture her city of Megara (Apollodorus 3.15.8); Polycrita, who (in a direct reversal of the story of Moses and Tharbis) saves her country by taking advantage of the love for her of the general who was besieging her city (Parthenius 9.18; Plut., Mulierum Virtutes 17; Gell., Noctes Atticae 3.15; Polyaenus 8.36); Peisidice, who betrayed her city because of her love for Achilles, who was besieging it (Parthenius 21); Leucophrye, who betrayed her father to her lover (Parthenius 5); Nanis, the daughter of Croesus, who betrayed her father to her lover Cyrus, king of the Persians (Parthenius 22); Demonice, who betrayed her city because of her love for Brennus, king of the Galatians, who was besieging it (Plut., Parallela Minora 15); Comaitho (Apollodorus 2.4.7). (4) Josephus invented it himself. This is the view of Heinemann (1935, 374), who avers that the way that Josephus embellishes the story of Joseph and Potiphar’s wife shows how much a romance like this one would reflect Josephus’ taste; but as Braun (1934) and Sprödowsky (1937) assert, Josephus’ portrait of Joseph itself depends largely on older legendary products.

In Artapanus (ap. Eus., Pr. Ev. 9.27.7) the Pharaoh Chenephres, seeking to kill Moses on some reasonable pretext, sends him as commander against the Ethiopians. The late medieval midrash, Divrei Hayamim shel Moshe Rabbenu (Jellinek 1853:2:6), states that Moses rendered service to the Ethiopians in permitting them to re-enter their city, which the soothsayer Balaam had surrounded with high walls and which he had filled with serpents. According to Artapanus (ap. Eus., Pr. Ev. 9.27.3), the king’s name was Chenephres, the brother and successor of Cheops. Cf. Herodotus (2.127) and Diodorus Siculus (1.64.1). It is striking that whereas in the LXX Moses is never called στρατηγός (general) or even ἡγεμών (leader), in Josephus he is referred to 15 times in the Ant. (2.241, 268; 3.2, 11, 12, 28, 47, 65, 67, 78, 102, 105; 4.82, 194, 329) and once in Apion (2.158) by the former term; in addition, the verb στρατηγέω, “to be a field-commander,” “to lead an army,” is used of him once (Ant. 2.243); and the noun στρατηγία, “army command,” “office of supreme commander,” twice (Ant. 2.255, 282). Furthermore, the noun ἡγεμών (“leader”) is applied to him 6 times (Ant. 2.268, 4.11; Apion 1.238, 261; 2.156, 159). Indeed, it was not as teacher or legislator that the voice from the burning bush bids Moses to act but rather as general (στρατηγόν) and leader (ἡγεμόνα) (Ant. 2.268).

The majority of the manuscripts (SP1AL) read “they.”

In Artapanus (ap. Eus., Pr. Ev. 9.27.7) Moses conscripts a band of farmers.

Clermont-Ganneau (1901:319) suggests that Josephus is here basing himself on the episode on the fiery serpents in the Bible (Num. 21:6-9) and the flying serpent in Isa. 14:29, 30:6. He notes that in the course of his exploration of the desert of Tih in the Sinai Peninsula in 1886 he found that Bedouin there still referred to a flying serpent.

In the Palaea Historica, as Flusser (1971:67-68) points out, Moses, when he leads an expedition against the people of India, carries along 3000 storks to overcome the immense number of serpents that are to be found along the way. This is clearly a variant of the version in Josephus. The substitution of India for Ethiopia, we may suggest, is due to the fact that India, at the time of the composition of the Palaea Historica, was relatively more prominent than Ethiopia as a country thought to lie at the extremity of the world. Aelian (De Nat. Anim. 2.38) says that the ibis refuses to leave Egypt and that if forced to leave will starve itself to death. Silver (1973-74:140-41) suggests that Josephus uses the ibis, a symbol of Egyptian loyalty, to emphasize Moses’ patriotism, and that this use of the ibis reflects memories of an early syncretistic cult of the Egyptian Diaspora that centered on Moses as healer and intercessor. Naber reads ὑπὸ νεφῶν (“by clouds”) in place of ὑπ’ ἐλάφων (“by deer”). Thackeray (ad loc.) says that he was tempted to read ὑπ’ ἐλαφροτέρων (“by their nimbler adversaries”) but decided that no emendation was necessary, inasmuch as there are a number of classical allusions (Oppian Apamensis [Cynegetica 2.233]; Oppian Anazarbensis [Halieutica 2.289]; Pliny the Elder [Hist. Nat. 8.118]) to serpent-eating deer. As Clermont-Ganneau (1901, 322) notes, Solinus (ed. Mommsen, 106, line 16), paraphrasing Pliny, speaks of “drinking down” (hauriunt) serpents—language which is very similar to our καταπίνονται. Nodet (ad loc.) notes that Pliny (11.279) speaks similarly of elephants and remarks that the word for elephant (ἐλέφας) is very similar to the word for deer (ἔλαφος); but although he notes that the allusion of Josephus is nearer to that of the history of the elephant, there is no need to emend the text. Boissier (1907:224-25) cites a letter from a Jesuit in China describing how serpents of enormous size are suddenly stopped by the odor of a certain deer, which then proceeds to eat them. See Puech (1949: 17-60, especially 26 n.4). According to Artapanus (ap. Eus., Pr. Ev. 9.27.9), Moses consecrated the ibis in the city of Hermopolis because of its reputation for killing those animals that are harmful to men. Artapanus says nothing about the role of the ibis in the march led by Moses.

Herodotus (2.75-76) describes the ibis at length and notes that he went to a place in Arabia not far from the town of Buto in order to learn about the winged serpents. There, he says, where there is a narrow mountain pass opening into a great plain, which is joined to the plain of Egypt, he saw innumerable bones of serpents. These serpents, he remarks, are said to fly at the beginning of spring from Arabia to Egypt; but the ibises encounter them and kill them. Consequently, the Arabians and the Egyptians honor the ibis greatly.

According to Artapanus (ap. Eus., Pr. Ev. 9.27.8) the war lasted ten years.

One of the sons of Ham’s son Cush (Gen. 10:7) is named Sheba, whence the connection of the Queen of Sheba and Ethiopia. However, one of the sons of Joktan, the son of Eber, the grandson of Shem, is also called Sheba. Hölscher (1949:48) disputes Josephus’ location of Saba in Ethiopia, since Seba in Isa. 43:3, 45:14 is distinct from Ethiopia, and identifies it with the south Arabian Saba. Herodotus (2.29) refers to Meroe as a great city that is said to be the capital of all Ethiopia. According to Artapanus (ap. Eus., Pr. Ev. 9.27.16), Moses, after burying Merris, Pharaoh’s daughter, named the city Meroe after her. According to Strabo (17.1.5.790), she was Cambyses’ wife. The Blue Nile. Cf. Ant. 1.134, which speaks of Sabathes (biblical Sabtah), the grandson of Ham, the founder of the Sabathenians, “whom the Greeks called Astabarians.” Nodet (ad loc.) suggests the possibility that Josephus has confused Sabtah and Sheba.

In the Chronicles of Moses it is the wife of the king of the Ethiopians who is given to Moses.

Josephus’ account seems to be contradictory, since, on the one hand, Moses is presented as conquering Ethiopia and leading back the Ethiopian princess, and, on the other hand, he is the liberator of Egypt, subjected to jealousy there, with nothing further said about the Ethiopian princess.

Josephus, for apologetic reasons, omits the biblical reason for the Pharaoh’s anger, namely the fact that Moses had murdered an Egyptian (Exod. 2:15).

Hebrew ‮מדין‬‎ (Exod. 2:15), LXX Μαδιάμ. The Bible refers to it as a land, not a city, located east of the Gulf of Aqaba. Gen. 25:2. Cf. Ant. 1.238. Demetrius (ap. Eus., Pr.Ev. 9.29.3) similarly notes that Moses and Zipporah “lived in the city of Midian, which is named after one of the children of Abraham.”

Hebrew ‮רעואל‬‎ (Exod. 2:18), better known as Jethro. In the case of Jethro, the Bible devotes 56 lines (Exod. 2:16-21 [8 lines] and 18.1-27 [48 lines]) to him; Josephus devotes 121 lines (Ant. 2.257-64 and 3.63-74). This gives a ratio of 2.16 for Josephus in relation to the Hebrew, and 1.68 in relation to the Septuagint. Hence, we can see that for Josephus Jethro, like another non-Jew, Balaam, is definitely one of the more important biblical personalities. In contrast to Josephus, what is striking in Philo’s portrait of Jethro is that it is almost completely negative. Presumably the basis for this is his Midianite origin. The most severe criticism that Philo, the Platonist, can make of anyone is that he prefers seeming to being, conceit to truth; and that is precisely the charge that he makes against Jethro, deriving these traits from the very name of Jethro, which he says means “uneven” (περισσός) (De Agricultura 10.43). Jethro, consequently, stands for variability and inconsistency. Jethro, he says, “values the human above the divine, custom above laws, profane above sacred, mortal above immortal, and in general seeming above being” (De Mutatione Nominum 17.104). It is hard to imagine a more devastating attack, coming as it does from a Platonist. Again, Philo declares that Jethro corresponds to the “commonwealth peopled by a promiscuous horde, who swing to and fro as their idle opinions carry them” (De Ebrietate 10.36). Indeed, he declares that the mythical Proteus, constantly changing form as he did, is most clearly typified by Jethro (ibid.). He bows down to the opinions of the multitude and will undergo any manner of transformation in order to conform with the ever-varying aspirations of human life. To a Platonist such as Philo this is well nigh the ultimate sin.And yet, Philo is not completely negative. We do see a favorable side of Jethro in the gratitude that he exhibits toward Moses for having aided his daughters when they were driven away by some shepherds when they were drawing water at a well. Indeed, Philo elaborates considerably on the scene (Exod. 2:15-22). Jethro shows real exasperation that his daughters did not bring the stranger along so that he might be thanked for his kindness. “Run back,” he tells them, “with all speed, and invite him to receive from me first the entertainment due to him as a stranger, secondly some requital of the favor that we owe to him” (De Vita Mosis 1.11.58-59). This overwhelming concern with showing hospitality to the stranger would surely have endeared Jethro to a Greek audience that worshipped Ζεὺς Ξένιος, the god of strangers.Again, in the treatise De Specialibus Legibus (4.33.173-74), Philo compliments Jethro for having given Moses excellent advice (ἄριστα συνεβούλευσεν) which was useful (συμφέροντα), namely to choose others to adjudicate less important matters while keeping the greater matters for himself and thus giving himself time to rest. But such favorable comments are few. In particular, we may note that Philo nowhere refers to Jethro, as do the rabbis, as a proselyte to Judaism. In any case, the two sides of Jethro may reflect his two names, Jethro having negative associations and Reuel (Raguel), meaning “the shepherding of God,” having positive associations (De Mutatione Nominum 17.105). We may well wonder why Pseudo-Philo in his Biblical Antiquities does not mention Jethro at all. Perhaps this omission may be explained as arising from his polemic against intermarriage (as seen in Moses’ marriage with the Midianite Zipporah in Exod. 2:21 and with the nameless Ethiopian woman in Num. 12:1), which we see, for example, in his extra-biblical statement that Tamar’s intent in having relations with Judah was to prevent her being joined with Gentiles (9.5), in his stress on the incident of the Midianite women (and we must not forget that Jethro was a priest of Midian) who led the Israelite youths astray (18.13-14), and in the unique detail that the Levite’s concubine of Judg. 19:25 had transgressed against her husband by having relations with foreigners (45.3).Unlike Philo, the rabbis were, on the whole, positively inclined toward Jethro, presumably because they found it hard to believe that Moses, the greatest prophet in Israel who had ever lived (Deut. 34:10), would associate with anyone of less than high repute and, in fact, would marry the daughter of an idol-worshipper. In fact, the sheer volume of comments about him in rabbinic literature is a sure indication of his importance for their tradition.The rabbis were apparently troubled by the fact that Jethro was a pagan priest; we find a debate (Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Amalek 1 [ed. Horovitz, p. 190]) as to whether the term kohen as applied to him (Exod. 2:16) indicates that he was a priest or, more neutrally, that he was a chief—an appellation that we note in Artapanus and Ezekiel. According to one view, he counselled Pharoah to throw Israelite baby boys into the Nile River but later repented (Midrash Exod. Rabbah 27.6). Another tradition relates that Pharaoh had three advisers—Balaam, Job, and Jethro; Balaam advised Pharaoh to cast the Israelite babies into the river, Job was silent, and Jethro fled. Because he refused to join in the scheme, the tradition holds, his descendants were privileged to sit in the Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin 106a). It is true that Jethro was viewed by some as an idolater of the worst sort, so much so that we hear that there was not an idol on earth that he had not worshipped (Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Amalek 1 [ed. Horovitz, p. 194]) and that he permitted his daughter Zipporah to marry Moses only on condition that their first son would be raised to worship idols (Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Amalek 1 [ed. Horovitz, p. 191]). On the other hand, we hear that even before Moses came to Midian Jethro was excommunicated by his neighbors for giving up his idolatry (Midrash Exod. Rabbah 1.32).The tradition is similarly divided in commenting on the reaction of Jethro to the miracles performed by God. One view is that he became a proselyte to Judaism (Tanḥuma 5 [p. 71]); in fact, according this view, he became a proselyte even before Moses came to his home (Midrash Exod. Rabbah 1.32). Indeed, he becomes, for the rabbis, the prototype of proselytes (Mishnat Rabbi Eliezer [ed. H. G. Enelow, p. 304]); and the very change of his name from Jether to Jethro (“enlarges”) is cited to illustrate God’s love for proselytes. In striking contrast to Esau, who though born of Israelite parents chose to abandon his ancestral beliefs, Jethro, though born a non-Jew, chose a life of piety (Midrash Exod. Rabbah 27.2). The fact that Jethro left his very comfortable home in order to meet Moses in the desert shows his sincerity in view of the lengths that he was willing to go in order to become a convert (Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Amalek 1 [ed. Horovitz, p. 192]). The other view, expressed by Rav’s contemporary Samuel, is that he felt sympathy for the sufferings of the Egyptians (Sanhedrin 94a) and that he converted to Judaism only after he had heard what had happened to Amalek (Midrash Exod. Rabbah 7.6).So highly is Jethro regarded that, according to one tradition, the very Presence (Shekinah) of God greeted him when he came to visit Moses (Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Amalek 1 [ed. Horovitz, p. 192])—another indication that Jethro became a convert, inasmuch as the traditional term for conversion is “to be taken under the wings of the Shekinah.” One factor in this tradition recognizing Jethro as a proselyte apparently was the concern that a non-Jew should have been responsible for the reorganization of the Jewish judicial system, as Jethro is portrayed as doing in Exod. 18:13-27; and, indeed, the rabbis explain that Moses gave credit to Jethro for this even though, in fact, the changes had been commanded by God, in order to give merit to Jethro as a convert (Sifre Num. 80) and in order to give greatness to Jethro in the eyes of Moses and all Israel (Sifre Num. 78; Mishnat Rabbi Eliezer 16 [ed. H. G. Enelow, p. 304]). Indeed, the fact that Jethro blessed God (Exod. 18:10) shows his superiority to Moses and the rest of the Israelites in that they had failed to bless Him before Jethro arrived (ibid.). There is even a view that it was Jethro who was responsible for the revelation of the Torah in its complete form, inasmuch as God was afraid, after Jethro had been responsible for the reorganization of the judicial system, that the Israelites might think that it was he who was the source of their whole system of law (Pesiqta de-Rav Kahana 12.11 [ed. Mandelbaum, p. 211]).There is likewise a difference of opinion as to the reason for Jethro’s departure from Moses. On the one hand, the view is expressed that Moses dismissed Jethro because he did not want him, a non-Jew, to be present at the moment of revelation at Sinai (Tanḥuma Exod. 11 [ed. Buber, p. 75). On the other hand, we have the view justifying Jethro’s departure as motivated by his intention of spreading the knowledge of monotheism among his fellow Midianites (Tanḥuma Shemot 11 [ed. Buber, p. 73], Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Amalek 2 [ed. Horovitz, p. 200]). In effect, the contradictory views about Jethro parallel the divergent views of the rabbis with regard to the reception of proselytes; side by side with the prevalent view welcoming them was the view of those such as Rabbi Ḥelbo (Qiddushin 70b, Yebamot 47b, Niddah 13b), who regarded them as being as injurious to Israel as a scab. In the first place, when the reader is introduced to him, Jethro is here described as a priest held in high veneration (πολλῆς ἠξιωμένου τιμῆς) by the people of the country. Presumably this is intended to counteract the implication of the biblical text that the shepherds drove away Jethro’s daughters (Exod. 2:17), a deed that, we may assume, they would not have done if they had had respect for Jethro himself. This would also counter the impression found in the rabbinic tradition, if, as seems likely, Josephus was acquainted with at least some of it, that Jethro was persona non grata among his neighbors and was even excommunicated for giving up his idolatry. Josephus’ freedom from prejudice is here displayed in the respect that he shows to Raguel (Jethro), Moses’ father-in-law, who is here described as a priest held in high veneration by the people of the country.

The Troglodytes are the descendants of Abraham by Keturah who established a colony on the Arabian shore of the Red Sea (Ant. 1.239, 2.213). That it was customary for women to tend flocks among the Troglodytes is Josephus’ addition.

Exod. 2:17 says simply that the shepherds came and drove the daughters away, but that Moses helped them and watered their flock. Josephus vigorously expands on the charity (εὐποιίαν) of this beneficent act (εὐεργετηθεῖσαι) and adds that Moses deemed it monstrous (δεινόν) to overlook the injury to the young women and to allow these men’s violence to triumph over their rights (δικαίου), and so he beat off the arrogant intruders. Philo also takes the opportunity to remark that Moses earned his title “God’s man” through his beneficence (εὐεργετεῖν), which is the peculiar prerogative of a god (De Mutatione Nominum 22.128-29).

In Exod. 2:19 the daughters of Jethro identify him as an Egyptian. In Exod. 2:20 it is Jethro who takes the initiative in seeking to reward the stranger who had helped the maidens. Here in Josephus it is the maidens who take this initiative. Connected with the quality of φιλανθρωπία is the virtue of showing gratitude, in accordance with the definition of justice as rendering every man his due (Plato, Rep. 1.332A). Josephus elaborates considerably on the scene in which Jethro is represented as saying to his daughters after they tell him how Moses had delivered them from the shepherds and had drawn water for them, “Where is he? Why have you left the man? Call him, that he may eat bread” (Exod. 2:20). In Josephus’ version the shepherds’ insolence (ὕβριν) is spelled out as such, as is Moses’ beneficence (εὐεργετηθεῖσαι); Jethro specifically bids his daughters not to allow such benevolence (εὐποιίαν) to be unrewarded and to bring Moses to him so as to receive the gratitude (χάριτος) that was his due. He also commends his daughters for their zeal (σπουδῆς) for their benefactor (εὐεργετηκότα).

In Exod. 2:21 there is no statement that Jethro actually thanked Moses; we are told merely that Moses was content to dwell with Jethro. In contrast, Josephus’ Jethro tells Moses of his (Jethro’s) daughters’ testimony to the help that he had rendered and expresses admiration for his gallantry (ἀρετῆς).

Whereas Exod. 2:21 states merely that Moses was content to dwell with Jethro, Josephus underscores his lack of bias against non-Jews when he adds here that Raguel (Jethro) actually adopted Moses as his son. Rappaport (100-1) notes that elsewhere Josephus states that Abraham adopted Lot (Ant. 1.154) and that neither this adoption nor that by Jethro (we may add Josephus’ statement that Pharaoh’s daughter adopted Moses, Ant. 2.232) is mentioned in the Bible. He suggests that perhaps Josephus retrojects into the Bible an institution common in Rome. Josephus apparently felt apologetic about the fact that Moses was a shepherd, seemingly a lowly occupation. According to the rabbis, shepherds were disqualified as judges or witnesses in Palestine, presumably because they sometimes appropriated the sheep of others (Sanhedrin 25b). Hence, where the Bible states that Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father-in-law (Exod. 3:1), Josephus explains that in those days the wealth (κτῆσις) of barbarian races consisted of sheep. The key point is that Jethro is actually identified here as a barbarian; Josephus’ point is to stress that, far from being prejudiced against barbarians, the greatest leader of the Jews actually married the daughter of a barbarian and was even adopted by a barbarian. In terms of the startling impact upon a reader, only Alexander the Great’s marriage with a Persian princess would be comparable.

Thackeray (ad loc.) suggests that the name may be a conglomerate of the names Ἰόθορος and Ῥαγούηλος. In the case of Jethro, the reader of the Bible is befuddled by the fact that Jethro seems to be called by no fewer than seven names—Jethro (Exod. 3:1), Jether (Exod. 4:18), Putiel (Exod. 6:25), Reuel (Num. 2:18), Hobab (Num. 10:29), Keni (Judg. 1:16), and Heber (Judg. 4:11). Aware of this, Josephus regularly calls him Raguel, but here remarks that his surname was Ietheglaeus, that is, Jethro. In the rabbinic tradition (Midrash Exod. Rabbah 1.32) his name is Jethro, and he is also called Reuel. In Exod. 3:1 the mountain is referred to as Horeb. Though it has been variously proposed that Horeb and Sinai are two different mountains (Davies 1979:68-69) or two peaks in one range or that one is the name of the area and the other is the name of the peak (Lipschitz 1971:1597), Josephus apparently follows the Jewish tradition that used both names synonymously (e.g. Ecclus. 48:7). Here he adopts the name “Sinai,” since that was the more familiar name for the mountain.

That the pasture land here was the finest is also mentioned in the rabbinic tradition (Targum Onqelos and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Exod. 3:1). The statement that there was a belief that God spent time there is Josephus’ addition. The basis of this belief is that the mountain was called “the mountain of God” (Exod. 3:1). The LXX omits “of God.” So also in the rabbinic tradition (Targum Onqelos on Exod. 3:1, Sifre Deut. 22). The statement that shepherds did not dare to set foot on this mountain is Josephus’ addition. We can see the care with which Josephus approaches the subject of miracles in his description of the burning bush. The word which he uses here for “marvel” (τέρας), as noted by Remus (1982:543-44), is synonymous with σημεῖον, that is, a divine message authenticated by events. Josephus’ usage is much like that in pagan texts and in the New Testament (Matt. 24:24; Mark 13:22; John 4:48; Acts 2:19, 2:43, 4:30, 5:12, 6:8, 7:36, 14:3, 15:12; 2 Thess. 2:9): both σημεῖον and τέρας can denote extraordinary phenomena with divine reference. Though Josephus sought to shield Moses and the Jewish tradition from the charge of superstition, he does not do so, through avoidance of the word τέρας. The Bible states that an angel of the Lord appeared to Moses in a flame of fire out of the midst of an thorn-bush (Exod. 3:2). Josephus realizes that his skeptical, largely pagan, audience would have difficulty accepting the idea that an angel appeared in such a manner and might even ridicule the incident. He, therefore, attempts to prepare readers for the incident by admitting here that it was an amazing prodigy.

Exod. 3:2 describes the burning bush as a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush and mentions that an angel appeared to Moses in the flame of it. Josephus omits the angel completely but describes the bush and the flame at greater length.

The vivid description of Moses’ reaction to the flame is Josephus’ addition. Moreover, whereas Exod. 3:4 identifies the voice as that of God, Josephus simply refers to it as a voice. The statement that the voice pointed out to Moses his boldness in coming to such a holy place and its counsel to be content with what he had seen and to pry no further are Josephus’ additions.

God’s prediction of the glory that Moses would receive is Josephus’ addition. Meeks (1967:134) remarks that in the Hellenistic and Roman world ἡγεμών also designated a provincial governor. Whereas in Exod. 3:10 the voice tells Moses that he will be sent to Pharaoh to bring forth the Israelites from Egypt, in Josephus the role envisaged for Moses is a military one, since the voice here bids him courageously (θαρροῦντα) return to Egypt to act as commander and leader (στρατηγὸν καὶ ἡγεμόνα).

In Exod. 3:8 God tells Moses from the burning bush that He will take the Israelites into a good and broad land, the land of the Canaanites, flowing with milk and honey. A similar statement is found a few verses later (Exod. 3:17). The implication is clear: the Israelites are to displace the Canaanites and establish an independent state in the land. In Josephus’ version, however, there is significantly no mention of the Canaanites who are to be displaced and no suggestion of an independent state; the Israelites are merely to come to the land and settle there. On the absence of land theology in Josephus see Amaru (1980-81:201-29). The reference to Moses’ sagacity is lacking in Exod. 3:5-4:17. Josephus here omits Moses’ humble objection to God (Exod. 3:11): “Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh and bring the sons of Israel out of Egypt?” God’s directive here to Moses to offer sacrifices of thanksgiving after he has led the Israelites out of Egypt is Josephus’ addition. Rather, in Exod. 3:12 God instructs Moses that after he has brought the Israelites out of Egypt they are to serve God upon that mountain.

This statement of faith on the part of Moses is absent from Exod. 3:4-4:13.

Moses’ confession that he had no great strength is Josephus’ addition. In Exod. 3:13 Moses asks God what he should respond to the Israelites when they ask him His name. Here he expresses doubt that he will be able to persuade them to leave the land of Egypt and to follow him. The Greek here seems to say that the Israelites increase their prosperity by their toil. Thackeray (ad loc.), however, translates: “his subjects look to swell their own prosperity.”

Josephus omits the biblical statement (Exod. 3:19) in which God asserts that he is sure that Pharaoh will not let the Israelites go and predicts that he will perform miracles. Josephus also omits God’s statement (Exod. 3:21-22) that He will give the Israelites favor in the eyes of the Egyptians so that they will lend them vessels and garments. Connected with wisdom, as we may see in Thucydides’ portrait of the ideal statesman, Pericles (2.60), is the ability to persuade the masses. In the case of Moses, Josephus was confronted with an obvious problem, inasmuch as the Bible notes that Moses had a speech impediment (Exod. 4:10 and 6:12). Significantly, Josephus here omits both of the biblical references to this handicap. In the Bible when Moses objects (Exod. 4:10) that he has a speech impediment, God in exasperation (Exod. 4:14) becomes angry with him and tells him that Aaron will speak for him. Josephus here, in an extra-biblical addition, speaks to Moses assuring him that he would supply persuasion (a factor that one would hardly associate with Moses, since Moses had a speech defect) and strength. The image of Moses that emerges from the Bible is sometimes one of timidity. Thus, at the burning bush when God tells Moses to cast his staff on the ground, he flees from it when it becomes a serpent (Exod. 4:3). In Josephus there is no mention of Moses fleeing; indeed, we are not told here of Moses’ reaction at all. The picturesque description of the snake crawling and curling and raising its head menacingly is Josephus’ addition.

Exod. 4:6 does not specify the right hand. According to Exod. 4:6, it was “leprous, as white as snow.” Josephus is particularly eager to answer the canard, circulated by Manetho (ap. Apion 1.279), among others, that Moses’ appearance was marred by leprosy and that he was, in fact, expelled from Egypt because of the disease. Josephus, in his elaboration, may have sought to counter Manetho’s statement (ap. Apion 1.279) that Moses was a leper, as well as Lysimachus’ claim (ap. Apion 1.305-11) that the ancestors of the Jews were lepers and diseased people who had been banished from Egypt for that reason (see Hata [1987;183]). This canard is repeated by Nicarchus (ap. Phot., Lex., s.v. ἄλφα) in the first century C.E.; by Ptolemy Chennus (ap. Phot., Bibl. 190) in the early second century C.E.; and by Helladius (ap. Phot., Bib. 279 [p. 529b]) in the early fourth century C.E. There we learn that Moses was called ἄλφα by the Jews because he had much dull-white leprosy (ἀλφούς) on his body. Inasmuch as Moses is nowhere else called ἄλφα in the extant literature, Heinemann (1935:361) has suggested that the source of this tradition is the Alexandrian anti-Jewish version of the Exodus. That Josephus was sensitive to this charge is clear from his treatment of the passage in which God tells Moses, as a sign to help convince the Israelites that He had indeed appeared to him, to put his hand into his bosom (Exod. 4:6). Thereupon his hand becomes leprous, but when he puts it back into his bosom and takes it out again it is restored like the rest of his flesh. In Josephus’ version there is no mention of leprosy; instead we are told that when Moses drew forth his hand it was “white, of a color resembling chalk.” Josephus points out the inherent contradiction on the part of the anti-Jewish Egyptian writers in, on the one hand, presenting Moses as an Egyptian priest and asserting that he was remarkable (θαυμαστόν) and even divine (θεῖον), and, on the other hand, claiming that he was expelled because of leprosy (Apion 1.279). Josephus, recalling this charge of leprosy (Ant. 3.265), refutes it by remarking that if it were true Moses would not have issued to his own humiliation statutes banishing lepers, especially since there are nations that honor lepers (Ant. 3.266-68). In fact, in a significant change, according to Josephus, Moses banished lepers not merely from the camp, as the Bible has it (Lev. 13:46, 14:3), but also from the city (Ant. 3.261, Apion 1.281), the implication being that there were no lepers in Jerusalem in Josephus’ own day (see Hata [1987:190]). Furthermore, Josephus deliberately omits the lengthy discussion of the symptoms of leprosy found in the Bible, inasmuch as this would presumably indicate to the reader that the malady was common among Jews. Ultimately, Josephus graciously but confidently leaves the decision to the reader (Ant. 3.268). However, just as Plato had declared that a philosopher-king should, if at all possible, be handsome (Rep. 7.535A11-12), so Josephus remarks that Moses legislated that even the slightest mutilation was reason enough for disqualification from the priesthood and that a priest who during the course of his service met with such an accident was to be deprived of his position (Apion 1.284). Josephus then asks whether it is likely that Moses would have enacted such a stringent law if he himself had been affected by such an affliction (Apion 1.285).

Moses’ bravery is highlighted by virtue of the fact that whereas God tells him to return to Egypt, “for all the men are dead who sought thy life” (Exod. 4:19), there is no such assurance to be found in Josephus, where God simply tells Moses here to hasten to Egypt without further delay, pressing forward by night and day. In Exod. 4:18 it is Moses who takes the initiative in asking Jethro to permit him to return to the Israelites in Egypt. Josephus omits God’s statement (Exod. 4:21) that He will harden the heart of Pharaoh so as not to let the Israelites go, as well as His threat that He will kill Pharaoh’s first-born son if he refuses.

A leader must be decisive. He cannot be depicted as lacking self-confidence. In the biblical passage, when God commissions Moses to lead the Israelites out of Egyptian bondage, Moses timidly tells God that when he informs the Israelites that God has sent him to them, they will ask him what is God’s name, and so he now turns to God to seek an answer to that question (Exod. 3:13). In Josephus Moses here likewise asks God for His name, but the question shows no lack of self-confidence; rather, the reason Moses asks for God’s name is so that he may address Him properly when sacrificing to Him. Similarly, the rabbinic tradition (Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 40) reports that Moses asked God to tell him His name so that he might call upon Him by name and so that He might give him a favorable hearing.

Josephus here omits the reason why God gives His name, namely in response to Moses’ request as to what to tell the Israelites when they demand to know what is the name of the God who sent him to them. Knox (1937:82-84) notes that the word θεμιτός, “lawful,” used by Josephus here, is a technical term in the mystery cults, and that Josephus thus takes the opportunity to impart to Judaism the flavor of a mystery cult. Vokes (1968:149-50) notes that Josephus (Ant. 3.90) uses the same word in stating that it is not lawful to reveal to outsiders the words of the Decalogue. This is the Tetragrammaton, which only the high priest was permitted to pronounce, and only on the Day of Atonement. This prohibition probably results from the passage (Lev. 24:16) which states that one who blasphemes the name of God shall be put to death. The Mishnah (Soṭah 7:6) states that when the blessing of the priests (Num. 6:24-26) is recited in the sanctuary one says the Name as it is written, but that in the provinces a euphemism is substituted for the Name. Philo, De Vita Mosis 2.23.114, describes the name as one “that only those whose ears and tongues are purified may hear or speak in the holy place, and no other person, nor in any other place at all.” Nodet (ad loc.) points out the apparent contradiction between this passage and Gen. 4:26, that with the birth of Enosh “men began to call upon the name of the Lord”; but this last clause is omitted in Josephus’ paraphrase (Ant. 1.79), and, in any case, it does not necessarily mean that they pronounced the Tetragrammaton as written. The statement that the signs will be available to Moses at all times whenever needed is Josephus’ addition. The reference is to God’s promises in the fire at the burning bush.

One means by which Josephus seeks to “improve” upon the biblical narrative is through providing better motivation and through increasing the plausibility of events. In connection with Moses and Jethro, there is an improbability in the biblical text in that Moses asks Jethro for permission to return to Egypt even though he does not yet know (until the following verse) whether those who are seeking him are still alive (Exod. 4:18). In Josephus’ version the setting is more reasonable: it is only after learning that the Pharaoh from whom he had fled is dead that Moses here asks Jethro for permission to return to Egypt. Hebrew ‮צפרה‬‎ (Exod. 2:21), LXX Σεπφώρα, Josephus Σαπφώρα. Hebrew ‮גרשׁם‬‎ (Exod. 2:22), LXX Γηρσάμ, Josephus Γῆρσος. Hebrew ‮אליעזר‬‎ (Exod. 18:4), LXX Ἐλίεζερ, Josephus Ἐλεάζαρος. Josephus has here confused Eliezer with Eleazar. The dignity of a leader is crucial to his success. Hence, we find that the LXX (Exod. 4:20) avoids stating, as does the Hebrew, that Moses put his wife and his sons upon a donkey and sent them back to the land of Egypt; and instead, presumably because the donkey was regarded as such a lowly animal (cf., e.g., the clear disdain for the donkey implicit in the fact that when Midas is punished for challenging the verdict of Tmolus that Apollo was superior to Pan as a musician, his ears are lengthened to resemble those of a donkey [Ovid, Met. 11.172-93]), declares that Moses mounted them upon “beasts” without indicating the identity of these (this is one of the changes noted by the Talmud as introduced by the translators under divine inspiration [Megillah 9a]). Josephus here goes one step further and says that Moses took his wife and sons and hastened away, without mentioning the means.

Exod. 2:22 explains the name of Gershon as meaning “I have been a sojourner (‮גר‬‎) in a foreign land.” Josephus omits the element of “sojourner.” Modern lexicographers derive the name from ‮גרשׁ‬‎ (“drive out”). The LXX renders ‮גר‬‎ here by πάροικος, “sojourner,” “alien,” “stranger.” Philo (De Confusione Linguarum 17.82) renders it by γειώρας, “sojourner,” from the Aramaic word ‮גיורא‬‎, the word that the LXX uses in translating the Hebrew ‮גר‬‎ (Exod. 12:19). Exod. 18:4 explains the name as meaning “The God of my father was my help, and delivered me from the sword of Pharaoh.”

For “borders” (ὅρων) Nodet (ad loc.) reads ὀρῶν, “mountains,” citing Exod. 4:27, “The Lord said to Aaron, ‘Go into the wilderness to meet Moses.’ So he went, and met him at the mountain of God.” One of the most embarrassing biblical passages with regard to Moses tells of God’s attempt at this point to kill him, apparently because he had neglected to circumcise his sons (Exod. 4:24). There is a rabbinic tradition that the reason why they were uncircumcised was that Moses’ father-in-law, Jethro, had stipulated, when he consented to the marriage of his daughter to Moses, that the first son of their union should be brought up as a gentile. See Ginzberg (1910:2:328). It was then that his wife Zipporah literally saved his life by circumcising them. It must have troubled Josephus and surely would have amazed his readers that Moses, the greatest Jew who ever lived and God’s chosen messenger to deliver His law, should have been so impious as to disobey so fundamental a precept. Hence, here Josephus resolves the problem by simply omitting the incident altogether. ‮אהרן‬‎ (Exod. 4:14), LXX and Josephus Ἀαρών. Josephus omits the biblical statement (Exod. 4:27) that Aaron met Moses at the “mountain of God.” According to Exod. 4:29, Moses and Aaron assembled all the elders together.

In Exod. 4:30 it is Aaron who recounts all that God had spoken to Moses. It is clear that Josephus is well aware of the fact that people generally are not convinced by miracles. Anticipating that his audience would have difficulty believing these miracles, he notes that the leaders were amazed at this astonishing spectacle. It would seem to be significant that nowhere in the treatise Against Apion does Josephus refer to Moses’ ability to perform miracles, obviously preferring that he be known simply or primarily as a great leader, lawgiver, and general (so Apion 2.158) (see Tiede [1972:211]). As Tiede (1972:237) further remarks, this is in direct contrast to Artapanus, who makes Moses’ role as a miracle worker central in his account. In establishing the importance of Moses, Josephus downgrades the role of Aaron as Moses’ spokesman. Thus, whereas Exod. 4:30 states that Aaron performed the miracles in the presence of the people in order to convince them, in Josephus here it is Moses who, after at first failing to convince the most distinguished of the Israelites by a mere description of the miracles, then proceeds to perform them before their eyes. Likewise, when, at the beginning of his mission, Moses first consolidates his backing among his own people, Exod. 5:1 states that he and Aaron then went to see Pharaoh; in Josephus (Ant. 2.281) Moses betakes himself alone after he is assured of the allegiance of the Israelites, of their agreement to follow his orders, and of their love of liberty. It is Moses, rather than Aaron, who performs miracles with his rod in the presence of Pharaoh (Exod. 7:10 vs. Ant. 2.284, 287); and Moses’ achievement is all the more impressive because, according to Josephus’ addition, the king had ridiculed him. Whereas Exod. 7:19 says that it was Aaron who with his staff produced the plague of blood, Josephus, though he generally avoids imputing miracles to God, says that the plague was produced at God’s command and leaves the human agent unidentified (Ant. 2.294). Likewise, in Exodus (8:2, 8:13) it is Aaron who brings on the plagues of frogs and lice, whereas in Josephus it is God who produces them (Ant. 2.296, 300).

This delicate balance of obedience and liberty may be seen at the very beginning of Moses’ mission, inasmuch as we are told here that he betakes himself to Pharaoh only after he is assured of both the agreement of the Israelites to follow his orders and of their love of liberty (ἐλευθερίας). Whereas in Exod. 5:1 Moses and Aaron go jointly to Pharaoh, with Aaron presumably as the spokesman, to ask him to free the Israelites, in Josephus Moses here goes alone, reminds Pharaoh of the services that he had rendered to the Egyptians in the campaign against Ethiopia, and requests the deliverance of his people. Josephus here omits Moses’ and Aaron’s request (Exod. 5:1-3) to allow the Israelites to hold a feast for God and to sacrifice to Him in the wilderness. The scenes in which Moses and Aaron approach Pharaoh asking him to allow the Israelites to leave Egypt were certainly opportunities for Josephus to condemn Pharaoh. And yet, we have a certain amount of understanding for Pharaoh’s position, since we are told, in an extra-biblical addition here, that he had only recently been promoted to the throne. One might be reminded of a similar understanding that one might well feel for Zeus in Aeschylus’ Prometheus Vinctus (312), where, we are told, he, too, is new to the throne and presumably should be given a greater opportunity to establish his rule more firmly.

When Moses appears before the new Pharaoh, he presents himself as a military man. In fact, in an extra-biblical addition, his first remark to Pharaoh is to remind him of the services that he had rendered to the Egyptians in the campaign against the Ethiopians and of his laboring and imperiling himself as commander for his troops as for his own kinsmen—and all this without due reward from the Egyptians.

The statement that Moses told Pharaoh what he had encountered at Mount Sinai is Josephus’ addition.

Josephus omits the biblical statement (Exod. 5:2) in which Pharaoh asks who is the God whom he is to obey and why Moses and Aaron do not mind their own business instead of hindering the Israelites from their work. In Exod. 5:1-9, in the first encounter between Moses and Aaron and Pharaoh, there is no reference to Moses’ offer to perform the miracles that God had shown Moses. Josephus, in the interests of economy of space, has combined this first encounter with the second encounter with Pharaoh (Exod. 7:10-13), in which Aaron casts down his staff, which becomes a serpent, only to be followed by the Egyptian magicians, who do likewise. Whereas in Exod. 7:1-2 God tells Moses that Aaron is to be his prophet and that Aaron is to be his spokesman in demanding that Pharaoh release the Israelites from bondage, Josephus here totally omits this passage. Moreover, in Exod. 7:8-9 God instructs Moses and Aaron that when Pharaoh tells them to prove themselves by working a miracle, Moses is to instruct Aaron to cast his rod down before Pharaoh so that it may become a serpent; they then follow these instructions, and when the Egyptian magicians do a similar feat of magic, Aaron’s rod swallows up their rods. In Josephus, however, it is Moses, rather than Aaron (Exod. 7:10), who now performs the miracle with his rod in the presence of Pharaoh and whose rod makes the circuit of the Egyptians’ rods, which merely look like pythons, and devours them all (Ant. 2.287). Moses’ accomplishment here is all the more impressive because, according to Josephus’ addition, the king had previously ridiculed him. When Moses asks Pharaoh to allow the Israelites to leave, Josephus here rather plausibly, in an extra-biblical addition, explains Pharaoh’s angry reaction by having him charge that Moses had escaped from slavery, had now effected his return by fraud, and was trying to impose upon him by feats of magic. The ancient world was apparently ready to accept Moses as a magician, as we can see, for example, from the statement of Pompeius Trogus (ap. Justin, Hist. Phil. 36, Epitoma 2.7), in the first century C.E., that Joseph had mastered the arts of magic and that Moses, whom he describes as Joseph’s son, had inherited his father’s knowledge. Later in the first century Pliny the Elder (Hist. Nat. 30.2.11) mentions that one branch of magic is derived from Moses, Jannes, Lotapes, and the Jews. Likewise, in the second century, when Apuleius (Apol. 90) enumerates a number of well-known magicians he speaks of “Moses, whom you know.” It is possible that Apuleius, who by his own admission (Apol. 91) took these names from very famous writers (one would guess that one of these was Pliny the Elder, who has the names of 6 of the 8 magicians mentioned by Apuleius) in public libraries, is simply trying to impress his audience with his erudition; but it is more likely that the phrase “whom you know” is to be taken at face value, since it applies only to Moses. In the second century C.E. Numenius (ap. Eus., Pr. Ev. 9.8) presents a well-disposed and more accurate version, stating that Jannes and Jambres, Egyptian sacred scribes who are mentioned in the Damascus Document (Zaddokite Fragments, lines 17 ff.), in the New Testament (2 Tim. 3:8), and in rabbinic literature (Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Num. 22:22 and parallels), and who were said to be inferior to none in magic, were chosen by the Egyptian people to stand up to Musaeus, the Jewish leader, “a man who was most powerful in prayer to God,” and that they were able to avert even the most violent disasters that Musaeus attempted to inflict upon the Egyptians. On Moses’ reputation as a magician see Gager (1972:134-61).

According to Exod. 7:11, Pharaoh called for the wise men, sorcerers, and magicians. Weill (ad loc.) regards “and that he...ignorant people” as an interpolation. Thackeray (ad loc.) regards it as authentic but as being the view of one of Josephus’ assistants.

Josephus must have been troubled by the fact that in the biblical encounter between Moses and the Egyptian magicians the Egyptians come off as hardly simpletons and are also able to perform feats of magic comparable to those of Moses (Ant. 2.284-87); indeed, in an extra-biblical addition to Exod. 7:12, he has Moses here magnanimously acknowledge their cunning. It is not Aaron’s rod but Moses’ that effects the feats of magic; and the contest, in fact, becomes one between human trickery and divine power. Josephus is careful to remark that in the contest between Moses and the Egyptian magicians the Egyptian rods only “looked like pythons” (Ant. 2.287). Here it is Moses himself, in a personal authentication of the supernatural nature of the miracles, who performs the feats, seeking thereby to show that the miracles proceeded from divine providence (πρόνοιαν) and power (δύναμιν). Moses’ aim is no less than to make Pharaoh understand that he is dealing not merely with another magician who rivals the Egyptians but with a representative of God. Apparently, Moses knew whereof he spoke.

In Exod. 7:9 it is Aaron who is to be told by Moses to cast his staff down before Pharaoh. When Aaron’s serpent devours the serpents of the Egyptian magicians, the onlookers, according to Philo (De Vita Mosis l.16.94), who had previously been skeptical, realize that this had been brought about by some more divine power for whom every feat is easy.

In Exod. 5:6 Pharaoh commands the taskmasters of the people and their foremen. One of the most difficult problems in theodicy is how to explain that, on the one hand, God hardened Pharaoh’s heart so as not to allow the Israelites to leave and, on the other hand, punished him for refusing to allow them to go. Here in Josephus’ version, for example, the problem is avoided, since there is no mention at all of the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart; rather we hear that Pharaoh is indignant that Moses should have thought that he could have influenced Pharaoh by the cunning and craft of his magical act with his staff.

In Exod. 5:13 the taskmasters tell the Israelites, “Complete your work, your daily task, as when there was straw.” Although there is no mention of night, the Hebrew reads ‮דבר־יום ביומו‬‎, that is, the day’s work is to be completed in its day. In Exod. 5:6-19 Pharaoh’s instructions to the taskmasters to require the Israelites to gather their own straw are given after the first encounter with Moses and Aaron and before Aaron performs the miracle with his staff (Exod. 7:9-10), whereas here in Josephus the instructions are given after the performance of the miracle.

Josephus here omits the biblical statement (Exod. 5:22-23) of Moses’ complaint to God as to why He let so much evil come upon the Israelites, why He has sent him, and why since he has come to Pharaoh, Pharaoh has done more evil to the Israelites. Josephus omits the biblical statement (Exod. 6:9) that the Israelites did not listen to Moses because of their broken spirit and cruel bondage. Aaron in the biblical narrative, no less than Moses, is the object of recrimination by the Israelites’ foremen when Pharaoh increases the tasks imposed upon them (Exod. 5:19-21). In Josephus’ version it is Moses alone whom the Israelites hold accountable for the increased severity of their labors. Josephus omits the passage (Exod. 6:3) in which God tells Moses that He was not made known to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob by the Tetragrammaton.

Elsewhere in the Bible, while it is true that Aaron never speaks to Pharaoh alone, Pharaoh frequently addresses himself to both brothers (Exod. 8:4, 21; 9.27; 10.16-17). Indeed, it is to Moses and Aaron jointly that God gives His formal charge (just before the enumeration [Exod. 6:14-25] of the heads of the families of the Israelites, which Josephus omits) to speak to the people of Israel and to Pharaoh to lead the Israelites out of Egypt (Exod. 6:13); significantly Josephus here omits this passage.

This thought is a Josephan editorial. When God gives his charge to Moses telling him to go to Pharaoh to request that he allow the Israelites to leave, in Exod. 6:4 He reminds Moses that He had established His covenant with the forefathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to give them the land of Canaan. A few verses later, God tells Moses that He will bring the Israelites into the land that He had sworn to give to the forefathers and that He will give it to them as a possession, clearly once again signifying that the Israelites are to displace the Canaanite inhabitants and establish an independent state (Exod. 6:8). Josephus significantly here omits this entire passage.Just after God formally charges Aaron and Moses with the task of leading the Israelites out of captivity, Exod. 6:23 states important facts concerning Aaron’s personal life, namely that he married Elisheba, the daughter of Amminadab, the sister of Nahshon, and that she bore him four sons—Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar. This notice certainly elevates the stature of Aaron, inasmuch as this marriage allied him with one of the most distinguished families of the tribe of Judah. Nahshon, his brother-in-law, we may note, was chieftain of the tribe of Judah (Num. 2:3, 10:14), which consisted of 74,600 men (Num. 2:3-4), was the first to present his offering at the dedication of the Tabernacle (Num. 7:12-17), and headed the line of march in the desert. Moreover, according to a well-known rabbinic tradition (Soṭah 37a and parallels), when at the Sea of Reeds none of the tribes wished to be the first to enter the sea, it was Nahshon who, with complete faith that the miracle would occur, sprang forward and descended first into the sea. Additionally, Nahshon was an ancestor of King David (Ruth 4:20-22, 1 Chr. 2:10-15); hence the marriage of Aaron with Elisheba joined the two main hereditary lines among the Israelites, that of the high priesthood and that of the kingship. All this is, very significantly, omitted by Josephus (presumably because it would elevate Aaron too highly), as is the genealogy of the house of Levi, from which Moses and Aaron were descended (Exod. 6:16-20).

Actually, though he indicates that he will enumerate all of the plagues, Josephus omits the fifth plague, that of ‮דבר‬‎ (murrain on cattle, Exod. 9:3). Bib. Ant. 10.1 omits the sixth plague, that of ‮שׁחין‬‎ (boils, Exod. 9:9). One may note that Philo (De Vita Mosis 1.17.98-25.142) enumerates the plagues in the order 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 6, 4, 5, 10. Biblical Antiquities cites the plagues in the order 1, 2, 4, 7, 5, 8, 3, 9, 10. These three reasons for enumerating the plagues are Josephus’ own. Josephus does not cite as a reason that they were intended to show the power of Moses in bringing on these plagues, since he clearly wants to divorce Moses as much as possible from the image of a magician, inasmuch as this kind of jugglery (Ant. 2.320, γοητείαν) was sneered at by the Egyptians. Josephus omits the biblical statement (Exod. 7:1) in which God tells Moses that He has made him a god to Pharaoh, since such a view would seem to contradict strict monotheism.

To be sure, Josephus, in recounting the plagues, does not mention Moses and his rod as the agents of the plagues but rather has God perform them directly; but this is in order not to make Moses appear to be a mere magician (so Tiede [1972:221-22]. According to the biblical version of the plagues, it is Aaron alone who performs the first three plague miracles, namely those of blood (Exod. 7:20), frogs (Exod. 8:2), and lice (Exod. 8:13). In the Josephan version it is God who Himself performs these miracles directly, with no mention of the role of Aaron or, for that matter, of Moses (Ant. 2.294, 296, 300). As Grant (1952:185) indicates, in connection with the miracles achieved through Moses, Philo can state that when God tells Moses that He will turn the river into blood Moses can readily believe this because of the proofs that he had already been shown in previous miracles of his hand and staff (De Vita Mosis 1.14.82). The meaning, as Ladouceur (1983:18-38) indicates, basing himself on the usage in medical writers, is not “stained with blood” as if Josephus were attempting to rationalize the plague but rather, as Galen (8.379, 17 [2].692) and Rufus (De Renum et Vesicae Affectionibus 5.2) use it, “changed to blood,” a meaning confirmed by the LXX’s translation (Exod. 7:20) of the plague. According to Exod. 7:19, God instructed Moses to tell Aaron to stretch out his hand over the waters of Egypt, including their rivers, canals, ponds, and pools, so that they may become blood. A few verses later (Exod. 7:24), however, we are told that it is only the Nile River whose waters the Egyptians are unable to drink. That those trying to drink suffered pains and torment is Josephus’ addition.

Midrash Deut. Rabbah 3.8 likewise reports that the water was undrinkable only for the Egyptians. It states that when the Egyptians and the Israelites went to the Nile to drink water the Egyptians drank blood and the Israelites drank water. So also Philo (De Vita Mosis 1.26.144) likewise states that the river turned to blood, but not for the Israelites. Exod. 8:22 makes the distinction between the effect of the plagues upon the Israelites as contrasted with their effect upon the Egyptians in connection with the fourth plague and specifically mentions that the land of Goshen was not affected. Nodet (ad loc.) suggests that there is a play on words in Exod. 8:22 between the Hebrew text (Exod. 8:18) ‮והפליתי‬‎ (“I shall distinguish”) and the LXX’s παραδοξάσω (“I shall make wonderful”) and asserts that Josephus here seems closer to this second sense. We can evince a certain understanding for Pharaoh’s position, inasmuch as he is depicted here as perplexed (ἀμηχανήσας) and apprehensive (δείσας) for the Egyptians; it is his concern for his people that leads him to permit the Israelites to depart after the plague of the water turned to blood. Moreover, realizing that the ability of the Egyptians to duplicate the feat of turning the river of Egypt into blood (Exod. 7:22) detracted from the miraculous nature of the plague, Josephus omits this notice here altogether. According to Exod. 7:22, the Egyptian magicians were able to duplicate Moses’ feat, and so Pharaoh’s heart remained hardened; and it is only beginning with the third plague (Exod. 8:18) that the Egyptian magicians were not able to duplicate Moses’ feats. The statement that the Pharaoh allowed the Israelites to leave after this plague is an addition found also in Artapanus (ap. Eus., Pr. Ev. 9.27.29).

Even when, after the plague of the blood, Pharaoh is termed stubborn in refusing to allow the Israelites to leave Egypt, Josephus here carefully remarks that Pharaoh was no longer (οὑκέτι) willing to be wise (σωφρονεῖν, “moderate,” “temperate,” “reasonable”), the implication being that he had previously exercised such wisdom and moderation. Thackeray (ad loc.) notes that the relatively rare word διαμωμένους (“scooped,” “scraped”) is taken from Thucydides (4.26), who similarly speaks of soldiers scraping away the gravel and drinking any water that they could get. The graphic detail that the drinking water was polluted by the juice of the frogs dying and decaying in the water is Josephus’ addition.

The graphic portrait of the land of Egypt full of the slime of the frogs as they were breeding and dying is Josephus’ addition. In Exod. 8:13 the stench of frogs dying is found when Moses puts an end to the plague of the frogs. Josephus omits the fact (Exod. 8:3) that the Egyptian magicians likewise brought up frogs throughout Egypt.

The manuscripts for “he” read “the land,” but Niese regards this as a gloss. When, finally, Pharaoh does allow the Israelites to depart, he is motivated by fear, in this extra-biblical remark, rather than by wisdom (φρονήσει, “sagacity,” “intelligence,” “prudence”).

Hebrew (Exod. 8:12) ‮כנם‬‎, “lice,” followed by Psalm 105:31 and the rabbinic tradition (Midrash Exod. Rabbah 10.2, 6-7; 15.10; LXX σκνῖφες, “gnats,” followed by Philo (De Vita Mosis 1.19.107). Josephus here omits the manner (Exod. 8:12) in which this plague was brought about, namely by having Aaron smite the dust of the earth with his staff. The wretchedness is emphasized through the repetition and juxtaposition of the two words κακοὶ κακῶς. The statement that the Egyptians were unable to destroy the lice with baths or drugs is Josephus’ addition. Josephus omits the fact (Exod. 8:14-15) that the Egyptian magicians were unable to produce lice and acknowledged that the plague was a sign of God.

After the plague of lice, it is fear of the destruction of his people, according to Josephus’ addition here, that leads Pharaoh to listen to reason (σωφρονεῖν). Again, this creates a certain amount of sympathy for Pharaoh. To be sure, when Pharaoh, after the plague of the lice, decides to listen to reason and to allow the Israelites to leave, Josephus here remarks that in his depravity he did so only in half measure. Nevertheless, the word that is here translated as “wickedness” or “depravity” (φαυλότητος) may mean “poorness,” “want of accomplishments or skill,” or “lack of judgment”; but it may also be used in a good sense of plainness and simplicity of life. In any case, it is surely significant that Josephus does not here use any of the usual words for wickedness, whether κακία or κακουργία or πανουργία.

In Exod. 10:10-11 it is before the plague of the locusts that Pharaoh agrees to allow the Israelites to go but insists that they leave their children behind. If, finally, Pharaoh is punished, it is not because his heart was hardened (Exod. 8:19) but rather because, in phraseology here that would certainly have appealed to the Stoics in his audience, he exasperated God in thinking to impose upon His providence (πρόνοιαν), as though it were Moses and not He who was punishing Egypt on the Hebrews’ behalf. The fact that Pharaoh refuses to understand the import of the plagues, commanded as they are, in Josephus’ version, by God Himself (Ant. 2.302, 309), thus puts the blame squarely on his shoulders. Here, after the plague of the lice, Pharaoh calls Moses and Aaron and grants them permission to offer sacrifices to God (Exod. 8:21); but in Josephus’ version Pharaoh makes this offer to the “Hebrews,” with no mention of Aaron (or Moses) in particular.

Hebrew ‮ערב‬‎ (Exod. 8:17), “mixture.” Bib. Ant. 10.1 renders it pammixia, “all mixture.” Aquila (ap. Jerome, Ep. 106.85) uses almost the same word, πάμμικτον. The Wisdom of Solomon 11.17-18 may perhaps be alluding to this plague when it states that God did not lack the means to send a multitude of bears and fierce lions, as well as newly created wild beasts. The LXX, Ezekiel the Tragedian (138), and Philo (De Vita Mosis 1.23.130) render this as κυνόμυια, “dog-fly.” Midrash Exod. Rabbah 11.2-3 likewise views the plague as consisting of stinging flies and describes the sun and the moon as being darkened by them. The Wisdom of Solomon 11.18 also speaks of newly created, previously unknown, rabid beasts that exhaled a fiery breath or a stinking vapor. The meaning is doubtful. Thackeray (ad loc.) suggests: “even though the population survived it.” Nodet (ad loc.) understands the meaning to be “all that escaped the ravages of these beasts was consumed by another plague”(νόσῳ, so also in Ant. 2.313). The sentiment that whatever escaped the destruction of the wild beasts was destroyed by other means is Josephus’ addition.

In Exod. 8:24, after the plague of the wild beasts, Pharaoh agrees to allow the Israelites to sacrifice to their God in the wilderness, but there is no indication that he was ready to allow the men and their wives to go but insisted that their children be left behind. In Exod. 10:10-11, before the plague of the locusts Pharaoh expresses willingness to allow the men alone to leave. In addition, Josephus here discreetly omits any reference to the passage in which Moses appears to show intolerance when he declares that the Israelites sacrifice to God victims that are untouchable to the Egyptians (compare Exod. 8:22). In the instance of two other plagues, the sixth (boils) (Exod. 9:8) and the eighth (locusts) (Exod. 10:3), Aaron and Moses appear jointly before Pharaoh, though it is Moses himself who performs the miracle; in Josephus the roles of Moses and Aaron are totally eliminated (Ant. 2.304, 306). At this point Josephus totally omits the plague of the disease of the cattle (Exod. 9:3-7). Josephus here omits the biblical statement (Exod. 9:10) describing the manner in which Moses and Aaron were able to produce this plague, namely by taking the soot of the furnace, standing before Pharaoh, and throwing it heavenward. The statements that the intestines of the Egyptians wasted away and that the majority of the Egyptians perished in this manner are Josephus’ additions.

After this plague of the boils, in place of the troublesome statement (Exod. 9:12), which seems to indict God, that the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh, the fault is clearly Pharaoh’s, in that he failed to become temperate (σωφρονιζομένου, “be sobered,” “come to reason,” “come to one’s senses”). Exod. 9:23 speaks of thunder and hail. So also the Midrashic tradition (Midrash Exod. Rabbah 12.3) notes that the hail was such as had never occurred in the Egypt or even in the whole world. The statement that the hail was larger than that which is found in the polar regions is Josephus’ addition. It appears to be redundant for Josephus to speak of northern and polar regions. This refers to the vernal equinox and is Josephus’ addition. Josephus does not mention that flax and barley were smitten but that the wheat and the millet were not (Exod. 9:31-32). He does not mention (Exod. 9:26) that there was no hail in the land of Goshen, where the Israelites lived. Realizing that Pharaoh’s confessions of guilt after the plague of the hail (Exod. 9:27-30) and the plague of the locusts (Exod. 10:16) were insincere and would certainly not redound to his credit, Josephus omits this completely. Here, after the plagues of hail (Exod. 9:27) and locusts (Exod. 10:16), Pharaoh summons both Moses and Aaron, but in Josephus he does not do so. Josephus omits the biblical statement (Exod. 10:11) in which Pharaoh agrees to allow the men to go but not the children.

Josephus here omits the biblical detail (Exod. 10:13-14) that the plague of locusts was produced when God urged an east (south in the LXX) wind over the land all day and all night long, whereupon in the morning the east wind bore along the locusts. Josephus also omits the statement (Exod. 10:14) that after this plague there will never be any such.

The analysis that Pharaoh was motivated not by stupidity but by wickedness is Josephus’ addition. It is only after many plagues that Pharaoh loses his sense of reason, as noted here, in an extra-biblical addition, and a sense of his own interest and becomes motivated by malice and knavery, the cause of it being ultimately impiety in that he was matching himself against God as a deliberate traitor to the cause of virtue. In Exod. 10:24 Pharaoh’s permission to the Israelites to leave, while insisting that they leave their flocks behind, is given after rather than before the plague of darkness. This would be in accordance with Exod. 10:24; but the Greek word that is used here by Josephus, λεία, may also mean plunder, perhaps in the sense of accumulated goods. This explanation as to why Pharaoh ordered the Israelites to leave their herds behind is Josephus’ addition. Josephus omits the manner (Exod. 10:19) in which the locusts are removed, namely by causing a very strong west wind to carry them away into the Sea of Reeds.

The statement that Pharaoh had made unjust demands is Josephus’ addition. Josephus here omits the biblical statement (Exod. 10:21) that the darkness was so thick that it was able to be felt. The vivid details that because of the thick darkness people could not breathe and were afraid that they would be gulped down by the fog are Josephus’ addition. Josephus omits the biblical statement (Exod. 10:23) that for the Israelites there was light in their dwellings. Nevertheless, it is striking that in his description of the plague of darkness, Josephus does not resort to rationalization here, whereas Philo tries to offer a scientific explanation in his suggestion that the darkness was possibly caused by an eclipse of the sun or by a cutting off of the stream of rays through continuous clouds, compressed with great force into masses of unbroken density (De Vita Mosis 1.21.123). See Moehring (1973:376-83).

In the biblical text (Exod. 10:28) Pharaoh says only that Moses should leave, and that he would die on the day that he sees him again. Nodet (ad loc.) suggests that the idea that Pharaoh would cut off Moses’ head is implied in the name that Moses gives to his son Eliezer (Exod. 18:4), the meaning of which, according to the biblical text there, is that God “delivered me from the sword of Pharaoh”; but Eliezer was born long before the ten plagues. Josephus adds to the portrait of Moses’ courage by making Pharaoh’s threat after the plague of darkness more vivid. In Exod. 10:29 Pharaoh is quoted as saying to Moses merely that he should be gone and that the moment that he looks upon his face again Moses will die. Josephus, for his part, says here that Pharaoh was infuriated (ὀργισθείς) by Moses’ speech and that he actually threatened to behead him if he should ever come again and pester (ἐνοχλῶν, “annoy,” “trouble,” “be a nuisance”) him on this matter. In Exod. 10:29 Moses says merely that Pharaoh has spoken well and that he will not see his face again any more.

Josephus omits God’s instructions to Moses (Exod. 11.2) to tell the Israelites to borrow vessels of gold and silver from their Egyptian neighbors.

Because he is writing for a predominantly non-Jewish Greek audience, Josephus felt constrained to formulate distinctively biblical words and concepts in a way familiar to his audience. Thus, when Moses prepares the Israelites here for departure from Egypt there is no indication in the Bible as to how they are to be marshaled for the journey (Exod. 11-12). Josephus, himself a general in the war against the Romans, knew how important it was for a good general to muster his troops carefully in advance. Hence, we are given the extra-biblical detail that Moses arranged them in fraternities (εἰς φρατρίας), this unit being in Athens a political subdivision of the Greek tribe (φυλή) and originally consisting of a noble family and its dependents who shared in the family cult. Later the φρατρίαι were Athenian religious organizations that celebrated certain cults with sacrifices and kept lists of the citizens. Josephus (Ant. 3.248) uses this word for “fraternities” again in connection with the way in which the Israelites eat the Paschal sacrifice. In Exod. 12:7 we read that the Israelites are to take the blood and put it on the two sideposts and the lintel in the houses where they are to eat the paschal lamb. I.e., purifying. Josephus mentions nothing at this point about the laws concerning unleavened bread to be eaten during the festival of Passover (Exod. 12:15-20).

Josephus here omits the details of the sacrifice (Exod. 12:3-11), which he includes in his systematic summary of the commandments (Ant. 3.248-49). Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 2.27.146) asserts that for these sacrifices a priest is not necessary, and Josephus seems to imply the same here. The Rabbis (Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael Pisha 3-4 on Exod. 12:1-5 [ed. Horovitz, pp. 11, 13, 16]), however, note the difference between the manner in which the sacrifice was made at the time of the Exodus and the later celebration. This is the Aramaic spelling (= ‮פסחא‬‎) of the festival of Passover (Hebrew ‮פסח‬‎). Josephus uses the term Pascha with reference both to the festival of Passover (as here, as well as in Ant. 10.70, 14.21, 14.25, 17.213, 18.29, 18.90; War 2.10, 6.243) and to the paschal sacrifice (Ant. 3.248, 3.294, 9.271, 11.110). The festival is called Πάσχα by Philo (De Vita Mosis 2.41.224) and frequently in the New Testament (Matt. 26:2, Mark 14:1, Luke 22:1, John 2:13, etc.). See Pelletier (1975:221). In the Talmud the term is widely used for both the name of the sacrifice and that of the festival; but the usual name of the festival both in Josephus and in the Talmud is “the Festival of Unleavened Bread.” Zeitlin (1951-52:45-50) notes that in War 6.423 Josephus mentions the Festival of Unleavened Bread but specifies the Passover only in connection with the slaughtering of the Paschal lamb, whereas here and in Ant. 14.25 he refers to the festival that is called Passover but does not use the term “Festival of Unleavened Bread.” Zeitlin explains the discrepancy by noting that after the destruction of the Temple the sages called the festival Passover and not Festival of Unleavened Bread, as in the Bible, and that thus the term “Festival of Unleavened Bread” was new when Josephus wrote the books of the Antiquities. Hence he speaks of the festival that is called Passover to convey something new that was not known to his readers at large. Huber (1969:120-21) notes that Josephus’ etymology, which is also found in Aquila (ap. Field, 100) and Symmachus (ap. Theodoret, PG 80. 252A), had little influence among the Church Fathers, except for Origen (ap. Hom. Pasch., in Nautin, Sources chrétiennes 36, p. 35 n.3), Jerome (Com. in Is. 10:31, 45 [PL 24.368C]), and Theodoret (loc. cit.). The other Church Fathers prefer to understand the term to mean, as does Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 2.27.145, 147), as διάβασις (διαβατήρια), i.e., “crossing,” referring to the passage of the Israelites from slavery to freedom. So also Exod. 12:27. Thackeray (ad loc.) notes that Thucydides (2.47.3) uses a different compound (ἐγκατασκῆψαι) of the same verb that Josephus uses here (ἐναπέσκηψε) with reference to the breaking out of the plague. Whereas Exod. 12:29-33 presents a detailed and vivid picture of the effect of the plague upon the first-born of the Egyptians Josephus is much briefer, presumably because he sought to emphasize the good neighborly relations of the Egyptians and the Israelites. In particular, Josephus omits the statement (Exod. 12:30) that there was not a house among the Egyptians where there was not someone dead. Whereas previously Pharaoh had failed to listen to his servants (Exod. 10:7), he finally here does, in Josephus’ addition, listen to his people and returns to his senses and orders the Israelites to depart.

Josephus omits the statement (Exod. 12:32) that Pharaoh, when finally permitting the Israelites to leave, asked Moses and Aaron to bless him also. The manuscripts read “would have ceased.” Here, at the conclusion and summary of the plagues, Exod. 11:10 states that Moses and Aaron performed all these wonders before Pharaoh, but in Josephus it is Moses alone whose role is mentioned. Nodet (ad loc.) notes that the view that the Egyptians sought to have the Israelites depart more swiftly corresponds to the LXX’s translation (Exod. 12:39) that the Egyptians actively cast out the Israelites, whereas the Hebrew text reads ‮גרשׁר‬‎, “they were cast out.” A similar statement is found in the rabbinic tradition (Berakot 9b, Mekilta di-Rabbi Ishmael, Pisha 13 [ed. Horovitz, p. 47]). One of the incidents that would appear to contradict the Israelites’ reputation for honesty and presumably Moses’ reputation for integrity was Moses’ permitting the Israelites to “borrow” jewelry and clothing from the Egyptians. A pagan writer, Pompeius Trogus (ap. Justin, Hist. Phil. 36, Epitoma 2.12-13), who is generally friendly to the Jews, states that the Jews carried off by stealth the sacred vessels of the Egyptians. One might well assume that the Israelites must have practiced deceit in order to obtain these objects, though such theft might perhaps be justified in view of the way in which the Israelites had been treated by the Egyptians for so long. So Philo (De Vita Mosis 1.25.141) and Jubilees (48:18). In Berakot 9b the rabbis emphasize that the Israelites did not want to “borrow” from the Egyptians and were satisfied merely with regaining their freedom; but God insisted that they do so in order to fulfill the promise that he had made to Abraham that they would leave Egypt with great substance (Gen. 15:13-14). In one biblical passage God tells Moses that before leaving Egypt the Israelites are to ask for jewels and clothing from the Egyptians, “and when you go, you shall not go empty...; thus you shall despoil the Egyptians” (Exod. 3:21-22). Before they actually depart from Egypt God repeats similar instructions to Moses (Exod. 11:2-3). Obviously, the Israelites had no intention of returning these “gifts.” Josephus resolves the problem by omitting all reference to the first passage; and in his paraphrase of the second it is not the Israelites who approach the Egyptians but rather the Egyptians themselves who here take the initiative in honoring the Israelites with gifts, some to speed their departure, others to show their neighborly feelings toward old acquaintances.

Josephus omits mention of the mixed multitude that joined the Israelites in their exodus from Egypt (Exod. 12:38). That Jews, according to Josephus, are not prejudiced against gentiles is clear from the fact that he differentiates between Pharaoh and the Egyptians, carefully noting, in an extra-biblical addition here, that when the Israelites departed from Egypt the Egyptians lamented and regretted the harsh treatment that they had inflicted on the Israelites. The city of Leto, Letopolis, has been identified as Usim, ten miles north of Old Cairo and about ten miles south of Heliopolis, where Jacob and his family settled (Ant. 2.188). Josephus identifies it with Sukkoth (Exod. 12:37), which is identified with Thukke in Egyptian inscriptions. Josephus here indicates that the route of the exodus was more to the south. Babylon (Fostat) has been identified with Old Cairo. Diodorus (1.46.3) mentions it as a colony founded by Babylonian captive laborers in Egypt. Strabo (17.1.30.807) identifies the Egyptian Babylon as a fortress in the nome of Letopolis or its vicinity established by Babylonian immigrants following the conquest of Egypt by Cambyses in 525 B.C.E. and as the camp of one of the Roman legions in Egypt. This appears to contradict the biblical statement (Exod. 13:17-18) that God deliberately led the Israelites by a longer route rather than via the direct route through the land of the Philistines lest the Israelites repent when they see war and seek to return to Egypt. This corresponds to Moses’ proposal to Pharaoh during the fourth plague to allow the Israelites to go on a three days’ journey into the wilderness in order to sacrifice to God. Artapanus (ap. Eus., Pr. Ev. 9.27.34) also, in an extra-biblical addition, says that the Israelites came to the Sea of Reeds in three days. Goudoever (1961) calls attention to the Samaritan Marqah’s Commentary on Exodus, which states that the Israelites arrived at the Sea of Reeds in three days but that they actually crossed it on the second feast (that is, on the seventh day of Passover); but the Samaritan Asatir asserts that they crossed it three days after their departure from Egypt. Hebrew ‮בעל צפן‬‎ (Exod. 14:2), LXX Βεελσεπφῶν, Josephus Βεελσεφῶν. Its location is unknown, but it is usually located near the head of the Gulf of Suez. Cf., however, Davies (1979:81-82), who proposes a location near the Bitter Lakes. Davies (1979:9) conjectures that the route led south of Jebel Attaqa and reached the sea southwest of Ras el-Adabiyeh.

Josephus does not give the Bible’s explanation (Exod. 12:39) for the short period of baking, namely that the Israelites had been thrust out of Egypt and did not have enough time to prepare any provisions for themselves. He is apparently troubled by the fact that Moses had told the Israelites (Exod. 12:3-28) to prepare for their departure (Ant. 2.311). This is inferred from the fact that the Israelites left Egypt on the fifteenth of Nisan and arrived in the wilderness of Sin on the fifteenth of the following month (Exod. 16:1). This statement is Josephus’ addition, presumably based on the fact that a month after they had left Egypt the Israelites complained about their hunger to Moses and Aaron (Exod. 16:1-3).

The fact that the unleavened bread is referred to as the “bread of affliction” (Deut. 16:3) and that “enriched” matzo (Pesaḥim 36a) is forbidden to be eaten on the holiday except by the aged or the sick is reminiscent of this scarcity. According to the Torah (Exod. 12:18-19, Lev. 23:6, Num. 28:17), the Passover is to be observed for seven days; and Josephus himself elsewhere says so (Ant. 3.249). Here he is apparently referring to the fact that in the Diaspora the holiday, like the other pilgrimage festivals, was observed for an extra day. Philo, however, though he is living in the Diaspora, gives the length of the holiday as seven days (De Specialibus Legibus 2.28.156). This is the biblical name of the festival (Lev. 23:6). So Exod. 12:37.

This is the Macedonian month, equivalent of Nisan. Cf. Ant. 2.311. According to Exod. 12:40, the Israelites were in Egypt for 430 years. The LXX and the Samaritan Pentateuch on this passage state that they sojourned in Egypt and in Canaan for 430 years. According to the Talmud (Megillah 9a) the translators of the Torah into Greek, apparently troubled by the fact that the Israelites were in Egypt only 210 years, added the phrase “in other lands” in rendering this verse: “And the time that the people of Israel dwelt in Egypt and in other lands was 400 years.” This would appear to contradict Josephus’ earlier statement (Ant. 2.204) that the Israelites endured hardships in Egypt for 400 years. Josephus is apparently following Demetrius (ap. Eus., Pr. Ev. 9.21.18) in dividing the 430 years into two equal parts. The figure of 215 years is also found in the eighth-century Pirqei de-Rabbi Eliezer (48), where the first-century Rabbi Joḥanan ben Zakkai is quoted as saying that the Israelites were in Egypt for 210 years, that 5 years before Jacob arrived Manaaseh and Ephraim were born to Joseph and were counted among the children of Israel, and that God reduced the 430 years that the Israelites were supposed to have spent in Egypt to 215 years for the sake of the merit of the forefathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The Samaritan midrash, Memar Marqah, attributed to the third- or fourth-century theologian Marqah but compiled over the next few centuries, states that half of the 430 years were spent in Canaan and the other half, presumably 215 years, in Egypt. See Heinemann (1971:24-25). Actually, as Heinemann (1971:26) notes, since Joseph was 39 years old at the time when Jacob came to Egypt and died at the age of 110, of the 210 years from Jacob’s descent to the Exodus (Bib. Ant. 9.3, Seder Olam Rabbah 3 [ed. Ratner, p. 14]), no more than 140 years were years of actual bondage.

One notable exception to Josephus’ general downgrading of the role of Aaron is to be seen in the fact that whereas in the Bible it is Moses alone who is mentioned as taking the bones of Joseph with him (Exod. 13:19), in accordance with the latter’s request (Gen. 50:25), Josephus here declares that both Moses and Aaron brought the bones with them. Inasmuch as attending to the dead and to their wishes is regarded as particularly meritorious (see Rabinowitz [1971:8: 442-46]), this deed brings great credit to Aaron. One problem is that priests are not permitted to have contact with the dead, except for their nearest relatives (Lev. 21:1-4; Ant. 3.277); and the high priest is not even permitted this. One may, therefore, ask how Aaron, the first high priest, can be presented here as having contact with the dead. The explanation may be that Aaron at this point had not yet been consecrated as high priest. According to Exod. 13:19 (cf. Gen. 50:25), Joseph had caused the children of Israel to swear that they would carry his bones to Canaan.

Josephus omits the biblical statement (Exod. 14:5) that Pharaoh was informed that the Israelites had fled. When Pharaoh decides to pursue the Israelites it is because he is mortified, in this Josephan addition, at the thought that it was the jugglery (γοητείαν, “magic,” “wizardry,” “deceit”) of Moses that had brought about their departure. If we may judge from Apuleius’ Metamorphoses, such alleged wizardry would have aroused considerable sympathy for its victim, Pharaoh. Whereas in the Bible (Exod. 14:5), both Pharaoh and his servants have a change of heart after the Israelites leave Egypt and whereas (Exod. 14:8) it is specifically Pharaoh whose heart is hardened and who takes the initiative to pursue the Israelites, in Josephus here it is the Egyptians alone who repent of having let the Israelites leave and who resolve to set out after them. We find a similar shift of blame from Pharaoh to the Egyptians in the matter of the initiative to pursue the Israelites in Bib. Ant. 10.2, 10.6, which so often parallels Josephus. Apparently, the Egyptians had concluded that God had required of the Israelites that they withdraw briefly in order to make their sacrifices to God, and that their permanent departure was not authorized by God. This reasoning is Josephus’ addition.

The high point of Moses’ leadership during the Exodus occurs at the Sea of Reeds. Josephus increases the magnitude of this achievement of Moses by heightening the drama of the Egyptian chase of the Israelites and the vigor of their pursuit. In particular, Moses’ achievement at the Sea is all the greater, inasmuch as— a point made twice by Josephus (Ant. 2.321, 326)— the Israelites were unarmed. Exod. 13:18 states that the Israelites were armed (‮חמשׁים‬‎) when they left Egypt. One of the paintings in the synagogue in Dura Europos likewise depicts the Israelites as armed (see the painting [Goodenough (1953-58: vol. 1, plate xiv, fig. 330)] and the discussion by Goodenough [vol. 10:118-19]). The LXX, however, translates the word ‮חמשׁים‬‎ as if it were related to the word for “five,” ‮חמשׁה‬‎ and renders it πέμτῃ γενεᾷ, “in the fifth generation.” According to the midrashic tradition (Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael Beshallaḥ Intro. [ed. Horovitz, p. 77]) and Mekilta de-Rabbi Shimon 38 [ed. Epstein, p. 45]), as well as according to Bib. Ant 14.1, forty-nine fiftieths of the Israelites perished in Egypt. Cassuto (1967:156-57), on the basis of the Arabic, translates “in orderly array.” Josephus here is in accord with Demetrius (ap. Eus., Pr. Ev. 9.29.16), who asks “how the Israelites obtained weapons, seeing that they had departed from Egypt unarmed.” He is likewise in accord with Ezekiel the Tragedian (ap. Eus., Pr. Ev. 9.29.14), who asserts that the Israelites were all unarmed for fighting, and with Philo (De Vita Mosis 1.31.170, 172), who states that the Israelites were not ready to defend themselves for lack of the necessary weapons. Exod. 14:5 states merely that the Pharaoh was told of the Israelites’ departure; Josephus dramatizes the incident by adding that the Egyptians inquired from everyone seeking to find out in what direction they had gone. Josephus increases the magnitude of this achievement of Moses by heightening the drama of the Egyptian chase of the Israelites and the vigor of their pursuit.

In Exod. 13:17 we read that it was God who led the Israelites by this route. Josephus, seeking to heighten the role of Moses, asserts that it is Moses himself who chose this route. According to Exod. 14:3, God tells Moses where the Israelites are to encamp as a ruse so that Pharaoh may say that they are entangled and that the wilderness has shut them in. These reasons why Moses led the Hebrews by the route of the desert are extra-biblical. According to Exod. 13:17, God is quoted as saying He did not lead the Israelites by way of the land of the Philistines lest the people repent when they see war and return to Egypt. As Nodet (ad loc.) remarks, the ancient enmity between the Philistines and the Israelites is an anachronism. Rabbinic tradition likewise mentions the Philistine menace (Midrash Exod. Rabbah 20.11, Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael Beshallaḥ Intro. on Exod. 13:17 [ed. Horovitz, p. 76], Targum Pseudo-Jonathan ad loc.). Josephus is clearly dissatisfied with the Bible’s explanation, presumably because he realized that the roundabout route itself presented enormous military obstacles and, in addition, would confront the people with the tremendous problem of thirst in a trackless desert. Hence, a competent leader would surely, it might seem, have chosen the more direct route along the sea-coast. Josephus, keenly aware of this problem, offers, in addition to the biblical answer, two further explanations.

Thackeray (ad loc.) suggests that Josephus, in giving these reasons, is replying to anti-Jewish objections raised in Alexandria as to why the Israelites had taken this unusual route.

The 50,000 horsemen and 200,000 footsoldiers are Josephus’ addition. Thackeray (ad loc.) notes the retreat of the Athenians from Syracuse (Thucydides 7.74) as a parallel that Josephus had in mind here.

Nodet (ad loc.) suggests that Josephus’ description here is perhaps inspired by the cliff of the Ladders of Tyre, which encompasses the Phoenician plain.

According to Exod. 14:11-12, the Israelites protested verbally to Moses, but there is no mention of a threat to stone him. In Exod. 17:4 the only instance where the Israelites intend to stone Moses is at Rephidim. In Josephus the Israelites are ready to stone him not only here but also at Elim (Ant. 3.12) and upon the return of the spies from scounting Canaan (Ant. 3.307). A great leader must be able to encourage his people. Thus, Moses is here described as cheering up (παρορμῶντα, “speeding on,” “stimulating,” “encouraging”) the Israelites and promising them salvation.

In a scene reminiscent of Xenophon’s portrayal of the Athenians’ reaction to their terrible defeat in the naval battle of Aegospotami (Hell. 2.2.3), Josephus heightens the pathos of the situation by invoking the wailings and lamentations of the women and children “with death before their eyes, hemmed in by mountains, sea, and enemy.”

At this point, God in the Bible berates Moses for crying out to Him instead of telling the people to go forward, and then instructs him to smite the sea (Exod. 14:15). In Josephus there is no rebuking of Moses (Ant. 2.329-33); on the contrary, Moses, we are told, firmly trusts in God. In Exod. 14:13 Moses assures the Israelites that they will never see again the Egyptians whom they now see.

In Exod. 14:21 we read only that Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; there is nothing to indicate that he actually led them into the sea. In the rabbinic tradition (Soṭah 37a, Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael Beshallaḥ 5 [ed. Horovitz, pp. 106-7]) it was Naḥshon, the son of Amminadab, the chieftain of the tribe of Judah (Num. 2:3), who was the first who descended into the sea; according to another version all the tribes were eager to obey Moses’ command and competed among themselves as to who should be first, whereupon the tribe of Benjamin jumped in first, but the tribe of Judah, eager to be first themselves, attacked them with stones (Soṭah 36b-37a). Josephus omits the detail, presumably because of his rationalizing tendency, that the angel of God who went before the Israelites now moved and went behind them, and the pillar of cloud that had been before them now stood behind them, coming between the Egyptians and the Israelites. Significantly, Josephus here paints the encounter at the Sea of Reeds as a battle. As Josephus presents matters, it was only because they were exhausted from the pursuit that the Egyptians deferred the battle. In Exod. 14:21 there is no indication that the Egyptians deferred the battle. Rather, it seems that God arranged that the battle be deferred since we read (ibid., a point omitted by Josephus) that God drove back the sea with a strong east wind all that night and made the sea dry land so that the Israelites would be able to pass over it. In Exod. 14:15 Moses does not actually address God at this point before entering the sea, though it seems to be implied in God’s statement here: “Why do you cry to me? Tell the people of Israel to go forward.” This address of Moses to God when he is about to enter the sea is Josephus’ addition.

Whereas in Exod. 14:16 the miracle comes at God’s initiative, in Josephus it is Moses who here suggests the miracle to God, reminding Him that the sea is God’s and that consequently He can make the deep become dry land.

In Exod. 14:16 God tells Moses to lift up his staff and to stretch out his hand over sea; here in Josephus he actually strikes the sea. Josephus surprisingly, in view of his tendency to rationalize and to explain miracles in naturalistic terms, omits the method by which the sea became dry land, namely through the strong east wind that blew all that night. Even though generally Josephus downgrades or rationalizes miracles, here, whereas the Bible declares that it took all that night for God to drive back the sea (Exod. 14:21), in Josephus we are told that the miracle was instantaneous and that the sea recoiled at Moses’ very stroke. Jacobson (1983:37-38) notes a number of parallels in the account of the miracle of crossing the Sea of Reeds between Ezekiel the tragedian and Josephus.

Perhaps most important of all, Josephus introduces a totally new element with his statement here that it was Moses who bravely led the way in entering the sea. With such a leader we are not surprised to find Josephus’ additional remark that the Israelites sped into the sea with zest, assured of God’s attendant presence, so that the watching Egyptians deemed them mad (Ant. 2.340).

In Exod. 14:23 we read only that the Egyptians pursued and went in after the Israelites. Josephus has here added to the drama of the situation by remarking that the Egyptians hastened, imagining that the sea would remain peaceful for them also.

These details, that while the Egyptians were losing time in putting on their armor the Israelites were able to cross the sea, and that Egyptians, seeing this, ironically gained greater confidence that they would be able to do likewise are Josephus’ additions.

The miracle itself is heightened by the dramatic fact that the Egyptians little dream that the Sea of Reeds was reserved for the Hebrews and was no public highway.

Josephus here omits the statement (Exod. 14:24) that God looked into the camp of the Egyptians with a pillar of fire and cloud and brought confusion into the camp of the Egyptians, as well as the statement (Exod. 14:25) that He took off the wheels of their chariots. He also omits the biblical statement (Exod. 14:26) that God told Moses to stretch out his hand over the sea so that the waters might cover over the Egyptians. The miracle itself is presented dramatically but in naturalistic rather than supernatural terms, with wind-swept billows descending upon the Egyptians, with rain falling in torrents from heaven, and with crashing thunder accompanying the flashes of lightning—details that are not to be found in Exod. 14:27-28. A similar picture is to be found in Psalms 18:12-14 and 77:16-20 (as suggested by Jacobson [1996:1.441]) and in the rabbinic tradition (Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Exod. 14:24, Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael Beshallaḥ 5 [ed. Horovitz, p. 108]). Likewise, Artapanus (ap. Eus., Pr. Ev. 9.27.37): “When the Egyptians went in together in hot pursuit,...a fire blazed in front of them, and the sea again flooded their path.” Familiar as he was with the snide remarks of the Jew-baiters, Josephus might well have been acquainted with the rationalistic view of the Memphians, as cited by Artapanus (ap. Eus., Pr. Ev. 9.27.35), that Moses, being familiar with the countryside, watched for the ebb tide and then led the Israelite multitudes through the dry part of the sea. Instead, he prefers to represent the event as a miracle because, he presumably felt, it added to the stature of Moses as a general deserving of comparison, at least by implication, with Alexander the Great, and worthy of such a divine act of providence. Philo recounts the miracle as an illustration of Moses’ prophetic status (De Vita Mosis 2.45.247-51), in contrast to Josephus, who significantly looks upon it as illustrating Moses’ genius as a leader and as a general. We may also contrast with Josephus the approach of Bib. Ant. 10.5, which, without any apology, stresses the miraculous aspect and the awesome intervention of God. The same is true of the rabbinic tradition, on which see Ginzberg (1928:6:11, n. 55).

The Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael Beshallaḥ 4 on Exod. 14:28 (ed. Horovitz, p. 102) asserts that the Egyptians were in darkness and saw the Israelites eating and drinking in the light. Nodet (ad loc.) suggests that Josephus understood the word ‮עַד‬‎ (“to”) as ‮עֵד‬‎ (“witness”) in the clause (Exod. 14:28) ‮לא־נשׁאר בהם עד־אחד‬‎ (“there remained of them not even [to] one.”). The statement that no messenger returned to report the disaster is Josephus’ addition. He is perhaps thinking of the report by a messenger of the Athenian debacle at Syracuse in the Peloponnesian War (Thucydides 8.1).

The picture of unrestrained joy on the part of the Israelites after the miracle of the crossing of the Sea of Reeds is Josephus’ addition.

Josephus, despite his constant emphasis on the Providence (πρόνοια) of God and despite his exaggeration of the episode as one in which the enemies of the Jews were punished in such a manner as had never before occurred within human memory (Ant. 2.346, the latter a Josephan addition), realizes that his audience would be skeptical of such a miracle. In contrast, as Wolfson (1947:1:122-26, 347-56) and Grant (1952:185) have remarked, Philo’s attitude toward miracles is essentially affirmative, since, as he says (e.g., De Opificio Mundi 14.46; De Abrahamo 22.112, 32.175), all things are possible for God. Thus, of the miracle of the Sea of Reeds, Philo remarks that it is God’s special property to find a way where there is no way (De Vita Mosis 1.31.174). Exod. 15:1 says not that Moses sang a song but will sing (‮ישׁיר‬‎) one. Josephus says here not that Moses sang the song but composed one. This is, of course, a classical Greek metre, the metre of Homer’s epics. Similarly, Josephus (Ant. 4.303) states that just before he died Moses recited a poem in hexameter verse that he bequeathed in a book preserved in the Temple. Thackeray (1929:91) suggests that Josephus was acquainted with a collection of chants, drawn from the Bible and possibly adapted for a temple choir. That Josephus does not quote or paraphrase the song itself is in line with his similar omission of the Song of Miriam (Exod. 15:20-21) and the Song of Deborah (Judg. 5), the reason being, presumably, because Josephus is writing a history and not a collection of poetry, though the fact that the latter two songs are not even referred to may reflect Josephus’ misogyny. See Feldman (1986:115-28) and Amaru (1988:143-70).

Josephus is clearly apologetic about the incident, inasmuch as he goes out of his way here to remark that he has recounted each detail “just as I found it in the sacred books.” One recalls, in this connection, Josephus’ statement that it is because the prophets alone are responsible for the Holy Scriptures there is no discrepancy in what is written, their accuracy deriving from the fact that their knowledge of ancient history was due to the inspiration that they received from God (Apion 1.37). The use of the key word αὐτομάτως (“by itself,” “by accident,” “automatically”), a standard word in Epicureanism, which is also found in Josephus’ version of Daniel’s prophecy (Ant. 10.277-78), is Josephus’ way of answering the Epicureans and of reasserting his agreement with the Stoics, who, it will be recalled, are compared with the Pharisees (Life 12), in insisting on Divine providence in all events (see MacRae [1965:139] and Attridge [1976:98]).

Near the boundary between Lycia and Pamphylia in Asia Minor. This event is reported by Arrian (Anab. 1.26), who asserts that the sea withdrew owing to a change of wind caused by an act of Providence, as well as by Strabo (14.3.9.666-67), who says that Alexander, blocked by the sea, trusted to chance, and that his troops, owing to the wind, were immersed only to their navels. So also Callisthenes (frag. 25), Appian (Bell. Civ. 2.189), and Menander (ap. Plutarch, Alex. 17), who speak of this as miraculous. It is significant that in adducing a parallel for the supernatural intervention at the Sea of Reeds, Josephus here cites the crossing of the Pamphylian Sea, which withdrew before the army of Alexander the Great. He thus implicitly compares Moses to that greatest of conquerors, while also making the miracle itself more credible by thus indicating that it was not without precedent. Hence, he seeks to bolster his credibility by citing this parallel, which he asserts is found in all those writers who have recorded Alexander the Great’s exploits. This is a formula frequently found in Josephus where a miracle is mentioned. See note on Ant. 1.108. Cf. Artapanus (ap. Eus., Pr. Ev. 9.27.35), who presents a rationalized interpretation of the miracle of the crossing, noting that the Memphians claim that Moses, being familiar with the countryside, watched for the ebb tide and then led the multitude of Israelites through the dry part of the sea, while adding, in the next sentence (9.27.36), a miraculous interpretation, namely, that a divine voice came to Moses instructing him to strike the sea with his rod and divide it. Similarly, Philo, (De Vita Mosis 1.32.176) presents a rationalized version of the crossing, noting that at sunset a south wind of tremendous violence arose so that the sea was driven back, whereas immediately afterwards we read (1.32.177) that Moses, at God’s command, struck the sea with his staff, apparently bringing the miracle to pass.

The statement that after the drowning of the Egyptians in the Sea of Reeds their weapons had been carried up to the Israelite camp by the current and the force of the wind and that Moses gathered together their weapons is Josephus’ addition. According to Exod. 13:18, the Israelites were armed (‮חמשׁים‬‎) when they left Egypt. This is the rabbinic interpretation (Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael Beshallaḥ Intro. [ed. Horovitz, p. 77]), Midrash Exod. Rabbah 20.19), as noted above (Ant. 2.321). The notion that the Egyptians’ weapons had been carried up to the Israelite camp through God’s providence so that they might not be without weapons is Josephus’ addition. So also Ant. 2.269.

For Josephus Mount Sinai (see Ant. 2.264) is apparently in northwest Arabia, though elsewhere (Apion 2.25) Josephus says that it is between Egypt and Arabia, presumably in the Sinai peninsula. As Davies (1992: 6:48) notes, the most precise indication of its location in the Bible is in Deut. 1:2, where, we are told, it is an 11 days’ journey from Horeb (i.e. Mount Sinai) by way of Mount Seir to Kadesh-Barnea. This would favor a location in the southern part of the Sinai peninsula. See also Davies (1979:10). This brief, parenthetical description of the sandy desert near Mt. Sinai, elaborates Exod. 15:22 (cf. Exod. 16:1-2), where it is identified as the Wilderness of Shur, located between the Sea of Reeds and Marah. In the parallel account in Num. 33:8 this area is denominated the Wilderness of Etham rather than of Shur. Seely (1992:5:1230) locates Shur in the northwestern part of the Sinai peninsula but notes that the precise boundaries depend on where the crossing of the Sea of Reeds and Marah are located.

On the frequency with which Moses is referred to as a general and its significance see Ant. 2.241 and the note thereon. The statement about the Israelites’ carrying and fetching water is Josephus’ addition to Exod. 15:22. Likewise, according to the rabbinic tradition (Tanḥuma Beshalaḥ 18 [ed. Buber, p. 64] and parallels), when the Israelites crossed the sea, they came upon sweet water, which they took in their vessels and drank. When this water had been consumed, they murmured.

Hebrew ‮מרה‬‎ (Exod. 15:23), LXX Μεῤῥᾶ, Josephus Μάρ. Hebrew ‮מר‬‎ means “bitter.” Josephus is mistaken in making it a noun when it is actually an adjective. Philo (De Vita Mosis 1.33.182), in his paraphrase of the same biblical passage (Exod. 15:22-26), describes the bodies of the Israelites as exhausted and their souls as dejected. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Exod. 16:2 informs us that on the day that the Israelites arrived at the desert of Sin, their food supply ran out. This identical tradition is found here in Josephus. Josephus, however, makes mention of this fact while the Israelites are still at Elim; for him the murmuring against Moses likewise begins there. However, that both Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Josephus are referring to the same tradition is borne out by the mention of the day being the thirtieth of the march in Josephus and the fifteenth of Iyar in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. This would be thirty days since they left Egypt on the fifteenth of Nisan, since Nisan has thirty days in the Talmudic calendar. See Malina (1968:56).

This is Josephus’ addition, presumably inspired by the mention of the water in Exod. 15:25. The picture that Josephus paints of Moses is that of a general who, like Xenophon in the Anabasis, takes command of motley troops—indeed, the Israelites are here referred to as an army—and brings them safely to their destination through a host of formidable difficulties, overcoming both their lack of water and hostile tribes. Note the frequency with which the Israelites are referred to as an army: see Ant. 2.335 and note thereon. This is Josephus’ addition. This is Josephus’ addition. That the water was undrinkable for both humans and animals is Josephus’ addition to Exod. 15:23.

This description of the Israelites is Josephus’ addition. In his contempt for the masses Josephus followed in the footsteps of Thucydides (2.65.4) and Plato (Rep. 8.557-61). He stresses the disorderliness of the mob that supported Korah (Ant. 4.22). It is precisely because the masses are so fickle that responsible and inspired leadership is so important, as we see particularly in Josephus’ treatment of the period of the judges. His negative attitude toward the mob is seen in his statement that it was the leaders of the rabble who were responsible for the rise of Jeroboam and consequently for the secession of the northern kingdom (Ant. 8.212). There are also clear overtones of this same attitude toward the role of the masses in his account of the war against Rome (War 3.475, 7.191). Moses’ reaction is Josephus’ addition.

I.e. their wives. The portrait of the Israelites running to Moses is Josephus’ embellishment of Exod. 15:24.

Whereas the Bible states that God showed Moses a piece of wood that he then threw into the water so as to sweeten it (Exod. 15:25), in Josephus Moses picks up a piece of wood on his own initiative, splits it in two, and then flings it into the well. Josephus then adds the rationalizing detail that Moses, likewise on his own initiative, instructed the people to drain off the larger part of the water, assuring them that the remainder would be drinkable (Ant. 3.8). In contrast, Philo wavers between explaining that the tree that God showed Moses was formed by nature to accomplish this service, which had hitherto remained unknown, and postulating that it was created for precisely this occasion (De Vita Mosis 1.33.185). Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael Vayasa‘ 1 (ed. Horovitz, p. 156) and parallels, as noted by Ginzberg (1928:6:14, n. 82), assert that the tree that made the waters of Marah sweet represents the Torah, which is “the tree of life” (Prov. 3:18). Apparently, like Josephus, the rabbis thus attempted to rationalize the miracle, perhaps in direct opposition to what they conceived as excessive reliance upon miracles in the claims of the first Christians. So also Bib. Ant. 11.15: “He [God] showed him [Moses] the tree of life, a piece of which he cut off and took and threw into Marah; and the water of Marah became sweet.” Josephus omits the statement (Exod. 15:25): “There the Lord made for them a statute and an ordinance and there He proved them.” Josephus also omits God’s promise (Exod. 15:26) that if the Israelites would listen to Him and to His commandments He would inflict upon them none of the diseases with which he had afflicted the Egyptians, perhaps because in the Bible the promise seems to have no immediate connection with the episode of the bitter water at Marah that precedes it.

Although Josephus seems to emphasize the miraculous element, upon clearer analysis this turns out to be rationalization also. As compared with Philo (De Vita Mosis 1.33.185-86), Josephus here, in his paraphrase of the events at Marah, goes further and gives a rationalistic explanation. The difference is that Philo allegorizes as much as possible, whereas Josephus avoids allegory. See Moehring (1973). Cf. War 4.459-67, which describes the spring near Jericho that originally blighted the fruits of the earth and caused disease and destruction but that was converted into a salubrious source by the prophet Elisha (2 Kgs. 2:19-23). There we are told (War 4.464) that, in addition to his prayers, Elisha “worked many things besides with his hands from [professional] skill.” See Feldman (1994:20-24).

Hebrew ‮אילם‬‎ (Exod. 15:27), LXX Αἰλίμ, Josephus Ἦλιν. Josephus’ description of Elim seems to contradict Exod. 15:27, which states simply that there were there 12 springs of water and 70 palm trees, with no indication that it was disappointing. The rabbinic tradition (Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael Vayasa‘ 1 [ed. Horovitz, p. 158-59]), unlike Josephus, speaks of Elim as rich in water. So also Philo (De Vita Mosis 1.34.188) speaks of its palm trees as fine and luxuriant and sees in the 12 springs and 70 palm trees signs of national blessings. Similar to Josephus’ negative view of Elim is Midrash Hagadol Exod. 2.170 (ed. Margulies, p. 319) and parallels. Josephus omits the journey from Elim to the wilderness of Sin (Exod. 16:1), where the Israelites murmured against Moses and Aaron. In Josephus here the Israelites express their discontent in Elim. Josephus apparently conflates what happened at Elim with what happened at Sin, since nothing is told in the Bible as to what happened at Elim.

The Greek text here is doubtful. Dindorf’s emendation, διεπήδα, “oozed through,” makes the best sense. Thackeray (ad loc.) notes a parallel in Thucydides 4.26, who mentions that there was no spring except one on the citadel of Pylos itself, and that most of the Athenians were obliged to grub up the shingle on the sea beach and drink such water as they could find. Similar language is found in Ant. 2.296, where Josephus describes how, during the plague of the frogs, the Egyptians scraped the soil only to find their drinking-water befouled with the juices of the dying frogs.

In Exod. 16:2-3 the whole congregation of the people of Israel murmur against both Moses and Aaron in the wilderness and express the wish that they had died in Egypt, where they had sat by fleshpots and eaten to the full (Exod. 16:2-3); but in Josephus’ version the complaint is directly solely at Moses. According to Exod. 16:1 the Israelites came to the wilderness of Sin on the fifteenth day of the second month after their departure from Egypt, which took place on the fourteenth day of the first month at evening (Exod. 12:18). The rabbinic tradition (Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Exodus 16:2, Qiddushin 38a, and parallels cited by Ginzberg [1928:6:16 n. 89] and Rappaport [120 n. 155]) asserts that the Israelites brought with them from Egypt food for one meal, which lasted them for 30 days, and that this food had the taste of manna. Cf. Ant. 2.316, which indicates that the Israelites subsisted for 30 days on the matzo baked with the flour that they had brought with them from Egypt. Despite rationing they could make it last no longer.

The phrase “at their feet” (ἐν ποσί) occurs in one of Josephus’ favorite authors, Sophocles (Ant. 1326-27). There the Chorus, in response to Creon’s despairing statement to his servants to take him away, reply, “You give good advice, if there is any advantage in evil circumstances. For when evils are at one’s feet (τἀν ποσίν) the shortest are best.” The phrase “at one’s feet” indicates that it requires immediate attention. Cf. Creon’s statement in Sophocles (Oed. Tyr. 130-31): “The riddling Sphinx drew us to throw aside the obscure and to examine what lay at our feet (πρὸς ποσί),” where “at our feet” indicates instant, pressing trouble. In Josephus the Israelites are ready to stone Moses not only here but also at the Sea of Reeds (Ant. 2.327) and upon the return of the spies from scouting Canaan (Ant. 3.307). In Exod. 16:2 the Israelites begin their murmuring after their departure from Elim; and the threatened stoning occurs later at Rephidim (Exod. 17:4).

Cf. Philo (De Vita Mosis 1.36.196-99), who is describing the incident at Sin (Exod. 16:1-12).

I.e. God. Cf. Philo (De Vita Mosis 1.36.196), who is paraphrasing the similar incident at Sin, though he does not mention Sin by name (Exod. 16:1-12): “Moses, when reviled in this way, was indignant not so much at their denunciations of himself as at their instability of judgment.” Moses’ motivation, as here conjectured, is Josephus’ innovation, as is his whole address to the Israelites.

Exod. 7:17-24; Ant. 2.294-95.

Cf. Ant. 2.321 and note thereon.

I.e. liberty.

This speech by Moses is Josephus’ addition. In the Bible Moses says nothing in reply to the people’s words (Exod. 16:2-3). Rather, God immediately thereafter addresses Himself to Moses (Exod. 16:4).

The scene is reminiscent of the passage in Virgil in which Neptune calms the seas that have been made turbulent by Aeolus (Aen. 1.124-47) and that Virgil presents as a simile of the effect upon a turbulent crowd of a great leader (Virgil probably intends to have his readers think of Augustus) who assuages their feelings (Aen. 1.148-56). This is Josephus’ addition in anticipation of Moses’ later ascent of Mt. Sinai. Josephus omits the statement (Exod. 16:10) that the glory of the Lord appeared in a cloud.

With Josephus’ cynical view of human nature when confronted with difficulties and disasters cf. Thucydides 2.60.1-2. Josephus omits God’s statement (Exod. 16:4-5) to Moses that He would rain down food from heaven and that the Israelites should pick each day’s portion on that day as a test to see whether they would follow God’s teaching, and that on the sixth day of each week they would gather a double portion.

In Exod. 16:9 Moses calls upon Aaron to be his spokesman to the congregation and to tell them that God has heard their complaint. We are then told that while Aaron was speaking to the people the glory of God appeared in a cloud and promised the people that in the evening they would have flesh and that in the morning they would have bread (Exod. 16:10). Aaron, however, plays no role in Josephus’ version; instead, we read that Moses stood in their midst and informed the people that he had come to announce that God would deliver them from their present straits. Josephus omits God’s further address to Moses (Exod. 16:11-12) assuring him that He had heard the complaints of the Israelites and that they would have meat in the afternoon and bread in the morning.

According to Exod. 16:13 the quails came that evening. According to Josephus the episode of the quails occurred at Elim (Ant. 3.9), whereas according to Exod. 16:1, 13, it occurred in the wilderness of Sin. Josephus, by adding the statement that quails are a species of bird more abundant than all others in that area and that they are accustomed to skim the ground, clearly rationalizes the miracle (Exod. 16:13). Philo (De Vita Mosis 1.37.209) explains that the quails flew close to the land and hence were easy to catch. Or “even beyond His promise.” Moses’ prayer is Josephus’ addition.

The Hebrew text (Exod. 16:13-14) states that there was a layer of dew around the camp and that the layer of dew ascended (‮ותעל‬‎); the LXX (Exod. 16:13) states that the dew ceased (καταπαυομένης) around the camp. Malina (1968:54-55) notes that in Josephus’ treatment of the manna incident here in the Antiquities, he repeatedly refers to the manna as being “sent down,” using variants of the word καταπέμπω, and that καταπέμπω is an accurate version of the Aramaic ‮נחת‬‎, “to go down,” “descend.” According to this, Josephus is an early witness to the existence of an interpretation of Exod. 16:4 that is attested in Neofiti and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan ‮נחת‬‎ (ad loc.). We may, however, note that “going down” is implied in the Hebrew text (Exod. 16:4), where God says that He will “rain down” (‮ממטיר‬‎) bread from heaven. Whereas the miracle of the manna in the Bible is due solely to God (Exod. 16:13), Josephus highlights the role of Moses, adding that while Moses raised his hands in prayer, a dew descended and congealed about his hands. Vermes (1969:260-61) notes that Josephus here incorporates a significant haggadic element, i.e. Moses was the first to receive the dew and subsequently gave it to the astonished Israelites, who had imagined it to be snow. Nodet (ad loc.) suggests that “around his hands” may be a Semiticism for “near him” (‮על ידיו‬‎) and calls attention to the fact that whereas Exod. 16:14 states that when the dew had gone up the manna appeared, Josephus actually transforms the dew into the manna. For other Semiticisms in Josephus see Goldenberg (1979-80:182). The manna fell on the members, i.e. arms and hands, of the Israelites and was directly eaten. “Nurture from God” means that the Israelites became mighty as angels by eating the manna; thus Midrash Ps. 78.4. Cf. the sources and discussion in Ginzberg (1925:5:236, n.143). See Malina (1968:85 n.3). Whereas, according to the Bible, Moses tells the Israelites that this is the bread that God has sent them to eat (Exod. 16:15), Josephus, realizing that people would be reluctant to eat a food that they had previously never seen, has Moses take the role of leader in tasting it first.

Exod. 16:14 describes the manna as a fine, flake-like thing, fine as hoarfrost; but there is no indication that the Israelites thought that it was snowy. Whereas the Hebrew text (Num. 11:7) describes it as having the color of bdellium (an aromatic gum resin similar to myrrh), the LXX renders it as having the appearance of ice (κρύσταλλος). Philo (De Vita Mosis 1.36.200) describes it as “a strange, extraordinary rain, not water, nor hail, nor snow, nor ice, such as are produced by the changes in the clouds at the winter solstice, but of grains exceedingly small and white.” The fact that he says that it is not snow or ice implies that one might mistake it for them. Josephus preserves a tradition about manna (Exod. 16:14) that is attested in Artapanus (ap. Eus., Pr. Ev. 9.27.37), namely that it resembled the color of snow. Wisdom 16:22 describes it as snow and ice that did not melt. Wisdom 19:21 depicts it as “the easily melted ice-like kind of heavenly food.” Van Cangh (1974:317 n.43) remarks that the comparison of manna with snow denotes a certain lack of knowledge of the climatic conditions of the Arab desert. As Nodet (ad loc.) notes, this is a Semiticism for winter. Manuscripts M and E, as well as Niese and Thackeray, adopt the reading ἔτους (“year”) rather than ὑετοῦ (“rain”) because the season was apparently spring. Snow at this season is certainly most rare. Ricciotti (1953:1:264-65) notes that Arabs know of a tree that produces a substance that they call man es-samā’, “manna from heaven.” This tree is called ṭarfā and is found particularly on the west coast of the Sinai peninsula and appears sometimes in the form of a cluster of bushes. Cf. Kmosko (1907:2:1115-16). This passage is reminiscent of Neh. 9.20. What fell from heaven was not dew but was for their salvation. Cf. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Exod. 4:15, 16:14. See Malina (1968:91 n.2). Van Cangh (1974:318) notes that Josephus utilizes indifferently the two traditions of Num. 11:6-9 and Ex. 16:13-35. The manna replaces all the other nutriments, for it always has the taste desired by the consumer.

Malina (1968:64, n.3) remarks that Josephus here makes no mention of the taste of oil (Num. 11:8), only of honey; the same is true of the reference to a honeycomb “big and white as snow and full of honey, like dew from heaven” in the legend of Joseph and Asenath (16.4). In the Sibylline Oracles (frag. 3.49) manna is called sweet bread. So Num. 11:7. On bdellium see Pliny (Hist. Nat. 12.35) and Löw (1924:1:304-5). So Num. 11:7.

Exod. 16:16 mentions an ‮עמר‬‎ for every person. Exod. 16:36 states that an ‮עמר‬‎ is a tenth part of an ‮איפה‬‎. An assaron (Hebrew ‮עשׂרון‬‎) is a tenth part, i.e. of an ‮איפה‬‎, hence equivalent to an ‮עמר‬‎. There would seem to be a contradiction within Exod. 16:16, which states that every person should gather manna “as much as he can eat” and then proceeds in the same verse to say that each one is to take an ‮עמר‬‎. Josephus resolves this by omitting “as much as he can eat.”

Josephus omits the passage (Exod. 16:22-30) in which Moses instructs the Israelites that they are to gather twice as much manna on the sixth day and that on the Sabbath it was not spoiled. He also omits God’s instructions to Moses to preserve an ‮עמר‬‎ of the manna and the statement that Aaron kept it before the Testimony (Exod. 16:32-34).

Weill (ad loc.) translates “It replaced for those who ate of it all other missing foods” and points to the tradition found in Wisdom 16:20-21 and in the rabbinic literature (Yoma 75a and parallels) that the manna assumed the taste that was most pleasant to the one who ate it. Thackeray (ad loc.) objects that the word here translated as “ate” normally means “inhabit” and that the word here translated as “it,” which is feminine, cannot refer to the word for food, which is neuter. A tradition dating from the third century found among the monks of the monastery of St. Catherine in Sinai holds that the manna comes from the secretion of insects on the branches of the tamarisk tree, a fresh supply of which is said to appear each night during the season (June and July). The Sinai Bedouin call the globules man and use it as a substitute for honey. See Seder Eliyahu Rabbah 13 (ed. Friedmann, p. 60), cited by Ginzberg (1928:6:17 n.99). Josephus rationalizes so as to have it appear that the manna was not so exceptional, since he notes that to this very day that entire region of Arabia is watered by a rain similar to that which the Israelites experienced in the days of Moses. Like Josephus, the rabbis declare that the manna descended due to the merit of Moses (Ta‘anit 9a; so also Bib. Ant. 20:8: manna was given for the sake of Moses). See Vermes (1969:259). For further rabbinic parallels see Ginzberg (1928:6:19-20 n.113). Philo (De Migratione Abrahami 21.121-22), as noted by Vermes (1969:261-62), likewise attributes the descent of the manna to the intervention of Moses, as the reference to rain and snow seems to indicate. Philo (De Vita Mosis 1.36.198) says that God gave the manna partly “to honor the ruler whom He had appointed, and still more to bring home to them [the Israelites] the greatness of that ruler’s piety and holiness.” Van Cangh (1974:317) remarks, however, that the intermediary role of Moses is clearly more emphasized in Josephus than in Philo.

Hebrew ‮מן‬‎ (Exod. 16:15), LXX (Num. 11:7) μάννα, Josephus μάννα. Cf. Exod. 16:15: “When the people of Israel saw it, they said to one another, ‘What is it?’” (‮מה הוא‬‎). Cf. Exod. 16:35: “And the people of Israel ate the manna 40 years, till they came to a habitable land; they ate the manna, till they came to the border of the land of Canaan.” Cf. Josh. 5:12: “And the manna ceased on the morrow” [after the encampment at Gilgal, i.e. after the 40 years that the Israelites had wandered in the desert].

Hebrew ‮רפידים‬‎ (Exod. 17:1), LXX Ῥαφιδίν, Josephus Ῥαφιδείν. Num. 33:12-14 mentions two additional stops between the desert of Sin and Rephidim, namely Dophkah and Alush. Josephus omits the demand of the Israelites (Exod. 17:2-3) for water and their complaint why he had brought them out of Egypt only to have them, their children, and their livestock die of thirst, as well as Moses’ response, “Why do you find fault with me? Why do you put the Lord to the proof?” According to Exod. 17:4, Moses cried to the Lord, “They are almost ready to stone me.”

Cf. Ant. 3.23 and note 36 above. At Rephidim, when the Israelites find themselves in an absolutely waterless region and vent their wrath on their leader, it is Moses, according to the biblical version, who cries to God fearfully telling Him that they are on the verge of stoning him (Exod. 17:4). Josephus’ Moses shuns the press of the crowd and instead turns to God in prayer, beseeching that He afford them drink. God then promises that He will provide water, and so Moses fearlessly and alone, without the company of the elders (in Exod. 17:5 Moses is told by God to take some of the elders with him), approaches the people and tells them that God will deliver them from their distress. Immediately thereafter, in a most dramatic fashion, Moses strikes the rock and water gushes forth.

According to Exod. 17:5, God tells Moses to take in his hand the rod with which he had struck the Nile. Josephus omits the name of the rock, Horeb (Exod. 17:6). Josephus omits the name of the place, Massah (i.e. proof) and Meribah (i.e. contention), so called because the Israelites had put the Lord to the proof (Exod. 17:7).

This is Josephus’ addition, in anticipation of a similar scene when Moses came down from Mount Sinai with the two tablets (Exod. 19:25). Moses’ words to the Israelites are Josephus’ addition.

This is Josephus’ addition. Josephus omits the statement (Exod. 17:6) that Moses struck the rock in the presence of the elders of Israel. Exod. 17:6 says only that Moses struck the rock. It does not specifically indicate that the water gushed forth, let alone that it was of the clearest kind.

The reaction of the Israelites to the miracle of the water from the rock is Josephus’ addition. The mention of this writing is Josephus’ addition. Thackeray (ad loc.) notes other references to books preserved in the temple: Ant. 4.303: the song of Moses containing a prediction of future events; Ant. 5.61: the account of the lengthening of the day in Joshua. Thackeray avers that these refer not to Scriptures generally but to a separate collection of chants made for the use of the temple singers. Schalit (ad loc.) thinks that the reference is to a work of the Apocrypha or Pseudepigrapha, such as the Assumption of Moses.

The report of the fame of the Israelites is Josephus’ addition. This is Josephus’ addition. The fact that Josephus devotes some 24 paragraphs to the account of the war against the Amalekites, whereas Exod. 17:8-16 gives it only 9 verses, is an indication of how important Josephus regarded this episode. See Maier (1994: 118-19).

Area southeast of the Dead Sea. The later capital of the Nabateans. In Edom there was a city called ‮סלע‬‎ (=“rock”) that was also called Jokthel (2 Kgs. 14:7; cf. Judg. 1:36 and 2 Chr. 25:12). In Ant. 2.6 Josephus says that the descendants of Esau occupied the region of Idumea called Gobolitis and that called, after Amalek, Amalekitis. Ps. 83:7 connects Gebal, Ammon, and Amalek. Philo (De Vita Mosis 1.39.214) connects the Amalekites with the Phoenicians. Maier (1994:117) notes that Josephus designates the eastern part of Idumea as the land of the Amalekites, which is unequivocally identical with Arabia Petrea. The view that the Amalekites urged on other nations against the Israelites is also found in the rabbinic tradition: Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael Amalek 1 (ed. Horovitz, p. 176) and Mekilta de-Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai 81 (ed. Epstein, p. 119). Connected with the virtue of justice, as we see here, is the quality of mercy. Josephus was confronted with what would have amounted to a call for genocide in God’s statements that He will have war with Amalek from generation to generation (Exod. 17:14-15) and that the Israelites are to blot out the remembrance of him (Deut. 25:19). Aware of the potential embarrassment of such a command, Josephus strives mightily here to paint the Amalekites in the darkest colors; it is their kings who take the initiative in sending messages to the neighboring peoples to make war on the Israelites and actually to destroy (διαφθείρειν) them. Josephus depicts Moses as expecting no such hostility at all, inasmuch as the Israelites had done nothing to provoke it, and he is consequently perplexed in the face of it, especially since his people are destitute of arms and provisions. Josephus is concerned to attribute hatred of the Jewish people not to whole nations but rather merely to individuals. Thus, whereas in the Bible it is the Amalekites as a nation who beset the Israelites in the desert (Exod. 17:8-16), in Josephus it is the kings of the Amalekites who are blamed for sending messages to the kings of neighboring tribes exhorting them to make war against the Israelites.

These messages are Josephus’ addition. Schalit (ad loc.) notes a parallel in the words of the Corinthian envoys to the Lacedaemonian congress in Thucydides (1.69).

Josephus emphasizes the suddenness and unexpectedness of the Amalekites’ attack and thus arouses more sympathy for the Israelites. This is Josephus’ addition.

I.e., their freedom.

In this addition by Josephus, Moses approaches all the people, consoles them, and bids them to take courage and to trust in God, remembering the past (Ant. 3.44-46). This last scene is highly reminiscent of the one in which Aeneas, reminding his men that they have endured more grievous obstacles and bidding them to persevere (Virgil, Aen. 1.198-207), consoles them after they land on the coast of Africa.

A great leader must be able to console his people. Whereas the biblical narrative declares that it is Joshua whom Moses approaches, bidding him to go out to fight Amalek (Exod. 17:9), in Josephus Moses directly exhorts the juniors to obey their elders and the elders to hearken to him, their general, whereupon they urge Moses to lead them instantly against the enemy.

This is Josephus’ addition.

Hebrew ‮יהושׁע‬‎ (Exod. 17:9), LXX Ἰησοῦς, Josephus Ἰησοῦς. Hebrew ‮נון‬‎ (Exod. 33:11), LXX Ναυή, Josephus Ναυῆκος. Biblically, the identification of Joshua’s father is not found until Exod. 33:11, and the identification of his tribal affiliation is not found until Num. 13:8. Cf. Ant. 5.118, where, in his final appraisal of Joshua, Josephus remarks that he was not wanting in intelligence (συνέσεως). Josephus differs from his presumed contemporary, Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 20.2), who remarks that after the death of Moses God told Joshua to take the garments of Moses’ wisdom and by putting these on to “become another man.” For Josephus there is no such transformation in Joshua: his intelligence is apparently innate; it is precisely because of Joshua’s innate wisdom that Moses selected him as successor. On the importance of skill in speaking for a military leader see Feldman (1992-93:11-12). This is in line with Thucydides’ emphasis on Pericles’ skill in persuasion (Thucydides 2.60.5). So also Joshua is said (Ant. 5.118) to possess supreme skill in expounding his ideas clearly to the multitude, a quality nowhere mentioned in the biblical narrative and again reminiscent of Pericles. The implication, in the case of both Joshua and Pericles, is that the masses are unreliable unless led and inspired by a competent leader and speaker. Note that Joshua accompanied Moses when he went to the mountain of God (Exod. 24:13). This list of Joshua’s 5 crucial qualities is Josephus’ editorial comment and has no biblical basis.

This is the water that is spoken of in Ant. 3.37-38. Whereas in the Bible all that Moses does during Israel’s conflict with Amalek is to hold up his hands (Exod. 17:11), in Josephus he plays a much more active role, posting a small force of armed men around the water as a protection for the women and children and for the camp in general. These details are Josephus’ addition.

That Moses himself stayed up all night instructing Joshua how to marshal his forces is Josephus’ addition. Furthermore, at the first streak of dawn he, in Aeneas-like fashion, exhorts both Joshua and his men one by one, finally addressing stirring words to the whole army.

On a number of occasions Josephus adds vivid touches to his descriptions of battles. This is true also in the case of Moses, since such details serve to enhance his military reputation. Thus, in his description of the battle with Amalek, Josephus adds that the adversaries met in a hand-in-hand contest and fought with great spirit and mutual shouts of encouragement. Thackeray (ad loc.) points out that in the description of the battle there are Thucydidean touches. Thus, the phrase “the battle was hand to hand” is reminiscent of Thucydides 4.43. The phrase “showed eagerness and shouted encouragement,” as Thackeray (ad loc.) remarks, comes from Thucydides 4.11 and 7.71. There is apparently a lacuna at this point in the text. An apparent exception to his general de-emphasis on miracles would seem to be Josephus’ account of the battle with the Amalekites (Exod. 17:8-13), in which the Israelites are victorious only so long as Moses holds his hands erect. But here, too, Josephus explains the victory in rational terms: he dwells at length on the military preparations, omits the fact that Moses held the rod of God in his hands (Exod. 17:9), and adds that Moses withdrew to the mountain, committing the battle to God and to his commander Joshua (see Tiede 1972:227).

Hebrew ‮חור‬‎ (Exod. 17:10), LXX Ὤρ, Josephus Οὖρος. Josephus (Ant. 3.105) speaks of Bezalel as the grandson of Miriam, though the manuscripts there erroneously make him the son of Miriam. According to Exod. 31:2, Hur was the grandfather of Bezalel. According to the rabbinic tradition (Soṭah 11b, Midrash Exod. Rabbah 1.17, and parallels), Hur was the son of Miriam and Caleb. According to 1 Chr. 2:19, Hur was the son of Caleb and Ephrath. The rabbinic tradition (Midrash Exod. Rabbah 40.4) identifies Miriam with Ephrat. In Exod. 17:12, during the battle with Amalek in the desert, Moses’ hands grow weary; a stone is then put under him and he sits upon it, and Aaron and Hur hold up his hands. The scene in Josephus is similar, except that it is Moses who takes the initiative in asking Aaron and Hur to support his hands. According to Exod. 17:12, Moses’ hands were steady until the going down of the sun. Nodet (ad loc.) suggests that Josephus apparently thought that the night weakened the pressure of Joshua upon the Amalekites, deriving this perhaps from the phrase that Joshua weakened (‮ויחלשׁ‬‎) Amalek (Exod. 17:13). Josephus exaggerates the Hebrew victory over Amalek by remarking, in an extra-biblical addition, that all the Amalekites would have perished had not night intervened to stop the carnage. On night as saving an army from disaster cf. Ant. 5.157, where, in another extra-biblical addition, Josephus remarks that even more than 22,000 Israelites would have perished at the hands of the Benjaminites if night had not intervened.

Josephus adds further details, thus embellishing his portrait of Moses as a conquering general (Ant. 3.55): the Israelites, with their most noble (καλλίστην) and most timely (καιριωτάτην) victory, terrified the neighboring nations and, in the process, acquired vast plunder, which Josephus here describes at length. They enslaved not only the persons but also the spirit (φρονήματα) of the Amalekites.

Nodet (ad loc.) suggests that Josephus’ expression here is inspired by Thucydides (2.61): “slaves in thought.”

Weill (ad loc.) suggests that Josephus’ extra-biblical detail as to what the Israelites captured from the Amalekites is presented here to explain how the Israelites were able to secure the various rich materials for the later construction of the Tent. Nodet (ad loc.) suggests that certain repetitions in details may be due to a double redaction by assistants.

The phrase “much striving for virtue,” as Thackeray (ad loc.) remarks, is modeled on the similar expression in Thucydides (2.51). That Moses was so inspiring to his men that after defeating Amalek they began to plume themselves on their valor and to have high aspirations for heroism is Josephus’ addition.

Josephus’ extra-biblical statement (Apion 2.212) forbidding the spoiling of fallen combatants would appear to be contradicted by the fact that the Israelites, before leaving Egypt, despoiled the Egyptians (Exod. 12:36) and by the further fact that here, after their victory over the Amalekites, Moses ordered the corpses of the enemies to be stripped. So also Ant. 4.93, after the victory over the Amorites, and Ant. 4.162, after the defeat of the Midianites. Philo emphasizes the humanity (φιλανθρωπίας) shown by Moses in not even having the will to take revenge against the Canaanites, since they were his kinsmen (De Vita Mosis 1.44.249). On 10 occasions (War 4.459; Ant. 3.59, 4.165, 4.324, 6.84, 7.68, 7.294, 9.207, 9.280, 11.112) Josephus adds to the biblical text by referring to Joshua as a general. He does this at times outside the main narrative of Joshua, where Josephus felt the need to identify Joshua and chose to do so with the epithet “general” (στρατηγός). Joshua’s ability as a general is particularly enhanced by the fact that he had as his teacher the great general Moses himself (Ant. 3.50-51); indeed, whereas the Bible declares that Moses, before the battle with Amalek, said to Joshua: “Choose for us men, and go out, fight with Amalek” (Exod. 17:9), Josephus portrays Moses as passing a wakeful night instructing Joshua on how to marshal his forces and as exhorting his protégé at the first streak of dawn to prove himself in action not inferior to the hopes that he had placed in him (Ant. 3.50-51). While the Bible gives no casualty figures (Exod. 17:13), Josephus reports that not a single one of the Israelites was slain, whereas the enemy’s dead were past numbering.

After the battle the Bible declares that Moses built an altar that he called “The Lord is my banner” (Exod. 17:15, from ‮נסס‬‎, “to raise a flag”). Philo (De Vita Mosis 1.39.219) follows the LXX (Κύριός μου καταφυγή, “The Lord is my refuge” [from ‮נוס‬‎, “to flee”]) in calling the altar “Refuge of God” (θεοῦ καταφυγήν). Josephus (Ant. 3.60) says that he called not the altar but God Himself “Giver of victory (νικαῖον),” clearly recalling the goddess of victory, Νίκη (Hes., Th. 384; Pindar, Isth. 2.26) and the epithets of Zeus νικαῖος (Dio Cassius 47.40) and of Pallas νικαία (Demosthenes Pant. 623). Josephus omits God’s statement (Exod. 17:14) that He would blot out the Amalekites utterly and that this should be written as a memorial in a book and should be recited in the ears of Joshua. He thus dissociates God from the extermination of the Amalekites. That Josephus, however, is sensitive to the importance of mercy as a constituent element of justice is clear from his omission of Moses’ anger with the commander of his army for sparing the Midianite women who had been guilty of leading the Israelite men astray (cf. Num. 31:14-17). Cf. Deut. 25:17-18: “Remember what Amalek did to you on the way as you came out of Egypt, how he attacked you on the way, when you were faint and weary.” So also Ant. 4.304. According to Josephus, Moses predicted (προεφήτευε) that the Amalekites would be utterly exterminated. He does not say by whom or when; indeed, this prediction was actually fulfilled, inasmuch as by the time of Josephus they had disappeared. Presumably, because he realized that a good general knows how to cheer up his troops with festivities, Josephus’ Moses, after the victory, in an extra-biblical addition, regales his forces with festivities (εὐωχίαις), just as he does after the victory over Og (Ant. 4.101).

The statement that Moses then rested the Israelites for a few days, apparently so that they might refresh themselves, is an addition to the biblical text (Exod. 17:16).

In the Bible we have the encounter with Amalek (Exod. 17:8-16), the meeting with Jethro (Exod. 18:1-27), and the arrival at Sinai (Exod. 19:1, although Exod. 18:5 indicates that Moses had encamped at “the mountain of God”) in that order, whereas here in Josephus the order is the encounter with Amalek, the arrival at Sinai, and the meeting with Jethro. The biblical order, as Rappaport (33 no. 141) remarks, presents the problem that Jethro visits Moses at Sinai, to which the Israelites actually arrived only later. The rabbinic tradition (Jerusalem Talmud Megillah 1.11 [ed. Krotoschin, p. 72b], Pesiqta Rabbati 5 [ed. Friedmann, p. 16b]) presents divergent views as to whether Jethro visited Moses before or after the revelation at Sinai. The medieval commentators, Ibn Ezra and Nahmanides (ad Exod. 18.1), as Rappaport notes, are puzzled by this. Ant. 2.264-76.

Josephus refers to Moses’ father-in-law as Ragouel, the name by which he is first mentioned in the Bible (Exod. 2:18). As Nodet (ad loc.) indicates, Philo (De Mutatione Nominum 17.105) notes that the name Ragouel means “the shepherding of God” and is a great compliment to him, whereas the name Jethro (De Mutatione Nominum 17.103) means “superfluous” and is derogatory, referring to him when his vanity is flourishing. Significantly, Josephus, in his effort to build up the stature of Jethro, goes out of his way and out of the biblical order in prefacing the visit of Jethro with the remark that the Israelites had reached Mount Sinai. This gives a more important setting for the visit, since it puts Jethro in immediate juxtaposition with the central event in Israelite history and makes of his visit more than a mere congratulation for military victory. In view of the frequent negative statements on the part of non-Jews toward Jews, particularly with regard to Jewish theology, circumcision, the Sabbath, dietary laws, credulity, begging, and alleged Jewish influence (see Feldman 1993a:149-76), Josephus was particularly eager, notably in the essay Apion, to demonstrate that there were famous non-Jews who appreciated the virtues of the Jews in the realms of wisdom, courage, temperance, and justice (see Feldman (1958-59).Hence, we see a significant change in Josephus’ account of Jethro’s meeting with Moses (Exod. 18:5). Whereas in the biblical version we read only that Jethro came with Moses’ sons and his wife to Moses, Josephus indicates that Jethro came alone and welcomed Moses, Zipporah, and their children. Hence, whereas in the Bible (Exod. 18:2) it is clear that Moses has been separated from his wife and children, here they have never been parted. There is a debate in the rabbinic tradition (Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Amalek 1 [ed. Horovitz, pp. 190-91) whether Moses had divorced his wife or had merely sent her away. Schalit (ad loc.) suggests that Josephus’ change is motivated by the fact that in the eyes of the Hellenistic-Roman reader it would have been a defect in Moses’ character to depict him as having divorced his wife and sent away his children, especially because of the concern of Augustus and his successors for the strengthening of family life, as reflected in such legislation as the Julian Laws in Augustan Rome of 19 and 18 B.C.E., aimed at discouragement of childlessness by placing disabilities upon unmarried and childless persons, and the Papian Poppaean Law of 9 C.E., which gave precedence to fathers among candidates for public office, as well as such works as the epigrams of Martial (4.71) and the satires of Juvenal (Sat. 6). Whereas we are told nothing in the Bible of Jethro’s feelings in meeting his son-in-law, Josephus remarks that Raguel (i.e. Jethro) went with gladness (ἀσμένως, “with pleasure”) and that he welcomed (δεχόμενος) Moses. One would have expected that since it was Jethro who was visiting Moses it would be Moses who would go out to greet Jethro; and, indeed, this is what we find in the biblical text (Exod. 18:7), where we are told that Moses went out to meet his father-in-law and did obeisance to him and kissed him. In Josephus’ version, however, while we are told that Moses rejoiced at the visit of his father-in-law, there is no description of Moses actually greeting Jethro, and the stress is placed on Jethro’s acknowledgment of the greatness of Moses. Josephus was aware that the Romans were sensitive to the great expansion of the Jewish population, in part through proselytism. In Exod. 18:10-11 Jethro blesses God for having delivered the Israelites from the Egyptians, and he declares that he now knows that the Lord is greater than all gods. He then offers a sacrifice to God, and Aaron comes with all the elders to eat bread with him (Exod. 18:8-12). What is rather striking in this brief passage is that Jethro is brought into immediate juxtaposition with the mention of God no fewer than 6 times. It is not surprising that, in rabbinic tradition, Jethro is represented as having become a proselyte to Judaism (Tanḥuma 5 [ed. Buber, p. 71]; Mishnat Rabbi Eliezer 16 [ed. H. G. Enelow, p. 304]). Josephus, perhaps because of his sensitivity to the proselyting movement, omits Jethro’s statement about God’s greatness. Moreover, the biblical narrative actually states that Jethro offered a burnt offering and sacrifices to God (Exod. 18:12), an act that might support the rabbinic portrayal of him as a proselyte. Josephus has Moses offer the sacrifice. Augustine (Locutionum in Heptateuchum 82) suggests that perhaps Jethro handed over the sacrifice to Moses so that the latter might offer it to God; but there is no hint of this in the text. Cf. Ant. 3.60. Whereas the Bible says nothing about the feast that Moses arranged in honor of his father-in-law, Josephus not only does so but adds further honor shown to Jethro by remarking that the feast took place near the very site where Moses had seen the burning bush.

This is Josephus’ addition. To show the respect that Jews have for non-Jews, Josephus has an extended description of the banquet given by Moses in honor of his father-in-law, where an ecumenical spirit prevails, with Aaron and his company being joined by Jethro in chanting hymns to God. In Exod. 18:10 it is Jethro alone who blesses the Lord. The ancients looked upon music as so integral a part of education that they regarded it as the very pinnacle of wisdom. Hence, we should not be surprised that Josephus makes a point of mentioning, in reference to Moses’ song upon crossing the Sea of Reeds (Exod. 15:1-19), that Moses himself composed a hymn to God to enshrine His praises and the thankfulness of the Israelites for His gracious favor (Ant. 2.346). Similarly here, Aaron, in an addition to the Bible, chants hymns and sings the praises of Moses as general. In contrast to the Bible, which has Jethro taking the lead in his blessing of God (Exod. 18:10) and his offering of sacrifices (Exod. 18:12) and puts Aaron in a subordinate role (Exod. 18:12), Josephus makes Aaron the prime mover; Aaron merely gets Jethro to join him (προσλαβόμενος). This change might result from Josephus’ sensitivity to proselytism, or it might be part of his general tendency to enhance the role of the high priest.

That the credit for the victory belongs to Moses is clear from Josephus’ extra-biblical comment that after the battle Aaron and Jethro (Raguel) sing the praises of Moses. The biblical narrative 6 times mentions God in noting what God had done for Moses and for the Israelites and in portraying Jethro’s sacrifice of thanksgiving to God for these successes (Exod. 18:1 [bis], 18:9, 18:10, 18:11, 18:12). Josephus, on the other hand, omits Jethro’s rejoicing for all the good that God had done to Israel (Exod. 18:9) and his blessing God for delivering the Israelites from the Egyptians (Exod. 18:10). Indeed, Jethro speaks not of God but of Moses’ success, and he expresses admiration for Moses for the gallantry (ἀνδραγαθίας, “courage,” “bravery,” “manly virtue”) that he had devoted to the salvation of his friends. It is particularly effective, in answer to the charge of the anti-Jewish bigots (e.g., Apollonius Molon ap. Apion 2.148) that the Jews are cowards, that Moses is here admired for his courage by a non-Jew, i.e., his father-in-law Raguel (Jethro).

Cf. Exod. 18:15-16: “The people come to me [Moses] to inquire of God....and I make them know the statutes of God and His decisions.” This is Josephus’ addition.

The supreme affirmation of Moses’ justice occurs in Josephus’ addition to the Bible (Exod. 18:13) here. So also Philo remarks that when Moses reproached the tribes of Reuben and Manasseh, they knew that he spoke out of solicitude for them all and out of respect for justice and equality, and that his detestation of evil was never meant to cast reproach but always to bring those capable of improvement to a better mind (De Vita Mosis 1.60.328). This is Josephus’ addition. Even when presenting Moses as a judge Josephus refers to him as a general. One of the most delicate problems for Josephus must have been how to deal with the biblical scene in which Jethro criticizes the way in which Moses had been administering justice (Exod. 18:14). There Jethro comes right out with his criticism: “What you are doing is not good” (Exod. 18:17). Such a criticism must have been disconcerting for Josephus, especially since there is no indication in the biblical text that Jethro took Moses aside so as to avoid embarrassing him in the presence of the Israelites. In Josephus’ version Jethro shows real sensitivity so as to avoid embarrassing his son-in-law. When he sees the way Moses administers affairs he holds his peace (ἡσυχίαν ἦγε, “kept quiet”) at the moment (τότε). It is only after the tumult of the crowd has subsided that he discreetly takes Moses aside and in utter privacy (συμμονωθείς, “be alone in private with someone”) instructs him about what it is necessary to do.

Josephus omits the reason (Exod. 18:18) for Jethro’s concern: “You and the people with you will wear yourselves out, for the thing is too heavy for you.” Josephus omits Jethro’s wish (Exod. 18:19): “God be with you!” Josephus is less explicit than Exod. 18:21: “Choose able men from all the people, such as fear God, men who are trustworthy and who hate a bribe.” In the biblical version, when Jethro gives his counsel to Moses as to how to administer justice, he mentions God no fewer than 3 times within a single verse: “God be with you! You shall represent the people before God, and bring their cases to God” (Exod. 18:19). Indeed, lest the reader think that it is Jethro, the non-Jew, who is advising Moses what to do, the biblical Jethro is very careful to state that Moses is to do what Jethro advises only if God commands him to do so; in other words, Jethro’s suggestions required divine sanction (Exod. 18:23). In place of all this spiritual advice, which may well raise the question whether Jethro is not, at least with respect to the administration of justice, superior to Moses, Josephus’ Jethro counsels Moses to select capable (ἀγαθούς, “good”) Hebrews; later he recommends the appointment of upright and just persons (ἀγαθοὶ καὶ δίκαιοι) (Ant. 3.72), and he specifically limits his advice to mundane (ἀνθρωπίνων, “human,” “worldly”) matters (Ant. 3.70).

Whereas the Bible recounts Moses’ choice of subordinate judges (Exod. 18:25), the advice given to Moses by his father-in-law Raguel (Jethro) is that he review his army diligently and divide it into groups and marshal (διακοσμήσουσι, “divide,” “muster,” a military term) them, not, as in the Bible, in sections of thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens (Exod. 18:21), but rather in groups of thousands, five hundreds, hundreds, fifties, thirties, twenties, and tens. It appears that Jethro, the ruler experienced presumably in military affairs, who had begun by giving judicial advice, now gives military advice to Moses, since he tells him how to draw up (ἐξετάσεις) his army. This is a case of one general talking to another, and the result would surely have greater appeal to Josephus’ military-minded Roman readers. See Baskin (1983:66), who remarks that this reorganization of Moses’ forces is strikingly close to Roman troop formations, where each officer took his title from the number of men whom he commanded. Similarly, we may add, when Josephus describes the Israelite camp, he follows the pattern of the Roman camp, with the Tent, as Thackeray (1930:4:459, n. a) remarks, replacing the praetorium (Ant. 3.289).

This sentence is bracketed by Weill and Thackeray (ad loc.) on the ground that it is difficult to reconcile groups of thirty and twenty with those of fifty. This is Josephus’ addition. This is Josephus’ addition.

In place of the biblical statement in which Jethro, after giving his advice to Moses, expressly declares that Moses should do so only if God commands him thus (Exod. 18:23), Jethro omits the giving of veto-power for the reorganization to God. Instead, by organizing his judicial and military systems thus, says Jethro, Moses will have more time to spend in gaining the favor of God for the army.

That Moses gladly accepted Jethro’s advice is Josephus’ addition to Exod. 18:24.

Associated with the virtue of justice is the responsibility to tell the truth. In the case of Moses, Josephus, in an editorial comment, remarks that he in no whit strayed from the truth (Ant. 4.303); and when exhorting the Israelites just before his death, Moses remarks that souls, when on the verge of death, deliver themselves with perfect integrity, that is, truth (Ant. 4.179). In particular, Josephus commends Moses here for not claiming as his own the advice given to him by his father-in-law Raguel (Jethro). According to the rabbinic tradition (Sifre Num. 80 [ed. Horovitz, p. 77]), God caused Moses to forget in order to give Jethro an opportunity to attain fame. This is in obvious contrast to some of the Greeks with their reputation for plagiarism, as attested by the fact that numerous works were produced in the ancient Greek world entitled “Περὶ κλοπῆς” (“On Plagiarism”), a list of which is presented by Porphyry, as cited by Eusebius (Pr. Ev. 10.3.12), the earliest of which is a study of Menander by Aristophanes of Byzantium, the learned grammarian who headed the Alexandrian Library at the beginning of the second century B.C.E. Thus, Aristophanes (Nub. 553-54) accuses his rival Eupolis of plagiarizing his Knights, Isocrates (Phil. 5.94) accuses his rival orators of making free use of his writings, and Aristoxenus, the pupil of Aristotle in the fourth century B.C.E., asserts (ap. Diog. Laer. 3.37) that nearly all of Plato’s Respublica was taken from Protagoras’ Controversiae. See Silk (1996:1188). Philo, apparently feeling that inclusion of Jethro’s visit to Moses and of Moses’ acceptance of his advice would detract from the authoritativeness of Moses, omits this incident. Similarly, even though Moses could have ascribed Balaam’s prophecies to himself, inasmuch as there would have been no witness to convict him, he was honest enough, says Josephus, to have given credit for them to Balaam (Ant. 4.157-58). Nonetheless, as Nodet (ad loc.) notes, Josephus does omit the biblical statement (Num. 12:3) that Moses was the most humble of all men. Ant. 4.157-58.

Josephus omits the statement (Exod. 18:27) that Moses let Jethro depart and that Jethro returned to his own land. Cf. Ant. 3.62. Josephus omits God’s statement to Moses (Exod. 19:3-6) in which He tells him to inform the Israelites that if they keep His covenant they will be His own possession “among all peoples, for all the earth is mine, and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” Nor does he report the people’s answer (Exod. 19:8): “All that the Lord has spoken we will do.” MSS. S and P read: “oracle.” Ginzberg (1976:172) notes that Josephus here expressly states that the Law was given directly (by God). Ginzberg stresses that Josephus in Ant. 3.101 indicates that the writing on the tablets came from the hand of God; so that Josephus could not possibly have attributed the giving of the Law to the angels, unless we understand by his statement the teachings and precepts of the Prophets. According to a widespread legend, the angels actually attempted to prevent the revelation of the Law. Cf. Ginzberg (1911:3:109-114). Prior to Moses’ ascension on Mount Sinai (though stated after this event in the Bible) he is told to come up with Aaron, the latter’s sons Nadab and Abihu, and 70 of the elders of Israel (Exod. 24:1-11). We are informed that they actually saw God and that there was under His feet a pavement of sapphire stone (Exod. 24:10). It would appear that this direct meeting with God would, in addition to presenting problems of human beings actually beholding God, detract from the uniqueness of Moses’ later encounter with Him, and hence Josephus omits this completely.

On the location of Mt. Sinai see Davies (1979:10-11) and note on Ant. 3.1. So also Philo (De Vita Mosis 2.14.70), who speaks of Sinai as the highest and most sacred in that region. Nodet (ad loc.), however, calls attention to the rabbinic tradition (Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Baḥodesh 4 [ed. Horovitz, p. 216]) that all the mountains wished to be the place of the revelation, and that Sinai, precisely because it was the most insignificant and the lowest of them, was chosen. This description of Mount Sinai is Josephus’ addition.

In Exod. 19:10 these are God’s instructions transmitted through Moses to the Israelites. This anticipation on the part of the Israelites is Josephus’ addition.

Even when Moses ascends Mount Sinai to receive the Law he is here depicted by Josephus as a military leader (στρατηγόν). Josephus omits God’s command that the Israelites should wash their garments (Exod. 19:10). He also omits the statement (Exod. 19:14) that Moses went down from the mountain and consecrated the people. Josephus omits God’s command, conveyed through Moses to the Israelites, that they should set bounds for the people, that they should not go up the mountain or touch the border of it, and that whoever did so should be stoned or thrown down (Exod. 19:12-13), and that on the third day God would come down upon Mount Sinai in the presence of all the people. Josephus also omits God’s warning (Exod. 19:21) that the people not attempt to gaze at the Lord lest they perish. The request of the Israelites for a gift by which they would live well and their observance of expensive ways of life are Josephus’ additions.

The 2 days of feasting are Josephus’ addition. The fact that the cloud was unprecedented is Josephus’ addition. Exod. 19:16 says that a thick cloud came upon the mountain; the statement that it surrounded the place where the Israelites had set up their tents is Josephus’ addition.

This description of the weather, the winds, the rain, the lightning, and the thunderbolts is Josephus’ addition. Cf. the rabbinic tradition (Zebaḥim 116a and parallels cited by Ginzberg [1928:6.35 n.198]). Cf. also Bib. Ant. 11.5, 23.10, and 32.7-8. For a similar description see Ant. 2.343, where Josephus tells of the miracles that accompanied the drowning of the Egyptians in the Sea of Reeds.

For other occurrences of this sentiment found see note in Ant. 1.108. A similar formula is in Herodotus (2.123, 3.122.1), Thucydides (6.2.1), Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Ant. Rom. 1.48.1), and Lucian (Quomodo Historia Conscribenda Sit 60). Even in the case of the revelation at Sinai, so central for Jewish belief, Josephus, well aware that his pagan readers would be skeptical, repeats his familiar formula, that each of his readers is free to think of it as he will. Yet, he is careful to remark here that he has recorded the events as they are written in the sacred books; and thus, as he says in his treatise Apion (1.37), he can affirm the reliability of these statements, inasmuch as they are vouched for by the prophets, the guardians of these ancient records. This additional effect of the sights and noise is Josephus’ addition to Exod. 19:16-25. In Exod. 19:16 we hear only that the people trembled.

This report is Josephus’ addition. The thoughts and fears of the Israelites are Josephus’ addition.

The description of Moses’ appearance and the reaction that it had upon the Israelites are Josephus’ addition. A leader, to be effective, must also impress his people with his appearance. This quality is illustrated in Josephus’ statement that when Moses descended from Mount Sinai his radiant (γαῦρος, “exulting,” “splendid”) and high-hearted appearance served to dispel the Israelites’ dismayed and dispirited mood. Whereas the Bible simply states that Moses went down to the people and spoke to them (Exod. 19:25), Josephus portrays a more dramatic scene: the mere sight of Moses rid them of their terrors and instilled in them brighter hopes for the future. In Exod. 34:30 we read that when Moses came down from Mount Sinai with the tablets the skin of his face shone, and the people were afraid to come near to him.

This is the major theme of the Antiquities, already announced in Ant. 1.5, and this is what God gives to Moses.

This long introduction to the 10 Commandments (Exod. 20) is extra-biblical.

Ladouceur (1983:36-37) notes that Thackeray translates ᾑματωμένον as “a blood-red stream.” Rengstorf’s concordance to Josephus translates the word as “to be blood-red, covered with blood.” The Greek of the LXX (Exod. 7:20), however, as Ladouceur remarks, makes it quite clear that the water did not simply change in color, but was actually transformed into blood. In his earlier description of the plague (Ant. 2.294-95) Josephus stresses that it was not merely the color that changed but the substance of the water itself. In the medical writers of the imperial age αἱματτοῦν may be used in both the active and passive voices in the basic meaning “to transform into blood” (Galen 8.379).

It is remarkable that in this recital of history there should be reference to Adam and Noah, who preceded Abraham, to whom the Israelites traced their origin. This rehearsal of the past history of God’s achievements is reminiscent of the kind that is frequently found in Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical Antiquities. It is extra-biblical. Josephus omits the request of the Israelites (Exod. 20:19) that Moses and not God should speak to them lest they die, and Moses’ answer, that they should not fear, since God had come to test them.

These divine promises are extra-biblical.

According to Exod. 20:21, the people stood afar off, while Moses drew near to the thick cloud where God was.

Josephus knows that there were two tablets from Exod. 32:15. It appears from Josephus that the Israelites heard all ten commandments from the mouth of God. So also Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Baḥodesh 4 (ed. Horovitz, p. 218) and parallels, cited by Ginzberg (1928:6:45 n. 243). Other passages in the rabbinic tradition, however (Makkot 24a, Midrash Song of Songs Rabbah 1.2, and parallels) indicate that only the first two commandments were uttered directly by God. Philo (De Decalogo 5.18), before describing the laws in order, goes out of his way to make “this necessary statement by way of introduction, that some of them God judged fit to deliver in His own person alone without employing any other, and some through His prophet Moses.” Vokes (1968:149-50) notes that when Josephus says that it is not lawful for him to reveal to outsiders the words of the Decalogue he uses the same word (θεμιτόν) as was employed in the mysteries about not revealing the sacred name of God (Ant. 2.275-76). Knox (1937:85-86) says that this suggests a local custom of treating the words of the Decalogue as a mystery. Schalit (ad loc.) suggests that this may be a Sadducean interpretation. Nodet (ad loc.), citing Berakot 12a, thinks that it was prohibited to include the 10 Commandments in the daily liturgy because the Minim limited the obligatory commandments to the 10 Commandments, but this will not explain why the prohibition is of pronouncing them openly and verbatim. Philo (De Decalogo 12.50-28.153) feels no compunction about expounding them at length.

Josephus regards the first 2 commandments (Exod. 20:2-3) as a single commandment. So also Philo (De Decalogo 14.65. He omits the statement: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage” (Exod. 20:2). The rabbis divide the Decalogue differently; see Ginzberg (1928:6:43, n.234). Josephus uses the word εἰκών (“likeness”) for “image” rather than εἴδωλον (“phantom,” “unsubstantial form,” “image reflected in a mirror or in water”), the word used by the LXX (Exod. 20:4). For “likeness of anything that is in heaven above or that is in the earth beneath or that is in the water under the earth” (Exod. 20:4) Josephus simply has “living being.” Goldenberg (226-27) remarks that if it were for apologetic reasons that Josephus omitted the prohibition of setting up an ashera tree or a pillar (Deut. 16:21-22), we should have expected him also to omit the prohibition against graven images, which he does mention here, as well as in Apion 2.191, and which he even emphasizes. Josephus omits, perhaps for apologetic reasons, the statement (Exod. 20:5-6), “for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands [of generations] of those who love me and keep my commandments.” As Belkin (1940:140) points out, the Mishnah (Shebu‘ot 3:8) defines a vain oath as one that differs from what is well known to people or to do something that is impossible, or to nullify a commandment. The rabbinic tradition (Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Baḥodesh 7 [ed. Horovitz, p. 227]) understands this as prohibiting the pronunciation of the name of God in vain. Exod. 20:8 reads “remember” (‮זכור‬‎). Josephus here is following the version of Deut. 5:12: “keep” (‮שׁמור‬‎). Josephus omits the statement (Exod. 20:10) that on the Sabbath work must not be done by “you, or your son, or your daughter, your manservant, or your maidservant, or your cattle, or the sojourner who is within your gates.” He also omits the reason for the Sabbath (Exod. 20:11): “for in 6 days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day.”

Josephus omits the reward for observing this commandment (Exod. 20:12): “that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God gives you.” Josephus here uses the word φόνου, which can refer to murder or homicide. The LXX (Exod. 20:13) uses the corresponding verb, φονεύσεις. Josephus’ word for desire (ἐπιθυμίαν) here is the noun based on the LXX’s verb ἐπιθυμήσεις (Exod. 20:17, Deut. 5:21). Ἐπιθυμία in Plato (e.g. Rep. 4.430E7) regularly denotes irrational physical appetite or passion that must be restrained lest it dominate reason and thus wreak havoc on the individual’s soul and on society in general. Philo (De Decalogo 28.142-53), in his discussion of this tenth commandment, similarly extends the meaning of this word from the Hebrew notion of covetousness to desire in general and concludes with the statement (De Decalogo 28.153) that “all the wars of Greeks and barbarians between themselves or against each other, so familiar to the tragic stage, are sprung from one source, desire [ἐπιθυμίας], the desire for money or glory or pleasure. These it is that bring disaster to the human race.” Diéz Merino (1975:33), after comparing the Masoretic text of the 2 versions of the Decalogue (Exod. 20:1-17, Deut. 5:6-21) with the versions in the Nash papyrus, Qumran fragments, the Septuagint, Philo, the New Testament, Josephus here, and the Targumim, including the Targum Neofiti, concludes that all of these reveal a tradition that is consistent in essential treatment, if not in form. It is only in style that there is an evolution.

The rejoicing of the populace is Josephus’ addition. The request of the Israelites to Moses to bring laws from God is Josephus’ addition. Thackeray (ad loc.) holds that the reference is to Exod. 20:19, where the Israelites say to Moses: “ You speak to us, and we will hear; but let not God speak to us, lest we die.” Cf. the account by Hecataeus of Abdera (ap. Diod. 40.3.6): “At the end of their laws there is even appended the statement: ‘These are the words that Moses heard from God and declares unto the Jews.’”

Nodet (ad loc.) suggests that the distinction between these laws and the laws mentioned in the previous sentence is the difference between the written and the oral law. Altshuler (1978-79:226-32) notes that whereas in Ant. 3.94, 205, and 218, Josephus explicitly claims that he is not going to discuss the laws of Leviticus and Numbers here in the Antiquities, yet that is precisely what he does in 3.224-86 and 4.67-75. On Josephus’ projected work cf. Ant. 1.25 and list of references cited there. Josephus here omits the many laws found in Exod. 21-23. He also omits the scene (Exod. 24:4-8) in which Moses built an altar, read the book of the covenant in the presence of the Israelites, and took the blood from the sacrifices offered by the people and threw it upon them.

In Exod. 32:1 the Israelites say only that they do not know what has become of Moses.

Nodet (ad loc.) cites the rabbinic tradition (Tanḥuma 13 [ed. Buber, p. 113]) that the Israelites believed that they had seen the body of Moses. The statement that they believed that he had fallen victim to beasts recalls the story of Joseph (Gen. 37:33). These thoughts and disagreement among the Israelites are Josephus’ addition. Nodet (ad loc.) cites the Jerusalem Targum on Exod. 32:1: “This Moses who has led us out of Egypt has been engulfed by the mountain of white-hot fire before God.” Josephus is careful to dispel the view held by some that Moses had been taken (ἀνακεχωρηκέναι) back to the Divinity (θεῖον). Cf. Ant. 4.326, where Josephus explains that Moses wrote of himself in the Scriptures (Deut. 34:5) that he died lest people should think that because of his outstanding virtue he had gone up (ἀναχωρῆσαι) to the Divinity (θεῖον), using the same words there that he uses here for “going up” and for “Divinity.”

Cf. Ant. 1.85 with regard to Enoch’s return to the Divinity and Ant. 9.28 with regard to Elijah’s mysterious disappearance. This is Josephus’ addition.

This is the reading of Niese and other editors. The manuscripts read ὑπονοεῖν, i.e. “to suspect” (any harm). This is Josephus’ addition. Smolar and Aberbach (1968:92) note that Josephus has omitted the entire golden calf story (Exod. 32:1-35) and instead has provided an implied defense of the Israelites’ behavior by stating that they were seized with great anxiety about Moses’ fate. Cf. Exod. 24:14, where Moses, upon going up the mountain of God, tells the elders, “Wait here for us, until we come to you again.” Of course, the biggest blot on Aaron’s record for piety is his participation in the creation of the golden calf. According to the biblical account, when the Israelites saw that Moses was delayed they told Aaron to make gods for them, whereupon Aaron advised them to bring their golden earrings to him. He then fashioned a molten calf, built an altar before it, and proclaimed a festival (Exod. 32). When Moses returned, he berated Aaron (Exod. 32:21), who blamed the people for pressuring him and claimed that when he threw their gold into the fire a calf emerged (Exod. 32:24). That the Bible holds Aaron accountable for making the golden calf is clear from several passages (Exod. 32:25, 35; Deut. 9:20) and from the contrast between Aaron and the sons of Levi, who rallied to Moses’ side and killed 3000 of the sinners (Exod. 32:26-29).Philo, who generally aggrandizes the portrayal of Aaron, does not omit mention of the golden calf incident, but blames it upon the Israelites, “men of unstable nature” (De Vita Mosis 2.31.161-62, De Ebrietate 24.95-96, 32.124-26), and says nothing about Aaron’s role. Pseudo-Philo, while mentioning the incident and Aaron’s involvement, strives mightily to exonerate him (12.2). Moreover, whereas in the Bible Aaron admits to Moses that it was he who threw the earrings into the fire (Exod. 32:24), in Pseudo-Philo it is the people who are said to have thrown them into the fire (12.3).The rabbis, clearly troubled that one who played a leading role in such a grave sin should have been appointed high priest, might have adopted the solution of declaring that such episodes are to be read in the synagogue but not translated (Mishnah, Megillah 4:10), as they did, for example, in the case of the similarly embarrassing accounts of Reuben’s intercourse with his father’s concubine Bilhah (Gen. 35:22), of David’s sins with Uriah and Bathsheba (2 Sam. 11:2-17), and of Amnon’s incestuous intercourse with his sister Tamar (2 Sam. 13:1-14). Indeed, the rabbis do declare that what they term the second account of the golden calf, that is, Moses’ accusation of Aaron and Aaron’s defense (Exod. 32:21-25), is to be read but not translated (Mishnah, Megillah 4:10). Refusing, however, to resort to censorship of the first account, the rabbis attempt to exonerate Aaron by insisting that his very life was threatened by the people and that Aaron agreed to make the golden calf only after procrastinating as long as possible (Exod. Rabbah 41.7, Sanhedrin 7a). It is Aaron’s love of peace that is stressed in Seder Eliyahu Rabbah 13 (ed. Friedmann, p. 63); unlike Moses, who insisted on applying the law strictly, he is depicted as using every device in order to reconcile litigants (’Abot de-Rabbi Natan A 12 [ed. Schechter, pp. 48-49]). It was because of his love of peace that he was chosen to be high priest (Exod. Rabbah 37.2); and consequently he becomes the role model for those who prefer peaceful persuasion as the best means of instilling love of the Torah, whence Hillel’s dictum: “Be of the disciples of Aaron, loving peace and pursuing peace, loving people and bringing them near to the Torah” (’Abot 1:12).Generally speaking, Josephus’ way of handling problem passages in the Bible is not to omit them, perhaps because readers who had access to the LXX would regard doing so as an act of blatant censorship. His preferred method is rather to reinterpret such passages. How, then, can we explain Josephus’ total omission of the incident of the golden calf? Most of Josephus’ other omissions fall into two categories: either they protect the reputation of a character, such as Moses, whose status as the prime leader and lawgiver it is crucial for Josephus to defend, or the omitted passages are such as would impugn the Jews’ reputation for tolerance and loyalty to the diaspora nation where they lived and would thus offer ammunition to enemies of the Jews. The incident of the golden calf certainly raises the fundamental question of Aaron’s qualifications for the high priesthood, about which Josephus, who is very proud of his priestly ancestry (Life 1), must have been especially sensitive.

Josephus combines the two episodes of 40 days each during which Moses met with God on Mount Sinai (Exod. 24:18 and 34:28). He omits the episode (Exod. 32:7-10) in which God, in his anger that the Israelites had made and worshipped the golden calf, determined to destroy them and to make a great nation out of Moses alone. Thackeray (ad loc.) suggests that he does so for apologetic reasons, inasmuch as the Jews in his own day had been accused of worshipping an ass (Apion 2.80-88). Josephus likewise omits Moses’ successful pleading with God (Exod. 32:11-14) not to destroy the Israelites. He furthermore omits Moses’ violent reaction when he sees the golden calf (Exod. 32:15-35) and the plague sent by God to punish the Israelites. Whereas the biblical narrative states that Moses neither ate bread nor drank water during the 40 days that he was on the mountain (Exod. 34:28), Josephus says that he tasted no food of the kinds designated for humans, hinting that Moses had heavenly food and drink, perhaps nectar and ambrosia (see Meeks 1967:141). That God advised Moses as to which form of constitution he preferred is Josephus’ addition (cf. Ant. 1.5, 10; 4.223, 6.36; Apion 2.164-65). One biblical episode that seems to contradict the image of Moses as self-controlled is that in which Moses, descending from Mount Sinai, sees the people dancing around the golden calf (Exod. 32:15-20). In utter exasperation he throws the tablets of the Law to the ground, grinds the calf to a powder, scatters it upon water, and forces the Israelites to drink it (Exod. 32:19). Josephus omits this whole incident, not only, we may suggest, because it reflects badly upon the Israelites as a fickle people but also because it casts Moses himself as a hot-tempered leader. On the former point, Josephus tries to exonerate the people by stating that they were seized by great anxiety about Moses (Ant. 3.95-98).

On the Tent see Kennedy (1903) and Gooding (1959). This purpose of the Tent is Josephus’ addition. Robertson (115 n. 8) notes the parallel with Pesiqta Rabbati 5 (ed. Friedmann, p. 17): “Hence the verse ‘I am come into My garden’ (Song of Songs 5:1) is taken to mean that at the time the Tent was finished, God returned to the world from which, in the wake of Adam’s sin, He had removed Himself.”

Cf. Ant. 3.138, where Josephus asserts that 2 and a half commandments were inscribed on either face of the 2 tablets. Cf. Exod. 31:18: “The 2 tables of the testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.” Ginzberg (1976:174 n.82) concludes that it is not altogether impossible that Josephus here wished to express the idea that the whole Law is of heavenly origin and not only the Decalogue (cf. Jubilees 32:25: only the Decalogue was written down by God, the other laws by angels). Probably, however, Josephus, in agreement with the rabbinic tradition (Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Baḥodesh 2 ([ed. Horovitz, p. 210]), means that God himself revealed the Decalogue to Israel but gave the rest of the Law to Israel through his messenger=Moses.

Instead of the scene in which Moses breaks the tablets (Exod. 32:15), we have here a description of his displaying them to the rejoicing multitude (see Smolar and Aberbach [1968:91-116]). That the wood was of the most beautiful material and not subject to rottenness is Josephus’ addition (cf. Exod. 25:5). As Nodet (ad loc.) notes, acacia wood is generally rendered in the LXX by ξύλα ἄσηπτα (“wood that is not liable to decay”). Philo (Quaestiones et Solutiones in Exodum 2.53) explains that “it was natural that the material of which it [the ark] was made should by some necessity be unlikely to decay and be corrupted, since the Law, of which it was the repository, was also incorruptible. In the second place, the sanctuary and all the order of things arranged in it were ordained not for a limited time but for an infinite age.” The rabbinic tradition (Yoma 72a, Sukkah 45b), commenting on the phrase “acacia wood standing up” (Exod. 26:15), interprets it to mean that the wood would last forever. Nodet (ad loc.) notes that because there were no acacia trees in the desert the acacia wood that they brought was that which they had carried with them from Egypt. Ginzberg (6:1928:66 n. 344) cites a tradition that when Jacob came to Egypt he planted a cedar-grove and urged his sons to do likewise (Tanḥuma Terumah 9 [ed. Buber, p. 94] and Exod. Rabbah 18.10, 33.8, 35.1, 94.4 and parallels). However, as Jacob and Jacob (1992:2:804) note, actually 4 varieties of acacia are found in the Sinai Desert, from the hard timber of which the Tent was presumably constructed. Cf. the song said to have been sung (ʿAbodah Zarah 24b) when the ark was returned by the Philistines (1 Sam. 6:12): “Sing, O sing, acacia tree, ascend in all thy gracefulness. With golden weave they cover thee, thy sanctuary-palace hears thy eulogy, with diverse jewels art thou adorned.” Exod. 25:5 speaks of skins of rams. Josephus omits badgers’ skins (ibid.). Exod. 25:5 speaks of skins dyed red, whereas Josephus here says that some were dyed the color of hyacinth, while others were dyed with the color of scarlet. The pure white color is Josephus’ addition and replaces the mention of fine twisted linen (Exod. 25:4). Josephus omits oil for the lamps, anointing oil, and incense (Exod. 25:6). Since this verse is missing from the Vaticanus and Alexandrinus manuscripts of the LXX, it seems most likely that this verse was not in the Greek text available to Josephus. He does mention the anointing oil later (Ant. 3.197-99).

The mention of wool is Josephus’ addition. Josephus omits mention of the onyx stones and stones for setting, for the ephod and for the breastplate (Exod. 25:7). Robertson (36) notes the significance of the fact that Josephus, by contrast with the Hebrew and LXX versions, does not refer here to the contributions brought by the Israelites as either ἀπαρχάς (Hebrew ‮תרומה‬‎, Exod. 25:2) or ἀφαίρεμα (Exod. 35:5, 21), as does the LXX. The fact that he uses the word ἀπαρχή 10 times in Ant. to refer to first-fruits (3.235, 250, 251, 4.70, 71, 226, 242 [manuscripts MSPL], 5.26, 9.273, and 12.50) and 3 times to refer to offerings in general (Ant. 7.378, 14.272, 16.172) and the word ἀφαίρεμα once (Ant. 14.227, in the sense of offerings for sacrifices) makes it all the more significant that he does not use these words here. Apparently, as Robertson indicates, he avoids giving these gifts an official category as sacrifices so that they may appear completely voluntary. Robertson suggests that the reason why Josephus avoided using the word ἀπαρχή is that it would have appeared strange to a non-Jewish reader to encounter a technical term such as ἀπαρχή to describe such offerings as had nothing to do with sacrifices, since this term was widely used to refer to first-fruit offerings in classical Greek literature. Implicit in the contribution of materials for the Tent were the vows (Exod. 19:8) made by the divine command to bring these offerings (Robertson, 39). If rabbinic halakah, as later recorded, was known and applicable in Josephus’ day, undefined vows were subject to a stricter ruling than those that were expressly defined (Mishnah Nedarim 2:4). By giving no name to the offerings Josephus was, in effect, holding the Israelites to a stricter obligation. The comparison with a portable temple is Josephus’ addition. This has the effect, as Robertson (46) suggests, of increasing the dignity of the desert structure. Indeed, he refers to the Tent as a temple no fewer than 17 times in Books 3 and 4 (Ant. 3.103, 125, 129, 130, 139, 142, 202, 242, 243, 245, 270, 278; 4.200, 201, 203, 313, 314). He likewise refers to the Tent of Shiloh as a temple (Ant. 5.68). The LXX refers thus to the Tent 9 times in the Psalms (17.6, 26.4, etc.). Philo (De Vita Mosis 2.15.73) also refers to the Tent as a portable temple (φορητὸν...ἰερόν), but Josephus’ words for a portable temple are μεταφερομένου...ναοῦ. The comparison of the Tent to a temple is especially clear in De Vita Mosis 2.18.89, which states that the Tent was constructed to resemble a sacred temple (νεὼς ἅγιος).

This is Josephus’ addition. This is Josephus’ addition. Whereas the Bible states that the architectural skills of Bezalel are due to the Divine Spirit (Exod. 31:3), in Josephus it is Moses who sets architects over the project. Josephus diminishes the supernatural element in the choice of the architects by saying that though they were selected according to Divine command the same choice would also have been made by the people. So also Berakot 55a, which makes the general statement that one must not appoint a leader over a community without first consulting it. However, whereas the Talmudic passage cites a conversation between Moses and God, as a result of which Moses consulted the people, Josephus says nothing about such a conversation, let alone a consultation with the people. Ironically, whereas elsewhere (Ant. 10.277-80, Apion 2.180) Josephus criticizes the Epicureans for excluding Providence from human affairs, here he diminishes the influence of Providence on human affairs, while the Bible stresses it. Philo (De Vita Mosis 2.15.71, 74) emphasizes the role of God in instructing Moses concerning the building and furnishing of the Tent in the wilderness.

Hebrew ‮בצלאל‬‎ (Exod. 31:2), LXX Βεσελεήλ, Josephus Βασάηλος. Manuscripts S and P of Josephus spell it Βεσέηλος, and manuscript L spells it Βεσελέηλος. In Ant. 3.200 Josephus spells the name Βεσελέηλος. According to Exod. 31:3, God tells Moses that He has filled Bezalel “with the Spirit of God, with ability and intelligence, with knowledge and all craftsmanship.” Philo (Quaestiones et Solutiones in Exodum 2.49) states that during the 40 days and nights that Moses was on Mount Sinai “there was constructed in words the portable temple, which is called the Tent of Testimony.” Josephus, on the other hand, here simply gives the names of Bezalel and Oholiab and their ancestry. The only mention by Josephus of the role of God is that they were appointed in accordance with the commandment of God. Philo, on the other hand, in his De Vita Mosis (2.15.71 and 74) emphasizes the role of Moses, and in his account of God’s instructions to Moses concerning the construction of the Tent does not even mention the names of Bezalel and Oholiab. Moreover, in that treatise he speaks of them, without mentioning them by name, in stating that when Moses had been taught the patterns of the Tent he “passed on the lesson to those who were of quick understanding and happily gifted to undertake and complete the works in which their handicraft was necessary,” though elsewhere (Legum Allegoriae 3.31.95-96, De Gigantibus 5.23) he does mention Bezalel as the chief craftsman of the Tent and as filled with the Spirit of God. Philo, however, alluding to Plato’s theory of ideas, emphasizes that Moses was the artificer of the archetypes, whereas Bezalel was the copier of those (Legum Allegoriae 3.33.102) who fashioned merely shadows or copies, as painters do (De Plantatione 6.26-27, De Somniis 1.35.206-7). Hebrew ‮אורי‬‎ (Exod. 31:2), LXX Οὐρῖος, Josephus Οὐρί. The manuscripts read “son,” but we must emend to “grandson,” since, according to Exod. 31:2 he was the grandson of Hur, who was, according to Ant. 3.54, the husband of Miriam. Nodet (ad loc.) suggests that the name of Hur is missing in Josephus, that this may be an omission by the author or of his Bible, and that this may be due to the fault of the archetype, since in the Greek of Josephus Οὐρί and Οὖρος are more easily confused than the forms in the LXX, Οὐρίου and Ὤρ, or than those in the Hebrew, ‮אורי‬‎ and ‮חור‬‎; hence the error of a copyist is more probable. Consequently, the correction should be made from υἱός (“son”) to υἱωνός (“grandson”). Hebrew ‮אהליאב‬‎ (Exod. 31:6), LXX Ἐλιάβ, Josephus Ἐλίβαζος. In Ant. 3.200 Josephus spells the name Ἐλίαβος, though manuscript O reads Ἐλέβαζος and manuscript L reads Ἐλίαβος. Hebrew ‮אחיסמך‬‎ (Exod. 31:6), LXX Ἀχισαμάχ, Josephus Ἰσάμαχος. As Nodet (ad loc.) notes, Josephus makes an error of transcription comparable to his rendering of Hebrew ‮כהנא רבא‬‎ by ἀναραβάχης (Ant. 3.151). Weill (ad loc.) suggests that the first letters of the name of Ahisamach may have been deleted by Josephus in his concern to Hellenize his name.

Exod. 36:5-6 indicates that the people had brought more than was required for the offering for the sanctuary, whereas according to Josephus it was the number of volunteers that was more than needed. Moreover, in Exod. 36:6 Moses tells not only the men but also the women to do no more for the offering for the sanctuary, whereas Josephus here omits the role of the women. The Latin version of Josephus is in conformity with the Hebrew text. Nodet (ad loc.) suggests that whereas the Hebrew read ‮מרבים העם להביא‬‎, “The people bring much more than enough,” the LXX read πλῆθος φέρει ὁ λαός (“the people bring an abundance”), and Josephus understood it as ‮רבים העם‬‎, i.e. “an abundance of the people.” Altshuler (1982-83:11) notes that Josephus consistently makes clear that he is describing the Tent, whereas the Temple Scroll speaks always of the Temple.

According to Exod. 35:30-31, it is God who inspired Bezalel to do the work of constructing the Tent, whereas here is Moses who instructs Bezalel and Ohaliab. Josephus omits the biblical statement (Exod. 25:9, 40) that God showed Moses on Mount Sinai the pattern of everything that was to be constructed in the Tent. That the women contributed toward the making of the priestly garments specifically is Josephus’ addition. According to Exod. 35:35 it is Bezalel and Oholiab who attended to making these.

Thackeray (ad loc.), basing himself on the Latin version, adds “and silver,” which is not found in any of the Greek manuscripts. The proclamation of a festival and of sacrifices according to individual abilities is Josephus’ addition, perhaps inspired by the parallel feast and sacrifices offered by King Solomon upon the completion of the Temple (1 Kgs. 8:62-65, Ant. 8.122-25). Nodet (ad loc.) suggests that Josephus’ addition of a sacrifice was inspired by Exod. 24:1-8. Nodet (ad loc.) comments that Josephus, like Philo (De Vita Mosis 2.18.89-22.108), presents a more rational order of the phases of the construction: first the court enclosing the Tent, then the Tent itself, the curtains, the ark, and the furniture, whereas Exodus begins with the ark and ends with the court. Josephus refers to this here and in Ant. 3.114, 204, and 243 as an αἴθριον, a Hellenized form of the Latin atrium, as Nodet (ad loc.) notes, rather than αὐλή, perhaps because the latter usually refers to a palace or to the courtyard of a secular space. In Ant. 19.90 Josephus uses αἴθριον to refer to the portico of a theater in Rome. Weill (ad loc.) says that Josephus uses this word here rather than the LXX’s αὐλή, to give a taste of modernism. Apparently, αἴθριον is associated with a room open to the air, as noted in Liddell-Scott-Jones (s.v.). Philo (De Vita Mosis 2.16.80, 19.94, 22.106, and 29.146) refers to the open enclosure (ὑπαίθρῳ) that is called the court, where the altar for burnt offerings was placed. The word αἴθριον occurs in several (ASR) of the manuscripts of the Greek version of Ezekiel’s vision (9:3) as the place to which the glory of God went from the cherubim on which it rested. It is, as Robertson (58) remarks, apparently a synonym for αὐλή (8:16), which the Greek version of Ezekiel uses to refer to the inner court of the Temple. As Robertson (57) notes, Josephus describes the Tent as if to lead the reader on a tour of it and hence begins with the outer court, whereas in Exod. 27:9-19 and 38:9-20 the description of the court comes after the description of the furniture and the altar of the Tent and the garments of the priests. For a similar attempt to reach a Greek audience in his descriptions see Ant. 3.139. In his description of the Tent Josephus (Ant. 3.108-50) follows the order found in the Bible’s second account (Exod. 35-40) rather than the first (Exod. 25-31) in the Bible, except for the fact that he describes the court first. Similarly, in describing Herod’s Temple (War 5.184-226, Ant. 15.391-420), he works from the outermost to the inmost part. This is also, on the whole, the order in the Mishnah (Middot 1-5 [ed. A. S. Kaufman, pp. 39-59]). In the Masoretic Text (Exod. 27:9, 13) the east and west sides of the court are 50 cubits, while the north and south sides are 100 cubits. In the LXX the east and west sides are 100 cubits, while the north and south sides are 50 cubits. Josephus does not give the orientation of the court but merely reports the dimensions. However, as Robertson (62) asserts, that Josephus is following the Hebrew text may be inferred from his explaining the eastward orientation of the Tent itself (Ant. 3.115); the shorter sides were to the east and west.

The word that Josephus uses here, κάμακας, is found in Josephus only in Ant. 3.109-13. It refers to the shaft of a spear. Robertson (63) suggests that as a general in the Galilean campaign against the Romans, Josephus would have had ample opportunity to see spears, perhaps used to support curtains separating small areas within a military camp. They are like columns in that they have capitals and bases, but they resemble spears in that their bases are spikes that can be stuck firmly into the ground (Ant.3.109). Josephus does not indicate the material out of which the rings were made. Exod. 27:11 says that they were made of silver. There is apparently a lacuna at this point in all the manuscripts. Josephus omits the data found in Exod. 27:10-16. This is Josephus’ addition to Exod. 27:10. This comparison is reminiscent of Homer (Il. 10.153) and Herodotus 7.41, but differs from the rabbinic tradition (Baraita de-Meleket hamishkan 1.1 [ed. Kirschner, p. 153]), which describes the bases as hollow, as Nodet (ad loc.) remarks. Thackeray emends to “golden spikes.” As Nodet (ad loc.) remarks, according to Exod. 27:9 the hooks of the pillars and their fillet were of silver, and the pillars and their bases were of bronze. He concludes that Josephus’ text is corrupt, since he says that the bases were of gold and of bronze. He suggests that “they were of bronze (χαλκαί)” are the words of the author or a collaborator or a copyist, who thereby corrected χρυσαί (“golden”).

The purpose of the cords attached to the rings is Josephus’ addition. I.e., as Thackeray (ad loc.) notes, each thread was composed of many delicate strands. Manuscripts MSP read μαλακωτάτη (“most soft,” “most delicate”), and this meaning is the source of the Latin version, mollissima (“most soft”). Greek σινδών. Schalit (ad loc.) notes that this was woven in Egypt and Babylonia and is mentioned by Herodotus 1.200 and 2.95, Thucydides 2.49, and Strabo 15.1.20.693. Βύσσος. Stern (1980:2:194) notes that the byssus was probably a species of flax, that it served as material for the dress of the priests in Jerusalem (War 5.229) and that, in general, it was considered suitable for the rich (Baba Meẓia 29b). Jews were regarded as particularly skilled in the production of byssus. Cf. Pausanias 5.5.2: “The fine flax of Elis is as fine as that of the Hebrew, but it is not so yellow.” The fact that the hanging cloth seemed like a wall is Josephus’ addition.

Greek πύλας, gates at the major entrance to temples and palaces. That the two pillars imitated gatehouses is Josephus’ addition.

Josephus omits (Exod. 38:19) the silver hooks and the overlaying of their tops and the silver fillets, which are likewise omitted in the LXX. According to Exod. 27:11 the pillars and bases were of bronze. Thackeray (ad loc.) explains, “by transverse beams.” Exod. 27:14-15 mentions 3 pillars on either side of the entrance to the court, whereas Josephus (Ant. 3.112) mentions 3 in addition to the 2 shafts on either side.

Exod. 27:14-15, in the Greek version, states that the curtains are to be 15 cubits high and that the veil (Exod. 27:16) is to be 20 cubits high, whereas the Masoretic Text does not indicate that this applies to the height, despite the fact that the height of the Tent itself was only 5 cubits (Ant. 3.109). Apparently, as Robertson (67 n.86) suggests, the screen across the entrance was 20 cubits wide rather than high, and the curtains were 15 cubits wide rather than high. Philo (De Vita Mosis 2.19.93) mentions the 4 pillars “on which was stretched a piece of woven work of various colors, made in the same way as those within the Tent and of like materials.” Josephus, however, omits the statement (Exod. 27:16) that the tapestry that hung in front of the court was supported by 4 pillars and their sockets. This is Josephus’ addition, which is in accord with the second of the 10 Commandments (Ant. 3.91). Exod. 26:1 and 31 specifically mention that the the curtains of the Tent contained representations of cherubim. Cf. also Ant. 3.137, where Josephus mentions the 2 cherubim executed in low relief (πρόστυποι) on the cover of the ark. He is careful there to note that these winged creatures were “in form unlike to any that man’s eyes have seen.”

Hebrew ‮כיור‬‎, “laver” (Exod. 30:18), LXX λουτήρ (“washing-tub”), Josephus περιρραντήριον, i.e. a utensil for sprinkling water at sacrifices. Josephus uses this rare word only here. According to Herodotus (1.51), Croesus presented, among other gifts to the oracle at Delphi, two sprinkling-vessels (περιρραντήρια), one of gold and one of silver. Josephus omits the statement (Exod. 30:19-21) that if priests do not wash their hands and feet they will die. He also omits (Exod. 38:8) that the laver was made of the mirrors contributed by the women that were melted down to provide the bronze. Robertson (73) suggests that Josephus may have de-emphasized the laver because of misogyny, since it was made from the mirrors contributed by the women, or because the death penalty imposed upon the priests for not using it seemed unduly harsh and thus made the religion of Judaism less attractive, or because he wished to emphasize the interior of the Tent rather than the outer court.

As Robertson (80) notes, whereas the biblical account of the Tent (Exod. 26) describes its parts before telling, virtually as a postscript, of the erection of the completed building, Josephus describes a structure already in place. Philo (De Vita Mosis 2.19.91) and the fourth-century Baraita de-Meleket hamishkan 5 (ed. Kirschner, p. 173) situate the Tent in the western square of the court, with its entrance being 50 cubits from the door of the court in the east, and with a space of 20 cubits between the dwelling (‮משכן‬‎) and the court curtains on the north and south sides. This reason for the orientation of the Tent is Josephus’ addition. Exod. 27:13 indicates that the opening of the court of the Tent is to be toward the east, whereas Josephus here indicates that the Tent itself is to face the east. Ezek. 43:4 indicates that the glory of God entered the Temple by the gate facing east and explicitly (47:1) asserts that the Temple faced east. Nodet (ad loc.) suggests that perhaps Josephus is recalling the orientation of the Temple built by Herod, notes that illumination by the sun was important in Egyptian temples and gave rise to a solar cult, and conjectures that this was an aspect of the debate on the relations of the festival of Hanukkah and the winter solstice (1986:334-35). According to Philo (De Vita Contemplativa 11.89), the Therapeutae “stand with their faces and whole body turned to the east, and when they see the sun rising they stretch their hands up to heaven and pray for bright days and knowledge of the truth and the power of keen-sighted thinking.” Likewise the Essenes (War 2.128), before the sun had risen, uttered no word on mundane matters but offered to it prayers that had been handed down from their forefathers “as though entreating it to rise.” Thackeray (on War 2.128) calls attention to the quotation from Ezek. 8:16 in Mishnah Sukkah 5:4, that in the celebration of the Bet Hashoebah the priests would say, “Our fathers who were in this place turned with their backs toward the Temple of the Lord and their faces toward the east, and they worshipped the sun toward the east,” whereas they themselves had their eyes on the Lord. As the Israelites traveled in the wilderness, Robertson (81) notes, they were repeatedly instructed to move eastward (Num. 2:3, 10:5, 21:11), presumably because Canaan lay to the east. Cf. Ezek. 43:2: “And behold, the glory of the God of Israel came from the east.” Robertson (84-89) conjectures that it may be more than a coincidence that the closest biblical parallel to Josephus’ comment here is in the prophet of the exile, Ezekiel; and, in fact, Josephus may well have been conscious of his similarity to Ezekiel in that both were prophets of priestly descent and both expressed grievances against the Jews of their day, and both were exiled. Apion (Apion 2.10) notes that Moses erected prayer-houses in Heliopolis (literally the city of the sun) “open in the air, in the various precincts of the city, all facing eastwards, such being the orientation also of Heliopolis.” Moses is said to have set up pillars, “beneath which was a model of a boat; and the shadow cast on this basin by the statue [of a man] described a circle corresponding to the course of the sun in the heavens.” Robertson (84) points to a parallel in the Community Rule (1 QS 10) of the Dead Sea Scrolls: “With the coming of day and night I will enter the Covenant of God.” The dimensions of the Tent are not given in Exod. 26:15-16, 36:20-21 (LXX 26:16). Rather, the biblical account gives the measurements of the ‮קרשׁים‬‎ (“frames,” “boards,” “pillars”). The north and south walls, as Robertson (100) notes, comprised 20 ‮קרשׁים‬‎ and were 30 cubits long on the inside but 31 on the outside; but the west wall of the Tent, which was made up of 6 ‮קרשׁים‬‎, plus one corner ‮קרשׁ‬‎ on either side, would total 12 cubits. Josephus gives no indication that the dimensions at the top of the Tent were different from those at the bottom. However, Exod. 26:24 and 36:29 indicate that the boards were closely fitting together (but separated) beneath, whereas they were closely joined together (i.e. actually joined) at the top. The LXX (Exod. 26:23-24) indicates that there was no difference in dimensions between the top and the bottom.

Exod. 26:1-14 first describes the curtains before describing the supporting structure (Exod. 26:15-37), whereas Josephus here first describes the supporting structure. Hebrew ‮קרשׁים‬‎ (“pillars,” “boards,” “upright frames,” Exod. 26:15), LXX στῦλοι (“pillars,” “wooden poles”), Philo κίονες (“pillars,” De Vita Mosis 2.16.78), Josephus κίονες. The fact that Philo, who generally follows the LXX, chose to use a synonym and that Josephus chose to use that same synonym may support the possibility of Philo’s influence on Josephus. It would appear that Josephus, though he calls these “frames” κίονες, does not have pillars in mind, since, as Robertson (100) remarks, pillars stood independently as supports for a structure. The depth is Josephus’ addition. Nodet (ad loc.) cites a rabbinic controversy (Shabbat 98b) on the depth.

Thackeray (ad loc.) suggests that the sockets or bases formed a continuous plinth—a foundation around the building.

That they seemed to comprise a single wall is Josephus’ comment.

There is a lacuna here in the text. From the Latin version of Josephus we can reconstruct that the missing words were “of one and a half cubits and a thickness of.” Thackeray (ad loc.) comments that the purpose of the 2 extra pillars or frames is obscure, apparently being intended to strengthen the two corners.

Josephus has changed the 5 bars to a side into 5-cubit-long bars, each joined to the other on the north and south sides of the Tent to form a 20-cubit-long bar. Exod. 26:26 mentions that there were 2 sockets under each board but does not indicate their size. Shabbat 98b clarifies the structure. An anonymous rabbi there, commenting on the statement in Exod. 26:28, explains that the middle bar in the midst of the boards passed through from end to end, the necessary bending between the angles of the walls being done miraculously of itself. Since, as Robertson (99) remarks, the picture in Exodus is hard to visualize, Josephus has attempted here to present a more easily visualized description.

As Nodet (ad loc.) remarks, whereas the Hebrew text (Exod. 26:28) reads ‮והבריח התיכן‬‎ (“and the middle bar”) Josephus here seems to have read ‮ובריח התיכון‬‎ and understood it to mean “the bar of the intermediate [wall],” i.e. joining the 2 large sides. The details on the assembling of this bar are Josephus’ addition. See Hippocrates, ap. Xen., De Re Equestri 12.6. In mechanics those parts were called female into which others fitted, as the female vertebra. See the second-century grammarian Julius Pollux (Onomasticon 2.180). Thackeray (ad loc.) suggests that these operated like a pivot working in a socket. This explanation is Josephus’ addition.

The description of the division into three parts is Josephus’ addition, presumably based on his first-hand knowledge as a priest who had served in the Temple. Exod. 26:31-36 first describes the veil and the hangings at the entrance to the Tent and only afterwards (Exod. 26:37) mentions the pillars supporting the hangings, whereas Josephus here first mentions the pillars and only afterwards (Ant. 3.124) the curtains. Robertson (108) explains this inversion by suggesting that Josephus sought to give the impression that the Tent was more like a temple than like a mere tent. Josephus omits the fact (Exod. 26:37) that the pillars were made of acacia wood and overlaid with gold. Philo (Quaestiones et Solutiones in Exodum 2.93) says that the columns were made solid but does not state that they were overlaid with gold. I.e. from the west wall, not, as Thackeray (ad loc.) indicates, the east wall. The description of the pillars and their location are Josephus’ addition. This is Josephus’ addition.

Cf. Ant. 1.24, where Josephus says that all that is set forth in his work is in keeping with the nature of the universe. He then adds that Moses has veiled some things in enigmas while setting forth others in solemn allegory, as presumably he does here. Cf. Philo (De Opificio Mundi 1.3): “It [Moses’ exordium] consists of an account of the creation of the world, implying that the world is in harmony with the Law, and the Law with the world, and that the man who observes the Law is constituted thereby a loyal citizen of the world, regulating his doings by the purpose and will of Nature, in accordance with which the entire world itself also is administered.” So also Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 1.12.66): “The highest, and in the truest sense the holy, Temple of God is, as we must believe, the whole universe.” Cf. also Ant. 3.181, where Josephus discusses, as here, the symbolism of the Tent, particularly the division into 3 parts, 2 of which, signifying earth and sea, are approachable to the priests, since they are accessible to all, and the third reserved for God alone because heaven is inaccessible to humans. Cf. War 5.217-18, where Josephus notes that the 7 lamps in the sanctuary symbolize the 7 planets, the 12 loaves on the table represent the 12 signs of the Zodiac, and that the 13 spices on the altar of incense represent the fact that all things are from and for God. The notion that the Tent symbolized the entire world is also found in the rabbinic tradition (Midrash Num. Rabbah 12.13 and Pesiqta Rabbati 5 [ed. Friedmann p. 16a] and parallels, cited by Rappaport [121 n. 163], who notes that this symbolism is also found in the Samaritan tradition). Philo (De Vita Mosis 2.16.77-2.22.108) likewise sees symbolism in the way in which the Tent was constructed, though he does not state specifically that the Tent symbolized the world. See Daniélou (1957). I.e. the ordinary priests. Philo (Quaestiones et Solutiones in Exodum 2.94) says the very opposite: “The simple holy [parts of the Tent (i.e. in contrast with the Holy of Holies)] are classified with the sense-perceptible heaven, whereas the inner [parts], which are called the Holy of Holies, [are classified] with the intelligible world.” Robertson (106-7), noting this apparent contradiction, comments that it is more immediately understandable that the Holy of Holies would be like heaven than the place that the ordinary priests entered routinely.

Exod. 26:32 states that they were overlaid with gold rather than, as here, made of gold. Exod. 26:32 describes them as being of silver. According to Exod. 26:32, they were 4 in number. That the hues were blended is Josephus’ addition.

The measurements of the curtains are Josephus’ addition. Exod. 26:33, both in the Hebrew and LXX texts, refers to it as the Holy of Holies.

This description of the curtain is Josephus’ addition. Josephus avoids mention of the cherubim (Exod. 26:31), just as earlier he had avoided mention of the Israelites’ worship of the golden calf (see note on Ant. 3.99) presumably for apologetic reasons, inasmuch as the Jews had been accused of worshipping an ass (Apion 2.80-88). When he does later mention the cherubim (Ant. 3.137) he carefully notes that they were in form unlike any that humans have ever seen. On the other hand, in the Temple that Solomon built (1 Kgs. 6:29) all the walls were carved with figures of cherubim. There, too, Josephus (Ant. 8.73) asserts that no one can say or imagine what they looked like. The Jerusalem Talmud (Sheqalim 8.4 [ed. Krotoschin, p. 51b]) cites the tradition that the Temple had embroidered figures of lions and of an eagle. Nodet (ad loc.) suggests that Josephus may have regarded the etymology of the word Cherubim as coming from the word ‮רב‬‎ (“many”), and consequently derived his statement about the numerous flowers in the design of the covering; but, as Robertson (110-11) remarks, this seems unlikely.

The Hebrew text (Exod. 26:36, 36:37) states that this screen was the work of the embroiderer and did not have the cherubim.

Whereas the Hebrew (Exod. 26:36) speaks of a hanging for the door of the tent, the LXX renders this by ἐπίσπαστρον, i.e. a rope for pulling, as does Josephus here. This is Josephus’ addition. Presumably the Day of Atonement is meant.

This is Josephus’ addition. Josephus, as Robertson (111) remarks, has anachronistically imputed to the Tent a design found in the Temple of his day. This is Josephus’ addition.

Manuscripts MSPL read 12. Josephus omits the 50 loops on each of 2 curtains and the 50 clasps of gold (Exod. 26:5-6). Cf. Ant. 3.121. According to Exod. 26:3, there were 2 sets of 5 curtains each, held together by hooks. The distance from the ground is Josephus’ addition.

Exod. 26:7 specifies goats’ hair. Cf. Shabbat 98b, which compares the Tent’s covering trail to that of a woman who goes in the street and whose skirts trail after her on the ground. The rare word ἀέτωμα, according to Schalit (ad loc.), is parallel to the Latin word fastigium, which refers to the top of a gable of a house. Cf. Exod. 26:9: “And you shall couple 5 curtains by themselves, and 6 curtains by themselves, and the sixth curtain you shall double over at the front of the tent.”

The purpose of the skins is Josephus’ addition. This is Josephus’ addition. Cf. Ant. 3.123.

Levine (1993:69-70) notes that the detail that the gateway of the Tent is protected from the hybris of the rains is extra-biblical. Josephus, he says, is here drawing on the Greek notion of nature committing hybris, “a concept that would be familiar to Greeks, who knew that besides animals and plants, even natural forces could act in excessive and destructive manner, sometimes requiring human correction.” Thus an unmanageable horse is ὑβριστής (Xen., Cyr. 7.5.62); a river may be guilty of hybris for sweeping away a horse (Herodotus 1.189.1); the snake in Heracles’ cradle possesses hybris (Pindar, Nem. 1.50); bulls falling victims to bacchant women are ὑβρισταί (Eur., Bac. 743); centaurs possessed hybris (Theognis 541-42; Soph., Tr. 1096; Eur. Her.Fur 181); also wild animals in general (Archilochus 177 [West]); Typhaon, the monstrous personification of powerful and frightening natural phenomena, is ὑβριστής (Hes., Th. 307). Indeed, there was a river Hybristes in the Underworld (Aeschylus, Pr. 717). This notion that nature (in Jewish eyes, the creation of God) can commit hybris would presumably have been foreign to Jewish readers, since nature itself is the creation of God. Josephus omits God’s statement (Exod. 25:9, 40) to Moses that the Tent is to be built in accordance with the pattern of all that He showed him while he was on Mount Sinai.

A theological problem arises when one considers that the Torah, said to have been given by God, seems to contradict itself. The account in Exodus (37:1-9) states that Bezalel made the ark of the covenant, whereas the version in Deuteronomy (10:1-5) indicates that Moses made it. Even if we attempt to reconcile the two versions by asserting that Moses could be credited with making that which an assistant completed, we are still confronted with another contradiction, in that in the version in Exodus Bezalel made the ark after Moses’ second descent from Sinai (Exod. 34:29), whereas the account in Deuteronomy (10:3) indicates that Moses made it before his ascent. Josephus (Ant. 3.134-38), apparently aware of the problem, skilfully sidesteps it by simply not mentioning who built the ark. Cf. Ant. 3.102. Hebrew ‮ארון‬‎ (Exod. 25:10). Robertson (116 n. 11) suggests that Josephus’ transliteration of this word may show that in pronunciation there was a distinction between pataḥ and ḥataf pataḥ. Note that Josephus uses a different word, λάρναξ, for Noah’s ark (Ant. 1.77; the LXX [Gen. 6:15] uses the word κιβωτός), and still another word, πλέγμα, in connection with the ark in which Moses was placed as an infant (Ant. 2.220; the LXX uses the word θίβις [Exod. 2:3]). He does use the word κιβωτός, which he uses here for “ark” in connection with the chests, made of the bark of papyrus, which Moses filled with ibises when he traversed the desert on his way to fight the Ethiopians (Ant. 2.246).

In Exod. 25:10 and 37:1 the dimensions are given in cubits. A span is the distance that one can embrace between the thumb and the little finger, i.e. approximately 9 inches or half of a cubit. According to Exod. 25:10, its length was 2 and a half cubits, that is 5 spans. The purpose of having the ark covered with gold is Josephus’ addition. Hebrew ‮כפרת‬‎ (Exod. 25:17), LXX ἰλαστήριον ἐπίθημα (“mercy-seat cover”), Josephus ἐπίθημα. Robertson (118) suggests that Josephus may deliberately have avoided using the word ἰλαστήριον, since the Christians used the term with reference to Jesus (Rom. 3:24-25). See Paul (1985). Exod. 25:11 mentions a crown of gold but not golden pivots. This is Josephus’ addition.

Josephus omits the statement (Exod. 25:15, 37:4-5) that the rods are to remain fixed in the rings on the ark. Josephus may be following the implication of Num. 4:5-6: “When the camp is to set out,...they...shall put it [the ark] in its poles,” that is, that the poles were not fixed at the side of the ark. The purpose of the gold-plated rods is Josephus’ addition. Schwartz has identified in Josephus a number of pro-priestly revisions of both the legal and narrative portions of the Bible (S. Schwartz 1990:88-90). In particular, Josephus states that the priests alone, rather than the Levites, were permitted to carry the ark (so also Ant. 4.304). Cf. Deut. 10:8: “At that time the Lord set apart the tribe of Levi to carry the ark of the covenant of the Lord, to stand before the Lord to minister to Him.” See the tragic account of God’s anger against Uzzah because the latter had put his hand on the ark (2 Sam. 6:7). In his account of this episode, whereas 2 Sam. 6:13 speaks of “those who bore the ark,” Josephus (Ant. 7.85) says that it was carried by the priests.

That the cherubim were low reliefs (πρόστυποι) is Josephus’ innovation. In his description of the cherubim in the Temple built by Solomon, Josephus (Ant. 8.72) says that they were of solid gold, each 5 (10 in 1 Kgs. 6:23) cubits high and each having a wing spread of 5 cubits. Their inner wings, he says (Ant. 8.73), joined each other so as to form a covering for the ark, which was placed between them. Josephus (Ant. 8.103) says that in the Temple the cherubim, which were interlocked by the tips of their wings, “covered the ark as under a kind of tent or dome.” Josephus omits the biblical statement at this point (Exod. 25:18-20) that the cherubim were made of gold, of beaten work, and that they spread forth their wings, with their faces turned toward one another. He adds the statement that the cherubim were utterly unique, perhaps in order to explain what seems to be a violation of the second commandment. In insisting that the cherubim were unlike any creature known to man, Josephus may also be implicitly answering the canard (Apion, ap. Apion 2.80 and Tac., Hist. 5.4.2) that the Jews worshipped an ass’ head in the Temple and the claim that Antiochus Epiphanes found in the Temple the statue of a bearded man (whom he supposed to be Moses) seated on an ass (Diodorus 34-35.3). Josephus (Ant. 1.51) omits the Bible’s first mention of the cherubim (Gen. 3:25), in the account of the banishment of Adam and Eve. Cf. Ant. 7.378, paraphrasing 1 Chr. 28:18, and Ant. 8.73, where Josephus, in describing Solomon’s Temple, states categorically that “as for the cherubim themselves, no one can say or imagine what they looked like.” In Ant. 8.82, in describing the lavers in Solomon’s Temple, Josephus mentions that an eagle was carved in relief there, whereas 1 Kgs. 7:29 mentions cherubim. Cf. Ant. 3.113 and 3.126, where Josephus, in describing the tapestry before the gates of the Tent and its curtains, mentions their beauty but carefully notes that none of them represented the forms of living creatures, whereas Exod. 26:1 and 31 specifically mention that they contained representations of cherubim. Philo (De Vita Mosis 2.20.99) explains the two cherubim allegorically as representations of the 2 most august and highest potencies of God, that is, the creative and the kingly. Robertson (69) suggests that Josephus, in describing the cherubim as unlike any creatures, may have wished to counteract the notion that they were like the griffins well known on the helmet of Athena’s statue in the Parthenon in Athens and described by Pausanias (2.24.5-6) as “beasts like lions with beaks and wings of eagles” carved in relief. As to representations of living beings in the Temple, Josephus (Ant. 8.195) sharply criticizes King Solomon, who, he says, “sinned and went astray in respect of the observance of the laws, namely when he made the images of the bronze bulls underneath the sea that he had set up as an offering, and those of lions around his own throne, for in making them he committed an impious act,” whereas neither the Bible (1 Kgs. 7:25, 29) nor rabbinic tradition regards these acts as sinful. In Ant. 17.149-54 (cf. War 1.648-50) Josephus tells how Judas the son of Sariphaeus and Matthias the son of Margalothus inspired young men to pull down the eagle that King Herod had erected over the great gate of the Temple “although the Law forbids those who propose to live in accordance with it to think of setting up images or to make dedications of any living creatures.” There is no statement anywhere else to corroborate this assertion by Josephus, but Schalit (ad loc.) thinks that it is based on Exod. 25:9, where we read that God tells Moses that he should pattern the Tent after what He will show him. Perhaps Josephus is thinking of the vision of Ezekiel (10:1-22) in which he describes the cherubim that he beheld. Robertson (126) notes that in 4 out of the 7 instances where the Mishnah tractate Middot uses the phrase “it is written,” the quotation is from Ezekiel. Strousma (1981:54) asserts that Josephus’ remark about the cherubim here can be understood only as the reflection of an exegetical tradition interpreting “the Lord of hosts, Who is enthroned on the cherubim” (1 Sam. 4:4, 2 Sam. 6:2) as a description of the divine throne (cf. 1 Kgs. 8:6). He notes a striking parallel between this conception and that preserved by the Ascension of Isaiah, where the 2 angelic beings that are connected with the 2 sides of the divine throne are no longer the cherubim but the Son and the Spirit.

Cf. Ant. 3.90 and 101. Exod. 32:15 says merely that the tablets were inscribed on both sides. Josephus’ description that the commandments were inscribed 2 and a half on each side is not found in the rabbinic tradition. I.e. the ark. Exod. 25:16 says merely “And you shall put into the ark the testimony that I shall give you.”

Josephus omits the biblical statement (Exod. 25:24, 37:11) that the table was overlaid with pure gold and that there was a crown of gold round about. This parallel between the table of showbread and the table in the temple of Apollo at Delphi (though the famous table at Delphi had 3 rather than 4 legs) is Josephus’ addition. Robertson (135) notes that the Targumim refer to the Tent’s table as ‮פתורא‬‎, which is derived from the root ‮פתר‬‎, “to interpret,” which reminds one of the function of the Pythian priestess at the table in Delphi. It may be significant that in a later section on the priestly cult (Ant. 3.175), Josephus uses a word, ὀμφαλός, which happens to be the term for the round stone in the temple at Delphi, which allegedly marked the middle point of the earth. This comes in his tangential excursus of the golden calyx above the crown of gold on the headdress of the high priest. Robertson (129-31) suggests that this allusion to Delphi may have been intended to add prestige to the Tent. Indeed, Burkert (1985:91) notes that the furnishings of the temple at Delphi included a table of offerings, incense stands, and occasionally an ever-burning lamp. Most remarkably, there was no image in the innermost sanctuary of the temple, and Burkert (1985:88) suggests that it was on such a basis that the ancients later proposed the theory that the pure and earliest worship of the gods was without images (see Strabo, Geog. 16.2.35.760-61 and Varro, ap. Aug., Civ. Dei. 4.31). Nodet (ad loc.) thinks, however, that such an allusion to a pagan cult is improbable. In the Mishnah (Kelim 22:1-2, 24:6, 25:1; ‘Abodah Zarah 5:5; Menaḥot 96b, and parallels cited by Jastrow [1903:1:311]), the word ‮דלפקי‬‎ refers to a side table on which food is placed in contrast to an eating table. Schalit (ad loc.) asserts that Josephus cannot here be thinking of a 3-legged table, since this would contradict Exod. 25:26. However, he notes that there was also a 4-legged Delphic table as illustrated in Daremberg-Saglio (1877-1919:3.2:1723, fig. 4909, 4910). I.e. a cubit and a half (Exod. 25:23). See note on Ant. 3.135. The reference to the Dorians is clearly an appeal to Josephus’ Hellenized audience. Since the Dorians were most often identified with the Spartans, this allusion would have enhanced the prestige of the table in the Tent. See Feldman (1987-88:207-10). These details about the table are Josephus’ addition. Josephus omits the biblical detail (Exod. 25:23) that the table was made of acacia wood. He is at variance with the LXX on this verse, which speaks of the table as being made of pure gold.

About 3 inches. These details are Josephus’ addition. As Thackeray (ad loc.) explains, Josephus appears to indicate that the edge of the 4 sides of the table took the form of 4 sunken panels (of which, indeed, there are actually traces in the representation on the Arch of Titus), with a spiral moulding above and below. Josephus agrees with the view later ascribed to Rabbi Yose (Menaḥot 96b), who says: “There were no props there at all, but the border of the table supported the bread.” Cf. Mishnah (Menaḥot 11:6): “4 golden props were there [at the corners of the table], with their heads shaped into branches.” As was true of the sides of the ark (Ant. 3.136). This is Josephus’ addition. The staves in the rings of the ark, to be sure, are not removable, according to Exod. 25:15.

This is Josephus’ addition. Robertson (138) suggests that Josephus’ rings resembled croquet wickets, turned sideways, fixed, dowel-like into the legs. Holes must have been bored into the legs for the ring-pins, which joined the legs to the table-top. Apparently, similar holes were prepared in the table-top to receive the other pin of the rings. Josephus omits mention of the dishes, spoons, supporters, and purifying tubes with which the table was covered (Exod. 25:29).

Whereas the Bible (Exod. 25:29-30) first describes the utensils and then mentions the bread on top of the table, Josephus reverses the order here. This refers to the outer court of the Tent as opposed to the Holy of Holies. The place of the table is Josephus’ addition. The remotest corner is the Holy of Holies. So also in Ant. 3.255 and in Menaḥot 76a. The Bible (Exod. 25:30, Lev. 24:5) does not mention that the bread is to be unleavened. Whereas Exod. 25:30 refers to the showbread as ‮לחם פנים‬‎, which the LXX translates as ἄρτους ἐνωπίους (lit., “bread facing”), Josephus refers to it simply as unleavened bread. Hebrew ‮עשׂרנים‬‎ (Lev. 24:5), LXX δεκάτων (“tenth parts”), Josephus ἀσσάρων (Niese ἀσσαρώνων). Apparently, the word was pronounced ‮עַשׂרון‬‎ rather than the Masoretic pronunciation of ‮עִשׂרון‬‎ (plural ‮עשׂרונים‬‎). See Ant. 3.29. A cotyla (also found among the Romans and equivalent to a hemina) was somewhat less than half a pint. 7 cotylae would be approximately 3.25 pints. An omer is approximately 6.5 pints. Hence, an omer actually would equal 14 cotylae.

The Arch of Titus depicts 2 cups on the table. Josephus omits mention of the other items on the table: plates and dishes for incense, and flagons and bowls for libations (Exod. 25:29). Lev. 24:7 does not mention that the incense is to be in the cups, but this is specified in the rabbinic tradition (Mishnah Menaḥot 11:5), and it is so depicted on the Arch of Titus. Daniel (1967:223) notes that neither in the Mishnah (Menaḥoth 11.4-9) nor here in Josephus is there mention of the presence of salt by the side of the incense on the table of the showbread. Philo (De Vita Mosis 2.22.104 and De Specialibus Legibus 1.35.175), following the LXX (Lev. 24:7), does mention salt. However, the Talmud indicates that one adds salt to incense (according to the principle mentioned in Lev. 2:13 for all cereal offerings) but only before burning it on the altar of the holocausts when renewing the bread each week (Menaḥot 20a). Lev. 24:8. On Josephus’ projected work see also Ant. 1.25 and list of references cited there.

Exod. 40:24. In Menaḥot 98b Rabbi Eleazar the son of Rabbi Simeon states that the candelabrum stood with its branches extending toward north and south. Josephus omits the snuffers and the trays mentioned by the Hebrew (Exod. 25:38) and the vessel for pouring oil into the lamp and the snuff-dishes mentioned by the LXX on this verse. According to Exod. 25:31 the candelabrum was made of pure gold. Philo (Quaestiones et Solutiones in Exodum 2.73) dwells on the significance of this, noting that “the lampstand is a symbol of the purest substance, (namely) the heaven.” On the other hand, Exod. 37:17 states that the candelabrum was made of “beaten” (‮מקשׁה‬‎) work, that is, solid. The corresponding verse in the LXX (Exod. 38:14) mentions that the stem was solid (στερεάν). Josephus himself (War 1.152) says that when Pompey entered the Temple he beheld “the candelabrum and lamps, the table, the vessels for libation and censers, entirely of gold (ὁλόχρυσα),” though, as Robertson (151 n. 97) points out, this does not rule out the possibility that it was hollow. In War 7.148, where Josephus describes the objects that were captured from the Temple and that were borne in the triumphal procession in Rome, he mentions a golden (χρυσῆ) candelabrum, without indicating whether it was solid or hollow. The rabbinic tradition (Menaḥot 28b) quotes Rabbi Papa the son of Rabbi Ḥanin as reporting the tradition that the candelbrum had to be made from one mass and had to be of gold. Robertson (152) suggests that Josephus may have confused the hollow altar (Exod. 27:8) with the candelabrum; Josephus omits the fact that the altar was hollow from his description (Ant. 3.149). But the candelabrum in the Temple may not have been precisely like that in the Tent. According to Exod. 25:39, it was made of a talent of gold. A talent is equal to 60, not 100, minae, according to a statement made in passing by Philo (Quaestiones et Solutiones in Exodum 2.81). However, if we assume a 60-shekel mina (Ezek. 45:12) and a 3000-shekel talent, a mina is one fiftieth of a talent. See Steinberg (1971:383). Inasmuch as, according to Bekorot 5a, the sacred maneh (mina) was double the common, there were 100 minae in a talent, since the Tent contained sacred objects. Hebrew ‮ככר‬‎ (Exod. 25:39), LXX τάλαντον, Josephus κίγχαρες. Nodet (ad loc.) says that a talent of gold would contain 65 kilograms, which would be small for an object as large as the candelabrum depicted on the Arch of Titus. He therefore concludes that the base was not included and that the word ‮ירכה‬‎ (Exod. 25:31) is to be understood as “its point,” which fits into the base but not the base itself. The rabbinic tradition (Menaḥot 28b) depicts a candelabrum that includes a base and a tripod.

Hebrew (Exod. 25.31) ‮כפתריה‬‎, LXX σφαιρωτῆρες (=“ball to ornament pillars,” “knop”), Josephus σφαιρία (“round ball”). The LXX (Exod. 25:31) lists bowls (κρατῆρες), knops (σφαιρωτῆρες, “balls”), and lilies (κρίνα). The pomegranates are Josephus’ addition. Robertson (154-55) suggests that since the LXX (Exod. 25:33) describes the bowls (κρατῆρες) as fashioned like almonds (καρυίσκους) and since the ῥοίσκοι are small pomegranates and presumably closely resembling almonds and since καρυίσκος strongly resembles ῥοίσκος phonetically, Josephus added ῥοίσκοις whether by design or by mistake. Moreover, the addition of pomegranates heightens the symbolism of the candelabrum as a tree of life. Cf. Goodenough (1953-58:4:73), who notes that the tree motif as the candelabrum, with two olive trees next to it, is envisioned by Zechariah (4:2-10). As Nodet (ad loc.) remarks, Josephus was influenced by the candelabrum that he had seen in the Temple. On the significance of the number 70 cf. Ant. 3.182 and the discussion by Robertson (156-68). Nodet (ad loc.) suggests that the total of 70 is arrived at by adding the elements enumerated in Exod. 25:33-38; but this gives a total of only 69; if, however, we add the candelabrum itself this gives a total of 70. The comparison with the planets and the sun is Josephus’ addition. Philo (De Vita Mosis 2.21.102-3) also compares the 7 branches of the candelabrum to the 7 planets and notes that the sun, like the candlestick in the center, gives light to the 3 above and the 3 below it. That this symbolism was known to non-Jews as well may be inferred from the story, attributed to Mnaseas of Patara (ap. Apion 2.112-14) that a certain Idumean named Zabidus constructed an apparatus of wood, inserted in it 3 rows of lamps, put it over his person, walked about presenting to distant onlookers the appearance of stars circuiting the earth, and thus deceived the Jews by promising to deliver Apollo into their hands. Josephus omits the statement (Exod. 25:31) that the candelabrum was to be made out of a single piece. Philo (Quaestiones et Solutiones in Exodum 2.73) dwells on the significance of this: “For the other parts of the world were wholly made through the 4 elements, earth, water, air, and fire; but the heaven of (only) one, (this being) a superior form, which the moderns call ‘the quintessence.’”

The equation of the 7 lamps with the 7 planets is also found in War 5.217, Philo (Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres 45.221, De Vita Mosis 2.21.103), and the midrashic tradition: Tadshe 11 and parallels. Goodenough (1953-68:4:72-73) suggests that the prophet Zechariah (4:10) may be referring to the 7 lamps of the candelabrum as planets when he mentions “the 7 eyes of God, wandering through the whole earth.” On the importance of astronomy for Josephus cf. Abraham’s proof for the existence of God (Ant. 1.156) from the exceptions to the movements of the heavenly bodies. Philo’s discussion of the symbolism of the candelabrum, notably in Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres 44.216-19, is much more extensive than that of Josephus. McNamara (1966:194-95) concludes that Philo and Josephus are dependent on a Jewish tradition that by their time had attributed cosmic significance to the Temple and its cult objects. The same symbolism for the lampstand is found in Midrash Num. Rabbah 15.7 and in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Exod. 39:37. This is Josephus’ addition. Robertson (168) suggests that this was so that the light, the symbol of the Divine presence, would be focused on the table where the showbread was placed. The orientation of the candelabrum is Josephus’ addition. Cf. Exod. 26:35: “And you shall set ... the lampstand on the south side of the Tabernacle opposite the table.” This would mean, as Nodet (ad loc.) remarks, that its face is either north-south or east-west, as the rabbinic tradition (Mishnah, Tamid 3:9, 6:1) indicates. Josephus proposes an intermediate solution, perhaps based on understanding ‮צלע‬‎ (“side”) not as referring to the south side but as referring to the side of the south.

So also Philo (De Vita Mosis 2.21.101), who finds allegorical significance in this, as “a symbol of the thankfulness for earth and water that should be rendered for the benefits derived from both of these, since the midposition in the universe has been assigned to them.” On the other hand, the altar of burnt-offering stood in the court outside. Ant. 3.139. Cf. Philo (De Vita Mosis 2.19.94) and Bib. Ant. 13.1. on which see Jacobson (1:505-6). Cf. Ant. 3.102, 134. Cf. Exod. 30:3: “And you shall overlay it with pure gold.” Josephus appears to suggest that it was plated with solid gold. Elsewhere (War 5.217) Josephus explains that the altar of incense, with its “13 fragrant spices [4 prescribed in Exod. 30:34—stacte, onycha, galbanum, and frankincense—and 9 others—myrrh, cassia, spikenard, saffron, costus, mace, cinnamon, salt and a herb (‮מעלה עשׁן‬‎, apparently the plant Leptadenia pyrotechnica: see Feliks [1971:1315-16]), which caused the smoke to ascend vertically] from sea and from land, both desert and inhabited, with which it was replenished, signified that all things are of God and for God.” A similar cosmic explanation of the significance of these spices is given by Philo (Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres 41.196-200), who asserts that the 4 ingredients are symbolic of the elements “out of which the whole world was brought to its completion.” These ingredients are mentioned in the rabbinic tradition, to which the rabbis (Keritot 6a) add 2 others—balsam and galbanum.

The crown in each corner is Josephus’ addition to Exod. 30:3. Nodet (ad loc.) suggests that Josephus read ‮עשׂית‬‎ for ‮ועשׂית‬‎ and hence understood “You shall make its corners with a crown of gold round about.” Exod. 30:3 speaks of its horns, but Josephus omits them. Cf. Exod. 30:4: “They shall be holders for poles with which to carry it.” Josephus omits the purpose of the incense altar, namely to serve as “a perpetual incense before the Lord throughout your generations.”

Even though the altar of burnt-offering was within the court (Exod. 27) Josephus postpones describing it until he comes to the altar of incense in the Tent (Exod. 30:1). Robertson (74) suggests that perhaps, when he came to the altar of incense, Josephus was reminded that he had omitted it in its proper place because the word for altar of incense (θυμιατήριον) so closely resembles θυσιαστήριον (altar), which was within the walls of the Tent. Josephus uses the word βωμός here for altar, whereas the LXX uses the word θυσιαστήριον. He reserves the latter word for the altar in the Temple (War 5.229). Begg (1993:42 n.209) notes that Josephus uses both θυσιαστήριον (Ant. 8.230, 231, 232, 233, 242, 243, 244) and βωμός (Ant. 8.230, 265, 279) to designate Jeroboam’s illegitimate altar. Conversely, he uses both designations for legitimate Israelite altars, the former 24 times and the latter 118 times. On the other hand, the LXX for the Pentateuch, as well as 1 Maccabees and the New Testament reserve the word θυσιαστήριον (an apparent neologism in the LXX) for legitimate altars, while using the word βωμός for pagan altars. Philo uses the word βωμός for altars in general, while reserving the word θυσιαστήριον (which is never used in pagan literature, according to Liddell-Scott, s.v.) for the altar in the open court (De Vita Mosis 2.22.106). Nodet (ad loc.) notes that the order in which Josephus describes the candelabrum, the altar of incense, and the altar of burnt-offering is found only in the Hebrew text of Exod. 37-38 and not in the LXX, which displaces these verses and omits the altar of incense. The decoration with gold is Josephus’ addition. Josephus omits the horns of this altar (Exod. 27:2, which are likewise omitted by the LXX in its alternate account of the Tent [Exod. 38:24]), as well as the 4 rings of bronze (Exod. 27:4) and the statement that the net extended halfway down the altar (Exod. 27:5). Josephus’ word for “grating” is ἐσχάρα. As Thackeray (ad loc.) notes, the Hebrew equivalent, ‮מכבר‬‎ (Exod. 27:4), rises vertically from the ground as a support for the “ledge around the altar,” where the priests presumably stood. Josephus also omits the fact that the altar was hollow (Exod. 27:8). This is Josephus’ addition.

This is Josephus’ addition to Exod. 27:3. Bowls are not mentioned in Exod. 27:3, though perhaps Josephus is here rendering ‮מחתתיו‬‎ (fire-pans, censers). N.G. Cohen (1963-64:323) notes that the vessels that are set over against the altar here are of the type appropriate for the burning of incense and the making of libations rather than the shovels, basins, and flesh-hooks of brass found in the Bible, which pertain to animal sacrifices. The LXX (Exod. 27:3) at this point mentions a rim for the altar, its covering and its cups, its flesh-hooks, and its fire-pan. Of these Josephus has only the cups (φιάλαι), though even these are not in the Hebrew text. In Josephus the vessels are of gold, which was apparently thought to be a more appropriate metal, whereas in the Bible they are of bronze (Exod. 27:3). Thackeray (ad loc.) notes that Josephus has the support of the Old Latin version of the LXX, which likewise reads “golden” instead of “bronze”; but the Latin word for golden (aurea) is easily confused with the word for bronze (aerea).

This is Josephus’ Hellenized version of Aramaic ‮כהניא‬‎ (Hebrew ‮כהנים‬‎). Exod. 28:1-43 describes the garments of Aaron and his sons without referring to high priests as such. Whereas Exod. 28:2-39 (LXX 28:2-35) and 39:1-31 (LXX 36:8-40) begin with the description of the high priest’s vestments and briefly describe those of other priests (Exod. 28:40, 42 [LXX 28:36, 38] and 39:27-29 [LXX 36:35-37]), Josephus reverses this, beginning with an extensive account of the vestments of ordinary priests (Ant. 3.151-58) and then continuing even more extensively with an account of the high priest’s vestments (Ant. 3.159-78). Similarly, in the War’s account of the Temple he first discusses the ordinary priests (War 5.228-29), though not their vestments, and then describes the high priest’s vestments (War 5.230-37), though there he did not have the biblical order before him. Robertson (181) suggests that Josephus’ purpose in elevating the status of ordinary priests may have been self-serving since he himself, in spite of his Hasmonean descent (Life 1-4), considered himself an ordinary priest. Cf. Schwartz (1990:95), who notes that Josephus favored the numerous, diverse well-to-do lower priests. Robertson (182-83) raises the question as to why Josephus neglects discussion of Aaron’s sons at this point and suggests that this is because of the death of Nadab and Abihu for offering “strange fire before the Lord” (Lev. 10:1; cf. Ant. 3.209-11). This is Josephus’ Hellenized version of the Aramaic ‮כהנא רבא‬‎ (Hebrew ‮כהן גדול‬‎ [high priest]). Actually the Greek τοιαύτην means not “as follows” but “such,” referring to what goes before and implying that the various garments have just been enumerated. Again in Ant. 3.273 Josephus misuses the word τοιούτους. In his description of the priests’ vestments Josephus often diverges from both the Hebrew text and the LXX, probably due to the fact that he himself, as a priest, had direct acquaintance with these vestments.

Hebrew ‮מכנסי־בד‬‎ (Exod. 28:42). As Nodet (ad loc.) indicates, Josephus derives the meaning of this word from the root ‮כנס‬‎, “to gather,” “collect,” “assemble.” Robertson (188-89) raises the question as to why Josephus transliterates this (though he also here uses three synonyms for it: συνακτήρ, διάζωμα, and ἀναξυρίδες) and some other Hebrew technical terms rather than translating them, and suggests that his purpose was to accentuate for his non-Jewish readers the mysterious quality of Israelite worship and to indicate to his Jewish readers that he knew the ancient terms. As Nodet remarks, the order of Josephus’ description of the priestly garments differs from Exod. 28 but corresponds to that found in the rabbinic tradition (Yoma 23b, 25a). Josephus’ word here, συνακτήρ, occurs only here in all of Greek literature. This description of the ‮מכנסים‬‎ is Josephus’ addition, presumably based on his own experience as a priest. Cf. War 5.231, which mentions these breeches as covering the priest’s thighs up to the loins. The rabbinic tradition (Niddah 13b) has the following description of these breeches: “They were like the knee breeches of horsemen, reaching upwards to the loins and downwards to the thighs. They also had laces but had no padding either back or front.”

Cf. Exod. 39:28 states that the linen breeches are to be of fine twined linen. Yoma 71b, commenting on this verse, says that all things in connection with which the word ‮שׁשׁ‬‎ is used had their threads sixfold (a word-play on the Hebrew word ‮שׁשׁ‬‎, which means both “linen” and “six”). It adds that the thread must be twisted, that twined denotes eightfold threads, and that the robe actually had its threads twelvefold. Robertson (194) suggests that whereas Exod. 25:4 states that the Israelites brought scarlet yarn (‮תולעת שׁני‬‎) and linen thread, which the LXX renders κόκκινον διπλοῦν καὶ βύσσον κεκλωσμένην, Josephus arrived at his phrase διπλῆς...σινδόνος βυσσίνης (a linen garment of a double texture) by associating διπλοῦν with βύσσον rather than with κόκκινον. Hebrew ‮כתנת‬‎, Aramaic ‮כתונא‬‎ (Exod. 28:40). This is related to the Greek word χιτών (“tunic,” “coat”). Hebrew ‮כתנת‬‎ (“linen”). Such a word is not to be found in the Bible, but it is found in rabbinic literature (Yoma 71b, Zebaḥim 18b, Baba Meẓia 29b, Ḥullin 51b, 84b, and parallels, cited by Jastrow [1903:1:637, s.v. ‮כיתן‬‎]) with the meaning of “flax.” Exod. 28:40 (LXX 28:36) speaks simply of a tunic without indicating that it reached to the feet. Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 1.16.83), unlike Josephus, follows the biblical description and explains that the tunic is short to make the priests nimble in their ministry. This description of the tunic is Josephus’ addition. Cf. Yoma 72b: “The sleeves of the priestly garments were woven apparently and then attached to the garment. They reached up to the wrist.”

Hebrew ‮אבנט‬‎. Cf. War 5.232, which describes the embroidered belt which attached the robe to the breast and which consisted of 5 bands of variegated colors. Exod. 29:39 does not give the breadth. Nodet (ad loc.) notes that according to Maimonides (Mishneh Torah, Kele hamiqdash 8:19), the width for both the high priest and ordinary priests was 3 fingers. The comparison with the skin of a serpent is Josephus’ addition. The flowers are Josephus’ addition. This elaborate description of the belt is Josephus’ addition. Josephus does not refer to the rabbinic tradition (Mishnah Kilʾayim 9:1) that prescribes that various pieces of the priests’ clothing are to be made of linen and wool interwoven, that is, ‮שׁעטנז‬‎, which is otherwise forbidden to be worn (Lev. 19:19, Deut. 22:11).

‘Arakin 16a quotes Rabbi Ḥanina’s view that the belt procures atonement for sinful thoughts of the heart, for it atones where it is worn. Cf. Zebaḥim 18b: “Trailing garments [of a priest] are fit; garments which do not reach the pavement are unfit.” This elaborate description is Josephus’ addition.

Hebrew ‮אבנט‬‎ (Exod. 28:4, 39), “sash,” “girdle.” When Josephus says here that the Babylonians call it hemian he is referring to the fact that this is the Aramaic equivalent (‮המינא‬‎), as found in Targum Onqelos, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Neofiti (on Exod. 28:39, 39:29). The term is also found in Mishnah ʿErubin 10:15 and Mishnah Sukkah 5:3. This same eqivalence in Aramaic is found in Jerome, Ep. 64 (CSEL 54.598, 16-18). See McNamara (1966:55 n.38). Aramaic ‮המינא‬‎, as we see in Targum Onqelos on Exod. 28:4. As Nodet (ad loc.) remarks, this word is of Persian origin. Exod. 28:32: “It shall have in it an opening for the head, with a woven binding around the opening, like the opening in a garment, that it may not be torn.” The LXX (Exod. 28:28) for this verse reads: “And the opening of it shall be in the middle, having a fringe round about the opening, the work of a weaver, woven together in its joining that it may not be torn.” Josephus seems to be consciously rephrasing the LXX, inasmuch as he employs the word ὤα (“fringe”), which is used only here by Josephus and is found only three times in the LXX (Exod. 28:28, 36:31, Ps. 132:2), always with reference to Aaron’s garment. Exod. 28:4 and 39 speak of ‮כתנת תשׁבץ‬‎ (“checkered coat”) but do not use the word ‮משׁבצת‬‎ (“checker-work”).

This contradicts the meaning of ‮מגבעות‬‎, the turbans of ordinary priests, according to Exod. 28:40, since the ‮מגבעות‬‎ were peaked. Hebrew (Exod. 28:4, 39) ‮מצנפת‬‎, where it refers to the mitre of the high priest, whereas here it refers to the head covering of the priests generally. The Mishnah (Yoma 7:5) does not differentiate between the headcovering (‮מצנפת‬‎) of the high priest and of the ordinary priest. Exod. 28:39 states simply that the mitre is to be made of linen. These additional details are Josephus’. Zebaḥim 88a, citing the remark in Exod. 28:32 that the priestly garments are of “woven work,” states that the priestly garments were not sewn but woven.

Greek σινδών, fine cloth, usually of linen. Schalit (ad loc) comments that it includes a woven texture, from which a veil is made, though sometimes the word refers simply to the weaving. These details are Josephus’ addition.

In the description of the high priest’s vestments, whereas the Bible states that they are to be put upon Aaron (Exod. 28:41), Josephus describes them in general without applying them to Aaron in particular. Cf. Yoma 12b: “There is no difference between the high priest and the common priest except in the belt: this is the opinion of Rabbi [Judah the Prince]. Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Shimon said: Not even in the belt is there any distinction.” So also the LXX of Exod. 28:31, which speaks of it as ποδήρη, i.e. reaching to the feet. Hebrew ‮מעיל‬‎ (Exod. 28:31), “robe.” Presumably the ‮אבנט‬‎ (Exod. 28:4, 39). Philo (De Vita Mosis 2.23.113) speaks of golden chainlets that were attached to the ephod and were fastened strongly to it so as not to come loose. I.e. the ordinary priest. Exod. 28:31 says merely that this robe is to have an opening for the head, with a woven binding around the opening.

Exod. 28:33 in the Hebrew version reads: “On its skirts you shall make pomegranates of blue and purple and scarlet stuff, around its skirts, with bells of gold between them.” Josephus apparently follows the corresponding Greek version (Exod. 28:29) in explaining that the tassels were like pomegranates rather than being pomegranates: “And under the fringe of the robe below you shall make, as it were, pomegranates of a flowering pomegranate tree, of blue, and purple, and spun scarlet, and fine linen spun, under the fringe of the robe round about; golden pomegranates of the same shape, and bells round about between these.” However, whereas the LXX speaks of golden pomegranates (so also Philo [De Vita Mosis 2.23.110 and De Specialibus Legibus 1.17.93]) and pomegranates made of various colors, Josephus mentions tassels resembling pomegranates. According to one rabbinic view in Zebaḥim 88b, there were 72 bells containing 72 clappers which were hung thereon, 36 in the front and as many behind. According to Rabbi Dosa on the authority of Rabbi Judah, there were 36 bells, 18 on each side. The rabbinic tradition (Zebaḥim 88b) describes the robe as follows: “Blue [wool], purple wool, and crimson thread, twisted together, were brought and manufactured into the shape of pomegranates whose mouths were not yet opened [i.e. not overripe].” According to War 5.231, the bells symbolize thunder and the pomegranates lightning. The little bell between the pomegranates is Josephus’ addition. Philo (De Migratione Abrahami 18.103) discerns in the flower patterns and bells “symbols of qualities recognized by the senses and tested by sight and hearing.”

Presumably in contrast with the ‮מעיל‬‎, the tunic mentioned in Ant. 3.159, Josephus is here in agreement with the rabbinic tradition as recorded in Zebaḥim 88a (cf. Yoma 72b): “The priestly garments were not sewn but woven [i.e. directly into the garments], as it is said, ‘of woven work’ [Exod. 28:32]. Thackeray (ad loc.) compares John 19:23, where Jesus’ tunic is described as being without a seam, woven from top to bottom. These details are Josephus’ addition. Thackeray (ad loc.) suggests that it was this slit that the high priest prolonged by tearing it further down the front when he tore his mantle in horror at Jesus’ admission that he was the messiah (Mark 14:63). These details about this tunic are Josephus’ additions.

Actually the fourth after the machanases, massabazanes, meeir. Hebrew ‮אפד‬‎ (Exod. 28:6), LXX ἐπωμίς, Josephus ἐφώδης. The ἐπωμίς was the part of the woman’s tunic that was fastened on the shoulder by brooches. Cf. the description of the ephod in Philo (De Vita Mosis 2.23.111). Josephus uses the same word ἐπωμίς for the ephod as do the LXX (Exod. 28:4) and Philo (De Vita Mosis 2.24,122). Exod. 28:6-7 does not specify the length. These last two characteristics are Josephus’ addition. Nodet (ad loc.) notes that Maimonides (Mishneh Torah, Kele hamiqdash 9.9) says that the high priest had something similar to two sleeves.

Hebrew ‮חשׁן‬‎ (Exod. 28:15), LXX λογεῖον (“speaking-place,” “oracle”), Josephus ἐσσήν. As it was believed that the ‮חשׁן‬‎ or essen was the means of giving the power of prophecy to the person who wore it, the Essenes were also credited by Josephus with the power of prophesying (War 2.159). Zeitlin (1954-55:83-119) suggests that since Josephus (Ant. 3.163) on Exod. 28:15 calls the high priest’s breastplate (‮חשׁן‬‎) ἐσσήν, signifying λόγιον (an oracle), he used the name Essene because of the loin cloth, signifying, like the ‮חשׁן‬‎, the gift of foretelling the future, for which the Essenes were well known. Greek ἐπωμίς, λόγιον (Hebrew ‮חשׁן‬‎, “oracle”), LXX λογεῖον (Exod. 28:15). This, however, is the function of the Urim and Thummim (Exod. 28:30, LXX 28:26), which Josephus does not mention here at all, perhaps because they were no longer functioning in his time (see Ant. 3.218). In Ant. 3.214-18 Josephus does mention them, noting that he had earlier omitted referring to them. Cf. Ant. 3.217, where Josephus says that the Greeks who honor Jewish customs refer to the essen as an oracle. Philo (De Vita Mosis 2.23.112, 2.24.125, 2.25.128) refers to it as “the place of reason.” Whereas Exod. 28:30 states that the breastplate of judgment, containing the Urim and the Thummim, is to be put upon Aaron’s heart, Josephus describes it, with no mention of Aaron in particular. As Thackeray and Nodet (ad loc.) note, Josephus attributes the oracular properties of the essen to the precious stones on its surface (Ant. 3.215-18) rather than to the Urim and Thummim beneath. According to Josephus (Ant. 3.218), the essen ceased to function 200 years before Josephus composed his work because of God’s displeasure with the Jews. Since the Antiquities was completed in 93/94, this would go back to the end of the reign of John Hyrcanus (135-105 B.C.E.). However, according to rabbinic tradition (Mishnah Soṭah 9:12), the prophesying of the Urim and Thummim ceased with the death of the former prophets, that is, after the return from Babylonian captivity.

This purpose is Josephus’ addition. This last detail is Josephus’ addition. Hebrew ‮שׁהם‬‎ (Exod. 28:9), LXX σμάραγδος (“emerald”), Josephus σαρδόνυξ.

That the names are to be in native letters in Hebrew is Josephus’ addition. The reference, as Nodet (ad loc.) points out, is to letters in the traditional Hebrew alphabet (denominated “sacred” in Ant. 3.178) and not in the Aramaic (Assyrian) square characters. Cf. Origen, In Psalmos 2. In order that the stones might contain all the letters of the Hebrew alphabet, since this would be necessary in order to answer all questions, they contained, according to the rabbinic tradition (Yoma 73b), the names of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as well as the word ‮שׁבטים‬‎ (“tribes”). According to the Letter of Aristeas 97, the names of the heads of the tribes were engraved on the stones. This last detail is Josephus’ addition. According to Exod. 28:10 the names of the remaining 6 were according to the order of their birth, from which the oral tradition (Soṭah 36a-b) deduces that the first 6 were not according to the order of their birth. There being 25 letters on each stone, the names of Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun were on the first stone, while the names of Benjamin, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, and Joseph were on the other stone, according to the order in Exod. 1:2-4. Josephus assumes that the names of the older sons were on the right shoulder, since the right-hand side was regarded as the more important. The size, beauty, and value of the stones are Josephus’ addition. Josephus implies here that the stones are of supernatural origin; Bib. Ant. 26.4 is even more explicit in asserting this.

This is Josephus’ addition.

Hebrew ‮אדם‬‎ (Exod. 28:17), LXX σάρδιον, Josephus (Ant.3.168 and War 5.234) σαρδόνυξ. Josephus’ σαρδόνυξ is a compound of σάρδιον and ὄνυξ. Liddell-Scott-Jones (1940:1584) explains that “the stone was called ὄνυξ when the dark ground was simply spotted or streaked with white, but σαρδόνυξ if the different colors were disposed in layers.” Hebrew ‮פטדה‬‎ (Exod. 28:17), LXX τοπάζιον, Josephus (Ant. 3.168 and War 5.234) τόπαζος. Hebrew ‮ברקת‬‎ (Exod. 28:17), LXX σμάραγδος, Josephus (Ant. 3.168 and War 5.234) σμάραγδος. Hebrew ‮נפך‬‎ (Exod. 28:18), LXX ἄνθραξ, Josephus (Ant. 3.168 and War 5.234) ἄνθραξ. Hebrew ‮ישׁפה‬‎ (third stone of fourth row, Exod. 28:20), LXX ἴασπις (third stone of second row), Josephus (Ant. 3.168, War 5.234) ἴασπις. Hebrew ‮ספיר‬‎ (second stone of second row, Exod. 28:18), LXX σάπφειρος (second stone of second row), Josephus (Ant. 3.168, War 5.234) σάπφειρος. Hebrew ‮לשׁם‬‎ (Exod. 28:19), LXX λιγύριον, Josephus (Ant. 3.168, War 5.234 [third stone of third row]) λίγυρος. Hebrew ‮אחלמה‬‎ (third stone of third row, Exod. 28:19), LXX ἀμέθυστος (third stone of third row), Josephus (Ant. 3.168, War 5.234, second stone of third row) ἀμέθυσος. Hebrew ‮שׁבו‬‎ (second stone of third row, Exod. 28:19), LXX (second stone of third row) ἀχάτης, Josephus (Ant. 3.168, War 5.234 [first stone of third row]) ἀχάτης. Hebrew ‮תרשׁישׁ‬‎ (Exod. 28:20), LXX χρυσόλιθος, Josephus (Ant. 3.168, War 5.234 [third stone of fourth row]) χρυσόλιθος. Hebrew ‮שׁהם‬‎ (Exod. 28:20), LXX (third stone of fourth row) ὀνύχιον, Josephus (Ant. 3.168, War 5.234 [first stone of fourth row]) ὄνυξ. See Ant. 3.165. Schalit (ad loc.) points out that Josephus’ translation for ‮שׁהם‬‎, sardonyx, the second half of which word is onyx, for the first stone of the first triad duplicates the translation here. Hebrew (no equivalent) (Exod. 28:20), LXX (second stone of fourth row) βηρύλλιον, Josephus (Ant. 3.168, War 5.234 [second stone of fourth row]) βήρυλλος. Von Gliszcznski (1947:234-38), a mineralogist, attempts to identify precisely, on aesthetic grounds, the 12 stones on the breastplate of the high priest. He casts doubt on Josephus’ reliability. Feldman (1971: cxii-cxiv) systematically compares the 12 stones according to the Hebrew text (Exod. 28:17-20), the LXX, Philo (Legum Allegoriae 1.26.81) for the first 5 stones, Josephus War 5.234, Josephus Ant. 3.168, the New Testament (Rev. 21:19), the Midrash (Exod. Rabbah 38.9), and Bib. Ant. (26.10-11). He notes that Biblical Antiquities agrees in the names with the Hebrew text 11 times, with the LXX 12 times, with Josephus’ War 12 times, with the Antiquities 11 or 12 times, with the Book of Revelation 11 or 12 times, and with the Midrash 9 times. In the key matter of the order of the stones, Bib. Ant. agrees with the Hebrew text 6 times, the LXX 10 times, Josephus’ War 6 times, the Antiquities 8 times, Revelation 9 times, and the Midrash 4 or 5 times. It is interesting that in the one place where Biblical Antiquities does not agree with the LXX, namely in identity of stones 8 and 9, it is in agreement with the Antiquities, which is a later version and clearly, to judge from the wording of the passages, a correction of the War, where Row 3 consists of agate, amethyst, and jacinth, and where Row 4 consists of onyx, beryl, and chrysolite in that order. On these stones see now the discussion by Jacobson (2:768-71).

Exod. 28:21. That they are according to the order in which each of the sons of Jacob was born is Josephus’ addition to Exod. 28:21.

This explanation is Josephus’ addition. This last ring is Josephus’ substitution for the biblical belt (Exod. 28:27).

Josephus uses the same word (ζώνη) for belt here that he uses for the belt that the high priest wears around his tunic (Ant. 3.159), whereas the Hebrew text has ‮חשׁב‬‎ (Exod. 28:8, 39:20) here but ‮אבנט‬‎ (Exod. 28:4) in connection with the tunic. Josephus is clearly using the Hebrew text here, inasmuch as the LXX (Exod. 28:8, 36:28) does not refer to the belt here at all. Significantly, Targumim Onqelos and Neofiti, like Josephus, use the same word in both passages. Cf. Ant. 3.154. As Thackeray (ad loc.) notes, this was at the point where the essen was stiched to the ephod. This last detail about the sheaths is Josephus’ addition.

Cf. Ant. 3.157. The 3-tiered crown is Josephus’ addition, though Exod. 28:36, 39:30 does mention a golden plate, as does Josephus himself (Ant 3.178). Grünbaum (1887:54) thinks that Josephus may have derived the concept of a crown from Lev. 21:12, which speaks of the crown of the anointing oil of God upon the high priest. Philo (De Vita Mosis 2.23.114), to be sure, does assert that the golden plate was fashioned in the form of a crown; and it may be that this is Josephus’ source. Thackeray (ad loc.) cites a parallel in Sir. 45:12: “He gave him [the high priest] a crown (στέφανον) of gold upon the mitre, engraved with the seal of Holiness, an ornament of honor, a costly work, the desires of the eyes, goodly and beautiful.” A hint to support Josephus’ statement about the high priest’s crown may perhaps be found in the story (Qiddushin 66a), cited by Grünbaum (1887:55 n. 2), that a certain Eleazar the son of Po‘irah told King Alexander Jannai, who was also high priest, that the hearts of the Pharisees were against him and that he could test them by the plate between his eyes. Thereupon an elder named Judah the son of Gedidiah told Jannaeus: “Let the royal crown suffice for you, and leave the priestly crown to the seed of Aaron” (since it was rumored that his mother had been taken captive and as the son of a captive woman he would be disqualified for the priesthood). Against the view that a crown went around the cap is, as Grünbaum (1887:55) asserts, the tradition (Zebaḥim 19a-b) that between the headplate and the mitre there was an empty space where the high priest placed his phylacteries. Aramaic ‮שׁכרונא‬‎, connected with the Hebrew ‮שׁכר‬‎, “to become drunk.” The word is not attested in rabbinic literature. See Löw (1881:381 and 1924-34:3:359 ff.). The golden crown and calyx and Josephus’ comments about them are his additions. Henbane (hyoscyamus niger), also called “black henbane,” is a fetid herb with clammy pubescent dentate leaves and yellowish-brown flowers. It is a deadly poison, especially to fowls. An extract of the leaves is used in medicine, having properties similar to those of belladonna. Thackeray (ad loc.) quotes F. Howarth’s comment: “Botanically there would appear to be a slight confusion in the description. The husk that detaches itself is, no doubt, the corolla, which is shed but which does not envelop the calyx but the ovary, which later becomes the fruit. The mistake probably arises from the fact that, before the corolla is shed, the calyx is small and inconspicuous, but becomes large and prominent afterwards, i.e., as the fruit develops. The lid mentioned is not on the calyx but on the fruit (matured ovary); the fruit and the calyx are quite distinct throughout, though the fruit is enveloped in the spiky calyx. The fruit dehisces by throwing off the cap.”

This unusually detailed description is, of course, Josephus’ addition.

Brassica Napus (French turnip), γογγύλη ἡμέρα, the thick edible root of a biennial herb. It has hairy leaves and greatly flattened roots, much broader than long. See Löw (1924-34:1.473). Eruca sativa, a plant of the genus Hesperis.

Greek ὀμφαλός, a word that also refers to the round stone in the temple at Delphi that allegedly marked the middle point of the earth. See Ant. 3.139.

The manuscripts have “on.” Sideritis romana, a genus of European woolly mints, of the family Lamiaceae, having small flowers with the corolla included in the calyx. They are called ironworts and are supposed to heal sword cuts. See Löw (1924-34:4.239).

ἐφιελίς (omitted in the Latin translation). This is a hapax legomenon, the meaning of which is unknown. Hebrew ‮ציץ‬‎ (Exod. 28:36, 39:30), LXX πέταλον (“leaf”), Josephus τελαμών (broad strap or band for bearing or supporting anything). Thackeray (ad loc.) notes that the Hebrew word ‮ציץ‬‎, which normally means a blossom or a flower, has been variously interpreted as a polished plate (the usual view) or a flower-like ornamentation, or a garland or fillet. Josephus, if we may judge from his description in botanical terms, apparently understood it in the second sense. According to the Talmud (Shabbat 63b, Sukkah 5a), the ‮ציץ‬‎ was in the shape of a plate of gold two finger-breadths broad and stretching from ear to ear. Greek ἱεροῖς γράμμασι. Cf. Letter of Aristeas 98: “Upon his [the high priest’s] head he has the ‘tiara’ as it is called, and on top of this the inimitable ‘mitre,’ bearing ‘engraven’ in sacred letters [γράμμασιν ἁγίοις] upon a plate [πετάλῳ] of gold set between his eyebrows the name of God filled with glory.” So also Letter of Aristeas 98. This may be a circumlocution intended to avoid using the Tetragrammaton. According to Shabbat 63b and Sukkah 5a, Abaye says that the inscription was written in 2 lines, ‮י‬‎ and ‮ה‬‎, one of the Divine names, above, and ‮קדשׁ‬‎ (“holy”), followed by a ‮ל‬‎ (“to”) below. Rabbi Eliezer the son of Rabbi Jose, who is said to have seen the vessels of the Temple in Rome that Titus had carried off, asserts that he saw it in Rome and that it had ‮לה׳ קדשׁ‬‎ (“Holy to the Lord”) on one line. The Hebrew (Exod. 28:36), followed by the LXX (ἁγίασμα κυρίου, “Holiness of the Lord”), is not necessarily contradicted by War 5.235, which specifically states that the sacred letters were 4 vowels, that is the Tetragrammaton YHVH, since the passage in the War does not indicate that only the 4 letters were embossed on the tiara; but in any case Josephus lacks the word “holy.” Philo (De Vita Mosis 2.23.115 and 2.26.132) says that the inscribed name had 4 letters; but he, too, does not indicate that these were the only letters inscribed. Indeed, elsewhere, Philo (De Migratione Abrahami 18.103) corresponds to the Hebrew in stating that the inscription read ἁγίασμα κυρίῳ (“a holy thing to the Lord”), though Colson (1935:6:608) notes that Philo there does not mention an inscription but merely refers to the engraving of a signet, a sacred thing to the Lord, since he goes on to explain that the signet represents the idea of ideas. Colson then suggests that this is the strongest evidence of Josephus’ use of Philo. Whereas Exod. 28:38 mentions the plate of gold on Aaron’s forehead, Josephus describes the plate and the inscription upon it but with no mention of Aaron.

See, e.g., the charge of Manetho (Apion 1.239) that Osarsiph (i.e. Moses) by his first law ordained that the Israelites should not worship the gods.

The very fact that Moses is referred to as a “lawgiver” (νομοθέτης) rather than, as in the rabbinic literature, “Moses our master” (‮משׁה רבנו‬‎), is an adaptation for gentile readers of Moses’ primary role in Jewish history intended to make him parallel with other great lawgivers, such as Lycurgus of Sparta (see Meeks 1967:132). We may similarly note that, according to Josephus (Ant. 4.194, 196, 302), Moses gave the Israelites not only laws but also a constitution (πολιτεία), thus making the Jewish state comparable to the Greek city-states. This, as we have noted, is a major theme in the Antiquities (cf. Ant. 1.5, 10, 13, etc.). Tiede (1972:207-40) remarks that in Josephus’ statements about Moses as a lawgiver Moses approaches divine status, since Josephus calls him θεῖος ἀνήρ (Ant. 3.180); but Josephus is there merely rendering the Bible’s statement (Exod. 4:16 and 7:1) that Moses was as God to Aaron and to Pharaoh. If Josephus refers to Moses, as he does, as a “man of God” (θεῖον ἄνδρα), it is not to assert Moses’ divinity but rather to refute those enemies of the Jews who had charged them with slighting the divinity whom they themselves professed to venerate (Ant. 3.179). As Georgi (1986: 126) notes, Josephus proves the divine quality of Moses with the cosmic character of the laws given by him. The nature of the lawgiver was thus able to capture the order of the process of nature and thereby the will of God as expressed in God’s works. That Josephus has no intention of asserting Moses’ divinity is clear from the proof that he gives of Moses being a “man of God,” namely that the construction of the Tent and the appearance of the vestments and vessels of the priests show his concern for piety. See Georgi (1986:204 n.304). Elsewhere Josephus (Ant. 10.35) refers to the prophet Isaiah as acknowledged to be divine (θεῖος) and marvelously possessed of truth. Again, after King Solomon, in the dispute between the two harlots about their infants, discovers the real mother, he is regarded by the multitude as possessed of a divine (θείαν) understanding (Ant. 8.34). Likewise Daniel, through the auspiciousness of his predictions, wins the esteem of the multitude for his nature especially endowed by God (θειότητος, Ant. 10.268). In answer to the question as to why Josephus refers to Moses as θεῖος ἀνήρ (Ant. 3.180), a hapax legomenon, rather than as ἄνθρωπος θεοῦ, Holladay (1977:89-100) suggests that perhaps he did so because of his anti-Samaritan sentiments, since the Samaritans identified Moses as the man of God. For Josephus, he states, the word θεῖος here shades off into ἱερός or ἅγιος or εὐσεβής and does not mean divine in the most literal sense, as we may see from his recasting of other biblical personalities.In the Letter of Aristeas 140, the high priest Eleazar remarks that the priests who are the guides of the Egyptians have named the Jews as “men of God” (ἀνθρώπους θεοῦ). According to Artapanus (ap. Eus., Pr. Ev. 9.27.6), because of his many inventions and theological teachings, Moses was loved by the masses and deemed worthy of honor equal to that of a god (ἰσοθέου). Philo (De Virtutibus 33.177) asserts that absolute sinlessness belongs to God alone, “or possibly to a divine man” (θείου ἀνδρός). He (De Vita Mosis 1.28.158) states that Moses was named “god” (θεός) and king of the whole nation. He (De Vita Mosis 1.28.155) also emphasizes that God judged Moses to be worthy to appear as a partner of His possessions, namely of the whole world, and that the world conforms to the changing will of the one who participates in God.Bieler (1935) has collected the essential ancient texts on the phenomenon of the θεῖος ἀνήρ. Betz (1961: 100-105) provides a comprehensive collection of pagan texts dealing with this concept. Cf. War 5.212-14, where Josephus says that the veil in the Temple typifies the universe, the scarlet being emblematical of fire, the fine linen of the earth, the blue of the air, and the purple of the sea. Holladay (1977:82-89) remarks that Josephus’ symbolic interpretation of the Tent (Ant. 3.180-87) reflects the Stoic view of νόμος as the expression of the κόσμος. In particular, he notes that in his Quaestiones Homericae, Heraclitus, an older contemporary of Josephus, vigorously defends Homer in a manner strikingly similar to that employed here by Josephus, namely through the appeal to allegory, though Holladay notes that whereas Heraclitus uses moral, physical, and historical allegory, Josephus restricts himself to cosmic symbolism. Thus Josephus is able to reinforce his point that Judaism follows not a provincial but a cosmic law code. Nodet (ad loc.) notes that in the midrashic tradition (Tanḥuma Pequdei 2 [p. 448] and Tadshe 2 [in Jellinek:164-65]) the Tent is likewise compared to the heaven and earth of the creation; add Gen. Rabbati (ed. Albeck, p. 32). Schalit (ad loc.) calls attention to Midrash Num. Rabbah 12.13, where the stages in the creation of the universe are paralleled to the various parts of the Tent. Cf. Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 1.12.66): “The highest, and in the truest sense the holy, temple of God is, as we must believe, the whole universe, having for its sanctuary the most sacred part of all existence, even heaven, for its ornaments the stars.”

Cf. Ant. 3.123, where Josephus asserts that the partitioning of the Tent was an imitation of the nature of the universe, a third being like heaven devoted to God, the rest being like earth and sea assigned to the priests alone. The division into water, land, and heaven is likewise found in the midrashic tradition (Tadshe 2 [ed. Jellinek:164-65]). Exod. 26:33 recognizes only 2 divisions within the Tent so far as sanctity was concerned. Cf. Philo (De Vita Mosis 2.18.88), who notes the significance of the fact that in choosing the materials for the woven work in the Tent Moses selected as the best out of the vast number possible 4, as equal in number to the 4 elements—earth, air, fire, and water. Daniélou (1957:83-90) and Früchtel (1968:98-100) note that Josephus shares with Philo this allegorical interpretation of the Bible, such that they both look upon the divisions of the Tent (Ant. 3.181; cf. Philo, Quaestiones et Solutiones in Exodum 2.85) into 3 parts as symbolic of earth, the sea, and heaven. Moses’ emphasis on law (νόμος) is in accord with the Stoic view of νόμος as the expression of the cosmos and of man as a κοσμοπολίτης who must order his life in accordance with universal law (see Holladay 1977:102); hence, by allegorically imputing cosmic significance to the Tent, the 12 loaves, the candelabrum, the tapestries, and the high priest’s garments, Josephus is appealing to the Stoic view that law must have a cosmic dimension.

On the 12 loaves of showbread as symbolic of the 12 months cf. Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 1.35.172). Cf. Ant. 3.145, where Josephus says that the candelabrum was made up of globules and lilies, along with pomegranates and little bowls, numbering 70 in all. The Greek manuscripts indicate a 12-fold division, but the fact that Josephus speaks of 70 parts and connects the 7 lamps to the 7 planets makes the Latin version, decamoria, “tenth part,” preferable. Thackeray (ad loc.) notes that δεκαμοιρία is a synonym for δεκανός, the vulgar term used by ancient astronomers to denote a portion of the heavens occupying ten degrees of the Zodiac or a power presiding over those ten degrees. He quotes Housman (1920:4.vii) as remarking that astrologers for the most part allot these divisions of ten degrees to the seven planets. Thackeray, however, notes that Josephus says nothing about the fact that the Zodiac, with its 360 degrees, comprises 36 decans. On δεκαμοιρία=δεκανός see Lydus, De Ostentis (ed. C. Wachsmuth [Leipzig: Teubner, 2nd ed., 1897], p. 174, lines 8 and 10). So also War 5.217. The 7 planets are Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Venus, Mercury, the Sun, and the Moon. On the 7-branched candlestick as symbolic of the 7 planets cf. Philo (De Vita Mosis 2.21.103; Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres 45.221; Quaestiones et Solutiones in Exodum 2.73, 75). In War 7.149, where he describes the spoils from the Temple in the triumphal procession in Rome, Josephus states that the 7 branches of the candelabrum indicate the honor paid to that number among the Jews, the reference presumably being to the Sabbath. On the alleged effect of the constellations on Israel see Shabbat 156a-b.

Cf. War 5.213, where Josephus explains that the fine linen of the veil of the Temple is emblematical of the earth and the purple of the sea, the comparison being suggested by their origin, as the one is produced by the earth and the other by the sea. On the 4 materials of which the tapestries were woven as symbols of the 4 elements cf. Philo (De Vita Mosis 2.18.88; Quaestiones et Solutiones in Exodum 2.85).

Cf. Philo (De Vita Mosis 2.24.118): “This gown [of the high priest] is all of hyacinth and is thus an image of the air.” On the symbolism of the bells see Dölger (1934:233-42). Contrast Philo (De Vita Mosis 2.24.119: “The bells represent the harmonious alliance of these two [earth and water], since life cannot be produced by earth without water or by water without the substance of earth, but only by the union and combination of both.” Hebrew ‮אפד‬‎ (Ant. 3.162), Greek ἐφαπτίς, a term used also for a soldier’s upper garment. The conception, shared by Philo (De Vita Mosis 2.24.117) and Josephus, that the whole cosmos is the robe of God is at least as much Platonic or Stoic as it is distinctively Jewish. On the high priest’s garments as symbolic of earth, heaven, lightning, the ocean, sun, moon, the signs of the zodiac, etc., cf. Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 1.17.93; Quaestiones et Solutiones in Exodum 2.112-14, 117-20).

Josephus held to the geocentric theory of the universe. Cf. Philo (De Vita Mosis 2.24.122): “The 2 circular emerald stones on the shoulder-pieces indicate, as some think, those heavenly bodies that rule the day and night, namely the sun and moon, or, as may be said with a nearer approach to truth, the 2 hemispheres of the sky.”

Cf. Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 1.16.87): “On the breast[plate] there are 12 precious stones of different colors, arranged in 4 rows of 3 each, set in this form on the model of the zodiac, for the zodiac consisting of 12 signs makes the 4 seasons of the year by giving 3 signs to each.” Cf. Ant. 3.184.

Cf. Ant. 3.184, where Josephus says that the upper garment of the high priest was interwoven with gold in token of the all-pervading sunlight. That Jews are not guilty of slighting even the divinity whom non-Jews profess to venerate is proved, according to Josephus, by the symbolism of the Tent and its vessels and by the vestments of the priests, every one of which is intended to recall and represent the universe (Ant. 3.179-87). The fact that, after discussing this symbolism at some length, Josephus says that this will suffice for the moment, since his subject will afford him frequent and ample occasion to discourse upon the merit (ἀρετήν) of the lawgiver, implies that the items in the Tent and the vestments were Moses’ creations and that their symbolism reflected his wisdom.

This is Josephus’ addition. One of the issues raised by Korah in his revolt is Moses’ appointment of Aaron as high priest, which would seem to be a case of nepotism. In the biblical narrative God simply tells Moses to appoint Aaron and his sons to serve as priests with no indication of their qualifications for the office (Exod. 28:1). Josephus, himself a priest and undoubtedly sensitive to the charge that those who are priests have no other qualifications than the mere fact of their birth, is careful to remark that Aaron’s virtue (ἀρετήν) rendered him more deserving than all others to obtain this dignity (τιμῆς). Thackeray (1930:4:407) understands “his merit” to refer to Moses’ merits, benevolence, and perils. But if we read αὐτοῦ, as the manuscripts have it and as the Latin version of Cassiodorus suggests with its rendering eius, rather than suam, the reference would appear to be to Aaron’s virtue rather than to Moses’, which would further qualify Aaron for the high priesthood. Philo, like Josephus, stresses that Moses chose Aaron to be high priest on his merits rather than because he was his brother (De Vita Mosis 2.28.142). He then adds, in order to emphasize that Moses was not guilty of nepotism, that Moses did not advance his own sons to positions of power (cf. also De Vita Mosis 1.27.150). It is interesting that Josephus does not make this point (Ant. 2.277-78), perhaps because it could have been regarded as a criticism of the Roman emperor Vespasian for choosing his son Titus as his successor. Josephus was well aware that the pagans frowned upon undue modesty. Josephus’ Moses, in an extra-biblical comment, when announcing the appointment of his brother Aaron as high priest, very candidly and unashamedly, and in a way that would have appealed to Aristotle (whose ideal was the μεγαλόψυχος [Ethica Nicomachea 4.3.1123A33-1125A35]), invokes his own merit (ἀρετήν), his benevolence (εὔνοιαν), and the perils that he had sustained on the Israelites’ behalf. He says that if the choice had been left to him, he would have adjudged himself worthy of the office, both from self-love that is innate in all, and from his consciousness of having labored abundantly for their salvation (Ant. 3.190).

This reaction of the Israelites and Moses’ reply, giving the reason why it is necessary to have a high priest, are Josephus’ addition.

So also in the midrashic tradition (Midrash Lev. Rabbah 11.6 and parallels) Moses declares that he would have sought the honor of the high priesthood. Cf. Zebaḥim 102a, which quotes a tradition in the name of the second-century Rabbi Simeon ben Yoḥai that Moses wished to be a priest and Aaron a Levite, but because of Moses’ extreme reluctance to go to Pharaoh, God punished him so that he became a Levite and Aaron became a priest. This is Josephus’ extra-biblical addition. This is the rendering of the Latin version by Cassiodorus: hunc sacerdotem nobis credidit iustiorem (“he believed that this priest was more just than we”). Thackeray (1930:4:408-9) translates: “knowing him to be the most deserving among us,” while suggesting, as alternative renderings, “the more deserving of us (twain)” or “knowing better than ourselves who is the more worthy.” On Josephus’ denial to Moses of the high priesthood see Meeks (1967:136-37). The humility that Moses thus shows in not seeking this office is often a feature of the θεῖος ἀνήρ. So Bieler (1935:1:59).

The reaction of the Israelites to the selection of Aaron as high priest is Josephus’ addition. The statement that Aaron was a prophet is Josephus’ addition, based on the biblical statement (Exod. 7:1) in which, when Moses complains to God that he has a speech defect and hence that Pharaoh will not listen to him, God replies, “See, I make you as God to Pharaoh; and Aaron your brother shall be your prophet.” Here the meaning is that Aaron will be Moses’ spokesman rather than prophet in the classical sense. On Josephus’ connection between priesthood and prophecy see Feldman (1990:419-21) and Mason (1991:269-70). The statement of Aaron’s qualifications for the position of high priest is Josephus’ addition. Whereas the Bible seems to give no reason for the choice by God of Aaron as high priest (Exod. 28:1, Lev. 8:1), in Josephus the selection, far from being arbitrary, is due not only to Aaron’s virtues but also to the excellence (ἀρετήν) of Moses himself. By emphasizing as one of his qualities the fact that he had a meritorious brother, Moses, Josephus elevates Moses and diminishes the status of Aaron. Hebrew ‮נדב‬‎ (Exod. 28:1), LXX Ναδάβ (Ναβάδ in a few manuscripts), Josephus Νάβαδος. On the transposition of consonants cf. Ant 1.220: Abdeel in Josephus for the Hebrew ‮אדבאל‬‎. Hebrew ‮אביהוא‬‎ (Exod. 28:1), LXX Ἀβιούδ, Josephus Ἀβιοῦς. Hebrew ‮אלעזר‬‎ (Exod. 28:1), LXX Ἐλεάζαρ, Josephus Ἐλεάζαρος. Hebrew ‮איתמר‬‎ (Exod. 28:1), LXX Ἰθάμαρ, Josephus Ἰθάμαρος.

Weill (ad loc.) suggests that the source of this addition by Josephus is that he read the word ‮שׂרד‬‎ (Exod. 31:10), “finely worked,” where the text is referring to the finely worked garments of Aaron the high priest, as coming from ‮שֶׂרַד‬‎, “to leave over.” Such a meaning for the root ‮שֶׂרַד‬‎ is, indeed, found in Yoma 72b. This is Josephus’ addition.

Exod. 30:11-13. Josephus omits the statement (Exod. 30:12) that each man’s contribution was a ransom for his soul to the Lord. He also omits the statements (Exod. 30:14-16) that the rich shall not give more and the poor shall not give less and that the purpose was an atonement for their souls.

Liver (1963:184-88) notes that Josephus understood the biblical text (Exod. 30:11-13) to refer to the half-shekel contribution brought to the Temple in his own time. While the LXX on Exod. 30:13 gives one drachma as the equivalent of the half-shekel, Josephus here and in Ant. 18.312 and War 7.218 gives two drachmas; so also Matt. 17:24. The texts from Elephantine in Egypt, dating from the fifth century B.C.E., likewise indicate that a half-shekel was equal to 2 drachmas. Ptolemy II Philadelphus in Egypt reformed the coinage by reducing the weight of the tetradrachm from the Attic standard of 17.46 grams to the Phoenician standard of 14.30 grams. It was these Phoenician shekels that the rabbis recommended for payment of the Temple tax (Mishnah Sheqalim 1:7). Ben-David (1966:168-69) contends that Josephus’ statement here that the shekel is equivalent to 4 Attic drachmas is incorrect, since the Mishnah’s statement (Berakot 8:7) that a sela is equivalent to a Tyrian shekel is confirmed by archaeological excavations and since the shekel is equal to 6 Tyrian drachmas of a Phoenician standard. Josephus has apparently here committed an anachronism. On the variation in the number of drachmas equivalent to a shekel see Jacobson (2:1003-4).

According to Exod. 38:26, in both the Hebrew and LXX versions, the number was 603,550. In Ant. 3.288 Josephus gives the number as 603,650. Ἐλευθέρων (“free”) is Josephus’ addition to Exod. 30:12. Guttmann (1928:10) remarks that the word ἐλεύθεροι may mean “free” (i.e. from slavery) but usually refers to freeborn individuals; but in the Bible this cannot be the meaning when referring to Israelites, since they were born as slaves in Egypt. Guttmann (ibid.) suggests the possibility that Josephus had the ambiguous meaning in mind in order not to diminish the value of the Israelites in the eyes of his contemporaries, but concludes that in the light of the fight for freedom in Josephus’ own day (cf. the usage of the word in War 7.265), the word is translating ‮בני־חורין‬‎, i.e. free from slavery. According to Num. 1:3, 20, the census was of those males “from 20 years old and upward, all in Israel who are able to go forth to war.” In setting the upper limit at 50, Josephus was apparently influenced by the fact that Num. 4:3 and 8:25 set the upper limit at 50 for those Levites who can do the work in the tent of meeting. Robertson (265-66), noting that in War 7.218 Josephus reports that after the Romans had defeated the Jews a 2-drachma poll-tax was imposed on all Jews corresponding to the amount that they had previously contributed to the Temple in Jerusalem, and citing the case (Suet., Dom. 12) where an agent of Domitian inspected a 90-year-old man to see whether he was circumcised in order to collect the tax from him, suggests that in specifying that the upper limit was 50 Josephus was presenting a subtle hint that the Jews were gentler with their own coreligionists than were the Romans on their Jewish subjects.

The consecration of the priests is mentioned again in Ant. 3.258. In Exod. 30:22 it is God who gives these orders to Moses. Hebrew ‮מר־דרור‬‎ (Exod. 30:23), LXX and Josephus σμύρνης. Hebrew ‮קדה‬‎ (Exod. 30:24), LXX and Josephus ἴρεως. Hebrew ‮קנמן‬‎ (Exod. 30:23), LXX and Josephus κινναμώμου. Hebrew ‮קנה־בשׂם‬‎ (Exod. 30:23), LXX and Josephus καλάμου. Note that for each of the four types of incense Josephus exactly reproduces the version of the LXX. So also in Ant. 3.234. As Schalit (ad loc.) notes, the Egyptian hin was much smaller, being one twelfth of the size of the hin mentioned here. Josephus omits the mention of the punishment of being cut off from the people imposed upon anyone copying the recipe for compounding the oil (Exod. 30:33).

Josephus omits the additional spices listed in Exod. 30:34: balm, onycha, galbanum, and transparent frankincense. Cf. the same phrase (δἰ ὄχλου, “burdensome”) in Thucydides (1.73.2), where the Athenians, invited to speak at the Lacedaemonian Congress, declare that they must speak about the crucial contributions by the Athenians in defeating the Persians, “even though it will be rather burdensome (irksome) to mention them.” On Josephus’ concern lest he become burdensome to his readers cf. Ant 2.176, where he says that he is inclined not to mention the names of Jacob’s family that departed for Egypt, but he apologetically does so in order to refute those who say that the Israelites are of Egyptian rather than of Mesopotamian origin. Cf. also Ant. 7.369, 11.152, and 12.57.

Cf. 2 Chr. 13:11. Cf. Lev. 24:2. Cf. Exod. 30:8. Daniel (1967:229 n.4) notes that Apion 1.199 says that a single lamp remained lit permanently, whereas here 3 do so. According to Exod. 30:8 the lamps were lit only in the evening. Josephus’ description, as Robertson (269) suggests, may be an anachronism reflecting the practice in his own day.

Hebrew ‮בצלאל‬‎ (Exod. 31:2), LXX Βεσελεήλ, Josephus Βεσελέηλος. In Ant. 3.105 Josephus spells the name Βασάηλος, though manuscripts S and P read Βεσελέηλος, and manuscript L reads Βεσελέηλος. Hebrew ‮אהליאב‬‎ (Exod. 31:6), LXX Ελιάβ, Josephus Ἐλίαβος. In Ant. 3.105 Josephus spells the name Ἐλίβαζος, though manuscript O reads Ἐλέβαζος and manuscript L reads Ἐλίαβος. Josephus omits God’s statement (Exod. 31:3) that it was He who inspired Bezalel. This statement is Josephus’ addition. This is Josephus’ addition.

This is Josephus’ addition, based upon the following computation, as Nodet (ad loc.) notes: according to Exod. 40:17 the Tent was set up on the first day of the first month of the second year after the Israelites’ departure from Egypt. The Israelites arrived at Sinai on the third month after their departure from Egypt (Ant. 3.62); Moses remained on Mount Sinai for 40 days; hence the construction of the Tent took approximately 7 months. Cf. Midrash Exod. Rabbah 52.2, where we find the statement of Rabbi Joḥanan that the work of building the Tent took 6 months: for three months they worked and for 3 months they kept it rolled up, that is, they did not put it up. Similarly, according to Rabbi Samuel bar Naḥman in Tanḥuma Pequdei 11 (p. 467) the work of building the Tent was completed in 3 months, and for the next 3 months the workers were idle. So in Exod. 40:17.

The concept of God as a guest in the Tent is Josephus’ addition.

This description is Josephus’ addition. As Nodet (ad loc.) remarks, Josephus does not distinguish between the cloud of the day and that of the night. This is Josephus’ addition. Josephus here uses the word παρουσία (“presence”), a word used by Christians in a different, Christological sense (Matt. 24:3, etc.). A miracle that his readers would presumably find difficult to comprehend was the filling of the Tent by the Divine presence (Exod. 40:34-35), which prevented Moses from entering it. Josephus rationalizes this phenomenon by explaining that a delicious dew was distilled from the cloud, thereby revealing God’s presence to those who both desired and believed in it.

This is Josephus’ addition. In Exod. 29:1 and in Lev. 8:2 a bullock and 2 rams. Lev. 8:14 speaks of the bullock of the sin-offering.

On Josephus’ projected work cf. Ant. 1.25 and parallels cited there. Thackeray (ad loc.) suggests that Josephus was in doubt as to how much to include about sacrifices in the present work and hence presents such parenthetical remarks several times. When the projected work was finally abandoned, he thinks, Josephus incorporated much more of its intended contents into the later editions of the present work. In Ant. 3.224-57 Josephus actually goes into considerable detail describing the sacrifices. Exod. 29:4-9 and Philo (De Vita Mosis 2.28.143) indicate that Aaron and his sons were washed before putting on their vestments, whereas here they are washed afterwards. Exod. 29:4 and Lev. 8:6 speak merely of water. The Mishnah (Miqvaot 1:7-8), like Josephus, specifies “living water,” that is, from a spring. Exod. 29:4-30 presents a much more detailed account of the consecration: the washing with water, putting the various garments on Aaron, anointing him with oil, clothing his sons, sacrificing a bullock and 2 rams, taking unleavened bread.

Exod. 29:35. Ant. 3.199. Lev. 8:35-9:1. Nodet (ad loc.) notes the parallel with the 7 days of the Festival of Sukkot, which is followed by the eighth day of solemn assembly, which marks the inauguration of the Temple of Solomon (1 Kgs. 8:2) and the rededication by Judah Maccabee (2 Macc. 10:6).

This is Josephus’ addition. This would seem to deemphasize the divine element in this apparent miracle. On Josephus’ deemphasis of the role of God in alleged miracles see Ant. 2.348 and note thereon. Lev. 9:24 states simply that a fire came forth from before the Lord and consumed the burnt offering, and that when the people saw it they shouted and fell on their faces. Nodet (ad loc.) cites the parallels with 1 Kgs. 18:38, 1 Chr. 21:26, 2 Chr. 7:1, and 2 Macc. 1:22.

Lev. 10:1 does not connect the death of Aaron’s sons with the fire that consumed the sacrifices at the time of the dedication of the Tent. A major component of courage, the second of the cardinal virtues, is sheer endurance in the face of adversity. It is this quality of steadfastness that Aaron displays, according to an extra-biblical remark by Josephus, when his sons, Nadab and Abihu, die. Lev. 10:3 says merely that Aaron held his peace. The LXX says that Aaron was sorely pricked (κατενύχθη) in his heart. Josephus is here closer to the Hebrew text. Aaron’s belief is Josephus’ addition.

Ant. 3.192. Lev. 10:1 asserts that Nadab and Abihu brought before the Lord a strange fire that He had not commanded them to bring. Philo interprets the account in a manner wholly favorable to Nadab and Abihu. For him the strange fire is their zeal and piety, alien to creation but akin to God (De Somniis 2.9.67, 2.28.186). They die “in order that they may live, receiving an incorruptible life in exchange for mortal existence” (De Fuga et Inventione 11.59; cf. Legum Allegoriae 2.15.57-58). Rappaport (35, no. 147) notes that, in contrast to Korah and his company who, according to Josephus, were burnt completely, Nadab and Abihu were burnt only in part; and he concludes that in this Josephus was following a priestly tradition. According to the view expressed by the third-century Rabbi Eleazar in Sanhedrin 52a, the bodies of Nadab and Abihu were not burnt. Smolar and Aberbach (1968:93) note that Josephus’ apologetic tendency for the priesthood leads him to paraphrase “the strange fire that He [God] had commanded them” (Lev. 10:1) into failing to offer “the incense which Moses had prescribed, but such as they had used aforetime.” Shinan (1978-79:211) notes that Josephus alone gives this as the reason why Nadab and Abihu were punished. He says that this is Josephus’ rationalization based on Scripture’s statement (Lev. 10:1) that they did what God had not commanded them. Since this explanation is not found in the rabbinic tradition he concludes that Josephus did not hear it in rabbinic circles.

In Lev. 10:4 it is Mishael and Elzaphan, the sons of Uzziel, the uncle of Aaron, who are called upon by Moses to carry the bodies outside the camp. Hence they are not the brothers of Nadab and Abihu. Rappaport (123 n.166a) suggests that Josephus was perhaps misled by his understanding of ‮אחיכם‬‎ as “brothers” in the biblical statement (ibid.) in which Moses tells Mishael and Elzaphan to “carry your brethren from before the sanctuary out of the camp,” whereas here the meaning is “cousins.” But, as Schalit (ad loc.) points out, in Lev. 10:6 Moses tells Aaron and his remaining sons that the whole house of Israel are “your brethren.” Smolar and Aberbach (1968:93) remark that in his apologetic tendency for the priesthood, Josephus provides Nadab and Abihu with a very distinguished funeral, making Aaron personally, as well as his remaining sons, participate in it, in contrast to the unambiguous statement in Lev. 10:4-7 that Aaron and his sons were not permitted to carry the bodies or even to go outside of the Tent of Meeting. As in the case of the building of the golden calf, Josephus faced a dilemma as to whether he should include a biblical criticism of Aaron. According to Lev. 10:16-20, after the sudden death of Aaron’s sons Nadab and Abihu, Moses was angry with the remaining sons, Eleazar and Ithamar, for burning the goat offering instead of eating it. It is clear that Moses was really angry with Aaron himself, since it was he who had offered the sacrifice (Lev. 9:15). Josephus chooses not to include this incident both because it is a further indictment of Aaron’s worthiness to be high priest and because it also includes Aaron’s rejoinder (Lev. 10:19) to Moses, complaining about what had befallen him, which leaves the latter speechless and serves, in effect, as a counter-rebuke to Moses.

That homage to God comes ahead even of personal loss is the Josephan Moses’ point in requiring Aaron, because of his sanctity as high priest, to refrain from any thoughts of grief upon the loss of his two sons. One is perhaps tempted to compare Aaron’s acceptance without complaint of the sudden death of his sons with Abraham’s supreme act of faith in his readiness to sacrifice his son Isaac when ordered to do so by God. If so, there was clearly a danger that Aaron might emerge as superior, at least in this respect, to Moses himself. Hence, whereas the Bible says that Aaron held his peace, presumably of his own volition (Lev. 10:3), Josephus declares that it was Moses who required him to refrain from any thoughts of grief, since, as a priest, he was required to put homage due to God above his personal loss.

Moses himself, in this extra-biblical comment, in his humility devoted himself solely to the service of God. An indication of Moses’ humility is the fact that in an era in which clothing was even more important than it is today as a sign of one’s societal standing, Moses, in Josephus’ extra-biblical comment, dresses like any ordinary person (ἰδιωτεύων) and bears himself like a simple commoner (δημοτικώτερον).

Cf. Giṭṭin 60a, which mentions the view of the third-century Rabbi Joḥanan in the name of the second century Rabbi Bana’ah, that the Torah was transmitted in separate scrolls, and that as each section was transmitted to Moses, he wrote it down. The importance of Moses as the person who wrote the constitution and laws of the Israelites is emphasized by Josephus in his introduction (Ant.1.5). This is the aspect of Moses’ achievements that is detailed, in a most complimentary passage, by Hecataeus of Abdera (ap. Diod. 40.3.3-8). It is this function of Moses as lawgiver that is also highlighted by Diodorus (1.94.2), Strabo (16.2.35-36.760-761), and Pseudo-Longinus (Subl. 9.9). This aspect, in a negative way, is highlighted by Tacitus (Hist. 5.4.1-4), Juvenal (14. 100-104), and Ptolemy Chennus (ap. Phot., Bib. cod. 190, p. 151b (ed. Henry, vol. 3, p. 66 = F74R). In point of fact, Josephus now proceeds to describe the oracular stones on the high priest’s robes and the various sacrifices. Here we have another indication that Josephus had revised his work.

3 of the major manuscripts (SPL), constituting the lectio difficilior, read συκοφαντῶν; and, if so, this would be a reference not to prophets but rather to sycophants (malicious accusers). In any case, there is no necessary equation of this type of divination involving the vestments of the high priest with prophecy, since, in the instances where Josephus refers to divination by high priests (Ant. 5.120, 5.159, 6.115, 6.254, 6.257, 7.72) he nowhere calls the high priest a prophet but rather speaks of him as “prophesying” or uttering “prophecy,” in the sense of predicting the future. Presumably, these would be Greeks who would see a parallel with the Delphic Oracle. Moses’ concern to guard against the impious pretensions of false prophets may be seen in Josephus’ comment here that he, in his piety, left to God, through the medium of the oracular stones on the high priest’s robes, the supreme authority whether to attend the sacred rites or to absent Himself from them.

Ant. 3.165-66. The reference is to the Urim and Thummim on the breastplate of the high priest’s ephod, through which the high priest made inquiry of God on behalf of the king, the high court, or “someone serving a need of the community” (Mishnah Yoma 7:5). According to 1 Sam. 14:41, in the case of Jonathan’s transgression of his father King Saul’s oath, Saul says, “O Lord God of Israel, why hast Thou not answered Thy servant this day? If this guilt is in me or in Jonathan my son, O Lord, God of Israel, give Urim; but if this guilt is in Thy people Israel, give Thummim.” Since in the next verse Saul says, “Cast the lot between me and my son Jonathan,”] it would seem that the Urim were a kind of lot able to produce either an affirmative or a negative answer. See Hurowitz (1992:95-115). The LXX renders Urim and Thummim (Exod. 28:30) as τὴν δήλωσιν καὶ τὴν ἀλήθειαν, that is, “manifestation and truth.” So also Philo (De Vita Mosis 2.23.113). According to rabbinic tradition (Yoma 73b), they were called Urim “because they made their words enlightening” and Thummim “because they fulfill their words,” that is, Urim means “lights” and Thummim comes from the word ‮תם‬‎, meaning “complete,” “fulfilled.” According to the third-century Rabbi Joḥanan, the method by which they revealed their answers was that the letters “stood forth,” that is, since the names of the sons of Jacob’s twelve sons were inscribed, those letters stood in relief that gave the answer to the question that had been asked. The third-century Resh Laqish said that they actually joined one another. Nodet (ad loc.) notes that according to Exod. 28:30 the Urim and Thummim were put into the interior of the breastplate and were therefore distinct from the stones, as indeed we find in the rabbinic tradition. As Nodet (ad loc.) notes, Josephus here reflects the translation of Urim in the LXX (Exod. 28:30) by δήλωσις, “manifestation.”

This apparent exception to Josephus’ de-emphasis on the role of God may be explained by his concern for the priestly role. λόγιον, that is “oracle,” the word used in the LXX (Exod. 28:15) to translate the term ‮חשׁן‬‎ and clearly a term which would be readily intelligible to the Greeks, for whom oracles were so vital a part of their religion. The Talmud (Yoma 73b) describes how the answers were given by the Urim and Thummim. Since the names of the twelve sons of Jacob, as well as the names of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the word ‮שׁבטים‬‎ (“tribes”) were inscribed, all the letters of the Hebrew alphabet were present there; and the answer came through the letters that stood in relief.

Alon (1977:27-28) distrusts Josephus’ statement here as a folk tradition that the Urim and the Thummim ceased to function 200 years before the composition of the Antiquities, which, since the latter was completed in 93/94 C.E. (Ant. 20.267), gives a date shortly before the death of John Hyrcanus in 105 B.C.E. Indeed, Josephus (War 1.68-69; cf. Ant. 13.299-300) says that John Hyrcanus possessed the gift of prophecy and was in such close touch with the Deity that he was never ignorant of the future; according to Josephus (Ant. 13.300), he correctly foretold that his 2 elder sons would not remain masters of the state. We may guess, with Wolfson (1947:2.53), that Josephus’ loose use of the word “prophecy” may be due to his Hasmonean source, which glorified John Hyrcanus; or it may be due to Josephus’ own pride in his Hasmonean ancestry (Life 2). The Talmudic sources (Tosefta Soṭah 13:5, Babylonian Soṭah 33a, Jerusalem Soṭah 9.13 [ed. Krotoschin, p. 24b), like Josephus (Ant. 13.282-83), report that Hyrcanus, while officiating in the Temple, heard a voice saying that his sons had just defeated Antiochus Cyzicenus; and it turned out that this was the very day when they won the battle. We may also conjecture that when Josephus says that Hyrcanus combined the offices of ruler, priest, and prophet, he was viewing him as a kind of Jewish philosopher-king, such as Plato depicts (Rep. 6.497A-502C). Cf. Meeks (1967:32-99). Alon prefers the Talmudic tradition (Soṭah 48b) that the Urim and the Thummim had ceased functioning when the first Temple was destroyed. Josephus’ statement does not mean that prophecy ceased at that time, but rather that the ability of the high priest, in this case, Hycanus, to predict the future ceased. Josephus (Apion 1.41) speaks of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets in the reign of Artaxerxes in the fifth century B.C.E. Similarly, the rabbis have a tradition (Yoma 9b) that after the later prophets—Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi—had died in approximately the fifth century B.C.E., the Holy Spirit of prophecy departed from Israel, though people still availed themselves of the ‮קול בת‬‎, a voice descending from heaven and giving guidance in human affairs (Soṭah 48b). Even the Mishnah (Soṭah 9:12), however, which states that “When the former prophets died out, the Urim and Thummim were cancelled,” does not equate the 2 but regards prophecy and divination by the high priest as 2 separate devices. See Feldman (1990:400-407) and Gray (1993:7-34). To be sure, Josephus does refer (Ant. 1.240) to Cleodemus “the prophet,” who apparently lived at some time between 200 B.C.E. and 50 B.C.E. (Holladay [1983:246 and 249n.17]), but Josephus is here quoting Alexander Polyhistor, who did not have Josephus’ qualms about applying the term “prophet” to a more recent figure. Josephus’ view of the cessation of prophecy seems to accord, in general, with that of Philo. As Wolfson (1947:2.54) has noted, Philo’s accounts (De Migratione Abrahami 7.34-35, De Cherubim 9.27, De Somniis 2.38.252) of his personal experience of apparent prophetic inspiration pertain only to the attainment of a knowledge of things by inspiration when ordinary reasoning failed him rather than to prophecy in the biblical sense. On the cessation of prophecy see Apion 1.41 and Feldman (1990:400-407).

This is the reading (requiem) of the Latin translation; the manuscripts read ἀνέσεις, that is “praises.” Num. 7:1-88 mentions all the offerings but says nothing about the relaxation, nor does it say anything about the expectations and confidence of the Israelites.

Hebrew ‮קערת־כסף‬‎ (Num. 7:13), “silver dish”; LXX and Josephus τρύβλιον, “cup,” “bowl.” The LXX and Josephus reverse the order of the bowl and the cup. Josephus here agrees precisely with the LXX. Hebrew ‮מזרק‬‎ (Num. 7:13), “basin”; LXX and Josephus φιάλην, “bowl,” “pan.” Hebrew ‮כף‬‎ (Num. 7:14), “spoon”; LXX and Josephus θυίσκη, “censer.” Num. 7:14 says “a spoon of 10 of gold.” From the immediate context (Num. 7:13), which mentions the weight of the silver dish and the silver basin in shekels, one would assume that the weight of the spoon, which, to be sure, is not specifically mentioned in shekels, would be in shekels. A daric weighed a little over 128 grains; a Hebrew heavy gold shekel weighed 252 2/3 grains, a light gold shekel weighed 126 1/3 grains.

Hebrew ‮שׁלמים‬‎ (Num. 7:17), “peace-offerings”; LXX σωτηρίου, “of salvation”; Josephus σωτηρίους,” of salvation.” This is the basic sacrifice of all communal offerings. Num. 7:17 indicates that there are to be 5 lambs and 5 he-goats. Num. 7:1-88. As Thackeray (ad loc.) notes, this is a repetition from Ant. 3.212. Whereas the Bible (Num. 7:89) at this point states that Moses went into the tent of meeting to speak with God, with no specific indication of the contents of this conversation, Josephus specifically indicates that Moses derived from Him instruction about the laws and their organization. This forms a natural transition to the discussion of the laws that follows (Ant. 3.224-86).

This is Josephus’ addition. Cf. Ant. 1.25 and references cited there. Hölscher (1916:1962-63) notes the apparent contradiction between this statement and the fact that Josephus does include such material in Ant. 3.224-86, concluding that Josephus did eventually decide to include this material but forgot (since he wrote the Antiquities over a period of perhaps as many as 18 years) to delete the statement of his intention to write a separate work on the subject. This theory is unlikely, however. References to the projected work are numerous, and it is hard to imagine that Josephus would neglect to omit all of them. In particular, it is within the portion where Josephus discusses these laws that he likewise mentions (Ant. 3.257, 259, 264) his intention to discuss such matters further. Most likely the projected treatise was intended to discuss, as he says here, “the laws,” presumably the laws in general, whereas in Ant. 3.224-86 he mentions those laws pertaining to the sacrifices and purifications, a natural continuation of his previous discussion of the Tent and the priests (Ant. 3.102-223). Gallant (29) suggests that Josephus inserted the statement that he proposed to write a work discussing the laws in general because he feared that the reader might form an opinion of the laws based upon a few technical sacrificial and purity regulations, since these latter were but a small, and not necessarily representative, portion of the Torah as a whole.

In point of fact, Josephus takes up the sacrifices here (Ant. 3.224-57) before his discussion of the purity laws (Ant. 3.258-73). In mentioning sacrifices first Josephus is apparently influenced by the fact that they are discussed first in Lev. (1-10), followed by the discussion of purity laws (Lev. 11-15). Elsewhere (Ant. 3.205) Josephus asserts that he proposes to write a whole treatise on sacrifices. Presumably this is merely a brief summary. Altshuler (1977:72) cites the parallel with Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 1.35.168), who likewise distinguishes between sacrifices paid for by the community and those paid for by individuals. Elsewhere, Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 1.36.194) divides the sacrifices into 3 classes: whole-burnt-offerings, peace-offerings, and sin-offerings. Actually, the sacrifices are of 6 types, as we see from Lev. 7:37: burnt offering, cereal offering, sin offering, guilt offering, consecration, and peace offering. Altshuler (1977:74): remarks that Josephus’ 2 introductory paragraphs (Ant. 3.224-25) and the first sentence of (Ant. 3.226 have no parallel in Scripture.

As Thackeray (ad loc.) points out, the Hebrew ‮עלה‬‎ simply means “that which goes up” to heaven. It is only in the Greek equivalent found in the LXX, ὁλοκαύτωμα (Lev. 7:37) or ὁλοκαύτωσις, that we find the concept of a whole burnt-offering. On the other hand, in Ant. 3.205 Josephus categorizes the sacrifices differently, namely those in which the law ordains a holocaust of the victim and those in which it permits a portion to be consumed. Moreover, immediately after his discussion (Ant. 3.226-29) of holocaust and thanksgiving sacrifices, the 2 categories into which he had divided all sacrifices, he proceeds to discuss (Ant. 3.230-35) sin and meal offerings. Gallant (44) suggests that in presenting his holocaust-thanksgiving offering dichotomy Josephus was led by the parallel content and form of Lev. 1:3 (“If his offering is a burnt offering”) and 3:1 (“If a man’s offering is a sacrifice of peace offering”). Josephus then proceeds to reshape those sacrifices that do not fit neatly into this dichotomy and to reduce the disagreements between this structure and actual content.

Hebrew ‮אדם‬‎ (“person,” Lev. 1:2), LXX ἄνθρωπος, Josephus ἀνὴρ ἰδιώτης (“private man”). So also the Mishnah (Zebaḥim 3:1) states that the slaughter is valid when done by non-priests. According to Lev. 22:27, a bull, sheep, or goat may be brought as an offering from the eighth day after its birth. Altshuler (1977:74) notes that Lev. 1:2-3 does not stipulate the age of the animals, though the terms used indicate young animals: ‮בן־הבקר‬‎ (Lev. 1:5, “young bull,” LXX μόσχον [“young bull”], Josephus βοῦν [“bull”]), ‮כשׂבים‬‎ (Lev. 1:10, “sheep,” LXX ἀρνῶν [“lambs under a year old”], Josephus ἀρνίον [“little lamb”]), ‮עזים‬‎ (Lev. 1:10, “goats,” LXX ἐρίφων [“kids,” “young goats”], Josephus ἔριφον [“kid,” “young goat”]). However, in Lev. 1:2, in connection with this same sacrifice, the terms used for oxen (Hebrew ‮בקר‬‎, LXX βοῶν) and sheep (Hebrew ‮צאן‬‎, LXX προβάτων) are for mature animals; and Gallant (53) suggests that perhaps Josephus deduced from the conflicting terminology in the LXX that yearlings are recommended but that mature animals are permitted. Though a one-year-old lamb is mentioned in the whole-offerings of the dedicatory services in Num. 7:15, no explicit age is given there for the kids or oxen. Gallant (53 n.35) calls attention to Mic. 6:6: “Shall I come before Him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old,” the implication being that a calf a year old is to be preferred. Moreover, the frequent occurrence of yearling sheep holocaust victims among the occasional sacrifices (e.g. Exod. 29:38, Num. 28-29) may have led Josephus to associate such a specification with all sheep and goat holocausts, since goats are grouped with sheep under the category of flocks (Lev. 1:10). Note also that a calf and a lamb holocaust were brought in the dedication of the Tent (Lev. 9:3), a lamb thank-offering on Pentecost (Lev. 23:19), a lamb thank-offering brought by chiefs of the 12 tribes (Num. 7:17-83), and a she-goat sin-offering (Num. 15:27). That the lamb offered for a sacrifice is to be one year old is also specified in the Mishnah (Parah 1:3). According to Rabbi Yose the Galilean in the Mishnah (Parah 1:2), oxen 2 years old may be brought as offerings, whereas the sages say that even one 3 years old may be brought, and Rabbi Meir says that even one 4 or 5 years old may be brought. Altshuler (1977:74) remarks that Josephus does not mention here burnt offerings of birds (Lev. 1:14-17). So Lev. 1:3 and 1:10. For birds, however, Lev. 1:14 does not specify that they be males; and the rabbinic tradition (Qiddushin 24b) specifically says that freedom from blemish and male sex are required in animals for burnt-offerings but not in birds. Lev. 1:5 and 11 do not specifically indicate that the priests are to offer these sacrifices; and the rabbinic tradition (Berakot 31b), commenting on 1 Sam. 1:25: “And when the bullock was slain, the child was brought to Eli,” remarks that when Samuel saw Eli looking for a priest to kill the animal, he said, “Why do you go looking for a priest to kill it? The slaughter may be performed by a layman.” Similarly, as Nodet (ad loc.) notes, when King David arranges a massive sacrifice, there is no indication that it is priests who perform it (1 Chr. 29:21). On the other hand, when King Hezekiah arranges a sacrifice, it is performed by priests (2 Chr. 29:21-24). Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 2.27.145-46, Quaestiones et Solutiones in Exodum 1.10) insists that except in connection with the Paschal lamb, the slaughtering is to be done by priests. Nodet (ad loc.) thinks that Josephus may here be deliberately imprecise and cites the Mishnah (Zebaḥim 3:1) that states that slaughter by unfit people is valid; but the passage there is referring to slaughter of animals generally and not to sacrifices. Note that Josephus omits the laying on of the hand upon the head of the burnt-offering (Lev. 1:4). As Olitzki (1885:36 n. 49) remarks, Josephus’ word δεύουσι (“drench,” “wet,” “flood,” “smear”) is not quite in accordance with the Hebrew ‮וזרקו‬‎ (“they shall sprinkle,” Lev. 1:5). The Talmud (Zebaḥim 53b) explains that this does not mean sprinkling with a single sprinkling nor encompassing the altar with blood like a thread but rather applying the blood to the four corners of the altar. So Lev. 1:5 and 11; but, as Nodet (ad loc.) notes, the rabbinic tradition (Zebaḥim 53b) suggests that “round about” means on the 4 horns and concludes that it refers to the northeast and southwest corners of the altar.

According to Lev. 1:5-6, the blood offering is followed by flaying and dissection of the victim, whereas Josephus omits the explicit mention of the flaying, though he does say that the skins are taken by the priests. As Thackeray (ad loc.) remarks, Lev. 1:13 mentions only the inwards and the legs as required to be washed; Josephus’ view is that the whole animal is to be washed, but that the feet and the inwards are to be cleansed with particular care, as he says later in this paragraph. The cleansing of these specific parts of the animal takes place at the end of the procedure; hence it would seem that by putting the cleansing between the blood offering and the dissection Josephus is equating it with the flaying. This association would seem to be suggested also by the fact that on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16:27, Ant. 3.241) the animal is burnt, skin and all, without any cleansing. Gallant (50) suggests that the substitution of cleansing for flaying results in the juxtaposition of an untidy act with an act of tidying up and thus tends to tone down the untidiness of the ritual. According to 2 Chr. 4:6 (add Ezek. 40:38), as Thackeray (ad loc.) suggests, the complete animal is apparently to be cleansed. The Mishnah (Tamid 4:2) indicates that the cleansing included the entire animal. Thackeray (ad loc.) suggests that Josephus required salting of the flesh, even though Lev. 2:13 speaks only of the salting of the meal-offering. That the flesh was salted in all sacrifices is indicated in Ezek. 43:24 and in the Mishnah (Tamid 4:3). Gallant (52) notes the significance of the fact that the animal as a whole is cleansed, whereas the specific parts are cleansed carefully. In the former case, as noted, the cleansing is substituted for flaying; that is, the skins are cleansed. On the care with which this was done see the Mishnah (Tamid 4:2). So Mishnah (Zebaḥim 12:3). As Thackeray (ad loc.) remarks, Lev. 1:6 mentions the flaying only of the bull. However, Lev. 7:8 says that the skin of any burnt-offering belonged to the priest. Altshuler (1977:74) remarks that Josephus claims to describe the manner (τρόπος), not the “law,” of the sacrifice; hence, perhaps, his details accord with common practice rather than literal biblical law. τρόπος is used similarly in Aristotle’s Athenaion Politeia 12:1 ff. Cf. the description in the Mishnah (Tamid 4:2).

Lev. 7:12-15. These are the most frequent type of ‮שׁלמים‬‎ (“peace-offerings”), LXX θυσία σωτηρίου (“sacrifice of deliverance”), Josephus χαριστηρίους θυσίας (“sacrifices of thanksgiving” [Hebrew ‮תודה זבח‬‎]). Josephus apparently connects the word ‮שׁלמים‬‎ not only with the word ‮שׁלום‬‎ (“peace”) but also with the word ‮שׁלם‬‎ (“pay,” “repay”). Such sacrifices were offered upon being saved from danger (Ps. 107:22, 116:17). Cf. Ant. 3.222. This was true of all sacrifices (Lev. 22:17-25, Deut. 15:21, 17:1). A sacrifice of an animal with a blemish is termed an “abomination” (Deut. 17:1). Scripture (Lev. 3:6) does not specify any age limits. Thackeray (ad loc.) understands the age requirement to be permissive rather than mandatory, but Gallant (55 n.36) regards it as mandatory, inasmuch as πρεσβύτερα (“older”) is parallel to ὁλόκληρα (“perfect”), which is certainly mandatory. Calf terminology is used by Targum Pseudo-Jonathan in Lev. 1:10 and 3:12 but not in Lev. 3:6. So Lev. 3:1, 6. Josephus omits mention of the fact that together with the animal unleavened cakes mixed with oil, unleavened wafers spread with oil, cakes of fine flour mixed with oil, as well as cakes of leavened bread (Lev. 7:12-13) were offered. Josephus omits the fact that these sacrifices, as did others, required the laying on of hands. He also omits the place where the animals were slaughtered, namely at the door of the sanctuary, rather than on the north side of the altar. Hebrew ‮החלב המכסה את הקרב‬‎ (Lev. 3:3) (“the fat that covers the inwards”), LXX τὸ στέαρ τὸ κατακαλύπτον τὴν κοιλίαν (“the fat covering the belly”), Vulgate cuncta quae adhaerent iecori (“all things which stick to the liver”), Josephus ἐπίπλουν (“caul,” “fold of the peritoneum,” “omentum [the membrane which encloses the bowels]”). Ant. 3.260 mentions the ἐπίπλους in the list of foods from which Jews are required to abstain. The rabbinic tradition (Sifra on Lev. 3:3) omits the fat on the loins. Hebrew (Lev. 3:4) ‮יתרת‬‎ (“superfluous [limb]),” LXX λοβόν (“lobe”), Josephus λοβῷ. The term is employed only in connection with the liver. The kidneys are burnt because of their blood content, mention of which is made just before the kidneys are enumerated; the others are burnt because of their fat content, mention of which is made just after they are enumerated. Altshuler (1977:75) remarks that Josephus combines and summarizes the laws of peace or thank-offering given in Lev. 3. Thus, he treats together the offerings of herd animals (Lev. 3:1-5) with those of flock animals (6-11), but he does not mention the rules for goats (12-16), or the exact procedure for slaughtering (2, 8).

Gallant (56-57) notes that the priests “take” the skin of the holocaust (Ant. 3.227), “carry off” the skin and flesh of the sin-offering (Ant. 3.231), “take” the rest of the meal offering (Ant. 3.235), and “take” a special portion of those sacrifices that are offered upon escape from danger, but here, in contrast, these portions are offered to the priests. In the other cases the portions are assigned to the priests (Lev. 7:7-9, 14), apparently without a ceremony, whereas here there is an elaborate ceremony of presentation (Lev. 7:30-34). Lev. 7:15 and 22:30 prescribe that the sacrifice of thanksgiving is to be eaten on the same day that it is offered. In Lev. 7:15-17 the flesh of the sacrifice is eaten by those who offer it before it is presented to the priests (Lev. 7:28-34), whereas in Josephus the gifts upon the altar are followed by gifts to the priests, which, in turn, are followed by consumption by the lay people. This reversal, as Gallant (58) remarks, makes the order of the thank-offering, holocaust, sin-offering, and meal-offering parallel to each other. Except for the portions given to the priests and those that were burnt, the rest was assigned to the person who offered the sacrifice (Deut. 12:12-19), together with his children and servants and the Levites.

Altshuler (1977:76) notes that the topic sentence has no parallel in Scripture. As Nodet (ad loc.) notes, according to the Mishnah (Zebaḥim 5:3) only the priests, and not the person who offers the sacrifice, may consume this sacrifice. On the similarity between thank-offerings and sin-offerings see Ḥullin 117a, Zebaḥim 44b, and parallels, cited by Gallant (46 n.32), who notes that despite Josephus’ statement that these two types of sacrifice are performed in a similar manner, the only feature in common between thank-offerings (Lev. 3:3-16) and sin-offerings (Lev. 4:8-35) is the burning of fats upon the altar. The blood offerings of thank-offerings (Lev. 3:2-13) are different from those of sin-offerings (Lev. 4:6-34), as Josephus himself (Ant. 3.231) realizes. Moreover, unlike thank-offerings, which are eaten, as Josephus (Ant. 3.225) says, some sin-offerings are eaten by priests (Lev. 6:22, 7:6) while others are not (Lev. 4:11-12, 20-21), as Gallant (45) notes. Furthermore, birds are not offered as thank-offerings but, according to both the Bible (Lev. 5:7-10) and Josephus (Ant. 3.230), may be offered as sin-offerings, though Josephus has equated these two types of sacrifice. Lev. 5:7: “If he cannot afford a lamb.” Whereas the Bible (Lev. 5:1-4, 7-13) has provision for lesser sacrifices for people who are too poor to bring animals in cases of certain unintentional sins, Josephus applies this indigence provision to all sin-offerings. Gallant (60 n. 37) suggests that in making this change Josephus was influenced by other cases in which indigence provisions apply—the woman who has given birth (Lev. 12:8) and the leper who has recovered (Lev. 14:21-32). Thus he seeks to show how charitable the laws of the Torah are. He also simplifies the law by making it less arbitrary and more generally applicable. Josephus also simplifies matters by omitting the second level of indigence, namely where a person cannot afford the offering of a bird and may bring a meal offering (Lev. 5:11-13). According to Lev. 5:10, the burnt-offering is presented second. So Pesaḥim 59a and Sifra on Lev. 5:8. Josephus omits the biblical (Lev. 5:7) description of the latter as a sin-offering. Josephus also omits the alternate cereal offering, as Altshuler (1977:76) notes. Presumably this is the projected work frequently referred to. See note on Ant. 1.25.

Josephus does not indicate whether this is ignorance of the law or ignorance of the deed. As noted in the Mishnah (Shabbat 7:1), in the case of the Sabbath, the ignorance may be due to forgetting the fundamental law, or the person may not know that it is the Sabbath, or a person may forget that certain labors are forbidden. Where the person forgets the fundamental law of the Sabbath and performs many forbidden labors, according to this Mishnah, he brings only one sin-offering. According to Lev. 4:28 and 32, he may bring a goat or a sheep. Gallant (62) insists that Josephus consistently uses καί (“and”) to connect alternative sacrificial victims (Ant. 3.226, Lev. 1:2 [LXX]; Ant. 3.232). Lit., “of the same year.” Cf. Num. 15:27 and Ant. 3.237. Lev. 4:27-35 does not specify that the animal is to be a year old, but Num. 15:27 specifies a female goat (but does not mention a lamb) a year old as an offering for one who sins unwittingly. In using the verb δεύει (“sprinkles”), Josephus, as Gallant (51 n.34) remarks, emphasizes that the blood is distributed not, as before, around the circuit, but only on the projecting corners. Hence, he controls its untidiness. These are the horns of the altar (Lev. 4:30-34). According to Lev. 4:23, a ruler who has sinned through ignorance is to bring as his offering a male goat, without blemish, whereas according to Lev. 4:27-28 a commoner who has sinned through ignorance is to bring as his offering a female goat or sheep, without blemish. If he was too poor (Lev. 5:7) he could bring two turtle-doves or two young pigeons; and if he could not afford even those he could bring a tenth part of an ephah of fine flour (Lev. 5:11). See Mishnah, Zebaḥim 5:3. Altshuler (1977:76) comments that the seemingly non-Scriptural details about the kidneys, etc., probably derive from the analogy in Lev. 4:31 to the peace-offering. Lev. 6:19 specifies only that the priest shall eat the sin-offering, with no indication of which parts he is to have. As Gallant (63-64) has noted, the priestly acquisition is here termed ἀποφέροντα (“carrying off”), the term that is used with reference to the removal of uneaten sin offerings from the camp (Lev. 4:12, 21; 16:27). The placement of parts upon the altar is denoted by another compound of φέρω, ἐπιφέρουσι. Hence these two acts are related. The requirement in Ant. 3.231 and 232 that these sacrifices be eaten on the day they are offered has no parallel in Scripture. See Daniel (1967:234). Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 1.44.243) likewise states that the priests must consume the flesh of the victim offered for the sin on the same day as the sacrifice. So also in the Sifra (on Lev. 7:6) and in the Mishnah (Zebaḥim 5:7). Altshuler (1977:77) notes that Ant. 3.231 and 232 are the first paragraphs in which Josephus refers to “the law” when discussing sacrifices. There is no indication in the Bible (Lev. 4:1-35) that the sin-offering is to be eaten on the day of its offering. Such a rule is found in the Mishnah Zevaḥim 5:3. Altshuler (1977:77) comments that it is important that Josephus stresses the procedure of, not the reasons for, each sacrifice (cf. Lev. 5:1-5, 6:1-5).

In the biblical account (Lev. 5:20-26) of the one who is conscious of his sin, there is nothing mentioned about the fact that there is no one to convict him. The phrase is found in Josephus’ account (Ant. 4.285) of the depositee who defrauds someone in the assurance of having none to convict him; and it is precisely this instance that is noted in the list of cases (Lev. 5:21) where a person has sinned knowingly. Daniel (1967:237-38) notes that Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 1.42.226-27) also distinguishes between voluntary and involuntary error. But if the offenses taking place that require a ‮חטאת‬‎ are effectively always presented as involuntary, those that require an ‮אשׁם‬‎ are not always those that are committed deliberately (cf. Lev. 5:15-16, 17-19). The fact that this division is also mentioned here by Josephus leads one to think that it corresponds without doubt to an instruction in the contemporary oral tradition. The requirement that the sin offering is to be consumed on the day it is sacrificed is also found in Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 1.43.240), Sifra Tzav 12 (ed. Weiss, p. 35c), and Zebaḥim 36a. Josephus does not specify which rulers. Olitzki (1885:41 n. 58) suggests the possibility that the members of the Sanhedrin may be meant. Josephus does not specify what the similarity is between the rulers’ offerings and those of private persons. Only the high priest (Lev. 4:3) and the whole congregation (Lev. 4:13-14) bring a bullock. See Olitzki (1885:40-41). Other rulers (Lev. 4:23) bring a male goat. As Gallant (47-48) points out, the latter case is similar to the thank-offering since only the fat of the animal is burnt. In the former case, the fat is burnt upon the altar but unlike holocausts, where the animals are burnt upon the altar inside the camp and unlike thank-offerings where the flesh may be eaten, the animal is burnt outside the camp. Hence we have a breakdown of the holocaust-thank-offering dichotomy that Josephus has presented (Ant. 3.225). However, by creating the category of rulers’ sin-offerings Josephus has lumped the two incompatible cases with the one compatible case.

Num. 15:3, the corresponding biblical verse, specifies that the sacrifice is in fulfillment of a vow or as a freewill offering—these would be private sacrifices—or “in your appointed seasons”—these would be public sacrifices. So also the Mishnah (Menaḥot 8:1). Num. 15:4 simply specifies fine flour without indicating that it is to be of wheat. The Mishnah (Soṭah 2:1) categorically asserts that all meal offerings derive from wheat. However, as Gallant (67 n.41) notes, rabbinic tradition (Menaḥot 90b, Sifre Num. 107 [ed. Horovitz, pp. 106-7]) does not require meal offerings for all sacrifices. Hebrew ‮עשׂרון‬‎ (Num. 15:4), a tenth part of an ephah (which is a little over a bushel). It is equivalent to an omer (Exod. 16:36). According to Num. 15:3, 5, this is to be a fire-offering. According to the Sadducees (Megillat Ta‘anit 8) only a handful was offered, and the rest was consumed by the priests. See Olitzki (1885:42).

Gallant (68) notes that Josephus here follows the order of Num. 15:1-13 in noting the amount of flour (Ant. 3.233) to be offered but uses the order of Num. 28-29 in citing the quantities of oil (Ant. 3.234). This allows the amounts of flour to appear in ascending order and the amount of oil to appear in descending order. So also in Ant. 3.197. The rabbinic tradition (Mishnah Sukkah 4:9) also speaks of a water libation. Josephus omits the fact that the wine is to be brought as a fire-offering (Num. 15:10).

The throwing of a handful as first fruits is Josephus’ addition. Cf. Lev. 6:9 [LXX 6:16]: “And the rest of it Aaron and his sons shall eat; it shall be eaten unleavened in a holy place; in the court of the tent of meeting they shall eat it.” Nodet (ad loc.) suggests that Josephus may have been influenced by the general rules of sacrifices, as indicated in Lev. 2:4: “When you bring a cereal offering baked in the oven as an offering, it shall be unleavened cakes of fine flour mixed with oil, or unleavened wafers spread with oil.” Gallant (69-70) remarks that, according to the Bible, of the 4 categories of meal offerings, fine flour (Lev. 2:1-3) is distributed to the altar and the priest while still in the form of flour, whereas baked meal (Lev. 2:4), meal cooked in a shallow vessel (Lev. 2:5-6), and meal cooked in a deeper vessel (Lev. 2:7) are distributed only after cooking (Lev. 2:9-10). Josephus has simplified matters here by having the distribution occur while the offering is still in the form of flour. Each recipient gets the meal offering in the form appropriate to him, raw flour being burnt on the altar and cooked or baked flour being eaten by the priests. As Gallant (70) notes, Josephus omits one ingredient specified in Lev. 2:1, namely frankincense, which is unique to the meal offering described in Lev. 2. This omission results in making the meal offerings more uniform. Josephus here mentions the priest’s voluntary meal offering but delays mention of the obligatory offering until the end of his account of the sacrifices (Ant. 3.257).

Josephus has added “in the same place.” As Nodet (ad loc.) remarks, this does not mean that Josephus considered the possibility of many temples but rather that he was equating domestic slaughter with the sacrifice in the Temple. Lev. 22:28 reverses the order, putting the parent first: “You shall not kill both her and her young in one day.” Josephus thus follows the order in the preceding verse: “When a bull or sheep or goat is born, it shall remain 7 days with its mother.” As Gallant (73) notes, by reversing the order of parent and offspring, Josephus gains assonance: γεννηκότος (“the one who has given birth to,” “parent”) and γεννηθέντι (“the one who has been given birth to,” “its birth”). This assonance is furthered by the use of γίνονται (“[there are”) in the place of the more usual εἰσί at the beginning of the next sentence. Cf. Apion 2.213. So Lev. 22:27-28. Altshuler (1977:79) notes that Josephus’ suggestions of reasons for thanksgiving sacrifices have no parallel in Scripture. Cf. Lev. 7:12: “cakes of fine flour.” Lev. 7:13 uses the verb ‮יקריב‬‎ (“he shall offer”). Josephus uses the verb ἀναλίσκεται (“is consumed”) in order to connect this law with the one that follows, where we read that a lamb is to be slain daily at public expense (ἀναλώματος, “expense”).

Here again, as Altshuler (1977:80) remarks, Josephus employs the term “law” (νόμος), although the biblical parallels do not. Cf. Apion 2.77: “We offer perpetual sacrifices; and not only do we perform these ceremonies daily, at the expense of the whole Jewish community....” As Belkin (1940:52-53) notes, Num. 28:3-15 does not indicate whether the daily sacrifices were private sacrifices provided by individuals, or public sacrifices provided at public expense. According to the Talmud, the Sadducees, basing themselves on the singular in Num. 28:4 (“you shall offer”), maintained that they were private, while the Pharisees, whom Josephus here follows, basing themselves on the plural in Num. 28:2 (“ye shall take heed”), held that they were public (Menaḥot 65a, Megillat Taʿanit 1). Hebrew ‮בני־שׁנה‬‎ (Num. 28:3) (“a year old”), LXX ἐνιαυσίους (“of a year”), Josephus αὐτοετῶν (lit., “of the same year”). Cf. Ant. 3.231. Exod. 29:39: “One lamb you shall offer in the morning, and the other lamb you shall offer in the evening (‮הערבים בין‬‎, lit., “between the 2 evenings,” presumably at twilight). So also Num. 28:4. Josephus replaces the relatively vague times with more specific times. In Ant. 14.65, to indicate how strict the Jews were in observing their laws during the siege of Jerusalem by Pompey, Josephus notes that the priests were not hindered from performing the sacrifices, “but twice a day, in the morning and at the ninth hour [i.e., approximately at 3 P.M.], they performed the sacred ceremonies at the altar and did not omit any of the sacrifices.” According to the Mishnah (Yoma 3:1), the morning offering was at the break of day. According to the Mishnah (Pesaḥim 5:1), the daily offering of the afternoon was slaughtered at half after the eighth hour [i.e. at approximately 2:30 P.M.] and offered at half after the ninth hour [i.e. at approximately 3:30 P.M.]. Num. 28:9. Num. 28:10 specifies that this is in addition to the continual burnt-offering and the drink-offering. Num. 28:9. There is no indication in the scriptural passage as to the time when these sacrifices are to be brought on the Sabbath. Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 1.35.170) likewise does not indicate the time when these sacrifices are to be brought.

In Num. 28:11 the order is bulls, ram, lambs, and (28:15) goat. Josephus places the plural victims (bulls, lambs) first, followed by the single victims (ram, goat). Num. 28:11-15. According to Shebu‘ot 9a, the goat atones for the case where there is no knowledge both at the beginning and at the end of an act.

Josephus omits the name of the month and the fact that it is to be on the first day of the month, though presumably this is to be inferred from the preceding paragraph, which refers to the new moon. He does not indicate that this is Rosh Hashanah, New Year’s Day. In Ant. 3.248 he states that the month of Nisan begins the year, that is, the first month for the festivals, as he indicates in Ant. 1.81. See Mishnah Rosh Hashanah 1:1. In the biblical list of the festivals, that of the first month, Passover (Num. 28:16-25), is followed by Shabu‘ot (Num. 28:26-31) and by the festivals of the seventh month (Num. 29:1-39). By placing the festivals of the seventh month first Josephus puts in juxtaposition the new moon and seventh new moon (Rosh Hashanah). Aalen (1951:126) says that Josephus is unaware that the first of the month of Tishri is the festival of the New Year, and notes that in Ant. 1.81 he regards the first of Tishri as the New Year for “selling and buying and other ordinary affairs,” whereas the first of Nisan is the beginning of the religious year. However, as we see here, Josephus was aware of the religious dimension of 1 Tishri, since he cites the special sacrifices of the day, as stated in the Torah (Num. 19:1-6). Aalen is likewise wrong in asserting that Philo was unaware of 1 Tishri as a New Year’s day, since Philo speaks (De Specialibus Legibus 1.35.180) of it as “the beginning of the sacred month,” notes its special sacrifices, and specifically states, in giving the reason for the number of calves (one) sacrificed, that “at the beginning of the year” the number one is preferable to the number two, since the latter is divisible. The last month of the Macedonian year. Num. 29:2, 5. As Altshuler (1977:81) remarks, Josephus does not mention that the first day of the seventh month [i.e. Tishri] is, according to Scripture, a day of horn-blowing and a holy convocation on which no labor may be done. Nor does he repeat the biblical requirement that the lambs be one year old and without blemish. Here he gives the Macedonian name for the numbered month, while in Ant. 3.248 he supplies the Hebrew name Nisan for Xanthicus. He treats the first day of the seventh month as an unusual new moon more than as the significant holiday of Rosh Hashanah. As Gallant (82) remarks, although Josephus does include in his description of the other holidays some details that do not have to do with the sacrifices (e.g., fasting on Yom Kippur [Ant. 3.240], tents and four species on Sukkot [Ant. 3.244-45], and unleavened bread on Passover [Ant. 3.249]), he omits the horn-blowing. The result is that Rosh Hashanah is more closely aligned with the new moon, which has just been described (Ant. 3.238). Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 1.35.180) also notes that Rosh Hashanah has two aspects, the first as the new moon and the second as the opening of the sacred month. In the first capacity the sacrifices are those of other new moons; in the second capacity the sacrifices are doubled except in the case of the calves.

This is the Day of Atonement. Lev. 23:32: “It shall be to you a sabbath of solemn rest [the Day of Atonement], and you shall afflict yourselves; on the ninth day of the month beginning at evening, from evening to evening shall you keep your sabbath.” While it is true that the biblical passage does not specifically mention fasting, Psalm 35:13 specifies “I afflicted myself with fasting.” Moreover, the Talmud (Yoma 74b) cites the view of the school of Rabbi Ishmael in the second century, who argues that the word “afflict” implies fasting, since in Deut. 8:3 we find the statement that God afflicted the Israelites and let them hunger. Nevertheless, this view is challenged by his anonymous opponents who argue that one should not infer concerning a heavenly affliction (Deut. 8:3) from a self-inflicted affliction on the Day of Atonement concerning human beings. According to Lev. 16:5 and Num. 29:8, one ram is sacrificed. Nodet (ad loc.) suggests that the reference is to 2 distinct sacrifices, one by the high priest and the other by the people. Yoma 3a (cf. Yoma 70b and parallels) cites a dispute beween Rabbi Judah the Prince, who says that the ram mentioned in Lev. 16:5 is the same as the one mentioned in Num. 29:8, and Rabbi Eliezer (Elazar) ben Simon, who asserts that 2 rams are referred to. The Talmud then suggests that both views may be reconciled if we assert that one of the rams was offered in fulfillment of the regular sacrifices of that day, while the other is one of the additional sacrifices. The high priest does what is indicated here as specific to the Day of Atonement (Ant. 3.240-43), with the rest of the priests doing everything else, but Yoma 32b indicates that the entire service on that day was done by the high priest. Num. 29:8 states that they are to be 7 male lambs a year old without blemish.

On the basis of Lev. 16:5: “And he shall take from the congregation of the people of Israel 2 male goats,” Shebuʿot 14a and Josephus conclude that “they” refers to the congregation and that the cost of the animals is to be taken from the people’s funds. Josephus omits that the high priest is to put lots upon the 2 goats (Lev. 16:8). Daniel (1967:231) remarks that Josephus cites 2 goats for the sin besides the goat sent away (according to Num. 29:11), while Philo mentions only one (Lev. 16:5). The Tannaim themselves were not always unanimous on this question of the number of victims. A baraita cited in Yoma 3a mentions a dispute between Judah the Prince and Rabbi Eleazar, the first maintaining that one offered a single ram on the Day of Atonement and the second that 2 were offered. Whereas in the Bible the scapegoat (Lev. 16:21-22) and the communal goat (Lev. 16:27) are not brought into immediate juxtaposition, Josephus, as Gallant (87-88) suggests, does so by transforming the places to which they are brought from the desert (Lev. 16:22) and “outside the camp” (Lev. 16:27) to 2 specific areas that are parallel to each other, namely beyond the boundaries and the suburbs. Olitzki (1885:47 n. 76) suggests the possibility that the word ὑπερόριον (“beyond the boundaries”) may actually be a combination of ὐπέρ (“beyond”) and ὅρος (“mountain,” “hill”) and may refer to the fact that the goat was hurled down from a mountain (Mishnah Yoma 6:6). Josephus ἀποτροπιασμός (lit., “averting [by expiatory sacrifice”]. This seems very similar, as noted by Nodet (ad loc.), to the way that the LXX renders ‮עזאזל‬‎ (Lev. 16:8) by ἀποπομπαῖος, i.e. “carrying away [evil].” Olitzki (1885:47 n. 77) suggests that in referring to the goat thus Josephus is equating it with Averruncus, an averting deity (Varro, Ling. Lat. 7.102 and Gell. 5.12.14). Inasmuch as the communal goat had previously been slain (Lev. 16:15), the Bible uses the verb ‮יוציא‬‎ (Lev. 16:27; LXX ἐξοίσουσιν) to indicate that it is removed to its place of burning. This is a verb used for conveying inanimate or dead objects, whereas Josephus uses the verb ἄγοντες (“leading”), which is used for living objects, as we see, for example, in the case of the red heifer (Num. 19:3, Ant. 4.79) that is removed from the camp prior to being slain. By using this verb Josephus has created an analogy between the two goats, since the scapegoat had been removed while still alive. He thus has implicitly though not explicitly contradicted the Bible. Lev. 16:27 says “outside the camp.” Lev. 16:27 reads “outside the camp” and says nothing about “the purest spot.” In specifying this Josephus may have been influenced by the fact that the sin-offering is brought to a pure place (Lev. 4:12). Josephus omits the statement (Lev. 16:8) that lots are to be put upon the two goats, one for the Lord and the other for Azazel. Altshuler (1977:82) notes that Josephus omits mention of laws from Leviticus 16 concerning the inner court (16:2, 17), the priestly attire (4, 32), the incense offering (12-13), ritual uncleanness (16), bathing (23-26, 28), and mandatory cessation of labor (29, 31).

So also Shebu‘ot 14a deduces from Lev. 16:6 (‮פר החטאת‬‎, “the bullock of the sin-offering which belongs to him”) that he brings the bullock from his personal funds. Josephus omits that the high priest is to make an atonement for himself and for his house (Lev. 16:6). Josephus omits the requirement that the high priest is to put the incense upon the fire (Lev. 16:12-13). Josephus, as Nodet (ad loc.) remarks, joins the 2 burnings of the whole animals, in accordance with Lev. 16:18: “He...shall take some of the blood of the bull and of the blood of the goat.” In the Bible the blood of the bullock is taken (Lev. 16:14), then the communal goat is slaughtered (Lev. 16:15), then his blood is dealt with as with the blood of the bullock (Lev. 16:15), then the blood of both is offered together (Lev. 16:18). Josephus is more orderly, as Gallant (90) notes: he first takes care of disposing of the animals, then he takes care of the blood offerings. Josephus omits that the high priest is to take a censer full of burning coals from off the altar and fill his hands with incense and put it upon the fire.

The sprinkling of the ceiling and the floor is Josephus’ addition. In Lev. 16:14 the blood is sprinkled toward the cover of the ark. According to Yoma 55a, the high priest did not sprinkle upon the ark-cover but against its thickness. Gallant (91) suggests that Josephus’ substitution may be the product of an anachronistic interpretation since in Josephus’ time the sanctuary no longer contained an ark. Lev. 16:18 speaks simply of the altar. That the golden altar is meant is clear from the Mishnah (Yoma 5:5). The reference is to the incense-altar (Exod. 30:1), which was made of wood but was completely encased in a massive sheet of metal (Ant. 3.147). This is the altar of bronze (Exod. 27:2) (Ant. 3.149). Cf. the outer altar mentioned in the Mishnah (Yoma 5:6). There in no mention of the sprinkling of blood around the altar in Lev. 16. Josephus has substituted sprinkling around the outer altar for pouring upon the base. Liddell-Scott-Jones (1940:599) cites this passage as the sole reference for the meaning of ἐξοχάς as “extremities of animals.” Gallant (93) points out that Scripture does not include extremities or limbs of animals in the fat offering for this or any other sacrifice, nor does Josephus, aside from possibly this passage. Consequently, Gallant (94) calls attention to the meaning of ἐξοχάς as “projecting corners” in Ant. 3.231; and noting that the word appears 4 words after the end of the blood-offering description, he suggests that the text has been corrupted and that somehow the word has been severed from its original context. As noted by Thackeray (ad loc.), Lev. 16:25 mentions the burning only of the fat. Altshuler (1977:82) states that Josephus’ mention of burning the extremities, liver and lobe of the liver of the bull may be taken from the scriptural analogy in Lev. 4:8-9 of sin-offerings, which mentions the burning of the fat that covers the inwards, the two kidneys and the fat upon them, and the midriff above the liver (cf. Ant. 3.231). Josephus omits the changes of clothing of the high priest on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16:23).

So also Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 2.33.204) asserts that the Festival of Tabernacles occurs at the autumnal equinox. Cf. Exod. 34:22, which speaks of the feast of the ingathering at the year’s end. Olitzki (1885:50) remarks that in requiring each family to have its own tent Josephus is in agreement with the view of Rabbi Eliezer (Sukkah 27b) that just as a man cannot fulfill his obligation on the first day of the festival with the palm-branch of his fellow (Lev. 23:40), so he cannot fulfill his obligation with a sukkah of his fellow, since it is written, “The feast of booths you shall keep for yourself for seven days.” Josephus omits the requirement (Lev. 23:42) that during the festival it is necessary to dwell in tents. Olitzki (1885:50) suggests that Josephus is thinking of the pilgrims, who came to Jerusalem each year to celebrate the holiday and who would always erect new tents. He likewise omits the statement (ibid.) that this commandment is incumbent upon all who are native in Israel. Josephus’ transformation of the Sukkot holiday from a commemoration of a continuing historical condition into a specific historical event may be due to the influence of the account of Passover which follows immediately. As Altshuler (1977:84) notes, Josephus does not cite the biblical explanation for the Festival of Tabernacles, namely that Israel lived in booths when they wandered in the wilderness (Lev. 23:42). Josephus’ reason for dwelling in booths is extra-biblical. Apparently, he was troubled by the question as to why there should be a holiday at a particular point of the calendar when it supposedly commemorates an event that took place over a period of 40 years. Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 2.33.206) also looks upon the tents as a protection against the weather: “The people are commanded, during the time of the feast, to dwell in tents. The reason of this may be that the labor of the husbandmen no longer requires that they should live in the open air, as nothing is now left unprotected, but all the fruits are stored in silos or similar places to escape the damage that often ensues through the blazing sunshine or storms of rain.” No parallel to this explanation is to be found in rabbinic literature. There is perhaps a hint for it in the requirement that the walls of the sukkah must be able to withstand a normal wind (Sukkah 23a).

Lit. “fatherlands,” perhaps in the same sense as in Ant. 4.101, where it seems to mean “cities.” There is no indication in the Bible (Lev. 23:39) that the observance of the festival of Tabernacles is dependent upon the conquest of the land of Canaan. Yet, Josephus seems to imply that the holiday is to be celebrated only in the Land of Israel and only in Jerusalem. Perhaps, as Gallant (98-99) suggests, Josephus was influenced by the parallel with Passover, which, according to Exod. 12:25, 13:5, is to be observed “when you come to the land which the Lord will give you.” In that case, we are told, “You may not offer the Passover sacrifice within any of your towns that the Lord your God gives you, but at the place that the Lord your God will choose” (Deut. 16:5-6), though, to be sure, the Passover was observed in the wilderness in the second year after the Exodus (Num. 9:1-14; Ant. 3.294; Sifre Num. 67 [ed. Horovitz, p. 62]). Josephus does not give the name of the festival (Tabernacles [Sukkot]). In mentioning the eighth day of the festival and then by summarizing the features of the festival as the erection of tents, Josephus regarded the eighth day (Shemini Atzeret) as part of the festival of Tabernacles, whereas the rabbis (Sukkah 55b) interpret the biblical reference (Lev. 23:36 and Num. 29:35) to the eighth day as a separate festival. The Talmud (Sukkah 47a, 48a) cites the fact that the benediction of the season, which is recited on the first day of a festival, is recited on the eighth day as evidence that it is a festival unto itself. On the other hand, the fact that the Mishnah (Sukkah 4:1) states that the recitation of the Hallel Psalms and the rejoicing continue for eight days would seem to imply that the eighth day is part of the festival of Sukkot. Gallant (99) remarks that to have distinguished between the eight days of sacrifices (Lev. 23:36) and the seven days of observing the ritual of the four species (Lev. 23:40-41) would have complicated the structure of the Tabernacles holiday; hence Josephus, always seeking to simplify matters, conflates these into a single festival observance. Josephus omits the pilgrimage requirement (Exod. 34:23), namely that on this, as on Passover and Pentecost, all Israelite males are to “appear before the Lord your God.” The central feature of the celebration of the holiday is the sacrifices (Ḥagigah 10b). Gallant (99) remarks that Num. 28-29 does not list thank-offerings among the occasional sacrifices for any holiday. Cf. Beẓah 19b: “Rabbi Eleazar son of Rabbi Simeon says: A man may bring his thank-offering on the Feast of Tabernacles and may therewith fulfill his obligation in respect of the joy [of the Festival], but does not fulfill his obligation therewith in respect of the Festival sacrifices.” Josephus is in agreement with the rabbinic tradition that the species are to be bound together in a bouquet (Sukkah 11b, 33a). The word that Josephus uses for the bouquet, εἰρεσιώνη, is used in classical Greek (Aristophanes, Eq. 729; Vesp. 399; Plut. 1054) to refer to a branch of olive or laurel wound around with wool and hung with fruits, bread, cakes, and little bottles of honey, wine, and oil. This was a kind of small maypole, which was dedicated to Apollo and carried by singing boys, who went about collecting contributions from private homes, at the Pyanopsia and Thargelia festivals, while offerings were made to Helios and the Hours. The branch was later hung up at the house-door and kept there until the following year. Its aim was to bring success in producing food. Hebrew ‮ענף עץ־עבת‬‎ (Lev. 23:40): “boughs of leafy trees,” LXX κλάδους ξύλου δασεῖς, Josephus μυρσίνης. Josephus agrees with the rabbinic tradition that this refers to the myrtle (Sukkah 32b). Hebrew ‮ערבי־נחל‬‎ (Lev. 23:40): “willows of the brook,” LXX ἰτέας καὶ ἄγνου κλάδους ἐκ χειμάρρου, Josephus ἰτέας. Hebrew ‮כפת תמרים‬‎ (Lev. 23:40): “branches of palm trees,” LXX κάλλυνθρα φοινίκων, Josephus κράδῃ φοίνικος. Popularly known as the lulav (Mishnah Sukkah 3:1). Gallant (101) notes that the myrtle and willow are connected by the preposition καί, whereas they, in turn, are connected with the palm branch by the preposition σύν, indicating that they are subordinated to the palm branch. Hence, as we may infer from Josephus’ incidental reference to the four species (Ant. 13.372), where he mentions only two of the four species, presumably the most important ones are the palm branches and the citrons. Hebrew ‮פרי עץ הדר‬‎ (Lev. 23:40), “fruit of a goodly tree,” LXX καρπὸν ξύλου ὡραῖον, Josephus τοῦ μήλου τοῦ τῆς περσέας. The persea is a fleshy one-seeded fruit of the laurel family, the most common member of which is the avocado. The rabbis (Sukkah 35a) clearly identify the “fruit of a goodly tree” as a citron. Epstein (1957:347-48) notes that here Josephus says that the Jews are to bear the fruit of the persea (περσέα), whereas elsewhere (Ant. 13.372) he speaks of the fruit as a citron (κίτρον). Epstein concludes that Josephus is using two different sources but felt no contradiction. He suggests that perhaps in case they did not find a citron they could bring another type of fruit, inasmuch as the Bible does not specify the fruit (Lev. 23.40). In Lev. 23:40 the order of the four species is fruit of a goodly tree, branches of palm trees, boughs of leafy trees, and willows of the brook. Rabbi Ishmael (Mishnah Sukkah 3:4) gives the order as found here in Josephus. Gallant (100) notes that the persea “is added” (προσόντος, Ant. 3.245) to the list of the other three species; similarly, in the list of sacrifices offered on the first day of Tabernacles (Ant . 3.246) that of the goat “is added” (προστιθεμένου).

Num. 29:13. Num. 29:17-38. I.e. the seventh day of the festival. Josephus omits the meal-offering (Num. 29:14) and the drink-offering (Num. 29:16).

Josephus does not specifically state the requirement of abstention from work on the first day of the festival (Lev. 2:35, Num. 29:12). The term ‮עצרת‬‎, which is applied to this day (Lev. 23:36, Num. 29:35), is specifically connected with abstention from work (Ḥagigah 18a, Sifre Num. 151 [ed. Horovitz, p. 196]). As Gallant (102) admits, the term ‮עצרת‬‎ is also applied to the seventh day of Passover in juxtaposition with the prohibition of work (Deut. 16:8), and yet Josephus does not refer to it thus; hence, Gallant suggests that because the eighth day of Tabernacles has no special ritual requirements Josephus felt constrained to fill in the void by referring to the prohibition of work. There is no such passage in Josephus. Rather, the reference is to the additional sacrifices of first day of the seventh month (Rosh Hashanah), which are identical with those of the eighth day of Tabernacles.

The name of the first month in the Macedonian calendar. According to the Mishnah (Rosh Hashanah 1:1), the first of Nisan is the beginning of the year for kings and for festivals. Cf. Ant. 1.81 Josephus, as Nodet (ad loc.) notes, follows the calendar of the civil year rather than that of the liturgical year. Josephus κριῷ Q, “ram.” As Gallant (104 n.72) remarks, because Passover commemorates a specific historical event, whereas the Jewish calendar itself is a lunar calendar, Josephus was eager to pinpoint the time of its commemoration through a solar reference. He further conjectures that Josephus may have been led to make this connection through the juxtaposition of the sun and the time of the exodus in regard to the offering of the Passover sacrifice “in the evening at the going down of the sun, at the time you came out of Egypt” (Deut. 16:6). The use of “we” in the description of the laws is unusual. It is absent in later passages where Josephus summarizes biblical law. Perhaps he is responding to the centrality of the holiday among Jews or to pagan interest in the holiday. Most remarkably, Josephus does not here specify the species of the victims, any more than he did previously (Ant. 2.311-13) when he mentioned the first Passover, though he does elsewhere. Gallant (105) conjectures that Josephus does not specify the species because the Bible itself is inconsistent in its identification. On the one hand, Lev. 23:5 and Num. 28:16 do not specify it at all. On the other hand, Exod. 12:3 and 12:21 specify a lamb, whereas Deut. 16:2 states that the animal is to come from the flock (‮צאן‬‎, i.e. sheep) or ‮בקר‬‎ (large cattle). Gallant (105-6) further suggests that the contradiction between the specification in Exodus and that in Deuteronomy may have led Josephus to mention an episode (War 6.292) whereby on Passover a cow that had been brought for sacrifice gave birth to a lamb in the court of the Temple. The festival is likewise called Πάσχα by Josephus in Ant. 2.313, 10.70, 14.21, 14.25, 18.29, 18.90, War 2.423, as well as by Philo (De Vita Mosis 2.41.224) and frequently in the New Testament (Matt. 26:2, Mark 14:1, Luke 22:1, John 2:13, etc.). In Ant. 2.313 Josephus explains that the word Pascha signifies “passing over,” inasmuch as on that day when God inflicted the tenth plague on the Egyptians He passed over the Israelites. Ant. 2.311-13. Cf. Ant. 2.312. The term that Josephus uses for a fraternity, φατρία (φρατρία), literally means “brotherhood” and is used in classical Greek in a political sense as a subdivision of the φυλή (tribe) (e.g. Plato, Leg. 5.746D, 6.785A, Isoc. De Pace 88, Aeschines 2.147). It is used not only in connection with a group celebrating the Passover but also of a group celebrating the pagan festival of the Karneia at Sparta (Demetrius of Scepsis ap. Athenaeus 4.141F). War 6.423 specifies that a fraternity consists of no fewer than 10 persons, while the companies often include as many as 20. Rabbinic tradition (Pesaḥim 91a) insists that one may not kill the paschal lamb for a single person, but it does not indicate a minimum number. As to the maximum number, the Mishnah (Pesaḥim 8:7) states that “even if there is an association of 100 people who cannot eat an olive’s bulk of the meat they do not slaughter [a Passover offering] in their behalf.” According to Josephus (War 6.424) on the eve of the war against the Romans when a census was taken by the Roman governor Cestius Gallus, 255,600 lambs were slaughtered for the Passover, and allowing for an average of 10 diners for each animal, this gives a total of 2,556,000 (Josephus actually gives the number as 2,700,000), and this did not include those who were defiled and were therefore not permitted to partake of the sacrifice, as well as foreigners present for worship. Exod. 12:10. Such a requirement is found in connection with other sacrifices; but the connection here is unique in that it is associated with their hasty departure (so also Ant.2.312).

In Ant. 2.317 Josephus speaks of the Passover as lasting eight days. There, as Schalit (ad Ant. 2.317) remarks, he is speaking as one who is living in the Diaspora, where an extra day of the holiday was observed. Here he is quoting the passage in the Torah (Num. 28:17), which speaks of 7 days for the holiday. Haag (1971:41) stresses that here there is a differentiation beween Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread; but he notes that in Ant. 9.271 Josephus, following 2 Chr. 30:1-27, identifies the 2 in speaking of King Hezekiah’s celebration of the Passover. He notes the same identification in Ant. 10.70-72, as celebrated by King Josiah; in Ant. 11.109-10, upon the dedication of the Temple on return from the Babylonian captivity; and in Ant. 14.21, while Aristobulus II is besieged by Hyrcanus II in the Temple. The name of Passover alone is mentioned in Ant. 18.90; the festival is called that of unleavened bread alone in War 2.224, 244, 280; 4.402; 5.99; 6.290. The Gospels (Matt. 26:2, 17; Mark 14.1, and Luke 22.1) identify the Feast of Unleavened Bread with the Passover. Chenderlin (1975:372), in discussing the problem of the date of the Passover in the year of Jesus’ death and the apparent disagreement between the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John, asserts that Josephus here gives us some useful indications. In particular, in Jesus’ time, as we see here, the term “Passover” could be used either of the fourteenth of Nisan until midnight or as an apparent synonym for that period plus the partially overlapping 7-day period beginning at sunset on the fourteenth—the period otherwise known as the Feast of the Unleavened Bread. Inasmuch as Josephus here makes a distinction between the celebration of the paschal lamb and that of the Unleavened Bread, the use of the term “Passover” for the whole period of days leaves open the possibility that a double usage was current for phrases such as “eat the Passover,” which might apply to the other sacrifices of the week mentioned by Josephus, when it is clear from the context that they did not apply to the paschal lamb proper. For Josephus the first day of the Unleavened Bread would have been the fifteenth of Nisan, that is, the first day of the partially overlapping 7-day period. The Mishnah (Pesaḥim 1:3), says Chenderlin, agrees that the term “Passover” is ambiguous. He suggests that the number of sacrificial paschal victims (he accepts Josephus’ figure of 2,700,000 [War 6.425] as the number of pilgrims in Jerusalem in the year 66) in this period would have constituted a pressing practical motive for a distributed observance of the festivities centering about those victims, that is, an observance distributed through several days or perhaps the whole week of Passover; but the Pentateuch (Exod. 12:8-10) very specifically says that the paschal lamb must be eaten on the night of its sacrifice. Num. 28:19 specifies 2 young bulls, one ram, and 7 male lambs a year old, all of them without blemish. “As a feast each day for the priests” is Josephus’ addition. Gallant (108) notes that in the Bible (Num. 18:15, 22, 30; 29:5, 11,16) a goat is brought as a sin-offering on all festival days. Remarkably, it is only here that Josephus mentions that the priests feast on it. Gallant suggests that he does so in order to provide a point of connection with subsequent laws, namely the barley offering on Passover (Ant. 3.251) and the 2 loaves on Pentecost (Ant. 3.252), which he likewise mentions that the priests consume. Altshuler (1977:87) notes that Josephus does not report that cereal offerings accompany the animal sacrifices, or that no work may be done on the last day of the festival (Num. 28:19-25). Josephus makes no mention of waving the sheaf (Lev. 23:11) or the cereal and drink accompaniments to the burnt offering (Num. 28:20, 24). That Josephus does not mention the requirement to abstain from eating leaven here is probably due to the fact that here he is merely summarizing the various sacrifices for the holidays.

The LXX (Lev. 23:11) likewise reads τῇ ἐπαύριον τῆς πρώτης (“on the day after the first day”). Josephus here and Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 2.29.162) apparently agree in equating the word Shabbat in Lev. 23:11, 15 (“on the morrow after the Sabbath”) with the first day of Passover. Goudoever (1959:19) notes that an indirect witness of the tradition that the 50 days are counted from the second day of Passover may be found in Joshua 5:11: “And on the morrow after the Passover, on that very day, they ate of the produce of the land, unleavened cakes, and parched grain,” though he remarks that in the Greek version the words “on the morrow after the Passover” are missing. The Boethusians, whose views were akin to those of the Sadducees (Mishnah Menaḥot 10:3, Gemara Menaḥot 65a), and the later Karaites understood Lev. 23:11 and 15 to mean literally “the day after the Sabbath” which falls within the week of Passover. This decision affected the date of Pentecost 7 weeks later. Of Nisan. So also Mishnah (Menaḥot 10:7): “Wheat, barley, spelt, oats, and rye ... may not be reaped before the Passover.” Eaten, according to Lev. 23:14. The Mishnah (Menaḥot 10:7) restricts the dough offering to only 5 species of grain (wheat, barley, spelt, oats, and rye). The reason given, to show gratitude to God, is Josephus’ addition. So also Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 2.29.175): “The sheaf thus offered is barley, showing that the use of the inferior grains is not open to censure.” Lev. 23:10-15, however, does not specify that the sheaf to be offered was to be of barley. The view is, nevertheless, common in rabbinic literature (e.g., Menaḥot 84a).

Cf. Mishnah Menaḥot 10:4: “‘They reaped it [i.e. the barley for the omer], and they put it into baskets. They brought it to the court [of the Temple]. They did parch it in fire, so as to carry out the requirement that it be parched with fire [Lev. 2:14],’ the words of Rabbi Meir. And the sages say: ‘With reeds and with stems of plants do they [first] beat it [to thresh it] so that it not be crushed. And they put it into a tube. And the tube was perforated, so that the fire affect all of it.’” Josephus’ word δράγμα literally means a handful and refers to as many stalks of grain as the reaper can grasp in his left hand. This is the word used by the LXX (Lev. 23:15) in referring to the sheaf of the wave-offering, i.e. the omer. Josephus omits the waving of the sheaf. Altshuler (1977:87) points out that Lev. 23:14 never explicitly says that parching and crushing the sheaf make the barley pure for grinding. This account of the preparation of the barley and the throwing of a handful on the altar is Josephus’ addition and is in accord with the rabbinic tradition (Mishnah Menaḥot 6:4). An omer. See Ant. 3.233. As Thackeray (ad loc.) notes, Hebrew uses the same word, ‮עמר‬‎, for assaron and for bundle. Gallant (109) conjectures that Josephus may have mentioned this quantity in order to connect it with the next topic, namely the 2 assarons (Ant. 3.252) of flour presented on Shebu‘ot. This is Josephus’ addition. Gallant (110) suggests that the repetition of λοιπόν (“the rest”) implies a relationship between the ritual and the result: because the priests have received the remainder, thereafter the laity may partake of the harvest. This is Josephus’ addition. ἀρνίον, “little lamb.” Lev. 23:12 specifies a male lamb a year old without blemish. Yet, despite the fact that the Bible indicates that all lambs for the festival sacrifices are to be one year old, Josephus does not use the word ἀρνίον anywhere else besides here in such a connection. Gallant (111) conjectures that Josephus uses it here in connection with “first fruits” (ἀπαρχάς, Ant. 3.250), thus providing a link between the newly ripened crop and the newborn animal.

Hence the name of the holiday, Shabu‘ot, “Weeks.” It is so denominated in Num. 28:26. Lapide (1972-75:488) asserts that when Josephus speaks of his ancestral language he means Hebrew, though he admits that there is an occasional slip of the pen, as here, where he asserts that Asartha (= ‮עצרתא‬‎) means Pentecost in the language of the Hebrews, whereas it is an Aramaic word. However, Josephus here speaks of the language of the Hebrews, rather than of Hebrew, and this is not inconsistent with identifying the language as Aramaic. The festival of Shabuot was called ‮עצרת‬‎ during the period of the Second Temple, as we may see in Mishnah Rosh Hashanah 1:2 and Ḥagigah 2:4. Actually, the word ‮עצרתא‬‎, the Aramaic equivalent of the Hebrew ‮עצרת‬‎, means “concluding,” and refers in the Bible to the day after the Sukkot festival (Lev. 23:36) and to the last day of Passover (Deut. 16:8). In the rabbinic tradition (Mishnah Rosh Hashanah 1:2, Ḥagigah 2:4) it refers to the holiday that occurs at the close of the seven weeks, namely Shabu‘ot (Pentecost). On the name Asartha see Pelletier (1975:224-25). Weill (ad loc.) explains that the word “fiftieth” refers to Pentecost as literally the fiftieth day from the counting of the Omer, but Nodet (ad loc.) remarks that this presupposes that the reader is a non-Jew who does not know Aramaic. Thackeray (ad loc.) comments that this constitutes one of Josephus’ loose etymological statements, since the word “Asartha” actually means “closing” rather than “fiftieth.” However, as Gallant (111) notes, Josephus elsewhere (e.g. Ant. 3.283 and 5.34) employs the word σημαίνει (“denotes,” “indicates”) to refer to a symbolic relationship, i.e. fiftieth symbolizes the closing of the seven weeks between Passover and Pentecost. According to Lev. 23:17 2 loaves are to be brought. Lev. 23:17: fine flour. Lev. 23:19: 2 male lambs a year old.

All the manuscripts add the word “alone.” That nothing may be left behind for the following day is Josephus’ addition. Cf. Mishnah Menaḥot 11:9. According to Lev. 23:18-19, the sacrifice included 7 sheep, one bullock, 2 rams, one he-goat, plus 2 additional sheep for a sacrifice of peace-offering. According to Num. 28:27, 30, the sacrifice included 2 bullocks, one ram, 7 sheep, and one he-goat. Apparently, Josephus has conflated the 2 lists, though he has 2 rams instead of the total of 3. Menaḥot 45b acknowledges that the 2 lists are not identical and concludes that the offerings stated in Numbers were presented in the wilderness, but that those stated in Leviticus were not presented in the wilderness. Rabbi Aqiba (ibid.) avers that the sacrifices mentioned in Numbers represent a supplement to those listed in Leviticus, whereas Rabbi Tarfon asserts that the 7 sheep in Leviticus are identical with those in Numbers.

Thus, whereas the festivals have many different laws, Josephus here brings order into chaos, so to speak, by focusing upon 2 features that they all have in common, namely that they have whole burnt-offerings and that they give relief from work.

This is Josephus’ addition, repeated from Ant. 3.142. So also Mishnah Menaḥot 5:1 and Gemara Menaḥot 76b. According to the Mishnah Menaḥot 11:4, the length of the showbread loaves was ten handbreadths and their breadth five and their horns seven fingerbreadths. Lev. 24:5: “2 tenths of an ephah [i.e. ‮עשׂרן‬‎] shall be in each cake.” This is twice the amount used in the regular meal-offerings (Num. 15:4, Ant. 3.233). Josephus’ verb here, ἀναλοῦνται (“are expended”) is echoed in the noun ἀναλωμάτων (“expense”) (Ant. 3.257), just as ἀναλίσκεται (Ant. 3.236) is echoed in ἀναλώματος (Ant. 3.237). Altshuler (1977:89) notes that Josephus has added several procedural details to the Scriptural law about the bread of the presence, namely the claim that it was paid for by public monies, that it is baked on the Sabbath eve, and that the frankincense is placed in 2 golden platters. On the other hand, Josephus does not repeat the Bible’s identification of the loaves as a “memorial portion” (Lev. 24:7) and a “covenant” (24:8), nor does he say that Aaron is the one charged to set the offering in order. That they are baked by twos and separated is Josephus’ addition. So also Mishnah Menaḥot 11:1-2. Cf. Tosefta Menaḥot 11. According to Exod. 25:23-24 the table was to be of acacia wood, 2 cubits in length, a cubit in breadth, and a cubit and a half in height and is to be overlaid with pure gold. That they are brought in the morning and turned toward each other is Josephus’ addition. The 12 loaves presumably correspond to the 12 tribes of Israel.

In Ant. 3.143 they are called φιάλαι, i.e. cups, and are so depicted on the Arch of Titus. Josephus omits that the frankincense is to be pure and that it is “a memorial portion” (Lev. 24:7). The LXX (Lev. 24:7) and Philo (De Vita Mosis 2.22.104) add “and salt”; so also in the rabbinic tradition (Menaḥot 20a). That they remain until the next Sabbath is Josephus’ addition. In 1 Sam. 21:1-7 the showbread given by the priest Ahimelech to David presumably consisted of the old bread (1 Sam. 21:7): “So the priest gave him the holy bread; for there was no bread there but the bread of the Presence [i.e. the showbread], which is removed from before the Lord, to be replaced by hot bread on the day it is taken away.” In contrast, the usual meal-offering (Lev. 2:1) also consisted of fine flour mixed with oil. Moreover, only the incense is burnt, whereas in the usual meal-offerings the whole mixture is burnt upon the altar. That the frankincense is burned on the same sacred fire on which they burn all other whole burnt-offerings and that other incense is then placed upon the loaves is Josephus’ addition.

Daniel (1967:235) notes that Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 1.47.255-56) presents the ‮מנחת תמיד‬‎ as the offering of the priests, probably because if the high priest furnished the elements of it, it was consecrated on the altar by the priests of the service (cf. Mishnah Yoma 2:3). Josephus, however, speaks here only of “the priest,” which designates without doubt the high priest, while Philo refers to priests in the plural. So also Rabbi Judah in Mishnah Menaḥot 4:5. This is the offering at the ordination of the priests. Josephus omits that the meal-offering is of broken pieces and that it is to be mixed well (Lev. 6:14). Altshuler (1977:89) remarks that Josephus neglects to mention that Aaron’s successor will offer the ordination cereal offering and that it is a statute “forever” (Lev. 6:15). Lev. 6:13. So also Mishnah (Menaḥot 4:5). On Josephus’ mention of his projected work see also Ant. 1.25 and list of references cited there.

Josephus has omitted the statement (Num. 3:12) that God has taken the Levites instead of every first-born. The tribe of Levi is said, according to the rabbinic tradition (Sifre Num. 67 [ed. Horovitz, p. 62], Exod. Rabbah 15.1, 19.5), to have been the only tribe that practiced circumcision in Egypt and that did not worship idols there. They were the only tribe that did not participate in the sin of the golden calf (Num. Rabbah 3.7); according to Exod. 32:29, because of this they were blessed by God. So also Philo (De Vita Mosis 2.32.173, 2.49.274; De Specialibus Legibus 3.22.127), who notes that as a reward for their voluntarily taking up arms for the honor of God, in slaying those who had worshipped the golden calf (Exod. 32:25-29), they were promoted to be God’s ministers. Similarly, Philo (De Ebrietate 15.66-67). As Gallant (113-14) points out, the narrative account here of the inauguration of the Levites provides a connection with the purity laws that follow (Ant. 3.259-75). Josephus alludes in this sentence to the two types of purity laws that he then develops, namely those of segregation and those of purification. Cf. Ant. 3.205, where Josephus mentions that Moses purified Aaron and the latter’s sons with spring-water. There is, however, no passage in the Bible that refers to purification of the Levites with spring-water. The statement that the tribe of Levi is to be separated from associating with ordinary people and that they are to be purified is Josephus’ addition to Num. 3:6-9. Altshuler (1977:90) points out that Josephus omits the numerous details of the expiation process, the biblical explanation that the Levites are to serve in place of the first-born (Num. 8:16-19), and the scriptural regulations of Levitical service according to age (Num. 8:23-26). The specific statement that the Levites are to be entrusted with the things such as had been made for the covering of the Tent is Josephus’ addition to Num. 3:8. This is the reading of manuscripts S and P and the Latin version. The other manuscripts read “it,” i.e. the Tent. That the priests had already been consecrated is mentioned in Ant. 3.197.

Gallant (114) calls attention to the recurrence of verbs—διέκρινεν (“distinguished”), διεκώλυσεν (“forbade”)—with the prefix δια-, which denotes separation. Josephus thus provides an implicit rationalization for the dietary laws, namely to separate the Jews from others. On Josephus’ projected work cf. Ant. 1.25 and list of references cited there. Gallant (116 n. 80) conjectures that Josephus may have had in mind reasons similar to those found in the Letter of Aristeas (150-54), which suggests that the laws are symbolic, teaching that one should discriminate in one’s actions with a view to what is right; and in Philo (De Agricultura 30.131-32.145; De Specialibus Legibus 4.18.106-24.131), who views the laws allegorically. Gallant (115-16) asks why Josephus promises to give the reasons for the dietary laws in this proposed treatise, whereas in his projected treatise on the sacrifices he will simply distinguish those cases that require a holocaust from those that permit a portion to be consumed. Gallant’s answer is that for Josephus the structure of the sacrificial legal system itself is sufficient rationale for the law, whereas the dietary laws do not lend themselves to such a classification. Josephus has greatly abbreviated the list of and the laws concerning unclean animals (Lev. 11).

Lev. 17:11 gives as the reason for the abstention from blood the fact that the life of the flesh is in the blood, and that God has given the blood to be placed upon the altar to make atonement for people’s souls. The statement that the blood is the soul (ψυχή) and the spirit (πνεῦμα) is Josephus’ addition, but cf. Deut. 12:23: ‮הדם הוא הנפשׁ‬‎. So Deut. 14:21. Josephus omits the statement there that one may give such flesh to the alien “within your towns” or that it may be sold to a foreigner. Cf. Ant. 3.228. Gallant (117-18) notes that while the Bible (Lev. 7:23) prohibits the consumption of fat without specifying the forbidden organs, it does specify that the fat that covers the entrails (Lev. 3:3) is to be burnt upon the altar. Josephus here provides a connection between the dietary and sacrificial laws. As Altshuler (1977:91) remarks, the one notable exclusion from Josephus’ list is the prohibition of flesh torn from living beasts (Exod. 22:31, Lev. 7:24, 17:15). The reference to abstention from the caul of goats, sheep, and oxen is Josephus’ addition to Lev. 7:25. Ginzberg (1976:346 n. 15) points out that the presentation of the injunction against the consumption of blood in Josephus here is quite remarkable; taking his departure from Lev. 3:17 Josephus combines the injunctions against the consumption of blood and certain fats. However, Gallant (117) asks why Josephus uses the adjective “all” with regard to the prohibition of blood (Lev. 7:26-27), whereas he does not do so in connection with fat (Lev. 7:23). His answer is that the Bible extends the prohibition of blood to all species of fowl and animals (Lev. 7:26, 17:10), whereas the prohibition of fat is restricted to oxen, sheep, and goats (Lev. 7:23).

As Gallant (118-19) remarks, Josephus, in beginning his paraphrase of the laws pertaining to impurity, continues the separation theme with which he had explained the purpose of the dietary laws. In his consideration of the dietary laws Josephus had used verbs with the ἀπο-prefix; hence he connects his discussion of the impurity laws with these dietary laws by using the verb ἀπήλασε (“expelled”) rather than the LXX’s ἐξαποστειλάτωσαν (Num. 5:2). Lev. 13:46: “He [the leper] shall dwell alone in a habitation outside the camp.” The Mishnah (Kelim 1:7) asserts that lepers are sent outside the city walls. In a significant change, Josephus has Moses banish lepers not merely from the camp, as Lev. 13:46 and 14:3 have it, but also from the city (Ant. 3.261, Apion 1.281), the implication being that there were no lepers in Jerusalem in Josephus’ own day (see Hata 1987:190). Furthermore, Josephus deliberately omits the lengthy discussion of the symptoms of leprosy found in the Bible, inasmuch as this would presumably indicate to the reader that the malady was common among Jews. Lev. 15:1-5, which discusses the ritual impurity of the ‮זב‬‎, the man who has a running issue (probably gonorrhea), does not assert that such a person is expelled from the city. For citations of the isolation of impurity bearers in early rabbinic times see Alon (1957:169-73). Gallant (119) notes that in his paraphrase here of Num. 5:2 Josephus omits the category of corpse impurity. He explains this omission as due to his organizational scheme and his desire to avoid putting together cases of different categories, since leprosy and gonorrhea belong to one category (their impurity requires two sacrificial victims), whereas corpse defilement belongs to a different category, namely one in which the impurity lasts seven days. Lev. 15:19. This refers to women and not to those who have seminal emissions, since, according to Lev. 15:16, such persons are unclean until the evening. ἐνδημεῖν, lit. “to remain in a place.” Lev. 15:19-24 appears to indicate that the menstruating woman remains in her home. In general, however, the rabbinic halakhah is decidedly opposed to having the menstruating woman separated from the public (Mishnah Kelim 1:8), though the Karaites do accept this rigorous separation (Anan’s Book of Laws, ed. Harkavy, 41).

ἐνδημεῖν, lit. “to remain in a place,” as in 3.261. Num. 19:11 states that one who touches the dead body of a human is to be unclean for seven days. In Apion 2.205, where Josephus briefly summarizes the practice with regard to funerals, he states that after a funeral the house and its inmates must be purified; but he does not indicate the number of days that the mourner is regarded as impure. Milgrom (1978:515) notes that such isolation for the one who has come into contact with the dead is not required by the Temple Scroll. How could the sectaries of Qumran have envisaged the corpse-contaminated to have free mobility within the city during the seven days of his impurity? The Temple Scroll has an answer: ablutions on the first day. Milgrom (1978:516) remarks that the text dealing with the bearers of severe impurity in cities other than the temple-city warrants an additional difference: the leper is a discrete case, separated from the gonorrheic, menstruant, and parturient, as the biblical text (Lev. 14:8) makes the distinction explicit: lepers are isolated, whereas other impurity bearers “shall not contaminate in their midst” (Lev. 15:31). The implication is clear: lepers are banished and the others are quarantined. The latter corresponds, as noted, with conditions that prevailed at the end of Second Temple times, as recorded by the Mishnah (Niddah 7:4) and Josephus here. There is no mention in the Bible of such a sacrifice. Altshuler (1977:92) notes that in the Bible the sacrifices for one who has gonorrhea and for a woman who has a discharge of blood for many days is two turtledoves or two young pigeons (Lev. 15:14-15, 29-30), one for a holocaust and one for a sin-offering. The sacrifice for a leper (Lev. 14:10) is two lambs and one ewe-lamb a year old or one lamb and two birds (Lev. 14:21-22) for a guilt-offering, sin-offering, and holocaust respectively. For childbirth the requirements are a lamb as a holocaust and a bird as a sin-offering (Lev. 12:6) or two birds (Lev. 12:8). What Josephus has done, as Gallant (120-21) has remarked, is to note features that are common to these cases, namely that each includes a holocaust-sin-offering pair; and, where an animal is mentioned, it is a lamb. According to Lev. 14:10-13, lepers must pass 7 days after cleansing before offering sacrifices. The instance of defilement beyond the number of days (7) is not mentioned in the Pentateuch.

As Gallant (121) notes, gonorrhea is the only case of an impurity of long duration that Josephus singles out here. Josephus’ reason for doing so is to form a connection, through repetition of the word γονήν (“seed”), with the next case, that of one who has a nocturnal emission. Gallant (122) calls attention to the effectiveness of putting in juxtaposition the case having the least stringent purification requirement (seminal impurity) with the case having the most stringent requirement (leprosy), namely to emphasize the severity of the latter in preparation for the refutation of the charge that Moses and his followers were themselves lepers (Ant. 3.265-68).

The ‮צרעת‬‎ which is described in Lev. 13 and which is usually translated, as Josephus here, as leprosy, is clearly not leprosy, as Wright and Jones (1992:278) demonstrate: the disease described in Lev. requires quarantine periods of several days, whereas leprosy develops over a period of years; Lev. indicates that it is curable, whereas the only cure known is through drugs which were unknown in biblical days; leprosy does not cast off scales; the hair does not usually turn white or yellow; it is not associated with boils or blisters; it is associated with loss of feeling, a symptom not mentioned in the Bible; it leads to the destruction of hands, feet, and facial bones, phenomena not mentioned in the Bible. No skeletons prior to the sixth century B.C.E. show the characteristics of leprosy. As indicated by Wright and Jones (ibid.), no definite references to leprosy have been found whether in literary references or material finds prior to the fourth century B.C.E. Apparently, ‮צרעת‬‎ consists of several types of skin diseases that exhibit scaling of the skin. Lev. 14:8 states that the suspected leper is to be shut up for 7-day periods. Josephus adds the word “completely” (εἰς τὸ παντελὲς), as Gallant (123) notes, to emphasize the absoluteness of the banishment requirement. So also Ant. 3.261. The comparison with a corpse is Josephus’ addition. Weill (ad loc.) compares Num. 12:12, where Miriam, who has been afflicted with leprosy after criticizing Moses for marrying an Ethiopian woman, and where Aaron appeals to Moses that she should not be as a dead-born child. This is Josephus’ addition, intended to highlight the severity of the affliction. On imploring God successfully in the case of a leper see the case where Moses does so on behalf of Miriam (Num. 12:13). See Lev. 14:10: “And on the eighth day he [the priest] shall take 2 male lambs without blemish, and one ewe lamb a year old without blemish, and a cereal offering of three tenths of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil, and one log of oil.” The greater number of sacrificial victims is required because of gratitude to God for cure from so severe an affliction. Cf. Josephus’ other references to this projected work (Ant. 1.25 and list of references cited there).

Josephus is particularly eager to answer the canard, circulated by Manetho (ap. Apion 1.279), among others, that Moses’ appearance was marred by leprosy, and Lysimachus’ claim (ap. Apion 1.305-11), repeated by Josephus’ contemporary Tacitus (Hist. 5.3.1), that the ancestors of the Jews were lepers and diseased people who had been banished from Egypt for that reason (see Hata 1987:183). This canard is repeated by Nicarchus, ap. Phot., Lex., s.v. ἄλφα, in the first century C.E.; by Ptolemy Chennus, ap. Phot., Bib., Codex 190 (p. 151b), in the early second century C.E.; and by Helladius, ap. Phot., Bib., Codex 279 (p. 529b), in the early fourth century C.E. There we learn that Moses the legislator was called Alpha by the Jews because he had much dull-white leprosy (ἀλφοῖς) on his body. Inasmuch as Moses is nowhere else called thus in the extant literature, Heinemann (1935:361) has traced this tradition to the Alexandrian anti-Jewish version of the Exodus. That Josephus was sensitive to this charge is clear from his treatment of the passage in which Moses’ hand becomes leprous but is then restored (Exod. 4:6). In Josephus’ version we are told instead that when Moses drew forth his hand it was “white, of a color resembling chalk” (Ant. 2.273). Josephus points out the inherent contradiction on the part of the anti-Jewish Egyptian writers in, on the one hand, presenting Moses as an Egyptian priest and asserting that he was remarkable and even divine while, on the other hand, claiming that he was expelled because of leprosy (Apion 1.279). Ultimately, Josephus graciously but confidently leaves the decision to the reader (Ant. 3.268). However, just as Plato had declared that a philosopher-king should, if at all possible, be handsome (Rep. 7.535A11-12), so Josephus remarks upon Moses’ legislation that even the slightest mutilation was reason enough for disqualification from the priesthood and that a priest who during the course of his service met with such an accident was to be deprived of his position. Josephus then asks whether it is likely that Moses would have enacted such a stringent law if he himself had been affected by such an affliction (Apion 1.284-85). That Moses led the Israelites into Canaan contradicts, of course, the biblical account (Deut. 34:1-6). According to Hecataeus, in an account almost uniformly favorable to the Jews (ap. Diod. 40.3.3), most of the Israelites, driven from Egypt after that land had been beset by a pestilence that the Egyptians concluded had been caused by the disrespect for their gods shown by the Israelites, were driven into Judea, where their leader, Moses, founded Jerusalem. The anti-Semitic accounts of Manetho, Chaeremon, Lysimachus, and Apion do not assert that Moses guided the Israelites into Canaan; but Manetho (ap. Apion 1.262) does say that Moses formed an alliance with the Hyksos inhabitants of Jerusalem. Gruen (1998) has now boldly argued that the Jews played a large part in reshaping or misshaping the biblical Exodus for polemical purposes; see my reply (1998:123-27).

The example mentioned in the Bible is that of Naaman (2 Kgs. 5:1-27), who was the commander of the army of the king of Syria and who went to the prophet Elisha seeking to be healed of his leprosy, an incident that Josephus (Ant. 9.50) completely omits, though Marcus (1937:28-29) believes that there is a lacuna in Josephus’ text, since he omits all mention of the incidents found in 2 Kgs. 4:8 to 6:8.

Cf. Apion 1.283, where Josephus similarly asserts that if Moses had been afflicted with leprosy one would have expected him to show some consideration and fellow-feeling for others similarly afflicted.

Cf. Apion 1.279: “The Egyptians, who regard that man [Moses] as remarkable, even divine, wish to claim him as one of themselves, while making the incredible and calumnious assertion that he was one of the priests expelled from Heliopolis for leprosy.” This formula leaving such judgments to the reader appears in many places in Josephus (see note on Ant. 1.108), usually in connection with miracles. Ladouceur (1983:27) points out that while it is true that Josephus leaves it up to his readers to decide whether or not they will accept his account, the fact that he begins his account (Ant. 3.265) by ridiculing those who assert that Moses had been stricken with leprosy and concludes (Ant. 3.268) with the statement that those who make such statements are motivated by jealousy indicates where he stands on this matter.

Lev. 12:4: “She shall not touch any hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying are completed.” Lev. 12:6: “She shall bring to the priest ... a lamb a year old for a burnt-offering, and a young pigeon or a turtledove for a sin-offering.” Lev. 12:8: “If she cannot afford a lamb, then she shall take 2 turtledoves or 2 young pigeons, one for a burnt-offering and the other for a sin-offering; and the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be clean.” In the Bible it is the priest who offers the sacrifice, whereas in Josephus it is the women who do so. As Gallant (125) remarks, the net result of the changes made by Josephus is that there is an adversative parallelism between the prohibitions and the requirements of purification: the woman was prohibited from entering the temple and touching the sacrifices; after the fixed time she enters the Temple and offers the sacrifices. This adversative relationship is highlighted by the contrast between the particle δέ at the beginning of the prohibition followed by μέντοι in the statement of her purification. As Gallant (133 n.87) remarks, in his list of categories of impurity (Ant. 3.261-64), Josephus does not explain the relationship to sacrifices. Though he does not devote a separate discussion to any other case of impurity, he does in the case of the woman who has given birth, even though this category has already been covered by the case of the person who “exceeds this number of days in a state of defilement” (Ant. 3.262). Since childbirth is the only category of impurity where contact with that which is holy and entrance into the Temple are forbidden and since Josephus replaces “holy” with “sacrifices,” Josephus is able to classify the laws in Ant. 3.259-73 as provisions with regard to the sacrifices and the purification relating to them. Hence, as Nodet (ad loc.) remarks, the priests do not consume it. Schalit (ad loc.) notes that the term διανέμονται (“distribute,” “divide among themselves”), which Thackeray translates “apportion,” may suggest that the priests split the sacrifices between themselves and God (the altar). But, as Altshuler (1977:96) remarks, neither the parallel Schalit cites, in Herodotus 8:123 (which refers to the fact that the Greek admirals, after the Battle of Salamis, split [διένεμον] their votes as to who should be awarded the prize for excellence), nor the biblical source, Lev. 12:6-8, demands such an interpretation.

Num. 5:13 specifies that a man has lain with her carnally, that it is hidden from the eyes of her husband, that there is no witness against her, and that she has not been caught in the act. Cf. Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 3.10.52-62). A tenth part of an ephah. Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 3.10.53-54) adds that before the ordeal is carried out there is a preliminary hearing in which the husband is required to draw up a formal challenge and present his case before the judges, and the woman is given an opportunity to plead her cause. Josephus omits the statement that the husband brings the wife to the priest (Num. 5:15), as well as the description of the preparation of the offering (Num. 5:15), namely that no oil is to be poured upon it nor any frankincense put upon it, and that the priest places the offering upon the palms of the wife (Num. 5:18), as well as the mention that the priest takes the meal offering from the woman and waves it (Num. 5:25). As Gallant (125-26) points out, the Bible divides the meal offering into three stages: the husband brings the barley flour (Num. 5:15), the priest places the meal offering upon the woman’s palms (Num. 5:18), and the meal offering is waved and burnt (Num. 5:25-26). These stages are separated by several intervening rituals (Num. 5:17-24). As Gallant (126) notes, Josephus eliminates the discontinuity inherent in this description and combines all references to this offering in the first sentence of his discussion. That one handful is to be thrown for God and the rest given to the priests for food is Josephus’ addition. Similarly, the Mishnah (Soṭah 3:2) states that the priest is to take a handful of the meal offering and burn it on the altar and that the residue is to be eaten by the priests. According to the prior view in the Mishnah (Soṭah 3:2), first the suspected woman is given the water of bitterness to drink and then the meal offering is sacrificed, whereas Josephus’ view here is that which is presented in the Mishnah by Rabbi Simeon, namely that the meal offering is sacrificed first. Olitzki (1885: 22-23) concludes that the ordeal of the bitter waters was no longer in practice during Josephus’ time. The statement that the woman is stationed at the gates that are turned toward the Temple is Josephus’ addition. Similarly, the Mishnah (Soṭah 1:5) states that the woman is brought up to the eastern gate of the Temple, which is at the entrance to Nicanor’s Gate. Num. 5:18 states that the priest is to uncover the woman’s head. So also the LXX reads ἀποκαλύψει (“will uncover”). RSV translates less literally “unbind the hair of the woman’s head.” Josephus adds the veil. It is from this verse that the rabbinic tradition (Sifre Num. 11 [ed. Horovitz, p. 17]) deduces that married women must cover their heads in public. That such women did, indeed, cover their heads is clear from 3 Macc. 4:6, Susanna 32, Nedarim 30b, and Num. Rabbah 9.16. According to Num. 5:23, the priest is to write the curses, which, to be sure, contain the name of God, in the book, i.e. the scroll. Rabbi Judah in the Mishnah (Soṭah 2:3) specifies that the verse (Num. 5:21) “The Lord make you an execration and an oath among your people, when the Lord makes your thigh fall away and your body swell” is to be written there. Rabbi Meir’s view (ibid.) is that the verses from “If no man has lain with you” (Num. 5:19) through “and your thigh fall away” (Num. 5:22) are to be written. διφθέρα, prepared hide, especially as writing material. Num. 5:23 prescribes that the curses are to be written in a book. The Mishnah (Soṭah 2:4) explicitly declares that the writing is to be neither on a tablet nor on papyrus nor on ‮דפתרא‬‎ (διφθέρα) but only on a parchment scroll; hence, the Mishnah specifically contradicts Josephus. Megillah 19a defines ‮דפתרא‬‎ as a skin prepared with salt and flour but not with gallnut, that is, not fully prepared. In the Bible the writing and the expunging of the oath (Num. 5:23) come later, whereas Josephus has placed them immediately after the uncovering of the woman’s head.

That it is to be the right leg is Josephus’ addition to Num. 5:21, which merely mentions the thigh. Num. 5:21 says that her thigh is to fall away. Josephus omits the reply of “Amen” by the woman when the curses are read to her (Num. 5:22). Num. 5:27 says that the woman shall become an execration (‮אלה‬‎, “curse”) among her people, but does not say that she should die. According to Num. 5:19-20, the oath given to the woman refers to her alleged actions but says nothing about the husband’s feelings, though such feelings are mentioned at the beginning of the discussion as grounds for the husband’s suspicion of his wife. That the husband’s jealousy is the result of too much love is Josephus’ addition. Perhaps Josephus is thinking of Herod, who, he says, always felt a burning love for his wife Mariamne and who was scarcely able to bear his jealousy when he heard the accusation of his sister Salome that her husband Joseph had frequently had intercourse with Mariamne (Ant. 15.81-82). Num. 5:28 states simply that she shall conceive seed, without specifying that it is to be a male child and that it is to be born in the tenth month thereafter. The rabbinic tradition, in the name of Rabbi Ishmael (Sifre Num. 19 [ed. Horovitz, p. 23]), similarly specifies that a male child is to be born to the woman. By having the child born ten months later all suspicion is removed that the child is the result of the alleged infidelity of the wife.

According to the Bible, the placement of the earth into the potion (Num. 5:17) is followed by the uncovering of the woman’s head (Num. 5:18), then by the administration of the oath to the accused woman (Num. 5:19-22), then by the writing of the curses and the expunging of them (Num. 5:23). Josephus is more orderly, placing the expunging of the Name of God and the placement of the earth together before the administration of the bitter waters. I.e. of God. According to the Mishnah (Soṭah 2:4), the writing must be with ink that can be blotted out. φιάλη (a broad, flat bowl or saucer). The same word (‮פילי‬‎) is used by the Mishnah (Soṭah 2:2) for the clay bowl which the husband is to bring and in which the bitter waters are to be put. According to Num. 5:17, the priest puts the dust in the water before he causes her to swear. According to Num. 5:23, after writing the curses in the “book,” the priest proceeds to blot them out with the bitter waters. There is no specific mention that he wipes off the name [i.e. of God] or that he wrings it into the bowl. In Num. 5:17-24 the priest first takes the dust from the floor of the tabernacle and puts it in holy water, then administers the oath to the accused woman and causes her to drink the bitter waters. Num. 5:28 states merely that the acquitted woman shall “conceive seed.” Josephus adds that she shall carry the child to term.

Num. 5:27 states merely that her belly will swell. That it is dropsy that will affect her is Josephus’ addition. Thackeray (ad loc.) suggests that the swelling belly is an indication that the birth will be abortive and that the “leg” is euphemistic. Gallant (130) notes the effectiveness in Josephus of the recurrence of κατά as a preposition and as a prefix heightening the counterpoint between the two outcomes: κατὰ τὴν γαστέρα (“in her belly,” Ant. 3.272), καταστρέφει (“she ends,” Ant. 3.273), καταλαβόντος (“seizing,” Ant. 3.273). According to the Mishnah (Soṭah 9:9), the ordeal of the bitter waters was cancelled by Rabbi Joḥanan ben Zakkai in the second half of the first century C.E. when adulterers became numerous. Very effective also is the contrast between τελεσφορεῖται (“carries to term”) and καταστρέφει (“she ends”), both of which contain the consonants σ, φ, ρ, τ in their stems. This is Josephus’ summary of the laws mentioned in Ant. 3.224-73. Lit., “such,” “preceding.” Thackeray (ad loc.), however, understands this word in the unusual sense of “following” and points to Ant. 3.151 for a similar use of τοιοῦτος.

So Lev. 20:10. The case of the suspected adulteress naturally leads to a discussion of the laws pertaining to forbidden marriages. Lev. 18:6-18 begins with the prohibited incestuous relationships and ends with adultery (Lev. 18:20), whereas Lev. 20 begins with adultery (Lev. 20:10) and continues with incestuous relationships (Lev. 20:11-14). Josephus follows the latter order in order to provide a connection with the preceding passage concerning the wife suspected of adultery. The reason for the prohibition of adultery is Josephus’. Cf. Ant. 4.254, where Josephus similarly remarks that levirate marriage is profitable to the public welfare. Lev. 20:11. The statement that this is the greatest evil is Josephus’ addition. The enormity of this sin is accentuated by the alliteration, as Gallant (135) notes: μίσγεσθαι (“to have intercourse”), μητράσιν (“with mothers”), μέγιστον (“greatest”). Moreover, the first five letters of μίσγεσθαι and μέγιστον are identical but in a different order. Josephus omits the prohibition (Lev. 20:21) of having relations with one’s brother’s wife.

In listing the cases of the menstruous woman, bestiality, and sodomy Josephus is not following the biblical order (Lev. 18:19, 23, 22; 20:18, 15-16, 13). In putting them together Josephus is finding a common denominator in that they are perverse physical relationships in contrast to perverse marital or familial relationships. Cf. Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 3.8.43), who likewise combines homosexuality and bestiality. The motive of homosexuality, because of the beauty of the male, is Josephus’ addition. Josephus’ use of assonance, as noted by Gallant (137), is extremely effective: τιμᾶν (“to esteem”) followed by ὥραν (“beauty”), which, in turn, are followed by the punishment for these crimes, ὥρισε τὴν τιμωρίαν (“designated the penalty”). Lev. 20:10-16 prescribes the death penalty for adultery, incest, and homosexuality but not for cohabitation with a menstruous woman. In this last case, and in the case of incest with one’s sister or half-sister, Lev. 20:17-18 prescribes as the penalty that both the man and the woman are to be “cut off [‮נכרתו‬‎] from among their people,” that is, as defined by the rabbis, “death at the hands of heaven” (Mishnah Yebamot 4:13 and Megillah 1:5). The Mishnah (Keritot 1:1) enumerates 36 transgressions that are subject to the penalty of ‮כרת‬‎. Moreover, the Bible (Lev. 20:10-11) clearly specifies, as Josephus does not, that both the man and the woman involved in the adulterous act and in the act of incest with one’s mother are subject to the death penalty. Josephus omits the prohibition of offering children as sacrifices to Molech (Lev. 18:21).

Lev. 21:6 says simply that priests are to be holy unto God. Cf. Apion 1.30-31: “They [our ancestors] took precautions to ensure that the priests’ lineage should be kept unadulterated and pure. A member of the priestly order must, to beget a family, marry a woman of his own race [whereas Lev. 21:14 applies this only to a high priest], without regard to her wealth or other distinctions; but he must investigate her pedigree, obtaining the genealogy from the archives and producing a number of witnesses.” Cf. Mishnah (Qiddushin 4:4): He who marries the daughter of a priest has to investigate her genealogy for four generations, via the mothers. Here, as elsewhere (Ant. 4.206, 245), Josephus uses the familiar Greek verb (ἑταιρέω) referring to a courtesan rather than the verb πορνεύω (“to prostitute oneself”) or the corresponding noun πόρνη. Elsewhere (Ant. 4.245) Josephus applies this prohibition of marrying a prostitute to all Jews, whereas the prohibition in Lev. 21:7 applies only to priests. According to Rabbi Judah (Sifra Emor 1 [ed. Weiss, p. 94b]), the prostitute referred to in Lev. 21:7 is a barren woman who is incapable of conception, whereas the other rabbis say that she is a proselyte or a freedwoman who has had sexual relations; and Rabbi Eliezer says that it refers to an unmarried woman who has had relations with an unmarried man but not for purpose of marriage. Grünbaum (1887:16-17) argues that since Josephus has already stated that the law demands twice as much purity from priests it is superfluous to state that it prohibits marrying a prostitute, and he consequently understands the term ἠταιρηκυῖα to be Josephus’ equivalent for ‮חללה‬‎, that is, one who is profaned.. The prohibition to marry a slave applies to all Jews, as Josephus (Ant. 4.244) states elsewhere. Josephus appears here to equate “a woman who has been defiled” (Lev. 21:7 ) with a slave and prisoner of war. There is no specific statement in the Bible that a priest must not marry a woman who had been taken prisoner in war. However, according to Josephus (Apion 1.34), whenever there are wars “the surviving priests compile fresh records from the archives; they also pass scrutiny upon the remaining women, and disallow marriage with any who have been taken captive, suspecting them of having had frequent intercourse with foreigners.” According to the Mishnah (Ketubot 2:9), when a city has been overcome by a siege, all priestly women found therein, unless they have witnesses that they have not had sexual relations with the invaders, are invalid to return to their husbands, since it is assumed that they might have been defiled by the troops. Josephus (Ant. 13.292) cites the instance in which a certain Eleazar (Judah the son of Gedidiah in Qiddushin 66a), with, according to a Sadducee named Jonathan, the general approval of the Pharisees, advised King John Hyrcanus (Alexander Jannaeus in Qiddushin) to give up the high priesthood since it had been rumored (falsely, as it turned out) that his mother had been taken captive during the period of Antiochus Epiphanes’ persecution of the Jews. Josephus himself (Life 414) says that, at the command of Vespasian, he married a woman who had been taken captive at Caesarea, but is careful to add immediately that she was a virgin. Revel (1923-24:298-99) notes that the law enjoining a priest to refrain from marrying a shop- or inn-keeper is unknown to tradition. He suggests that it is possible that Josephus records here, as in several other places (see Olitzki [1886-87:13 n.4 and 24 ff.]), as law, a custom that prevailed among the priests of his time. The priests were very rigorous in the fulfillment of the requirements of the law in all matters pertaining to family purity, and many of them may have refrained from marrying a woman engaged in any unbecoming occupation such as inn- or shopkeeping (see Mishnah ‘Eduyot 8:3). Revel suggests that Josephus interpreted ‮זנה‬‎ in Lev. 21:7 to mean inn-keeper, as derived from ‮זון‬‎, “to feed” (Bloch [1879:41]; Olitzki [1886-87:11 n.19]; Grünbaum [1887:17]). Thackeray (ad loc.) notes that the Targum Onqelos (e.g., Josh. 2:1, Judg. 11:1; ‮פונדקן‬‎ in 1 Kgs. 3:16) commonly translates the Hebrew word ‮זונה‬‎ (“harlot”) by the Aramaic ‮פונדקיתא‬‎ (derived from the verb πανδοκεύειν, “to keep an inn,” which is here used by Josephus). Indeed, whereas the Bible (Josh. 2:1) speaks of Rahab as a harlot (‮זונה‬‎, LXX πόρνη), Josephus (Ant. 5.7-8) speaks of her as an innkeeper. Revel, nevertheless, prefers the explanation that Josephus derived this law prohibiting priests from marrying a “profaned” (‮חללה‬‎) woman in Lev. 21:7 according to its literal meaning (see Mishnah Qiddushin 4:6, Qiddushin 77a and parallels), i.e. one who is engaged in any occupation unbecoming to women, among which occupations he, like the rabbis, included inn- and shop-keeping (see Buuchler [1895:63 n. 3, 90]). As to the reputation of innkeepers, cf. their implied general untrustworthiness in the Mishnah Yebamot 16:7 and the statement in Mishnah ‘Abodah Zarah 2:1, that one should not leave cattle in gentiles’ inns because they are suspect with regard to bestiality. On the reputation of tavern-keepers (καπηλίς, Latin copa) and their association with prostitution see Athenaeus 13.567a, Pollux 9.34: καπηλεῖα καὶ πορνεῖα, cited by Schalit (ad loc.). This interpretation of ‮חללה‬‎ as meaning “one profaned by unbecoming action or occupation” is held also by most Karaite authorities (e.g. Aaron b. Elijah, Gan ‘Eden 150a). The usual meaning of ‮חללה‬‎ is the female issue of a relationship forbidden to a priest. Lev. 21:7. As noted by Grünbaum (24-25), Josephus has omitted two other restrictions placed upon priests, as cited in the Talmud, namely levirate marriage (Qiddushin 78a) and marriage to a female proselyte (unless she was converted before the age of three years and a day) (Qiddushin 78a, Yebamot 60b).

By referring to “the wife of a man who had died” rather than Scripture’s ‮אלמנה‬‎ (“widow”), Josephus, as Gallant (140) perceives, provides a connection with the topic that follows, corpse defilement. However, Ezek. 44:22 asserts that priests may not marry a widow unless that widow is the widow of a priest. Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 1.21.108) asserts that ordinary priests are permitted to marry widows and explains that this limitation is due to the fact that while the first husband lives, “quarrels might be engendered by the feminine proclivity to jealousy,” but that once that husband has died there will no longer be any hostility toward the second husband. Josephus here omits the statement in Lev. 21:9 that if the daughter of a priest plays the harlot she is to be burned with fire. Lev. 21:14: “He shall take to wife a virgin of his own people” (‮בתולה מעמיו‬‎). Grünbaum (1887:28-29) comments that the literal meaning of ‮מעמיו‬‎ is “of his own peoples,” the implication being that he may marry a woman from any of the twelve tribes. The translation “of his own tribe” is based upon an emendation by Mangey (see Thackeray’s note ad loc.) of φυλέτης (“one of the same tribe”) for the manuscript reading φυλάττειν (“to guard” her, i.e. he must use great care in the choice of a spouse), although Nodet (ad loc.) understands this reading to mean that he may not repudiate her, a law that is not elsewhere attested, as he notes. So also Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 1.22.110) says that the high priest must marry “a priestess descended from priests, so that bride and bridegroom may be of one house and in a sense of the same blood and so, harmoniously united, show a lifelong blending of temperament firmly established.” This might indicate Josephus’ dependence upon Philo’s interpretation, but Grünbaum (29 n. 1) suggests that φυλέτης may mean not of the same tribe but of the same “stock,” as we see in Ant. 4.223, where Josephus cites the law (Deut. 17:15) that a king must be of the same stock (ὁμόφυλος) as the Israelites, where the meaning is not that he must be of the same tribe but rather that he must belong to the same Israelite nation. Cf. Ezek. 44:22: “They [priests] shall ...marry...only a virgin of the stock of the house of Israel.” Kohler (1931:70-71) notes that Josephus takes the phrase ‮בתולה מעמיו‬‎ (Lev. 21:14) in the literal sense to which the Sadducees apparently adhered, whereas the rabbinic halakah in its anti-Sadducean zeal went so far as to allow the high priest to marry the daughter of a proselyte, interpreting the word ‮מעמיו‬‎ to mean “from anyone who belongs to his nation,” including even the daughter of an Ammonite proselyte (Sifra Emor 2 [ed. Weiss, p. 95a], Yebamot 77b; cf. Ritter [1879:73]). Daniel (1967:225-26) concludes that because Josephus agrees with Philo we may suppose that the usage was effectively in force in his time. According to Apion 1.31, an ordinary priest also must marry a woman of his own race (ἐξ ὁμοεθνοῦς γυναικός), i.e., apparently, the daughter of a priest. Here the meaning cannot be that the priest must marry an Israelite woman, since marriage with non-Israelites is forbidden to all Israelites and not merely to priests (Deut. 7:3). Lev. 21:11: “He [the high priest] shall not go in to any dead body, nor defile himself, even for his father or for his mother.” Whereas the Bible first presents the laws concerning the ordinary priest’s contact with a corpse (Lev. 21:6) and his marital restrictions (Lev. 21:7-9), followed by the parallel laws pertaining to the high priest (Lev. 21:10-12, 13-14), Josephus here deals first with the marital restrictions for both and then with the laws for both pertaining to contact with a corpse. In so doing Josephus brings into juxtaposition the priestly marital restrictions with those stated in the preceding paragraphs (Ant. 3.274-75). Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 1.23.112) also remarks that ordinary priests may incur defilement for fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, brothers, and maiden sisters alone. Lev. 21:11 does not specify which dead relatives an ordinary priest may approach; but Lev. 21:2 mentions parents, children, brother, and a sister who is a virgin.

The requirement that the priests be completely faultless is emphasized by the repetition of the root: ἀφελεῖς...ἀφέλειαν. Cf. War 5.228: “All who were of priestly lineage but were prevented from officiating by some physical defect were admitted within the parapet, along with those free from any imperfection, and received the portions that were their birthright, but wore ordinary dress.” In answer to the charge that Moses was himself a leper, Josephus (Apion 1.284) replies: “The very slightest mutilation of the person was a disqualification for the priesthood, and a priest who in the course of his ministry met with such an accident was deprived of his office,” thus indicating that it made no difference whether the priest was born with the deformity or acquired it later. Cf. Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 1.16.80): “It is ordained that the priest should be perfectly sound throughout, without any bodily deformity... All these [laws pertaining to priestly purity] seem to me to symbolize perfection of soul.” Cf. Lev. 21:21-22, which states that if a priest has a blemish he may not offer the fire-offerings, but he may eat of the bread of his God. So also the Mishnah (Zebaḥim 12:1) states that blemished priests, whether the blemishes are permanent or temporary, are not permitted to offer sacrifices but may eat the holy things in the evening. According to Lev. 21:23, a priest who has a blemish is not permittd to approach the veil and the altar. Similarly, according to the Mishnah (Menaḥot 13:10), priests who have served in the Temple of Onias in Leontopolis (cf. War 7.422-32, Ant. 13.62-73) are consequently blemished and not permitted to serve in the Temple in Jerusalem, but they may eat of the offerings. That priests must be very careful with regard to their manner of living is Josephus’ addition. This is emphasized by the repetition of sound: δίαιταν (“manner of life”), followed shortly thereafter by αἰτίαν (“reason”), as noted by Gallant (142). Before a priest was allowed to officiate in the Temple his pedigree was investigated, but once he had officiated, the purity of his pedigree was assumed, since otherwise he would not have been allowed to do so before a full investigation of his genealogy (Pesaḥim 3b).

Lev. 21:12 does not speak of priestly garb, but it does speak of the priestly crown. That priests are forbidden to drink wine is Josephus’ addition here. The prohibition is a development of Lev. 10:9, which prohibits drinking when priests go into the Tent of meeting. So also Ezek. 44:21: “No priest shall drink wine when he enters the inner court.” Cf. Apion 2.108: “Nothing of the nature of food or drink is brought within the Temple.” Likewise War 5.229 states that the priests scrupulously abstained from strong drink “through reverence for the ritual, lest they should be guilty of any transgression in their ministrations.” Josephus also quotes Hecataeus of Abdera (ap. Apion 1.199) as asserting that priests abstain altogether from wine while in the Temple. The rabbinic tradition (Keritot 13b) asserts that since Lev. 10:9 specifies abstention from wine and strong drink, the priest is guilty only if the quantity is sufficient to make him drunk, since the word ‮שׁכר‬‎ (“strong drink”) means intoxicating drink. The rabbis then specify that the quantity capable of causing intoxication is a fourth of a log of wine of 40 days’ standing. One rabbi adds that if the priest interrupts or dilutes the wine with any quantity of water he is not guilty. Josephus omits the statement (Lev. 21:22) that a priest may eat “the bread of his God, both of the most holy and of the holy things.” In this summary of the laws pertaining to priests (Lev. 21), Josephus omits the prohibition against haircutting and shaving the corner of the beard and making an incision in their flesh (Lev. 21:5), laws prohibiting the high priest from letting the hair of his head hang loose and from rending his clothes (Lev. 21:10), and the list of defects that disqualify priests, namely a blemish, blindness, lameness, a mutilated face, a limb too long, an injured foot or hand, a hunchback, a dwarf, a man with a defect in sight, one who has an itching disease or scabs or crushed testicles (Lev. 21:18-20). Despite Josephus’ categorical statement that sacrificial victims must be perfect, the Bible (Lev. 22:23) states that an ox or a lamb that has a limb too long or too short may be offered.

The Pentateuch itself ties the implementation of a number of commandments with the occupation of the Land of Israel. For example (Lev. 20:23), it is only in the Land of Israel that the law forbidding the eating of the first three years’ fruits of trees applies. Likewise, the sheaf of the first fruits of the harvest will then be given to the priest (Lev. 23:10).

Lev. 25:4-5 specifies that during the sabbatical year one may not sow one’s field or prune one’s vineyard or harvest what grows of itself “in your harvest.” Josephus omits pruning and harvesting but adds ploughing. Gallant (144) suggests that pruning and harvesting are omitted by Josephus because they are not performed upon the land but rather on the produce of the land; on the other hand, ploughing, which Josephus adds, is performed on the land. The analogy with the Sabbath is Josephus’ addition, inspired presumably by the fact (Lev. 25:2) that during the sabbatical year the land is to keep a sabbath to the Lord. Exod. 23:11 says that in the sabbatical year the land is to lie fallow so that the needy may eat and so that what they leave the beasts of the field may eat. Lev. 25:6 states that the products of the sabbatical year are to be made available to male and female slaves, hired servants, and sojourners, as well as for cattle and beasts in the land. Cf. Ant. 4.234 and 236 on opening one’s fields to strangers from other countries, entreating them to accept as guests those gifts that God has granted them. Belkin (1940:207) notes that with regard to the thief who has been sold into slavery the Bible (Exod. 22:2) does not indicate whether or not he is freed in the seventh year. According to Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael Neziqin 13 (ed. Horovitz, p. 288), even if his service of 6 years does not amount to the value of the theft, the slave must be set free and cannot be sold again; cf. Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 4.1.4), who asserts that the thief is to be released at or before the seventh year. Josephus omits mention of the effect of the sabbatical year upon the status of thieves. He also omits mention of the release of debts in the sabbatical year (Deut. 15:1-3) and the fact that at the end of the seventh year, on the Festival of Tabernacles, the law is to be read in the presence of all the people of Israel (Deut. 31:10-13).

Josephus declares that debtors are absolved from debts in the Jubilee year, whereas the biblical text speaks of the remission of debts in the seventh or Sabbatical year (Deut. 15:1-11). Perhaps Josephus was influenced by the juxtaposition of the provision that during the Jubilee year one may not take interest on loans and that slaves are to be freed (Lev. 25:35-43). The rabbinic tradition (Sifre Deut. 112 [ed. Finkelstein, p. 173]), like the biblical tradition, declares that the Sabbatical year, but not the Jubilee year, annuls debts. Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 2.25.122), mentions that slaves are set free in the Jubilee year but says nothing about debtors being freed from their debts in that year. In his De Virtutibus 19.100, however, Philo asserts that all the laws (presumably including release from debts) of the Sabbatical year are applicable in the Jubilee year, except that in the Jubilee year possessions ceded to others are returned to their original owners. Nevertheless, the institution of the ‮פרוזבול‬‎ in the early part of the first century C.E. by Hillel, who saw that people refrained from giving loans before the onset of the Sabbatical year, is based on the assumption that the law of release did not affect debts of which the bonds had been delivered to the court before the Sabbatical year (Mishnah, Shebi‘it 10:3). This, in effect, cancelled the abrogation of the debts, inasmuch as the court was regarded as a corporate body as distinguished from one’s “neighbor” (Deut. 15:2), and the court would collect its debts after the Sabbatical year. Since Josephus does not mention the ‮פרוזבול‬‎, Olitzki (1985:24) concludes that even though Hillel lived before Josephus, the ‮פרוזבול‬‎ was not in effect in Josephus’ time. Exod. 22:2 speaks of the thief who is unable to make full restitution and who consequently is sold into slavery. Belkin (1940:208) points out that Josephus’ statement that criminals were sold into slavery for crimes other than theft is at variance with the Bible and Halakah, but cf. Baba Meẓia 73b: “Rabbi Seoram, Raba’s brother, used to seize [Jewish] people of disrepute and make them draw Raba’s litter. Said Raba to him: You have done well. For it has been taught: If you see a man who does not behave in a seemly fashion, whence do we know that you may make him your servant? From the verse, ‘You may make slaves of them [i.e. Canaanites], but over your brethren the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another, with harshness.’” (Lev. 25:46). Qiddushin 18a says that while servitude is the punishment of a person duly convicted of theft and unable to make the prescribed restitution, false witnesses, who had intended to make a person pay money and who are sentenced according to biblical law to pay the same sum, may not be sold into slavery if they cannot pay the fine. Lev. 25:39-41 itself speaks not of punishment but of a person selling himself into slavery because of poverty. The case referred to here is to be distinguished from the one mentioned in Ant. 4.273, where a Hebrew sold to another Hebrew is to serve for 6 years and is to be freed in the seventh (Exod. 21:2). Lev. 25:39-42 refers to indigent Hebrews who voluntarily sell themselves into servitude and who are to be set free in the Jubilee year. Rabbinic tradition (Sifra Behar 2 [ed. Weiss, p. 107c]) clearly states that slaves are freed in the Jubilee, not the Sabbatical year.

The word ‮יובל‬‎ (Lev. 25:10) does not mean “freedom.” The usual etymology is that the word means “ram” (Phoenician ybl), as noted by Wright (1992:1025), since the ram’s horn, serving as a trumpet, announced its arrival. The LXX (Lev. 25:10) says that the year is a manifestation of release (ἐνιαυτὸς ἀφέσεως σημασία), where ἄφεσις (“release”) is the translation of ‮דרור‬‎ (“liberty”). Thackeray (ad loc.) asserts that Josephus has erroneously equated ἄφεσις with ‮יובל‬‎; Gallant (147) claims that ‮יובל‬‎ signals liberty. Cf. Ant. 3.252. Lev. 25:27: “Let him reckon the years since he sold it and pay back the overpayment to the man to whom he sold it; and he shall return to his property.” As Gallant (148) notes, Josephus omits the case of redemption prior to the Jubilee year and, on the contrary, transforms the pre-sale calculations into a settling of accounts in the Jubilee year itself. This makes for uniformity: it is in the Jubilee year itself that debts are annulled, slaves are emancipated, and land audits occur.

This is the emendation of Herwerden. The manuscripts read “he pays...and forfeits the property.” In Lev. 25:15-16 the price is dependent upon the number of harvest years until the next Jubilee. Nothing is said about making such a reckoning at the time of the Jubilee. The rationale of the return of the land is that it cannot be sold in perpetuity since the land belongs to God (Lev. 25:23). Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 2.22.113) gives two reasons for the return of the land: first, “the whole country is called God’s property, and it is against religion to have anything that is God’s property registered under other masters. Another reason is that each of the holders has a portion assigned to him by lot; and that this should be taken from him is contrary to the law’s conception of justice.”

Lev. 25:31: “The houses of the villages that have no wall around them shall be reckoned with the fields of the country; they may be redeemed, and they shall be released in the Jubilee.” Lev. 25:29-30: “If a man sells a dwelling house in a walled city, he may redeem it within a whole year after its sale.... If it is not redeemed within a full year, then the house that is in the walled city shall be made sure in perpetuity to him who bought it, throughout his generations; it shall not be released in the Jubilee.” A similar distinction in law between walled and unwalled cities is to be found in connection with the reading of the scroll of Esther on Purim (Mishnah Megillah 1:1). The language of compulsion is Josephus’ addition.

The mention of the encampment of the army is Josephus’ addition to Lev. 27:34. This military element becomes the point of connection with what follows in Ant. 3.287, namely the examination of the Israelite army. Gallant (152 n.94) notes a parallel in the transition from the discussion of civil law (Ant. 4.199-291) to the discussion of military provisions (Ant. 4.292-301). This would seem to be contradicted in Ant. 4.302, where Josephus states that Moses transmitted laws that had been written 40 years earlier, about which Josephus will speak in another work. But there is no necessary contradiction, since in the latter passage Josephus does not state that he has not described the laws, but merely indicates that he intends to do so, presumably at further length and from the point of view of the reasons for the commandments, in a future work. Aside from the 2 tablets containing the 10 Commandments, the Pentateuch itself does not indicate that all the other laws were transmitted in writing.

Thackeray (ad loc.) notes a similar transition from civil to military matters in Ant. 4.292. He further notes the hand of an assistant steeped in the style of Thucydides. In particular, the phrase “to occupy himself with affairs of war” (πολεμικῶν ... ἅπτεσθαι) is reminiscent of Thucydides 5.61: ἅπτεσθαι πολέμου (“to occupy themselves with war”). A similar phrase, ἄψεσθαι πολέμου, is found in Ant. 18.278. Num. 1:47. In order to protect the unique status of Moses as the leader of the Israelites, whereas the Bible (Num. 1:1-2, 19) states that it was God who told Moses to take a census of the Israelites, Josephus ascribes this census to Moses alone, and this despite the fact that the taking of a census incurs divine wrath, as we see in the case of David’s census (2 Sam. 24:1). Num. 1:47-74 does not say that the Levites were holy or that they were exempt from everything. Rather, God tells Moses that the Levites are to minister to the Tent, “that there may be no wrath upon the congregation of the people of Israel” (Num. 1:53).

Thackeray (ad loc.) notes that the word όπλιτεύειν, “to bear arms,” is a word used by Thucydides (6.91, 8.73) and is found again in Josephus in Ant. 19.243. Exod. 30:14, 38:26, and Lev. 1:45 all state from twenty years and upward, without specifying an upper limit. In Ant. 3.196 Josephus likewise, in citing the contributors of the half-shekel, gives the upper age limit as 50. Josephus has apparently applied to all the Israelites the upper limit that Num. 4:3 applies to the Levites. Nodet (ad loc.) remarks that the age limit of 50 was that for service in the Roman army. Actually, men 47 and over, who were called seniores, were not drafted for military service in the Roman army. According to Num. 1:46, in both the Hebrew and LXX versions, the total was 603,550. Thackeray (ad loc.) notes that the Armenian version agrees with Josephus. There is a similar discrepancy in Ant. 3.196, where Josephus gives the number of contributors of the half-shekel as 605,550, whereas Exod. 38:26 gives the number as 603,550, as in Num. 1:46. Such a minor discrepancy is probably the result of the error of a copyist of the manuscripts. Josephus omits the actual numbers of men eligible for military service from each of the tribes (Num. 1:5-42), presumably because such details would not be of interest to his readers. If he does, for example, give the long list of Jacob’s descendants (Ant. 2.176-83), he does so very apologetically, noting that he was inclined not to recount their names, mainly on account of their difficulty. Num. 1:10. Ant. 2.195.

Josephus omits the number of men in each of the tribes surrounding the tent of meeting on each side (Num. 2:2-31), presumably because such information was not likely to be of interest to his readers. This is Josephus’ addition, presumably based on the way Roman camps were arranged. Cf. Josephus’ description of Roman military organization (War 3.70-109). He notes (War 3.82) that the Roman camp is intersected by streets symmetrically laid out; in the middle are the tents of the officers, and precisely in the center the headquarters of the commander-in-chief, resembling a small temple, as in this description of the Israelite encampment, with the Tent replacing the Roman general’s tent. Nodet (ad loc.) notes that the Baraita Meleket hamishkan 13 (ed. Kirschner, p. 212) describes the Israelite camp as a quadrilateral of a dozen miles on each side. In his description of a Roman camp Josephus (War 3.83) says that it was, in effect, an improvised city, with its market-place and its artisan quarter, as in Josephus’ description here of the Israelite encampment. Thackeray (ad loc.) notes that Josephus’ oxymoronic description of the camp as a city continuing its travels and settling down is a combination of two clauses in Thucydides: ουδὲν γὰρ ἄλλο ἢ πόλει...ἐῴκεσαν ὑποφευγούσῃ (“they resembled nothing other than a city that had withdrawn,” 7.75) and ἡ Ἑλλὰς ἔτι μετανίστατό τε καί κατῳκίζετο (“Greece still migrated and settled down,” 1.12).

That priests surrounded the Tent is Josephus’ addition. Num. 1:53 mentions only that the Levites encamped around the Tent. Once again Josephus omits the detailed figures for the various families of the Levites (Num. 3:14-34). The figure given in both the Hebrew and LXX versions of the Bible (Num. 3:39) is 22,000. Three manuscripts (MLE) read 23,880. We have already noted other discrepancies in numbers in the text of Josephus: e.g. Ant. 3.196, 288. So Num. 9:18. The statement that God appeared to be sojourning there so long as the cloud stood above the Tent is Josephus’ addition.

In the Bible (Num. 10:1-2) God tells Moses to make two silver trumpets. Josephus omits that the trumpets were to be beaten out of one piece (Num. 10:2). Moses in Josephus is not merely a poet and singer: he is also the inventor, on his own initiative, of a musical instrument, a silver trumpet (βυκάνη), thus making him comparable to Hermes and Athena, who likewise invented musical instruments. Sendrey (1969:333) notes that Josephus’ detailed description here of the ‮חצוצרה‬‎, which is Josephus’ addition, agrees essentially with the pictorial representations on Egyptian antiquities found in Tutankh-Amen’s tomb. According to this description, the ‮חצוצרה‬‎ was one ell (about forty-five inches) long, its straight tube being somewhat wider than that of the ‮חליל‬‎ and still further widened at the lower end into a bell. The mouthpiece was rather broad. Thus, the form of the instrument was identical with today’s signal-trumpets, which we call “herald’s trumpets.” Hebrew ‮חצוצרה‬‎ (Num. 10:1), LXX σάλπιγγας (“trumpets”). Thackeray (ad loc.) notes that this is the straight trumpet, two of which are depicted on the Arch of Titus, whereas the shofar is curved.

The purpose of this assembly is Josephus’ addition. Num. 10:3 says that when they shall blow with both trumpets.... Josephus omits the biblical statement (Num. 10:7) that when the congregation is to be assembled, the trumpets are to be blown (‮תתקעו‬‎) but that an alarm (‮תריעו‬‎) is not to be sounded. On the nature of these sounds and the differences between them see Rosh Hashanah 33b. Josephus also omits the biblical statement (Num. 10:8) that it is the priests who are to sound the trumpets.

The statement that it was when the Tent was to be moved that the trumpets were sounded is Josephus’ addition to Num. 10:5. This statement is Josephus’ addition, based on Num. 2:2-34, where it is presented in much greater detail.

Josephus is in accord with the LXX (Num. 10:6) in adding the third and fourth signal: “You shall sound a third signal, and the camps pitched toward the sea shall move forward; and you shall sound a fourth signal, and those that encamp toward the north shall move forward; they shall sound a signal at their departure.” Josephus also omits the detailed description of the journeying of the Israelites from the wilderness to Sinai to the wilderness of Paran (Num. 10:12-28), including the order of the march, as well as the account of Jethro’s initial declining to accompany Moses (Num. 10:29-32). Cf. Num. 10:10, which mentions that the trumpets are blown “on the day of your gladness... and at your appointed fests and at the beginnings of your months.” Josephus omits the beginnings of the months but adds the Sabbath. That the Sabbath was to be included is apparent from the rabbinic tradition (Sifre Num. 76). He omits (Num. 10:9) that the trumpets are to be blown when going to war. That this was the first time since the departure from Egypt that the Israelites celebrated the Passover is Josephus’ addition to Num. 9:1. Josephus omits the biblical statement that this was in the second year after the Israelites’ departure from Egypt in the first month (Num. 9:1). He omits the entire narrative of how the Passover was then celebrated and the provision for a second Passover for those who, because of defilement, were unable to participate in the first celebration (Num. 9:1-14). Josephus has, moreover, placed this episode before the account of the making of the trumpets and the departure from the wilderness of Sinai (Num. 10:1-12) in order to connect it with the narrative that follows (Ant. 3.295). The revelation at Sinai, according to Exod. 19:1, took place in the third month (i.e. Sivan) after the departure from Egypt. According to Josephus’ reckoning Moses was on Mount Sinai only once for 40 days (Ant. 3.99), whereas according to Exod. 24:18, 34:28 he was there for 80 days. Schalit (ad loc.) notes that according to Ant. 3.201 the construction of the Tent in the wilderness took 7 months. Hence, the first Pesach after the Exodus took place approximately 2 weeks after the construction of the Tent.

Josephus omits the biblical statements that it was in the second month, on the twentieth day of the month, in the second year after the Exodus that the cloud of God was taken up from off the Tent (Num. 10:11) and that the Israelites set forth a 3 days’ journey (Num. 10:33) to search out a resting-place. Josephus does not, in fact, mention these subsequently. Thackeray (ad loc.) suggests that he may again be referring to his projected work or that a negative may have dropped out. Josephus omits the stop at Taberah (Num. 11:3) and the fire that consumed most of the camp (Num. 11:1-3), as well as the fact that the rabble among the Israelites conceived a strong craving for food (Num. 11:4). Hebrew ‮חצרות‬‎ (Num. 11:35), LXX Ἀσηρώθ, Josephus Ἐσερμώθ. Weill (ad loc.) suggests that the spelling Ἐσερμώθ in Josephus recalls Hazarmaveth (LXX Ἀσαρμώθ, Josephus Ἀζερμώθης [Ant. 1.147]), the son of Joktan (Gen. 10:26) and the great-great-grandson of Shem, who gave his name to a district in southern Arabia. In Num. 11:3-30 the complaints of the Israelites occur at Taberah. It is from there that they move to Kibroth-hattavah, and from there to Hazeroth. Josephus places the episode at Hazeroth before that at Kibroth-hattavah. Josephus omits Moses’ bitter complaint to God and his request that God slay him (Num. 11:11-15), God’s reply that Moses should gather 70 elders (Num. 11:16), God’s promise that He will put some of His spirit into them (Num. 11:17), Moses’ expression of doubt to God that He would be able to supply enough food for so large a multitude and God’s reassurance (Num. 11:21-23), and the episode of Eldad and Medad prophesying in the camp (Num. 11:26-29). One would have expected Josephus, given his interest in prophecy, to include the last, but one would then have to explain the fact that Eldad and Medad, who had declined the honor of serving with the 70 elders, had, nevertheless, been accorded the gift of prophecy, as well as the embarrassing disagreement between Moses and his handpicked successor, Joshua, as to what to do with them.

The lack of water is not mentioned at this point in Num. 11:5-6. Malina (1968:65) notes that according to Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Num. 11:6, the complaint of the Israelites derived from uncertainty (“which we await”) about the daily dole of manna, as well as the way in which the manna was doled out. So also Josephus here expresses the apprehension of the Israelites. The fear here expressed that the manna would come to an end and that the Israelites would perish completely is Josephus’ addition to Num. 11:4-9.

This person and the reaction of the multitude are not mentioned in Num. 11:4-9. Thackeray (ad loc.) suggests that he might be connected with the story of Eldad and Medad, who prophesied in the camp (Num. 11:26-29); but in that passage there are two prophets, and there is no indication of the contents of their prophecies. Ginzberg (1928:6:86 n. 470) notes that a parallel to the anonymous protest here in Josephus against the slanderous words of the Israelites in Num. 11:1-6 is to be found in Sifre Num. 88 and Tosefta Soṭah 9:2, which regard Num. 11:7 as such a protest rather than as merely a description of the manna. Malina (1968:65) remarks that since that verse itself involves no sort of protest, the tannaitic sources presuppose some Haggadah using this text as a protest, while Josephus probably read such a protest in the Aramaic Bible he used. Consequently, he concludes that the tradition embodied in our verse of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, if not the entire Targum Pseudo-Jonathan passage (Num. 11:6-9), antedates both Josephus and the rabbinic sources cited above. Whereas in the Bible the people cry to Moses about their misfortunes in the desert (Num. 11:2), in Josephus this lament has become a torrent of abuse. One is reminded of the tremendous abuse poured upon Pericles by the Athenians in the wake of the plague and the burden of the Peloponnesian War (Thucydides 2.59).

In Num. 11:19 it is God who tells Moses to inform the people that He will supply food not for one day alone but for up to a full month until it will become loathsome to them. An embarrassing detail is the skepticism expressed by Moses when God promises that He will supply the Israelites with meat. In the Bible Moses reminds God that there are 600,000 adult men to be fed and wonders whether there will be sufficient meat and fish (Num. 11:21-22). Josephus obviously could not imagine a skeptical Moses. For him Moses is the supreme man of faith, and so it is he, rather than God, and without prompting from God, who promises meat to his people. Moreover, he portrays the Israelites, rather than Moses, as lacking faith and mentions a nameless “someone” (τινος; cf. the anonymous man of Ant. 3.297) as asking whence Moses could get sufficient food for so many thousands of people. The rabbinic tradition likewise refuses to ascribe such skepticism to Moses (Tosefta Soṭah 6:7, Sifre Num. 95 [ed. Horovitz, p. 95], cited by Rappaport, 124 n. 170). In Num. 11:31 we read merely that a wind went forth from the Lord and drove up quails, with no indication as to how long this took.

Whereas the Bible states that Moses returned to the camp and then a wind came forth and brought quails (Num. 11:30-31), Josephus adds drama to the situation by declaring that even as Moses spoke the camp was filled with quails on every side. Josephus, however, who generally avoids seemingly exaggerated miracles, omits the statement (Num. 11:31-32) that the quails were scattered about a day’s journey on one side and a day’s journey on the other side and about two cubits high over the face of the earth, that the people gathered the quails all that day and all that night and all the following day, and that the one who had gathered the least had gathered 10 homers (approximately 10 bushels). Num. 11:33 very dramatically asserts that the flesh of the quails was yet between their teeth and had not yet been chewed when God sent the plague. Josephus is here transliterating the Hebrew ‮קברות התאוה‬‎ (Num. 11:34). The LXX does not have a transliteration but rather translates it as Μνήματα τῆς ἐπιθυμίας (“monuments of lust”). Josephus has a similar translation, ἐπιθυμίας μνημεῖα. Nodet (ad loc.) suggests that this is an echo of a local tradition of an event that one still finds in Sinai, not far from Wadi l’Hujjaj, halfway on the course followed by pilgrims from Eilat to the monastery of St. Catherine, a series of circular constructions in stone called Nawamis, actually dating from the fourth millennium B.C.E. These structures, always seen by passers-by, may, says Nodet, have been the source of the account in Numbers. Josephus has passed over in complete silence the incident where Aaron and Miriam criticize Moses for marrying a Cushite woman (Num. 12:1-15). To have included such a passage would have exposed the Jews— and Aaron and Miriam in particular—to the charge of prejudice, especially since the Jews had been accused of misanthropy by even so sympathetic a writer as Hecataeus of Abdera (ap. Diod. 40.3.4). In particular, Aaron and Miriam would seem in this instance to be betraying their prejudice against the much respected Ethiopians, who were renowned for their wisdom, piety, and bravery, who are termed blameless by Homer (Il. l.423), and from whom, according to one theory (Tac., Hist. 5.2.2), the Jews themselves were said to be descended. See Diodorus 3.2; Pomponius Mela 3.85; Seneca, Herc. Fur. 38-4l; Lactantius Placidus on Statius, Theb. 5.427; cf. Snowden (1970:144-47; and 1983:46 and passim). In contrast to such peoples as the Spartans, who made a practice of expelling foreigners (Apion 2.259), and even the Athenians, who persecuted those who held views at variance with those of the state (Apion 2.262-68), Moses is said to have most liberally, most graciously, and ungrudgingly welcomed into the Jewish fold any who elected to share the ways of the Jews, basing himself on the principle that relationships should be based not only on family ties but on agreement in matters of conduct (Apion 2.209-10). Moreover, as presented in the Bible, the episode raises the question as to why only Miriam was punished for her criticism, whereas Aaron, who joined in it, is not, as well as the whole question of Moses’ “mixed marriage” with the Ethiopian woman. Philo resolves the problem by avoiding direct mention of the Ethiopian woman and by allegorizing Aaron as Speech and Miriam as Perception (Legum Allegoriae 3.33.103). Josephus, seeking to protect the reputation of his priestly ancestor, omits the episode. Josephus has also omitted the statement about Moses’ humility (Num. 12:3): “Now the man Moses was very meek, more than all men that were on the face of the earth.” On the other hand, Josephus has chosen to transmit the story of Moses’ marriage with the Ethiopian princess (Ant. 2.253) in order to show that Jews are not prejudiced. On these 2 Ethiopian incidents see Goldenberg (1997:36-37, 50-51).

Hazeroth, according to Num. 11:325. Hebrew ‮פארן‬‎ (Num. 12:16), LXX Φαράν, Josephus Φάραγγα. Paran is the wilderness south of Israel, west of Edom, and north of the wilderness of Sinai. According to Gen. 14:6, King Chedorlaomer is said to have conquered the area in Mount Seir as far as El-Paran on the border of the wilderness. Abraham’s son Ishmael is said to have dwelt in the wilderness of Paran (Gen. 21:21). Moses in his last days is said to have spoken to the Israelites (Deut. 1:1) “beyond the Jordan in the wilderness, in the Arabah over against Suph, between Paran and Tophel, Laban, Hazeroth, and Dizahab.” The location of Pharanx and its nature are Josephus’ additions to Num. 12:16, which merely mentions the name. The fact that Moses gathered the multitude in assembly and the entire contents of his speech are Josephus’ addition. On the importance of freedom in Josephus’ milieu, note the significance of the fact that it is the password of the conspirators against Gaius Caligula (Ant. 19.54).

Whereas in the Bible it is God’s idea to send scouts (Num. 13:2), Josephus, ever seeking to build up the stature of Moses as a military planner, attributes the plan to Moses. So also Philo (De Vita Mosis 1.40.221), Num. Rabbah 16.8 and parallels cited by Ginzberg (1928:6:92 n. 503). On this point Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 15.1) agrees with the biblical text. Ginzberg (ibid.) notes the apparent contradiction between Num. 13:1-2, in which it is God who directs Moses to send the scouts into Canaan, and Deut. 1:22-23, in which it is the Israelites who suggest this to Moses. He notes that the rabbis recognize this problem and attempt to reconcile these verses, whereas Josephus and Philo ignore Num. 13:1-2. See Mason (1991:171-73), who notes that Josephus’ word here, ὁμονοέω, seldom appears in the pedestrian sense of “to agree” or “to be unanimous.” Rather, it is usually a theological term, indicating unity of thought and behavior that characterizes genuine Jews. In the War especially Josephus stresses that the opposite of ὁμόνοια, that is dissension among the rebellious Jews, leads to collapse. Moses’ piety may be seen in the incident in which he sends scouts to the land of Canaan. In the Bible we read only that Moses sends them to spy out the land (Num. 13:17). Josephus’ Moses, in his speech to the entire people, also exhorts them to be of one mind and to hold God in lasting honor.

Num. 13:2: “every one a leader (‮נשׂיא‬‎, ‘prince’) among them.” Josephus omits the names of the twelve scouts (Num. 13:4-15). He also omits the fact (Num. 13:16) that Moses called Hoshea Joshua. He likewise omits Moses’ instructions to the spies (Num. 13:17-20) to see whether the inhabitants of Canaan are strong or weak, many or few, whether the land itself is fat or lean, whether they have trees, and what kind of cities they have, and to bring back some of the fruit of the land. Hebrew ‮חמת‬‎ (Num. 13:21), LXX Αἰμάθ (alt. Ἐφραάθ), Josephus Ἀμάθη. Cf. Ant. 1.138, where we read that Amathus, the son of Chananaios, founded Amathus, which the inhabitants call Amathe, “though the Macedonians renamed it Epiphaneia after one of Alexander’s successors.” This is Hamath on the river Orontes in Syria. It is, nevertheless, hard to suppose that the scouts went so far north, though this is apparently what Josephus thought. Nodet (ad loc.) thinks that the reference may be to Ḥamat Gader in the valley of the Yarmuk near the Sea of Galilee. This is not mentioned in the biblical account (Num. 13:21-22), which states that they spied the land from the wilderness of Zin to Rehob, near the entrance of Hamath and that they went up into the Negeb and came to Hebron. Josephus omits that they came to the valley of Eshcol (Num. 13:23) and that they cut down there a branch with a cluster of grapes, as well as some pomegranates and figs.

The statement that the scouts aroused the multitude of Israelites to war through the beauty of the products that they brought back is Josephus’ addition. The statement that the scouts reported that the rivers and mountains were impossible to cross is Josephus’ addiition.

Josephus omits from the report of the scouts the geographical details (Num. 13:29) that the Amalekites dwell in the southern country, that the Hittites, the Jebusites, and the Amorites dwell in the mountains, and that the Canaanites dwell by the sea and along the Jordan. Josephus does, however, mention that they had seen the descendants of giants, whereas Num. 13:33 states that they had seen the giants themselves, though it does not specify, as does Josephus, that it was in Hebron that they saw them. Cf. Gen. 14:5 (Ant. 1.174), where we read that King Chedorlaomer conquered the giants in Ashteroth-Karnaim. Josephus, however, omits the scouts’ statement (Num. 13:33) that they were in their own eyes as grasshoppers, as were they in the eyes of the Canaanites. This remark is Josephus’ addition, though it is implied in the tone of the biblical statement of the scouts (Num. 13:31-33). We find a similar statement in Bib. Ant. 20.6 in the statement that both the scouts and the heart of the people with them were discouraged.

That it was after they had been dismissed from the assembly that they lamented is Josephus’ addition. That it was with their wives and children that they lamented is Josephus’ addition. The complaint that God had not helped the Israelites with deeds but only with promises is Josephus’ addition.

Josephus omits the wish of the Israelites that they had died in Egypt or in the wilderness and that it would have been better for them to return to Egypt under a different chief (Num. 14:2-4). That the Israelites hastened to the assembly on the next morning is Josephus’ addition. In Josephus the Israelites are ready to stone Moses at the Sea of Reeds (Ant. 2.327) and at Elim (Ant. 3.12). Moses, during the sojourn in the desert, stands under constant criticism and the threat of rebellion. Thus, after the spies come back with their pessimistic report about the possibility of conquering Canaan, the people blame Moses and load him and Aaron with abuse, pouring vituperations (βλασφημιῶν) upon them and plotting to stone them and to return to Egypt. The Bible, on the other hand, declares merely that all the congregation expressed the desire to stone them (Num. 14:10).

In Ant. 3.49 his name is given as Iesous the son of Nauekos. Josephus omits the change of name of Hoshea to Joshua (Num. 13:17), as he does the change of name of Abram to Abraham (Gen. 17:5) and of Sarai to Sarah (Gen. 17:15). Hebrew ‮כלב‬‎ (Num. 14:6). Josephus here omits that he was the son of Jephunneh, apparently because he regards Caleb as less important than Joshua. The identification of Joshua as coming from the tribe of Ephraim and of Caleb as coming from the tribe of Judah is not in Num. 14:6 but is based on Num. 13:8 and 6. As Thucydides had noted in his portrait of Pericles (2.65.8), a great leader must be able to restrain the multitude (κατεῖχε τὸ πλῆθος). So also Josephus, in an extra-biblical description, remarks that after the Israelites, upon receiving the unfavorable report of those who had been sent to reconnoitre Canaan, had decided to stone Moses and Aaron (in Num. 14:10 it is Joshua and Caleb whom the multitude seek to stone) and to return to Egypt, Joshua and Caleb here seek to restrain the crowd (τὸ πλῆθος κατεῖχον) and to allay their passion, entreating them to be courageous, not to accuse God of untruthfulness, not to put faith in those who had terrified them with false statements about the strength of the Canaanites, and to trust those who exhorted them to proceed to prosperity. The picture here strongly evokes the famous passage in Virgil (Aen. 1.124-56) where Neptune allays the turbulence of the seas that had been aroused by Aeolus, the god of the winds. There, quite clearly, Virgil has in mind the role played by Augustus in quieting the mob after the century of internecine war in Rome, with his simile of the leader who calms the crowd that has been passionately aroused: “And just as in a great people when sedition [seditio, the Roman equivalent of στάσις] has often been aroused, and the ignoble mob rages with passion, and now firebrands and rocks fly (madness supplies arms), then if, by chance, they behold a man, serious in piety and merits, they are silent and stand with pricked-up ears; he controls their passions with words and soothes their breasts” (Aen. 1.148-53).

This statement is Josephus’ addition. The exhortation to go forward against the enemy is Josephus’ dramatic addition. In Num. 14:7-9 Joshua and Caleb point out to the congregation that the land on which they have spied is exceedingly good, flowing with milk and honey, and that if God so wishes they will easily destroy the inhabitants.

In Num. 14:5 Moses and Aaron fall on their faces before mention is made (Num. 14:6-9) of the attempt of Joshua and Caleb to calm the multitude. Despite this ugly mood, Moses and Aaron, we are told in this addition by Josephus, instead of panicking, show their compassion for the people, their ability to analyze the cause of this depression, and their own true leadership by supplicating God to rid them of their ignorance and to calm their spirits. Here the Bible simply states that Moses prayed that God should pardon them for complaining against Him (Num. 14:19). The reappearance of the cloud is Josephus’ addition.

Levine (1993:70-71) notes that in Num. 14.11, 19, 23, 34, 40 the LXX contains various words for the crimes of the Israelites that were to lead to their defeat by the Amalekites and Canaanites, but does not use ὕβρις to describe their presumption. In Josephus’ account, however, when the people want to attack the Canaanites despite God’s command, Moses tells them here that such behavior is ὕβρις and that God will exact as punishment for their wickedness 40 years of wandering in the wilderness. As Levine remarks, Josephus has picked up the term ἁμαρτία (sin) from the LXX (Num. 14:19, 34,40) and tied it to ὕβρις. A difficult passage theologically is the one in which, after the Israelites accept the majority report of the scouts who had been sent into Canaan, God indignantly tells Moses that he will inflict a pestilence upon them and that He will thereafter create a greater and mightier nation out of him (Num. 14:12). Moses (Num. 14:13-19) answers God effectively, since he asserts that when the Egyptians hear of this they will say that the reason why God killed the people was that He lacked the power to bring them into their land. God is then persuaded by Moses’ argument. To say the least, this seems to reflect badly on God and appears to indicate that Moses is more merciful than He. Josephus here, apparently aware of the theological problem, omits the whole passage.

In Num. 14:20-35 God speaks these words directly. God’s reminder of the benefits that the Israelites had received from Him and of their ungratefulness is Josephus’ addition. In his attention to the ὕβρις of the Israelites, Josephus is apparently thinking of the contemporary situation in which the revolutionaries, whom he so despised, showed ingratitude to the pax Romana and rebelled against Roman authority. The statement ascribed to God that the Israelites had been misled by the timidity of the scouts in regarding their words as more true than His promise is Josephus’ addition.

In Num. 14:20 the reason why God pardons the Israelites is that He accedes to the plea of Moses. The statement here that God holds the Israelites in higher honor than the rest of humankind is Josephus’ addition. In Num. 14:30 God says that He will not permit those Israelites to enter the land of Canaan, except for their children and Caleb and Joshua.

Josephus omits the biblical statement (Num. 14:34) that the 40 years that the Israelites are condemned to wander in the wilderness correspond to the 40 days during which they spied out the land of Canaan. In Num. 14:31 God states merely that He will bring the children into the land of Canaan. The reference to the Israelites’ lack of self-control is Josephus’ addition to Num. 14:31. Here it is put into the mouth of Moses, whereas in the Bible it is God who addresses the Israelites directly.

I.e. to conquer the land of Canaan prematurely (Num. 14:40). Cf. Ant. 4.1-8. The grief of the multitude, their beseeching Moses to intercede in their behalf, and Moses’ reply are Josephus’ additions. Josephus omits the statement (Num. 14:36-37) that the 10 scouts who had brought an evil report about the land of Canaan died of a plague sent by God.

Josephus is probably thinking of his own ability to pacify angry crowds, despite his isolation; cf., e.g., Life 100, 141-42, 146-48, 388. This editorializing about Moses’ qualities of leadership and the price paid by the Israelites for their disobedience are Josephus’ additions.

This editorializing about the continued influence until Josephus’ own day of the laws promulgated by Moses is Josephus’ addition. That Josephus is exaggerating in speaking of Jewish allegiance to the laws is indicated by the deviations from Jewish law in practice by Jews in the Diaspora, as well as by their occasional intermarriage and apostasy. See Feldman (1993a:76-83) and Barclay (1996:82-124, 320-35). That ancient non-Jewish intellectuals looked upon the Jews as universally observant of the laws pertaining to circumcision, the Sabbath, and dietary laws, however, has been noted by Feldman (1993a:153-70).

On only 5 occasions do we hear in Josephus of the laws given by God through Moses, whereas Josephus speaks of the laws of Moses some 23 times. Even a pagan such as Celsus (ap. Origen, Contra Celsum 1.21) says that Moses acquired a reputation for divine power, presumably through his abilities as a magician. But in the very passages where Josephus refers to Moses as so inspiring and as ranking higher than his own nature he is careful to refer to him as a man (Ant. 3.317, 320). He likewise omits God’s statements that Moses was to be to Aaron as God (Exod. 4:16) and that God was making him as God to Pharaoh (Exod. 7:1). As Thackeray (ad loc.) points out, the reference here must be to Ishmael ben Phabi (Phiabi), who was appointed high priest by King Agrippa II in ca. 59 (Ant. 20.179) and served until the year 61. This was, however, when Nero was emperor, since Claudius ruled from 41 to 54. According to the third-century Rabbah bar Bar Ḥana (Yoma 9a), he served as high priest for 10 years. He served as a member of the delegation sent to Nero concerning the wall built in the Temple to prevent King Agrippa from spying on proceedings in the Temple (Ant. 20.194) and was detained as a hostage by Poppaea Sabina, Nero’s wife (Ant. 20.196). He is perhaps to be identified with the high priest Ishmael who was beheaded in Cyrene (War 6.114). The rabbis recognized his zeal for God by calling him Phineas’ disciple (Pesaḥim 57a). He is mentioned (Mishnah Parah 3:5) as one of the few who prepared the ashes of the red heifer. Apparently, however, he was unable to restrain his sons from lawlessness, as we see in Pesaḥim 57a: “Woe is me because of the house of Ishmael the son of Phabi, woe is me because of their fists! For they are high priests and their sons are treasurers [of the Temple] and their sons-in-law are trustees and their servants beat the people with staves” (cf. a similar description in Ant. 20.179-81). According to the Mishnah (Soṭah 9:15), when he died the splendor of the priesthood came to an end. He is not to be confused with the Ishmael ben Phabi who was appointed high priest by the procurator Valerius Gratus and who served from 15 to 16. We have no other information about this famine. Perhaps Josephus is thinking of the famine that, indeed, occurred during the reign of Claudius in the year 46 or 47, which Queen Helena of Adiabene relieved (Ant. 20.51) and which may be the worldwide famine predicted in Acts 11:28 as destined to take place in the days of Claudius. Or perhaps Josephus is thinking of the famine at the beginning of the war against the Romans, when the revolutionaries burnt the stores of grain so that a famine ensued (Giṭṭin 56a). See Gapp (1935:261). An omer, i.e. a tenth part of an ephah (see Ant. 3.29, 142).

As Thackeray (ad loc.) remarks, Josephus is here inconsistent with his statement in Ant. 15.314 that a kor is equivalent to 10 Attic medimni. In fact, a kor equals approximately 7 medimni. A medimnus was about one and a half bushels. I.e. of leavened bread.

On πολιτεία as a major theme in Josephus see Ant. 1.5 and note on Ant. 3.212. Cf. Apion 2.166, 184. The rabbis, as Bloch (1879:139-40) correctly points out, do not refer to Moses as “lawgiver” but rather as “our teacher.” Josephus himself is careful here to state that the constitution of the Jews was established by God Himself, through the agency of Moses. This sentiment is found frequently (see note on Ant. 1.108) in Josephus where he mentions data, especially miracles, that he realizes many of his readers will doubt as preposterous. However, it is clear (Ant. 3.317) that Josephus himself has no doubt about Moses’ power to inspire faith, as seen by the proofs (Ant. 3.318-19) that he here offers.

Nodet (ad loc.) notes that Num. 14:40, which Josephus is here paraphrasing, is actually ambiguous. It may mean “Let us go up to the place that God has mentioned, for we have sinned” or “Let us go up to the place about which God has said that we have sinned.” The text is usually understood in the first sense, namely of repentance; but if so, the verse that follows is a non sequitur: “But Moses said, ‘Why are you now transgressing the command of the Lord, for that will not succeed?’” Josephus follows the second sense, which accords better with the context. Josephus mentions the Canaanites but omits the Amalekites (Num. 14:43). In Num. 14:42 Moses tells the Israelites: “Do not go up lest you be struck down before your enemies, for the Lord is not among you.” This is Josephus’ addition. Cf. Num. 14:44: “But they [the Israelites] presumed to go up to the heights of the hill country, although neither the ark of the covenant of the Lord nor Moses departed out of the camp.” The Israelites’ continued accusation of Moses and their suspicion that he was deliberately arranging that they should always need his help are Josephus’ addition.

The Israelites’ analysis as to why God bestowed His care upon them is Josephus’ addition. Cf. Ant. 4.54: “Then assembled 250 men [to witness the contest as to who should be high priest], held in high esteem by the people alike for the merits of their ancestors and for their own, in which they even surpassed their sires.” Nodet (ad loc.) cites Matt. 3:9, where John the Baptist tells the Pharisees and Sadducees: “Do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father’” (similarly Luke 3:8). Cf. Ant. 8.278, where King Abijah of Judah, in addressing the troops of King Jeroboam of Israel, asks them to forgive the unpleasant words of his father Rehoboam, inexperienced as he was in governing people, for the sake of Rehoboam’s father Solomon and the benefits they had received from him. He then adds: “For the merits of the fathers should be a palliation of the sins of their children.” See Lev. 26:42: “Then I will remember my covenant with Jacob, and I will remember my covenant with Isaac and my covenant with Abraham.” Similarly, Philo (De Praemiis et Poenis 29.166: “3 intercessors have they [the Jews, as they pass from exile to their home] to plead for their reconciliation with the Father.... The second is the holiness of the founders of the race because with souls released from their bodies they show forth in that naked simplicity their devotion to their Ruler and cease not to make supplications for their sons and daughters, supplications not made in vain, because the Father grants to them the privilege that their prayers should be heard.” Cf. Shabbat 55a, Midrash Lev. Rabbah 36.5-6, Midrash Deut. Rabbah 3.12, cited by Rappaport (124 n.171), plus Tanḥuma Re’e 8 (ed. Buber, p. 22), cited by Nodet (ad loc.). Cf. Marmorstein (1920) and Marcus (1927:14). Ancestral virtue was also extremely important in Roman aristocratic circles. Cf. Polybius (6.53-54.3), who notes that in Roman funerals the images or masks of ancestors of the deceased were put on men of similar size. “It would not be easy,” says Polybius, “to find a more splendid sight for a young man who loves honor and virtue to behold.” At the funeral the one delivering the eulogy would mention the achievements of each of these ancestors. This self-assurance on the part of the Israelites is Josephus’ addition.

Other attacks on tyranny are to be found in Ant. 4.15-16, 22, 146, and 148-49. The denunciation of tyrants was a common theme in school exercises in the Roman world, as we see in Juvenal (7.150-54) and Tacitus (Dial. 35.3-5).

Prophecy was for Josephus a priestly prerogative. Cf. Ant. 13.282-83: “Now about the high priest Hyrcanus an extraordinary story is told how the Deity communicated with him, for they say that on the very day on which his sons fought with Cyzicenus, Hyrcanus, who was alone in the Temple, burning incense as high priest, heard a voice saying that his sons had just defeated Antiochus. And on coming out of the Temple he revealed this to the entire multitude, and so it actually happened.” Cf. Josephus’ statement (War 3.352) about himself: “He was an interpreter of dreams and skilled in divining the meaning of ambiguous utterances of the Deity; a priest himself and of priestly descent, he was not ignorant of the prophecies in the sacred books.” On the chief priests and prophets as scrupulous custodians of records see Apion 1.29. The thoughts of the Israelites and their attack on Moses are Josephus’ addition.

All this is Josephus’ addition.

This attempt by the Israelites to look to God rather than to Moses for leadership is Josephus’ addition.

Cf. Num. 14:44. Greek φάλαγγος, “phalanx,” “battle-array,” “army in marching order.” Cf. Num. 14:45: “Then the Amalekites and the Canaanites who dwelt in that hill country came down and defeated them and pursued them, even to Hormah.” The LXX adds: καὶ ἀπεστράφησαν εἰς τὴν παρεμβολήν (“and they returned to the camp”). So also the Samaritan text. For Hormah Josephus may have understood ‮חרם‬‎, i.e. “disaster,” as Nodet (ad loc.) conjectures.

When, after the report of the scouts, the Israelites seek to ascend the hill country without Moses’ guidance (Num. 14:40-45, Deut. 1:42), they suffer a massive defeat, the details of which are expanded considerably here by Josephus, who thereby underlines the indispensability of Moses’ generalship.

Whereas in the Bible, at this point, before the defeat at Hormah, God takes the initiative in telling Moses to divert his route into the desert (Num. 14:25), it is Moses, in Josephus’ extra-biblical addition, who takes the initiative in showing the importance of leading a good retreat, but he does so after the defeat at Hormah.

This extended comment on Moses’ foresighted leadership is Josephus’ addition.

Ὅπερ δὲ τοῖς μεγάλοις συμβαίνει στρατοπέδοις. Thackeray (ad loc.) calls attention to the parallel in Thucydides (7.80.3): οἷον φιλεῖ καὶ πᾶσι στρατοπέδοις μάλιστα δὲ τοῖς μεγίστοις (“such as is wont to happen also to especially all the greatest armies”). Schalit (ad loc.), however, notes that such a view is not found in the Bible. δυσάρκτοις...καὶ δυσπειθέσι. Thackeray (ad loc.) notes the parallel in War 2.92: τό τε δύσαρκτον καὶ τὸ δυσπειθές (“hard to govern and hard to persuade”), where Nicolaus of Damascus attacks the impatience and insubordination of the Jews. The observation that large armies, when things do not go well, are unruly and disobedient is Josephus’ added reflection. The identification of the Israelites as Judeans is an anachronism, as Nodet (ad loc.) points out, influenced perhaps by the similar language that Josephus puts into the mouth of Nicolaus of Damascus (War 2.92). The greatest test of leadership comes when sedition arises. It is precisely here, when confronted with the great sedition (στασιάζειν) of Korah, that Moses shows his true foresight (προενόησε) (Ant. 4.13). Indeed, civil strife, as Thucydides (3.82-84) stresses, is the great enemy of stability; and Josephus frequently comments on this theme, especially in the War. A good portion of Book 4 (11-66, 141-55) of the Antiquities is devoted to accounts that illustrate the degree to which στάσις is the mortal enemy of political states. The importance of this theme for Josephus may be seen in the fact that the 2 revolts, of Korah and of Zambrias, comprise, between them, more than half of the narrative material in Book 4 (see Attridge 1976:128). This theme of στάσις and its terrible consequences is found throughout the War, which attributes the catastrophe of the destruction of the Temple to στάσις οἰκεία (“civil strife,” War 1.10). The rabbinic tradition also, like Josephus, builds up the figure of Korah as the mightiest adversary that Moses encountered during the sojourn in the wilderness after the exodus from Egypt. That Josephus regarded the Korah episode as an object lesson to teach the dreadful political consequences of rebellion against authority may be seen from the tremendous amount of space that he gives to this episode. For Korah the ratio of Josephus (Ant. 4.11-56: 198 lines) to the Hebrew text (Num. 16:1-35: 58 lines) is 3.41, and the ratio of Josephus to the LXX version (75 lines) is 2.64. Thus Josephus devotes relatively more space to this episode than to almost any other, with the exception of Zedekiah’s reign (7.45) and the pericopes of Joseph and Potiphar’s wife (5.45) and the final test of Joseph’s brothers ending with Judah’s speech before Joseph (4.09). One reason for his doing so, in addition to the inherent dramatic potential of the confrontation between two great leaders, is his desire to build up the central personality of the Bible, Moses, whose stature rises to even greater heights due to his overcoming so mighty an adversary. In addition, Josephus seeks to stress, as he does elsewhere so often, the importance of the priesthood, the dangers of jealousy, and the consequences of political rebellion. Attridge suggests that one of the reasons for the elaboration of the pericope is its suitability for exemplifying the theological message of the work (Attridge 1976:96); but it is not so much the theological as the political import of the revolt that Josephus stresses.We may see a marked contrast between the attention that Josephus gives to Korah and the relative neglect of Korah in Philo’s works (he is mentioned by name only once, De Fuga et Inventione 26.145), presumably because Philo was not a priest and had no direct ties to the Temple; secondly, because Philo personally was apparently not subjected to jealousy on the part of his fellow-countrymen; and thirdly, because in Philo’s day the revolutionaries against Rome were not yet on the verge of serious revolt.Philo stresses 3 points in his discussion of Korah’s rebellion (De Vita Mosis 2.50.277-78). In the first place, he attacks the pride that the Levites felt because they were superior in numbers to the priests; this reminds us of a frequent theme in Greek mythology, seen, for example, in the punishment inflicted upon Niobe for boasting, of ὕβρις (“overweening pride”) leading to νέμεσις (“retribution”) (Ovid, Met. 6.146-312). Second, he stresses the dreadful consequences of the chaos that occurs when subjects attack their rulers and thus confound the order of the commonwealth. Third, while it is true that Philo’s Levites, as in Josephus’ account, challenge the selection of Aaron as high priest, it is not on account of nepotism that they attack Moses; rather, they challenge Moses’ statement that he had acted under divine direction in choosing his brother as high priest. It is this last point that Philo emphasizes most of all, since his chief concern is theological, and the Levites’ objection challenges the very concept of divine revelation. For Philo the contest is between God and Korah’s impiety (De Vita Mosis 2.50.279), between belief and disbelief (De Vita Mosis 2.50.280). The issue is not a political contest between two views of government; more than a personal contest between Moses and Korah is at stake. The speed of the punishment is said to attest to the truth of God’s pronouncements (De Vita Mosis 2.50.284); and the fundamental parts of the universe itself, namely heaven and earth, chastise Korah’s impiety (De Vita Mosis 2.50.285-87).

That Josephus is here thinking also of the parallel in Thucydides (3.82-84), where he describes στάσις in Corcyra, seems clear, especially since Josephus specifically states that this was a sedition for which we know no parallel, whether among Greeks or barbarians. Josephus on several other occasions (Ant. 2.327, 3.12, 3.307, 4.22) adds the Israelites’ threats to stone Moses. Cf. also Ant. 4.188, where Moses states that the Israelites know that his life has more often been imperilled by them than by the enemy. Josephus’ Moses, far from hating mankind, is depicted as bearing no malice even toward Korah and his followers, who had rebelled against his authority and who were on the verge of stoning him to death. In rabbinic tradition (Midrash Num. Rabbah 18.4) Korah’s followers were also ready to stone Moses.

These are Josephus’ own editorial comments. On the theme of πρόνοια (“foresight”) in Josephus, as it pertains to human leaders, see Attridge (1976:71-72 n. 2). Nodet (ad loc.) notes that the passage (Num. 15:37-41) immediately preceding the account of Korah’s rebellion in the Bible deals with the commandment to put blue (‮תכלת‬‎) fringes on the corners of garments and remarks that Bib. Ant. 16.1 and the rabbinic tradition (Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Num. 16:2 and parallels) place the two subjects in juxtaposition, with the rabbis noting that one of the objections of Korah to the Torah was that it was illogical, inasmuch as one is required to attach fringes to a garment made entirely of ‮תכלת‬‎. Josephus does not make the connection, preferring, it would seem, to emphasize the political dimension of the revolt.

Hebrew ‮קרח‬‎ (Num. 16:1), LXX Κόρε, Josephus Κορῆς. Levine (1993:72), notes that his name in Hebrew has a long “o” but that in Greek it has a short “o” and suggests that even his name in Greek, Κορῆς, is reminiscent of his role as one who has too much prosperity (κόρος). When Korah protests against the authority of Moses, his rebellion assumes greater seriousness in that Josephus at 3 points (here, as well as in Ant. 4.19 and 4.26) adds to the biblical narrative a reference to Korah’s own lofty genealogy. By building up the personality of Korah Josephus no doubt was simultaneously aggrandizing the character of the leader, Moses, whom he dared to oppose; and to build up Moses was crucial for Josephus, inasmuch as a nation was known primarily from the character of its founder (see Feldman 1993a:233-87). Josephus begins his account by adding two remarks about Korah that are not found in the biblical narrative, namely those that stress his ancestry and his wealth. While it is true that the Bible itself gives the names of Korah’s father, grandfather, and great-grandfather (Num. 16:1), it does not actually say that Korah’s ancestry was distinguished. Josephus, on the other hand, pointedly states that Korah was one of the most eminent of the Hebrews by reason of his birth. Again, while the reader of the Bible might recognize the relationship of Korah to Moses, since Amram, the father of Moses, and Izhar, the father of Korah, were brothers, the biblical text does not actually mention the relationship between them, whereas Josephus makes a point of clearly stating that Korah was of the same tribe as Moses. The statement that Korah was distinguished in wealth is Josephus’ addition. After Josephus mentions Korah’s great wealth, he adds that Korah was aggrieved, in part, despite his greater wealth, at the thought that he did not have superior rank. In addition to these first two references to Korah’s wealth, the pericope mentions his wealth on 3 other occasions (Ant. 4.19, 25, 26). In the last of these passages Moses readily acknowledges that Korah surpasses both himself and Aaron in the magnitude of his possessions. Like Josephus, the rabbis (Midrash Gen. Rabbah 50.11, Midrash Exod. Rabbah 31.3, Midrash Lev. Rabbah 5.3, Midrash Num. Rabbah 10.3, 18.13 and 22.7, Midrash Eccles. Rabbah 5.12, Midrash Esth. Rabbah 7.4, and other parallels cited by Rappaport [124 n. 17a]) stress the immensity of Korah’s wealth. Wealth is regarded by the rabbis as one of the prerequisites for a prophet (Nedarim 38a). Indeed, according to the tradition preserved by the second-century Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina, of the 3 treasures hidden by Joseph in Egypt one was revealed to Korah, one was revealed to the Roman emperor Antoninus the son of Severus, and the third is stored up for the righteous for the future time, presumably the time when the dead will be resurrected (Pesaḥim 119a, Sanhedrin 110a). In fact, so great was Korah’s wealth, according to the above passage, that, recalls the third-century Rabbi Levi, the mere keys of Korah’s treasurehouse actually required 300 mules to transport them, though all the keys and locks were made of leather. As Rappaport (124 n.172) notes, the tradition of the wealth of Korah even reached the Arabs (Qoran, Sura 28.76), where we read that his treasures were so great that a host of powerful men were burdened in carrying its keys. The source of this wealth, according to one Islamic tradition (Tha‘labī, Qiṣaṣ 179-82 and Kisaī’ī, Qiṣaṣ 229-30, cited by Hirschberg [1971: 10:1193]), was that his wife was the sister of Moses, who taught her the art of alchemy, so that he was able to build one house after another and to construct the walls of his palace from silver and gold. In Psalm 49:17, which is attributed to the sons of Korah, the words “Be not afraid when one becomes rich, when the glory [or wealth] of his house increases” are interpreted by Midrash Psalms 49.3 (ed. Buber, p. 278) to refer to Korah and his company. Likewise, the verse (Eccl. 5:12) “Riches were kept by their owner to his hurt” is interpreted by the third-century Resh Laqish to refer to Korah’s wealth (Pesaḥim 119a, Sanhedrin 110a). The statement that Korah was an able speaker and persuasive in addressing crowds is Josephus’ addition. One of the 4 qualities of the ideal statesman, as we see in the speech that Thucydides (2.60.6) ascribes to Pericles, is the ability to present one’s policy clearly and convincingly before the people. On the importance of rhetoric in Greek see Marrou (1956), Clark (1957), and Kennedy (1972). It is, therefore, significant that when Josephus introduces the figure of Korah one of the first points that he makes about him is his ability as a capable speaker, one most persuasive in addressing a crowd. This makes him a formidable opponent of Moses, inasmuch as this is a quality that Josephus ascribes to Moses himself (Ant. 3.13: “most persuasive in addressing a crowd”; Ant. 4.328: “most agreeable in addressing a crowd”). Indeed, in the pericope about Korah this trait is specifically attributed to Moses; when he responds to Korah’s harangue he is described as gifted in addressing a crowd (Ant. 4.25). Like Josephus, the rabbinic tradition stresses Korah’s ability as a speaker, as it does that of Moses (see Feldman 1992-93:11-12). The weight of this tradition is indicated by the fact that the rabbis derive it from the biblical word ‮ויקח‬‎ (“took”) in the phrase introducing the Korah pericope (Num. 16:1, “And Korah took”), which seems to have nothing to do with Korah’s powers of speech, but which the LXX rendered by ἐλάλησεν (“spoke”). Nevertheless, the rabbis explain the word to indicate that Korah convinced the Israelites with flattering words so that all the great men of Israel, including even the leaders of the Sanhedrin, allowed themselves to be persuaded (Midrash Num. Rabbah 18.1, Tanḥuma Korah 2 [ed. Buber, p. 85]). The statement that Korah’s motive was that of envy is Josephus’ addition. On the theme of envy, which Josephus alleges played such a prominent role in Jewish history and, in particular, in the conspiracies against himself see Feldman (1993:337-50). On the rebellions of Korah, Datan, and Abiram, see Milgrom (1981:135-46).

Not only is the speech of Korah expanded from a mere 14 words in the Hebrew (19 in the LXX, Num. 16:3) to 194 words (Ant. 4.15-19), but its rhetoric becomes considerably more violent. One thinks of the parallel with Catiline, likewise a disaffected nobleman and a demagogue, using rhetoric to appeal to the masses. The strongest language in the Hebrew is ‮רב־לכם‬‎ (“you assume too much,” Num. 16:3); in the Greek of the LXX this is even milder: ἐχέτω ὑμῖν (“let it be [enough] for you”). In Josephus Korah paints a picture of Moses hunting (θηρώμενον) around to create glory for himself, as if hunting for prey; he further describes his doing so in such very strong language as δεινόν (“terrible,” “dreadful,” shocking,” “horrible,” “monstrous”). He further accuses Moses of behaving maliciously (κακουργοῦντα). To the Romans, with their great tradition of respect for the laws, the charge that Moses had acted in defiance of the laws would be especially effective, as would the accusation that he had acted in despotic fashion. Likewise, the Romans, who felt so strongly about honorable dealings and who looked with such disdain upon fides Punica (“Carthaginian faith,” i.e. faithlessness), would certainly have understood Korah’s charge, upon which Josephus dwells at such length, that Moses had committed an outrage clandestinely, so that the victims were unaware of the plot (Ant. 4.16). Korah then appeals to the people’s sense of fairness, noting that his own qualifications for the priesthood were superior to those of Aaron in terms of age and wealth. The tone of Korah’s address is set by the frequency in it of such words as “to use force” (βιάζεσθαι), “clandestine” (λεληθότως), “to outrage” (ἐξυβρίζειν), “scheme” (τέχνῃ), “behave maliciously” (κακουργοῦσι), and “undetected” (λανθάνειν). The impression of Moses’ scheming malice left by Korah’s words is ironically continued in Josephus’ own editorial comments about the latter that follow: ἐπραγματεύετο (“he was scheming”), κακοήθως (“maliciously,” “malevolently,” “insidiously”), and διαβολαῖς (“calumnies”) (Ant. 4.20). It is true that when Moses addresses Korah (Num. 16:8) he says, “Hear now, you sons of Levi,” implying that Korah’s followers were Levites; but the Bible does not specifically say that Korah sought adherents from his fellow tribesmen or from his kinsmen in particular. The charge that Moses was seeking to obtain glory for himself, while pretending to do so in the name of God, is Josephus’ addition. The greatest challenge to the leadership of Moses and Aaron, according to the biblical narrative, came from Korah (Num. 16:3). Josephus, eager to preserve the primacy of Moses as the leader of the Israelites, presents the rebellion as a direct challenge to Moses alone. The charge of nepotism is also found in Philo (De Praemiis et Poenis 13.78): “[They [Korah and his followers] were deaf to all his [Moses’] words, believing that in appointing his brother high priest and committing the priesthood to his nephews he had given way to family affection.” Josephus transposes the issue from the religious to the political plane; and the word ὅσιος (“holy”) does not appear in this pericope. In Josephus Korah attacks Moses on legal grounds, that is, that he had given the priesthood to Aaron in defiance of the laws, and on political grounds, namely, that Moses had acted in despotic fashion (τυράννων...τρόπῳ) on his own initiative and without getting the approval of the popular assembly (Ant. 4.16). In Ant. 4.23 Korah’s confederates argue that if, indeed, it had been God who had appointed Aaron to the high priesthood He would have committed the presentation of this office to the people instead of leaving it to Aaron’s brother, i.e., as Nodet (ad loc.) remarks, Vox populi, vox Dei. That the people have the final word see Aristotle, Politica 6.5. 1319B33-20B17. Cf. Ant. 12.414, where after the death of Alcimus, who had been apparently chosen by King Antiochus V (Ant. 12.385), the people gave the high priesthood to Judas. Josephus himself, however, asserts (Ant. 4.223) that aristocracy is the best form of government. This charge is Josephus’ addition. According to Tanḥuma Korah 4 (ed. Buber, pp. 85-86), Korah reproached Moses for inventing the laws themselves. So also Zimri, in his attack on Moses (Ant. 4.146).

Cf. note on Ant. 4.3. In rabbinic literature, as in Josephus’ version, Korah is jealous that Moses bypassed him and appointed his cousin Aaron as high priest (Midrash Num. Rabbah 18.4 and parallels). His main complaint, according to rabbinic tradition (Midrash Num. Rabbah 18.2; Tanḥuma 3 (ed. Buber, p. 85), was that the position of prince of the Levite division of the Kethathites was bestowed upon Elizaphan, whose father Uzziel was the younger brother of Izhar, the father of Korah (Midrash Num. Rabbah 18.2, Tanḥuma Koraḥ 1 ([ed. Buber, p. 73]).

The chief example, in Josephus’ own experience, of this craftiness is Justus, Josephus’ literary rival, who “while feigning hesitation on the subject of hostilities, was really eager for revolution, reckoning that a change of government would bring him to power” (Life 36).

Cf. Ant. 4.23.

In the Bible, Korah’s revolt is not motivated by jealousy of Aaron’s high priesthood as such; rather, Korah claims, the method by which Aaron was chosen to be high priest was undemocratic. This strategy also accommodates Korah to the populares model epitomized in Catiline: a disaffected aristocrat who uses public appeal for his ends. Josephus adds considerable drama to the episode by ascribing the revolt to Korah’s jealousy in that he regarded himself as having superior claims to the position, and merely made a pretense of concern for the public welfare (Ant. 4.20). Like Josephus, the rabbinic tradition stresses as a motive for the revolt Korah’s desire for the high priesthood (Tanḥuma Pequdei 1 [ed. Buber, p. 126]). I.e., Reuben. On the spelling “Roubel” see note on Ant. 1.304. Hebrew ‮דתן‬‎ (Num. 16:1), LXX Δαθάν, Josephus Δαθάμης. Hebrew ‮אבירם‬‎ (Num. 16:1), LXX Ἀβιρών, Josephus Ἀβιράμης. Hebrew ‮פלת‬‎ (Num. 16:1), LXX Φαλέθ, Josephus Φαλαός. The Hebrew text speaks not of Pelet as a rebel but rather of On, the son of Pelet. Thackeray (ad loc.) notes that Pallu (Exod. 6:14) is mentioned as the second son of Reuben; but the LXX spells his name as Φαλλούς, and Josephus (Ant. 2.178) spells it as Φαλούς. In any case, chronologically Phalaus here cannot be Pallu, the son of Reuben, who lived much earlier. Nodet (ad loc.) explains that Josephus’ text here is due to an error of the copyist, who omitted ΑΟΥ (i.e., On, the son of Pelet). This third person, Pelet, does not appear later (Ant. 4.37), when Josephus mentions only Abiram and Dathan; but the biblical text (Num. 16:12) likewise mentions only Dathan and Abiram later on. According to the tradition preserved by the third-century Rav (Sanhedrin 109b), On was saved by his wife, who convinced him to leave the rebellious forces when she argued that it would make no difference to On whether Moses or Korah were the master. Thereupon, though he had sworn to join the conspiracy, she intoxicated him with wine, while she herself stood at the entrance to his house with loosened hair so that those who came to summon him saw her and retreated.

Korah is portrayed as a typical demagogue who, as such, wishes to make it appear by his words that he is concerned with the public welfare, whereas in reality he is but scheming to have the dignity of leadership transferred by the people from Moses to himself. In his demagoguery he is highly reminiscent of Cleon and Alcibiades in Thucydides’ narrative, as well as of the sophists in Plato’s parable of the ship (Rep. 6.488-89), and especially Catiline. The rabbinic tradition (Tanḥuma Pequdei 1 [ed. Buber, p. 126]) likewise portrays Korah as seeking the high priesthood for himself. The Mishnah (’Abot 5:17) cites the rebellion of Korah as the chief example of a controversy that is not “for the sake of Heaven” but for selfish reasons. This appraisal of Korah’s motivation is Josephus’ addition. In Num. 16:3 Korah’s sole stated objection is that all the Israelites are equally holy and that no one should have been lifted up above the others—an implied criticism of Moses’ choice of Aaron as high priest.

The Latin translation understands the Greek to mean that the listeners added to the calumnies. Schalit (ad loc.) cites the rabbinic tradition (Midrash Num. Rabbah 18.2) that those who listened to Korah’s criticisms added to them. That Korah’s words gradually spread to the masses and that the whole army was filled up with them are Josephus’ addition. As for Korah’s followers, the rabbinic tradition states that they were the most distinguished men of the community, indeed famed throughout the whole world (Sanhedrin 110a). In an era in which the ability to fix the calendar and to know when to intercalate months was prized as a mark of the greatest wisdom, these adherents are here described as skilled in intercalation and in fixing the date of the new moon. That Korah’s aim was removing Aaron from the position of high priest and dishonoring Moses is nowhere explicitly stated in the biblical text.

So also the rabbinic tradition (Midrash Num. Rabbah 18.4 and parallels). Josephus uses the term “uproar” (ταραχή) no fewer than 4 times in this brief passage to describe the excitement and disorderly conduct of the people (Ant. 4.22, 32, 35, 36). The synonymous term, clamor (θόρυβος), and its corresponding verb, θορυβέω (“to be noisy,” “to be in ferment”), and adjective, θορυώδης (“rebellious,” “restless,” “tumultuous”), appear 3 times in the passage (Ant. 4.22, 37, 36). Such disorderliness, noted by Josephus in an addition to the biblical text, obliterates the ordered beauty (κόσμος) of the constitution (Ant. 4.36). Indeed, so deeply ingrained is this disorderliness and this seditious tendency that even after the rebels are swallowed up by the earth the sedition continues (Ant. 4.59) and, in fact, to a far greater degree and more grievously than before. Instead of “standing,” manuscripts ROM and the Latin version read πάντες, i.e. “all.” This is the reading of one of the manuscripts, M, and of the editio princeps. The other manuscripts read “let the tyrant come [forth],” i.e. show up to be prosecuted. That the multitude stood before the Tent and called for driving out Moses as a tyrant so as to be rid of slavery to him is Josephus’ addition. The main point stressed by the rabbinic tradition concerning Korah is his attack upon the Torah itself and his attempt to disprove its divine origin. Thus, to illustrate how unfair and unlivable the Torah is, Korah tells the masses a story of a poor widow who was forbidden by the Torah to plow with an ox and ass together (Deut. 22:10), then forbidden to sow with diverse seeds (Lev. 19:19), then required to give first fruits (Deut. 26:2), then required to leave gleanings and corners of the field for the poor (Lev. 23:22), then required to give portions of grain to the priests and Levites (Num. 18:8, 21), then required to give firstlings of sheep to the priests (Num. 18:15), then required to give initial shearings of sheep to the priests (Deut. 18:4), and then required to give to the priests portions of the slaughter of sheep (Deut. 18:3). When she then, in exasperation, consecrated the flesh to the Lord (Num. 18:14) she had to give all the meat to the priests (Midrash Psalms 1.15 [ed. Buber, p. 14]).In another attempt to reduce the Torah to absurdity Korah is represented, as noted above, as asking Moses whether those who are dressed in garments of ‮תכלת‬‎ are obliged to attach fringes to them. Similarly, he asks whether it is necessary to have a mezuzah at the entrance of a house full of sacred scrolls. Again, when Moses replies in the affirmative, Korah argues that inasmuch as the scrolls contain the passage found in the mezuzah such a requirement makes no sense. Finally, realizing that Korah was contending that the Torah was not of divine origin and thus that the integrity of the Torah itself was at stake, Moses perceived that he had to call upon God to teach the rebels a lesson (Jerusalem Talmud, Sanhedrin 10.1 [ed. Krotoschin, p.28a]). That the main point, according to the rabbinic tradition, of Korah’s rebellion was his attack on the truth of the Torah and of divine revelation may be seen from the fact that as Korah and his followers are slowly and painfully being swallowed up by the earth they continue to make their confession, “Moses is truth and his Torah is truth” (Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Numbers 16:34 [ed. Clarke, p. 179] and parallels). To emphasize the point, rabbinic accounts claim that these words were audible throughout the entire camp, so that the people might be convinced of the wickedness of Korah’s undertaking; and they say that Korah was one of those who were both swallowed up by the earth and burnt (Sanhedrin 110a and parallels). Adding to the drama is Josephus’ portrayal— completely absent in the biblical text—of the masses’ reaction to Korah. In Josephus’ version the masses are described as excited (ἀνηρέθιστο, “was irritated,” “was provoked”) and actually bent on stoning Moses. They troop to the assembly in disorderly fashion (ἀκόσμως), with tumult and uproar (θορύβου καὶ ταραχῆς). They shout, “Pursue the tyrant!”

That Moses had known of Korah’s slander for a long time before is Josephus’ addition. Cf. Ant. 4.63: “Moses...long since had given ear to the troubles brewing.” Josephus here paints a picture of Moses as the true philosopher who, like Socrates (Plato, Ap. 32A-E), knows no fear of death. The reasons for Moses’ confidence are Josephus’ addition. The biblical text (Num. 16:4-5) states only that Moses fell upon his face and told Korah and his company to appear in the morning with their censers.

In Num. 16:5 Moses speaks not only to Korah but also to all his company. Nodet (ad loc.) notes that Josephus himself (War 2.569), upon his arrival as general in Galilee in the war against the Romans, “made it his first care to win the affection of the inhabitants, knowing that this would be of the greatest advantage to him, however he might otherwise fail.” Whereas in the Bible Moses replies briefly, in a mere 97 words (137 in the LXX), proposing that Korah and his company and Aaron take censers and that God would choose who should be high priest (Num. 16:5-11), in Josephus’ version Moses, in a much more elaborate speech of no fewer than 401 words, fearlessly takes control of the situation. He dramatically addresses Korah instead of the masses, honestly and cogently arguing that if the choice of high priest had been up to him he would have chosen himself (Ant. 4.25-34). That Moses shouted as loud as he could is Josephus’ addition. Moses’ statement that the masses are inferior in wealth and other merits to Korah is Josephus’ addition. Thackeray (ad loc.) points to Num. 11:29, an episode totally ignored by Josephus, in which, when report is brought to Moses that Eldad and Medad are prophesying and Joshua urges Moses to imprison them, Moses says, “Would that all the Lord’s people were prophets, that the Lord would put His spirit upon them!”

Moses’ admission that Korah is superior to both Moses and Aaron in wealth is Josephus’ addition. I.e. Kohath.

Similarly (Ant. 3.118, 190), Moses acknowledges the force of self-love. Nodet (ad loc.) notes that according to rabbinic tradition (Sanhedrin 9b) one may not bear witness either for or against oneself.

This plural pronoun either refers to Moses and Aaron or it is the royal “we.” Nodet (ad loc.) notes that neither here nor in Ant. 3.188, where God tells Moses to confer the high priesthood on Aaron, does Josephus make mention of the seniority of Aaron; nor, for that matter, when Aaron is first mentioned by Josephus (Ant. 2.279) are we informed that he is older than Moses.

Moses makes the magnanimous proposal, unparalleled in the biblical text, that Aaron will now lay down the high priesthood as an open prize and will make no claim on the ground of previous selection. The statement that it is Aaron who is offering this is Josephus’ addition. We may surmise that Josephus, himself a priest, may be responding to the question as to why the status of priest is dependent upon birth rather than upon merit. Some of the manuscripts add “to be allowed” (συγχωρηθῆναι). It is clear, however, as Nodet (ad loc.) remarks, that Aaron is, in fact, a candidate.

The statement that Aaron is so keen to avoid sedition (στασιάζοντας) is Josephus’ addition. Cf. a similar statement in Ant. 4.32 and 36. The avoidance of sedition (στάσις) is a major theme running through all of the aristocrat Josephus’ works. See Feldman (1996:26-28). Josephus is eager to contrast (War 1.27) the brutal treatment by the Jewish “tyrants” of their fellow-countrymen with the clemency which the Romans showed toward the Jews, though they were an alien race. Manuscripts R and O read “we.” This statement is Josephus’ addition to the biblical text.

Thackeray (ad loc.) notes that the word “on the other hand” (πάλιν) is used here in a logical rather than temporal sense (so also Soph., El. 371) and thus indicates the influence of the Sophoclean assistant that he postulates. This statement is Josephus’ addition to the biblical text. Manuscripts S and P read “our.”

This statement is Josephus’ addition to the biblical text. Josephus omits Moses’ address to Korah’s adherents as “sons of Levi” (Num. 16:7, 8). Nodet (ad loc.) suggests that Josephus omits it because of his low opinion of the Levites and of their pretention to priestly duties, as we see in his comment that when the Levite singers obtained permission to wear linen like the priests (Ant. 20.216-18) “all this was contrary to the ancestral laws; and such transgression was bound to make us liable to punishment.”

While it is true that Moses invites the rebels to await the result of the sacred ceremony (ἱερουγία), for Josephus the issue is a political one, to be determined by an election (Ant. 4.37); hence, Moses’ proposal here that Korah leave the judgment to God, by awaiting the casting of His ballot (ψηφοφορίαν). Nodet (ad loc.) cites as a parallel Tanḥuma 6 (p. 743), where Moses says: “Your revolt is not against me but against God.” Cf. the statement of the third-century Rabbi Ḥisda in Sanhedrin 110a: “Whoever contends against his teacher is as though he contended against the Shechinah [i.e. God].” Levine (1993:72) remarks that the phrase “do not make yourself superior to God” is reminiscent of the definition of ὕβρις that Phaedra’s nurse gives in Euripides’ Hippolytus 474: “This is ὕβρις: to want to be greater than the gods.” This defense of Aaron as a competitor for the position of high priest is Josephus’ addition.

The statement that the incense is to be burned in the presence of all the people is Josephus’ addition. Josephus here employs the language of a political election when he speaks of the election of a priest. The word here used for “elected,” κεχειροτονήσεται, literally means to stretch out one’s hand for the purpose of giving one’s vote in the assembly.

In Num. 16:6-7 Moses gives orders to Korah and his followers. Josephus’ Moses makes a proposal to the multitude, and they give their free consent. Josephus continues to use Greek political vocabulary (see note 86) when he describes this meeting as an assembly (ἐκκλησία). The statement that the assembly was at this point dissolved is Josephus’ addition.

The statement that the assembly was tumultuous and that the people had high expectations is Josephus’ addition. The fickle mob scene is highly reminiscent of the description in Thucydides’ description (8.92) of the tumult that prevailed in Athens in 411 B.C.E. during the rule of the Four Hundred, which lasted four months, and during the rule of the Five Thousand, which lasted eight months. Here, too, the tumultuous (θορυβώδη) assembly exhibit their “innate delight in decrying those in authority.” They are shallow and swayed by what anyone says.

The behavior of the Israelite masses here, with their innate delight in decrying those in authority and with their opinion swayed by what anyone said, recalls that of the Athenian masses, who vented their disappointment and anger upon Pericles (Thucydides 2.65). This fickleness of the masses is an ongoing theme in Josephus, likewise during the revolt against Rome and especially under Josephus’ Galilean command. Num. 16:12 simply states that Moses sent to call Dathan and Abiram, without indicating precisely what they were told.

This reply by Dathan and Abiram is Josephus’ addition. In Num. 16:12-14 they reply that they will not come to Moses, and they berate him for not fulfilling his promise to bring them to a land flowing with milk and honey. Josephus omits the statements (Num. 16:15) that Moses was very angry, that he asked God not to have regard for their offering, and that he insisted that he had not taken away the donkey from anyone nor done wrong to anyone. Num. 16:25 has “elders of Israel.” The word that Josephus uses here, πρόβουλοι, is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. In earlier Greek it refers to a standing committee to examine measures before they are formally proposed to the people. Or “dangerous” (δεινόν). Moses’ reaction to the reply of Dathan and Abiram is Josephus’ addition.

Cf. Num. 16:27: “Dathan and Abiram came out and stood at the door of their tents, together with their wives, their sons, and their little ones.” Hebrew ‮וטפם‬‎ (“and their little ones”) (Num. 16:27). The LXX reads ἀποσκευή (“household equipment”). Nodet (ad loc.) notes that mention of Moses’ violent reaction is unusual in Josephus; thus he has omitted Moses’ striking of the Egyptian (Exod. 2:11; cf. Ant. 2.255). The rabbinic tradition (Berakot 54b), however, remarks that Moses’ height was ten cubits (that is, approximately fifteen feet) and that he killed Og, the king of Bashan, by striking him on the ankle. The presence of the servants and their aim are Josephus’ addition.

At this point in the biblical text Moses addresses God in a single sentence of 14 words (15 in the LXX) asking Him not to accept the offering of the rebels and very strongly protesting that he himself has taken nothing from the people (Num. 16:15). This is much elaborated and dramatized in Josephus’ version of 522 words, where Moses, in effect, presents a poignant apologia pro vita sua, recounting all the benefits that God had bestowed upon the Israelites, and asking that God remove the rebels by the remarkable means of an earthquake (Ant. 4.40-50). Josephus’ Moses makes quite a scene, raising his hands to heaven and speaking in stentorian (γεγωνότερον, “louder-sounding, more sonorous”) tones. He then delivers a long speech, in the course of which he asks God, if the accusations against him be true, to keep the rebels free from all harm and, what is more, to bring upon himself the punishment that he had imprecated upon them (Ant. 4.50). The drama is further enhanced by the fact that Moses weeps as he addresses God (Ant. 4.51). Schalit (1965:172-73) remarks that this prayer of Moses is entirely Josephus’ own work and is in no way a paraphrase of Num. 16:28-30; rather, it was conceived and elaborated with rhetorical refinement by Josephus himself. The share of the Greek literary assistants (συνεργοί who aided Josephus in the War (Apion 1.50) must not be overestimated here. The only indication of possible influence by συνεργοί is in the use of the word ἐλθέ (Ant. 4.46), which is common in Greek prayers, as Schalit (1965:185) notes. But there are several Semitic elements in the composition of the speech, which could have come only from a person familiar with the literary pattern of the Hebrew prayer as paradigmatically laid down in the Hagiographa and pseudepigraphical writings. See the elaborate analysis of this speech by Schalit (1965:184-85 n. 29-32). Downing (1982:548-49) notes the parallels between Ant. 4.40-50 and Acts 4:24-30 in statement of intent, invocation of God as creator, appeal to a special ancestral relationship, acknowledgment of recent help to the supplicant, assertion of faith in providential control, major petition to God to live up to expectations, appeal to God to be concerned with His honor, and request for miracles.

On the contrast so crucial for the historian between hearing and seeing, see Herodotus’ description (2.148) of a labyrinth in Egypt: “We can speak only from hearsay (ἀκοῇ) of the lower chambers; the upper we saw (ὡρῶμεν) for ourselves, and they are creations greater than human.” Cf. also Thucydides (1.20): “For men accept from one another hearsay (ἀκοάς) reports of former events, neglecting to test them just the same.”

Thackeray (ad loc.) notes that this comment on a life free from cares (ἀπράγμονα) through manly virtue (ἀνδραγαθίᾳ) echoes Thucydides 2.63, where Pericles says that the Athenians cannot through shrinking from action (ἀπραγμοσύνῃ) display manly virtue (ἀνδραγαθίζεται). Cf. Ant. 2.263, where Josephus notes that Jethro appointed Moses keeper and master of his flocks. Schalit (ad loc.), however, notes that the verb meaning “left,” καταλείπω, always indicates what one leaves as an inheritance after one’s death (cf. Aristophanes, Plut. 556).

As noted by Nodet (ad loc.), this prayer follows the pattern frequently found in such entreaties, whereby the immediate request is preceded by a rehearsal of the benefits that have been previously received. Nodet cites as examples Psalm 135, Sir. 44, 4 Esdras 7:106 ff., and Mishnah Ta‘anit 2:4 (where the Mishnah outlines how one should pray for rain when there is a drought).

Greek εὐδαιμονία, a key word in the Antiquities. See note on 1.14. Cf. Ant. 2.321, where we are told that the Israelites were unarmed when they left Egypt, and 2.349, where we read that the Israelites took the weapons of the Egyptians who had been drowned in the Sea of Reeds.

Josephus has here combined the episodes of the vile water at Mara (Ant. 3.3-8) and at Rephidim (Ant. 3.35-38). I.e., quails (Ant. 3.25). Manna (Ant. 3.26-32).

The dignity of a leader is crucial to his success, especially in Rome, as we see from the importance of auctoritas (e.g. Cicero, Ver. 2.1.48). Hence, we find that the LXX (Exod. 4:20) avoids stating, as does the Hebrew, that Moses put his wife and his sons upon a donkey and sent them back to the land of Egypt, and instead, presumably because the donkey was regarded as such a lowly animal (cf., e.g., the story that Midas’ ears were lengthened to resemble those of a donkey, as a punishment for challenging the verdict of Tmolus that Apollo was superior to Pan as a musician [Ovid, Met. 11.172-93]), declares that Moses mounted them upon unidentified “beasts” (This is one of the changes noted by the Talmud as introduced by the translators under divine inspiration [Megillah 9a]). Josephus goes one step further and says that Moses took his wife and sons and hastened away, without mentioning the means at all (Ant. 2.277). We see a similar avoidance of the association of Moses with donkeys in Josephus’ rendering of the passage where Moses protests that he has not taken a single donkey from the assemblage (Num. 16: 15). Here the LXX has Moses say that he has not taken away the desire (ἐπιθύμημα, “dear possession”) of any of the Israelites (the rabbinic version concerning the change indicates that the translators read ‮חמד‬‎ [valuable] for ‮חמור‬‎ [donkey] [Megillah 9a]); and likewise Josephus here makes Moses declare that he has not accepted a present from a single Hebrew to pervert justice. Perhaps a further reason for these changes is that Josephus was sensitive to the charge that the Jews keep an ass’ head in the Temple and worship that animal (Apion 2.80-88). Cf. Deut. 1:17: “You shall not be partial in judgment; you shall hear the small and the great alike.”

The language, indicating that Moses seeks a proof, as Nodet (ad loc.) shows, supports the view that Josephus is here following the LXX (Num. 16:30): “If the Lord will show (δείξει) by a wonder....” (Hebrew ‮ואם־בריאה יברא‬‎ [“if He will create a phenomenon”]). When Josephus introduces the theme here that all is directed by Divine providence (προνοίᾳ) (Ant. 4.47-48), his aim is not primarily theological but philosophical. That he seeks to please his Roman audience, composed largely of Stoics, is suggested by the phrase that follows immediately thereafter, namely that the incident proves that nothing happens fortuitously (αὐτομάτως). A similar contrast may be found in Josephus’ discussion as to whether the miracle of the crossing of the Sea of Reeds was due to Divine providence or to accident (Ant. 2.347-49). There Josephus leaves the decision to the discretion of the reader (Ant. 2.348). This terminology clearly reflects the Stoic conception of providence (πρόνοια) and is intended as an attack on the Epicurean notion that the world runs by its own movement (αὐτομάτως). This is the same contrast that is found in his account of Daniel, where Josephus devotes no fewer than 5 paragraphs to showing in detail how mistaken the Epicureans are in stating that the world runs by its own movement (αὐτομάτως) (Ant. 10.277-81). This is Josephus’ way of answering the Epicureans and of reasserting his agreement with the Stoics (see MacRae 1965:139, and Attridge 1976:98).

Josephus seems to put increased emphasis upon God in the incident with Korah, Dathan, and Abiram. In the Bible Moses tells the rebels that if they die a common death it will be a sign that God had not sent him (Num. 16:29). Josephus’ Moses is a more active leader, not merely a passive recipient of miracles, in that he talks directly to God, challenging Him to prove, by inflicting upon the rebels an unusual death, that nothing happens by chance (αὐτομάτως). Indeed, it is he who suggests to God the ingenious idea of causing an earthquake to swallow up Korah and his company, just as he had suggested to God the manner of the miracle of making the Sea of Reeds into dry land (Ant. 2.337). The net result of this change is not so much to elevate the role of God as to raise the status of Moses.

It is Josephus’ editorial comment (cf. Num. 16:30) that the chief lesson to be learned from Korah’s challenge to Moses’ authority is the necessity of moderation (σωφροσύνης).

Nodet (ad loc.) notes that Moses is here, in effect, following the pattern of the law (Deut. 19:19) that states that if someone testifies falsely, the punishment should be inflicted upon him that he intended to inflict upon the defendant (so also Ant. 4.219). Moses’ sense of justice may be seen in his statement to God on the occasion of the rebellion of Dathan and Abiram. In the biblical version, when God wishes to annihilate the congregation for associating with them, it is the people who fall on their faces and ask God whether God ought to be angry with the whole congregation for the sin of one man (Num. 16:22). In Josephus it is Moses who takes the lead on this occasion, appealing to God’s sense of justice by asking God to exact justice from the sinners but to save the multitude who follow His commandments, on the ground that it is unjust that all should pay the penalty for the infractions of a few.

Downing (1982:547) notes the parallel between Josephus’ description of a full-scale earthquake (in Num. 16:31 we read simply that the ground split asunder) and the earthquake mentioned in Acts 4:31, to signify that God has heard the prayer. The comparison with a wave tossed by wind is Josephus’ addition. A consistent “improvement” made by Josephus in his reworking of the biblical narrative is his avoidance of undue exaggeration and the grotesque, such as might provoke the ridicule of a later satirist such as Lucian. This is such a case. Num. 16:31-32 has the earth opening her mouth and swallowing up Korah and his followers. In Josephus’ version the event is more scientifically presented as an earthquake, which he then proceeds to compare dramatically to a wave tossed by the violence of the wind. He gives further details as well—a crash and a burst of booming sound. The reader of the biblical narrative is able to visualize the earthquake; but Josephus lets us hear it as well, noting the crash and the burst of booming sound. Cf. Mishnah ’Abot 5:6, which lists the mouth of the earth (Num. 16:32) that swallowed up Korah and his followers as having been created on the eve of the Sabbath at twilight when the world was created.

In the biblical text it appears that Dathan, Abiram, and Korah shared the same fate (Num. 16:27-33 and even more clearly in Num. 26:10): “And the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them [Dathan and Abiram] up together with Korah.” Josephus here uses the optative mood to distance him from the event’s factuality. Whereas the Bible mentions only that the earth swallowed up the rebels together with their households (Num. 16:32), Josephus adds further graphic details: they were obliterated so swiftly that some were even unaware of their fate; in addition, the ground that had opened up for them closed again so completely that the onlookers could see no indication of what had happened.

Greek συγγενεῖς, i.e., related by blood or marriage. That the relatives of the victims actually rejoiced over the terrible fate of those who had perished so miserably, inasmuch as they felt that the rebels had suffered deservedly, is an addition of Josephus, who omits the biblical statement (Num. 16:34) that all the Israelites who were round about those who had been swallowed up by the earth fled at their cry in fear that the earth might swallow them up also. According to the Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan (ad loc.), those who were swallowed up cried, while sinking, that Moses had spoken the truth. This is Josephus’ addition to the biblical text. Josephus, like the Samaritan Pentateuch, as noted by Nodet (ad loc.), has separated the fate of Dathan’s and Abiram’s group from that of Korah. Josephus does not say that Korah was not swallowed up, but rather that he was burned by fire (Ant. 4.56).

As noted by Thackeray (ad loc.), there is no indication here in Josephus that these 250 men have been previously mentioned by him (Ant. 4.21 and 25). Nodet (ad loc.) cites Ant. 4.4, where the Israelites, having decided to fight the Canaanites in defiance of the advice of Moses, express their confidence that since they were all of the stock of Abraham God would not desert them. According to the rabbinic tradition (Sanhedrin 110a), they were the most distinguished men of the community, famous throughout the whole world, their particular skill consisting of knowledge for intercalating the year and fixing the new moon. Whereas the 250 men in the Bible are described simply as well-known men (‮אנשׁי־שׁם‬‎) (Num. 16:2), Josephus depicts them as being held in high esteem by the people alike for the merits of their ancestors and for their own, in which they they even surpassed their own ancestors. Thackeray (ad loc.) remarks that Josephus’ use of ὁπόσος, “as many as,” instead of ὅσος, “as much as,” is a distinctive mark of the “Thucydidean” assistant, who, according to him, is responsible for Ant. 17-19. He notes that there are as many as 100 instances of it in those books and only 4, including this one, elsewhere.

Nodet (ad loc.) follows Urbach (1978:164) in explaining that the Hebrew ‮ואשׁ יצאה‬‎, rather than the more usual ‮ותצא אשׁ‬‎ (Num. 16:35), indicates that the fire came up from below. Whereas in the Bible we are told nothing about the fire that suddenly consumed the 250 followers of Korah other than that it came forth from the Lord (Num. 16:35), Josephus, well aware that his readers might find this item hard to believe, disarms them by telling them that the like of this fire had never in the record of history been produced by the hand of man. One guesses that Josephus is suggesting the possibility of a “scientific” explanation for this apparent miracle. The blaze, we are told, darted (ᾄξαντος, “leaped”) upon the victims, and they were consumed so completely that all trace of their bodies disappeared. Indeed, as Thackeray has remarked, Josephus’ description is based on and, in fact, is intended to outdo that of the Plataean bonfire as described by Thucydides (2.77) (Thackeray 1930: 4:503, note e, on Ant. 4.55). His description also contains an implied allusion to the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in the year 79, which Josephus mentions elsewhere (Ant. 20.144), and which is described so graphically by Josephus’ younger contemporary, Pliny the Younger (Ep. 6.16).

Josephus tries to avoid apparent contradictions in his biblical source. One such seeming contradiction concerns the manner in which Korah and his company died. On the one hand, the biblical text states that the earth opened its mouth and swallowed up all the men that belonged to Korah (Num. 16:32). Three verses later, however, we are told that fire came forth from the Lord and consumed the 250 men who had offered incense (Num. 16:35), presumably the 250 followers of Korah (Num. 16:2). Josephus neatly resolves the problem by asserting that the earth swallowed up Korah’s associate, Datham, and the latter’s followers (Ant. 4.51-53), whereas Korah’s company was consumed by fire (Ant. 4.54-56). Rabbinic tradition, bound by adherence to the biblical text, generally asserts that Korah was swallowed up by the earth. The only rabbinic texts that explicitly state that Korah and his company were consumed by fire are Midrash Num. Rabbah 4.20 and parallels, as noted by Rappaport, 124-25; cf. the Samaritan Pentateuch (Num. 26:10, cited by Rappaport 124-25, n. 17). The Talmud (Sanhedrin 110a) cites the view of the third-century Rabbi Joḥanan that Korah was neither among those who were swallowed up nor those who were burnt, as well as the view of the anonymous Tanna that Korah was one of those who were both swallowed up and burnt. This latter view seems to be supported by the statement (Ps. 106:17-18) that Korah and his company were both swallowed up by the earth and burnt by fire; but Rappaport (125) mentions that only Dathan and Abiram are explicitly mentioned in that psalm. The Protoevangelium of James 9.2, cited by Ginzberg (1928:6.103 n. 585), states that Korah was swallowed up by the mouth of the earth. Nodet (ad loc.) calls attention to Mishnah Sanhedrin 10:3, which states: “The party of Korah is not destined to rise up [from the dead], for it is written, ‘And the earth closed upon them’ in this world, ‘and they perished from among the assembly’ in the world to come—the words of Rabbi Aqiva.” One view in the rabbinic tradition (Sanhedrin 52a) cites Num. 17:2-3: “Take up the censers out of the blaze...The censers of these men who have sinned at the cost of their lives [literally, souls],” and deduces from this that their souls were burned but that their bodies were unharmed, as in the case of Nadab and Abihu (Lev. 10:12). The other rabbinic view, however, maintains that their bodies were literally burned and that the phrase “at the cost of their souls” means that they were punished by fire because of the pollution of their souls.

In Num. 17:1 it is God who tells Moses to instruct Eleazar to make plates for a covering for the altar from the censers of Korah and his company. Nodet (ad loc.) notes that in the LXX (Num. 16:37, Hebrew 17:2) of this passage, we read that Moses tells Eleazar to scatter the strange (ἀλλότριον, “belonging to another,” “foreign”) fire, the same word that is used in the LXX (Lev. 10:1) with reference to the strange fire that Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, brought. One is tempted to think that the LXX for Num. 16:37; Hebrew 17:2) read ‮ואת־האשׁ זָרָה־הלאה‬‎ (“and remove the strange fire”) where the Masoretic text reads ‮ואת־האשׁ זְרֵה־הלאה‬‎ (“and scatter the fire far away”), but where the word zereh translated by “scatter” has the same consonants as the word zarah, “strange.” Num. 17:1 says not that the censers are to be deposited beside the altar but rather that they are to be refashioned into broad plates for a covering for the altar. Indeed, in Num. 17:4 we read that Eleazar the priest took the censers and beat them out for a covering for the altar.

In Num. 17:5 the purpose of this reminder is that no stranger, who is not of the descent of Aaron, should come near to burn incense to God.

In Num. 17:6 there is no indication that the civil strife increased much more and grew more dangerous; rather we read that the Israelites murmured against Moses and Aaron, saying that they had killed the people of the Lord. By thus exaggerating the seditiousness of the people, Josephus correspondingly increases the stature of Moses in controlling them, just as Thucydides (2.65.8) does in the case of Pericles.

On the importance of the concept of providence (πρόνοια) in Josephus see Attridge (1976:71-107). That the Israelites were actually convinced that all had happened through the providence of God but that nonetheless they kept on accusing Moses is Josephus’ addition.

In Num. 17:6 the statement of the Israelites is much stronger and is directed against both Moses and Aaron, accusing them of actually “killing the people of the Lord,” whereas here the charge is against Moses alone and is only that he had inflicted loss upon (caused damage to, penalized) the people. This defense by the people and this accusation of Moses are Josephus’ addition.

This conclusion of the Israelites and their prediction that no such revolt would again occur are Josephus’ addition. This appeal to the Israelites by the kinsmen of those who had perished to tone down their criticism of Moses is Josephus’ addition. Josephus omits the assemblage of the people against Moses and Aaron, the fact that the glory of God appeared in a cloud above the Tent (Num. 17:7), that God told Moses to remove himself and Aaron from the congregation so that He might consume the Israelites in a moment, that they fell upon their faces (Num. 17:10), that Moses told Aaron to make an atonement for the people, and that he did so but that the plague consumed 14,700 (Num. 17:11-14).

In Num. 17:16 it is God, and not Moses as here, who takes the initiative in convening an assembly of the Israelites and in telling the Israelites to bring their staffs to the Tent. That Moses had listened to their clamor for a long time, that he feared another terrible revolution, and that he deliberately did not defend himself in order not to provoke them are Josephus’ further additions. Nodet (ad loc.) notes that whereas in Num. 17:17 God instructs Moses to tell the Israelites to write the name of the tribal head upon each of the staffs, in Josephus the names of the tribal chiefs have already been written upon the staffs. That the names have already been written upon the staffs is in accordance with the Ethiopian and Syriac traditions (Budge 1932:177; Budge 1886: 61-62) that each tribe had written its name upon a staff.

Josephus’ concern to protect the primacy of Moses may be seen in the fact that whereas in the Bible God instructs Moses to tell the Israelites to inscribe each man’s name upon his rod and to write Aaron’s name upon the rod of Levi (Num. 17:17), Josephus, apparently aware that this would give greater prominence to Aaron than to Moses, who no less than Aaron came from the tribe of Levi, states that Aaron took the initiative to write the name “Levite” upon his staff. There is no indication in Num. 17:17 as to who is to write the names upon the staffs, let alone that both the men who had brought them and the populace had marked them.

Num. 17:23 says nothing about what happened to the staffs of the others but describes only what had happened to Aaron’s. Hebrew ‮ציץ‬‎ (“blossom,” Num. 17:23), LXX (Num. 17:8) ἄνθη (“flowers”), Josephus κλάδους (“branches”). This is Josephus’ explanation. Nodet (ad loc.) notes that Josephus’ explanation coincides with that of the Jerusalem Targum. He further notes that the menorah was conceived of as an almond tree (Exod. 25:33). He also omits God’s instructions to Moses (Num. 17:25) to keep the staff of Aaron as a token against future rebellions by the Israelites.

The unexpectedness of the event and the amazement that the Israelites felt are Josephus’ addition. Josephus omits the despondency of the people (Num. 17:27-28). That the Israelites now gave up their hatred toward Moses and Aaron and assented with applause to God’s decision to appoint Aaron to the high priesthood are Josephus’ additions. See Exod. 28:1, Lev. 8:2, Num. 17:23. The statement that God had chosen Aaron as high priest 3 times is Josephus’ addition. On Josephus’ fondness for the number 3 see Thackeray (1930:4.xvi), who cites Ant. 1.106, 2.189, 2.275, 2.283, 2.293, 2.322-23, 2.326, 2.337, 3.22, 3.45 (bis), 3.80, 3.96-97, 4.26, 4.36-37, 4.40, 4.48, and 4.203. The end result of the whole episode, according to Josephus in this extra-biblical remark, is the restoration of peace in place of the dreaded στάσις.

Num. 1:47-50, in the listing of the numbers from each tribe who are liable to military service, omits the numbering of the Levites. That military exemption may cause indigence for the Levites and that this exemption rather than the service rendered by the Levites is the reason for the Levitical tithes are Josephus’ additions. As Gallant (153) notes, in his exposition of Numbers Josephus repeatedly emphasizes the military aspect. Since Josephus compares the rebellion of Korah to a military insurrection, Josephus connects this exposition relating the Levites to their military exemption with the preceding material. Nodet (ad loc.) cites as an example of the neglect of the Levites Neh. 13:10, where we read that the portions of the Levites had not been given to them, so that each had fled to his field. This passage is not mentioned in Josephus’ paraphrase (Ant. 11.182-83). This reason is Josephus’ addition. There is no indication in the Bible (Num. 35:1-8) that Moses awarded land to the Levites lest they ignore their service to the Temple. Num. 35:2-3 states that the cities are to be given to the Levites to dwell in and that pasture lands are to be given to them around the cities for their livestock and other animals. In Deut. 33:9 we read that the Levites were, indeed, conscientious in observing their duties. Gallant (155) suggests that Josephus’ use of the verb κατανεῖμαι (“distribute,” “divide into portions”) rather than the simple verb νέμειν, in conjunction with the use of the similar sounding verb ἀνεῖναι (“grant,” “allow,” “concede,” “designate”) provides a strong assonantal link between the granting of the cities and the granting of the surrounding land. Cf. Ant. 4.172. As Gallant (154) notes, there is no reference in the Bible to the grants of the cities to the Levites in connection with Levitical tithes. These grants were not to be assigned by lot, as were the tribal land grants, but rather were to be given by the other tribes from their grants of land (Num. 35:2). Gallant suggests that these grants are analogous to the tithes that are to be given to the Levites as a reward for their service (Num. 18:21), and that this analogy inspired Josephus to include these city grants among the tithes. He also suggests that the fact that the city grants are preceded by the command to conquer the land and to divide it among the tribes (Num. 33:50-55) may have inspired Josephus to cite the military exemption as the reason why the Levites were granted these cities. That the cities are to be good and fair is Josephus’ addition to Num. 35:2-8. Josephus here omits that of the 48 cities 6 (Num. 35:6) are to serve as cities of refuge where manslayers may flee. Daniel (1967:227) notes that Num. 35:2-8 speaks at first of 1000 cubits around each city (35:4), then of 2000 (35:5), and that the LXX, in an apparent attempt to reconcile the two, speaks of the same figure (2000) in the two verses. Rabbi Aqiva in the Mishnah (Soṭah 5:3) explains that the inner thousand served as open land (for cattle), while the outer thousand served as the limit beyond which one was not allowed to proceed from an inhabited place on the Sabbath. The second-century Rabbi Eliezer (ibid.; so also ʿErubin 56b; Tosefta Soṭah 5:13 and ‘Arakin 5:17), the son of Rabbi Yose the Galilean, agrees with the explanation about the inner limit, while he says that the outer limit was for fields and vineyards. Ritter (1879:126 n. 4) thinks that Josephus’ version is based on the LXX, but Olitzki (1889a:169-71) concludes that he is in accordance with the rabbinic tradition. Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 1.32.158) speaks of a depth of 2000 cubits “to graze cattle and carry on other kinds of business necessary for the service of the cities.” The 2000 cubits correspond to the distance beyond which it is not permitted to walk on the Sabbaths or holidays (Mishnah ‘Erubin 5:8 and Soṭah 5:3).

According to Num. 18:21-24, the tithe is to be given to the Levites alone and a tenth of this is to be given to the Lord, i.e. the priests (Num. 18:26). Belkin (1940:69-70) notes the apparent contradiction between our passage, which indicates that the tithe should be given to the Levites and to the priests (so also Ant. 4.205), and the statement (Ant. 4.240) that the tithes belong to the Levites. Josephus (Life 63) says that his colleagues had amassed a large sum of money from the tithes that they had received for their priestly duty in Galilee. In this last passage Josephus insists that he himself refused to accept from those who brought them the tithes that were due to him as a priest (Life 80). Belkin consequently suggests that in Josephus’ time the Galileans gave the tithes to the priests, but that this need not necessarily have been the actual custom in Judah. According to Neh. 10:37-38, it is to the Levites that the tithes from the ground are to be brought, “for it is the Levites who collect the tithes in all our rural towns. And the priest, the son of Aaron, shall be with the Levites when the Levites receive the tithes; and the Levites shall bring up the tithe of the tithes to the house of our God.” Of course, the priests are also of the tribe of Levi. Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 1.32.156-57) indicates that the law permitted the Levites to obtain the tithes, whereas elsewhere, like Josephus, he seems to contradict himself, since he declares (De Virtutibus 18.95) that the tithes are to be given to the priests. The Mishnah (Maʿaser Sheni 5:15) states that Joḥanan the high priest (i.e. John Hyrcanus) did away with the recitation of the confession concerning the payment of tithes in the third year (Deut. 26:12-15), presumably because he had enacted that the first tithe should be given to the priests rather than the Levites as a punishment for the latter’s refusal to return to Palestine from Babylon. The rabbinic tradition (Yebamot 86b) further notes that the Levites were penalized by being deprived of the tithe, whether because they did not go up to Judea in the days of Ezra or in order that the priests might make use of the tithe during the days of their uncleanness when the heave-offering was forbidden to them. Ketubot 26a notes a dispute in the early part of the second century between Rabbi Aqiva, who says that the first tithe belongs to the Levites, and Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah, who asserts that it belongs also to the priests, and that this was from the time after Ezra had punished the Levites. See Olitzki (1889a:172-73). Josephus (Ant. 20.181) speaks of the high priest as sending slaves to the threshing floors to receive the tithes that were due to the priests, and he says (Ant. 20.207) that the chief priests were guilty of the same practices as their slaves. On the contradictory passages in Josephus see Oppenheimer (1977:37-41). Gallant (156) notes that the word ἀναγκαῖον (“necessary”) seems superfluous, but it does enable Josephus to construct a punning assonantal connection between the Levitical tithes, which are intended to furnish the necessaries (ἀναγκαίων) of life, and the necessity of speaking of the priestly gifts.

As Thackeray (ad loc.) notes, this is not stated in the Pentateuch, but Josh. 21:4 states specifically that the priests received 13 cities from the tribes of Judah, Simeon, and Benjamin (a detail omitted by Josephus in his paraphrase of this passage [Ant. 5.91]), though it does not state that these cities were ceded to the priests by the Levites. Rather, they were given by lot from the territory assigned to the Israelite tribes. Josephus has, in effect, as Gallant (157) remarks, created an analogy: just as the Levites cede a portion of their tithes to the priests, so they cede a portion of their cities to them. Cf. Num. 18:26: “Moreover, you shall say to the Levites, ‘When you take from the people of Israel the tithe that I have given you from them for your inheritance, then you shall present an offering from it to the Lord, a tithe of the tithe.”

Cf. Num. 18:12: “All the best of the oil, and all the best of the wine and of the grain, the first fruits of what they give to the Lord, I give to you [the priests].” As Olitzki (1889a:175) demonstrates, this passage in Josephus cannot refer to the first-fruits (Bikkurim) to be brought to the Temple and for which a confession is to be made, since the Mishnah (Bikkurim 1:3; cf. Sifre Deut. 297) states that the Bikkurim (Deut. 26:2, Ant. 4.241) are to be brought only from the first-fruits of the 7 kinds for which the Land of Israel is noted, namely, wheat, barley, grapes, figs, pomegranates, olives used for oil, and dates for honey. To be sure, Num. 18:12 and Deut. 18:4 mention as the first fruits to be given only grain, wine, and oil. The first fruits (ἀπαρχάς) that the Roman proconsul Julius Antonius instructs the Ephesians not to hinder the Jews from bringing (Ant. 16.172-73) may, as Olitzki (1889a:175-76) says, refer to the Bikkurim, though those living outside of Palestine were not obligated to bring them (Mishnah Bikkurim 1:10), but they may also be the first tithe, which, according to the rabbis, had to brought from outside Palestine, though they did not have the necessary purity there (Mishnah Ḥallah 4:11). However, the passage in Ant. 16.172-73 unfortunately has a lacuna and does not indicate to what place the first-fruits are to be brought. Num. 18:15: “Everything that opens the womb of all flesh, whether man or beast, which they offer to the Lord, shall be yours [i.e. the priests’]; nevertheless, the first-born of man you shall redeem, and the firstling of unclean beasts you shall redeem.” Daniel (1967:230) notes that whereas Exod. 13:13 and 34:20 speak of the redemption of the first-born of the ass alone (so Sifre Num. 118 [ed. Horovitz, pp. 138-39] and Bekorot 5b), Num. 18:15 prescribes the redemption of the first-born of unclean beasts. Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 1.27.135) prescribes the redemption of all land animals suitable for human use and service. Belkin (1940:69n.7) suggests the possibility that Philo is dependent here on the LXX, which translates the Hebrew word ‮חמר‬‎ in Exod. 4:20 by ὑποζύγιον (“beast of burden” generally). Josephus here and in Ant. 1.71 speaks of the redemption of both those animals that are suitable for sacrifice and those that are not. Gallant (158) notes that whereas Num. 18:18 states that the flesh of sacrificed first-born is given to the priests, it does not explicitly mention priestly consumption. Num. 18:15 mentions that all first-born animals are to be redeemed but does not cite the fact that flesh of impure animals is not to be eaten. Josephus makes matters clear by correlating the two categories: animals of the first category are to be sacrificed because they may be consumed by the priests thereafter, whereas animals of the second category are to be redeemed because it is forbidden to eat their flesh. Belkin (1940:68-69) notes that there is no basis in the Bible for Philo’s declaration (De Virtutibus 18.95) that the tenth of oxen, sheep, and goats belongs to the priests. Josephus makes no mention of this. Cf. Neh. 10:35-37: “We obligate ourselves to bring the first fruits of our ground and the first fruits of all fruit of every tree, year by year, to the house of the Lord; also to bring to the house of our God, to the priests who minister in the house of our God, the first-born of our sons and of our cattle, as it is written in the law, and the firstlings of our herds and of our flocks; and to bring the first of our coarse meal, and our contributions, the fruit of every tree, the wine and the oil, to the priests, to the chambers of the house of our God.” I.e., Jerusalem. See Ant. 4.200-1, 203. The Mishnah (Zebaḥim 5:8) indicates that the first-born are holy things of lesser degree and may be slaughtered in any place in the courtyard.

Cf. Num. 18:15-16: “Everything that opens the womb of all flesh, whether man or beast, which they offer to the Lord, shall be yours; nevertheless, the first-born of man you shall redeem, and the firstling of unclean beasts you shall redeem. And their redemption price (at a month old you shall redeem them) you shall fix at 5 shekels in silver, according to the shekel of the sanctuary.” This biblical passage, with which Josephus appears to agree, seems to require the redemption of the first-born of all unclean animals and does not seem to differentiate between the redemption price of humans and animals, though the oral tradition (see Ibn Ezra’s commentary on Num. 18:16) regarded the redemption price of 5 shekels to apply to humans alone. The Mishnah (Bekorot 1:2; cf. Sifre Num. 118 [ed. Horovitz, pp. 138-39]) deduces from the repetition of “the firstling of an ass” (Exod. 13:13 and 34:20) that the requirement of redemption, so far as unclean animals are concerned, occurs only when the animal that gave birth is a donkey and when the animal that is born is a donkey. According to the second-century Rabbi Jose the Galilean (Bekorot 5b-6a), based on Exod. 13:13, 34:20, only the first-born of a donkey is to be redeemed. Weill (ad loc.) cites Bekorot 11a as to how much one should give a priest for the redemption of the first-born of a donkey. The second-century Rabbi Tarfon, himself a priest, cites a rabbinic tradition that a liberal person gives a sela, i.e. 2 shekalim, a stingy person gives one shekel, and an average person gives a rigia, i.e. a shekel and a half. The fourth-century Raba asserts that the law requires redemption with a rigia, and Josephus here seems to be in agreement with this. According to Exod. 34:20, if the first-born of the donkey is not redeemed you shall break its neck (‮וערפתו‬‎), whereas the LXX says that in such a case you shall pay a price (τιμὴν δώσειν, presumably reading ‮וערכתו‬‎). Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 1.27. 135) says that the first-born of all land animals suitable for the use and service of men are required to be redeemed and does not mention what happens if they are not redeemed. These include horses and camels, according to Philo, as well as donkeys. Ritter (1879:121) suggests that Josephus is here following Philo and that this was, indeed, the practice in their day; but Olitzki (1885:29) objects that Philo restricts the law to beasts of burden, whereas Josephus applies it to all animals. Olitzki (ibid.) suggests that Josephus does not specifically cite the law with regard to the redemption of the donkey in order not to lend support to the widespread canard, mentioned by Mnaseas (ap. Apion 2.114), Diodorus (34.1.3), Damocritus (ap. Suda, s.v. Δαμόκριτος), Plutarch (Is. et Osir. 31.363C-D), and Tacitus (Hist. 5.4.2) that the Jews worship or hold in high regard an ass. Hebrew ‮צאנך‬‎ (“your small cattle,” “sheep and goats,” Deut. 18:4), LXX προβάτων (small cattle, i.e. sheep and goats), Josephus προβάτων. The word πρόβατον rarely indicates sheep alone as opposed to goats; here the sense of “sheep” is indicated by the context, as Nodet (ad loc.) remarks. The Mishnah (Ḥullin 11:1) states that the requirement to give to the priest the first of the fleece applies both inside and outside the Land of Israel, both in the time of the Temple and otherwise, and to unconsecrated but not to consecrated animals; moreover, it applies only to sheep and only when there are many. Hebrew ‮חלה‬‎ (“leavened bread,” Num. 15:20), LXX ἄρτον, (“bread”), Josephus πεμμάτων (“cakes,” “pastry,” “sweetmeats”). Nodet (ad loc.) notes that the rabbinic tradition (Mishnah Ḥallah 3:6, Sifre Num. 110 [ed. Horovitz, p. 114]) mentions a dispute as to whether it is the dough that has to be granted to the priests or whether it is the baked bread that is to be granted: it finally prefers the first sense. Josephus here seems to prefer the second sense. The Mishnah (Ḥallah 1:4) lists a number of types of dough that are exempt from the dough offering: rice, sorghum, poppy, sesame, and pulse, as well as bread made from less than 5/4 qab of grain, sponge cakes, honey cakes, dumplings, pancakes, and dough made from a mixture of unconsecrated and consecrated grain. Cf. also Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 1.27.132: “From all dough of wheat or other grain the bakers should set apart a loaf (φυράματος ἄρτον,”bread of dough”) as a first portion for the use of priests.” In the messianic meal at Qumran (1 QS 6:4-5) the blessing made by the priest speaks of removing of the bread (‮לחם‬‎), clearly after it has been baked. Josephus does not indicate the quantity of dough that requires removal of a portion for the priests, but the rabbinic tradition (Mishnah ʿEduyot 1:2) fixes it as dough made from a qab and a half (approximately 3 quarts) of flour. Josephus does not indicate how much should be removed from the dough, but the Mishnah (Ḥallah 2:7) specifies 1/24 of the entire batch of dough. Num. 15.20: “Of the first of your coarse meal you shall present a cake as an offering; as an offering from the threshing floor, so shall you present it.”

Josephus does not indicate, as does the Mishnah (Nazir 1:3), that a Nazirite vow that is unspecified as to length of time is for a period of 30 days. According to the Mishnah (Nazir 1:2), if the hair of a life-long Nazirite became too heavy he was permitted to lighten it with a razor, and thereupon brought 3 offerings of cattle. The rabbis (Sifre Num. 23) understood the prohibition to refer to wine that has not been diluted with water. Josephus omits the provision that a Nazarite was not permitted to come into contact with a corpse (Num. 6:6). I.e. when they cut their hair upon the completion of their Nazirite vow. According to Num. 6:18, the hair is to be put into the fire that is under the sacrifice of the peace-offering. Josephus omits the provisions (Num. 6:14-15) that when the Nazirite completes his vowed time of service he is to offer as his gift to God a male lamb a year old without blemish for a burnt offering, a ewe lamb a year old without blemish as a sin offering, and a ram without blemish as a peace offering, as well as a basket of unleavened bread, cakes of fine flour mixed with oil, unleavened wafers spread with oil, and their cereal and drink offerings. Josephus also omits (Num. 6:19) that the priest is to take the shoulder of the ram, when it is boiled, and an unleavened cake, and an unleavened wafer, and put them upon the hands of the Nazirite. Cf. Num. 6:2-3, 5: “When either a man or a woman makes a special vow, the vow of a Nazirite, to separate himself to the Lord, he shall separate himself from wine and strong drink; he shall drink no vinegar made from wine or strong drink, and shall not drink any juice of grapes or eat grapes, fresh or dried.... All the days of his vow of separation no razor shall come upon his head, until the time is completed for which he separates himself to the Lord.” According to Num. 6:18 and according to this very sentence in Josephus, Nazirites were supposed to put their shorn hair on the fire, not give it to the priests. Gallant (160) suggests that since the thigh of the peace-offering has been cooked by the fire in which the Nazir placed his hair, the priest does benefit indirectly from the hair. He theorizes that the transformation of the shorn locks of the Nazir into a priestly offering has been inspired by the parallel language that Josephus uses (Ant. 4.71) in connection with the first-fruits of the shearing of sheep that is offfered to the priests. There he uses the word κουρᾶς (the word that is also used in the LXX [Deut. 18:4] with reference to the shorn wool of sheep) for shearing, the very word that he uses here in referring to the shorn locks of the Nazir that are given to the priests. Nedarim 9b cites an instance in the time of Simon the Just when a shepherd who had taken Nazirite vows and had especially beautiful hair cut off his hair and consecrated it to Heaven. Altshuler (1977:106) suggests that perhaps Josephus assumed a connection between the Nazirite vow and the vow of dedication, since both are called ‮נדר‬‎. Among biblical figures Samson and Samuel were lifelong Nazirites (Judg. 13:7, 1 Sam. 1:21), though they did not observe the prohibition of contact with a corpse (Num. 6:3-9, Judg. 14:8-9, 1 Sam. 15:33). The Nazirite laws applied only in the land of Israel. The rabbis discouraged the taking of Nazirite vows, since they felt that such asceticism was against the spirit of Judaism (Nedarim 77b, Nazir 19a, Taʿanit 11a) and, indeed, regarded Nazirites as sinners (Nedarim 10a). That Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 1.45.250), however, had a positive attitude toward the taking of Nazirite vows is clear from his admiration for the one who, taking such a vow, keeps “his body pure and undefiled to the extent of abstaining from contact with parents or brothers after death, thus letting his kindly affection and fellow-feeling with the closest and dearest yield to piety that victory that it is both honorable and profitable that it should always win.” Among notable people who took Nazirite vows in the period of the Second Temple are Queen Berenice (the wife of Herod, ruler of Chalcis [War 2.313]), Queen Helena of Adiabene (Mishnah, Nazir 3:6), and Miriam of Palmyra (Mishnah, Nazir 6:11). In the time of Alexander Jannaeus 300 Nazirites are said to have come to Jerusalem (Jerusalem Talmud, Berakot 7.2 [ed. Krotoschin, p. 11b), half of whom Simeon ben Shetaḥ absolved of their vow. Whether Paul (Acts 21:26) became a Nazirite is possible but doubtful, as Nodet (ad loc.) notes. In modern times the best known Nazirite has been David Cohen, known as “the Nazir,” who was a disciple of Chief Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook.

To be distinguished from the meaning of “sacrifice” in Lev. 27:9 and elsewhere. The Mishnah (Nedarim 2:5) cites the case in which one declares himself ‮קרבן‬‎; but, as Nodet (ad loc.) remarks, the more usual case is where someone declares himself or his belongings ‮קרבן‬‎ relative to another or where one prohibits someone from drawing benefit from another. I.e. to the priests. However, according to ‘Arakin 24a, this is given for the maintenance of the Temple. Josephus’ categorization of korban as a priestly gift was influenced by its similarity in language with Nazirite vows. The language of making the vow of ‮קרבן‬‎ (Lev. 27:2) is ‮כי יפלא נדר‬‎; the language of making the vow of Naziriteship (Num. 6:2) is ‮כי יפלא לנדר נדר‬‎. Zeitlin (1962-63; 1968-69), examining the use of the word κορβᾶν in the NT (Mark 7:11, where it is translated as δῶρον, i.e. “gift”), the Talmudic corpus, and Josephus (War 2.175, Ant. 4.73, and Apion 1.167), concludes that it means not “gift,” as Josephus indicates here, but “vow.” But in rabbinic literature (Midrash Exod. Rabbah 15.12), as noted by Lieberman (1962:4) and Goldenberg (54 n. 2), the word ‮קרבן‬‎ is rendered as ‮דורון‬‎. Josephus (War 2.175) refers to the sacred treasure known as κορβωνᾶς (cf. Matt. 27:6: τὸν κορβανᾶν, “the sacred treasury”), which was expended upon the construction of an aqueduct. The passage in Apion 1.167, in which he cites a passage from Theophrastus’ Leges that states that the laws of the Tyrians prohibit the use of foreign oaths, in enumerating which he includes the oath called korban, is especially convincing that korban does not mean “gift.” Commenting on this passage, Josephus there asserts that this oath will be found in no other nation except the Jews. However, he then proceeds to assert that “translated from the Hebrew, one may interpret it as meaning “God’s gift.” See Hommel (1954), Fitzmyer (1959), Lieberman (1962:4), and Derrett (1969-70). The word that Josephus uses here for “obligation,” λειτουργία, refers to the public burden placed upon rich citizens, since there were no regular taxes on income or capital. Among these “liturgies” in Athens was that of equipping and manning triremes, in which the donors themselves were obliged to sail and for which they were completely responsible. This involved a contribution of considerable time and money. In addition, liturgies involved providing the choruses for dramatic and other festivals and a skilled trainer to teach them the dances and songs. There was especially keen competition among those rich men who supplied choruses, and the sponsor of the successful chorus was honored in various ways. The Romans had something similar, in that public officials had considerable costs in connection with baths and theatres; and this, of course, drove many people away from public office. As Gallant (162), remarks, by casting the korban as a λειτουργία, Josephus not only renders this comprehensible to readers familiar with the Greek practice, but he also makes it more analogous to the Nazirite vow: just as the Nazirite vow results in an ongoing obligation whose termination requires certain offerings, so the biblical valuation vow is an obligation of service, the termination of which requires a specific payment. The Talmud (Giṭṭin 39a) expresses the view that when a man “sanctifies” himself, since he cannot really sanctify himself, the meaning must be that he sanctifies his monetary value; hence he maintains himself from his own labor. The Talmud (‘Arakin 24a) indicates that the money is to go to the fund for repairs of the Temple. However, the Mishnah (‘Arakin 8:6) declares that when something is declared “devoted” without further specification it is given to the priests. Cf. Lev. 27:2-4: “When a man makes a special vow of persons to the Lord at your valuation, then your valuation of a male from 20 years old up to 60 years old shall be 50 shekels of silver, according to the shekel of the sanctuary. If the person is a female, your valuation shall be 30 shekels.” Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 2.8.34) comments on the significance of the fact that all males of a given age and all females of a given age are assessed equally, irrespective, presumably, of such considerations as beauty and strength, since in the sight of God all people are held in equal honor. Josephus omits Lev. 27:5-7, which gives the valuation for a minor from 5 to 20 years old, which is 20 shekels for a male and 10 shekels for a female; the valuation for a child from a month old to 5 years, which is 5 shekels for a male and 3 shekels for a female; and the valuation for a person 60 years old and upward, which is 15 shekels for a male and 10 shekels for a female. By omitting the valuations for those below 20 and those above 60, Josephus simplifies the matter by giving the impression that the rule applies to all cases. Cf. Lev. 27:8: “According to the ability of him who vowed the priest shall value him.” According to the Mishnah (ʿArakin 6:3), those who owe valuations must be left with a supply of food for 30 days, clothing for 12 months, as well as bedding, shoes, and tefillin, and tools or animals for their occupations. Josephus, however, gives the priest considerably more liberty, since he can determine the amount as he sees fit and not merely on the basis of what the person before him can afford.

Gallant (164) notes that δὲ καί at the beginning of this paragraph denotes both addition and an adversative, thus calling attention to the contrast between the priestly power over the laity in Ant. 4.73 and the laity’s obligation to the priests in 4.74. βραχίονα, “arm,” “shoulder [of beasts].” The Talmud (Ḥullin 134b) says that the right shoulder is meant. Cf. Deut. 18:3: “This shall be the priests’ due from the people, from those offering a sacrifice, whether it be ox or sheep: they shall give to the priest the shoulder and the two cheeks and the stomach [maw, i.e. the fourth stomach of ruminating animals].” Cf. Lev. 7:31-32: “The breast [of the peace offering] shall be for Aaron and his sons. And the right thigh you shall give to the priest.” Thackeray (ad loc.), noting this apparent discrepancy, remarks that Jewish tradition interpreted the Deuteronomy passage as referring not to the sacrifices but to animals slaughtered at home. However, as Gallant (164-65) has remarked, Thackeray has mistranslated χελύνιον as “breast,” whereas the meaning is “jaw.” Hence, Josephus is relying exclusively upon Deut. 18:3. Cf. Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 1.29.147): “Of animals sacrificed away from the altars as meat for private consumption, 3 portions are appointed to be given to the priests—the shoulder and the jaws and the maw, as it is called.” Likewise, the Mishnah (Ḥullin 10:1) asserts that the provisions of Deut. 18:3 apply to unconsecrated beasts but not to consecrated beasts and concludes that the priests are entitled to those portions alone of consecrated beasts that are explicitly stated, namely the breast and the thigh. According to Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Num. 25:13, as noted by Nodet (ad loc.), the assignment to the priests of the shoulder, the cheeks, and the stomach is the reward given to Phinehas and his priestly descendants for his zealous exploit in killing the Israelite who had relations with a Midianite woman. Gallant (164) notes that in Ant. 4.73 Josephus uses the infinitive, ἐξεῖναι, “it is permitted,” with the dative τοῖς ἱερεῦσιν to express the power of the priest. Here he uses the assonant and correspondingly syntactic infinitive εἶναι with the dative τοῖς κατ οἶκον θύουσιν εὐωχίας, “those who sacrifice at home,” to express the obligation of the layman. Ant. 3.230-32. The fact that Josephus refers to the book before this would indicate that the division of the Antiquities into books is Josephus’ own.

Num. 18:11 enumerates only sons and daughters and then adds, “Everyone who is clean in your house may eat of it.” Num. 18:10. Lev. 6:26 states that the priest who offers it for sin shall eat it. So stated also in Ant. 3.231. However, there is no source for this in the biblical passage that discusses sin offerings (Lev. 4:1-35). The meat of a thanksgiving offering had to be eaten on the same day as the sacrifice (Lev. 7:15), likewise the meat of a peace-offering (Lev. 19:6).

Hebrew ‮אדום‬‎ (Num. 20:14), LXX Ἐδώμ, Josephus Ἰδουμαία. On Josephus’ identification of Edom with Idumea see Ant. 2.1. For Josephus Idumea is south-west of Judea, and consequently, as Nodet remarks (ad loc.), he places this account after the affair of the spies and the subsequent sufferings of the Israelites (Ant. 3.300-16) and before the arrival in Kadesh-Petra (Ant. 4.82), which is far distant to the southeast in the desert and is the place where Aaron is said to have died (Ant. 4.83). Josephus omits a number of details in the statement of the envoys (Num. 20:14-17), namely the address to the king as coming from “your brother Israel,” the rehearsal of the history of sufferings of the Israelites in Egypt and their exodus therefrom, the assurance that the Israelites would not pass through the Edomites’ fields or vineyards or drink water from their wells, and that they would go along the King’s Highway, turning aside neither to the right nor to the left. The request to grant a market-place for the Israelite army is Josephus’ addition. The choice of the word χορηγῆσαι for “to furnish” is a significant Hellenization, inasmuch as this word is used, in particular, in the sense of to defray the cost of bringing out a chorus for the plays at the public festivals, as undertaken by wealthy Athenians. Cf. Ant. 4.86, where Moses makes the identical 3 offers.

Josephus omits the threat (Num. 20:18) of the king of the Edomites that if the Israelites attempt to pass through their territory the Edomites will come out with the sword against them. According to Deut. 2:29, however, the children of Esau who dwelt in Seir (Edom) did grant passage to the Israelites. The statement that the reason why Moses took a roundabout route was that he had consulted God and that God had counseled him not to open battle against the Edomites is Josephus’ addition. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Neofiti on Num. 20:21 add that the Israelites on this occasion acted in accordance with God’s counsel.

Hebrew ‮מרים‬‎ (Num. 20:1), LXX Μαριάμ, Josephus Μαριάμμη. The Pentateuch does not indicate when Miriam died. Nodet (ad loc.) notes that Seder ‘Olam Rabbah 9 (ed. Ratner, p. 39) also states that the death of Miriam and the retreat from Edom took place at the same time. That Miriam died in the fortieth year after the exodus from Egypt is Josephus’ addition. Actually, this is the beginning of the fortieth year since the Israelites left Egypt, as we can see from the statement (Num. 34:38) that Aaron died in the fortieth year since the Israelites left Egypt on the first day of the fifth month, i.e. Iyar. Since the exodus was in Nisan, the Israelites would have observed the completion of 39 years in Nisan, a month before Aaron died. Nisan, as we see in Ant. 1.81. The statement that the death of Miriam occurred after she had completed 40 years since leaving Egypt and that it was on the new moon of the month of Xanthikos is Josephus’ addition. Seder ‘Olam Rabbah 9 (ed. Ratner, p. 39) agrees with Josephus in stating that Miriam died on the first day of Nisan. According to Megillat Ta‘anit 13, Miriam died on the tenth of the month of Nisan. Seder ‘Olam Rabbah 9 (ed. Ratner, p. 43) and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Num. 20:1 do not state that Miriam died on that day but rather that the Israelites came then to the desert of Sin. Nothing is stated in Num. 20:1 about a lavish funeral at public expense. Josephus adds similarly that Sarah was buried at public expense (Ant. 1.237). To have a lavish funeral at public expense for patriotic citizens and for important political figures is, as Schalit (Vol. 2, pp. 40-41, n. 267 on Ant. 1.237, citing numerous Latin inscriptions) illustrates, a Hellenistic-Roman practice. See, e.g., Thucydides 2.34-46; Cornelius Nepos, Arist. 2 and Timoleon 5; and Livy 10.20, 29. Hebrew ‮צן‬‎ (Num. 20:1), LXX Σίν, Josephus Σείν. Concerning Miriam’s death Num. 20:1 says only that she died in Kadesh in the wilderness of Zin (Num. 33:36 specifically identifies the wilderness of Zin with Kadesh) and was buried there. Josephus omits the name of Kadesh and replaces it in Ant. 4.82 by Petra without identifying the two places. In Num. 20:1 Sin is referred to as a wilderness rather than as a mountain. As Thackeray (ad loc.) remarks, the reading “mountain” for “wilderness” occurs in one Egyptian (Bohairic) version made from the LXX; he suggests that this is due to a confusion between Sin and Sinai. Nodet (ad loc.) calls attention to the fact that according to Shabbat 89a Sinai had five names, one of which is Zin, meaning that the Israelites were given commandments there (from ‮צוה‬‎, “commanded”). Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Num. 20:1 identifies Zin with the Iron Mountain (Mishnah Sukkah 3:1), which Josephus (War 4.454) says stretches into Moab, and locates Kadesh in Reqem (i.e. Petra).One biblical incident in which both Moses and Aaron are criticized for lack of faith is that at Meribah, where, during a water shortage, Moses and Aaron gather the Israelites, and where Moses, instead of following God’s instructions to speak to the rock (Num. 20:8), actually smites it with his rod (Num. 20:10). Thereupon God, blaming Aaron (whose role in the incident seems unclear) as well as Moses, declares that as punishment neither of them will enter the Promised Land. Such an incident casts aspersions upon the reputation for faith of both Moses and Aaron, and so it is not surprising that Josephus omits it completely. Rabbinic tradition (see Ginzberg 3:319-20) looked upon Moses’ hitting the rock instead of speaking to it to bring forth water (Num. 20:2-12) as his greatest sin, since it showed apparent lack of faith. That Miriam was mourned for 30 days is Josephus’ addition, presumably to make the length of the mourning period correspond to the mourning for Miriam’s brothers, Aaron (Num. 20:29) and Moses (Deut. 34:8). When news (false, as it turned out) came that Josephus had fallen when the city of Jotapata had been taken by the Romans, Josephus (War 3.437) reports that for 30 days the lamentations never ceased in the city of Jerusalem. Num. 19, containing the law of the red heifer, whereby those who have been defiled may be cleansed, precedes the statement (Num. 20:1) on the death of Miriam. Josephus here brings the two passages together. The third-century Rabbi Ammi bar Nathan asks (Mo‘ed Qaṭan 28a) why the account of Miriam’s death is placed in juxtaposition with the laws of the red heifer and answers that it is to show that, just as the red heifer afforded atonement by the ritual use of its ashes, so the death of the righteous affords atonement for the living whom they have left behind. Tosefta Soṭah 11:1 sees significance in the fact that the death of Miriam (Num. 20:1) is followed immediately by the statement (Num. 20:2) that there was no water for the congregation.

So also Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 1.50.268). Num. 19:3 assigns the task to Eleazar the priest (who did not become high priest until after the death of his father Aaron) rather than to Aaron the high priest. Both the Mishnah (Parah 3:8) and Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 1.50.268) state that it was the high priest who performed the ceremony. The Mishnah (Parah 3:8) cites a dispute as to whether the rite was valid if it was not done by the high priest; and the Talmud (Yoma 42b) concludes that it is valid if performed by an ordinary priest. According to Num. 19:3, someone, presumably another priest, was to slay the red heifer before the presence of Eleazar. Greek γεωργία refers to tillage, agriculture, and farming in general. However, the biblical passage (Num. 19:2) on which this is based indicates only that the cow is to be one upon which no yoke has ever come. Gallant (166) notes that the requirement that the cow is to be unacquainted with the cultivation of the soil is also found in connection with the heifer (Deut. 21:3) whose neck is to be broken in atonement for an unsolved murder. The mention of a very pure place is Josephus’ addition. The LXX (Num. 19:4) omits “with his finger.” Mayer (1964:15-16) compares Josephus’ account (Ant. 4.78-82) of the rite of the Red Heifer with the biblical version (Num. 19) and concludes that Josephus’ changes are due to the fact that he is addressing a Greco-Roman audience. In one case, however, the change may be explained by the fact that he is following a reading of the LXX (εἰς τόπον καθαρόν, “into a pure [‮טהור‬‎] place” [Num. 19:3]).

Hebrew ‮טהור‬‎ (“clean,” Num. 19:9); LXX καθαρός, “clean,” “pure”; Josephus ἁγνός, “holy,” “pure,” “undefiled.” Hebrew ‮טהור‬‎ (Num. 19:9); LXX καθαρόν, “clean,””pure”; Josephus καθαρώτατον, “cleanest,” “purest.” The Mishnah Parah (3:11) speaks of dividing the ashes of the red heifer into 3 parts. Tosefta Parah 3:14, however, indicates that this division is artificial or ex post facto.

Whereas the Hebrew (Num. 19:2-10) has verbs in the future tense throughout its directive concerning the rite of the red heifer, Josephus here significantly uses a past tense, thus indicating, apparently, that the rite was no longer in use when he wrote these words. Num. 19:17 states that some of the ashes (‮מעפר‬‎) are to be taken. Num. 19:17: ‮מים חיים‬‎, “living water.” Josephus here speaks of πηγή, i.e. running water. Josephus omits that the water is to be put into a vessel (Num. 19:17). According to the Mishnah (Parah 5:5) any kind of vessel may be used. Josephus omits the statement (Num. 19:13) that the defiled person who has not purified himself thus is to be cut off from Israel. He also omits the law concerning a man who enters a tent in which there is a corpse (Num. 19:14), the commandment (Num. 19:19) that after the defiled person has purified himself he is to wash his clothes and bathe himself in water, and the enigmatic statement (Num. 19:21) that whoever touches the water of sprinkling is unclean until the evening. Nodet (ad loc.) contrasts Josephus’ view—apparently, that one who has been sprinkled with the water containing the ashes of the red heifer is immediately purified— with the biblical view that one must wait until the evening. He notes that the DSS (11 QT 45:9 and 4 QMMT) agree with the biblical view. That the law of the red heifer applies when the Israelites enter the Land of Israel is Josephus’ addition. Nodet (ad loc.) suggests that here Josephus has combined two opposing views: one, that the practice began while the Israelites were in the desert; the other, that it was able to be practiced only after the entrance into the Land of Israel. According to the Mishnah (Parah 3:5) there had been 7 red heifers prior to the destruction of the Temple.

There is no indication in Num. 20:1 that after the death of Miriam there was a rite of purification. Josephus uses the word μητρόπολις, which appears in a Greek inscription of 114 C.E. from the triumphal arch in Petra (Bowersock 1983:84-85). One of the many Greek inscriptions on statue-bases from the temenos of the temple of Qasr el Bint shows that city, described as a μητρόπολις and μητροκολωνεία, honoring a procurator of two emperors (Millar 1993a:421). This place is not mentioned in Numbers. Thackeray (ad loc.) conjectures that since Josephus (Ant. 4.161) identifies Petra with Rekeme (the Semitic name of Petra), Ἄρκην here is probably corrupt, and we should read Ἀρεκέμην. Nodet (ad loc.) analyzes this as a definite article and a feminine Greek suffix deriving from an original Aramaic (Nabatean) form rqām or rqēm or as a nasalization rqān or rqēn with a Hebrew definite article or with a prothetic vowel and a terminal Hellenization of ān or -ēn. Nodet finds support for this proposal in Eusebius’ Onom. (p.36), which attributes to Josephus a form Ἀρκέμ, which is easily reconcilable with the form found in Ant. 4.161. Petra was the capital of the independent state of the Nabateans before that state was annexed by Trajan at the beginning of the second century. According to Num. 20:1, Miriam died in Kadesh, which is near Edom; and Josephus has replaced Kadesh with Petra. Petra is a ruined site in Edom, 140 miles south of Amman and 60 miles north of Eilat. Josephus omits the quarreling of the Israelites with Moses in Kadesh because of the lack of water (Num. 20:2-13), God’s instructions to Moses to speak to the rock, and Moses’ actual striking of the rock. The fact that Josephus identifies Mount Hor, where Aaron died, with Petra, leads Davies (1979:11) to conclude that the route of the exodus was through the southern Negeb. However, Josephus himself (Davies:1979, 12) in his Apion 1.86, 89, in identifying the Israelites with the Hyksos, seems to postulate a northern route for the exodus, since Avaris, where the Hyksos were confined and where the Egyptian king met the rebels (Apion 1.274), is probably to be identified with Pelusium on the Mediterranean coast. The LXX, as Nodet (ad loc.) remarks, identifies Petra with the rock (Greek πέτρα) of Edom (Judges 1:36) and not with Kadesh, as does Josephus.

This is Mount Hor (Num. 20:23) on the boundary of the land of Edom. The local tradition (Meyuhas 1928:122) identifying Hor with the modern Jebel Nebi Harun (“mountain of Aaron”), about 10 miles west of Petra, beneath Beeroth (Deut. 10:6), has been questioned (Roth 1992:287), since the latter is in the middle of Edomite territory rather than on the border, but is consonant with the topography. According to Num. 20:23-24, God revealed this directly to Moses and Aaron. The statement that the whole army was watching this scene is Josephus’ addition. The statement that the place was precipitous is Josephus’ addition. According to the Hebrew text (Num. 20:28), it was Moses who removed Aaron’s priestly garments, whereas, according to the LXX, it was Aaron who took them off. The statement that Eleazar was chosen to succeed Aaron because he was the oldest son is Josephus’ addition. Actually, Eleazar was Aaron’s third son, but Nadab and Abihu had previously died. Whereas in Num. 20:28 it is Moses who strips Aaron of his priestly garments and places them upon his son Eleazar, in Josephus Aaron himself presides over the succession. According to Deut. 10:6, Aaron is said to have died at Moserah, between Beeroth Bene-jaakan and Gudgodah in the Arabah, though elsewhere Deut. 20:27-28, 32:50 agrees with Num. 20:22-28 in placing the site of Aaron’s death at Hor. According to the description of the stages in the journey of the Israelites through the wilderness, Moserah (Moseroth) is 7 stages earlier than Mount Hor. Josephus avoids the problem of this discrepancy by saying nothing about Aaron’s dying at Moserah. Philo (Legum Allegoriae 3.15.45) gives an allegorical interpretation of the fact that Aaron died at Mount Hor: Aaron, whose name signifies Word, goes up into Hor, which signifies Light or Truth, so that the end of the Word is Truth, “which casts a beam more far-reaching than Light.” Normally, when one of the biblical heroes dies, Josephus, as we have noted, has an encomium of greater or lesser length. According to the rabbinic tradition, so beloved was Aaron by the Israelites that when he died all the congregation of Israel wept for him (Num. 20:29) (Sifra [ed. Weiss, p. 45d]), whereas when Moses died only the men (Deut. 34:8, literally, the sons of Israel) wept for him. But Josephus, perhaps out of a concern not to have Aaron rival Moses, has no word of encomium for him at all. Moses retains the role of leadership, inasmuch as it is he who reveals to Aaron that he is about to die, whereas in the biblical account it is God who tells Moses and Aaron jointly that Aaron is to die (Num. 20:23).

The statement that Aaron died in the same year as his sister is Josephus’ addition. That Aaron was 123 years old at his death is Josephus’ addition. It is derived from the fact that Aaron died in the same year as Moses (the fortieth year after the Exodus [Num. 33:38]), who was 120 years old when he died (Deut. 34:7) and who was 3 years younger than Aaron (Exod. 7:7). This month corresponded to the second half of July and the first part of August. It was so called because of the holiday ἑκατόμβαια, during which hecatombs were sacrificed. Aramaic for ‮אב‬‎. In place of Abba the manuscripts read σαβ(β)ὰ or σαβὰτ, which would indicate that Aaron died on the first day of the month of Shebat. This would be the fifth month of the civil year, which starts with Tishri. Num. 33:38 states that Aaron died on the first day of the fifth month [i.e. Ab]. For Josephus the key point is the legitimacy of the succession of the high priesthood; hence, he gives the precise date of the month when Aaron died, noting the equivalent name of the month according to the Athenian and Macedonian calendars. On Josephus’ interest in high-priestly succession see the lengthy enumeration of the high priests from Aaron to the time of the destruction of the Second Temple in Ant. 20.224-51. On Josephus’ priestly interests see Feldman (1998a:61-62).

Num. 20:29. Josephus omits the account of the attack upon the Israelites by the Canaanite king of Arad, the victory of the Israelites at Hormah, the renewed murmuring of the people against God and Moses, the fiery serpents made by Moses to counter the brazen serpents sent by God, and the continued journeying of Israelites to Oboth, Iyebarim, and the Valley of Zered (Num. 21:1-20). Nodet (ad loc.) suggests that the account of the serpents is omitted for the same reason as the golden calf episode: to avoid the suspicion that Israelites worshipped animals. Cf. Apion’s assertion (Apion 2.80) worshipped an ass in the Temple. Hebrew ‮ארנון‬‎ (Num. 21:13), LXX Ἀρνῶν, Josephus Ἀρνῶνα. According to Num. 21:13, the Arnon River starts at the boundary of the land of the Amorites. These geographical details about the Arnon River are Josephus’ addition. Lake Asphaltitis is the Dead Sea. As Nodet (ad loc.) remarks, Josephus disregards the usual interpretation of “between” (‮בין‬‎, Num. 21:13) Moabitis and Amoritis, which supposes that Moabitis (to the east of Jericho) is to the north of the Arnon River and that Amoritis is to the south. This would mean that Moses, coming from Petra due south and reaching the Arnon, would already have traversed the Arnon, which is contradicted by Num. 21:21, since he reached Amoritis after having come to the Arnon. Josephus solves this difficulty by placing Amoritis north of the Arnon, which accords with the fact that Sihon lives in Heshbon (Num. 21:25). This statement about the fertility of Amorite land is Josephus’ addition. Josephus omits the reference to the book of the wars of the Lord (Num. 21:14) and the song sung at the well of Beer (Num. 21:16-18) and the continued traveling of the Israelites to Mattanah, Nehaliel, Bamoth, and the valley by the top of Pisgah (Num. 21:8-20).

Hebrew ‮סיחן‬‎ (Num. 21:23), LXX Σηών, Josephus Σιχών. As Nodet (ad loc.) indicates, Josephus apparently interprets “the king’s highway” (Num. 21:21) in an allegorical (ethnic) way, as does Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. Cf. Num. 21:22: “Let me pass through your land; we will not turn aside into field or vineyard; we will not drink the water of a well; we will go by the King’s Highway, until we have passed through your territory.” Josephus is following Moses’ summary (Deut. 2:27-28), which indicates that the Israelites are prepared to pay for the water, whereas in Num. 21:22 the Israelite messengers declare that they will not drink the water. Cf. the similar request for passage made of the king of Edom, asking him to open a market for the Israelite army and even undertaking to pay for the water (Ant. 4.76). The offer to purchase provisions to the advantage of the Amorites, including even water, is Josephus’ addition, presumably based on the parallel request made of the king of the Edomites (Ant. 4.76). Josephus is here following the version of this request to Sihon in Deut. 2:28: “You shall sell me food for money, that I may eat, and give me water for money, that I may drink; only let me pass through on foot.” Josephus, however, follows Num. 20:18 and not Deut. 2:29, which indicates that the sons of Esau did accept these conditions, as put forth by the Israelites. The statement (Deut. 2:39) that God hardened the spirit of Sihon is omitted by Josephus. The statement that Sihon sought to prevent the Israelites from crossing the Arnon river is Josephus’ addition.

That Sihon, the king of the Amorites, treated the Israelites with contempt is Josephus’ addition. That the Israelites were previously inactive owing to their civil strife is Josephus’ addition. A great leader must be psychologically sensitive; and Moses, in Josephus’ portrait, excels in this respect. Thus, whereas the biblical text states merely that the Israelites defeated the Amorites (Num. 21:24), Josephus’ Moses finds a good reason, besides the hostile attitude of the Amorites, for arousing the Israelites to attack: to deliver them from that inactivity (ἀπραξίας) and consequent indigence (ἀπορίας) that had produced their previous mutiny and their present discontent.

That Moses consulted with God before going to war with the Amorites and that God indicated that the Israelites would be victorious are Josephus’ addition. According to Deut. 2:31, God took the initiative in telling Moses to take possession of Sihon’s land. Josephus makes Moses’ consultation with God here parallel with his consultation with God when the king of Edom refused passage to the Israelites through his realm (Num. 20:14-21; Ant. 4.77). Moses’ confidence in the war against the Amorites and the encouragement he gave to his soldiers are Josephus’ addition. That the Israelites put on their armor and immediately proceeded to fight against the Amorites is Josephus’ addition.

Greek θᾶττον (“more swiftly,” “earlier,” “sooner”) implies undue haste. That the Amorites were at first stout-hearted but later gave way to fear is Josephus’ addition.

The dismay of the Amorite soldiers, which caused them to flee to their fortified cities even before encountering the Israelites, is Josephus’ addition. That the cities were of no advantage to the Amorites when they fled to them is Josephus’ addition. The rout that follows the Israelites’ victory is recounted very simply in the Bible (Num. 21:24). This becomes, in Josephus’ version an elaborate description of a panic, which draws heavily on Thucydides’ account of the Athenian debacle at Syracuse. See the comments of Thackeray (1930:4:521, notes b and c), who cites, in particular, the parallel with Thucydides’ account (7.83-84) of the retreat of the Athenians from Syracuse.

Thackeray notes that there is triple alliteration here in the Greek: πεπονήκεσαν προσεπιταλαιπωρῆσαι προσθέμενοι, a device for which Sophocles is well known (Oedipus Coloneus 589, 804-5, 1140). Thackeray (ad loc.) notes a similar expression—εὐσταλεῖς—in Thucydides 3.22.2, “light-armed.” Josephus gives a rational explanation of the Israelites’ ability to rout the Amorites.

The phrase “as many as crowded together” recalls the rout of the Thebans by the Plataeans in Thucydides 2.4.5, as noted by Thackeray (ad loc.). The details of the rout of the Amorites (the wounds, thirst, and pelting) are Josephus’ addition—influenced, as noted by Thackeray (ad loc.), by Thucydides’ description (7.83-84) of the Athenian retreat from Syracuse.

This is merely implied in Deut. 2:34. Josephus elaborates on the biblical account (Num. 21:24) of the spoil of the Amorites taken by the Hebrews. As Nodet (ad loc.) notes, according to Seder ‘Olam 9 (ed. Ratner, pp. 39-40), the war with Sihon took place during the month of Elul, i.e. August-September, when crops were harvested.

Josephus omits the statement (Deut. 2:34) that the Israelites destroyed every inhabited city of the Amorites, including the women and the children. The statement that the Amorites, in their battle with the Israelites, showed neither skill in counsel (φρονῆσαι δεινούς) nor valor in action (Ant. 4.94; cf. Num. 21:25) is Josephus’ addition. In contrast, Josephus depicts Moses as the sagest of counsellors (Apion 2.158).

Hebrew ‮יבק‬‎ (Deut. 2:37), LXX Ἰαβόκ, Josephus Ἰοβάκου. That this was the northern boundary of the Amorites is also stated in Josh. 12:2. This was the site where Jacob wrestled with an angel (Gen. 32:33). Naber emends ὀνόματος (“name”) to νάματος (“stream”). Josephus here indicates that the first two letters of the name “Jordan” are derived from the first two letters of the name “Jobak.” Elsewhere Josephus (Ant. 1.177) implies that the second half of the name “Jordan” is derived from Dan, one of the two sources of the Jordan River. Needless to say, this etymology is generally regarded as fanciful. The more widely accepted etymology is from the Semitic ‮ירד‬‎ yarad, “to descend”; but Gordon (1959:122 n. 19) suggests that “Jordan” is a common East Mediterranean noun rather than a proper name and means “river,” as we see in Homer (Il. 7.135, Od. 3.292) (see Thompson 1992:954). These geographical details about the country of the Amorites are Josephus’ addition. The extent of Sihon’s territory has been debated. Noth (1940-41) concludes that his kingdom included only the area around Heshbon and that the boundaries indicated in Judg. 11:22 are those of the later Israelite conquest. Josephus omits the statement (Num. 21:32) that Moses sent to spy out Jazer and took its villages and dispossessed the Amorites there.

Hebrew ‮עוג‬‎ (Num. 21:33), LXX Ὤγ, Josephus Ὤγης. Hebrew ‮גלעד‬‎, an area east of the Jordan River and south of Bashan, also known as Γαλααδίτις (Ant. 5.164, 5.260, 6.375, 7.8, 7.230, 8.36, 8.319, 8.411, 9.105, 9.119). Hebrew ‮גולן‬‎ district east of the Sea of Galilee. In Num. 21:33 and Deut. 3:1 Og is denominated king of Bashan, a region north of the Yarmuk River and east of the Jordan. Josephus has apparently substituted names that were current in his own day. In Deut. 4:43 and in Josh. 20:8 and 21:27 Golan is located in Bashan. That Og was a friend of Sihon and that he led an army to his aid is Josephus’ addition. According to Niddah 61a, Sihon and Og were brothers, being the sons of Ahijah the son of Shamḥazai, one of the fallen angels mentioned in Gen. 6:2, 4 as “sons of God” or “Nephilim,” who were giants. The rabbis ask why Moses feared Og while he did not fear Sihon, and reply that Moses thought that perhaps the merit of Abraham would support Og, since Og was the nameless individual (Gen. 14:13) who had escaped from the four kings and who had reported to Abram that the kings had captured Abram’s nephew Lot. The close friendship of Sihon and Og, as noted by Josephus, has produced a confusion in the lands ruled by them or a fusion of the two as Amorites. See Ginzberg (6:117 n. 668). The victory of Israel (and Moses) over Og is all the greater in view of Josephus’ comment that Og was confident of success despite the fact, which Josephus adds to the biblical text (Num. 21:33), that he had learned that his friend Sihon had already perished. According to rabbinic tradition, however, Og dwelt only one day’s distance from Sihon (Midrash Song of Songs Rabbah 4.8), and yet did not come to Sihon’s assistance.

Josephus omits the fact (Num. 21:33) that the battle was at Edrei, a town in Transjordan in the southeastern region of Og’s territory or perhaps on the western frontier. Josephus omits God’s assurance to Moses (Num. 21:34) that He has delivered Og and Og’s nation into his hands. Josephus, like the Samaritan Pentateuch, omits the statement (Num. 31:35) that the Israelites killed not only Og but also his sons. Nodet (ad loc.) suggests that Josephus sees the cities of Og in the plain of Jordan, in the region of Pella, rather than in the various plateaux of Transjordan; but this does not accord with the connection of Og and Rabbah (Ant. 4.98). Whereas the Bible says simply that the Israelites conquered all of Og’s cities and that these were fortified (Deut. 3:4-5), Josephus exaggerates the riches and soil quality of Og’s realm.

For Ant. 4.97-98 Josephus follows the LXX.The battle with Og is a further test of Moses’ mettle. That Og was a giant is clear from the Bible, which states that his bedstead was 9 cubits (13 l/2 feet) in length, and 4 cubits (6 feet) in width (Deut. 3:11). Josephus, perhaps realizing that to cite such dimensions would impugn his credibility, omits them, while stressing his huge size in more general terms by stating that he had a stature and beauty such as few could boast. Moses’ stature and beauty appear all the greater because Josephus exaggerates these same qualities in his great opponent Og. Hebrew ‮רבת‬‎ (Deut. 3:11), LXX ἐν τῇ ἄκρᾳ (in the citadel, in the extremity), Josephus Ῥαβαθᾶ. Here we see that Josephus must have used the Hebrew text rather than the LXX. Hebrew ‮עמון‬‎ (Deut. 3:11), LXX Ἀμμών, Josephus Ἀμμανίτιδος. A cubit is the distance from the point of the elbow to that of the middle finger, approximately 17 to 22 inches.

Ant. 3.56 enumerates these benefits: the Israelites thus enslaved the spirit of their assailants (i.e. the Amalekites); they became a source of terror to all their neighbors; and they themselves acquired a great quantity of wealth.

Here Josephus clearly did not follow the LXX, which translates ‮ערבות מואב‬‎ (Num. 22:1) as “west of Moab,” understanding ‮ערבות‬‎ as being related to ‮ערב‬‎ (“evening,” “sunset,” “west”), whereas Josephus correctly understands it as meaning “plains.” In War 4.455 Josephus explains that the Great Plain is the region enclosed between two mountain ranges near Jericho that extends from the village of Sennabris (between Tiberias and Tarichaeae) to the Dead Sea. This is the Ghōr (“Rift”) or Jordan valley, which is intersected by the Jordan River and contains the Dead Sea and the Sea of Galilee. Elsewhere, “Great Plain” is the name for the plain of Esdraelon. See White (1992:609). On the occasion of the arrival of the general Vespasian at Jericho in 68 C.E. Josephus (War 4.452-75) presents an extensive description of the city, its surrounding area, and its products. Deut. 34:3 refers to Jericho as the city of palm trees. It was so well known for its palms that in Judg. 1:16 it is called simply “the city of palms” without need for further identification. Josephus (War 4.457-58) explains that in the summer the plain where Jericho lies is burnt up and that the excessive drought renders the surrounding atmosphere pestilential, since it is wholly without water. The fact that the palm-groves, however, are on the banks of the river explains why they are more luxuriant and productive than those further off. Josephus (War 4.468) notes that there are numerous varieties of date-palms produced there, which differ in flavor and in medicinal properties, and that the richer species produce much honey, not much inferior to that of bees. When Josephus speaks of the abundant date-palms of Coele-Syria, we must assume, as Stern (1974:1:14) remarks, that he has in mind the world-famous palms growing in the vicinity of Jericho. This assumption is reinforced by the account that follows of the valley of Syria (clearly the Jordan Valley), which extends through Arabia to the Red Sea, in the lowest part of which the date-palms grow. The palm groves of Judea were well known. Thus, to show how lazy someone is, Horace (Ep. 2.2.183-84) in the first century B.C.E. says that one of two brothers prefers idleness to Herod’s rich palm groves (presumably those in the region of Jericho, which Herod had leased from Cleopatra, Ant. 15.96), thus indicating that the palms of Judea are a proverbial source of great wealth. Likewise, Lucan (Phar. 3.216) in the first century C.E. refers to Idume (that is Judea), “rich in palm-plantations.” These details about the products produced in Jericho are Josephus’ addition. Cf. War 1.138, where in mentioning Jericho, Josephus notes that the soil there is the most fertile in Judea: it produces palms and balsam-trees abundantly. The stems of the latter, he adds, are cut with sharp stones and the balsam is collected at the incisions, where it exudes drop by drop. In remarking (Ant. 14.54) that Pompey encamped near Jericho, he explains that this is “where they cultivate the palm tree and opobalsamum, that most excellent of ointments, which, when the shrubs are cut with a sharp stone, oozes out like sap.” In noting that Herod leased from Cleopatra the revenues of the region around Jericho (Ant. 15.96), Josephus remarks that this area bears balsam, its most precious commodity (it was produced in only one other place, Engedi near the Dead Sea, according to Ant. 9.7), and also palm trees, which are both numerous and excellent. The root of the opobalsamon, says Josephus (Ant. 8.174), was originally the gift of the Queen of Sheba to Solomon. No fewer than 6 ancient authors—Theophrastus (Hist. Pl. 9.6.1) in the fourth century B.C.E., Diodorus (on two occasions, 2.48.9 and 19.98) in the first century B.C.E., Strabo (16.2.41.763) in the first century B.C.E., Pompeius Trogus (quoted in Justin, Hist. Phil. 36.3.1) in the first century C.E., Dioscorides (De Materia Medica 1.19.1) in the first century C.E., and Pliny the Elder (Hist. Nat. 12.111) in the first century C.E.— mention that balsam is produced nowhere else in the world except in Judea. Theophrastus says that the pure gum sells for twice its weight in silver. Diodorus twice remarks that its use for medicinal purposes was most highly valued by physicians; it is therefore not surprising, as Trogus states, that the income from it increased the wealth of the nation. Apparently, according to Strabo (17.1.15.800), the value of the balsam was increased through the deliberate limiting of its growth by the Jews to only a few places. So valuable was this balsam, according to Pliny (12.113), that there were pitched battles in defense of it; even its shoots and the bark, he remarks (12.118), fetched huge sums; in no other case, he adds (12.123), is more obvious fraud practiced through adulteration. That, indeed, the balsam was in great demand is manifest from its use in elaborate funeral pyres (so the first-century C.E. Statius, Sil. 2.1.159-62 and 5.1.210-14); and it was regarded as one of the representative products of the rich East (3.3.138-41). Its fame was apparently proverbial, as we see in the reference in the second-century C.E. Aelius Aristeides (36 [Aegyptiacus 82]) to the famous (ὀνομαστάς) dates and juice [i.e. of balsam] of Palaestina-Syria. The second-century C.E. Galen (De Antidotis 1.4) cites it as an example of a medicinal substance of supreme excellence. More recently, in a cave 3 km. north of Qumran, a sealed jug has been found apparently containing real balsam (see Patrich and Arubas 1989: 43-59). According to Keritot 5b, King Joram was anointed with pure balsam. This statement is Josephus’ addition to Num. 22:1.

Hebrew ‮מדין‬‎ (Num. 22:4), LXX Μαδιάμ, Josephus Μαδιανιτῶν. This statement is Josephus’ addition. According to Num. 31:10, the Israelites burned with fire all of the cities of the Midianites, but there is no mention of a siege.

Hebrew ‮בלק‬‎ (Num. 22:2), LXX Βαλάκ, Josephus Βάλακος. Josephus omits the statement that Balak was the son of Zippor, perhaps because some of his readers knew that in Hebrew Zippor means a bird. That Balak had an ancestral friendship and alliance with the Midianites is Josephus’ addition. According to the Jerusalem Targum on Num. 22:4, Moab and Midian formed a confederate state, with a Moabite and Midianite alternating as king. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Num. 22:4 states that the Moabites and Midianites formed a single people and had a single king. Josephus seeks to attribute hatred of the Jewish people not to whole nations but merely to individuals. Thus, whereas in the Bible it is the Amalekites as a nation who beset the Israelites in the desert (Exod. 17:8-16), in Josephus it is the kings of the Amalekites who are blamed for sending messages to the kings of neighboring tribes exhorting them to make war against the Israelites (Ant. 3.40). Moreover, whereas in the Bible God forbids the Israelites to attack the Moabites, inasmuch as He has given the Moabites their land as descendants of Lot (Deut. 2:9), Josephus here broadens the statement into a general principle, that the Israelites do not interfere in the affairs of any other country. Vermes (1973:128) explains the intrusion of the Midianites into a story concerning only Moab by noting a rabbinic observation (Sifre Num. 157 [ed. Horovitz, p. 209], Sanhedrin 105a) that the alliance beween Midian and Moab resulted merely from their common exposure to the Hebrew menace. The rabbis deduce from Gen. 36:35 that Moab and Midian had been deadly enemies until then. Another interpretation is found in Midrash Num. Rabbah 20.4: “The Moabites saw Israel’s unusual conquests and said: Their leader grew up in Midian; let us learn from them the nature of his power. The elders of Midian said to them: His power is only in his mouth (prayer). Thereupon the Moabites said to them: We shall also come against them with a man whose power is in his mouth!” Cf. also Tanḥuma 4 (ed. Buber, p. 134). An anonymous Tanna is quoted (Sanhedrin 105a) as asserting that there was never peace beween Midian and Moab and compares their relationship to that of two dogs in one kennel that were always enraged at each other, but that when a wolf attacked one, the other said that if he did not come to the aid of the victim he himself would be attacked on the following day, and so they both went and killed the wolf. Josephus, however, assiduously avoids giving the impression that gentiles by nature hate Jews and instead depicts the two nations as long-time friends and allies. Their motive in going to war with the Israelites, according to Josephus, is thus not hatred (Ant. 4.103); in fact, in an extra-biblical addition, Josephus specifically says that it was not Balak’s intention to fight against men fresh with success, who had been found to be only the more emboldened by reverses; rather his aim was to check their aggrandizement. Such a presentation casts the Moabites and the Midianites in a much better light. Josephus omits the statement (Num. 22:2) that Balak saw all that Israel had done to the Amorites. If he had included it, one might well have asked why, if he was so impressed by what he saw, there is no tradition preserved in rabbinic literature that he converted to Judaism. We can see another of the charges against the Jews reflected, for example, in the order given by Marsus, the governor of Syria, to Agrippa I, to break up the conference of various kings that the latter had convened at Tiberias. In that case Marsus had been suspicious that Agrippa was trying to foment a conspiracy against the Romans (Ant. 19.340-42). Hence, in an extra-biblical detail here, Josephus, in introducing the narrative of Balaam, remarks that Balak, the king of the Moabites, had formed an alliance with the Midianites when he saw the Israelites growing so great and had become concerned that they would seek to expand at his expense. In so doing, he had not learned, says Josephus, that the Hebrews did not interfere with other countries, God having forbidden them to do so. The verb which is here used for “interfering,” implies being meddlesome, being an inquisitive busybody, and is almost always employed in a pejorative sense. Cf., e.g., Herodotus 3.15; Xenophon, Anab. 5.1.15; Aristophanes, Plut. 913; Plato, Rep. 4.433A. This editorial-like comment that Balak was more swift than prudent is Josephus’ addition. In the Greek the “words” are ambiguous. They may refer to the curses that Balak sought to have Balaam utter against the Israelites, or they may refer to the discussions that Balak had with his Midianite friends in seeking to halt the advance of the Israelites. Nodet (ad loc.) suggests that there may be an allusion here to the instruments of divination; cf. the reference to the ‮חשׁן‬‎ of the high priest, a word that Josephus says signifies speech (λόγιον, “oracle”; Ant. 3.163).

That Balak decided not to go to war with the Israelites because the latter had had outstanding successes and were even bolder now that they had experienced misfortune is Josephus’ addition. That Balak sent an embassy to the Midianites and that his purpose in doing so was to take measures to prevent the Israelites from growing stronger are Josephus’ addition.

Hebrew ‮בלעם‬‎ (Num. 22:5), LXX Βαλαάμ, Josephus Βάλαμος. Josephus does not give the name of Balaam’s father, Beor (Num. 22:5). Nodet (ad loc.) suggests that Josephus omits the name of Balaam’s father either because the name Beor signifies foolishness [cf. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan ad loc.] or because he normally omits the antecedents of suspicious people. Gen. 36:32 mentions Bela the son of Beor, a king of Edom, and the Jerusalem Targum identifies the former with Balaam. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan identifies Balaam with Laban through a series of double entendres. The fact that Balaam is cited, with virtually no introduction, in an extra-biblical inscription discovered in 1967 indicates that the name of Balaam was well known to the pagan people to whom the inscription in question (apparently dating from the eighth century B.C.E.) was addressed, so that we may infer that Balaam’s prophetic status was a tradition of long standing (see Hackett 1980). That the story of Balaam was of great interest to Josephus may be deduced from the extraordinary amount of space that he gives to this narrative (Ant. 4.102-58). Thus, whereas the Hebrew (Num. 22:2-25:9) has 164 lines and the LXX 261 lines, Josephus’ version has 363 lines. This gives a ratio of 2.21 for Josephus as compared with the Hebrew and 1.39 for Josephus as compared with the LXX. For the episode of the Israelite men and the Midianite women (Num. 25:1-9), the ratio of Josephus’ 176 lines (Ant. 4.131-58) to the Hebrew text of 15 lines is no less than 11.73 (9.26 as compared with the LXX). In Num. 22:5 Balak sends messengers to Pethor to Balaam. In Josephus there is no mention of Pethor or any other place where Balaam was to be found; rather we are told that Balaam himself is from area of the Euphrates River. The Samaritan Pentateuch reads ‮בני עמון‬‎, the Ammonites. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Num. 22:5 understands the river as the Euphrates because of the connection with Laban. Josephus distinguishes carefully, in his terminology, between pagan and Jewish prophets and even between the classical prophets and those latter-day prognosticators such as himself. The LXX reserves the term προφήτης for those who reveal the Divine will, while using the word μάντις and its cognates when referring to heathen soothsayers. The prophet declares nothing that comes from himself. Josephus, in general, seems to maintain the classical distinction between μάντις and προφήτης, namely that the former has foresight and knowledge of future events, as Cicero (Div. 1.1) puts it (hence this role can continue after the cessation of prophecy, which occurred during the reign of Artaxerxes, according to Apion 1.41), whereas the task of the προφήτης is to be the voice of God and to declare the knowledge of God to those who come for advice (see Krämer 1976:6:790). The role of the prophet is that of a mediator, serving both as God’s spokesman to humanity and vice versa. The μάντις was not an inspired prophet but a craftsman (δημιουργός), associated with leeches and carpenters in Homer (Od., 17.384) (see Rose 1914:796).To be sure, Josephus never applies the word προφήτης to Balaam or, for that matter, to himself. Instead, he uses the terms μάντις, μαντεία, μαντεῖον, and μαντεύομαι with reference to pagan prophecies (particularly those derived from dreams), for example, of the Egyptian seers (Ant. 2.241; Apion 1.236, 256, 257, 258 [2], 267, 306), Balaam (Ant. 4.104 [2], 112, 157), the Witch of Endor (Ant. 6.330, 331, 338), the Babylonian soothsayers (Ant. 10.195), a seer in Alexander the Great’s army (Apion 1.203, 204), the Emperor Tiberius (Ant. 18.217, 223), the Delphic Oracle (Apion 2.162), and soothsayers in general (Ant. 6.327, 331, 17.345; War 2.112). In this respect Josephus parallels pagan usage, which restricts the use of προφήτης to a religious sphere, where it designates one who is attached to an oracular shrine and speaks in the name of a god (as in the etymology from πρό + φημί), declaring the divine counsel in the oracle. Historical seers and prophets who are not recipients of the oracles—the biblical parallel would be those acting without God’s direction—are called not προφῆται but χρησμολόγοι or the like. But since Josephus wishes, on the whole, to restrict his use of the word προφήτης to those who qualify as prophets according to the Bible, he also applies these terms (μάντις, etc.) to Jews, notably Judas the Essene (War 1.79; Ant. 13.312, 313) and even himself (War 4.625).The Bible does not explicitly designate Balaam either a prophet or a seer of any kind. The rabbinic tradition, by contrast (Sifre Deut. 357), considers him even greater than Moses in that whereas Moses had to pray to God to show him His ways, Balaam could declare of himself that he “knew the knowledge of the Most High.” Philo, like Josephus, avoids calling him a prophet and instead refers to his widespread fame for soothsaying (μαντείᾳ) (De Vita Mosis 1.48.264). Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 18.2) refers to him as an interpreter of dreams (interpretem somniorum). Origen questions whether Balaam was a prophet (Comm. Joh. 28.12 [PG 14.707]). He concludes that Balaam was not a prophet, inasmuch as his prophecies were involuntary and short-lived and inasmuch as he is referred to in the LXX only as a soothsayer (μάντις). Yet, just as he is not perfectly consistent in his terminology for slavery (see Gibbs and Feldman 1985-86, 281-310) or in his use of terms for “city” or “village,” so here, though he avoids the term in reference to Balaam, Josephus does use the word “prophet” for an Egyptian prophet (Apion 1.312), for Cleodemus-Malchus the historian (Ant. 1.240), and the prophets of Baal opposed by Elijah (Ant. 8.339). Josephus also uses the word μαντεία in referring to predictions by Jews who were not prophets, such as Jotham (Ant. 5.253), the diviners banished by King Saul (Ant. 6.327), Judas the Essene (War 1.80; Ant. 13.312), the anonymous critics of Herod (Ant. 17.121), the diviners skilled in interpreting dreams who were sent for by the ethnarch Archelaus (Ant. 17.345), and himself (War 4.625).Vermes (1973: 129) notes that tradition, because of Balaam’s converse with God during the night, discerned in the place name Pethor (Num. 22:5) an allusion to his profession, the root ‮פתר‬‎ signifying “to interpret dreams” (so Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Neofiti ad loc.). So also Philo (De Vita Mosis 1.48.264) speaks of Balaam as being “far-famed as a soothsayer.” Pseudo-Philo (18.2) speaks of him as an interpreter of dreams. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (on Num. 22:5) and Midrash Num. Rabbah 20.7 attempt to combine both interpretations: “Pethor because he interpreted dreams.” In Num. 22:5-6 there is no indication of the relations that Balak had with Balaam prior to his sending the embassy to Balaam. The Hebrew ‮וישׁלח‬‎ (“sent,” Num. 22:5) is singular, indicating that Balak alone sent the envoys. In Num. 22:5-7 we read only that Balak sent messengers and that the elders of Moab and Midian went with [the fees for] ‮קסמים‬‎ (“magic,” “divination,” “divining instruments,” LXX μαντεῖα, “oracles”) for Balaam. According to Tanḥuma Balak 4 (p. 787), Midrash Num. Rabbah [ad. loc.], and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Num. 22:7, they had been sent by the magician Balak. As Nodet (ad loc.) remarks, the word ‮קסמים‬‎ is often understood as referring to remuneration (cf. 2 Pet. 2:15: “Balaam, the son of Beor, who loved gain from wrongdoing”). Targum Neofiti combines both senses of ‮קסמים‬‎ and understands it as the wages he has received for his divinations. Cf. Ant. 4.118, where we learn that Balaam received liberal gifts for his services, and Ant. 4.126, where we read that Balak, disgusted that Balaam has not cursed the Israelites, dismisses him without giving him any reward. That the goal of the embassy was the complete destruction of the Israelites is Josephus’ addition. Targum Neofiti on Num. 22:6 likewise indicates that the aim was to exterminate the Israelites.

There was almost no quality more deeply appreciated in antiquity than hospitality. Hence, the reader will form a distinctly positive picture of Balaam by virtue of the hospitality that he shows in Josephus’ additions to the biblical account. Thus, whereas the latter asserts simply that Balaam told Balak’s envoys to remain overnight (Num. 22:8), Josephus elaborates that Balaam received them in friendly fashion (φιλοφρόνως, “lovingly,” “cordially,” “affectionately,” “benevolently,” “kindly,” “politely,” “joyfully,” “gladly”—the same word that is used with regard to the hospitality shown by David [Ant. 7.30])—and with hospitality (ξενίᾳ). Josephus then adds that Balaam, the gracious host, gave them supper. According to Num. 22:9, it was God who took the initiative in appearing to Balaam and who asked who the people were who had come to him. According to Num. 22:7, the embassy included the elders of both the Moabites and the Midianites. In Num. 22:13 Balaam simply tells the embassy that they should return since God has refused to allow him to accompany them. Josephus adds that Balaam was actually eager to perform their request to curse the Israelites. That Balaam declared that it was God who had led him to his great reputation for truth’s sake is Josephus’ addition. Far from imputing anti-Jewish hatred to Balaam, Josephus presents him as counselling the envoys who had been sent by Balak to renounce the hatred that they bore to the Israelites (Ant. 4.106). By contrast, the rabbinic view (Tanḥuma Balak 9 [ed. Buber, p. 136] and parallels) and that of Philo (De Vita Mosis 1.48.266) is that Balaam was not at all sincere in his initial refusal to accompany the envoys. In the Bible as well, Balaam does not give advice, as Josephus reports him doing here, on his own but reports merely that it is God who has refused to allow him to accompany the envoys (Num. 22:13). Moreover, Josephus’ favorable picture of Balaam is enhanced by the fact that, unlike the rabbinic tradition (Midrash Num. Rabbah 20.12, 20.19 and parallels), which connects Balaam’s desire to gratify the ambassadors with his hatred of the Israelites, Josephus has Balaam explicitly inquire of God concerning His intention with regard to the invitation of the envoys. When God informs him that he is not to curse the Israelites (Num. 22:12), in the biblical version Balaam tells the envoys that they must return, inasmuch as God refuses to allow him to accompany them (Num. 22:13). The rabbinic tradition (Midrash Num. Rabbah 20), as well as the Second Samaritan Chronicle 3, indicates that Balaam wished to curse the Israelites. To be sure, in Josephus’ version Balaam might seem to be even more anti-Israelite, because he makes plain to the envoys his readiness (προθυμίαν) and zeal (σπουδήν) to comply with their request to curse the Israelites, which, however, God has forbidden him to do. From this statement we see, nevertheless, that Balaam’s motive is not actually hatred for the Israelites but rather loyalty to his sovereign, Balak. Moreover, in stating that God has vetoed the envoys’ request, Josephus has him piously add to the biblical narrative a statement of his recognition that the God who refused him is the God who had brought him to his high renown for the sake of truth and its prediction (πρόρρησιν). That Josephus here uses the word πρόρρησις does not yet indicate that he regards Balaam as a prophet comparable to the Hebrew prophets, however, because πρόρρησις is employed by him of predictions in a dream (e.g., Joseph’s dream, Ant. 2.15; the butler’s dream, Ant. 2.65; the baker’s dream, Ant. 2.72; Amram’s dream, Ant. 2.217) or of predictions in general (e.g., of Pharaoh’s seer, Apion 1.258).

In referring to the Israelites as an army, Josephus puts the confrontation with the Midianites on a military basis, rather than on one of anti-Jewish hatred. In several other instances also the Israelites are referred to as an army where this military aspect is missing in the biblical original (Ant. 4.106, 116, 122, 140). In contrast to the Bible, which states that Balaam, without giving a reason for God’s veto (Num. 22:13), told the envoys sent by Balak that they should return because God had refused to allow him to accompany them to curse the Israelites, Josephus uses the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Israelites: the reason why God had refused Balak’s request was that the Israelites were in favor with Him.

According to Num. 22:15, Balak sent princes, more numerous and more honorable, to entreat Balaam. Since he was king of Moab it would appear that these were Moabites. Josephus, however, identifies them as Midianites, presumably to stress the unity of the two nations in their quest. Balaam is depicted in Josephus as succumbing only to persistent pressure by Balak. Moreover, Balak’s envoys offer to honor Balaam greatly (Num. 22:17) if he will listen to their request. Josephus omits Balaam’s answer (Num. 22:18) that even if the envoys offered him a house full of gold and silver he would not be able to contradict God’s orders in the slightest respect. Josephus also omits Balaam’s invitation to the envoys to stay overnight so that he might learn from God what he should do (Num. 22:19). In Josephus, Balak’s entreaties (δέησιν, “supplication,” “plea”) are urgent and persistent, while Balaam agrees to consult God anew not out of audacity or greed, but only in order to give these new envoys some gratification. In Num. 22:20 it is not Balaam who takes the initiative to consult with God but rather God who comes to Balaam at night. Even when Balaam, instructed by God to accompany them, agrees to do so, Josephus, in an extra-biblical addition, not only does not blame Balaam but even seems to castigate God, since we are told that Balaam did not realize that God had deluded him in giving him this order. As Baskin (1983:97) has noted, Josephus here appears to agree with the rabbinic tradition (Midrash Num. Rabbah 20.9, 20.11) that it was God who had led Balaam astray by directing him to accede to the request of the envoys. To be sure, Josephus proceeds to defend God’s action by remarking that He was angry that Balaam should have tempted Him thus a second time; Philo, however, puts Balaam himself in a more unfavorable light by stating that his second consultation of God was once again pure pretense (De Vita Mosis 1.48.268). Even Balak emerges more favorably, inasmuch as Josephus totally omits the attempt made by Balak to influence Balaam with the promise of power and money in order to get him to curse the Israelites (Num. 22:17-18 vs. Ant. 4.107). Josephus omits God’s additional statement to Balaam (Num. 22:20) that he is to do only what God instructs him to do. One major difficulty in the Balaam pericope is that in Num. 22:20 God instructs Balaam to accompany the envoys who have been sent to him, whereas a mere two verses later God expresses his anger at Balaam for doing this (Num. 22:22). The rabbis resolve this contradiction by insisting that since Balaam wanted to act wickedly he was permitted to do so, inasmuch as “a man is divinely assisted in treading the path he desires” (Midrash Num. Rabbah 20.12 and parallels). Josephus resolves the problem by having God express indignation that Balaam should have tempted him and by having Balaam misunderstand God’s sarcasm in permitting him to go with the envoys: it was all a ruse on God’s part.

Josephus omits the statement that Balaam’s two servants were with him (Num. 22:22). He also omits the first encounter of the angel with Balaam (Num. 22:23), wherein the donkey turned aside out of the road and went into a field, whereupon Balaam struck the donkey to turn her back into the road. Josephus omits the statement (Num. 22:23) that the angel stood with his sword drawn in his hand. Num. 22:23 states merely that the donkey saw the angel. Josephus adds that the donkey recognized the divine spirit (πνεύματος, “breath”) (see Levison 1994:125). Josephus omits that the angel stood in a path between the vineyards with a wall on either side (Num. 22:24); that the donkey thrust herself against the wall and thus crushed Balaam’s foot (Num. 22:25); that the angel stood in a narrow place (Num. 22:26), where there was no way to turn either to the right or to the left; and that the donkey lay down under Balaam, whereupon Balaam struck her with a stick (Num. 22:27).

All of the manuscripts, except for R and O, read “receiving.” According to the Mishnah (’Abot 5:6), the mouth of the donkey is one of the ten things created by God on the eve of the first Sabbath at twilight. Undoubtedly, one of the greatest challenges that Josephus faced with regard to his credibility as a historian was what to do with the story of Balaam’s donkey that spoke. (Pseudo-Philo [Bib. Ant. 18.9], though mentioning the donkey, says nothing to indicate that it spoke.) Josephus might have omitted the incident, as he did several other episodes in the Bible. Instead, at the very end of the whole episode of Balaam and not in direct connection with the donkey’s speaking, he includes his familiar refrain: “On this narrative readers are free to think what they please” (Ant. 4.158). Indeed, Josephus twice (Ant. 4.109, 110) states that the donkey spoke with a human voice, perhaps, as Ginzberg (1928:6.128 n.745) suggests, because allegorists and rationalists may have attempted to interpret this in a symbolical manner (as Maimonides, Guide for the Perplexed 2.42, was later to do, asserting that it took place in a prophetic vision; similarly Ibn Ezra on Num. 22:28), and Josephus wished to go on record against such views.We may guess that Josephus was not deterred from including the narrative of the speaking donkey because his audience was probably familiar with the account of Achilles’ horse, Xanthos, which likewise speaks after being unfairly accused by his master (Hom., Il., 19.408-17). And just as Balaam’s donkey speaks because God willed it, so Xanthos is said to have spoken because the goddess Hera gave him speech. Both narratives clearly acknowledge that human speech is not natural for animals.Even so, Josephus has taken several steps to make the narrative of the talking donkey less bizarre. First, he condenses the Bible’s 15 verses (Num. 22:21-35), to 4 short paragraphs (Ant. 4.108-11). Second, whereas in the Bible Balaam strikes his donkey 3 times, Josephus has him doing so only once (Ant. 4.108-9). Third, the Bible has the donkey speaking twice, Josephus only once (Ant. 4.109). Fourth, whereas the Bible states that the Lord actually opened the mouth of the donkey (Num. 22:28), Josephus asserts merely that she became conscious of the divine spirit approaching her (Ant. 4.108). In so doing Josephus has evoked a familiar mode of inspiration ultimately traceable to Plato (Symp. 202E-3A), which explained the working of the Delphic Oracle (so Levison 1994:123-38). Fifth, readers might well have wondered why a donkey with the supernatural power to speak should be sensitive to pain, as she is in the biblical account (Num. 22:28); perhaps for this reason, Josephus represents the donkey as insensible to the blows with which Balaam struck her (Ant. 4.108). Sixth, in the Bible when the donkey speaks, Balaam evidences no amazement (Num. 22:29). Josephus, aware that his readers would wonder why a man hearing an animal speak would show no astonishment, declares that Balaam was aghast (ταραττομένου, “confounded,” “put into confusion,” “embarrassed,” “frightened,” “dismayed,” “bewildered”) (Ant. 4.110). Similarly, when the angel rebukes Balaam for striking the donkey (Num. 22:32), the Bible gives no indication that Balaam was at all surprised (Num. 22:34), whereas Josephus states that Balaam was terrified (καταδείσας) at the angel’s intervention (Ant. 4.111).In any case, the Bible’s picture of Balaam is much harsher than Josephus’. In the Bible, Balaam is angry (Num. 22:27), and even threatens to kill the animal (Num. 22:29), whereas Josephus omits both points; indeed, he effectively excuses Balaam on the ground that the seer had failed to understand God’s purpose. Moreover, whereas in the Bible the donkey censures Balaam (Num. 22:30), the strength of this rebuke is considerably diminished by Josephus’ mere report of it here. In the Targumim it is the donkey herself who reproaches Balaam for failing to understand the ways of God, whereas Josephus states, in an editorial-like comment, that Balaam failed to understand God’s purpose.Vermes (1973: 137) notes that Midrash Num. Rabbah (20.14 and parallels) sees in the miracle of the speaking donkey a lesson to teach Balaam that the power of speech is under God’s control. In Num. 22:28 the donkey mentions that she has been smitten 3 times by Balaam. Josephus omits Balaam’s angry reply (Num. 22:29) to the donkey that he had struck her because she had mocked him, and that if he had had a sword in his hand he would have killed her.

In Num. 22:29 there is no indication that Balaam is bewildered by the fact that the donkey has spoken. That the angel appeared to Balaam in bodily form is Josephus’ addition to Num. 22:31. The meaning of Num. 22:32 (‮כי־ירט הדרך לנגדי‬‎) [“because your way is perverse before me”] is obscure. Rashi (ad loc.) says that according to the literal meaning the word ‮ירט‬‎ is associated with ‮רטט‬‎, and that the phrase therefore means “for I have seen the man who is taking the journey (i.e. Balaam), that he hastened and hurried on the journey, which was taken to my anger and to my despite.” It is, he says, an elliptical verse, the words ‮בעל הדרך‬‎, “the one who undertook the way,” being omitted after ‮ירט‬‎. The LXX renders it: ὅτι οὐκ ἀστεία ἡ ὁδός σου ἐναντίον μου, “for your way was not seemly before me.” The Samaritan Pentateuch reads ‮כי הרע דרכך לנגדי‬‎, “for your way was evil before me.” Josephus omits the angel’s statement (Num. 22:33) that if the donkey had not turned aside, the angel would have slain Balaam and saved the donkey.

Josephus omits the statement (Num. 22:31) that when Balaam realized that the angel was standing in the way he bowed his head and prostrated himself on his face. Josephus omits Balaam’s acknowledgement to the angel (Num. 22:34) that he had sinned and that he had not realized that the angel was standing in the way. In Num. 22:35 it is the angel, rather than God, who tells Balaam to go with the envoys. Whereas in the Bible, when the angel rebukes him, Balaam responds penitently, declaring that he had sinned unknowingly and offering to return home (Num. 22:34), Philo remarks that Balaam was dissimulating, “for why should he [Balaam] ask about a matter so evident?” and that his real intention continued to be to do harm to the Israelites (De Vita Mosis 1.49.274). So also the rabbinic tradition (Midrash Num. Rabbah 20.14-15 and parallels). In Josephus’ version there is no indication of any such lack of sincerity on the part of Balaam; in fact, in an extra-biblical remark, the blame is actually put upon God, who has to exhort him to pursue the way on which he has set out.

Num. 22:36 states that when Balak heard that Balaam had come, he went out to meet him at the city of Moab at the border of his kingdom. Philo (De Vita Mosis 1.50.275) likewise describes a magnificent reception. Josephus mentions it only briefly, but Philo writes of a first interview followed by a series of feasts, each more extravagant than the last. Josephus’ favorable portrayal of Balaam may also be discerned in the scene in which he is said, in an extra-biblical addition, to have received a magnificent reception from Balak. According to Num. 22:37, Balak begins by berating Balaam, asking why he had not come to him earlier and whether Balak was not able to honor him sufficiently, whereupon Balaam responds by stating that he has the power to assert only what God puts into his mouth. Josephus, on the other hand, stresses that the relationship between Balak and Balaam is, in the first instance, one motivated by friendship rather than by their hatred of the Israelites. In contrast, we find the rabbis describing the reception that Balak gave to Balaam as very cheap and poor (’Abot de-Rabbi Nathan B 23 [ed. Schechter, p. 48]; Tanḥuma [ed. Buber] 4.140 and parallels); and Philo, who remarks that the interview began with friendly greetings, but then proceeds immediately to note that these were followed by Balak’s censure of Balaam for his failure to come more readily (De Vita Mosis 1.50.275). Josephus omits the statement (Num. 22:39-40) that Balaam accompanied Balak and that Balak then sacrificed oxen and sheep and sent to Balaam and to the princes who were with him. In Num. 22:41 there is no suggestion that Balaam asked to be led to a place where he might view the camp of the Israelites. This meeting is presented by Josephus, not as an occasion for the parties to express their hatred for the Israelites, but rather for them to plan their military defeat. Thus, it is the Israelites’ camp (στρατόπεδον, a military term) that Balak and Balaam go to inspect, rather than, as the Bible would have it, “a portion of the people” (Num. 22:41). Moreover, it is implied in the biblical text that it was Balak who took the initiative to escort Balaam (Num. 22:41), whereas in Josephus it is Balaam who apparently asks to be conducted to one of the mountains in order to inspect the disposition— which would certainly include their fighting capacity— of the Israelites’ camp. The statement that Balak led Balaam splendidly with a royal escort is Josephus’ addition. That the mountain to which Balak led Balaam was 60 stadia distant from the Israelite camp is Josephus’ addition. Since a stadium is approximately 607 feet, 60 stadia would be approximately 36,420 feet or almost 7 miles. Nodet (ad loc.) suggests that since the Israelite camp was near the Jordan opposite Jericho (Ant. 4.100), the hill where Balaam stood is perhaps Abile, which, according to Josephus (Ant. 5.4), is 60 stadia from the Jordan and where Moses (Ant . 4.176) addressed the Israelites before his death. Ginzberg (6:133 n. 781) notes that Midrash Yelamedenu (in Sefer Haliqqutim 4 [ed. Grünhut, p. 73b]) says that Balaam’s voice carried 60 stadia, and that when the Israelites heard his prophecy they became very proud. This pride led to disaster, since the Israelites were led to lewdness shortly after Balaam had blessed them (see Ginzberg 6:133 n. 781). Indeed, as Nodet (ad loc.) asserts, to speak in so loud a voice as to carry for such a great distance is a sign of a curse, as we see in Prov. 27:14: “He who blesses his neighbor with a loud voice, rising early in the morning, will be counted as cursing.” An indication of Josephus’ desire to avoid attacking the religious institutions of non-Jews may be seen in his complete omission of the fact that it was to the high places of the pagan god Baal that Balak took Balaam in order to inspect the Israelites (Num. 22:41).

Num. 23:1. As evidence that Josephus used a Hebrew text (probably in addition to a Greek text) for his account of Balaam we may note that whereas the Hebrew text states that one of the animals sacrificed by Balak and Balaam was a bullock (Num. 23:2), the LXX speaks of it as a calf; and Josephus, like the Hebrew text, identifies the animals as bullocks. Again, in the Hebrew, as well as in Targum Onqelos and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Num. 23:2, Balak and Balaam offer a bullock and a ram on every altar, whereas according to the LXX (and Philo, De Vita Mosis 1.50.277), Balak alone sacrificed the bullock; and according to Josephus it was Balaam alone who offered the sacrifice. Apparently, Josephus considered it logical for Balaam to do the sacrificing inasmuch as it was he who would be uttering the curse and who required divine approval. Josephus, like Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 18.10), gives added importance to Balaam by having him offer the sacrifice before he prophesies. That Balak did so swiftly is Josephus’ addition. Josephus omits Balaam’s directive to Balak (Num. 23:3) to stand beside the burnt offering while he himself expresses the hope that God will meet him and show him what he should tell Balak. Josephus then omits God’s meeting with Balaam (Num. 23:4), Balaam’s assertion to God that he had prepared the 7 altars and had offered the sacrifices, God’s instructions to Balaam (Num. 23:5) to return to Balak and to speak as He directed him, and the statement that when he returned he found that Balak and all the princes of Moab were standing beside the burnt offering (Num. 23:6). ”Inflexible Fate” (ἄτροπον) is Thackeray’s emendation. Atropos is the divinity of inflexible Fate (so Hes., Th. 218). The same inflexibility, as Nodet (ad loc.) notes, is emphasized in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Num. 23:8. Josephus avoids blaming Balaam by declaring, in this addition to the biblical text (Num. 23:4), that Balaam realized that his prophecy was governed by inflexible Fate. This casts Balaam as something of a Stoic sage.

In the biblical version Balaam delivers 3 brief prophetic discourses; Josephus’ Balaam, as in Bib. Ant. 18.10-12, is dramatically more effective by combining his prophecies into a single discourse (Ant. 4.114-17). The fact that Josephus presents Balaam’s prophecy in direct discourse (so noted by Moscovitz 1979:20), whereas Josephus generally either omits biblical poetry or refers to it in brief summary (e.g., Jacob’s benediction [Ant. 2.194-195], the Song at the Sea of Reeds [Ant. 2.346], Moses’ farewell songs [Ant. 4.303, 4.320], the song of Deborah [Ant. 5.205-9], David’s mourning for the deaths of Saul and Jonathan [Ant. 7.6], David’s lament for Abner [Ant. 7.42], David’s songs [Ant. 7.305], and Jeremiah’s lamentations [Ant. 10.78]), serves to highlight the importance of this prophecy. On the importance of the leitmotif of happiness (εὐδαιμονία) in the Antiquities see note on Ant. 1.14. The concept of Providence, so central in Stoic thought and in the Antiquities generally (see Attridge [1976:71-107]), is introduced several times by Josephus in the Balaam pericope in addition to this passage: Ant. 4.117, 128, and 157. As one who had participated in the war against the Romans and who had come to the conclusion that resistance to Rome was futile, since Rome was divinely destined to rule the world for now, Josephus constantly seeks to prevail upon his compatriots to give up their dream of immediate national independence. We may see an instance of this concern where Josephus avoids terminology suggestive of an independent state (Num. 23:21) in Balaam’s remark that God has granted untold blessings to the Israelites and has vouchsafed to them His own providence as their perpetual ally (σύμμαχον) and guide (ἡγεμών). This rendering is not merely an equivalent for the biblical concept of covenant but actually a replacement for it (see Attridge 1976:79-80). As Ginzberg (1928:6:130 n.764) notes, we can see from Josephus’ words here that he is giving a haggadic rendering of Balaam’s words (Num. 23:9): “It is a people that shall dwell alone....” Num. 23:10: “Who can count the dust of Jacob?” For dust (‮עפר‬‎) the LXX, which Josephus follows here, has σπέρμα, “seed.” Cf. Gen. 13:16: “I will make your descendants as the dust of the earth.” The biblical Balaam narrative was a real challenge for Josephus, inasmuch as Balaam was a non-Jew, and Josephus was aware of the charge that Jews hated non-Jews. In the Bible (Num. 23:9) Balaam says that the Israelites shall dwell alone and shall not be reckoned among the nations. Josephus, aware of the misanthropy charge, avoids presenting the Israelites as sundered off from all other peoples and instead speaks of the excellence of the Israelites as compared with other peoples, having Balaam assert that God has given the Israelites the potential to become the happiest of all peoples.

It is the Israelites’ fame—rather than, it would seem, their sheer force—that will fill the whole earth, in this elaboration of the Bible. In place of the Bible’s picture comparing the Israelites to lions that do not lie down until they have eaten their prey and drunk their blood (Num. 23:24), Josephus avoids such gory particulars and speaks only of the land that the Israelites will occupy.

Or “be amazed” (imperative). Josephus here refers to the Israelites as “blessed” (μακάριος) rather than “happy.” Cf. Aristotle’s remark (Ethica Nicomachea 1.12.1101B25-27: “No one praises happiness as he does justice, but rather calls it blessed, as being something more divine and better.” Cf. Gen. 15:5 for God’s promise to Abraham: “Look toward heaven and number the stars, if you are able to number them.” Cf. Pseudo-Philo 18.5 and Midrash Gen. Rabbah 44.12. Josephus clearly shifts the focus from the land of Israel to the Diaspora: although the Israelites are now circumscribed by the land of Canaan, the habitable world (τὴν οἰκουμένην), that is the Diaspora, lies before them as an everlasting habitation. This rather mild statement, indicating that the Israelites are to be granted the blessings of peace and victory and might in war, replaces Balaam’s biblical prophecy (Num. 24:8) concerning the violence that the Israelites will show to their enemies: “He [Israel] shall eat up the nations his adversaries, and shall break their bones in pieces, and pierce them through with his arrows,” as well as the bloody image of the Israelites as a lioness waiting to be roused (Num. 24:9), which does not lie down until it devours its prey and drinks their blood (Num. 23:24).

Cf. the similar language whereby Sarpedon (Hom., Il. 5.685-88) expresses to Hector the yearning of the warrior to return home “to gladden [εὐφρανέειν, the same verb that Josephus uses here] his dear wife and infant son.” The military connotations of this phrasing, that the enemies of the Israelites will not return victorious, so as to gladden the hearts of child and wife, are clear from a comparison also with the language used by Tyrtaeus (frag. 6-7, line 6) with regard to the opposite of the warrior: the beggar who wanders about with his little children and his wedded wife. On the polygamy referred to here see Deut. 21:15 and Ant. 4.249-50. Because the Jews had been accused of cowardice by such authors as Apollonius Molon (ap. Apion 2.148), it is particularly effective that the gentile Balaam should remark upon the extreme valor (ἀνδρείας) granted the Israelites by God. For the theme that God raises and exalts see 1 Sam. 2:7, Luke 1:52, and in the morning prayer before the Amidah, “He humbles the haughty and lifts the lowly.” Vermes (1973:146-47) notes that Targum Onqelos (Num. 23:9) similarly expands the verse “Lo, a people dwelling alone, and not reckoning itself among the nations” into the hope that Israel, though oppressed, will eventually possess the world and never be condemned to destruction by the nations. Note that Josephus omits Balaam’s statement (Num. 23:21) that God has not beheld misfortune or seen trouble among the Israelites, presumably in view of the fact that the Israelites had experienced much misfortune and many troubles.

Josephus’ description of Balaam as one who is no longer his own master (οὐκ ὢν ἐν ἑαυτῷ is reminiscent of the Platonic concept of ecstatic possession (Phaedrus 245A), whereby the god enters, for example, into the Pythian priestess at Delphi and uses her vocal organs as if they were his own (Plato, Leg. 2.672B). That Josephus is using the concept of “ecstasy” in a sense different from that in the LXX, where it sometimes refers to a deep sleep, is especially clear in the Balaam pericope. See Dodds (1951:77 and 94-95, n. 84). In the Bible Balaam says, “All that the Lord will speak, that must I do” (Num. 23:26). Josephus not only expands this statement but also uses Hellenistic terminology in explaining that it is not up to a person to be silent or to speak when possessed by the spirit of God. To be sure, there is a difference between this view of ecstasy and the claim that the god Apollo used the vocal chords of the Pythian priestess at Delphi as if they were his own, so that she presented Apollo’s utterances in the first person, whereas Balaam presents God’s words in the third person. The god within the diviner speaks out from the person in a strange voice or in an unintelligible way (cf. Eur., Bac., 300, 1124). Euripides (Bac. 298 ff.) has Teiresias claim that Dionysus is the god of ecstatic prophecy. In the ecstatic state understanding no longer belongs to the individual (cf. Plato, Ion 534B). Cf. Philo (Quaestiones in Genesin 3.9), who similarly defines the ecstasy of prophets as a state when the mind is divinely possessed and becomes filled with God, so that it is no longer within itself, inasmuch as it receives the divine spirit to dwell within it. Cf. 1 Cor. 14:2-5. Moscovitz (1979:56, n. 9) states that Josephus’ references to himself as being “inspired” (ἔνθους, War 3.353, 4.33) make it unlikely that he has in mind ecstatic possession in the Hellenistic sense; but the important question here is how his non-Jewish readers would interpret the word used by him. It seems likely that they would understand it in line with Plato’s usage in his dialogues and that Josephus, who apparently knew Plato’s works (see Apion 2.168, 223-25, 256-57), would have been aware of the connotations of the word. Josephus omits, after Balaam’s first words of blessing, Balak’s suggestion that they go to another place where they will be able to see only the nearest of the Israelites (Num. 23:13). The portrait of Balaam is made more positive by Josephus’ addition to Balak’s rebuke of Balaam after the latter had praised the Israelites. Whereas the Bible says simply that Balak told Balaam neither to denounce them nor to bless them (Num. 23:25), Josephus expands dramatically by describing Balak’s fuming (δυσχεραίνοντος, “feeling displeasure,” “being indignant”) at Balaam and his accusing him of transgressing the agreement according to which Balak had obtained his services. It is particularly effective, in terms of Josephus’ overall apologetic goals on behalf of the Jews, to have a non-Jew praise them. Whereas Balaam in the Bible declares that God has not observed any wrong or perverseness in the Israelites (Num. 23:21), Josephus has him go one step further in positively pronouncing them the most blessed of men. Josephus, however, perhaps because he sought a mean between excessive praise and denigration of Balaam, does omit the most famous of Balaam’s words of praise for the Israelites (Num. 24:5): “How fair are your tents, O Jacob, your encampments, O Israel,” as well as his prediction that Israel’s king shall be higher than Agag and his statement that their kingdom shall be exalted. Note that Josephus also omits Balaam’s statement (Num. 23:23) that no enchantment or divination is effective against the Israelites. He also omits Balak’s removing Balaam to still another place, namely the top of Peor.

Whereas in Philo (De Vita Mosis 1.51.281) Balaam rejects Balak’s accusations by claiming that his words come only from God, Josephus here insists on Balaam’s genuine desire to satisfy Balak’s wish.

It is the desire to gratify Balak and his representatives that Josephus cites as Balaam’s motive here and in other additions to the biblical text (Ant. 4.123, 127). Josephus draws on the prevalent theory of ecstasy in stating that one who refrains from speaking what God suggests is impotent. In particular, his use of the phrase that once God has gained prior entry, nothing within us is any more our own, is typical of Platonic and Hellenistic descriptions of ecstasy. See n. 367. Josephus makes every attempt to depict Balaam’s purpose in cursing the Israelites as due to his friendship with Balak rather than to hatred of the Israelites or greed, the motives that Philo (De Vita Mosis 1.48.267-68), the NT (2 Pet. 2:15, Jude 11), and rabbinic literature (Mishnah ‘Abot 5.19 and parallels) attribute to him. Thus, in an extra-biblical addition, Balaam here declares that he wanted to carry out Balak’s desire to have him curse the Israelites, but that God is mightier than his own wish to do this favor.

See note on Ant. 1.14.

Against the biblical version, in which it is Balak who proposes to Balaam a second attempt to curse the Israelites (Num. 23:27; cf. Philo, De Vita Mosis 1.51.282), Josephus has Balaam himself suggest that new altars be erected and additional sacrifices be offered. This change emphasizes that Balaam’s motive is his close friendship with Balak. Josephus, like Bib. Ant. 18.10-12, has combined Balaam’s four biblical oracles (Num. 23:7-24:4) into one. See Feldman (1971:lix).

Three manuscripts—S, P, and L—have this last sentence. Thackeray brackets it and comments that this is doubtless a gloss. However, as Nodet (ad loc.) remarks, the vocabulary of this sentence is not that of the LXX, the presumed source of a copyist.

We see from Josephus’ paraphrase of Num. 24:4 and 16 that he here used a Hebrew text, inasmuch as he speaks of Balaam “falling upon his face,” rendering ‮נפל‬‎, “falling down” (Ant. 4.125), whereas the LXX reads “he saw in his sleep” (εἶδεν ἐν ὕπνῳ). Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Num. 24:16 agrees with Josephus. On this expression in Josephus see Goldenberg (1979-80:182). Presumably this would include Jerusalem, which was not established as the capital of the Israelite state until hundreds of years later by David. If Balaam foretells the calamities that will befall kings and cities of the highest celebrity, he keeps this prophecy cryptic enough so that gentile readers will not necessarily connect it with Rome, just as he has a similarly cryptic prophecy in connection with the interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in his pericope of Daniel (Ant. 10.210). Of course, Josephus might have simply omitted this prediction by Balaam, as he does the passage foretelling a Messianic kingdom that would destroy all previous kingdoms and would itself last forever (Dan. 2:44), as well as the later passage in Daniel, which makes it clear that the final empire would be ruled by the “saints of the Most High,” that is the Jews (7:18). That he does not omit the interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream or this prophecy of Balaam suggests that, although he will not belabor the point of Rome’s eventual end, he is willing to make it. In the biblical passage (Num. 24:17-18) corresponding to Josephus’ passage here, Balaam predicts that a star out of Jacob and a scepter out of Israel will conquer Edom and Seir. That this is intended as an eschatological prophecy is clear from Balaam’s earlier statement that he will advise Balak what the Israelites would do to the Moabites at the end of days (Num. 24:14). The LXX translators appear to have inferred a Messianic prediction, since they rendered Num. 24:7: “There shall come a man out of his [i.e. Israel’s] seed, and he shall rule over many nations; and the kingdom of Gog shall be exalted, and his kingdom shall be increased.” Further, the passage was interpreted messianically by Rabbi Aqiva, shortly after the time of Josephus with reference to Bar Kochba (Midrash Lev. Rabbah 2.54). Cf. Sanhedrin 106a and parallels cited by Ginzberg (1928:6.133 n. 782). Such a pointed Messianic understanding is avoided by Josephus, who indeed nowhere articulates the hope for a personal Messiah. Cf. also Neusner, Green, and Frerichs (1987). Cf. the ambiguous oracle, which Josephus says (War 6.312) was found in the sacred scriptures of the Jews, to the effect that someone from their country would become ruler of the world. This oracle seems to be reflected in Tacitus’ comment (Hist. 5.13.2): “The majority [of the Jews] firmly believed that their ancient priestly writings contained the prophecy that this was the very time when the East should grow strong and that men starting from Judea should possess the world.” Similarly, Suetonius (Vespasian 4.5) reports that “There had spread over all the Orient an old and established belief that it was fated at that time [when Vespasian became emperor] for men coming from Judea to rule the world.” Josephus omits Balaam’s prophecy (Num. 24: 17-24) that the Israelites will crush the Moabites, the Edomites, and the Amalekites, and that ships from Kittim (identified by some of Josephus’ contemporaries with the Romans: see Pesher of Habakkuk 3:4, 9-11; Josippon 1; see Bruce [1971:1082] and Baker [1992:4: 93]) shall afflict Asshur and Eber, and that the Kittim themselves will be overthrown—a prediction that Josephus, who was so indebted to the Romans, could hardly have included.

There is increased drama in Josephus’ version of the events surrounding Balaam’s parting advice. In Num. 24:25, after Balaam blesses the Israelites, he and Balak go their respective ways. In Josephus’ version, Balak expresses his fury by summarily dismissing Balaam, granting him no reward (Ant. 4.126). And then, just as he is on the point of crossing the Euphrates, Balaam, in Josephus’ version, sends for Balak and the Midianite princes and presents them with a scheme for overcoming the Israelites (Ant. 4.126-30). Num. 22:5 speaks of “the river,” which is identified as the Euphrates in Targum Onqelos and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (on Num. 22:5). The Euphrates River, however, is far removed from the scene of the account of Balaam and Balak. Nodet (ad loc.) suggests that perhaps this should be corrected to the Jabbok or Yarmuk River or that perhaps Josephus is dependent on a midrash that sought to explain the final collusion between Balaam and the Midianites. Commentators have long wondered why the Midianites are introduced into the biblical account in Num. 22:4, when actually the story concerns only Balak the king and Balaam the prophet of Moab (Num. 25:6-18). The answer may lie in Josephus’ awareness that Ruth, a Moabite, was the ancestress of King David (Ant. 5.336); hence he was careful not to impute such groundless hatred to the Moabites as a whole, as the Bible does. Whereas in the biblical text of the story of Balaam, the Moabites are mentioned 13 times and the Midianites only twice, in Josephus’ version the ratio is almost exactly reversed, with the Moabites mentioned only twice and the Midianites 9 times. In particular, whereas in the Bible the Israelites’ harlotry is with the daughters of Moab (Num. 25:1), with the Midianites merely participating in it (Num. 25:6-18), in Josephus the actual seduction is carried out by the Midianite women (Ant. 4.126-30), though the Moabite gods are also mentioned; and the war that follows is waged against the Midianites (Ant. 4.131-64). Again, it is not the Midianites as a nation, as in the Bible, but rather their leaders who are responsible for the ploy whereby their women seduce the Israelite men.The Bible itself does not itself explicitly link the apparent end of the Balaam episode (Num. 24:25) with the incident involving the Israelite youths with the Moabite women (Num. 25:1-5), and only at a later point (Num. 31:16) associates Balaam with the incident. Josephus, however, like the rabbis (see Sanhedrin 106a and parallels cited by Rappaport [1930:126, n. 180]), makes Balaam the originator of the Midianites’ scheme (Ant. 4.126-30). In Philo (De Virtutibus 7.34-35) the advice comes from the Midianites rather than from Balaam. Van Unnik notes that Josephus expands at great length (Ant. 4.126-51) the story of the seduction of the Israelite youths by the women, whereas he deals only briefly with the Phinehas episode (Ant. 4.152-55), even though the two accounts are of approximately equal length in the Bible (Num. 25:1-5 and 6-13) (see van Unnik 1974:243).

As Vermes (1973:162-64) remarks, Philo (De Vita Mosis 1.53.294-301) and Josephus here develop the theme into a general abandonment of the Jewish way of life. According to Num. 23:23, no enchantment or divination would have been effective against the Israelites.

Thackeray (ad loc.) cites Isa. 57:17 (LXX): “Because of his sin for a little while I caused him [Israel] grief,” and Baruch 4:29: “The one who brought these calamities upon you will rescue you and bring you everlasting joy.” Note that Josephus omits the passage in Balaam’s prophecy (Num. 24:20) predicting the destruction of Amalek.

If it were for apologetic reasons, to avoid the charge that Jews are intolerant of other people’s religious practices, that Josephus omits the reference to sacrifices to foreign gods (Exod. 22:19), he should not have expanded (Ant. 4.126-49)—one would suppose— the incident of the fornication with the Midianite women. See the citation of this passage in the response of Goldenberg (223) to Altshuler’s (1977) attempt to see apology as Josephus’ major purpose in the Antiquities. Cf. Philo (De Vita Mosis 1.54.296-99), where Balaam presents his advice thus: “You have in your countrywomen, king, ... persons of pre-eminent beauty.... If, then, you permit the fairest among them to prostitute themselves for hire, they will ensnare the younger of their enemies. But you must instruct them not to allow their wooers to enjoy their charms at once. Then, when the lover is in this condition, one of those who are arming to take their prey should say, with a saucy air: ‘You must not be permitted to enjoy my favors until you have left the ways of your fathers and become a convert to honoring what I honor.’ Then the lover, caught in the meshes of her multiform lures, her beauty, and the enticements of her wheedling talk, will not gainsay her, but, with his reason trussed and pinioned, will subserve her orders to his sorrow, and be enrolled as a slave of passion.” Similarly, Philo, De Virtutibus 7.34-40. According to Bib. Ant. 18.13-14, Balaam, presenting advice on how to overcome the Hebrews through licentiousness, said to Balak: “Pick out beautiful women who are among us and in Midian, and station them naked and adorned with gold and precious stones before them. When they see them and lie with them, they will sin against their Lord and fall into your hands; for otherwise you cannot overcome them.” A similar account is found in the rabbinic tradition. Thus the third-century Rabbi Abba bar Kahana (Sanhedrin 106a) presents the following scenario: “He [Balaam] said thus to him [Balak]: ‘The God of these [Israelites] hates lewdness, and they are very partial to linen [i.e., linen was worn by the wealthy and noble]. Come, and I will advise you. Erect for them tents enclosed by hangings, in which place harlots, old women without, young women within, to sell them linen garments.’... And when an Israelite ate, drank, and was merry, and issued forth for a stroll in the market place, the old woman would say to him, ‘Do you desire linen garments?’ The old woman offered it at its current value, but the young one for less. This happened 2 or 3 times. After that she would say to him, ‘You are now like one of the family; sit down and choose for yourself.’ Gourds of Ammonite wine lay near her, and at that time Ammonite and heathen wine had not yet been forbidden. Said she to him, ‘Would you like to drink a glass of wine?’ Having drunk, [his passion] was inflamed, and he exclaimed to her, ‘Yield to me!’ Thereupon she brought forth an idol from her bosom and said to him, ‘Worship this!’ ‘But I am a Jew,’ he protested. ‘What does that concern you?’ she rejoined; ‘nothing is required but that you should uncover yourself’—while he did not know that such was its worship. ‘Nay,’ [said she], ‘I will not leave you before you have denied the Torah of Moses your teacher.’” (Soncino translation). Cf. also Midrash Num. Rabbah 20.23 and 22.4 and parallels cited by Ginzberg (1928:6:135 n. 785). The connection of Balaam with this incident is, as noted by Jacobson (1:608), built by the rabbis on the fact that this incident (Num. 25) occurred immediately after Balaam’s last words to Balak and on the reference to Balaam in Moses’ words to the Israelites in Num. 31:16: “Behold, these [Midianites] caused the people of Israel, by the counsel of Balaam, to act treacherously against the Lord in the matter of Peor [Num. 25:3-5], and so the plague came among the congregation of the Lord.”

Josephus, like Philo (De Vita Mosis 1.53.294-55.304 and De Virtutibus 7.34-42), shows a strong interest in the erotic psychology reflected in Balaam’s advice (Braun [1938:104] notes a parallel in Aristophanes’ Lysistrata, where similarly the women break off relations with their husbands and threaten to leave them unless they fulfill certain political conditions, whereupon the men submit), whereas the Talmudic parallels make no reference to this. Josephus’ version is also considerably more romantic than that of Philo in that the women at first surrender to the youths without any conditions; but once they perceive that the latter have been ensnared by passion, they, following Balaam’s advice, depart from them. In Philo the great sin of the Israelite youths consists of submitting to illicit passion; in Josephus the youths go further in actually abandoning the Israelite religion.

Josephus, perhaps inspired by Num. 25:6, changes the identity of the women from Moabites to Midianites. Cf. Num. 25:1. Num. 25:1-2 speaks of the Israelites playing the harlot, without specifying the young men as those who did so; nor does it indicate that they were captivated by the beauty of the women, nor does it state that the men initiated conversations with them, nor does it declare that the men implored the women thus. While it is true that Josephus is addressing his work primarily to non-Jews, as we can see from the proem to the Antiquities, Greek was the primary language of large numbers of Jews in Egypt, Syria, Asia Minor, and Rome; and Josephus gives a number of indications that he is directing his work to them as well. Thus, his highlighting of certain episodes, notably the incident here of Israel’s sin with the Midianite women (Num. 25:1-9; Ant. 4.131-55) and Samson’s relations with alien women (Judg. 14:1-16:31; Ant. 5.286-317), is directed, apparently, to those Jews who sought assimilation with gentiles. A dilemma confronted Josephus in his interpretation of the episode of the Midianite women: if he portrayed this favorably, he would be condoning the assimilation and intermarrige forbidden by the Torah (Deut. 7:3); and yet, he was aware that too strenuously voiced an objection against intermarriage would play into the hands of those opponents of the Jews who charged them with misanthropy and illiberalism. On the one hand, Josephus is careful to avoid offending non-Jews and their religion; on the other hand, assimilation and intermarriage did pose problems for him; Tacitus’ remark (Hist. 5.5.2) that Jews abstain from intercourse with foreign women would appear to be rhetorical exaggeration. That intermarriage was, indeed, a serious issue is intimated by Josephus’ remark that as a result of the seduction a sedition far worse even than that of Korah broke out among the Israelites (Ant. 4.140). Of course, as we have noted, Josephus might have omitted the seduction incident as he does a number of others. But apparently Josephus felt the need to use the episode to lecture to contemporary Jews (thus Troiani [1986:343-53]); and so, he not only includes it, but his account of the Israelites’ sin with the Midianite women (Num. 25:1-9) expands the story from 9 verses to 25 paragraphs (Ant. 4.131-55) (see van Unnik [1974: 241-61]). That Josephus, in his version of the incident, has the danger of intermarriage in mind would seem to be indicated by his added notice that the Israelites implored the Midianite women to be their brides (Ant. 4.132) and that the latter, in turn, declared that they would be content to live out their lives with them as their wedded wives (Ant. 4.135). That Josephus has the contemporary situation of the Jews in view here would seem to be indicated by the fact that he omits the Bible’s particular place names, that is, Shittim and Ba‘al Pe‘or, thus making the story a generic tale that presumably is intended to have a direct application to the time in which he is writing, when some Jews were likewise being seduced by the temptations of paganism (see Feldman [1989a:66]).

All these details about the effects of their passion upon the Israelite youths are Josephus’ addition.

The men implore the women, in the manner typical of the later Hellenistic novels, with tears, which they confirm with oaths, ironically, despite their own immorality, invoking their God as arbiter of their promises, so as to render themselves an object of the women’s compassion. All these details are Josephus’ addition.

Manuscripts S, P, and the Latin version read ἀποροῦσαι, i.e., “for lack of.”

The manuscripts, other than R, O, and the Latin version, read: “and since you are grieved.”

Here we have satiety (κόρον) followed by ὕβρις (ὑβρίσητε). This is the only place in Ant. 1-4 where κόρος is tied specifically to ὕβρις. This classical and commonplace formula (see Theognis 153; Solon 8; Pindar, Olym. 13.10; Bacis ap. Herodotus 8.77) is here placed in the mouths of the gentile women. Or: they believed that they had to comply with these conditions.

In the course of Josephus’ version of the Balaam narrative he has the Midianite women, when they successfully persuade the Israelite youths to give up their way of life, remark that the Israelites have customs and a way of life wholly alien (ἀλλοτριώτατα, “belonging to another,” “different,” “not comparable,” “hostile”) to all mankind, “inasmuch as your food is of a peculiar sort (ἰδιοτρόπους) and your drink is distinct from that of other men”—remarks echoing those frequently found in Graeco-Roman pagan writers. Even Hecataeus of Abdera (ap. Diod. 40.3.4), who was, on the whole, very well disposed toward the Jews, characterized the Jewish mode of life as somewhat unsocial (ἀπάνθρωπον, “misanthropic”) and hostile to foreigners (μισόξενον). Manetho (ap. Apion 1.250), in the third century B.C.E., states that by his very first law Osarsiph, whom he identifies with Moses, ordained that the Israelites should have no connection with any except members of their own people. Lysimachus, who lived perhaps in the second or first century B.C.E., reflects the charge of misanthropy when he remarks (ap. Apion 1.309) that Moses instructed the Israelites to show good will to no man, to offer not the best but the worst advice, and to overthrow temples and altars of the gods. Apollonius Molon (ap. Apion 2.258), in the first century B.C.E., condemned the Jews for illiberalism in that they refused admission to persons with other ideas about God and would not associate with those who have adopted a different manner of life. Apion (ap. Apion 2.121), at the beginning of the first century C.E., went further in his malice, attributing to the Jews an oath to show no good will to any alien, especially to Greeks. Similarly, in his paraphrase of Haman’s statement (Esther 3:8) that the Jews’ laws are different from those of every other people and that they do not keep the king’s laws, Josephus’ Haman (Ant. 11.212) phrases the charge in terms reminiscent of those used by the Hellenistic anti-Jewish intellectuals. The Jews, he says, refuse to mingle with others (ἄμικτον, a term used of Centaurs and Cyclopes; see Soph., Tr. 1095, Eur., Cyc. 429) and are unsocial (ἀσύμφυλον, “not akin,” “incompatible,” “unsuitable”). They, he adds, do not have the same religion, nor do they practice the same laws as other peoples, but both in customs and in practices they are the enemy of the Persians and indeed of all people (ἅπασιν ἀνθρώποις). Tacitus (Hist. 5.5.1), at the beginning of the second century, in a phrase highly reminiscent of Haman’s words as cited by Josephus, also remarks that the Jews regard the rest of humankind with the hatred of enemies (adversus omnes alios hostile odium); and in immediate juxtaposition to this statement he gives the apparent source of this conception, namely that they sit and sleep apart from other peoples and abstain from intercourse with gentile women. This is one of the relatively few references in Josephus to the dietary laws of Judaism. Cf. Ant. 4.139. Cf. Ant. 3.259-60, where Josephus summarizes these laws very briefly and promises to discourse at length about them on another occasion, presumably the proposed work that was never written. In his account of Daniel (Ant. 10. 190-94) Josephus recounts the heroic measures taken by Daniel and the other Jewish youths to abide by these laws and especially to abstain from all animal food. Especially striking was the Jews’ abstention from eating pork, a particular delicacy to both the Greeks and the Romans. The Romans were especially fond of pork, as we see from the fact that Latin has more terms to refer to swine than to any other animal. Note the remark ascribed by Plutarch (Qu. Con. 4.4.4.669D) to his brother Lamprias, that his grandfather used to say, in derision of the Jews, that what they abstained from was precisely the best meat. This refusal to eat pork was associated with the Jews generally, as we see in the question put by the Emperor Gaius Caligula in the year 40 to the embassy of Alexandrian Jews headed by the philosopher Philo (Legatio ad Gaium 45.361): “Why do you refuse to eat pork?” Nodet (ad loc.) asserts that the sin of the Israelite youths is apostasy rather than intermarriage. See Barclay (1996:199-201). On the other hand, for Ezra (9:1-15) and Nehemiah (13:23-27) the cardinal sin is intermarriage with foreign women. So also 1 Esdras 9:7 and the rabbinic tradition (Jerusalem Sanhedrin 10.4.28d).

Cf. Lucan (Phar. 2.593), who refers to Judea as given over to the worship of an unknown (incerti) god, whether because He had no specific name or because he was worshipped by no other nation. While, it would appear, Josephus’ Antiquities is often an apologetic for the Jewish people, this statement by the Midianite women, as Goldenberg (223) remarks, which attacks Jewish provincialism and which is Josephus’ own addition, might well have been appealing to Roman readers. This entire speech of the Midianite women is Josephus’ addition. Thackeray (ad loc.) notes that the model for this speech and, indeed, for the episode as a whole was furnished by Herodotus’ account (4.111-16) of how the Scythians, after defeating the Amazons in battle, sent their youngest men to have relations with the remaining Amazon women. The two, like the Israelites and the Midianite women, had very different cultures, since the Amazons were hunters and fighters and the Midianite women worked at the traditional crafts of women. However, it was the Scythian men who sought after the Amazons, rather than, as with the Midianites, the women who enticed the men.

Or: those who lived there. Cf. Ant. 4.137.

Josephus (Ant. 4.12) had already described the rebellion of Korah as a sedition without parallel among Greeks or barbarians. This statement, that the corruption instituted by these Israelite youths was far worse than the previous one, is Josephus’ addition. Zimri’s rebellion (see Ant. 4.141) is directed not merely against Moses’ authoritarianism but also against the refusal of Judaism to open itself to other religious views. This observation will explain why Josephus regards his rebellion as far more grave than that of Korah: while the latter was directed merely against the leadership of Moses and Aaron, the former attacked the very roots of Judaism. This entire statement is Josephus’ addition. As Levine (1993:73) remarks, the vocabulary here of eating and filling up describes the satiety that commonly precedes ὕβρις.

Hebrew ‮זמרי‬‎ (Num. 25:14), LXX Ζαμβρί, Josephus Ζαμβρίας. Nodet (ad loc.) points out that Josephus regularly omits or limits the pedigree of those whom he condemns (hence his omission of the name of Zimri’s father, Salu), whereas he specifies the pedigree of those whom he admires. Hebrew ‮שׁמעני‬‎ (Num. 25:14), LXX Συμεών, Josephus Σεμεωνίδος. As Nodet (ad loc.) notes, Simeon’s territory was south of Idumea and bordered on Egypt and Arabia and thus was contiguous to that of the Midianites. Hebrew ‮כזבי‬‎ (Num. 25:15), LXX Χασβί, Josephus Χοσβίᾳ. Hebrew ‮צור‬‎ (Num. 25:15), LXX Σούρ, Josephus Σούρου. The rabbinic tradition identified him with Balak (Midrash Num. Rabbah 20.4 and parallels, cited by Ginzberg 6.122, n. 718). According to Num. 25:15, he was ‮ראשׁ אמות בית־אב במדין‬‎ (“head of the peoples of a father’s house in Midian”), LXX ἄρχοντος ἔθνους Ὀμμώθ, οἴκου πατριᾶς ἐστι τῶν Μαδιάν (“leader of a nation of Ommot. It belongs to a house of a clan of the people of Midian”), Josephus τῶν ἐκείνῃ δυναστεύοντος ἀνδρός. That Cozbi took the initiative in corrupting Zimri is Josephus’ addition. The manuscripts, except for R and O, add: οὔτε θύων τὰ πάτρια καὶ γάμον ἠγμένος ἀλλόφυλον (“neither sacrificing according to the ancestral laws and having contracted a marriage with a foreigner”).

The idea of this assembly and all the details pertaining to it are Josephus’ addition. Josephus places the emphasis on Moses rather than on God in his handling of the incident of the apostasy of Zimri and the harlotry of the Israelite men with the Moabite women (Ant. 4.141-44). In the Bible God in fierce anger tells Moses to take the chiefs of the people and to hang them publicly (Num. 25:4). Josephus’ Moses takes the initiative away from God, and far from commanding that the trespassers be killed, first shows his high regard for the people, as well as more patience and diplomacy, by convening them in assembly and by pointing out to them that it was not reasonable after the Israelites’ sobriety (σωφρονήσαντας) in the desert for them to relapse into drunken riot in their present prosperity. Van Unnik (1974:252-53) notes that such a tactic is often found in the works of Greek historians, notably Dionysius of Halicarnassus in his Antiquitates Romanae, who remarks that when civil strife arises among the Romans they are called into assembly, where the matter is discussed. This very considerate attitude on the part of Moses toward his people is Josephus’ addition. In Num. 25:4, God tells Moses to hang the chiefs of the people. The rabbinic tradition (Sanhedrin 35a) asks where the chiefs had sinned; accordingly, the verse is understood by Rab Judah in the name of Rab to indicate that the chiefs of the people are to be appointed as judges and that they are to hang those whom they condemn.

This is Niese’s emendation, based on the Latin translation. The manuscripts read ὡς, and the meaning would be “in order that it might yet be well with them,” since, according to Num. 25:8 a plague had already been inflicted upon the Israelites. Moses, in this speech not paralleled in the Bible (Num. 25:16-18), in effect equates moderation with obedience to authority, stressing that courage (ἀνδρείαν) consists not in violating the laws but in resisting the passions (ἐπιθυμίαις). We may note that when Josephus enumerates his own canon of the cardinal virtues (Ant. 6.160), he lists obedience (πειθοῖ) as one of them.

Moses’ patience in trying to convince them to mend their ways is indicated particularly by Josephus’ use of the imperfect tense, ἐπειρᾶτο (“he kept on trying”).

The speech of Zimri (Ant. 4.145-49) artfully summarizes arguments that assimilated Jews of Josephus’ day might have used (so van Unnik [1974:258-59]; and S. Schwartz [1990:177]), namely attacking the tyranny (Ant. 4.146, 149, a word twice repeated) of the commandments and advocating liberty (ἐλευθέρων, Ant. 4.146, a key word throughout the Antiquities) of action. Josephus typically tries to create plausible speeches for his characters. Apparently, the danger that Josephus is highlighting here is intermarriage: significantly, it is intermarriage between Jewish men and Moabite-Midianite women that he castigates (Ant. 4.135, 148), whereas Philo (De Vita Mosis 1.54.295-304), Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 18.13-14), and the rabbis (Sanhedrin 106a) present the view that the great sin committed by the Israelites was surrender to illicit passion. Similarly, Josephus has elaborated his account of Samson’s relations with alien women (Judg. 14:1-16:31, Ant. 5.286-317), perhaps in part as a lesson to Hellenized Jews of his own day who sought assimilation with the gentiles through intermarriage (see Feldman 1988a:194-204, 210-14). According to the rabbinic tradition (Sanhedrin 82a), Zimri sought to neutralize Moses’ accusation by noting that Moses himself had married a Midianite, the daughter of a Midianite named Jethro. At that point Moses, in his fury, forgot the Halakah forbidding intermarriage (Deut. 7:3); and it was Phineas who saved the day by recalling that a zealot need not wait for the decision of a court before inflicting punishment. Indeed, according to the Mishnah Sanhedrin 9:6, “He who has sexual relations with an Aramean woman, zealots beat him up [on the spot].” Nodet (ad loc.) calls attention to Moses’ complaint (Deut. 1:12): “How can I bear alone the weight and burden of you and your strife?”

“Tyrant,” “tyrannical,” and “tyranny” are terms of particular opprobrium to Josephus, as we see in his use of these words with reference to the revolutionary leaders—Eleazar the son of Simon (War 2.564), Menahem (War 2.442, 448), Eleazar the son of Jair (War 2.447), and Simon bar Giora (War 2.652; 4.508, 564, 573; 5.11; 6.227; 7.32, 265), as well as the last procurator, Florus (War 2.294), of his own day, and the false accusation of himself as being a tyrant (War 2.626; Life 302). In particular, these terms are used with reference to Josephus’ nemesis, John of Gischala (War 4.208, 389, 564, 566, 569, 573; 5.5; 6.98, 129). Indeed, references to “the tyrant” without mentioning him by name are to John of Gischala (War 6.98, 129, 143). The revolutionaries as a group are constantly referred as “tyrants” (War 1.10, 2.275, 276; 4.166, 172, 178, 258, 278 (bis), 347, 401; 5.439; 6.202, 286, 323, 325, 343, 370, 379, 394, 399, 409, 412, 432; 7.261). Josephus (War 4.397) says that the 3 greatest of calamities are war, tyranny, and faction; but that to the populace war was comparatively the mildest. Van Unnik (1974:257-61) comments on the striking connection between Apion 2.173 and our passage and notes that Josephus’ treatment gives us a clear insight into Israel’s struggle for its identity in the first century C.E. Moses, in the passage in Apion, is highly praised by Josephus because he has ordered even the minutest details of life and left nothing to individual decision in order to prevent one from sinning. But exactly on this point Moses is here criticized by Zimri, on the ground that one becomes a slave if the possibility of free decision is removed. Here appears in a typical form the problem of heteronomy versus autonomy in ethics. It is not by coincidence that Josephus uses this self-same, characteristically Greek word αὐτεξούσιον (“choice,” “self-determination,” “individual discretion”) in both passages; it must have been a central issue in debates over the applicability of the Mosaic Law and in ethical philosophy of the time (cf. Chrysippus, ap. SVF 2.284).

The charge of Jewish provincialism and intolerance was, we may guess, not confined to the anti-Jewish authors. As van Unnik (1974:259) has remarked, the words of Zambrias (Zimri) would appear to be the voice of Josephus’ Jewish contemporaries who objected to the ancestral religion as obscurantist and too confining, indeed as opposing universal opinion. Cf. Haman’s position, as described by Josephus (Ant. 11.212). Cf. Schian (1973). According to this view, to take exception to an opinion that is universally held is, ipso facto, to be completely wrong.

Van Unnik (1974:257 n.52) notes that Josephus’ usage of ὀκνήσαιμι (“shrink back”) is typically ambivalent. Cf. Liddell-Scott-Jones (1940:1212, s.v.). In Attic Greek this verb is used mostly in the collateral sense of the feeling that causes the hesitation, and can be so used of shame or fear (in a moral sense); but most commonly it denotes cowardice or indolence. Here in Josephus these feelings go together. Josephus’ term here for wife, γύναιον, is one of endearment.

According to Num. 25:6, when one of the Israelites brought a Midianite woman before the eyes of Moses and all the congregation of Israel, the Israelites wept. Nodet (ad loc.) conjectures that in place of ‮בכים‬‎ (“weeping”) Josephus read ‮דמים‬‎ (“were silent”), the bottom of the letters having been erased. The silence of the people and the restraint of Moses are Josephus’ additions.

This entire confrontation between Zimri and Moses is Josephus’ addition. In the rabbinic tradition (Sanhedrin 82a), according to an anonymous rabbi, after Moses (Num. 25:5) tells the judges of Israel to slay everyone who has joined in the worship of Baal-peor, the tribe of Simeon go to Zimri and ask him why he is silent when capital punishment is being meted out. Zimri then replies, “I, too, am the prince of a tribe; moreover, my tribe is greater than his [Moses], for mine is second in birth [i.e. Simeon was Jacob’s second son, whereas Levi, the ancestor of Moses, was his third], while his is third.”

Hebrew ‮פינחס‬‎ (Num. 25:7), LXX Φινεές, Josephus Φινεές. These remarks about Phineas are Josephus’ addition. Manuscripts R, O, and E omit “and son of the son of the brother of Moses.” Josephus describes as ὕβρις (“outrage”) the sexual relations of Zimri with his Midianite wife.

This characterization of Phineas is Josephus’ addition. Hebrew ‮הקבה‬‎ (Num. 25:8), “vaulted tent”; LXX κάμινον, “furnace,” “chamber”; Josephus σκηνή, “tent.” Nodet (ad loc.) remarks that Josephus thought of the Midianites as nomads living in tents. According to Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (ad loc.), the Midianites lived in alcoves, places of idolatry and prostitution. According to Rabbi Joḥanan (Sanhedrin 82b), 6 miracles were performed to assist Phineas. Presumably because Josephus was so strongly opposed to zealotry such as Phineas showed, he omits the reward of a covenant of peace and of everlasting priesthood bestowed upon him by God for this zealous act (Num. 25:10-13), though he does praise Phineas in general (Ant. 4.152-55). According to Tanḥuma 4.29 (ed. Buber, p. 148), the fact that it was Phineas and not Moses who reacted to the provocation of Zimri resulted in the punishment inflicted upon Moses of having his burial place unknown (cf. Deut. 34:6). Philo (De Vita Mosis 1.55.304), on the other hand, remarks that Moses sought how to reward Phineas for his heroism, but before he could do so, God granted him the gift of peace and the eternal priesthood.

Thackeray (ad loc.) notes Josephus’ indebtedness to Thucydides (2.51.5): οἱ ἀρετῆς τι μεταποιούμενοι, “those who make any pretensions to virtue.” φιλοκαλεῖν, “to love the beautiful,” “to be enthusiastic, especially for the beautiful or the good.” Cf. Thucydides 2.40.1 (in Pericles’ Funeral Oration): φιλοκαλοῦμεν, “we are lovers of beauty.”

The order of events in Num. 25:1-8 is that first the Israelite men acted immorally with the Moabite women, then a plague afflicted the Israelites, then Phinehas killed the Israelite who openly had relations with the Midianite woman, then the plague was stayed. In Josephus, as in Bib. Ant. 47.1, the plague takes place after Phinehas’ deed. According to Num. 25:5, Moses instructed the judges to put to death those who had apostasized. Yet, 3 verses later (Num. 25:8) we hear that the plague (which had not previously been mentioned), presumably sent by God, was stayed from the people of Israel. A similar apparent contradiction appears in the rabbinic tradition, as Nodet (ad loc.) notes. According to the Jerusalem Talmud (Sanhedrin 10.4.28d), the Israelite judges executed those who were guilty of apostasy until Phinehas’ zealous deed, whereas according to Sanhedrin 82b, the plague was sent after the provocation of Zimri, and the 24,000 who died were those who had married foreign women. We find a similar apparent contradiction in connection with the incident of the golden calf, omitted by Josephus. There (Exod. 32:27) Moses tells the Israelites that God has instructed them to “slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor.” Yet, a few verses later (Exod. 32:35) we read: “And the Lord sent a plague upon the people, because they made the calf which Aaron made.” Num. 25:8. It is not clear whether, as in the rabbinic tradition Sanhedrin 82a and Midrash Exod. Rabbah 33.5), cited by Ginzberg (1928:6:137 n. 794), Josephus envisages God sending the plague prior to Phinehas’ action against Zimri. This statement is Josephus’ addition. According to Num. 25:9, the number who died in the plague was 24,000. Nodet (ad loc.) suggests that Josephus may have read ‮ועשׂר‬‎ or ‮ועשׂרה‬‎ (“and ten”) for ‮ועשׂרים‬‎ (“and twenty”). According to 1 Cor. 10:8, 23,000 fell in a single day. The term τάξεων (“ranks,” “arrangements in battle”), as Nodet (ad loc.) remarks, suggests soldiers who are of age to carry arms. In Num. 26:1-51, this incident is followed by a census of those who are able to go forth to war.

Ant. 4.101. According to Num. 25:16-18, it was not these events that led Moses to send his army to destroy the Midianites but rather the instructions given him by God. According to the LXX, God told Moses to speak to the children of Israel to attack the Midianites, whereas according to the Hebrew text God instructed Moses to attack the Midianites. The occasion for this aside to the reader is the fact that the biblical text, after Num. 25:18, suddenly proceeds to a long digression giving the census figures for men of military age in the various tribes.

Cf. Ant. 3.74, where Josephus similarly calls attention to the fact that even though Moses might have taken credit himself for the reorganization of his system of adjudicating disputes he recorded that it was Jethro who gave him the suggestion. Josephus’ statement is to be compared with that of the anonymous baraita quoted in the Talmud (Baba Batra 14b) that Moses wrote his own book (that is, the Torah) and the section of Balaam, implying that the latter is a book of its own. Nodet (ad loc.) suggests that Josephus is here trying to reinforce the stature of Moses, inasmuch as Moses has been almost entirely absent from the scene of the narrative throughout this long account of Balaam and the incident with the Midianite women. Note that Josephus, perhaps because of a Greek and Roman assumption that a great leader should not be unduly humble (e.g., Aristotle, Ethica Nicomachea 4.3.1125A17-34), has omitted the statement about Moses’ humility in Num. 12:3: “Now the man Moses was very meek, more than all men that were on the face of the earth.” The fact that Josephus mentions Balaam once again after the conclusion of the episode with the Midianite women and says that on these matters readers are free to think what they please shows that he regarded the whole account as a single narrative. Moscovitz (1979:18) suggests that perhaps Josephus postponed his customary declaration about the reader’s discretion because the incident of the donkey itself was so trivial in Josephus’ eyes. The incident hardly seems trivial, however, in view of the programmatic content of the donkey’s speech or the space given to this episode. More likely, Josephus postpones the notice because it is not only the incident of the donkey that might strike readers as incredible, but the whole of the Balaam episode, since the idea that an individual such as Balaam had the power to curse a whole nation might likewise stretch credibility. Nodet (ad loc.) suggests that Josephus may have inserted this disclaimer here in part because of the role of Moses in preserving the record of Balaam, since he was absent from the whole scene. On Josephus’ frequent formulation asking the reader to decide matters for himself see Ant. 1.108 and other passages cited there.

Num. 31:1-5. So also Philo (De Vita Mosis 1.56.306) states that Moses appointed Phinehas as commander-in-chief of his army; likewise the rabbinic tradition (Sifre Num. 157 and parallels, cited by Ginzberg [1928:6:145 n. 860]). According to Num. 31:6, Moses sent Phinehas to the war with the holy vessels and the trumpets for blowing the alarm; but there is no indication that Phinehas was appointed as military commander. According to the LXX, the holy instruments and the signal trumpets were in their (i.e. the people’s) hands, whence we may conclude that Phinehas was appointed to be general. Ant. 4.152-53.

Num. 31:7 states merely that the Israelites warred against the Midianites as the Lord had commanded Moses. These actions taken by the Midianites are Josephus’ addition. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Num. 31:7 explains that the Midianites were encircled on 3 sides.

If we wonder why Josephus omits mention of Balaam’s death, this may be due to the fact that he was killed in battle, together with the Midianite kings (Num. 31:8). To be sure, Josephus does mention this battle here; but if he had included Balaam as a casualty of it, readers might have inferred that Balaam, like the Midianites, was anti-Jewish (though see Ant. 4.157). By omitting this detail Josephus sustains his portrait: Balaam was not a conspirator against Israel, but simply a professional soothsayer. Hebrew ‮אוי‬‎ (Num. 31:8), LXX Εὐίν, Josephus Ὦχος. The radical difference in Josephus’ spelling of the name of Evi as Ochos is difficult to explain. Knauf (1992:2:677) suggests localizing Evi as one of the natural strongholds, such as Ba‘jah or Umm al-Biyarah, in the Petra area. Hebrew ‮צור‬‎ (Num. 31:8), LXX Σούρ, Josephus Σούρης. This Zur is apparently to be identified with Zur, the father of Cozbi (Ant. 4.141). Knauf (1992e:6:1175-76) identifies it with Khirbet Dor, where pottery dating from the seventh through the fifth centuries B.C.E. has been found. Hebrew ‮רבע‬‎ (Num. 31:8), LXX Ῥοβόκ, Josephus Ῥοβέης. Knauf (1992c:5.629) notes that as a personal name Reba has parallels in Hadramitic, Lihyanite, Safaitic, and classical Arabic Rabi and Rubai from the fifth century B.C.E. onwards. As a place name he suggests as possible identifications Rabig, a port city of the Hijaz, and, more likely, Naqb Ruba‘i, the main access to Petra from Wadi ‘Arabah. Hebrew ‮חור‬‎ (Num. 31:8), LXX Οὔρ, Josephus Οὔρης. Knauf (1992b:3.334) identifies it with the Nabataean town of Auara/Ḥaura (now al-Ḥumaymah). Hebrew ‮רקם‬‎ (Num. 31:8), LXX Ῥοκόμ, Josephus Ῥέκεμος. The list of these five kings also appears in Josh. 13:21 in the same order in the Hebrew as that found here. The order in Josephus is different from that in the Hebrew text and LXX, with the kings listed third, fifth, fourth, and second in the Hebrew and LXX text being placed in the order of second, third, fourth, and fifth following Evi (Ochos) in Josephus. Knauf (1992d:5.665) suggests that the names of the five “Midianite” kings in this passage are actually place names and have been taken from an itinerary that led through southern Transjordan and northwestern Arabia and that was composed in the Persian period. He notes that both in the Targum and the Peshitta Reqem is rendered as Kadesh-barnea, which was identified with Petra since at least the first century B.C.E., and that Raqmu (in Nabataean rqmw) was the indigenous name of Petra. While he concedes that Josephus here derives the place name from that of the king, it is more likely, he thinks, that Raqam, “the striped one,” is a genuine place name and that Petra was not the only place called Raqam. This information about Rekem is Josephus’ addition. Starcky (1964:95-97) comments on a Nabataean inscription of Petra, which contains the first epigraphic mention of the Semitic name of the city, Reqem. This confirms Josephus, who says here that Rekeme is the Petra of the Greeks. In Ant. 4.82 he says that the former name of the city was Arke and likewise notes that it is the metropolis or “mother-city” of the Arabs.

As Nodet (ad loc.) notes, such virgins would be converted and then emancipated upon marriage. According to Num. 31:9-18, the Israelites at first took the Midianite women and children captive; then seized as spoil their cattle, flocks, and goods; and burnt their cities and castles. When they brought these to Moses he was angry with his military leaders for allowing the women to live since they had committed gross offences against God in the matter of Peor. He then ordered them to kill every male child and every woman who had had sexual relations. Josephus, perhaps considering that the order to kill every male child was reminiscent of the Pharaoh’s cruel orders, omits this detail. Contrast this with Josephus’ account of the massacre of the people of Jabesh Gilead, including all of military age, along with the children and all the women except for 400 who were unmarried (Ant. 5.165). Josephus here, however, omits Moses’ instructions to those of the Israelite army (Num. 31:19-24) who had killed anyone or had had contact with the slain to remain outside the camp for 7 days in order to purify themselves, their clothes, and their vessels.

So Num. 31:49. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Targum Neofiti (ad loc.) explain, as Nodet (ad loc.) remarks, that none of the soldiers had sinned with a Midianite woman despite the great temptations. Num. 31:33 (both the Hebrew and the LXX) gives the number as 72,000. Nodet (ad loc.) explains the discrepancy as due to the error of a copyist who read ΠΕΤΑ for ΕΠΤΑ (7), which was then “corrected” to ΠΕΝΤΑ (5). Inasmuch as Josephus’ figure agrees with the Hebrew and LXX with regard to the number of sheep and almost agrees with regard to the number of donkeys, such an explanation seems likely. Num. 31:32 gives this total for sheep and goats. Num. 31:34 (both the Hebrew and the LXX) gives the number of donkeys as 61,000. Nodet (ad loc.) suggests that the discrepancy may be explained as due to the omission of καὶ χιλίους (“and 1000”) by homoeoteleuton after ἑξακισμυρίους (“60,000”). Since the difference is so slight and inconsequential, scribal error seems the likely cause. Num. 31:52 gives a specific amount: 16,750 shekels. ἁβροδίαιτοι (“living delicately”) implies effeminacy. That the gold and silver were limitless because the Midianites lived so luxuriously is Josephus’ addition. On the theme that luxury leads to decline see Ant. 1.60-66 in connection with the degeneracy of Cain and his descendants. On εὐδαιμονία (here “prosperity”) a key word in the Antiquities, see, e.g., Feldman (1984-85:241 n. 79). This was also a basic theme in (wealthy) Roman aristocratic circles, developed by Cato the Elder and later by moral philosophers such as Seneca the Younger. Num. 31:35 gives a precise figure of 32,000. The word περί (“about”) corresponds to the Hebrew here of ‮כל־נפשׁ‬‎ (“in all,” Num. 31:35). Generally speaking, as we see, for example, in his rendering of the number of oxen, sheep, and donkeys, Josephus gives precise numbers.

Philo (De Vita Mosis 1.58.315) follows the division stated in Num. 31:27 and explains that “it was just to give them [the non-combatants] a part of the prizes, seeing that their souls at least, if not their bodies, had taken part in the conflict.” Whereas Num. 31:28 states that one five hundredth of the first half was given to Eleazar the priest for the Lord (that is, one tenth of what was given to the Levites), Josephus says that it was one fiftieth. Josephus thus, in a pro-priestly revision, equalizes the portions given to the priests and Levites. Thackeray (ad loc.) notes that the reading 50 for 500 is found in a small group of MSS. in Num. 31:28. This statement describing the happiness of the Israelites is Josephus’ addition. Josephus omits the details (Num. 31:50-54) that the officers of the Israelite army brought an oblation to God of the jewelry that they had captured to make an atonement for their souls.

Josephus omits the request that Moses makes of God (Num. 27:16-17) that He should appoint someone who should lead the Israelites, presumably in succession to Moses. The statement that Moses was an old man at this point is Josephus’ addition to Num. 27:18. Josephus has modified the biblical order in placing Moses’ appointment of Joshua as his successor (Num. 27:18-23) immediately before the apportionment of land to the Transjordanian tribes (Num. 32:1-27). His apparent reason for this transposition is that he wishes to bring Moses’ appointment of Joshua as his successor in immediate juxtaposition with the statement (Num. 32:18) that Moses summoned Eleazar the high priest and Joshua to lead the Israelite army across the Jordan and made the proviso that the land of the Amorites should be given to these tribes on condition of their fighting along with their brethren (Ant. 4.171). On two occasions Josephus adds to the biblical account by terming Joshua a prophet, here and in Ant. 4.311. In the passage above, Josephus is paraphrasing the biblical text in which God tells Moses to lay his hands upon (i.e. select as his successor) Joshua, “a man in whom there is the spirit” (‮רוח‬‎) (Num. 27:18) and to invest him with some of his [Moses’] authority (‮מהודך‬‎, Num. 27:20). In Josephus’ paraphrase Moses appoints Joshua to succeed him both in his prophetical functions and as commander-in-chief, the two qualities of Moses that Josephus singles out in his encomium of him (Ant. 4.329), thus quite clearly indicating that he, as Josephus’ mouthpiece, regards these two qualities as primary in the leader who is to succeed Moses. So also Targum Onqelos and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (on Num. 27:18) speak of Joshua as possessing the spirit of prophecy before God. In the Samaritan tradition (Second Samaritan Chronicle 4.2) Joshua received an oral, esoteric instruction in secrets and mysteries. In the corresponding biblical passage (Num. 27:18), there is no mention of Joshua’s military abilities (Num. 27:18). Josephus has already cited the military qualifications of Joshua in connection with the war against the Amalekites (Ant. 3.49). Philo (De Mutatione Nominum 21.121), on the other hand, emphasizes the allegorical significance of the change of name of Hoshea to Joshua (Num. 13:17), interpreting this to mean the transformation of the individual who embodies a state into the state itself. In Num. 27:20 God tells Moses to select Joshua so that “all the congregation of the people of Israel may obey.” Josephus omits God’s instruction (Num. 27:21) that Joshua is to stand before Eleazar the priest, “who shall inquire for him by the judgment of the Urim before the Lord; at his word they shall go out, and at his word they shall come in, both he and all the people of Israel with him.” By omitting this Josephus lessens the subordination of Joshua to the high priest, or he wishes to minimize the role of the Urim. Josephus also omits the biblical statement (Num. 27:23) that Moses laid his hands upon Joshua and thus commissioned him. Josephus’ use here of a cognate accusative emphasizes the education that Joshua received. A great leader must be able to choose and train a successor who will carry on his work, as the philosophical schools and the Roman principate learned in choosing successors. In the Bible it is God who takes the initiative in telling Moses to choose Joshua as his successor (Num. 27:18). Already in Ant. 3.49, in reporting that Moses appointed Joshua to lead the military campaign against the Amalekites, Josephus says in praise of Joshua that he worshipped God with a singular piety, which he had learned from Moses. We are told here that before choosing Joshua, Moses had already indoctrinated him with a thorough training in the laws and in divine lore.

Γάδας in Ant. 1.306 and Γάδης in Ant. 2.182. Reuben is thus described also in Ant. 1.304. Num. 32:1 mentions only the tribes of Reuben and Gad, but Josephus has presumably been influenced by the fact that in Num. 32:33 Moses gave the land to the tribes of Gad and Reuben and the half-tribe of Manasseh. Nodet (ad loc.) notes that the Samaritan text on several occasions in this chapter adds a reference to the half-tribe of Manasseh. Num. 32:1 mentions only a large number of cattle. There is no mention of their deliberating in Num. 32:2. According to Num. 32:2, the tribes of Gad and Reuben came to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the leaders of the congregation. As Thackeray (ad loc.) remarks, this means independently and in advance of the general allotment of territory. Schalit (ad loc.) cites, as a parallel for the meaning of ἐξαίρετον as “extraordinary” or “singular,” Thucydides 3.68, ἐξαίρετον ποιεῖσθαί τινα, where it means to exclude someone from the general group. Num. 32:5 does not indicate that Gad and Reuben spoke of their appeal as a request for an exception, nor, according to Josephus, do the two tribes request that they not be taken across the Jordan (so Num. 32:5). According to Num. 32:1, the tribes of Reuben and Gad wished to have the land of Jazer and Gilead. According to Num. 32:4, it is the Lord who is given credit for conquering the enemy so as to enable the return of the land. Num. 32:39 says that it was specifically Machir, the son of Manasseh, who captured Gilead and dispossessed the Amorites there. According to Josh. 13:29-30, Moses gave to the half-tribe of Manasseh the region from Mahanaim through all of Bashan and half of Gilead.

This (εὐσχήμονα, “specious,” “with an outward show of goodness”) is the reading of the editio princeps. The manuscripts read ἀσχήμονα (“shameful,” “unseemly”). In Num. 32:6-9 Moses berates the tribes of Reuben and Gad, in language reminiscent of the charge (Num. 14:9) against the 10 scouts, on the ground that their not crossing the Jordan would discourage the other Israelites from attempting to conquer the land from the Canaanites. A frequent theme in Josephus is his attack on luxurious living: War 1.462, 524; 4.592; Ant. 2.88, 201; 3.223; 5.132 (“As their [the Israelites’] riches increased, under the mastery of luxury [τρυφῆς] and voluptuousness, they recked little of the order of their constitution and no longer hearkened diligently to its laws”), 5.134, 180; 6.34; 7.133; 16.301; Life 284; Apion 2.228. This fits both the Roman self-image articulated by Cato the Elder and the views of popular Stoic philosophers such as Seneca the Younger and Epictetus. Nodet (ad loc.) notes the parallel with the Song of Deborah (Judg. 5:16), where there is a similar rebuke to those who did not join in the struggle: “Why did you tarry among the sheepfolds, to hear the piping for the flocks?” Josephus’ Moses uses much stronger and more colorful language than the Moses of Num. 32:6, denouncing the tribes of Gad, Reuben, and the half-tribe of Manasseh as errant knaves (κακίστους), who had devised this plausible excuse for their cowardice because they wished to live in luxury and ease (τρυφᾶν ἀπόνως διάγοντας).

Here, as often, Josephus shifts into direct discourse.

In Num. 32:10-15 it is not Moses’ but God’s anger that is now aroused against the tribes of Reuben and Gad. Josephus omits God’s statement (Num. 14:29-35, 32:11-13), in His anger, that the Israelites would wander in the wilderness for 40 years and that none of the adults, except Caleb and Joshua, would be permitted to enter the Promised Land. Josephus omits the threat (Num. 32:15) that God would again abandon the Israelites in the wilderness and would destroy them all. Josephus adds this defense by the tribes of Reuben and Gad and half of the tribe of Manasseh against the charges made by Moses.

Num. 32:16 makes no mention of the plunder to be left at a suitable place. That they would go well equipped is Josephus’ addition. Josephus omits the promise by the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and half of the tribe of Manasseh that they would not return to their homes until the Israelites had each received his inheritance.

Num. 32:20 does not specifically say that Moses was pleased with their statement. Rather, he declares that if they fulfill their promise they shall have the land which they currently occupy, but if not, their sin will find them out. According to Num. 32:33, Moses gave to these tribes the Amorite kingdom of Sihon, as well as Og’s kingdom of Bashan. Cf. Ant. 4.166, where they ask for Amoritis. According to Num. 32:29-30, Moses tells Eleazar the priest, Joshua, and the heads of the various tribes that if the tribes of Reuben and Gad will cross over the Jordan and join in the battle for the land, they should give them the land of Gilead as a possession, but if they do not they should get possessions in the land of Canaan. Rabbi Meir in the Mishnah (Qiddushin 3:4) cites the language here as the classic formulation of a condition, that is, “Any condition that is not stated as is the condition of the sons of Gad and the sons of Reuben [that is, in both the positive and negative formulations] is no condition.” Josephus omits the names of the various cities built by these tribes (Num. 32:34-38) According to Num. 32:24, Moses tells the tribes of Reuben and Gad to build cities for their children and folds for their sheep and to do what they have promised. Josephus omits the statement (Num. 32:39) that Machir, the son of Manasseh, took Gilead and dispossessed the Amorites who were there, that Jair the son of Manasseh took their villages, and that Nobah took Kenath and its villages.

Cf. Num. 35:6: “The cities that you give to the Levites shall be the 6 cities of refuge, where you shall permit the manslayer to flee, and in addition to them you shall give 42 cities.” So also Ant. 4.67. As Thackeray (ad loc.) notes, the number 48 indicates that there were to be 4 for each tribe. This would mean that there should be 10 for the 2 1/2 tribes that settled beyond the Jordan. Josephus here omits the specification that these are the levitical cities. On the cities of refuge see Josh. 20:1-6. Josephus is here referring to the 3 cities beyond the Jordan. Num. 35:22-23 is more specific in explaining what is meant by “involuntary,” i.e. “if he stabbed him suddenly without enmity, or hurled anything on him without lying in wait, or used a stone, by which a man may die, and without seeing him cast it upon him, so that he died, though he was not his enemy, and did not seek his harm.” In that case (Num. 35:24), the congregation shall judge between the manslayer and the avenger of blood. Num. 35:25 gives no reason for this, but Maimonides (Guide for the Perplexed 3.40) explains that “it is a natural phenomenon that we find consolation in our misfortune when the same misfortune or a greater one has befallen another person; and among us no death causes more grief than that of the high priest.” So Num. 35:26-27. Josephus very briefly summarizes the long discussion (Num. 35:9-33) with regard to the procedure concerning one who had killed another, whether deliberately or accidentally. In particular, he omits the role of the congregation (Num. 35:24-25), which is to adjudicate the matter. Josephus omits the biblical statement (Num. 35:31) that one may not take redemption money for the soul of one who has a killed another, whether deliberately or inadvertently.

Hebrew ‮בצר‬‎ (Deut. 4:43), LXX Βοσόρ, Josephus Βόσορα. Deut. 4:43 locates Bezer in the wilderness on the tableland for the Reubenites. It was later set aside for the Merarite families of the Levites. Its exact location is unknown, but it is often identified with Umm el-‘Amad, eight miles northeast of Medeba (Mattingly [1992:719]), perhaps identical with Bosor (1 Macc. 5:36) or Moabite Bozrah (Jer. 48:24). Eusebius, as Nodet (ad loc.) notes, identifies the place with Bostra in Trachonitis, but Nodet remarks that this city is not known prior to the Via Traiana. Hebrew ‮ראמת‬‎ (Deut. 4:43), LXX Ραμώθ, Joseph Ἀρίμανον. It is elsewhere referred to by Josephus as Aramathe (Ant. 8.398, 411, 417; 9.105-6, 112). It is mentioned as a city of refuge in Josh. 21:38 and 1 Chr. 6:65. As to its location, Arnold (1992:5:621) suggests that Gilead, the area where it is located, is in a region in modern Jordan south of the Yarmuk River and north of the Jabbok. As to its specific identification, es-Salṭ (15 milestone unit="section"s west of Philadelphia [Rabbat-Ammon]), Tell el-Ḥusn, and particularly Tell Ramith have been suggested. Hebrew ‮גלעד‬‎ (Deut. 4:43), LXX Γαλαάδ, Josephus Γαλαδηνῶν. Gilead is an area east of the Jordan River that covers the area from Bashan in the north to the Arnon River in the south and from the Jordan in the west to the desert in the east (Ottosson 1992:2:1020). Hebrew ‮גולן‬‎ (Deut. 4:43), LXX Γαυλών , Josephus Γαυλανάν. Its geographical location is doubtful. Some have identified it as a city in the district of Golan, which in the time of Josephus constituted the territory between the city of Caesarea Paneas in the north and that of the city of Hippos in the south. Most scholars, however, identify the city with Sahem el-Joulan, which lies east of the Golan district on the east bank of the River el-’Allan. See Arav (1992:2:1057). Hebrew ‮בשׁן‬‎ (Deut. 4:43), LXX Βασάν, Josephus Βατανίδι. Bashan (the Aramaic equivalent of Batanea, with t substituting for sh) was known as Batanea during the Greco-Roman period. It is north of Gilead, west of Salecah and the Jebel Druze Mountains, south of Mount Hermon, and east of the Jordan River and the Sea of Galilee. See Slayton (1992:1.623-24). According to Num. 32:40, however, as Nodet (ad loc.) notes, Machir received Gilead, not Bashan. These were, according to Josh. 20:7 and Ant. 5.91, Kedesh in upper Galilee in the country of Naphtali, Shechem in the country of Ephraim, and Kiriath-arba (Hebron) in the country of Judah.

Zelophehad is mentioned in Num. 27:1 as the son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh; hence the complaint comes from the tribe of Manasseh, who fear that the inheritance of one of the members of their tribe will be lost if the daughters of Zelophehad marry from outside their tribe. Hebrew ‮צלפחד‬‎ (Num. 36:2), LXX Σαλπαάδ, Josephus Σωλοφάντης. Josephus omits the names of the daughters (Num. 27:1, 36:11): Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah. Josephus here uses the word κλῆρος, which would imply that only the lot allocated to the Zelophehad upon entering the land of Canaan is in question, rather than all the property possessed by him.

An embarrassing passage is to be found in the story of the daughters of Zelophehad, who ask for the inheritance of their father, because he has died without sons (Num. 27:1-11). The daughters (Num. 27:3) assert that their father was not among those who joined the rebellion of Korah (in Philo [De Vita Mosis 2.43.235] they say that he followed contentedly the quiet life of an ordinary citizen and that surely it should not be accounted as a sin that he had no sons) and ask why the name of their father should be lost simply because he had no sons. In the Bible Moses is unable to decide their case and presents it to God, who decides in their favor (Num. 27:5). Josephus omits this scene altogether, perhaps because it would demean Moses’ ability as a judge. Rabbinic tradition, as noted by Nodet (ad loc.), is divided: on the one hand (Jerusalem Targum on Lev. 24:12), Moses is congratulated because of his humility in admitting that he did not know the answer; on the other hand (Midrash Song of Songs Rabbah 1:10), the rabbis note the juxtaposition of Num. 27:7, where God declares that the daughters are right, with Num. 27:12, where God commands Moses to ascend the mountain of Abarim, implying that the day of his death is approaching. Num. 36:1-12, in which Moses states that the inheritance must remain within the tribe, appears to contradict Num. 27:7-8, which says that daughters inherit when there are no sons, without the qualification that they do so only if they marry within the tribe. Josephus has the scene, based on Num. 36:1-12, in which the chiefs of the tribe of Manasseh inquire de novo about the inheritance of Zelophehad, who had left no sons. However, whereas in Num. 36:1-4 the chiefs of the families of the sons of Joseph come to Moses to complain about his decision—pointing out that when the Jubilee occurs, their inheritance will be added to the tribe into which they have married—here in Josephus there is an inquiry but no reference to a previous decision by Moses and no complaint. Josephus’ Moses does not hesitate to give his answer without consulting God, as he does in Num. 27:5; he tells the daughters that if they marry within their tribe they will carry the inheritance with them, but if they do not, the inheritance is to remain in their father’s tribe. Josephus omits the statement (Num. 36:6) that the daughters are free to marry whomever they think best but that they should marry within the tribe of their father; nevertheless, if they do not, the inheritance is not to be transferred from one tribe to another (Num. 36:9). Nodet (ad loc.) remarks that Josephus’ synthesis of the two passages is logical, since he generalizes from the particular case of the daughters of Zelophehad in placing it after the distribution of the Amorite land. Philo follows the biblical text in having Moses refer the case to God (De Vita Mosis 2.43.237) and presents God’s answer there (Num. 27:7), that the daughters should be awarded the inheritance. But then in De Specialibus Legibus 2.25.126 he says, aware of the statement in Num. 36:7-9, that girls should be married to husbands of the same ward and tribe, “in order that the portions assigned as dowry should not be alienated by intermarriage with other tribes, but should retain the place given to them in the allotments originally made on the basis of the tribes.” Belkin (1969-70:305) asserts that Josephus’ remark that each man’s heritage should remain in his tribe may be regarded as a literal repetition of the biblical text (Num. 27:11), applicable only when there was the implementation of the Jubilee ordinances, for in Josephus’ day and in tannaitic times this did not apply. Contrary to Josephus, the rabbis (Sifre Num. 134, Baba Batra 120a) held that even if the woman did marry into another tribe, the property belonged only to the son or husband and did not “remain in the tribe.” The biblical phrase was regarded as only “good advice.” One theory would explain Josephus’ deviations on the ground that he is merely paraphrasing biblical law: the statement here that the heritage of Zelophehad’s daughters should remain in the tribe is merely a restatement of Num. 36:8, whereas the rabbis (Sifra Emor 4 [ed. Weiss, p. 96a on Lev. 22:3]) assert that the law was in force only when the land was divided according to tribes. According to Baba Batra 120a, the daughters of Zelophehad were exempt from the prohibition of having the inheritance transferred to their husbands from another tribe, because Num. 36:6 specifically says, “Let them marry whom they think best.” As Raba puts it, the rule applied only to that generation, i.e., before the distribution of the land of Canaan when it was conquered, but not to future generations. According to the Mishnah (Baba Batra 8:3), the daughters of Zelophehad took 3 portions of the inheritance: the portion of their father (Num. 27:7), since he was among those who had gone forth from Egypt, and his share among his brothers from the property of Hepher, their father’s father, which consisted of 2 portions, since Zelophehad was the firstborn and hence received a double portion. Josephus omits the statement (Num. 36:11) that the daughters married the sons of their father’s brothers, and that consequently the inheritance remained in the tribe of their father. Josephus omits the general laws of inheritance (Num. 27:8-11).

Deut. 1:3, in both the Hebrew and the LXX versions, dates Moses’ final assembly in the fortieth year, on the first day of eleventh month. Inasmuch as it had been decreed that the Israelites were to spend 12 months in the wilderness, Josephus, says Nodet (ad loc.), must have read ‮שׁתי עשׂר‬‎, i.e. the twelfth month, instead of our reading, ‮עשׁתי עשׂר‬‎, (i.e, the eleventh month). Nodet (ad loc.) remarks that Josephus’ numerical calculations are often imprecise and cites, as an example, his statement (Ant. 4.78) that Miriam died when she had completed her fortieth year since leaving Egypt, whereas it is clear that she died before the completion of the 40 years sojourn in the wilderness. Nodet (ad loc.) notes that the very day that Moses addressed the Israelites is also the day, according to Ant. 4.327, that he died. This is impossible, since, according to Ant. 4.302 and 309, the assembly lasted several days. As Nodet (ad loc.) notes, the expression ἐκκλησίαν ... συναγαγών indicates the meeting of a regular institution (cf. Ant. 3.188). Deut. 1:1-2 locates the place where Moses spoke as “beyond the Jordan in the wilderness, in the Arabah over against Suph, between Paran and Tophel, Laban, Hazeroth, and Dizahab. It is 11 days’ journey from Horeb by the way of Mount Seir to Kadesh-barnea.” The localization in Abile is Josephus’ addition. It is east of the Jordan and approximately 6 miles north of the Dead Sea. Abile is Abel Shittim, the place by the Jordan in the plains of Moab that is mentioned (Num. 33:49) as the furthest station in the wanderings of the Israelites in the wilderness before they crossed the Jordan. It is from here that Joshua sent out scouts into Canaan (Josh. 2:1, Ant. 5.4), and it is here that the Israelites lodged before crossing the Jordan (Josh. 3:1). The city is called Abele (Ant. 5.4) or Abila (War 4.438), and is said to be 60 stadia (approximately 7 miles) from the Jordan. It is here that Balaam sought to curse the Israelites (Num. 22-24) and that the Israelites sinned with the Moabite women and were punished (Num. 25:1). Its site has been identified with the present-day Khirbat al-Kafrayn, on a hill overlooking the plains of Moab, or with Tell el-Hamman on the Wadi el-Kefrein (Slayton 1992: 5:1222). That the place was grown with palms is Josephus’ addition. This address by Moses departs widely from that in Deuteronomy (1-33).

Significantly, Moses the general addresses the Israelites as fellow-soldiers. Cf. Virgil, Aen. 1.204-5: “Per varios casus, per tot discrimina rerum” (“Through diverse misfortunes, through so many crises in events”). Cf. Deut. 31:2, where Moses, in his address to the Israelites, declares: “I am 120 years old this day.” On the rabbinic tradition of the death of Moses see Midrash Deut. Rabbah 9.9 and parallels. Cf. Deut. 31:2: “The Lord has said to me, ‘You shall not go over this Jordan.’”

On the emphasis on happiness as a primary goal (εὐδαιμονίας here; εὐδαιμονήσαιτε, Ant. 4.179; εὐδαιμονίαν, 4.186; ἐδαιμονέστατοι, 4.193) in Moses’ last address to the Israelites, cf. the importance of this theme in the prologue (Ant. 1.14, 20) and its ironic prevalence in Josephus’ version of the ‘Aqedah (εὐδαιμονίαν, Ant. 1.223; εὐδαιμονίαν, 1.224; εὐδαιμονήσειν, 1.228; εὐδαιμόνως, 1.234; εὐδαιμόνως, 1.236).

Whereas in the Bible Moses prays that God may multiply the people and bless them (Deut. 1:11), in Josephus Moses takes the initiative in planning ways so that the people may attain prosperity. Josephus’ Moses, like Horace (Carm. 3.30.1), is not ashamed to say that through his labors he has built an everlasting memorial for the public welfare. Cf. Moses’ acknowledgement of his self-love in Ant. 3.188, 3.190, 4.27. ὁμιλεῖν (“associate with,” “enter into a very close relationship with,” “converse”). Despite all the difficulties caused him by the crowd, Moses does not complain. According to the Bible, on the other hand, Moses cries out to his people in despair, “How can I bear alone the weight and burden of you and your strife?” (Deut. 1:12).

Moses’words, as presented here by Josephus, closely parallel the main theme of the Antiquities as delineated in the proem (Ant. 1.14, 20), where the reward for conforming to the will of God is happiness (εὐδαιμονία).

The Greek οἷς (“whom,” “which”) could refer to people, i.e., rulers, or things (i.e., laws).

Nodet (ad loc.) suggests that this passage is reminiscent of God’s promise to the Israelites that if they will observe His commandments, “You shall chase your enemies, and they shall fall before you by the sword. 5 of you shall chase 100, and 100 of you shall chase 10,000; and your enemies shall fall before you by the sword” (Lev. 26:7-8). Nodet (ad loc.) notes that Josephus is here presenting the view not of disinterestedness in observance of the Law (“for the sake of Heaven”) but rather the supreme rationality of the Law.

As Nodet (ad loc.) remarks, after stressing the importance of proper relations with God, Josephus’ Moses emphasizes the importance of proper relations with fellow humans (cf. Lev. 19:18). Josephus here indicates that Moses received from God the entire system of laws embodied in the Pentateuch. This is in accordance with the rabbinic view that the Torah was transmitted to Moses in 5 separate scrolls, and that the entire text of the Torah was transmitted to him at once (Giṭṭin 60a).

νόμων...σωφροσύνῃ (“[the moderation of the laws”) is Niese’s emendation. The manuscripts read νόμῳ ... σωφροσύνης (“the law of moderation”). Nodet adopts the manuscript reading, noting that Niese’s emendation attenuates the reference to Stoicism, as implied in Ant. 4.182. Moses’ affirmation that the purpose of the laws that he conveyed to his people is to teach them moderation (σωφροσύνῃ) is Josephus’ addition.

The concept of God’s providence is stressed throughout Josephus’ paraphrase of the Bible. See Attridge (1976:71-107) and van Unnik (1973:341-55).

Joshua in Josephus’ version shows his piety by being constantly associated with the high priest and with the council of elders, not only here but also in Ant. 4.324, 5.15, 5.22, 5.43, 5.55, 5.57, 5.80, whereas the biblical text makes no such association. This, the first appearance of the word γερουσία (“council of elders”) in the Antiquities is very important, since this is the modus operandi of aristocratic government that Moses advocates for the Israelites (cf. Ant. 4.218, 220, 222, 255, 256, etc.). That those who know well how to obey will also know how to rule is Josephus’ editorial comment. This is, in effect, as Nodet (ad loc.) remarks, Moses’ and Josephus’ answer to the charge of Zimri (Ant. 4.145-49) that Moses is tyrannical. Moreover, it suggests, as does Balaam’s prediction and Daniel’s interpretation of the dream, the future hegemony of Israel.

Cf. Ant. 4.12.

If, indeed, God is the model of justice, He is also the model of the related virtue of forgiveness, both of which virtues are exhibited by Moses. Thus, in exhorting the Israelites just before his death, though he reminds them that they have more often imperiled him than has the enemy, Josephus’ Moses adds immediately that he does not wish to leave them aggrieved by recalling these things to their minds. That Moses hopes the Israelites will learn moderation (σωφρονήσειν; see Ant. 4.144) is Josephus’ editorial comment. Levine (1993:75) notes that Josephus reinforces the relationship between ὕβρις and wealth by the compact phrase ἐξυβρίσαι διὰ πλοῦτον (“to behave insolently because of wealth”), the excessive nature of the wealth by πολύς (“in abundance”), and the accumulation of possessions by the word κτησαμένοις (“having acquired”). The introduction of the concept of ὕβρις is Josephus’. Similarly, Philo (De Virtutibus 30.162), in a discussion of Deut. 8:11-14, tells of Moses’ warning about arrogance, which can destroy everything: satiety begets insolence” (τίκτει κόρος ὕβριν).

In view of Ant. 18-20, where many instances of departure from the laws are adduced as causes of the Temple’s destruction, this prediction seems to function as Josephus’ explanation for the situation of the Jews after 70. Josephus omits, however, the detailed list of all the sufferings that the Israelites will undergo if they fail to obey the commandments (Deut. 28:15-69).

Cf. Deut. 7:1-2: “When the Lord your God brings you into the land that you are entering to take possession of it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, 7 nations greater and mightier than yourselves, and when the Lord your God gives them over to you, and you defeat them; then you must utterly destroy them; you shall make no covenant with them, and show no mercy to them.” ζώντων (“if they should live”) is the reading of the manuscripts. Niese emends to τινων, so that the text would read “in order that having had a taste of some of their manner of life.” There would, however, seem to be a contradiction between Josephus’ highlighting of Moses’ mercy elsewhere and the advice, unparalleled in the Bible, given by him here to the Israelites just before his death that they should leave not one of their enemies alive after defeating them. But here Josephus supplies a justification for this extreme injunction, namely that if the Israelites have but a taste of any of the ways of their enemies this will corrupt the constitution of their ancestors. Any admirer of the Spartan constitution or of Plato’s ideal in the Republic and of the care that these documents take to preserve the status quo would appreciate such counsel.

Note that Josephus uses the word παραινῶ (“exhort,” “recommend,” “advise”) rather than the word κελεύω (“order”), this despite the clear statement of command in Deut. 12:2-3: “You shall surely destroy all the places where the nations whom you shall dispossess served their gods....” We see Josephus’ proclamation of tolerance toward non-Jewish religions in his interpretation of Exod. 22:27 [28], wherein he follows the LXX, in declaring that Jews are forbidden to speak ill of the religion of gentiles out of respect for the very word “god” (Ant. 4.207 and Apion 2.237). Thus Josephus simply omits the passage in which Gideon, upon instructions from God, pulls down the altar of Baal and the Asherah tree that was worshipped beside it (Judg. 6:25-32). Inasmuch as mystery cults were held in such high regard by many non-Jews, it is not surprising that Josephus altogether omits the statement, found in the LXX translation, that King Asa ended the mystery cults (1 Kgs. 15:12). Furthermore, he omits the statement that Jehoshaphat removed the pagan high places and Asherim (2 Chr. 17:6 vs. Ant. 9.1). He likewise omits King Jehu’s conversion of the temple of Baal into an outhouse (2 Kgs. 10:27).

The literate reader will recall that Plato in his masterwork, (Rep. 4.443C-45E), defines justice, the very subject of the dialogue, as a harmony of the virtues of wisdom, courage, and temperance. Josephus’ Moses here exhorts the Israelites before his death to keep the ordered harmony (κόσμον) of the code of laws that he has given to the Israelites so that they may be accounted the most fortunate of men. Indeed, as Josephus declares in the introduction to his summary of the Jewish constitution, the admirable harmony (ὁμόνοιαν) and beautiful concord (συμφωνίαν) that characterize the Jewish people are due to their unity of creed (Apion 2.179).

Cf. the reference in Deut. 31:9 to “this law,” to which the LXX has added εἰς βιβλίον (“in a book”), which Moses gave to the priests and to all the elders of Israel. However, elsewhere Josephus (Ant. 1.26) speaks of his account of the Bible as he found it recorded ἐν τοῖς ἱεροῖς βιβλίοις (“in the sacred books”). That he does not regard the Pentateuch as a single book is clear from his reference to the 5 books (βιβλία) of Moses (Apion 1.39). As Malina (1968:72) points out, this is comparable to Deuteronomy’s opening words, which from tannaitic times were considered as Moses’ words of reproof. So also Bib. Ant. 19.1-5, Sifre Deut. 1 and parallels. On the grief for Moses see Philo (De Vita Mosis 2.51.291); and, for the rabbinic tradition, Midrash Gen. Rabbah 100.4, Sifre Deut. 357 and Midrash Tannaim 227. Significant is Josephus’ stress on Moses’ quality as a general; the Bible’s (Deut. 34:10) last tribute to him is as an unparalleled prophet. Cf. Bib. Ant. 19.3 and Jacobson’s note (1:616).

The phrase “for him” is not in the manuscripts but is an addition of Niese and other editors. The importance of the constitution of the Law (cf. Ant. 1.10) is a major theme running through the entire Antiquities. Deut. 34:8 states simply that the Israelites wept for Moses for 30 days, without indicating the emotion with which they felt the loss of such a leader. That Moses consoled them and exhorted them in his last moments to practice the constitution of the Torah is Josephus’ addition.

Nodet (ad loc.) says that it is remarkable that Josephus does not begin his survey of the laws with the Decalogue, as did Philo (De Decalogo 1.1) two generations before him. In reply, we may suggest that for Josephus the most central issue of his Antiquities is the constitution and philosophy of the ideal state, that is of the Jews; and being so proud of his priestly status Josephus naturally began by emphasizing the importance of Jerusalem and the Temple (Ant. 4.200). Josephus’ language does not require “readers” in the modern sense. His word denotes those who “encounter” or come to know his text. See Ant 4.302. I.e., this summary is, in effect, a digression from the narrative, the historian’s normal occupation. So also Ant. 1.17, 10.218, 20.261. In Ant. 14.2-3 Josephus makes an important statement attempting to justify the liberty that he takes in presenting ancient historical events. He has added a number of details that are not in the written text of the Pentateuch and likewise has omitted many details. Goldenberg (19 n.3) asks whether Josephus could have had a written source for his extrabiblical tradition, when the rabbinic version was not written down until the end of the second century and later. In reply, that Philo (De Specialibus Legibus), and the Dead Sea texts—Damascus Document, the Temple Scroll, and Miksat Ma‘ase ha-Torah—do record much Halakah in a systematic way should lead us to think that perhaps there was such a written compendium available to Josephus, as Goldenberg (207-8), indeed, notes. Some scholars propose that Josephus’ deviations from rabbinic law are due precisely to the fact that he had forgotten what he had learned long before in Jerusalem (e.g., Revel 1923-24:293-301).

Nodet (ad loc.) remarks that the word νεωτερίζω (“innovate”), especially in the passive voice, as well as its derivatives, normally has negative connotations, especially in the War, with implications of violence, referring to insurrections. In classical literature, e.g., Thucydides (1.58, 2.3, 4.51) and Xenophon (Hell. 2.1.5), it likewise frequently has such associations. Here, however, it has the neutral meaning of “innovate.” Nodet, consequently, thinks that this is a trace of a collaborator. Elon (1994:3:1055 n.72) notes that although Josephus here claims to have innovated this type of organization in his discussion of the laws of the Torah, actually he had been anticipated by Philo’s De Specialibus Legibus. Cf. the Talmudic maxim (Pesaḥim 6b and parallels) that there is no “earlier” or “later,” that is, that there is no chronological order in the Pentateuch. S.J.D. Cohen (1979:40-42) has noted that whereas Josephus normally follows the order of the Bible, he does rearrange the sequence of matters when he feels that it is necessary to do so in order to produce a coherent, thematic narrative. Giṭṭin 60a notes a dispute in which Rabbi Joḥanan, in the name of Rabbi Bana’ah, records the tradition that the Torah was transmitted in separate scrolls, whereas Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish says that the Torah was transmitted in its entirety. Moreover, Rabbi Levi (Giṭṭin 60a-b) states that 8 sections were transmitted, presumably in separate rolls before the entire Torah was written down, on the day on which the Tent was set up, namely: Lev. 21 (containing the rules of uncleanness for priests), Num. 8:5-26 (the rules pertaining to Levites), Num. 9:9-14 (the rules pertaining to the second Passover), Num. 5:1-4 (exclusion of the unclean from the camp), Lev. 16 (the service of the Day of Atonement), Lev. 10:8-11 (the prohibition of the drinking of wine by priests), Num. 8:1-4 (the description of the candelabrum), and Num. 19 (the rules concerning the red heifer). The proem to Antiquities expects a primarily gentile audience: 1.5 (“the whole Greek-speaking world”); 1.8 (Epaphroditus as patron); 1.9 (Greeks curious to learn “our history”); 1.10 (LXX as precedent).A clue as to Josephus’ audience may be perceived if we compare his rewritten version of the Bible with other rewritten versions, such as Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical Antiquities, the Genesis Apocryphon, and the Book of Jubilees, all of them emanating, it would seem, from approximately the same period. The very first point to be noted is the language in which they are written. Only Josephus wrote his originally in Greek; the others were written in either Hebrew or Aramaic. Only Josephus makes a systematic attempt to paraphrase the entire Bible, whereas the others are selective and even highly selective. Furthermore, only Josephus cites and quotes from Greek authors, often in praise, whereas the others never cite any Greek authors.In transcribing the decrees issued by the Romans on behalf of the Jews, Josephus explains that he felt it necessary to cite them, “since this account of our history is chiefly meant to reach the Greeks in order to show them that in former times we were treated with all respect” (Ant. 16.174). The fact that at the end of the work he boasts that no one else would have been equal to the task of issuing so accurate a treatise for the Greeks (εἰς Ἕλληνας) (Ant. 20.262) indicates that he directed the work to the non-Jewish world, since the term “Greeks” for Josephus is used in contrast to Jews.That Josephus is writing for a gentile audience, unfamiliar with Jewish customs and way of life (see Sterling 1992:298), is clear from the fact that he feels it necessary to explain that he has hellenized biblical names with a view to euphony and his readers’ pleasure (Ant. 1.129). It is unlikely that Jews would have had to be told such fundamental facts of Jewish life that “our name for the seventh day” is the Sabbath (Ant. 3.143), that it is the custom for Jews to observe seven days of mourning (Ant. 17.200), that it is the ancestral custom of the Jews to serve unleavened bread on Passover (Ant. 17.213, 20.106), and that the Levites are one of the tribes of the Jews (Ant. 20.216). Furthermore, Jews would probably not have to be informed that the seventh month is called Tishri by Jews (Ant. 8.100), or that Passover comes in the first month, which is called Nisan by the Jews (Ant. 11.109).However, we would expect that Josephus would also seek a Jewish audience for his work. After all, the primary language of the Jews in the Diaspora, numbering several millions, was Greek; and some of them might well be expected to be interested in reading Josephus’ history. Josephus says that “the main lesson to be learnt from this history by those who care to peruse it” is that God rewards those who obey His laws (only Jews are obligated to obey the laws of the Torah) and punishes those who do not (Ant. 1.14).There are a number of other indications that Josephus has a Jewish reading audience in mind, though clearly it is not his main audience. For example, he here apologizes for rearranging the order of the laws of the Torah, explaining, lest perchance any of his countrymen who chance upon the work should reproach him for having gone astray, that he has thought it necessary to make this preliminary observation, since Moses left what he wrote in a scattered condition. Furthermore, the fact that Josephus warns his readers not to examine the ages of the ante-diluvians at their death but rather the dates of their birth (Ant. 1.88) is an indication that he is addressing a Jewish audience, inasmuch as this presupposes that the readers will consult the biblical text (Sterling 1992:306), though, admittedly, in point of fact, he may not expect his readers to look up the passages.

Kohler (1931:70) hypothesizes that the statements of Josephus about the laws represent an older stage of the Halakah and that this was reflective of the priestly practice and therefore, in many respects, still Sadducean—in other words, a middle stage between Sadduceism and Pharisaism. Thackeray translates: “He has left to us in common concerning our mutual relations.” For other references to Josephus’ projected work see Ant. 1.25 and list of references cited there. Goldenberg (210 n. 1) suggests that the many explanations of the laws that he has pointed out may shed new light on Josephus’ projected work, which, as Thackeray (ad Ant. 1.25) has remarked, had already taken shape in Josephus’ mind and may actually have been begun.

Note that Hecataeus of Abdera (ap. Diod. 40.3.3), in a remark that has no biblical basis, praises Moses for taking possession of the land of Canaan and founding, “besides other cities, one that is now the most renowned of all, called Jerusalem,” though, of course, according to the Pentateuch, Moses never entered the Promised Land. On the importance of founding cities as the height of civilized living see Plutarch’s praise of Alexander (De Alexandri Magni Fortuna aut Virtute (1.328C-29D) for founding over 70 cities among barbarian tribes. Among Alexander’s last plans, which he did not live to carry out, was his intention to found more cities and to transplant populations from Asia to Europe and from Europe to Asia (Diodorus 18.4.4). Appian (Syriake 57) notes, in obvious praise, that after the death of Alexander, Seleucus, his successor in Syria, founded cities through the whole length of his empire, including 16 called Antioch after his father, 5 Laodicea after his mother, 9 Seleucia after himself, 4 called after his wives, 3 Apamea and 1 Stratonicea.

That the chosen city should be in the fairest part of the land and conspicuous for its excellence is Josephus’ addition to Deut. 12:5. Here, as in the biblical passage at this point, there is no mention of Jerusalem. The Samaritans look upon the intended holy place as Mount Gerizim in view of the fact that upon entering the land the blessing is to be on Mount Gerizim (Deut. 11:29; Ant. 4.305). On the fame of Jerusalem cf. Pliny the Elder (Hist. Nat. 5.70): longe clarissima urbium Orientis non Iudaeae modo (“by far the most famous city of the East and not of Judea alone”); Tacitus (Hist. 5.2.1): famosae urbis (“a famous city”); and Eutropius (Breviarum ab Urbe Condita 7.19.3): urbs nobilissima Palaestinae (“the noblest city of Palestine”). Altshuler (1977:107) remarks that Josephus follows the Deuteronomic law centralizing worship without repeating the associated commandments to destroy foreign holy places and idols (Deut. 12:2-4). He derives details about the altar from Exodus and substitutes “holy city” and “Temple” for “place” (Deut. 12:5). Moreover, Scripture does not specify there that God will choose his holy place through a prophetic oracle. Cf. Apion 2.193: “We have but one Temple for the one God (for like ever loveth like), common to all as God is common to all.” Cf. Midrash Num. Rabbah 18.7: “It is the way of the gentiles to have many religious observances and many priests, and all of them are collected in one building, but we have only one God, one Torah, and one legal system and one altar and one high priest.” Kohler (1931:71) notes the parallel with the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch (48.24): For a similar sentiment see Sifre Deut. 354 and parallels cited by Ginzberg (1928:6:102 n. 573). Josephus stresses the effectiveness of Moses in underlining the concept of monotheism by noting the internal consistency of his injunction that the one God should have one holy city and one holy Temple. So also Philo: “He [Moses] provided that there should not be temples built either in many places or many in the same place, for he judged that since God is one, there should be also only one Temple” (De Specialibus Legibus 1.12.67). Josephus clearly objected to the claims of the Samaritans for their temple on Mount Gerizim and to the temple in Leontopolis (War 7.431). Josephus distinguishes between the Temple building and the altar. So also Ant. 4.201: “neither an altar nor a temple.” Exod. 20:24 mentions an altar made of earth; and Exod. 27:1 refers to one made of acacia wood. Ant. 4.57 mentions a bronze altar. Cf. 1 Macc. 4:47, where we read that when the altar had been defiled whole stones were taken according to the law and a new altar built. So Exod. 20:22: “If you make me an altar of stone, you shall not build it of hewn stones; for if you wield your tool upon it you profane it.” So also Deut. 27:5-6, upon crossing the Jordan: “You shall build an altar to the Lord your God, an altar of stones; you shall lift up no iron tool upon them. You shall build an altar to the Lord your God of unhewn [lit., “whole”] stones.” Cf. 1 Macc. 4:47, describing the reconstitution of the sanctuary by Judah Maccabee: “Then they took unhewn (ὁλοκλήρους, “whole,” “complete”) stones, as the law directs, and built a new altar like the former one.” Cf. Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 1.51.274), who describes the altar as “built of stones picked up and left unhewn.” Josephus (Apion 1.198) quotes, with obvious approval, the description by Hecataeus of Abdera, of the altar “built of heaped up stones, unhewn and unwrought.” Thackeray (ad loc.) cites parallel language in Thucydides 4.4, speaking of the fortifications of Pylos: λογάδην δὲ φέροντες λίθους καὶ ξυνετίθεσαν ὡς ἕκαστόν τι ξυμβαίνοι (“brought stones that they picked out and put them together as they happened to fit”). Cf. Thucydides 4.31, 6.66. Exod. 20:25 requires only that the altar be made up of unhewn stones upon which no tool has been lifted and says nothing of their being picked out and put together and plastered (perhaps Josephus has adopted this from Deut. 27:4). As Nodet (ad loc.) remarks, the technique for assembling raw stones was to put plaster on them, such as may today be seen in the Herodian ruins of Herodium, Jericho, and Masada. Thus Josephus (War 7.290) speaks of columns formed of a single block in Herod’s fortress there whereas actually stucco covers the shafts. χρισθέντες (“anointed”), here “daubed,” “coated,” “plastered.” The same verb is used with regard to the bitumen that was daubed on the basket in which the infant Moses was placed (Ant. 2.221). Gallant (167) suggests that Josephus’ addition of the plastering may have been inspired by the requirement that the stones that are to be set up on Mount Ebal after crossing the Jordan are to be covered with plaster (Deut. 27:2, 4). Being a priest, Josephus may also have been influenced by the tradition, preserved by Rabbi Judah Hanasi (Mishnah Middot 3:4) that the stones of the altar were whitewashed every Friday, but that the plaster was not laid on with a trowel of iron, “lest it touch and invalidate them, for iron is created to shorten man’s days, and the altar is created to lengthen man’s days.” Josephus does not here cite the reason given by Exod. 20:25, namely that hewn stones would pollute the Temple. Josephus, the proud priest, wishes to avoid the impression that the altar consisted of stones assembled at random. So also (Gallant 169), in his description of the masonry of the Temple built by Solomon, Josephus (Ant. 8.69) adds to 1 Kgs. 6:7 that “the whole construction ... was carried out with great skill by means of stones cut fine and laid together so neatly and smoothly that to the beholder there appeared no sign of the use of mallets or other work-tools.

Cf. Exod. 20:23: “And you shall not go up by steps to my altar, that your nakedness be not exposed on it.” Thus the text does forbid steps but does not mention a ramp. Josephus omits any reason for the prohibition of steps. According to Rashi (ad loc.), if there were steps the high priest would have to take large paces and thus spread his legs. Since the high priest wore drawers covering the loins (Exod. 28:42, Ant. 3.152), this would not involve uncovering of the private parts; nevertheless, taking large steps might approach treating the stones of the altar in a disrespectful manner. Kohler (1931:71-72) notes that our passage mentions the uniqueness of the altar and the Temple, whereas Deut. 12:11, on which this paragraph is based, refers only to the holy city. He suggests that Josephus has in view the temple of Heliopolis, which, according to Josephus (Ant. 13.62-73) and the Talmud (Menaḥot 109b), Onias erected. The parallel between the single Temple and the unique race of the Hebrews is Josephus’ addition. Nodet (ad loc.) suggests that Josephus was inspired by the juxtaposition of the unity of God and the uniqueness of the people of Israel in 2 Sam. 7:22-23: “There is no God besides Thee.... What other nation on earth is like thy people Israel....?” which is part of the Sabbath afternoon prayer service. Cf. 1 Chr. 17:21: “What other nation on earth is like Thy people Israel?” Indeed, according to Rabbi Naḥman bar Isaac (Berakot 6a), this verse is said to be written in the tefillin worn by God Himself. The Talmudic passage (ibid.) continues: “You have made me a unique entity in the world, and I shall make you a unique entity in the world. ‘You have made me a unique entity in the world,’ as it is said, ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one’ (Deut. 6:4). ‘And I shall make you a unique entity in the world,’ as it is said: ‘What other nation on earth is like Thy people Israel?’ (1 Chr. 17:21).” Cf. Zech. 14:9.

As Nodet (ad loc.) remarks, the preceding 3 paragraphs are addressed to the Israelites in the second person plural, whereas here, through Ant. 4.291, the formulation is impersonal. He suggests that for this block of his work Josephus used another source, though it was not homogeneous. Goldenberg (204-11) suggests that Josephus drew on a proto-rabbinic work, which was already in written form. Note that Josephus does not follow the biblical order in his account of the Jewish laws. He begins with the blasphemer because he is dealing with a sacerdotal theocracy and hence starts with the one who radically denies this system after having taken part in it and whose punishment is the most severe. Gallant (170-72) remarks that the discussion of blasphemy here seems to interrupt the flow of ideas concerning monotheism (Ant. 4.201) and the annual pilgrimages (Ant. 4.203-4), suggesting that the regulation concerning blasphemy might have been more appropriately placed among the laws concerning sacrilege (Ant. 4.206-7). But he concludes that the presentation of blasphemy, which is, after all, attacking the unity of God, emphasizes the authority of monotheism. As he notes, the charge that the Jews were atheists was common in the ancient world: see Poseidonius (ap. Josephus, Apion 2.79) and Apollonius Molon (ap. Josephus, Apion 2.148). Josephus does not explain what he means by “blasphemy.” Cf. Lev. 24:14-16: “Bring out of the camp him who cursed; and let all who heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him. And say to the people of Israel, Whoever curses his God shall bear his sin. He who blasphemes the name of the Lord shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him; the sojourner as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death.” In Lev. 24:11 we read of an Israelite woman’s son who blasphemed the Name and cursed, whereupon (Lev. 24:16) God tells Moses that the blasphemer is to be put to death. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Targum Neofiti (ad loc.) explicitly declare “he who pronounces and curses.” The Mishnah (Sanhedrin, 7:5) explains that he who blasphemes is liable only if he has fully pronounced the name of God (i.e. the Tetragrammaton). Philo (De Vita Mosis 2.38.206) declares that even if one ventures to utter the Name of God “unseasonably” (ἀκαίρως, i.e., at the wrong time) he is to suffer the penalty of death. According to the Talmud, the non-Jew also was forbidden to blaspheme by the “laws of Noah” (Sanhedrin 56a). Furthermore, the third-century Rabbi Isaac (Sanhedrin, ibid.) declares that the non-Jew is punishable even if he uses a substitute for the Divine name. The Talmud (Sanhedrin, ibid.) deduces from Lev. 24:11 that blasphemy must involve cursing. According to the Dead Sea Community Rule 6:27, if, in speaking about anything, someone should mention the Name of God, he is to be excluded from the community, never to return. Elsewhere Josephus (Ant. 4.207, Apion 2.237) and Philo (De Vita Mosis 2.38.205), following the LXX’s understanding of Exod. 22:27 (“thou shalt not curse ‘gods’ [θεούς]”), also, out of respect for the very word “God,” forbid blaspheming the gods that other peoples revere. The Mishnah (Sanhedrin 6:4) presents its version of the procedure of stoning. Actually, stoning was only a last resort. First, one of the witnesses pushed the culprit off from a height from the hips so hard that he turned upward in his fall. If he died thereby, that sufficed. If not, a second witness threw a stone upon his heart. If that did not suffice, all the Israelites joined in stoning him (Deut. 17:7). Josephus does not mention the law (Lev. 20:27) that a person who is a medium or a wizard is to be stoned. In Apion 2.215 Josephus notes that the penalty for most offences against the Law is death. Torah law in this respect is more severe than Roman law; and given Roman aristocratic complaints about the state of society, Josephus may be appealing to them. However, according to the Talmud, no one can accuse another before previously warning him (Sanhedrin 8b, Makkot 6b). Deut. 21:21 asserts that the stubborn and rebellious son is to be stoned, then (21:22) states that if a person has committed a crime punishable by death he is to be hanged. Lev. 24:14-16 states that the blasphemer is to be stoned. According to Rabbi Eliezer in the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 6:4), all who are stoned are hanged on a tree afterwards. The other rabbis say (ibid.) that only the blasphemer and the one who worships an idol are hanged, whereas Josephus restricts hanging to the blasphemer. Goldenberg (66-68), in disagreement with Weyl (1900:30-31), declares that Josephus is, in this respect, in accord with the earlier uncontroversial tannaitic halakhah that was contemporary with him. See Weyl (1900:30-31). According to the Tosefta (Sanhedrin 9:11), the mildest and most humane form of death must be sought. A baraita in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 46b) states that the verdict is delayed until just before sunset. Then judgment is pronounced and the culprit is put to death immediately. Then, in order to fulfill the requirement of hanging, one person ties him up and immediately thereafter another unties him and takes him down. Goldenberg (68-71), noting that this tannaitic statement apparently contradicts Josephus, who says here that the blasphemeer is stoned and then hanged for a day, suggests that the tannaitic description of the hanging does not reflect actual practice but is rather a theoretical interpretation of Deut. 22:21-23. Gallant (172) suggests, as a parallel to Josephus’ account here of the punishment of the blasphemer, the execution of the king of Ay (Josh. 8:29): he is hanged until evening, and a heap of stones is placed upon his body. Cf., however, Deut. 21:22-23: “If a man has committed a crime punishable by death,... and you hang him on a tree, his body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but you shall bury him the same day.” The Mishnah (Sanhedrin 6:4) states that if he is left overnight, one transgresses the negative commandment in Deut. 21:23. Cf. Ant. 4.264: “Let him [the rebellious son] be stoned, and after remaining during the whole day in the sight of all, let him be buried at night.” So also Josephus, in his speech to his men at Jotapata on the crime of suicide, declares (War 3.377) that “it is ordained that the body of a suicide should be exposed unburied until sunset, although it is thought right to bury even our enemies slain in war.” Olitzki (1885:20-21) concludes that the biblical law was no longer in force in Josephus’ time. Kohler (1931:72-74), however, remarks that the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 4:4) by no means makes it imperative to hang up the corpse after the execution. Weyl (1900:48) concludes that Josephus is here preserving a law unparalleled in Halakah. Perhaps Josephus’ phrase “for a day” does not, as Goldenberg (68 n. 1) remarks, necessarily mean “an entire day,” and he notes that even the variant reading, ὅλης ἡμέρας (“whole day”) in two manuscripts, S and P, may mean only “the remainder of the day.”. As Altshuler (1977:108) notes, neither Lev. 24:16 nor Deut. 21:22-23 specifies how or where to bury the body. The rabbinic Halakah makes no mention of a disgraceful burial of the blasphemer. The Mishnah (Sanhedrin 6:5) states that the culprit was not interred in the burial grounds of his ancestors, and that there were two special graveyards, one for those who were beheaded or strangled and one for those who were stoned or burned. The Mishnah adds (Sanhedrin 6:6) that the relatives of the felon do not observe mourning rites but observe their grief privately. Josephus (Ant. 5.44) does mention that Achan (Achar), who was guilty of stealing sacred objects, was straightway put to death and was given at nightfall the ignominious burial proper to the condemned. Goldenberg (60 n. 6, 73) suggests that the ignominious burial may refer to burial outside the family tomb or to lack of funeral rites. Cf. Josephus’ similar statement (Ant. 4.264) that the rebellious son is to be stoned to death and that, after remaining for the whole day exposed to the general view, he is to be buried at night. Goldenberg (73 n. 2) suggests that “unnoticed” cannot mean “unseen” because of burial at night, since the blasphemer is to be buried before nightfall. Whereas the Bible declares that anyone, whether Israelite or foreigner, who curses God is subject to the death penalty (Lev. 24:21-23), Josephus, in paraphrasing the passage, does not apply this penalty to foreigners. Similarly, in a show of tolerance for non-Jewish religions, he omits the passage in which God instructs Moses that upon entering the land of Canaan the Israelites are to destroy all their statues and devastate all their high places (Deut. 12:2-3), though Moses does exhort the Israelites (Ant. 4.192) to demolish the pagan altars and temples, “for only thus would the security of your own goods be assured.

Deut. 16:16 specifies that all males are to participate in the pilgrimages. For the festivals of Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles (Exod. 23:14-17). Deut. 16:16 does not indicate from which lands the Israelites are to come for the 3 pilgrimage festivals. In Josephus it is the Israelites who designate the place where they are to assemble 3 times a year, whereas in Deut. 16:16 it is God who chooses it; but in Ant. 4.200 we find that it is God who is to choose His holy city. Lit., “show,” “declare,” “designate.” Josephus’ term here for giving thanks is εὐχαριστῶσι. Nodet (ad loc.) points out that the corresponding adjective, χαριστηρίους, is used of sacrifices of thank offerings (Ant. 3.228, 245). Cf. Deut. 16:15: “For 7 days you shall keep the feast to the Lord your God at the place that the Lord will choose; because the Lord your God will bless you in all your produce and in all the work of your hands, so that you will be altogether joyful.” So also (Ant. 4.212) Josephus gives two reasons for daily prayers, namely gratitude for benefits received in the past and a stimulus for those yet to come. Nodet (ad loc.) suggests that the sacrifice offered on these occasions was the Ḥagigah (Mishnah Ḥagigah 1:2-5), of which only the fat was consumed on the altar, whereas the rest was consumed by the pilgrims. The 3 reasons for the pilgrimages are extra-biblical. On Josephus’ fondness for the number 3, as seen here in the extra-biblical statement of 3 reasons for the pilgrimage festivals, see Thackeray (4:xv-xvi), who cites it as a characteristic of Josephus’ Sophoclean assistant. The promotion of mutual affection as a reason for the pilgrimages is connected with the assertion of the unity of the Hebrews (Ant. 4.201). Exod. 34:24 connects the pilgrimages with the conquest of the land of Israel: “For I will cast out nations before you and enlarge your borders; neither shall any man desire your land, when you go up to appear before the Lord your God 3 times in the year.”

I.e., as Thackeray (ad loc.) notes, of their common race and common institutions. Hudson and Weill read the reflexive pronoun αὑτῶν and render “instilling a memory of themselves,” but, as Nodet observes (ad loc.), this would weaken Josephus’ point, since, for Josephus, questions of pedigree are of concern only to the priests. These motives are Josephus’ addition. Nodet (ad loc.) observes that in this added remark Josephus emphasizes the theme that the pilgrims, in a unique place, are the unique means of unifying the Israelite people. This theme of unifying the people is seen also in Philo (Legatio ad Gaium 36.281), though he does not specifically connect it with the pilgrimage festivals: “As for the holy city, I must say what befits me to say. While she...is my native city, she is also the mother city not of one country Judea but of most of the others in virtue of the colonies sent out at diverse times to the neighboring lands.” The Talmud (Ḥagigah 26a) likewise emphasizes the effect of the festivals in unifying the Israelites by quoting Judg. 20.11: “So all the men of Israel gathered against the city [Gibeah], united as one man” and, referring to the occasion as a festival, notes that the verse makes them associates. Schalit (ad loc.) conjectures that Josephus is here bearing his Hellenistic audience in mind, comparing the celebration of the Jewish festivals with such festivals as the Olympic Games, where the various Greek tribes had reunions.

Josephus now returns to direct discourse. The reference is to what rabbinic literature presents as the Second Tithe (Deut. 14:22-26). In general, the explication of the first and second tithes does not seem clear in the Bible itself, which simply juxtaposes them. The rabbis and Josephus have a comprehensive system, but we cannot be assured that Josephus knew the rabbinic system in all its details. The manuscripts, other than S, P. and L, read “you” (plural), the reference being to the Second Tithe. Cf. Ant. 4.68. According to Num. 18:21-24, this tithe is to be given to the Levites in return for their service; and they, in turn (Num. 18:25-28), are to give a tenth of this tithe to the priests. Josephus omits the provision in Deut. 14:28-29 that in the third and sixth years of the sabbatical cycle the (second) tithe is to be left for the poor, the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow. Perhaps this omission is due to the fact that the biblical passage (Deut. 14:28) refers to all the tithe, and it is not clear which tithe is referred to. See Nodet (ad loc.). According to Deut. 14:22-26, this tithe is either to be consumed in the place that God will choose or, if the way is too long, is to be sold and its proceeds spent in that place. Josephus omits the biblical qualification (Deut. 14.24) that if the way is too long one may turn the tithe into money and go to the place that the Lord chooses. He agrees with Sifre 96a in allowing, without limitation, that the tithes be sold and the proceeds be used for meals and sacrifices in Jerusalem. He omits the requirement (Lev. 27:31; see Baba Meẓia 53b-54a) that if someone wishes to redeem any of the tithe, he is to add a fifth to it. This concluding explanation is Josephus’ addition. The reason, according to Deut. 14:23, is “that you may learn to fear the Lord your God always.” The connection between the conquest of the Land of Israel and the pilgrimage festivals is found in both Exod. 34:24 and Josephus (Ant. 4.203). Josephus connects the produce that has been given (ἀναδιδωμένων) with God the giver (δεδωκότος) by referrring to them both with cognates.

Here, as in Ant. 3.276 and 4.245, Josephus uses the more decorous word ἑταιρέω, which refers to the familiar Greek concept of a courtesan, rather than the word πορνεύω (“to prostitute oneself”). While the Torah prohibits money from a prostitute being used for holy purposes (Deut. 23:18), Josephus changes the LXX’s βδελύγμα (“abomination”) to ὕβρις (“insolence”). This moralistic statement is Josephus’ addition. The word here used for “mating” (ὀχεύσει) is found nowhere else in extant Greek literature. Deut. 23:19 speaks of the wages of a dog, i.e. of the temple prostitute; but Josephus here understands the reference to the dog literally and transforms it into a sale of the mating services of the dog. He thus attains a parallel between the prostitute, who sells her body for mating purposes, and the dog. The description of the dog as a hunting-dog or a protector of flocks is Josephus’ addition. The Mishnah (Temurah 6:3) understands the price of a dog to refer to the price of a lamb in exchange for a dog (since a dog is not fit for a sacrifice), and the Gemara (Temurah 30a) on this passage concludes that the reference is to the price but not the hire of a dog. Nodet (ad loc.) suggests that this prohibition was due to the risk that the dogs would eat the remains of sacred food (cf. Matt. 7:6). These are the two major categories of dogs, according to Varro (Re Rust. 2.9).

In reading “gods” Josephus is apparently following the LXX version of Exod. 22:27, which renders ‮אלהים לא תקלל‬‎ as “thou shalt not revile gods” (θεοὺς οὐ κακολογήσεις). The same interpretation is found in Philo (De Vita Mosis 2.38.205 and De Specialibus Legibus 1.7.53). In the latter passage Philo restricts to proselytes the prohibition of cursing gods (“his gods”=the gods that the proselyte worshipped before his conversion) in contrast to De Vita Mosis 2.37-38.203-8 or Quaestiones in Exodum 2.5. Josephus develops this principle in Apion 2.237: “for it is our traditional custom to observe our own laws and to refrain from criticism of those of aliens.” Both Josephus and Philo (De Vita Mosis 2.38.205) argue that the very name “god” deserves respect. Philo (Quaestiones in Exodum 2.5) explains that well-spoken praise is better than revilement, that intolerance leads to wars, but that tolerance may lead pagans to speak well of God and, presumably, attract proselytes to Judaism. Belkin (1940:22-25) argues that this agreement between Philo and Josephus does not prove dependence; but the fact that both Philo and Josephus give the same reason for the tolerance, in view of other cases of apparent borrowing, makes dependence likely here too. See Weyl (1900:37-38 n. 15). Tolerance may also be the motive behind Josephus’ omission (Ant. 9.118) of the biblical statement (2 Kgs. 10:27) that Jehu turned the temple of Baal into a latrine. But this principle is in some tension with Exod. 23:24, 34:13, Deut. 7:5, 7:25, 12:2-3, which require the destruction of foreign statues, altars, and cults; the Bible forbids even the mention of other gods by name (Exod. 23:13). Nodet (ad loc.) suggests that the explanation for this injunction is that the invocation of other gods (cf. Exod. 20:3) in effect presupposes that, in a certain sense, they exist. The rabbinic tradition (Temurah 34a) forbids the use of even the ashes of an asherah tree that had been used as an object of idolatry, and one is not permitted to sit even in the shade of an asherah tree (Mishnah ʿAbodah Zarah 3:8). Again, in his edict to the rest of the world the Emperor Claudius (Ant. 19.290) enjoins upon the Jews “not to set at nought the beliefs about the gods held by other peoples but to keep their own laws.” Schalit (ad loc., n. 117) explains Josephus’ apologetic comments in the context of Roman anti-Semitism, e.g., remarks by Pliny (Hist. Nat. 13.46), who speaks of the Jews as a race remarkable for their contempt for the divine powers (gens contumelia numinum insignis). Josephus may in part be answering the charge (Tac., Hist. 5.5.2) that the first thing that Jews teach proselytes is to despise the gods (contemnere deos). Apparently, life among pagans in the Diaspora made the formulation of such a law as understood by the LXX, Philo, and Josephus imperative for the safety of the Jewish communities. Indeed, Philo, (De Specialibus Legibus 1.7.53) explains that the heathen, on hearing his deity vilified, will in his anger also vilify the true God. Elsewhere Josephus forbids the coercion of refugees to worship the Judean God (Life 113). Kohler (1931:79-80) cites the dispute in Sanhedrin 66a-b as to whether Elohim refers to God or judges. The Targumim Onqelos and Pseudo-Jonathan, as does Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael Kaspa 19 (ed. Horovitz, p. 317), on this passage understand the reference to be to judges. On Jewish tolerance toward other religions cf. Letter of Aristeas 16, where the alleged pagan author states that the God whom the Jews worship is the God whom all worship, “though we address Him differently, as Zeus and Dis.” Van der Horst (1993:3) finds a similar note of tolerance in Joseph and Asenath, which, though it deals with the conversion of the daughter of an Egyptian priest to Judaism, has no negative statements about the deities that she has renounced. Similarly, as van der Horst (1993:5) notes, Origen (Contra Celsum 8.38), in response to the charge that Christians blaspheme the pagan gods, reminds Celsus that “in the divine legislation there is the command, ‘Thou shalt not speak evil of gods,’ that our mouth may not get accustomed to speaking evil of any being.” Van der Horst (1993:5-8) further remarks that the term “gods” is often said to refer to earthly rulers (e.g. Eus., Com. in Ps. 49:1, PG 23.433), including priests of the Church (e.g., John Chrys., Exp. in Ps. 137:1, PG 55.407). Finkelstein (1943: 28), as a parallel to this apparent attempt to avoid giving offense to the government, cites the reduction from 3 days to 1 day of the prohibition against commerce with idolaters during their festival season (Mishnah, ‘Abodah Zarah 1:1, ‘Abodah Zarah 7b).On the other hand, shortly before the present passage, Josephus has Moses exhorting the Israelites to demolish all the altars, groves, and temples of their enemies (Ant. 4.192). Nodet (ad loc.) explains Josephus’ apparent contradiction by noting that in Ant. 4.191 he limits the destruction to the gods of enemy nations. Gallant (179) explains Josephus’ apparent inconsistency by noting that whereas the Pentateuch demands the destruction of objects of alien worship, here it demands that respect be accorded to the gods associated with the Greek city-states (πόλεις), the word which he uses in this passage. In view of the fact that Josephus knew the Hebrew original, his choice of the LXX version for this statement appears to be deliberate for apologetic reasons. Elsewhere (War 5.363) Josephus himself, when he went around the wall of Jerusalem urging his countrymen to surrender to the Romans, insisted that the Romans revered the objects that were holy to their enemies; and presumably here he does not want to make the Jews appear less tolerant than they. Cohn (1972) concludes that Josephus’ motive was apologetic, since he goes further than Philo in specifically prohibiting despoiling foreign temples. The phrase “whom other cities believe in” is Josephus’ addition and is not found in his other reference (Apion 2.237) to this biblical passage. There is no such biblical commandment. Nodet (ad loc.) notes that Roman law was especially severe in punishment for theft of objects consecrated to gods (Livy 31.13; Sen., Ben. 7.7). Cf. Augustus’ decree in favor of the Jews of Asia Minor (Ant. 16.164): “If anyone is caught stealing their sacred books or their sacred monies from a synagogue or an ark [of the Law], he shall be regarded as sacrilegious, and his property shall be confiscated to the public treasury of the Romans.” Josephus here is implicitly answering such critics of the Jews as Lysimachus, who (Apion 1.309) says that Moses advised the Israelites to overthrow any temples and altars of the gods that they found. In fact, according to Lysimachus (Apion 1.311), the city in which the Israelites settled was called Hierosolyma (i.e. [town] of temple-robbers) because of their sacrilegious propensities. There is no such biblical commandment. Cf. Deut. 7:25: “The graven images of their gods you shall burn with fire; you shall not covet the silver or the gold that is on them, or take it for yourselves, lest you be ensnared by it; for it is an abomination to the Lord your God.”

Hebrew ‮שׁעטנז‬‎ (Lev. 19:19, Deut. 22:11), LXX κίβδηλον, Josephus κλωστὴν ἐξ ἐρίου καὶ λίνου στολήν (“a garment woven from wool and linen”). Josephus, for apologetic reasons, avoids using the LXX’s word, since κίβδηλος means “hypocritical,” “unprincipled,” “adulterated” (especially of coins), “fraudulent,” “dishonest, “deceitful.” Indeed, Josephus (Ant. 19.174) does use the word κίβδηλος in this negative sense in his tirade against tyrants after the assassination of the Emperor Caligula, where he attacks those who “supposed that the society of human counterfeits (κιβδήλοις) contributed to their own security.” Lev. 19:19 and Deut. 22:11 give no reason for this prohibition. In supplying this reason Josephus appears to be aware of the fact, noted in the Mishnah (Kil’ayim 9:1; cf. Yoma 69a, Tamid 27a-b), that priests, when serving in the Temple, wear garments only of wool and linen. In effect, Josephus is saying that laymen are not permitted to wear what is reserved for priests. Elsewhere (Ant. 4.228) Josephus explains that the mixture of seeds is prohibited because nature does not delight in the conjunction of dissimilar things. Maimonides (Guide for the Perplexed 3.37), without citing his specific sources, explains that such a garment is prohibited because heathen priests adorned themselves with garments containing vegetable and animal material.

Deut. 31:10: “At the end of every 7 years, at the set time of the year of release, at the feast of booths.” Deut. 31:11 states that “you (sing.) shall read this law,” whereas the LXX reads “you (plural),” and the Samaritan Pentateuch has “one shall read,” without indicating who is to do so. The Mishnah (Soṭah 7:8) states that the minister of the assembly (‮חזן‬‎) takes a scroll of the Torah and hands it to the head of the assembly (‮ראשׁ הכנסת‬‎), who hands it to the high priest’s deputy, who hands it to the high priest, who in turn hands it to the king, who then proceeds to read from it while sitting down. The Mishnah then recalls an incident in which King Agrippa (it is not clear, according to D.R. Schwartz [1990:159-62], whether Agrippa I or II is meant) read from the Torah while standing and that he was praised by the sages for doing so. Büchler (1895:11 ff.) and Schalit (ad loc.) suggest that since in Josephus’ day there was no king in Jerusalem (actually Agrippa II continued to reign until 93 or later, though at no time was he king of Judea but only of Chalcis and later of other small areas), the reading would naturally fall to the official who used to hand the Torah to the king, and that official was the High Priest. Weill (ad loc.) suggests that Josephus knew the practice in this matter up to 62 C.E., before which time apparently it was the high priest who did the reading. However, with the deposition in that year of the high priest Anan ben Anan, the Sadducean party had to cede its power to a Pharisee, who, once in power, proceeded to diminish the powers of the priests. Altshuler (1977:70-71) suggests a parallel in Neh. 8:1-8, where we read that Ezra the priest read from the Torah to the massed assemblage during the seventh month; but while it is true that the festival of Tabernacles occurs during the seventh month, the passage in Nehemiah does not specify the festival of Tabernacles as the occasion for Ezra’s reading. Deut. 31:11 does not mention that the reading was to be from a raised platform. Altshuler (1977:115) suggests that the idea of a raised platform likely came from the fact that in Neh. 8:4 we are told that the priest Ezra read to the assembly while standing on a wooden platform. To be sure, the text in Nehemiah does not specify that it was a raised platform, but as Altshuler notes, the LXX there uses the same word, βήματος, for platform that Josephus uses here. The Mishnah (Sotah 7:8) agrees with Josephus that the reading was to be from a platform, adding that it was of wood and set in a courtyard. See Hoffmann (1882:20) and Olitzki (1885:19-20). Josephus does not indicate whether only some of the laws are to be read and, if so, which ones. Altshuler (1977:114), noting that Josephus substitutes the plural τοὺς νόμους for the biblical “this law” (Deut. 31:11), suggests that while the use of the singular may not unnaturally be taken as a collective, Josephus may also have derived his plural form from the phrase in Deut. 31:9 ‮התורה הזאת‬‎ (“this Torah”), which the LXX renders as “the words of this law” (τὰ ῥήματα τοῦ νόμου). According to the Mishnah (Sotah 7:8), the portions read are Deut. 1:1-6:3 (recapitulation of the history of the Israelites), 6:4-9 (the Shema), 11:13-21 (the giving and withholding of rain), 14:22-29 (tithing), 26:12-15 (formula recited when presenting the tithe), 17:14-20 (the pericope of the king), and 27:15-28:69 (the blessings and the curses that God will give to Israel). Deut. 31:12 mentions that men, women, children, and sojourners are to assemble. Josephus omits the sojourners and adds slaves. Gallant (183) notes a similar audience in Deut. 29:10 to that in Deut. 31:12 but with the addition of the phrase “both he who hews your wood and he who draws your water.” Since in Josh. 9:23 the enslaved Gibeonites are consigned to be woodcutters and waterdrawers, and since Yebamot 79a connects Deut. 29:10 and Josh. 9:23, he conjectures that Josephus identified the sojourners in Deut. 31:12 with slaves. Note that in Josephus’ paraphrase (Ant. 4.309) of Deut. 29:10 he, as here, adds “slaves.”

Cf. Deut. 6:6: “And these words which I command you this day shall be upon your heart.” According to Deut. 31:12, the purpose of this reading of the Torah is twofold: that the Israelites may learn how to fear God and to observe the commandments written in the Torah. Cf. Deut. 31:13: “And that their children, who have not known it [the Law], may hear and learn to fear the Lord your God.” This indicates that Josephus was aware of the tradition, recorded in the Mishnah (Sotah 7:8), that the reading included the blessings and curses (Deut. 27:15-28:69) that God promises for those who observe or violate the laws. Cf. n. 628.

The reference is to sinning in ignorance or in error. On the other hand, a person (‮חבר‬‎) who is known to be scrupulous in observance of the commandments, especially those pertaining to ritual cleanness and the separation of priestly and Levitical dues, is held accountable for his sins even if he has not been warned previously (Sanhedrin 8b). Cf. Apion 2.204: “It [the Law] orders that they [children] shall be taught to read, and shall learn both the laws and the deeds of their forefathers, in order that they may imitate the latter, and, being grounded in the former, may neither transgress nor have any excuse for being ignorant of them.” Cf. Mishnah Peah 1:1, which states that the study of Torah is as important as all the other enumerated deeds together.

The reference is to the recitation of the Shema (Deut. 6:7: “And you shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise”) rather than to the 3 daily prayers that were instituted to replace the daily sacrifices (Berakot 26b, where it is said that Abraham instituted the morning prayer, Isaac the afternoon prayer, and Jacob the evening prayer), which Daniel (Dan. 6:11) perhaps anticipated. Cf. Deut. 11:19: “And you shall teach them [the laws or perhaps the rewards and punishments enumerated previously] to your children, talking of them when you are sitting in your house, and when you are walking by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise.” Whereas the School of Shammai (Mishnah Berakot 1:3, Gemara Berakot 11a) interprets Deut. 6:7 literally to mean that in the evening everyone should recline in order to recite [the Shema] and in the morning they should stand, the School of Hillel say, “Everyone may recite according to his own manner,” i.e. either reclining or standing. Josephus apparently agrees with the School of Hillel. Cf. the close of the Shema (Num. 15:41): “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, to be your God.” This is the proper method of prayer, as we see also in the Mishnah Berakot 9:4: “He gives thanks for the past and cries out for the future.”

Cf. Deut. 6:9: “And you shall write them [i.e. these words that God commands] on the doorposts [‮מזזות‬‎] of your house and on your gates.” Enclosed inside the ‮מזזות‬‎ is a parchment containing Deut. 6:4-9 and 11:13-21, constituting the first two sections of the Shema. Nodet (ad loc.,) remarks that a ‮מזזה‬‎ found at Qumran (4Q149) contains only the Decalogue. A fragment of another ‮מזזה‬‎ roll found at Qumran (8Q4) contains not the Shema but Deut. 10:12-11:21, which features a substantial summary of the benefits conferred by God upon the Israelites, which, in this respect, corresponds closely with what Josephus says here. Nodet (ad loc.) notes that in the Shema the commandment of the ‮מזזות‬‎ (Deut. 6:9) comes after that of the phylacteries (Deut. 6:8), whereas Josephus here, like the Letter of Aristeas (158-59) reverses the order. Josephus omits the fact that the ‮מזזות‬‎ are to be placed on one’s gates. The construction of the phrase is ambiguous. “Each” suggests that the ‮מזזה‬‎ records the benefits bestowed upon the owner. Gallant (188-89) suggests that βραχίοσιν (“arms”) has been mistakenly substituted for πύλων (“gates”). This may be a scribal error, influenced by the word βραχίονος later in the paragraph. However, the fact that the Bible uses one verb for inscribing on doorposts and gates, whereas Josephus uses one verb for inscribing on doorposts and another verb for displaying the texts on the arms may indicate that his use of βραχίοσιν is not an error. Actually, the text of Deut. 11:13-21, which contains God’s promise that He will give rain and grass, is found in both the ‮מזזות‬‎ and the tefillin placed on the arm. Perhaps the allusion here is to the name of God, ‮שׁדי‬‎, formed by the letter ‮שׁ‬‎, which is stamped out of the leather itself at the side of the capsule; the letter ‮ד‬‎, which is formed by the strap of the head-phylactery which is knotted at the back of the head; and the letter ‮י‬‎, which is formed by the knot near the capsule of the hand-phylactery (Shabbat 62a). The reference is to the phylacteries, suggested by the Bible’s wording: “as a sign on your hand and as a memorial [frontlets, Exod. 13:16; Deut. 6:8] between your eyes” (Exod. 13:9)—though it is not made explicit. The head phylactery, inferred from the Bible’s “frontlets” (‮טטפת‬‎), is translated in the LXX as ἀσάλευτον (“unmoved,” “unshaken”). The earliest explicit reference to phylacteries is in the Letter of Aristeas 159, dating from perhaps the second century B.C.E.; and several examples have been discovered by archaeologists. In Exod. 13:8, immediately before the reference to the phylacteries, we read: “And you shall tell your son on that day, ‘It is because of what the Lord did for me when I came out of Egypt.’” For a detailed rabbinic discussion of the shape of the phylacteries, the manner in which the biblical portions enclosed in the phylacteries are to be written, and the manner and time when they are to worn see Menaḥot 34b-37b. The hand-phylactery is placed on the left arm on the biceps muscle near the heart (cf. Deut. 6:6: “These words which I command you this day shall be upon your heart”); a left-handed person places it upon the right arm. The biblical text indicates that the phylactery is to be between the eyes, but it is actually placed on the skull on that part where the skull of a baby is still tender (Menaḥot 37a-b). The Mishnah Megillah 4:8, perhaps alluding to the practice of the literalist Sadducees, declares that if someone places the phylactery on his forehead or on the palm of the hand, this is heretical. The phylacteries are worn on weekdays but not on Sabbaths or festival days, since those days themselves are regarded as a “sign” (Menaḥot 36b). Both the head and hand phylacteries contain four passages: Exod. 13:1-10, 11-16; Deut. 6:4-9, 11:13-21. The head phylactery contains four compartments, whereas the hand phylactery has one compartment containing the four passages on one parchment. The head phylactery acquired by Yigael Yadin in 1968, emanating from one of the Qumran caves, includes the Decalogue. The fragments discovered in Qumran show that the dispute between Rashi and Rabbenu Tam in the eleventh century as to the proper order of the texts in the phylacteries actually goes back to at least the first century B.C.E. The phylacteries are mentioned by Jesus in Matt. 23:5. The Samaritans carry the parchment texts of the phylacteries so that they are visible, whereas the rabbis (Menaḥot 37b) insist that they are to be signs “for you” and not for others. Cf. Berakot 6a: “How do you know that the phylacteries are a strength to Israel? For it is written: ‘And all the peoples of the earth shall see that you are called by the name of the Lord, and they shall be afraid of you’ (Deut. 28:10), and it has been taught: Rabbi Eliezer the Great says: ‘This refers to the phylacteries of the head [since the phylacteries of the arm are covered by one’s sleeves].’”

Hebrew ‮שׁעריך‬‎ (Deut. 16:18) (“your gates”), LXX πόλεσίν σου (“your cities”), Josephus καθ’ ἑκάστην πόλιν (“in each city”). Nodet (ad loc.), however, remarks that the change from “gates” to “cities” does not indicate a different Vorlage, since such a change (e.g. LXX in Deut. 17:8) is frequently found. In general, courts were held at the gates of cities. Deut. 16:18 provides that judges and officers are to be appointed in each city but does not specify their number. Elon (1994:2.727) notes that, according to rabbinic tradition, at the head of the community stood the appointed or elected representatives of the people, known by various titles: ‮טובי העיר‬‎ (lit. the good citizens of the town), ‮פרנסים‬‎, etc. They were frequently called the 7 ‮טובי העיר‬‎, the term in use as early as the Talmudic period: see Megillah 26a. They had jurisdiction in temporal affairs, as we see here also in Josephus. In War 2.570-71 we read that Josephus appointed for Galilee 70 persons to be magistrates over the whole of Galilee, and 7 individuals in each city to adjudicate petty disputes. The fact that in the parallel account in Life 79 Josephus omits mention of the tribunal of 7 would seem to indicate, as Nodet (ad loc.) remarks, an institution more civil than religious. Elsewhere (Ant. 4.287) Josephus mentions that if a depositary loses his deposit he is to come before a court of 7 judges and swear that he has committed no wrong and thus be free from blame. Ginzberg (1976:392) says that the college of 7 for municipal affairs (‮שׁבעה טובי העיר‬‎), which is mentioned in the Mishnah (Megillah 4:1), appears in tannaitic sources as magistrates, whereas Josephus describes them here as a court of magistracy and jurisdiction. He says that the college of 7 was perhaps the same as the Court of 7 to which Josephus refers here, and that it represents a later development of the ancient decemvirate “Edah.” Since in the sect described by Ginzberg the distribution of charity was administered by the censor together with the judges, it follows that this sectarian community, too, combined court and magistracy into one body politic. As Kohler (1931:76-78) remarks, however, the Mishnah Sanhedrin 1:1, 1:6, does not speak of 7 but rather of courts of 71 (the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem), 23 (for cities of at least 120 inhabitants; Josephus never mentions any such courts), and 3 (for smaller cities) (Mishnah Sanhedrin 1:2, 1:6). Ginzberg (1976:47) suggests the possibility that in the time of Josephus courts consisted of 7 judges, whereas in the time of the redaction of the Mishnah (ca. 220), they consisted (Sanhedrin 1:1) of 3. The Mishnah (Sanhedrin 1:2) does indicate that 7 judges decide to intercalate a month, but these were not a standing body. According to Acts 6:3, during the dispute between the Hellenists and the Hebrews regarding the neglect of the widows in the daily distribution, the 12 apostles summoned the body of the disciples and recommended the appointment of “7 men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom,” to adjudicate the matter of common property and charity. On the whole question of Josephus’ views concerning courts of justice and judges, and this passage in particular, see Weyl (1900:12-26). Cf. Exod. 18:21 (advice given by Jethro to Moses): “Choose able men from all the people, such as fear God, men who are trustworthy and who hate a bribe.” Cf. Deut. 1:13 (advice of Moses to the Israelites): “Choose wise, understanding, and experienced men.” These 2 assistants are mentioned in no other source. According to the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 4:3), in the case of the Great Sanhedrin of 71, 2 judges’ clerks stood before them, and they wrote down the arguments of those who voted to acquit and of those who voted to convict. See Deut. 17:9: “Coming to the Levitical priests, and to the judge who is in office in those days, you shall consult them, and they shall declare to you the decision.” So also according to Deut. 21:5, “the priests, the sons of Levi,” are to settle every dispute. Levite officers in general are mentioned in 2 Chr. 19:1 and 34:13 and Neh. 8:11. Falk (1972:89) notes that, according to the non-tannaitic tradition (Yebamot 86b), at first officers were appointed from among the Levites only. The tannaitic Halakah (Sifre Deut. 15 [ed. Finkelstein, p. 25]) states that the ‮שׁוטרים‬‎ (court attendants) referred to in Deut. 1:15 must be Levites and that they strike with thongs in enforcing decisions. Ginzberg (1976:48-49) cites the observation of the Talmud (Yoma 26a) in the name of Raba that “you will not find any rabbinical scholar giving a decision who is not a descendant from the tribe of Levi or Issachar.” According to the tradition recorded in the name of the third-century Rabbi Ḥisda (Yebamot 86b), at first officers were appointed from the Levites alone, but in his day they were appointed from the Israelites alone on the ground that officers should come from the majority of the people. Apparently, in Josephus’ day, the Levites still served as officers. See Weyl (1900:16-17 n. 16). Weyl (1900:17-18 n. 17) concludes that these Levites are to be identified with the servants of the court who were in charge of administering scourging and who summoned the parties to court.

Josephus does not specify how these judges are to be selected. According to rabbinic texts, in the case of the court of 3 (Sanhedrin 13b) the judges must have been ordained by the laying on of hands. According to Qiddushin 70a, once a man has been appointed head of a community, he may not do manual labor in the presence of 3, since, presumably, this would diminish the dignity of his position. Cf. Sanhedrin 8a, where it is deduced from “And I commanded you at that time all the things that you should do” (with respect to treatment of judges) (Deut. 1:18), that this is a warning to the congregation to show careful reverence for their judges, just as a nurse carefully carries a suckling child (Num. 11:12). Cf. the Hebrew version of Exod. 22:27, as interpreted by the rabbinic tradition (see note on Ant. 4.207): “You shall not revile judges.” As Gallant (190-91) remarks, the Bible does not compare respect for judges with respect for God. He suggests that this parallel between God and ruler is based on the paralleling of gods and ruler in the LXX’s rendering of Exod. 22:27 [28]: θεοὺς οὐ κακολογήσεις, καί ἄρχοντα τοῦ λαοῦ σου οὐ κακῶς ἐρεῖς (“[Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor speak ill of the ruler of thy people”). Moreover, he suggests, Josephus’ use of (“let [them] rule”) and (“office,” “magistracy”) in connection with judges may have been inspired by the rabbinic interpretation of ‮אלהים‬‎ in Exod. 22:27 as “judges.” Cf. Sanhedrin 66a-b, which argues that if the prohibition in Exod. 22:27 were only in respect of God but not of humans it should have written ‮אלהים לא תקל‬‎; but since the phrase is ‮לא תקלל‬‎, both God and human judges may be understood therefrom. On the comparison between respect for God and respect for teachers see Sanhedrin 99a-b and Weyl (1900:19).

Josephus here states the principle of the independence of the judiciary. According to the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 4:1), a court may reverse its decision in property cases, whether in favor of acquittal or conviction, but in capital cases they may reverse the decision only so as to acquit the defendant. The fourth-century Rabbi Naḥman on this passage (Sanhedrin 33a) says that reversal in monetary matters is possible only if it is by a court that is superior in learning and numbers, and his contemporary Rabbi Sheshet adds that this is so only if the original court erred with regard to a law cited in the Mishnah. Cf. Exod. 23:8: “You shall take no bribe, for a bribe blinds the officials, and subverts the cause of those who are in the right.” Cf. Deut. 16:19: “You shall not pervert justice; you shall not show partiality; and you shall not take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and subverts the cause of the righteous.” Cf. Deut. 27:25: “Cursed be he who takes a bribe to slay an innocent person.” Cf. Life 80, where Josephus insists that he scorned all presents offered to him. Cf. Mishnah Bekorot 4:6: “He who takes payment for judging—his judgments are null,” even when the judgments themselves are not false. Cf. Ketubot 105b: “Even one who is righteous in every respect and takes bribes will not depart from this world without confusion of mind.” Gallant (191) notes that the same word, ἀξίωμα (“rank,” “high position”) is used (Ant. 4.215) with regard to those in high position whom people should respect but whom judges should not favor merely because of this fact (Ant. 4.216, 217), since this implies contempt of God. Cf. Deut. 1:17: “You shall not be partial in judgment; you shall hear the small and the great alike; you shall not be afraid of the face of man, for the judgment is God’s.” Cf. Deut. 16:20: “Justice, and only justice, you shall follow.” 2 Chr. 19:5-7 describes King Jehoshaphat’s reforms. Cf. Ant. 9.3: “After appointing judges in each city of the territory ruled by him, he urged them not to take thought for anything so much as for justice in judging the masses, without regard to gifts or the rank of those who were held to be superior by reason of wealth or birth; but to deal equal justice to all in the knowledge that God sees everything that is done even in secret.” Cf. Josephus’ own conduct as judge in Galilee (Life 80 etc.).

This is Josephus’ editorial comment. The word for vote, ψῆφον, refers to the small round worn stone or pebble used by the Greeks in voting (e.g., Herodotus 9.55). Sifra Lev. Qedoshim 2.2 (ed. Weiss, pp. 88d-89a), commenting on the judge who, out of fear of power, renders an incorrect judgment, cites Lev. 19:15: “You shall do no injustice in judgment” and remarks that such a judge defiles the land and profanes the name of God. Cf. Exod. 21:6: “His master shall bring him [the slave who refuses to go free] to God,” which the LXX renders κριτήριον τοῦ θεοῦ (“tribunal of God”). Cf. the rabbinic statement (Qiddushin 58b, Bekorot 29a, Ketubot 105a) that the legal decisions of one who takes a fee for acting as a judge are null and void. Cf. Apion 2.207: A judge who accepts bribes suffers capital punishment.” While the Bible (Exod. 23:8, Deut. 16:19, 27:25) forbids taking bribes, it does not prescribe capital punishment for doing so, though, to be sure, the language, especially in Deut. 27:25, is particularly strong in its condemnation: “Cursed be he who takes a bribe to slay an innocent person. And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’” Inasmuch as Josephus regards this as a show of insolence toward God, capital punishment, as Gallant (192 n. 117) suggests, would seem to be appropriate. Riskin (1970:19), citing the commentary of Naḥmanides on Gen. 34:13, notes that, according to the rabbis’ understanding of the 7 Noachian commandments incumbent upon gentiles, if a gentile judge accepts a bribe he is to be put to death. Weyl (1900:21) thinks that Josephus may have been influenced by the example of Roman law and, in particular, the lex Cornelia de sicariis of 81 B.C.E., about which the jurist Paulus states that a judge who accepts a bribe in a capital case has his property confiscated and is deported. Cohn (1972) notes, however, that it was not until 392, long after Josephus, that the death penalty was prescribed. He says that Josephus’ statement is intended to stress how seriously the Torah viewed this crime. Feldman (1984a:499) suggests that Josephus, for apologetic reasons, did not want to have it appear that the law is more stringent on gentile than on Jewish judges and therefore applied the same penalty to both.

The Mishnah (Sanhedrin 11:2) understands this passage (Deut. 17:8-13) to refer to the ‮זקן ממרא‬‎, the elder who defies the decision of a court. Such a judge is to go to Jerusalem for a decision from the supreme court as to whether his view is correct. If the court rules against him and he goes back to his town and rules as he had ruled previously, he is exempt, but if he instructs others to follow him he is subject to the death penalty. By contrast, Josephus does not understand the passage thus to refer to the rebellious elder, and he omits the statement (Deut. 17:12) that the one who disobeys the court has committed a capital crime. Goldenberg (22-35) argues that the law of ‮זקן ממרא‬‎ postdates Josephus (the earliest mention is in a dispute between Rabbi Aqiva and his students [Sanhedrin 87a, Tosefta Sanhedrin 11:7]) and that it is therefore not surprising that Josephus does not mention it. Hebrew ‮ודרשׁת‬‎ (Deut. 17:9, “you shall consult”), LXX ἐκζητήσαντες (“searching out thoroughly”). According to the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 3:6, 5:5), if a judge says “I do not know” or “I have no opinion,” more judges are to be added to the tribunal. We may see a similar instance in the case of King Jehoshaphat, who, according to Josephus (Ant. 9.4), appointed judges from among the priests and Levites and those holding the chief places among the people, with instructions that if any citizens of Judea had differences on important matters they should send to them from their cities to Jerusalem so that those cases might be decided by this tribunal. He tells the judges that they are to take pains to render just decisions, “for it was proper that in the city in which was the Temple of God and where the king had his residence, judgment should be given with special care and with the utmost justice.” From Apion 2.194 it appears that the high priest is the chairman of the Gerousia, inasmuch as, according to Josephus, it is his function to safeguard the laws (φυλάξει τοὺς νόμους). On the meaning of this phrase see Weyl (1900:25-26 n. 43). Josephus’ statement is based on Deut. 17:9: “Coming to the Levitical priests and to the judge who is in office in those days, you shall consult them, and they shall declare to you the decision.” Elsewhere (Ant. 6.262, 268 [bis]), Josephus, referring to the slaughter of the priests of Nob, calls them “priests and prophets,” as if they were equivalents. Again, when the Philistines invade the country of the Killanians, Josephus (Ant. 6.271) says that David inquired of God through the prophet whether He would grant him victory, whereas 1 Sam. 23:9 indicates that it was the priest Abiathar whom David consulted. Cf. Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 4.36.190): “If the facts create a sense of uncertainty and great obscurity, and he feels that his apprehension of them is but dim, he should decline to judge the cases and send them up to more discerning judges. And who should these be but the priests, and the head and leader of the priests?” Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 4.36.192) explains that the reason for sending such cases to the priests is that the true priest is necessarily a prophet. Belkin (1940:84-85) concludes that what Josephus means by his addition of the “prophet” is obscure, but notes that both Josephus and Philo employ the term with reference to the priests. He suggests that Josephus’ use of the term “prophet” may refer to a supplementary name for the High Priest, and that this passage may indicate that he considered the High Priest the head of the Sanhedrin who judged between “blood and blood.” Similarly, in Apion 2.194, where Josephus has in mind the same verses (Deut. 17.8-10), Josephus says that the duty of the High Priest is to “safeguard the laws, adjudicate in cases of dispute, punish those convicted of crime.” Kohler (1931:78-79) concludes that the “prophet” here referred to is the ab bet din (“patriarch of the court”). Elon (1994:1.243) remarks that Josephus’ addition of “the prophet” is contrary to the plain meaning of the text. Weyl (1900:22-23) concludes that Josephus is identifying the prophet with the judge who leads the people, as during the period of the Judges. Meeks (1967:142) also concludes that the implication of Josephus’ substitution of “prophet” for “judge” is that “the prophet” is regarded as a regular administrative office, comparable to the High Priesthood on one hand and the Council of Elders on the other. Obviously, he contends, this notion is not derived from contemporary practice. It must instead be connected with the idea of a prophetic succession, stemming from Moses’ prophetic and ruling offices. It will be recalled that Joshua, as Moses’ successor, succeeded to the office of “general” and to the role of “prophet” (Ant. 4.165). The council of elders, the γερουσία, is Josephus’ addition. See note on Ant. 4.186. Gallant (194 n. 188) suggests that Josephus has transferred this element from the case of the unsolved murder (Deut. 21:2, 4), since both are beyond the ability of local judges to resolve and require higher authorities, including elders and priests. Josephus regards this council, as the rabbis present the Sanhedrin, not as a court of appeals but as a court of first instance (Mishnah Sanhedrin 1:5). See Weyl (1900:22). Josephus does not, however, tell us how many members there were in this council. The council he convened in Galilee consisted of 70 persons (Life 79; War 2.570), with himself, the seventy-first, as chairman; and this parallels the rabbinic Sanhedrin of 71 in Jerusalem.

Cf. Num. 35:30: “No person shall be put to death on the testimony of one witness.” So also Deut. 17:6. Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 4.8.53-54) gives 2 reasons why the evidence of a single witness is insufficient: possible misunderstanding and the need for a preponderance of evidence. Cf. Deut. 19:15: “A single witness shall not prevail against a man for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offence that he has committed; only on the evidence of 2 witnesses, or of 3 witnesses, shall a charge be sustained.” Cf. Life 256, where Josephus himself addresses the embassy sent by the Jerusalem authorities: “Had my case against John [of Gischala] been tried and had I produced some 2 or 3 excellent men as witnesses to my behavior, it is evident that you would have been compelled, after inquiries into their character, to acquit me of the charges brought against me.” Cf. 1 Tim. 5:19 and Heb. 10:28. The Mishnah Makkot 1:7 asks why, if the testimony is confirmed by 2 witnesses, the law has also specified 3, and answers that the purpose is to draw an analogy between 3 and 2: “Just as 3 witnesses prove 2 witnesses to be false, also 2 witnesses may prove 3 witnesses to be false.” The Talmud (Baba Batra 160b) suggests that 2 witnesses are required for a plain deed, but that 3 are required for a folded document: since it has more folds it must also have more witnesses. Ginzberg (6.312 n. 39) notes that whereas 1 Kgs. 21:13 (as well as the LXX) speaks of 2 false witnesses, Josephus (Ant. 8.358) mentions 3 witnesses against Naboth. Ginzberg theorizes that this presupposes an old Halakhah, according to which cases involving capital punishment required 3 witnesses (i.e. 1 accuser and 2 witnesses). Josephus may thus reflect an understanding of Deut. 19:15 that is rejected by the rabbis. See Van Vliet (1958:26-30). Moreover, both witnesses, according to the Mishnah Makkot 1:9, must have given warning to the accused. As Altshuler (1977:118) remarks, Deut. 17:6 nowhere claims, as does Josephus, that a witness’ past life affects the credibility of his testimony. According to the Mishnah (Baba Qamma 1:3), witnesses must be freemen and members of the covenant. The Mishnah Sanhedrin 3:3 lists as those who are invalid to serve as witnesses or judges one who plays dice, one who loans money on interest, one who races pigeons (perhaps because of their association with the cult of Aphrodite or Astarte), and one who does business in the produce of the sabbatical year. Deut. 17:6 does not speak of the disqualification of women or slaves. The Mishnah Shebuʿot 4:1 states that the oath of testimony (hence, giving evidence) applies to men but not to women. Josephus states, as do the rabbis (Sifre Deut. 190 [ed. Finkelstein, p. 230]), that the evidence of women is not acceptable. Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 3.31.171) says that a woman should not be a busybody, meddling in matters outside her household concerns. Falk (1972:123) notes that at a later date the sages of Yavneh believed women in certain cases “where the testimony was such as women are qualified for” (Tosefta Ketubot 1:6). Women are competent witnesses, for example, in matters of their own and other women’s purity, in identifying people, or in stating facts without any intention of giving evidence (cf. Baba Qamma 114b). The fact that the Mishnah Rosh Hashanah 1:8 establishes a principle that slaves and other such people may not validly offer any evidence that a woman may not validly offer implies that there are areas of evidence that women are competent to offer. Drazin (1940:124-25), commenting on Josephus’ statement that the testimony of women is inadmissible because of their levity and because of the boldness of their sex, attributes this characterization to ancient Greek and Roman attitudes. The rabbis give no such reason for the inadmissibility of the testimony of women. The rabbinic statement (Qiddushin 80b) that women are light-minded refers rather to their inability to resist temptation. Deut. 17:6 does not mention the disqualification of slaves. The rabbinic tradition (Mishnah Rosh Hashanah 1:8, Baba Qamma 1:3) specifically disqualifies slaves. The Talmud (Baba Qamma 88a) attempts to deduce the disqualification of slaves from giving evidence by a fortiori reasoning: if a woman, who is eligible to enter by marriage into the congregation of Israel is ineligible to give evidence, how much more a slave, who is in ineligible to enter by marriage into the congregation of Israel. Gallant (196) asserts that of the 2 character traits that disqualify women and the 2 that disqualify slaves to give evidence, 1, boldness (θράσος) of women, corresponds to the boldness (θρασύνεσθαι, “to be overbold”) prohibited to judges (Ant. 4.215) and 1, greed (κέρδος, “gain”) of slaves, corresponds to the prohibited influence of greed (κέρδει) upon judges (Ant. 4.216). Cf. Exod. 20:16, the ninth of the 10 Commandments: “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.” Cf. Deut. 19:18-19: “The judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother.” Belkin (1940:106-7) cites the Mishnah Makkot 1.6, which speaks of the dispute between the Pharisees and Sadducees concerning the meaning of “then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother” (Deut. 19:19). According to the Sadducees, the witnesses were executed only when the accused had actually been put to death. The Pharisees, however, maintained that the false witnesses could be punished even if their guilt was exposed in time to save the court from executing the intended victim. Josephus apparently agrees with the view of the Pharisees in this matter. This Mishnah indicates that the perjured witnesses in a capital case are put to death only at the conclusion of the trial. The passage in Deuteronomy states that the law applies when the witness has accused his brother, that is, a fellow Jew, falsely, whereas Josephus does not mention that the witness testifies against a fellow Jew. He does not indicate how the false witnesses will be refuted. It is not, however, clear whether he agrees with the Pharisaic view that in case the victim had been executed the false witnesses were not to be punished. Weyl (1900:86) thinks that Josephus did not know this Pharisaic view, since if he had known it he would have mentioned it because of its extraordinary nature. According to the Mishnah Makkot 1:4, witnesses are declared to be perjurers only if they incriminate themselves, namely if 2 others say to them, “How can you give testimony when you yourselves were with us on that very day in that very place.” Josephus omits one exception, according to the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 11:6), namely those who bear false witness against the priest’s daughter and her lover and are hanged rather than burnt alive. He also omits the biblical statement (Deut. 17:7) that the witnesses whose evidence had been responsible for the conviction are to be the first to implement the death penalty. He likewise also omits the statement (Lev. 5:1) that if someone hears a public adjuration to testify and, though he is a witness, does not come forth to testify, he is to “bear his inquity.” Cf. Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 2.6.26): “If anyone knows that another has perjured himself, and, influenced by friendship or shame or fear rather than piety, fails to inform against him or bring him to justice, he must be liable to the same penalties as the perjurer.”

The LXX (Deut. 21:1) reads τραυματίας, “wounded,” rather than slain. Deut. 21:1 reads: “in the land that the Lord your God gives you to possess.” The Mishnah (Soṭah 9:2) limits the case to a body found on the ground (not hidden under a pile of rock), lying (not floating on water), not near the frontier or near a town that had a gentile majority or one that had no court or near Jerusalem (since it is not in the inheritance of a particular tribe, and Deut. 21:1 refers to the “possession” that God gives) (Soṭah 45b). The Tosefta (Soṭah 9:1) includes the territory beyond the Jordan as covered by this law, but it would appear from the Mishnah (Bikkurim 1:10) that the trans-Jordanian territory is not included. Philo says nothing at all about this matter. Cf. Deut. 21:1: “If in the land that the Lord your God gives you to possess, anyone is found slain, lying in the open country, and it is not known who killed him.” The statement that no one is suspected of having committed the slaying because of hatred is Josephus’ addition. Josephus seems to have derived this addition from the case (Deut. 19:11-13) of the man who hates his neighbor, lies in wait for him, slays him, and escapes to one of the cities of refuge. In that case, as in this, the elders of the city must act. That the magistrates of the town are to search diligently for the murderer and to offer rewards to encourage informers is Josephus’ addition. Gallant (198-99) suggests that Josephus may have been influenced by the parallel case (Deut. 22:1-3) of the lost object, where Josephus (Ant. 4.274) uses the same verb “find” as appears here, whereas in the biblical account of the unknown murderer the verb “find” does not appear. Deut. 21:3 mentions only the city that is nearest to the slain person. It also refers only to the elders and not to the officers as well. For the “elders” Josephus uses the same word as that found in the LXX, γερουσία. The Mishnah Soṭah 9:2 indicates that it must be a city that has a Jewish majority and that has a court.

Hebrew ‮ולקחו‬‎ (Deut. 21:3), “will take”; LXX λήψεται, “will take” vs. Josephus πριάμενοι, “purchasing.” In Josephus it is the public officials who purchase the heifer, whereas in Deut. 21:3 it is the elders of the city. Hebrew ‮נחל איתן‬‎ (“perennial torrent,” “stream,” “valley”) (Deut.21:4), LXX φάραγγα τραχεῖαν (“rough valley,” “chasm,” “ravine,” “gully”), Josephus φάραγγα. The Mishnah Soṭah 9:5 describes the place as a rugged valley and adds that it means literally “hard,” but that even if it is not rugged it is valid. Presumably a wadi is meant. Josephus omits the biblical requirement (Deut. 21:4) that the valley to which the heifer is taken is to be one with running water (or “strong” [as in Num. 24:21] or “old” [according to Soṭah 46b, ‮איתן‬‎]). The Mishnah Soṭah 9:5 understands the two verbs (Deut. 21:4), ‮יעבד‬‎ and ‮יזרע‬‎, as referring to the future and declares that the place becomes prohibited for sowing and for tilling. Josephus omits the statement (Deut. 21:3) that the heifer must be one that has never been worked and has never pulled the yoke. The Mishnah Soṭah 9:5 states that “they break its neck with a hatchet from behind.” The LXX reads νευροκοπήσουσιν, “They will hamstring.”

Josephus speaks of holy water (χέρνιβας), and converts this into a purification ceremony. Both the Dead Sea Temple Scroll (63:5) and Josephus state that the public officers of the nearest town are to wash their hands in holy water over the head of a heifer in expiation for an undetected murderer, whereas Deut. 21:6 states that they are to wash their hands over the heifer, without specifying the head. Yadin (1983:1.62, 93-94, 305) has suggested that Josephus may have been influenced on the matter by the years (Life 9-12) that he spent with the Essenes and with the hermit Bannus. But Josephus may simply be following the LXX, which reads “over the head,” or he may be reflecting the actual practice, since the Bible does not specify over which part of the heifer the elders are to wash their hands. Deut. 21:6 speaks only of the elders as washing their hands. So also the Mishnah Soṭah 9:6. Cf. Deut. 21:7: “Our hands did not shed this blood, neither did our eyes see it shed.” The Mishnah Soṭah 9:6 explains: “He [the one who was murdered] did not come into our hands, and we sent him away without food. And we did not see him and let him go along without an escort.” The Jerusalem Talmud (Soṭah 9.6.23d), as noted by Nodet (ad loc.), presents 2 opinions as to the nature of the community’s negligence: in Babylonia it was viewed as negligence with regard to the one slain, in that no one came to his assistance when he was in danger; in Galilee it was viewed as negligence in not seeking out the assassin. It appears, from the statement in Ant. 4.220 that the magistrates must make a diligent search for the culprit, that Josephus has adopted the Galilean view. Here, however, he seems to adopt the Babylonian view. The assumption, as Nodet (ad loc.) remarks, is that the slaying was done by an Israelite and that it remains unpunished. According to the Mishnah Soṭah 7:2, this statement by the elders must be recited in Hebrew. Josephus omits the request that God forgive the Israelites. The prayer that such a misfortune may no longer occur is Josephus’ addition to Deut. 21:7-8.

Josephus, as Gallant (202) points out, seems to understand the word ἀριστοκρατία as meaning that κρατία (government) by laws is best (κράτιστον = ἄριστον). In Josephus’ version (Ant. 6.36), when the people demand that the prophet Samuel choose a king for them, he is greatly upset, “for he was keenly enamored of aristocratic government, accounting it divine and productive of bliss to those who adopted it.” D. R. Schwartz (1983-84:30-52) is troubled by the apparent contradiction in Josephus concerning forms of government, even though it is clear, as he remarks, that Josephus had given a great deal of thought to providing a consistent theory regarding the political status of the Jewish nation. On the one hand, Josephus designates the period of the Judges as an aristocracy (Ant. 6.36, 84-85, 268), but at another point he refers to it as a monarchy (Ant. 20.229). Another apparent contradiction arises in Josephus’ designation of the period between the return from Babylonian Captivity until the Hasmoneans as an aristocracy and an oligarchy (Ant. 11.111), while elsewhere (Ant. 20.234) he refers to the government during this period as a democracy. Schwartz conjectures that the contradiction may reflect different sources, but concludes that it is more likely that it reflects a shift between the time that Josephus wrote the early part of the Antiquities and the period when he concluded the work, perhaps due, he thinks, to a change in historical circumstances. It is more likely that Josephus uses the term “aristocracy” to refer not to a particular form of government but rather, as the etymology of the term implies, to the government by the best, which for him means the rule of God, that is a theocracy. Therefore, the government under Moses, as noted here by Josephus, under the Judges and under the high priests after the return from Babylonian Captivity, is termed an aristocracy, the common denominator in both periods, from Josephus’ point of view, being that the nation was in reality being ruled by God. Hence, the appropriateness of the term “theocracy,” a term that Josephus apparently invented for such a government (Apion 2.165). When Josephus designates the period of the Judges as a monarchy (Ant. 20.229), even though he has previously referred to it as an aristocracy, he is using the term “monarchy” in the etymological sense and is stating that it consisted of a single ruler; this is not in contradiction to his earlier statement that it was an aristocracy (Ant. 6.36, 84-85, 268), that is, the government by the best, inasmuch as the rulers, that is the Judges, were directed by God. That Josephus is using the term “monarchy” in this sense is clear from the fact that he states that the period of monarchy was followed by the rule of kings (Ant. 20.229), the latter term being a reference to a form of government. One contradiction does remain, namely between Josephus’ designation of the government of the Jews during the period between the return from Babylonian Captivity and the rise of the Hasmoneans as an oligarchy (Ant. 11.111) and his subsequent designation of this period as a democracy (Ant. 20.234). Perhaps the solution to this apparent contradiction is that Josephus regarded the rule of the high priests— clearly the rule of the few and hence an oligarchy— during this period as having had the approval of the people at large. This entire sentence is Josephus’ addition. Nodet (ad loc.) notes the parallel thought in Plato (Politicus 300C) that if the guardians of the laws broke them in their own interest it would be still worse, since laws are based on experience and are made by wise men. Cf. Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 4.35.186): “The relation of a king to a state is the same as that of a headman to a village, of a householder to a house, of a physician to his patients, of a general to an army, of an admiral to the marines and crews, or again of a skipper to merchant and cargo vessels or of a pilot to the seamen. All of these have power both for good and for worse, but they ought to will the better, and the better is to benefit instead of injuring as many as they possibly can.” Whereas Deut. 17:20 promises that if the king keeps all the words of the Law he will have a long reign and his descendants will long continue to rule, Josephus cites no such promise. In contrast to Josephus, who emphasizes the image of Moses as the agent of God in giving orders, Philo seems to be more democratic in stating that in his commands and prohibitions Moses suggested and admonished rather than commanded and in stressing that the very numerous and necessary instructions that he gave were accompanied by forewords and afterwords in order to exhort rather than to enforce (De Vita Mosis 2.9.51). The statement that it is sufficient that God should be the ruler of the Israelites and that they should, by implication, not seek a king is Josephus’ addition. Josephus’ word here for passion, ἔρως, usually refers to sexual love or lust. Josephus omits the fact that this wish will come upon the Israelites when they come to the Promised Land, as well as the statement that they will seek to have a king like all the other nations that are round about them (Deut. 17:14). As Altshuler (1977:120) remarks, Josephus’ rhetorical introduction suggesting that the establishment of monarchy is unnecessary, even undesirable, is without parallel in Scripture. Rather, Deut. 17:14-15 assumes that Israel will set up a king whom God will choose. Cf. Deut. 17:15: “One from among your brethren you shall set as king over you; you may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother.” This injunction was extended to all public offices. Cf. the incident recorded in the Mishnah Soṭah 7:8: “Agrippa the King [most likely, Agrippa I, the son of Aristobulus the son of Herod the Idumean] stood up and received it [the Torah scroll read at the end of the Sabbatical year] and read it standing up, and the sages praised him on that account. And when he came to the verse, ‘You may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother,’ his tears ran down from his eyes. They said to him: ‘Do not be afraid, Agrippa; you are our brother, you are our brother, you are our brother [most likely this is the Agrippa whose mother was Salome the daughter of Mariamne the daughter of the high priest Hyrcanus]!’” Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 4.31.158) gives two reasons why a foreigner may not be chosen as king: to prevent exploitation and expulsion of the native population. Josephus, as Gallant (202) notes, places this passage after the passage about judges: just as a judge must be dedicated to the pursuit of justice (Ant. 4.214), so a king must have a perpetual care for justice. Josephus omits the statement (Deut. 17:15) that God is to choose the king. Cf. Philo (De Vita Mosis 1.28.162): “The providence of God, which afterwards appointed him [the king] without his knowledge to that work, caused him long before that day to be the reasonable and living impersonation of law.” Similarly, Philo (De Vita Mosis 2.1.4) declares: “It is a king’s duty to command what is right and forbid what is wrong. But to command what should be done and to forbid what should not be done is the peculiar function of law; so that it follows at once that the king is a living law (νόμος ἔμψυχος), and the law a just king.”

This view, that the king may do nothing without consulting the high priest and the Gerousia, is a pro-priestly revision, whereas Deut. 17:18-20 declares merely that he is to consult the book of the law that he is to copy and that he is to read all the days of his life. Josephus declares, as does the Mishnah Sanhedrin 2:4 and the Gemara (Sanhedrin 2a, 20b), that a king is to consult the council of 71 before engaging in a voluntary war. Josephus does not suggest, as does the biblical parallel, that obedience to law will guarantee a king a long rule for himself and his descendants; Ant. here simply reads κωλυέσθω (“Let him be restrained) from becoming too powerful...” The Tosefta Sanhedrin 4:2, as Nodet (ad loc.) points out, indicates that the king is subject to the law just as any private individual; but Sanhedrin 19a-b, citing the case of King Alexander Jannaeus (Josephus, Ant. 13.288-96, speaks of a case involving King John Hyrcanus; in Qiddushin 66a the case involves King Alexander Jannaeus), established the principle that a king may neither judge nor be judged, testify nor be testified against. Cf. Deut. 17:17: “He shall not multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away.” The Mishnah Sanhedrin 2:4 establishes a maximum of 18 wives for a king; but the second-century Rabbi Judah bar Ilai (ibid.) declares that he may have as many as he wishes so long as they do not entice him to abandon the Lord. The Gemara (Sanhedrin 21a) arrives at the number 18 from the fact that 2 Sam. 3:2-5 enumerates 6 of King David’s wives and then adds (2 Sam. 12:8): “And if this were too little, I add to you as much more,” where the word ‮כהנה‬‎ (“like these”) is repeated, each ‮כהנה‬‎ implying 6, which, together with the original 6, makes a total of 18. The Mishnah Sanhedrin 2:4 specifies that the king should have only enough money to pay his army. The Mishnah Sanhedrin 2:4 specifies that the king should have only enough horses for his own chariot. Josephus omits the statement (Deut. 17:16) that the king is not to cause the people to return to Egypt in order to multiply horses; the LXX adds “lest he should multiply horses for himself.” Josephus omits the statement (Deut. 17:18) that the king is to write for himself in a book a copy of the law (LXX δευτερονόμιον, “repetition of the law”) and that he shall read this copy all the days of his life so that he may learn to fear God by keeping all the words of the law. Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 4.32.160-61) asserts that from the day that the king assumes his office, he should maintain and study a book of legal precedents. Belkin (1960:72-77) notes that Josephus here, like the rabbinic tradition (Tosefta Sanhedrin 4:2), insists that the king is subject to the courts. This is borne out, says Belkin, in the trial of Herod (Ant. 14.168-76), though we must note that Herod did not become king until later (Ant. 14.386-89). Josephus omits the statement (Deut. 17:20) that the heart of the king is not to be lifted up above his brethren and that he may not turn aside from the commandment. This is Josephus’ addition.

According to Shabbat 85a, one should not encroach upon a neighbor’s landmark by planting so near to his border that the roots draw sustenance from his land and thus impoverish it. Josephus has placed the law with regard to not removing boundary-markers (Deut. 19:14) immediately after the law concerning the setting up of a kingship (Deut. 17:14-17), perhaps because both speak of the danger of covetousness. Manuscripts ROMS read ἡμῖν, “we.” Cf. Deut. 19:14: “In the inheritance that you will hold in the land that the Lord your God gives you to possess, you shall not remove your neighbor’s landmark, which the men of old have set.” Cf. the third of the curses in Deut. 27:17: “Cursed be he who removes his neighbor’s landmark.” The “men of old,” according to Shabbat 85a, are the sons of Seir the Horite (Gen. 36:20). Josephus does not restrict this law to neighbors and to the land of Israel, as does the Bible, but extends it to others with whom you are at peace. “At peace” excludes territory acquired in a permitted war (Deut. 20:10-15). The pebble (ψῆφος) was a small round worn stone that was used in counting and, as Thackeray (ad loc.) notes, in voting; hence, here the boundary-stone is compared to a record of God’s decision. Elsewhere (War 7.359; Ant. 3.44, 5.168, 10.60, 13.172) Josephus likewise speaks of God’s decree as his “pebble.” He also uses the word ψῆφος in connection with human “votes” for a point of view (War 2.205, 4.341, 4.343; Ant. 2.163, 3.96, 4.217, 10.91, 19.268; Apion 2.265). The parallel between uprooting boundary stones and uprooting God’s voting pebble is Josephus’ addition. Cf. Lev. 25:23: “The land shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is mine; for you are strangers and sojourners with me.” Cf. Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 2.22.113): “The whole country is called God’s property, and it is against religion to have anything that is God’s property registered under other masters.” Drawing upon his experience in the recent war against the Romans, Josephus stresses over and over again that the most terrible political evil is civil strife. In particular, unlike the Bible, which merely presents the commandment not to remove one’s neighbor’s landmark (Deut. 19:14 and 27:17), Josephus adds a reason, again in political terms, i.e., that removal of landmarks leads to wars and seditions (στάσεων). The parallel between uprooting boundary stones and violating God’s laws is Josephus’ addition. Gallant (204) notes that just as Josephus uses a simple verb, κινεῖν, to denote displacement of boundary stones and a compound verb, μετακινοῦντας, to denote transgression of the laws, so also he uses a simple adjective, βεβαίαν, to denote God’s firm decree but a compound word, ὑπερβαίνειν, to denote transgression of the laws. Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 4.28.149) applies this law not merely to boundaries of land to eliminate covetousness but also to safeguarding of ancient customs.

Cf. Lev. 19:23: “When you come into the land and plant all kinds of trees for food, then you shall count their fruit as forbidden [lit., their uncircumcision]; 3 years it shall be forbidden to you, it must not be eaten.” The Bible (also Tosefta ʿOrlah 1:8) limits this law to the land of Israel, but Josephus does not; nor does it mention the prohibition to offer the products during the first 3 years as first-fruits. Josephus has presumably derived this prohibition from the verse (Lev. 19:24) that follows: “And in the fourth year all their fruit shall be holy, an offering of praise to the Lord.” Gallant (206) notes the connection between plants (φυτά) and nature (φύσις). Cf. Josephus’ explanation (Ant. 1.54) as to why God preferred Abel’s offering of milk and firstlings of flocks to Cain’s of fruits of the tilled earth: God is honored by things that grow spontaneously and in accordance with natural laws, and not by the products forced from nature by the ingenuity of grasping man. So also Philo (De Virtutibus 29.156), who objects to picking fruits before nature has deemed them mature. The reason here given by Josephus is his addition. Cf. Philo (De Virtutibus 29.156): “He [God] does not permit them [Jews] to pick the fruit to get enjoyment [during the first 3 years], not only because from the incomplete plant only incomplete fruit could come, just as animals not fully grown are not fully ripe for breeding, but also because of the damage it would do to the young plants.”

Josephus omits the promise (Lev. 19:25) that obedience to these laws will yield a richer crop. Lev. 19:24 does not mention the “holy city.” The Mishnah Maʿaser Sheni 5:2 describes how this second tithe was brought to Jerusalem. The statement that he is to carry it to the holy city [Jerusalem] and consume it there, together with the tithe of the other fruit, and entertain friends, orphans, and widows sumptuously is Josephus’ addition, based on the account of the second tithe (Deut. 14:29). On this tithe for widows and orphans see Ant. 4.240. However, according to Deut. 14:28-29, there is nothing about this tithe being brought to Jerusalem. Rather, it is to be left for the Levite, the stranger, the orphan, and the widow. Josephus omits “that they may yield more richly for you” (Lev. 19:25).

The Mishnah Kilʾayim 4:2 indicates that the vineyard and the place where the seed is planted must be separated by a minimum of 12 amot (cubits), i.e. approximately 18 feet. This reason is Josephus’ addition. Josephus omits the warning that if a vineyard is sown with two kinds of seed, the whole yield must be forfeited to the Temple (Deut. 22:9). Josephus also does not mention here the prohibition of wearing ‮שׁעטנז‬‎, i.e. garments of mingled stuff, wool and linen together (Deut. 22:11), that is mentioned in Ant. 4.208, since that is a law that is not applicable to agricultural life, the topic of this section. Whereas Deut. 22:10 specifically prohibits only ploughing with an ox and donkey together, Josephus, like the rabbinic tradition (Baba Qamma 54b), applies this to plowing by any two animals of different species. The LXX adopts similar language in Lev. 19:19 and Deut. 22:9 in prohibiting the sowing of a vineyard with diverse seeds. Josephus, however, follows the Hebrew of Lev. 19:19 in not restricting the prohibition to the vineyard. The third-century Samuel (Qiddushin 39a) distinguishes between mixtures of the vineyard and the grafting of heterogeneous trees. He concludes that the planting of diverse seeds in a vineyard is not biblically prohibited outside of Palestine. Lev. 19:19 and Deut. 22:9 speak of diverse seeds, whereas Josephus here specifies 2 or 3 kinds. Gallant (208) suggests that this may have been an inadvertent borrowing from the laws of testimony (Deut. 17:6, 19:15), which speaks of 2 or 3 witnesses as necessary to establish a fact. Deut. 22:9 specifically prohibits only sowing a vineyard with diverse seeds, whereas Josephus here extends this to mixing all differing species. That nature does not approve of such mixtures is Josephus’ addition. Cf. Ant. 1.19: one should study the nature of God and then, having contemplated His works with the eye of reason, imitate so far as possible the best of all models. Cf. also the parallelism between the various furnishings of the Tent and the universe (Ant. 3. 179-87). Presumably, in his projected work on the reasons for the commandments (Ant. 1.25), Josephus intended to develop this point further. Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 4.40.208-12) gives 3 reasons for the prohibition of mixing seeds: to keep things of a different kind from being mixed and confused; to prevent each of the different species from hurting and being hurt in return by abstracting nourishment from each other; and to prevent good soil from suffering from the pressure of close density of plants that are sown and grown on the same spot, and from the task of bearing a double crop of fruit.

Deut. 22:10 specifies only that one may not plough with an ox and a donkey together. Josephus thus finds a common denominator in connecting the prohibition of mixing seeds and ploughing with different kinds of animals (Deut. 22:9-10). Altshuler (1977:123) notes that Josephus lists various sorts of mixing forbidden in Deut. 22:9-10 and Lev. 19:19, and that to support these laws he gives 2 reasons not found in Scripture: that nature does not approve of mixing, and that people might be led from less significant matters to more serious transgressions of laws concerning sexual intercourse. Josephus omits the reason given by Deut. 22:9: that the ripe fruit of the seed that one has sown and the fruit of the vineyard not be defiled.

This explanation is Josephus’ addition.

Lit. “handfuls.” Cf. Lev. 19:9: “When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap your field to its very border, neither shall you gather the gleanings after your harvest.” Cf. Deut. 24:19. Josephus omits that one should not go back to get the forgotten sheaves; and he omits mention of the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow. Cf. Lev. 19:10: “You shall not strip your vineyard bare, neither shall you gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner.” Cf. Deut. 24:21: “When you gather the grapes of your vineyard, you shall not glean it afterward; it shall be for the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow.” Cf. Deut. 24:20: “When you beat your olive trees, you shall not go over the boughs again; it shall be for the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow.” Cf. Philo (De Virtutibus 17.91): “Again in the autumn when the owners have the fruit picked he forbids them to collect the grapes that fall or to glean the vineyards. He gives the same order to the olive pickers, acting like a very loving and very just father of children who have not prospered alike, some of them living in abundance, others sunk into the deepest poverty.” Cf. the Mishnah Giṭṭin 5:8: “A poor man beating the top of an olive tree—what is under it [the tree] is subject to the rule against stealing, in the interests of peace. Rabbi Yose says, ‘It is stealing beyond any doubt.’”

The mention of gratitude from the needy here is Josephus’ addition. Gallant (212) notes that there is an effective touch in Josephus’ language in that there is an assonantal link between the benefactors (δεσπόταις) and the beneficiaries (δεομένων). This statement is Josephus’ addition. Gallant (212) notes that assonance strengthens the relationship between the attitude of the land (προθυμοτέραν, “more eager”) and the attitude of the owner (προνοουμένων, “those who care”), as well as between the objective of the land (ἐκτροφήν, “growing”) and the objective of the owner (διατροφῆς, “nourishment”). Cf. Ant. 4.236-37. Cf. Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 4.13.73): “In no other action does man so much resemble God as in showing kindness; and what greater good can there be than that they should imitate God?”

The Talmud (Baba Meẓia 89a) extends this to all animals. The Mishnah Baba Meẓia 7:1 states that this applies to any worker. Cf. Deut. 25:4: “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.” Gallant (213) notes that after giving a literal paraphrase of Deut. 25:4, using the words “muzzle” and “threshing-floor,” Josephus presents the regulation in more abstract terms, using the words “bar” (εἴργειν) and “who have joined in the work” (συνειργασμένους), the assonance of which words makes the point all the more effective. Cf. Paul in 1 Corinthians 9:8-9. The reason for not muzzling the oxen is Josephus’ addition.

Deut. 23:24-25 speaks of grapes and grain. The rabbinic tradition (Baba Meẓia 87b-88a) extends this to all other things but restricts its application to those who are actually working in the vineyard. Gallant (214) suggests that Josephus’ phrase “walking on the road” (τοὺς ὁδῷ βαδίζοντας) may have been inspired by the episode in which the Israelites, acting as foreigners, promised, if granted safe passage on the similar-sounding king’s highway (ὁδῷ βασιλικῇ, Num. 20:17, 21:22), not to trespass on fields or vineyards. He also notes that Tanḥuma Ḥuqat 12 (p. 774) interprets “travel on the road of the king” as muzzling cattle so as to insure that they do not consume the host’s produce. He remarks on the significance of the juxtaposition here in Josephus of the commandment forbidding muzzling oxen and forbidding wayfarers to touch fruits of the season. These details—when the fruit is ripe, walking on the road, and touching it—are Josephus’ addition to Deut. 23:25-26. Cf. Deut. 23:25: “When you go into your neighbor’s standing grain, you may pluck the ears with your hand, but you shall not put a sickle to your neighbor’s standing grain.” While the generosity with respect to interest on loans extends only to Jews, the fruit of the field, according to this Mosaic law as interpreted by Josephus, is to be made available to all wayfarers, both Jews and non-Jews alike. Note that Josephus omits the prohibition of converting to Judaism the Ammonites and Moabites until the tenth generation (Deut. 23:4) and the Edomites and the Egyptians until the third generation (Deut. 23:9). He seems to be motivated by his eagerness to answer the charge that the Jews are exclusivistic and haters of mankind (Feldman 1997:82 n. 32). This apology was particularly important because Jewish success in winning converts during this period (Feldman 1993a:288-341) depended upon making it clear to everyone that Jews welcomed all those who come to them in true sincerity. Josephus himself (Apion 2.210) insists that Judaism gives a gracious welcome “to all who desire to come and live under the same laws with us, ... holding that it is not family ties alone that constitute relationship, but agreement in the principles of conduct.” Indeed, Josephus (Apion 2.282) proudly declares that “the masses have long since shown much zeal to adopt our religious observances, and there is not one city, Greek or barbarian, ... to which our customs have not spread.”

Cf. Deut. 23:24: “When you go into your neighbor’s vineyard, you may eat your fill of grapes, as many as you wish, but you shall not put any in your vessel.” The Bible does not mention the prohibition of stopping one who is attempting to enter a vineyard but speaks merely of permitting one to eat therein. This moralistic statement is Josephus’ addition.

Cf. the Mishnah (Giṭṭin 5:8): “They do not prevent poor gentiles from collecting produce under the laws of gleaning, the forgotten sheaf, and the corner of the field, in the interests of peace.” This statement, inviting others, Jews and gentiles, entreating them to accept as guests the bounty that God has given one, is Josephus’ addition. Cf. Ant. 4.266. This reason for being hospitable is an addition to the reason given in Deut. 24:22 and 26:5-12 (Ant. 4.239): the Israelites, too, should recall that they were once afflicted in Egypt.

This entire paragraph is Josephus’ editorial reflection. Note that this consideration is specifically to be shown to non-Jews and not merely to Jews as in Deut. 15:7-8. Cf. Apion 2.211, where Josephus clearly has in mind consideration for non-Jews, perhaps motivated by the desire to answer the slander later enunciated by Juvenal (Sat. 4.103; cf. Ant. 4.276), that Jews do not point out the road to those who do not share their worship: “The duty of sharing with others was inculcated by our legislator in other matters. We must furnish fire, water, food, to all who ask for them, point out the road, not leave a corpse unburied, show consideration even to declared enemies.”

Josephus reduces, as do the rabbis (Mishnah Makkot 3:10, Makkot 22a), the number of lashes inflicted in the penalty of scourging from 40 (so Deut. 25:3) to 39. According to the Mishnah Makkot 3:12-13, the hands of the culprit are tied on either side of a pillar, and the minister of the community grabs his clothing until he bares his chest; a stone is set down behind him, on which the minister of the community stands with a redoubled strap of cowhide in his hand, with which he hits the culprit with a third of the stripes in front and two-thirds behind. Whereas the Bible prescribes whipping the guilty without indicating the offense involved (Deut. 25:3), Josephus applies this penalty to the case of one who has violated precisely the agricultural laws pertaining to generosity. Levine (1993:78), remarking on Josephus’ expansion on the biblical explanation in order to show the danger of having too much, being greedy, and committing hybris, notes that Josephus has yoked profit and insolence (κέρδος and ὕβρις) and tied them to punishment. In fact, he has changed the Deuteronomic flogging regulation from its general application (Deut. 25:1-2) to refer specifically to the punishment of a hybristic man. Josephus’ innovation, he concludes, has added significance because he has inserted his hybris notion into a matter of Jewish law, where precision was required. So far as Josephus is concerned, scourging is an appropriate punishment for one who is enslaved to greed, since scourging is a punishment suitable only for slaves. It is, therefore, most apposite that Josephus, in the very next paragraph, recalls the slavery that the Israelites experienced in Egypt. By contrast, the biblical passage (Deut. 25:1-2) applies the scourging provision to a “guilty” person and not merely to one who violated the agricultural laws, as Sifre Deut. 286 makes clear.

This paragraph is Josephus’ addition. Cf. Ant. 4.232, 236-37.

Ant. 4.68, 205. Elsewhere Josephus says that the tithes belong to the Levites and priests (Ant. 4.68) or to the priests alone (Life 12). That is, the second tithe. Whereas Josephus speaks here of a third tithe (Deut. 14:28-29) for the poor, the rabbis understand this as taking the place of the second tithe in the third and sixth years of the Sabbatical period (Rosh Hashanah 12b). Altshuler (1977:126), however, notes that the Bible itself does not number the tithes mentioned in Lev. 27:30-33 and Num. 18:21-24 (Levitical) and in Deut. 14:22-27 (for feasts and Levites) and in Deut. 14:28-29 and Deut. 26 (for the poor). Furthermore, the wording of Deut. 26:12 in the LXX—τὸ δεύτερον ἐπιδέκατον (which would follow a non-Masoretic vocalization of the Hebrew ‮שׁנת המעשׂר‬‎)—might suggest (Altshuler 1977:71) that the poor tithe, indeed, was a third contribution instead of a special case of the second tithe. Thackeray notes a similar confusion about tithing in the two Greek versions of Tobit 1:6-8, where, indeed, one version speaks of a third tithe. Schürer (1886:122-23) notes that similar to Tobit in this matter is Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Deut. 2:12. The point of view of the later Jewish sages differs from the literal meaning of the biblical text (Deut. 14:28-29, 26:12), which contradicts the actual practice in the last period when the Temple stood. It does not follow from the Mishnah Ma‘aser Sheni 5:9 that in the specified years only the Levite and poor tithes were brought. To judge from the Mishnah Yadayim 4:3, it cannot be decided whether the poor tithe and second tithe alternated. On the other hand, the Mishnah Ma‘aser Sheni 5:6 clearly states that in every fourth and seventh year not only the Levite and poor tithes but also the second tithe had to be separated. This Mishnah would appear to agree completely with Josephus. So Olitzki (1885:15-19). Josephus omits that this tithe is also to be given to the Levite “because he has no portion or inheritance with you” and to the sojourner (Deut. 14:29, 26:12).

Deut. 26:1-4: “When you come into the land that the Lord your God gives you for an inheritance, and have taken possession of it, and live in it, you shall take some of the first of all the fruit of the ground, which you harvest from your land that the Lord your God gives you, and you shall put it in a basket, and you shall go to the place that the Lord your God will choose, to make His name to dwell there. And you shall go to the priest who is in office at that time, and say to him, ‘I declare this day to the Lord your God that I have come into the land that the Lord swore to our fathers to give us.’ Then the priest shall take the basket from your hand, and set it down before the altar of the Lord your God.” Deut. 26:2 specifies only “the place that the Lord your God will choose, to make His name to dwell there.” The reference here is not to the first-fruits mentioned in Ant. 4.70. The Mishnah (Bikkurim 3:1) indicates that the Bikkurim are to be separated thus: When one sees a fig or a grape cluster or a pomegranate that has begun to ripen he binds it with a reed and says, “Lo, these are first-fruits.” Then (Mishnah Bikkurim 3:2) the male inhabitants of all the towns in the priestly course gather in the main town of the priestly course and sleep outside in the open area of the town, avoiding entering the houses of the town in order not to contract uncleanness, and at dawn set out to Jerusalem. Cf. Philo’s description (De Specialibus Legibus 2.34.215) of the presentation of the first-fruits in a ceremony that he calls the “Basket”: “That it [this ceremony] has not the prestige and standing of a feast is clear for many reasons. For it does not affect the nation as a united whole like each of the others, nor do we find any victim being brought or led to the altar and then sacrificed and given over to be consumed by the sacred and unquenchable fire, nor is there any specified number of days during which the feast is to last.” Josephus here states that there were accompanying sacrifices, whereas Deut. 26:1-15 does not.

As Thackeray and Nodet (ad loc.) remark, the text here is uncertain, since the context is speaking of tithes (and not of first-fruits), which in the case of the first tithe are intended for the Levites and in the case of the second tithe are to be consumed by the owner. Greek τεμένισμα, “precincts of a temple,” as we see in Dio Cassius 42.26, 57.9. With the reference to giving thanks to God for having “given a good and large land,” compare Deut. 26:3’s profession that the Israelites have come into the land “that the Lord swore to our fathers to give us.”

The Greek Epitome adds “and the other things.” Josephus omits (Deut. 26:4-19) the description of how the priest takes the basket and sets it down before the altar. He also omits God’s assurance that He will set the Israelites above all nations that He has made. As Gallant (220-21) notes, this litany, in contradiction to the Bible, is a combination of the first-fruit and the third-year tithe litanies (Deut. 26:3-15). From the first-fruit litany (Deut. 26:5-11) Josephus has omitted the historical data alluding to Abraham as a wanderer (or that an Aramean [Laban] wished to destroy my father). From the third-year litany Josephus has omitted the statement that the sacred portion has been removed from the house of the dedicator and has been given to the Levite, the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow, and that he has not eaten of the tithe while unclean. According to the Mishnah Ma‘aser Sheni 5:15, Joḥanan the high priest (i.e. John Hyrcanus) did away with the confession concerning the removal of tithes (although the reasons that have been offered for this differ). Other passages (e.g., Mishnah Ma‘aser Sheni 5:8) indicate that the practice was still in force after the destruction of the Temple. Josephus does not record the practice, as mentioned in the Mishnah Bikkurim 2:4, requiring a peace-offering from the landowner, singing by the Levites, waving by the priest before the altar, and staying overnight in Jerusalem by the landowner.

For another briefer summary of marriage laws by Josephus see Apion 2.199-203. According to the third-century Rav Huna (Qiddushin 29b), one who is 20 and is not yet married spends all his days in sinful thoughts. I.e., legally capable of contracting a marriage. Greek πάρθενος. Normally, this is the translation for Hebrew ‮בתולה‬‎ (“virgin”), but sometimes it is the translation for ‮נערה‬‎ (young unmarried girl, neither divorced nor widowed). The preference for marrying virgins is derived from the law (Lev. 21:7) that applies to priests (Ant. 3.276). But that this is a preference and not a law is clear from the statement here that follows: “Let him who does not intend to marry a virgin.” Josephus’ prohibition against marrying slaves and prostitutes may derive from the rule in Lev. 21:7 for priests only (cf. Ant. 3.276). The principal goal of marriage, according to Josephus (Ant. 4.261, Apion 2.199), is to have legitimate and respectful children. The Law, moreover, recognizes no sexual connections except those of marriage (Apion 2.199). In particular, says Josephus (Apion 1.31), a priest “must, to beget a family, marry a woman of his own race, without regard to her wealth or other distinctions; but he must investigate her pedigree, obtaining the genealogy from the archives and producing a number of witnesses.” Priests (Apion 1.35), he adds, disallow marriage with any who have been taken captive, suspecting them of having had frequent intercourse with foreigners. Josephus himself (Life 427) says that he married a Cretan woman who came of very distinguished parents, indeed the most notable people in that country. Cf. Qiddushin 70a: “Rabbah bar Bar Ḥanah said: ‘He who takes a wife who is not fitting for him [i.e. of an unfit stock], the Writ stigmatizes him as though he had ploughed the whole world and sown it with salt, as it is said’” (Neh. 7:61). If a marriage is valid and there is no commission of a transgression, the child takes the status of the father, but if there is commission of a transgression, he takes the status of the inferior party (Mishnah Qiddushin 3:12). Ms. O2 reads λιποῦσαν, and the rendering would be “Nor let him marry one who has left her former husband.” Gallant (223) suggests the possibility that the case under discussion is that of a divorcee, and that although the Bible does not proscribe a divorcee Josephus is again thinking of the prohibition for priests to marry a divorcee (Lev. 21:7). The Latin translation reads: quam discedere suasit ab alio (“whom he persuaded to depart from another man”). Josephus omits a discussion of the vows made by women (Num. 30:4-17) and the means of annulling them. He likewise omits mention of the statement (Deut. 22:22) that if a man is found having relations with the wife of another man, both of them are to be put to death. Elsewhere (Apion 2.201) Josephus asserts that if a husband assaults a woman, whether she is a virgin betrothed to another or a married woman, he is to be put to death. So also Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 3.2.11), in very strong language, terms such a man the enemy of the whole human race. The Bible does not prohibit such a marriage. It does, however, state (Lev. 19:20-22) that if a man has relations with a slave who is betrothed to another man, he is to bring a guilt offering for himself. Josephus is probably thinking of the case (Deut. 21:10-17) where a man goes to war and desires a beautiful woman among the captives. Moses’ explanation of the prohibition of marrying a female slave—passion must be mastered by regard for decorum (τὸ εὐπρεπές)—is not found in the Bible (Lev. 21:7 and Deut. 22:22).

But cf. the mother of Jephthah (Judg. 11:1; Ant. 5.259). Only a priest is actually forbidden to marry a prostitute (Lev. 21:7; Ant. 3.276). Cf. Deut. 23:18: “You shall not bring the hire of a harlot, or the wages of a dog, into the house of the Lord your God, in payment for any vow; for both of these are an abomination to the Lord your God.” Cf. Ant. 4.206, where Josephus says that God takes no pleasure in that which proceeds from outrage and that no shame can be worse than the degradation of the body. Cf. Ant. 4.206. As Belkin (1940:236-37) notes, Scripture does not forbid a free man’s marrying a female slave or a harlot. The law of Deut. 23:18, “There shall be no cult prostitute of the daughters of Israel” was understood in Targum Onqelos (Deut. 23:18) as prohibiting a free man’s or a free woman’s marrying a slave. According to the Targum, the command “there shall not be any prostitute” is also a prohibition against marrying one. It includes, as well, denial of the right to marry a slave, for prostitution was apparently common among this class. See Pesaḥim 112b and Giṭṭin 13b; and Churgin (1927:17). Belkin (1940: 256-57) notes the parallel with Philo (De Josepho 9.43): “With us a courtesan is not even permitted to live, and death is the penalty appointed for women who ply this trade.” Nevertheless, Deut. 23:17-18, though speaking of prostitution as an abomination to God, does not assert that it is a capital crime. If it were, as Belkin notes, it would be hard to explain Philo’s statement (De Specialibus Legibus 1.19,102) that an Israelite is not to be prevented from marrying her. I.e., a passion for a slave. Josephus’ apologetic comments concerning effects on children of a shameful marriage are without parallel in the Pentateuch. Since the discussion here, as in Ant. 4.244, is of real freedom and slavery or slavish behavior, which would resonate with an aristocratic audience, it seems better to omit the interpretive (modern) “free-spirited.” According to Philo (Quod Deterius Potiori Insidiari Soleat 27.102; De Specialibus Legibus 2.20.113, 3.6.32) marital relations are solely for the purpose of procreation, Moses himself having set the example (De Vita Mosis 1.6.28).

Josephus speaks of betrothing (μνηστευσάμενος, “promise in marriage”), whereas the Hebrew text (Deut. 22:13) speaks of taking a wife. The Halakah, however, regards the betrothed woman as being, in effect, a wife (Deut. 22:23), bound to chastity. The implication is that if he entered into betrothal with her knowing that she was not a virgin, he has no case against her. As Belkin (1940:263; see Ketubot 46a) remarks, the rabbinic Halakah provides no penalty for the woman if her husband married her in the belief that she was a virgin and found out that she was not; such a case does not constitute misrepresentation justifying annulment of the marriage. Josephus omits that the accusation is to be brought before the elders of the city in the gate (Deut. 22:15). Cf. Deut. 22:13-14: “If any man takes a wife, and goes in to her, and then spurns her, and charges her with shameful conduct, and brings an evil name upon her, saying, ‘I took this woman, and when I came near her, I did not find in her the tokens of virginity.’” Josephus does not specify what evidence might be brought. Deut. 22:17 specifies that the garment containing the tokens of the young woman’s virginity is to be spread before the elders of the city. The Mishnah Ketubot 1:6 notes a dispute as to the credibility of the wife when the husband says that he did not find tokens of virginity and she claims that after he betrothed her she was raped and he says that it was before he betrothed her. Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Eliezer say that she is to be believed, and Rabbi Joshua ben Ḥananiah says that we do not depend upon her testimony. Similarly (Mishnah Ketubot 1:7), if she claims that she had lost her virginity through being injured by a piece of wood, and he claims that she had lost it through having sexual relations, Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Eliezer believe her, and Rabbi Joshua does not accept her testimony. In any case, however, the husband must bring two proofs for his charge. See Sifre Deut. 235 and Weyl (1900:89-90). According to the rabbis (Ketubot 46a), the young woman may be punished by death only if witnesses testify that she committed adultery after the betrothal, whereas according to Josephus the law deals with the case of a man’s betrothal to a woman whom he supposes to be a virgin but who he later claims was not. According to Deut. 22:15, it is the father and the mother of the young woman who undertake her defense and who bring the tokens of her virginity to the elders of the city in the gate. Gallant (226) suggests that Josephus’ addition of these other relatives may have been influenced by Lev. 25:48-49, where we read that a Jew who has sold himself into slavery may be redeemed by a brother, uncle, cousin, or other near-kinsman. Cf. Sifre Deut. 235.

The fact that Josephus refers to the woman here as κόρη (“girl,” “maiden”) and later (Ant. 4.248) as παιδίσκη (“young girl,” “maiden”), corresponding to the Hebrew ‮נערה‬‎ (Deut. 22:15 [bis], 16, 19, 20, 21), would indicate, at least according to the rabbis, that she is between the age of 12 and 12 and a half years old (Ketubot 39a). Deut 22:19 says that in such a case “she shall be his wife.” Sifre Deut. 238 explains “a wife fitting for him.” Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 3.14.82) says that if the woman’s contention prevails, in addition to the fact that the husband is fined and flogged, the marriage is confirmed, “if, that is, the women can bring themselves to consort with such persons.” There is no biblical basis for this right being given to the woman. This last clause is Josephus’ addition. Cf. Sifre Deut. 238.

Cf. Deut. 22:18: “Then the elders of that city shall take the man and whip him.” Josephus understands the word ‮ויסרו‬‎ (“punish,” LXX παιδεύουσιν [“educate,” “chastise”] to mean “whip,” as do the Targumim (ad loc.). The Bible does not specify here the number of lashes. On scourging see Deut. 25:3, which specifies 40; and on reducing the number from 40 to 39 see Ant. 4.238. The precise phrase “40 minus 1” is also found in the Mishnah Makkot 3:10. Cf. Ant. 4.238 and 2 Cor. 11:24. Deut. 22:19 states that the fine is 100 (pieces) of silver. The LXX says that this is 100 shekels. The Targumim and Ketubot 45b state that this is equivalent to 100 sela. A sela is equivalent to 1 sacred or 2 common shekels. The Mishnah (Bekorot 8:7) specifies that the fine in this case is to be in sacred shekels; hence the fine here is 100 shekels. On the coinage equivalencies see Weyl (1900:95-96 n.26). Gallant (226-27) suggests that Josephus may have been influenced by the fact that in the case of the violation of an unbetrothed virgin, the fine is specified as 50 shekels of silver. According to the second-century Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob (Ketubot 45b), the husband who brings an evil name upon his wife (Deut. 22:13-18) is flogged but pays the fine only where he brings the charge after he has had intercourse with his wife. Deut. 22:21 indicates a penalty of stoning by the men of her city if the woman is of non-priestly origin. Lev. 21:9 states that the daughter of a priest who plays the harlot is to be burned with fire. Sanhedrin 50b states that the daughter of a priest is burned only if her sin (i.e. adultery) was committed after the marriage, but the second-century Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai holds, as does Josephus here, that she is punished by burning if her sin was committed prior to marriage. Kohler (1931:74) suggests that Josephus’ source for his paraphrase of the laws was an older priestly document similar to the Zadokite (Damascus) Document originally discovered by Solomon Schechter (and later found also in the Qumran caves) and that Josephus’ legal material actually represents an older stage of Halakah, midway between Sadduceeism and Pharisaism. As evidence, he cites Josephus’ formulation here of the law that a bride of priestly parentage is burnt alive if it turns out that she is not a virgin when her husband had been led to believe that she was. Eleazar ben Zadoq mentions that he witnessed the burning of such a woman (Mishnah Sanhedrin 7:2; cf. Jubilees 20:4), and the rabbis (Sanhedrin 52b, Tosefta Sanhedrin 9:11) explain that it must have been a court that was not well versed or that it was a Sadducean bet din that imposed such a punishment. Josephus, however, has some very negative comments about the Sadducees (War 2.166; Ant. 18.17, 20.199). Falk (1972:158-59) suggests that changes occurred in the administration of the penalty of burning. See Aptowitzer (1940:71), Blinzler (1960:161), and Finkelstein (1940:2:733, 815).

Gallant (218-19) notes that the law concerning the birthright (Deut. 21:15-17; Ant. 4.249-50) is interposed between the case of the accusation of non-virginity (Deut. 22:13-21; Ant. 4.246-48) and the cases of violation of a betrothed woman (Deut. 22:23-27; Ant. 4.251-52) and the violation of an unbetrothed woman (Deut. 22:28-29; Ant. 4.253). He explains that the accusation of non-virginity concerns a husband’s unjust treatment of his wife, whereas the cases of the violation of a betrothed and an unbetrothed woman do not. On the contrary, the case of the birthright pertains to an unjust treatment of a less favored wife and thus is juxtaposed with the case of the husband’s unjust treatment of his wife. On the other hand, the designation “hated” for one of the wives may be a technical term indicating the repudiation of a wife, with the husband remaining monogamous and the first-born being the fruit of the first marriage; but Josephus apparently understands the case as one of bigamy, with the co-existence of the two wives. According to the fourth-century Rava, a man may marry as many wives as he wishes, provided only that he has the means to maintain them (Yebamot 65a), but polygamy was apparently relatively rare; and we find the ruling of the third-century Rabbi Ammi (ibid.) that whoever takes in addition to his present wife another one must divorce the former and pay her the amount of the marriage document. The fourth-century Rav Papa asks whether it is possible that before God one wife would be beloved and another hated, and he answers that “beloved” means beloved in her marriage, and “hated” means hated in her marriage (Qiddushin 68a). Deut. 21:15 does not cite reasons why one of the wives is held in special favor. In Deut. 21:15-16 it is not that the son of the wife who is disliked makes the claim but rather that the father who assigns his possessions favors the son of the wife who is liked. Deut. 21:17.

Josephus omits the biblical reason why the son of the less beloved wife gets a double portion, namely because he is the first issue of the father’s strength. The reason given by Josephus is his own addition. Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 2.25.137-39) gives 3 reasons why the son of the less favored mother receives a double portion, namely that it forces the father to give good treatment to the person to whom he intended to give the reverse, it shows mercy for the victim of injustice, and it makes up for the fact that the son of the favored wife even in his lifetime received more than an equal share.

Cf. Deut. 22:23-24: “If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones.” As Nodet (ad loc.) notes, Josephus here follows the Pentateuch in distinguishing 3 types of sexual infractions, corresponding to 3 juridical states of a woman— free (virgin, eventually widowed, or divorced), betrothed, or married (where the betrothal designates the forthcoming legal union). Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 3.12.72) says, however, that whereas some consider that the crime committed on the eve of marriage (betrothal) stands midway between the corruption of a maiden and adultery, he himself considers this a form of adultery. Josephus omits: if the man finds her in the city (Deut. 22:23). Josephus omits that she did not cry out, being in the city (Deut. 22:24). Josephus omits, both here and in his summary in Apion 2.201, that they are both led out to the gate of the city and stoned (Deut. 22:24). Sanhedrin 41a states, in the name of the second-century Rabbi Judah the Prince, that the meaning of the text’s phrase “by reason of the word” (i.e., because [she did not cry for help], Deut. 22:24) is that a warning to the man who humbled the woman is necessary in the case of stoning. The editorial statement that the man’s sin is that he had persuaded the woman to undergo the greatest disgrace willingly and to value this more highly than honorable marriage is Josephus’ addition. The reason given in Deut. 22:24 is that the man violated his neighbor’s wife. The reason why she is guilty, according to Deut. 22:24, is that she did not cry for help, though she was in the city. Josephus’ reason is his own addition. As Nodet (ad loc.) notes, the prostitution suggested here is distinct from the case of Ant. 4.206 and 245. Levine (1993:76) notes that Josephus adds to the biblical account a reason for the death penalty against the maiden: she was persuaded to commit the outrage (ὕβρις) either for pleasure or for profit. He remarks that the Bible and the LXX describe the crime with verbs that show the man’s action against the girl, whereas Josephus uses the noun ὕβρις, thus emphasizing her outrageous behavior. Levine (1993:77-78) further notes that whereas the Deuteronomic laws on unlawful sexual relations use the words πονηρός (“wicked”) and ἁμάρτημα (“sin”) in the LXX (Deut. 22:24, 25), Josephus prefers ὕβρις here and in Ant. 4.252. In this choice he might be following the tradition attested in Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 1.51.281): as a harlot’s hire cannot be brought into the Temple, so the soul’s whoredom is ὕβρις. No doubt Josephus is trying to make sense to his Roman readers also, using familiar categories. Levine (1993:76) remarks that the LXX of Deut. 22:24, 29 translates the Hebrew ‮ענה‬‎ (“to humble, maltreat”) with the verb ταπεινόω, “to cast down, make humble,” with the girl as their object. The description of the act as ὕβρις is in accord with the classical Greek formulation of ὕβρις as including sexual offenses. See Dover (1989:35-36). On Josephus’ misogyny see Feldman (1986:115-28) and Brown (1992).

Deut. 22:25: “in the field.” Neither Deut. 22:25 nor Josephus indicates the manner by which the death penalty is imposed. Josephus omits the explanation in Deut. 22:26: “In the young woman there is no offense punishable by death, for this case is like that of a man attacking and murdering his neighbor.” Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 3.11.64) introduces a special case and leaves the penalty to be determined by the court: “If anyone dishonors by violence a woman widowed by the death of her husband or through any other form of separation, the crime he commits is less serious than in adultery, of which it may be said to be the half. The penalty of death should not be enforced in this case: but since he has accepted as highly honorable such vile things as violence, outrage, incontinence, and effrontery, he must be indicted and the court must determine for him the penalty he should suffer or the compensation he should pay.” According to the Mishnah Sanhedrin 8:7, one who pursues a betrothed girl is to be saved from doing evil even if it means killing the pursuer. Cf. Exod. 22:15: “If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the marriage present for her and make her his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equivalent to the marriage present for virgins.” Cf. Deut. 22:28-29: “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman 50 shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her; he may not put her away all his days.” The case in Exodus is one of seduction, whereas that in Deuteronomy is clearly one of rape, since the man seizes the woman, but it is not clear whether the case in Josephus is one of rape or seduction, since the verb φθείρας, which Josephus uses can have either meaning. Weyl (1900:111-12) presents the arguments for each of these meanings in this passage. In favor of regarding this as a case of rape is the fact that the sentence immediately before this is definitely one of rape and the fact that the monetary penalty of 50 shekels that we find in Josephus is that which is imposed in the case of rape in Deuteronomy. In favor of regarding this as a case of seduction is the fact that Josephus, like the seduction account in Exodus, mentions the case where the father refuses to give the daughter to the seducer and is paid an unspecified sum, and, above all, the fact that in Ant. 4.248 and 251 it is clear that the word φθείρω means to seduce. Belkin (1936-37:15) notes the difference between this law, which deals with one who seduced or raped a virgin, and the law in Apion 2.215, which deals with the rape of a betrothed virgin (Deut. 22:23), in which case both of them are sentenced to death. The latter, he suggests, is an additional piece of legislation of the Alexandrian courts, whereas the former is merely a repetition of the biblical law. Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 3.11.71), in an additional statement, which has no biblical basis, asserts that if she has no father, she must be asked by the judges whether she wishes to marry the man who has violated her. Whether she agrees or declines, the terms agreed upon must be the same as those that would have obtained if her father were alive. The Mishnah Ketubot 3:5 notes that if she is not fit to enter into the Israelite congregation, he is not permitted to marry her. The Talmud (Ketubot 39b), but not Josephus, adds that the repetition of the word “refuse” (‮מאן ימאן‬‎) in Exod. 22:16 indicates that not only the father but also the girl who has been violated may refuse the marriage. Cf. Deut. 22:29: 50 [pieces of] silver (Hebrew), LXX 50 didrachmas, Josephus 50 σίκλους (shekels). To judge from Ant. 4.248 (Deut. 22:19), 50 pieces of silver should be equal to 50 shekels, namely shekels of the sanctuary (see Mishnah Bekorot 8:7). According to the Mishnah Ketubot 3:4, the one who seduces a girl pays for the shame and damage, as well as the fine, whereas the one who rapes a girl must also pay for the pain that he has inflicted. Moreover, the one who rapes a girl pays the penalty immediately, but the one who seduces her pays the penalties when he dismisses her (i.e., does not marry her). On the other hand, the one who rapes her must be willing to marry his victim, whatever her merits or deficiencies. Both Josephus here and Ketubot 39b state that the one who violates the maiden pays the fine only if he does not marry her, whereas, according to Deut. 22:29, it would appear that he pays the fine whether or not he marries her. Levine (1993:77) comments that Josephus adds that the culprit is given a choice of marrying the girl or paying for the damage; so also in Ant. 4:280 Josephus gives the one whose eye has been lost the choice of either an eye for an eye or a money payment. Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 3.7.39, 3.11.64, 3.13.78) says that the man who unlawfully lies with a girl commits ὕβρις (3.13.76). According to Deut. 22:29, the culprit must pay 50 shekels to the father, must marry the girl, and is not permitted to divorce her. According to Josephus’ phraseology (“let him marry her”), the Mishnah Ketubot 3:4, and the Gemara (Ketubot 40a), the seducer is not required to marry the girl. See Weyl (1900: 114 n. 12). Moreover, Josephus omits the comparison of this case with that of a man attacking and murdering his neighbor (Deut. 22:26). In Apion 2.215, Josephus says that the penalty for violating an unmarried girl is death; but he must be there referring to the case of a woman who has been betrothed.

Josephus substitutes “for whatever reason” for Deut. 24:1’s “some indecency” and is thus in accord with the view of Hillel (Mishnah Giṭṭin 9:10) that one may divorce one’s wife “even if she spoiled his dish.” Rabbi Aqiva adds that he may divorce his wife even if he found someone more beautiful than her (i.e., for any reason whatsoever), as opposed to the view of Shammai (ibid.), that the only ground for divorce is unchastity. One of the reasons for seeking a divorce might be infidelity; Josephus does not treat of it here because he has already done so in his discussion of the ordeal of the bitter waters in Ant. 3.270-73. This explanation is Josephus’ addition. Perhaps he is thinking of his own case. He tells us (Life 414) that at Vespasian’s command he married a woman who had been taken captive at Caesarea but that she left him (there is no mention that he divorced her). He then married a woman in Alexandria (Life 415), whom he divorced, “being displeased at her behavior” (Life 426). Cf. Matt. 19:3-9: “And Pharisees came up to him [Jesus] and tested him by asking, ‘Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?’ He said to them, ‘For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery.’” The statement that the husband must confirm, in writing the bill of divorce, that he will never cohabit with her is Josephus’ addition. The text of the writ of divorce, as noted in the Mishnah Giṭṭin 9:3, is: “Lo, you are permitted to any man.” Josephus’ formulation, viewing the divorce from the point of view of the husband, that he will not have relations with her, is expressly invalid, according to Qiddushin 5b: “If he gives her [the bill of divorce] and declares, ‘Behold, you are sent forth,’ ‘Behold, you are divorced,’ or ‘Thou art [henceforth] permitted to any man,’ then she is divorced. [But if he declares,] ‘I am not your husband,’ ‘I am not your master,’ ‘I am not your betrothed,’ there are no grounds for fear [i.e., the divorce is definitely invalid].” The one deed of divorce that has come down to us on papyrus, dating from 13 B.C.E. (BGU 1102= CPJ 2.144), is not in accordance with the prescription in the Mishnah: although it states that the wife is permitted to marry another man, it adds that the husband is permitted to marry another woman and violates the biblical prescription that it is the husband who writes the bill of divorce (Deut. 24:1), since it states that the husband and wife “agree” that the marriage-agreement is void. The phrase “before that, it ought not to be allowed” is Josephus’ addition. Deut. 24:3 speaks of the case where the second husband “dislikes her” and divorces her. In mentioning her claims Josephus seems to indicate that these, too, may be a factor in initiating the divorce. Josephus omits the statement (Deut. 24:4) that for the husband to remarry his first wife after she has remarried is an abomination before the Lord, since she has been defiled. He also omits the statement (ibid.) that if he were to remarry her he would bring guilt “upon the land that the Lord your God gives you for an inheritance.” Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 3.5.30-31) has an unusually strong statement explaining the reason for this prohibition, which seems to imply that the woman is to be blamed for the divorce: “Another commandment is that if a woman after parting from her husband for any cause whatever marries another and then again becomes a widow, whether this second husband is alive or dead, she must not return to her first husband but ally herself with any other rather than him, because she has broken with the rules that bound her in the past and cast them into oblivion when she chose new love-ties in preference to the old. And if a man is willing to contract himself with such a woman, he must be saddled with a character for degeneracy and loss of manhood. He has eliminated from his soul the hatred of evil, that emotion by which our life is so well served and the affairs of houses and cities are conducted as they should be, and has lightly taken upon him the stamp of two heinous crimes, adultery and pandering. For such subsequent reconciliations are proof of both. The proper punishment for him is death and for the woman also.”

Deut. 25:5: “If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead shall not be married outside the family to a stranger; her husband’s brother shall go in to her, and take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her.” Falk (1972:319) notes that in cases where a man was survived by a daughter or by a grandson or granddaughter, there would appear to be a doubt whether the widow was considered exempt from levirate marriage, since Deut. 25:5 requires it only if there is no son. The LXX, Josephus, and the rabbis interpreted the biblical passage as though the term “seed” (the LXX, indeed, uses the word σπέρμα) was used (Baba Batra 109a, Sifre Deuteronomy 289), and thus there was no need for levirate marriage in such cases. So also Matt. 22:25 speaks of “children” rather than “sons”: “Now there were seven brothers among us; the first married, and died, and having no children left his wife to his brother.” If one has relations with his deceased brother’s wife, even if he or she does so inadvertently, she is regarded as his wife (Mishnah Yebamot 6:1). Levirate marriage is prohibited, moreover, if it would violate one of the provisions of prohibited marriages listed in Lev. 18:6-18 (Mishnah Yebamot 1:1). Moreover, levirate marriage and ḥaliẓah are not required in the case of a woman incapable of procreation (Yebamot 12a). Deut. 25:6: “The first son whom she bears shall succeed to the name of his brother who is dead, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel.” The statement that she is actually to call the child by the name of her deceased husband is Josephus’ addition. According to Josephus, the child born of a levirate marriage is the heir of the estate, but the rabbis (Mishnah Yebamot 4:7) declare that the levir himself is the heir. According to the second-century Rabbi Judah bar Ilai (Tosefta Yebamot 6:3), the father and the other brothers inherit normally. This reason for the commandment of levirate marriage is Josephus’ addition. As Altshuler (1977:133) notes, the biblical passage does not here allude to the importance of property inheritances or support for childless widows. Belkin (1969-70:304) remarks that in taking into consideration not only the welfare of the widow but also the solidarity of the family Josephus is akin to the rabbinic approach that sought to make the levirate more than a property arrangement; it was to have a religious aspect stressing the social welfare of the widow and family solidarity. Belkin (1940:251) remarks that Philo does not mention the law of levirate marriage at all, and he concludes that if such marriages were practiced in his time he would have mentioned it. Nodet (ad loc.) suggests that this omission may be due to the prohibition of marrying one’s brother’s wife (Lev. 18:16). Nevertheless, that Philo was aware of the law, Belkin says (1940:251 n.106), is clear from his statement that Tamar married two brothers, the second by the law of ἐπιδικασία (i.e. process at law to obtain an inheritance) in case the first left no family (De Virtutibus 40.222).

According to the Mishnah Bekorot 1:7 and Yebamot 39b, when the objective of the surviving brother-in-law was the fulfillment of the commandment, the precept of levirate marriage was preferable to that of ḥaliẓah; but by the Talmudic period, when it turned out that usually the objective was not the fulfillment of the commandment but rather the gratification of sexual desires or other ulterior motives, the precept of ḥaliẓah came to be regarded as preferable to that of the levirate marriage (Yebamot 109a). But, in any case, no coercion was permitted to be used. Clearly, Josephus prefers levirate marriage to ḥaliẓah. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (on Deut. 25:7) says that the tribunal should consist of 3 judges and 2 witnesses. Or “family.” Deut. 25:7: “If the man does not wish to take his brother’s wife, then his brother’s wife shall go up to the gate to the elders, and say, ‘My husband’s brother refuses to perpetuate his brother’s name in Israel; he will not perform the duty of a husband’s brother to me.’” The statement that the refusal to marry the widowed sister-in-law is an insult to the memory of his brother is Josephus’ addition. The request made by the council of elders as to the reason why the brother-in-law does not wish to marry his widowed sister-in-law is Josephus’ addition. According to Yebamot 101b, the council members give the brother-in-law suitable advice. If he was young and the sister-in-law was old, or vice versa, they try to deter him from marrying his sister-in-law because of the discrepancy in age, since this would bring quarrels into the house.

Altshuler (1977:133) notes that Josephus speaks of loosening sandals, though Deut. 25:9 says ‮נעלו‬‎, which is singular. The LXX specifically reads ὑπόδημα...ἕν, i.e., “one shoe.” Josephus’ word, ὑπολύσασα, as also his word ὑπολῦσαι (Ant. 5.335) in connection with Ruth’s action, could refer to pulling off a shoe or shoes. According to the Mishnah Yebamot 12:1, the shoe is to be a slipper or a sandal with a heel with straps fastened below the knee. In the Mishnah Yebamot 12:3 there is a dispute about whether if the woman did not recite the prescribed formula or did not spit, her act (‮חליצה‬‎) is valid; a view is presented (Yebamot 105a) that if she recited the formula but did not spit and did not draw off the shoe, ‮חליצה‬‎ did not take place and even levirate marriage is permitted. Josephus omits the statement (Deut. 25:9) that this must be done in the presence of the elders. Josephus understands the ambiguous Hebrew ‮בפניו‬‎ (Deut. 25:9, “before him,” “in his face” ) to mean “in his face,” as do the LXX (κατὰ πρόσωπον) and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Targum Neofiti, a view also found in the pseudepigraphic Testament of Zebulun 4 and maintained by the Sadducees-Boethusians in Megillat Ta‘anit 4 (in HUCA 8-9 [1931-32:331, line 11, ed. H. Lichtenstein]), whereas the rabbinic tradition (Sifre Deut. 211 [ed. Finkelstein, p. 245] and Yebamot 39b) understands it to mean spitting on the ground before the brother-in-law. According to the Mishnah Yebamot 12:6, the declaration must be made in Hebrew. Levine (1993:79) notes that the reason for the procedure—that the deceased husband not suffer ὕβρις at the hands of his own family—is Josephus’ addition. According to the view of Rabbi Judah in the Mishnah Yebamot 12:6, all those who witness this ceremony are to say three times at its conclusion, “The man whose shoe has been removed!” Cf. Deut. 25:10: “And the name of his house shall be called in Israel, The house of him that had his sandal pulled off.” The Bible says nothing about the discharge of the brother-in-law or what happens to the widow. That the levir is to bear this reproach throughout his life and that his widowed sister-in-law is free to marry whomever she wishes are Josephus’ addition. As Gallant (233) notes, Josephus’ addition connects this statement with preceding divorce law (Ant. 4.253) and the subsequent prisoner laws (Ant. 4.257-59), in both of which cases Josephus closes with remarks about the final status of the person in question. In particular, he notes that the same word (ἀπίτω, Ant. 4.256, 259) is used for the departure of the brother-in-law and that of the prisoner.

As Nodet (ad loc.) notes, it is not clear from Josephus whether the man is married or not, but Philo (De Virtutibus 22.115) assumes that he is not. Josephus does not distinguish, as does the Mishnah Soṭah 8:7, between an optional war and an obligatory war. Deut. 21:11 says only “a beautiful woman.” Josephus’ statement that he may take a woman who has previously been married is paralleled by the rabbinic tradition (Sifre Deut. 211 [ed. Finkelstein, p. 245], Qiddushin 21b). The Jerusalem Talmud (Makkot 1.7 [ed. Krotoschin, p. 31d]) cites a tradition authorizing an immediate first union to satisfy his lust, based upon translating Deut. 21:11-12 “[if] you would take her for yourself as wife [so also the LXX], then you shall bring her home to your house,” where “take” is one of the modes of acquisition of a woman as a wife. Josephus clearly opposes this interpretation, since he speaks here of the goal of having children; they must be legitimate. Josephus omits that the captive is to pare (lit., “do”) her nails and that she is to take off her captive’s garb (Deut. 21:12-13). With regard to the woman’s nails, there is a rabbinic dispute in Yebamot 48a: Rabbi Eliezer says that “she shall cut them,” whereas Rabbi Akiva says that “she shall let them grow.” Nodet (ad loc.) suggests that Josephus omits the paring of the nails, since he does not apparently regard this as a sign of mourning. Josephus omits that the woman is to bewail her father and her mother (Deut. 21:13). He substitutes for this the lament for kinsmen and friends who have perished in battle. According to Rabbi Aqiva in Yebamot 48b, when the Bible says that she shall bewail her father and mother, the meaning is that she shall bewail her idolatry.

The reason here given is Josephus’ addition. In Deut. 21:13 there is no mention of child-bearing, a point that connects this law with the preceding discussion of levirate marriage (Ant. 4.255), the object of which is to bear children to perpetuate the memory of the deceased brother. Philo (De Virtutibus 22.112) also mentions birth of children as a goal of the relationship. As noted by Nodet (ad loc.), for those who permit immediate first relations between the man and his captive, there must be a waiting period of 3 months before their second relations in order to establish with certitude the legitimacy of the first child to be born, since a child born from the first union is neither a legitimate child nor a bastard but a proselyte requiring baptism. This explanation is Josephus’ addition. According to Josephus, the marriage is without her explicit consent. Cf. Philo (De Virtutibus 22.110): “In a gentler spirit pity her for her change of lot and alleviate her misfortunes by changing her condition for the better in every way.” Philo then proceeds to demonstrate how each of the regulations in this matter is admirable (De Virtutibus 22.113-15).

Since Deut. 21:13 says “a full month after that,” Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar concludes that “month” means 30 days, “full” means 30 days, and “after that” means 30 days, making a total of 90 days. According to Yebamot 48b, the man presses the captive for 12 months to convert; if she refuses, she must at least renounce her idolatry and accept the 7 Noachian commandments. If he refuses to marry her he must set her free. This passage is part of the basis (so also the length of mourning for Aaron and Moses [Num. 20:29, Deut. 34:8]) of the requirement to the present day that the length of mourning, strictly speaking, is 30 days. This explanation is Josephus’ addition. It is not clear whether this is after the immediate first union or after a formal marriage. According to Sifre Deut. 214 (ed. Finkelstein, p. 247), this is the inevitable result, as we see from the verse (Deut. 21:15) which follows immediately: “If a man have two wives, the one loved, and the other disliked....” Josephus omits the prohibition to sell her for money (Deut. 21:14) and the reason, namely because he has humiliated her. Cf. Philo (De Virtutibus 22.115): “It [the law] bids him not sell her, nor yet keep her as a slave, but grant her freedom, and grant her, too, the right to depart in security from the house, lest if another wife comes in to supersede her, and quarrels ensue as they often do, this jealousy, with the master too under the sway of the charms of a new love and neglectful of the old, may bring her some fatal disaster.”

The Mishnah Sanhedrin 8:1 declares that since Deut. 21:18 speaks of a son, this excludes a daughter, whereas Josephus clearly does not make such an exclusion. Indeed, the Talmud (Sanhedrin 69b-70a) itself quotes Rabbi Simeon as saying that logically a daughter should come within the scope of a stubborn and rebellious child, since many frequent her in sin, but that it is a divine decree: “a son but not a daughter.” The Mishnah Sanhedrin 8:1 states that the child becomes liable to be declared a rebellious son from the point at which he produces two pubic hairs until the [pubic] “beard” is full. This is a period of only 3 months, according to Rabbi Keruspedai (Sanhedrin 69a). Cf. Deut. 21:18-21: “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son, who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they chastise him, will not give heed to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones; so you shall purge the evil from your midst; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.” Cf. Apion 2.206: “Honor to parents the Law ranks second only to honor to our God; and if a son does not respond to the benefits received from them— for the slightest failure in his duty towards them—it hands him over to be stoned.” Sanhedrin 107a notes the significance of the fact that immediately after the section permitting a beautiful woman who has been captured in battle (Deut. 21:10-14) comes the pericope concerning the man who has two wives, one loved and one disliked (Deut. 21:15-17), and the pericope concerning the rebellious son (Deut. 21:18-21). This teaches, says the Talmud here, that whoever marries a beautiful woman taken in battle will have a stubborn and rebellious son. Because the biblical verse (Deut. 21:18) states that the son does not obey the voice of his father and the voice of his mother, the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 8:4) asserts that he is not declared a stubborn and rebellion son until both of them want to bring him to judgment. The second-century Rabbi Judah (Mishnah Sanhedrin 8:4) adds: “If his mother was unworthy of his father, he is not declared to be a rebellious and incorrigible son.” Moreover (ibid.) he is not declared such if one of them was maimed in the hand, lame, dumb, blind, or deaf, since the text says (Deut. 21:19-20): “Then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city ... and they shall say..., ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice.’” Moreover, he is not declared a rebellious son until he eats something of his father’s (according to the second-century Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Judah, belonging to his father and his mother) and eats it in the domain of others (Mishnah Sanhedrin 8:3). Gallant (238-39) points out a connection between the parents’ verbal admonition and the preceding laws of levirate marriage and captive marriage, the purpose of which is to produce children. In the case of the rebellious son, whereas parents raise children so that they may care for them in their old age, this child subverts the procreative aspect of marriage. For an extensive comparison of Josephus’ view with that of the rabbis concerning the law of the rebellious son, see Weyl (1900:39-49) and Goldenberg (36-55). Cf. in the 10 Commandments (Exod. 20:12, Deut. 5:16): “Honor your father and your mother.” As Goldenberg (43-44) remarks, Josephus has combined two distinct sources, the law of honoring parents and the law of the rebellious son. The son is described in the Hebrew as ‮בן סורר ומורה‬‎ (“stubborn and rebellious son,” Deut. 21:18) and in the LXX as υἱὸς ἀπειθὴς καί ἐρεθιστής (“a disobedient and contentious son”). Goldenberg (41-42) notes that the word ‮סורר‬‎ (“stubborn”) is explained in the Sifre Deut. 218 as ‮תורמין‬‎, which he suggests may be a form of the Greek word θέρμω, “to heat,” “to make hot,” i.e., the father makes the son hot, blushing with shame, as Thackeray (ad loc.) remarks, smarting under some disgrace; or perhaps the son is flushed with the effects of wine (since the son is viewed as a drunkard [Deut. 21:20]). Goldenberg (39) notes a parallel to a child’s shame in the second-century Rabbi Nahorai’s statement that in the generation when the Messiah will come the world will be topsy-turvy: “Young men will insult the old.... The people shall be dog-faced, and a son will not be abashed in his father’s presence.” This decline of the ages, with children rebelling against parents, is the familiar theme of Hesiod’s Iron Age in his Theogonia, as well as in pseudepigraphic and wisdom literature generally, and in the Gospels (Matt. 13:12). Cf. Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 2.41.232: “Fathers have the right to upbraid their children and admonish them severely, and, if they do not submit to threats conveyed in words, to beat and degrade them and put them in bonds. And further if in the face of this they continue to rebel, and carried away by their incorrigible depravity refuse the yoke, the law permits the parents to extend the punishment to death, though here it requires more than the father alone or the mother alone.” This reason for the son’s rebelliousness, ἀσυνεσίαν (“stupidity”), is Josephus’ addition. This is Enthoven’s emendation, based on the word insipientiam used in the Latin translation ascribed to the school of Cassiodorus. The manuscript R reads ἀσύνεσιν, a word presumably meaning “want of understanding,” but which is nowhere to be found in extant Greek literature. The other manuscripts read σύνεσιν, “intelligence,” “sagacity,” which makes no sense here in describing the rebellious son. Goldenberg (41) notes a parallel in Sifre Deut. 218, which interprets biblical ‮מורה‬‎ (rebellious) as ‮שׁוטה‬‎ (witless), i.e. ἀσύνετος. Deut. 21:18: “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son, who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother.” Levine (1993:75-76) notes that whereas the LXX describes the child as disobedient and rebellious, Josephus says that such children commit ὕβρις (ἐξυβρίζοντες) against his parents. He suggests that by adding ὕβρις to the list of crimes, Josephus makes more explicable this law (cf. the Roman right of pater familias)—which might seem cruel to his Hellenic readers—by using a concept that makes the punishment appear more acceptable. He notes that Philo also uses ὕβρις, ὑβρίζω, and ὑβριστής when discussing respect for parents in the context of the biblical death penalty injunction (De Specialibus Legibus 2.44.245, 2.46.254). Deut. 21:18 says that the parents chastise (‮ויסרו‬‎, LXX παιδεύωσιν, “educate”) the rebellious son; Josephus adds here that they are to do so orally. The Talmud (Sanhedrin 71b) understands ‮ויסרו‬‎ as indicating that lashes are imposed upon the son. According to the Mishnah Sanhedrin 8:5, the rebellious son is tried not on account of what he has done but what he may end up to be, since it is better that he die while yet innocent. The comparison of parents to judges is Josephus’ addition. However, Josephus mentions no trial by court, such as we find in Deut. 21:19-20. Note that Herod (Ant. 16.365), in accusing his sons before a council of Roman officials, asserted that “both by nature and by Caesar’s grant he himself had authority to act; but he added that there was also a law in his country that provided that if a man’s parents, after accusing him, placed their hands on his head, the bystanders were bound to stone him and to kill him in this way.” That the parents’ decision superseded that of the court is clear from Sanhedrin 88a-b, namely that if the father and mother wished to pardon a stubborn and rebellious son, they had the authority to do so. Consequently, Goldenberg (51-52) concludes that the law of the rebellious son in Josephus’ time was practiced to the extent of parental admonition and execution without recourse to the courts. Cf. the analysis by Goldenberg (53) of Mark 7:9-13, where Jesus contrasts the severe biblical law, which demands death for one who curses his parents, with the alleged Pharisaic leniency in disregard of this law. Cf. Apion 2.206: “For the slightest failure in his duty towards them [i.e. his parents].” Goodenough (1929:69 ff.) and Heinemann (1932:251) note the parallel with the Roman patria potestas in the XII Tab. of Roman law (Tab. 4.2: “The father shall, during his whole life, have absolute power over his legitimate children” (but see Goldenberg [21]). “He may imprison the son or scourge him, or keep him working in the fields in chains, or put him to death, even if the son held the highest offices of the State and were celebrated for his public services. He may also sell the son.” Cf. Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Ant. Rom. 2.26-27): “Romulus granted to the Roman father absolute power over his son, and this power was valid until the father’s death, whether he decided to imprison him, or whip him, to put him in chains and make him work on a farm, or even to kill him. Romulus even allowed the Roman father to sell his son into slavery.” Cf. Seneca (Ben. 3.38.2): “Even the power of rhetoric and the subtlety of the mind cannot fully express how great an achievement it is, how praiseworthy, and how eternally memorable, to be able to say: ‘I obeyed my parents; I deferred to their authority, whether it was fair or unfair or even harsh; I showed myself compliant and submissive. In only one respect was I unyielding: in refusing to let them do me more kindnesses than I did them.’” Altshuler (1977:136) suggests that Josephus’ extended statement of the oral admonishment that parents ought to address to their disobedient children may have been prompted by the biblical reference to the “voice” of the parents but that its purpose is to soften the extremely strict Scriptural law. Moreover, Deuteronomy prescribes explicitly only what the parents say to the elders.

Cf. Apion 2.199: “The Law recognizes no sexual connections, except the natural union of man and wife, and that only for the procreation of children.” Goldenberg (44) notes parallels in rabbinic literature, such as Tosefta Qiddushin 1:11: “The obligations of a son to a father are to provide him food and drink, to dress him and cover him, to lead him in and out, to wash his face, hands, and feet.” He also notes Sir. 3:12-13: “My child, help your father in his old age, and do not grieve him as long as he lives; even if his mind fails, be patient with him; because you have all your faculties do not despise him.” Lit., “lifted up.” This, as Nodet (ad loc.) notes, is a term borrowed from the Roman custom of the gesture of father’s recognition of the child at birth, indicating his intention to raise him. Josephus (Apion 2.202) notes that the Law, presumably in contrast to the Roman practice, orders all offspring to be brought up. Hecataeus of Abdera (ap. Diod. 40.3.8) remarks that Moses required those who dwelt in the land to rear their children, and that since offspring could be cared for at little cost, the Jews from the start were a populous nation. Tacitus (Hist. 5.5.3) notes that the Jews regard it as a crime to kill any child born after the father has made his will. Cf. Apion 2.206: “Honor to parents the Law ranks second only to honor to God; and if a son does not respond to the benefits received from them—for the slightest failure in his duty towards them—it hands him over to be stoned.” Cf. Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 2.42.234): “With all these facts before them, they do not do anything deserving of praise who honor their parents, since any one of the considerations mentioned is in itself quite a sufficient call to show reverence. And, on the contrary, they deserve blame and obloquy and extreme punishment who do not respect them as seniors nor listen to them as instructors nor feel the duty of requiting them as benefactors.” See further Philo (De Decalogo 23.111): “Let them [children who disregard parents] not then fail to understand that in the two courts, the only courts that nature has, they stand convicted: in the divine court, of impiety because they do not show due respect to those who brought them forth from non-existence to existence and in this were imitators of God; in the human court, of inhumanity.” Philo then (De Decalogo 23.114-17) cites dogs and storks as examples of creatures that show regard for parents in repaying the debt for their upbringing. This entire paragraph and the 2 that follow are Josephus’ addition. Altshuler (1977:52, 136) asserts that Josephus, for apologetic motives, adopts a softer tone in the law of the rebellious son when that law might appear overly harsh to non-Jews. Goldenberg (221), however, notes that whereas the Bible (Deut. 21:18) does not include daughters in this law, Josephus (Ant. 4.263) does. Moreover, he notes that in Apion 2.216-17, which is certainly an apologetic work, the law, which states that mere intention of wronging one’s parents is grounds for the death penalty, is stricter than in Ant. 4.264, where the death penalty is inflicted only after repeated actual misdeeds by the child. Cf. the absolute power of a father over a son, according to Roman law, to imprison, whip, or kill him, or to sell him into slavery (Dion. Hal., Ant. Rom. 2.26-27). Cf. Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 2.41.233), who, in justifying the absolute power that parents have over their children, declares: “For parents pay out a sum many times the value of a slave on their children and for them to nurses, tutors, and teachers, apart from the cost of their clothes, food, and superintendence in sickness and health from their earliest years until they are fully grown.”

Gallant (239) notes the very effective use of assonance: although the youth (νέων) did not accord honor to his parents, the law must accord (νέμειν) indulgence to the sins of his youth (νέων). Deut. 21:20: The parents say to the elders of the city: “This our son...is a glutton and a drunkard.” Cf. Philo (De Ebrietate 4.4.14-15: “This our son is disobedient and contentious,...he is a riotous liver (συμβολοκοπῶν, lit., “given to feasting”) and a wine-bibber (οἰνοφλυγεῖ)....We see then that the accusations are four in number, disobedience, contentiousness, participation in riotous feasting, and drunkenness. For when the soul has begun to cast off the reins and taken its onward course through strife and dissension, it reaches its utmost limit in drunkenness, which produces frenzy and madness.” According to the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 8:2), the son becomes liable as a glutton when he eats a ‮תרטימר‬‎ (about 19 ounces) of meat and as a drunkard when he drinks half a ‮לוג‬‎ (about 225 cubic centimeters) of Italian wine. For the parallel between parents and God cf. Apion 2.206: “It [the Law] requires respect to be paid by the young to all their elders, because God is the most Ancient of all.” Another passage in Josephus noting this parallel is Apion 2.217: “The mere intention of doing wrong to one’s parents or of impiety against God is followed by instant death.” Goldenberg (46) notes a similar parallel in Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael Baḥodesh 8 (ed. Horovitz, pp. 231-32): “He [God] regards the honor and respect for them [parents] as equal to the honor and respect for Himself, and reviling of them as reviling of Him. He also (46) cites, as a similar case of the parallel between parents and God, Qiddushin 31a: “When a man vexes his father and his mother, the Holy One, blessed be He, says, ‘I did right in not dwelling among them, for had I dwelt among them, they would have vexed Me.’” He notes that this parallel is based on the view (Niddah 31a) that there are 3 partners in the creation of a child—father, mother, and God. See also Goldenberg (187 n. 1).

Since the biblical text (Deut. 21:18) speaks of a son, the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 8:1) states that the law applies only to a son, not to a daughter. Goldenberg (47) suggests that Josephus may have been led to include daughters as well as sons by the fact that in the 10 Commandments the commandment (Exod. 20:12, Deut. 5:16) to honor father and mother applies to daughters as well as sons (so Tosefta Qiddushin 1:11). That Josephus combined the law of the rebellious son and that of honoring one’s parents may be seen, Goldenberg (47) notes, in Apion 2.206, where the penalty for dishonoring parents is stoning, which is actually the penalty inflicted on the rebellious son (Deut. 21:21). He notes that Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 2.41.232) also combines the two laws.

This equation of sobriety (σωφρονεῖν) with obedience is Josephus’ editorial comment (cf. Deut. 21:18-21). The basis of this remark, presumably, is Deut. 21:20, where the rebellious son is spoken of as a glutton and drunkard. Cf. Ant. 4.319. Josephus omits the statement (Deut. 21:19-20) that the father and mother of the son are to bring him to the elders of the city at the gate of the place where he lives and that they are to say to the elders: “This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.” Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 2.41.232) also gives full rights to the parents to punish their children, without mention of their bringing them to the elders of the city: “Fathers have the right to upraid their children and admonish them severely, and, if they do not submit to threats conveyed in words, to beat and degrade them and put them in bonds. And further, if in the face of this they continue to rebel, and carried away by their incorrigible depravity refuse the yoke, the law permits the parents to extend the punishment to death.” There is a debate in the Talmud (Makkot 10b) between Rabbi Ammi and Rabbi Assi at the end of the third century as to whether a person could legally be charged as a stubborn and rebellious son in a city which has no elders. Furthermore, according to Sanhedrin 89a, a public announcement must be made by a court in the case of the stubborn and rebellious son. Moreover, according to the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 8:2-3), he is not declared a stubborn and rebellious son unless he eats meat and drinks wine and unless he stole something. Since the biblical text (Deut. 21:20) states that the father and mother will lay hold of him, they (Mishnah Sanhedrin 8:4) must not be maimed in their hands; since it states that they bring him out, they must not be lame; since it states that they shall say, they must not be dumb; since it states that they assert that “this is our son,” they must not be blind; since they say that he will not obey their voice, they must not be deaf. Moreover, they must warn him (ibid.) before 3 judges and flog him; and if he misbehaves again, he is to be judged before 23 judges, according to the general norm of criminal procedures. The effect of these qualifications would be to make the law extremely difficult to enforce. Cf. Herod’s statement (Ant. 16.365) to the council of Roman officials that there was an ancestral law that provided that if a man’s parents, after accusing a son, placed their hands on his head, the bystanders were bound to stone him; however, Nodet (ad loc.) suspects this evidence since the parallel passage (War 1.540) does not mention this ancestral law; and, in any case, such a procedure required the presence of both parents, whereas Herod was present alone. In actual fact, King Herod claimed this right to inflict this punishment upon his sons in bringing them to trial before Augustus (Ant. 16.90-126) and before the council of Roman officials in Berytus (Ant. 16.356-86). According to the Mishnah Sanhedrin 8:5, a stubborn and rebellious son is tried on account of what he may end up to be. Ritter (1879:44) compares the role of the father here with that of the father in Roman law; but we may note that there is a major difference, namely that the Roman father, at least theoretically but apparently not in practice by the time of Josephus in the first century, had the right to put his son to death, whereas, according to Deut. 21:21, all the men of the city are to stone the child. Apparently, this whole procedure was rarely carried out, though Rabbi Jonathan, the pupil of Rabbi Ishmael in the second century, asserts that he sat on the grave of a rebellious son (Sanhedrin 71a). But Goldenberg (50-51) notes that the same Rabbi Jonathan (ibid.) asserts that there never was and never will be a case of an idolatrous city—a statement that is suspect, inasmuch as Jews did not then have the authority to destroy such a city; hence the statement about the rebellious son would appear likewise to be suspect, but it is possible; and Goldenberg therefore concludes that the execution may have been done by the father alone without recourse to a court. Josephus omits the biblical conclusion (Deut. 21:21): “So you shall purge the evil from your midst; and all Israel shall hear and fear.” According to the first-century Rabbi Eliezer (Mishnah Sanhedrin 6:4), all those who are stoned are hanged on a tree afterwards. According to Sanhedrin 46b, in capital cases the verdict was delayed until just before sunset. Then the court pronounced judgment and put the criminal to death immediately, after which they hanged him. Hence, the biblical commandment to bury him on the same day is observed, and the negative commandment not to allow the body to remain overnight on a tree is likewise observed. As Goldenberg (38) notes, Josephus’ statement that the condemned child is to be exposed for a day after he has been stoned to death is not paralleled in Deut. 21:21. However, immediately after the passage concerning the rebellious son, Deut. 21:22-23 states the general law with regard to a person who has been condemned to death by hanging, that he is to be buried the same day. Elsewhere (War 4.317), Josephus bitterly criticizes the Idumeans, who “actually went so far in their impiety as to cast out the corpses [of those whom they had murdered] without burial, although the Jews are so careful about funeral rites that even malefactors who have been sentenced to crucifixion are taken down and buried before sunset.” Cf. Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 3.28.152): “While it was necessary that the enemies of every part of the universe should after punishment be set on high and exhibited to the sun and heaven and air and water and earth, it was equally necessary that they should be thrust down into the place of the dead and there entombed, that nothing above the earth might be polluted by them.” Goldenberg (72) conjectures that the exposure of executed criminals had its origin in the nexus of two laws, that execution must be accomplished during the day and that burial must be accomplished at night. Cf. Ant. 4.202, where Josephus remarks that the blasphemer is buried ignominiously and in obscurity. He likewise (61-66) cites evidence that executed criminals were deliberately left unburied for specific periods of time for expiatory purposes (Sanhedrin 47a, Midrash Eccl. Rabbah 1.15, Midrash Lam. Rabbah 3.16). To be sure, Josephus’ Greek text does not indicate that the rebellious son is hanged, but the Latin translation here does say that he is suspended on wood (lignoque suspensus); and this version, here at least, seems to reflect the original text of Josephus (but see Goldenberg [66], who argues that the Latin is not original). As Gallant (242 n. 146) remarks, however, it is not clear whether remaining for a whole day exposed to the general public implies the dead child’s hanging or the mere neglect of the corpse prior to burial. According to the Mishnah Sanhedrin 6:5, if one kept a corpse overnight for its own honor, for example to bring a bier for it and shrouds, one does not transgress on that account. However, says Josephus (War 3.377), “With us it is ordained that the body of a suicide should be exposed unburied until sunset, although it is thought right to bury even our enemies slain in war.” Goldenberg (64) notes that it became a custom to leave the tomb unsealed for 3 days to make sure that a live person had not been buried (see Semaḥot 8:1). Cf. Jesus’ statement (Matt. 20:19, Luke 18:33) that he will be raised on the third day after his death and the story of the raising of Lazarus from the dead (John 11:1-44).

This does not apply to the manner of execution, since there are, at least according to the rabbis, 3 other methods besides stoning, namely burning, beheading, and strangling (Mishnah Sanhedrin 7:1). See Goldenberg (56-77). Cf. Apion 2.211: “The duty of sharing with others was inculcated by our legislator in other matters. We must....not leave a corpse unburied, show consideration even to declared enemies.” Cf. Giṭṭin 61a: “We bury the poor of the heathen, along with the dead of Israel, in the interests of peace.” Cf. Josephus’ attack on the Idumeans (War 4.317), who did not bury those whom they had killed. Cf. also Josephus’ attack (War 4.382) on the Zealots for carrying their barbarity to such an extent as to grant interment to none; “but, as though they had covenanted to annul the laws of nature along with those of their country, and to their outrages upon humanity to add pollution of Heaven itself, they left the dead putrefying in the sun.” Note that David (Ant. 7.43) saw fit to pay Abner all the customary tributes as if he had been a kinsman and friend and had not treated him shamefully, though he had been an enemy. Significantly, in an addition to the biblical text (Judg. 1:7), Josephus (Ant. 5.124) states that when the Israelites defeated the Canaanites, they brought the Canaanite commander, King Adonizebek, yet alive to Jerusalem and at his death gave him interment. On the importance of not leaving a corpse unburied see Goldenberg (59-60). Thackeray (ad loc.) notes that the phrase “without a share in the earth” is reminiscent of Sophocles, one of Josephus’ favorite authors. A very similar phrase, ταφῆς ἄμοιρον (“without a share in burial”), occurs in Ajax 1326 with reference also to a corpse. Another reference to a corpse without a share (ἄμοιρον) of burial rites appears in Sophocles’ Antigone 1071. Deut. 21:22-23: “And if a man has committed a crime punishable by death and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, his body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but you shall bury him the same day, for a hanged man is accursed by God; you shall not defile your land, which the Lord your God gives you for an inheritance.” According to the Mishnah Sanhedrin 6:5, criminals who were sentenced to death were not buried in cemeteries of their ancestors but rather in special cemeteries, one for those who were beheaded or strangled, and one for those who were stoned or burned. The “just penalty” is, according to Goldenberg (76), exposure of the corpse until burial.

Josephus omits the laws of interest on money (Exod. 22:24, Lev. 25:37, Deut. 23:20). Gallant (243) suggests that Josephus has specified meat and drink under the influence of the biblical statement (Deut. 21:20) that the rebellious son is a glutton and a drunkard. Goldenberg (83-84) suggests that Josephus mentions meat and drink because he is referring to help given to someone in need, while money is usually given to someone for business. One might have expected that, for apologetic reasons, Josephus would have omitted this law, since it clearly implies that one is permitted to charge interest to a non-Jew (see Goldenberg [220]); but we may note that Josephus does not specifically say (cf. Exod. 22:24, Lev. 25:36-37, Deut. 23:21) that one may charge interest to an alien. Cf. Philo, De Virtutibus 14.82: “He [Moses] forbids anyone to lend money on interest to a brother, meaning by this name not merely a child of the same parents, but anyone of the same citizenship or nation.” In De Specialibus Legibus 2.17.74, Philo does not specify that lending money on interest to a non-Jew is permitted. Cf. the Mishnah Baba Meẓia 5:6, which specifically states that one may borrow from and lend to non-Jews on terms of interest. As to whether Samaritans are to be regarded as Hebrews or as strangers for purposes of interest, their situation is ambiguous; see Feldman (1992a). Note that according to the Mishnah Baba Meẓia 3:3, one who lends money on interest is disqualified as a witness or as a judge. Generosity and magnanimity (μεγαλογνωμοσύνη) are among the key traits of a great man, as we see in Xenophon’s biography of Agesilaus (8.3-4). Indeed, whereas the Bible simply presents the prohibition of charging interest on loans without giving a reason for it (Exod. 22:24, Lev. 25:36-37, Deut. 23:20), Josephus uses the occasion to explain the reason. In Apion 2.208, after noting that one is not permitted to receive interest, Josephus adds: “These and many similar regulations are the ties that bind us together.” Cf. the statement (Baba Meẓia 71a) of the fourth-century Rabbi Joseph: “ ‘If you lend money to any of my people with you who is poor, you shall not be to him as a creditor, and you shall not exact interest from him’ (Exod. 22:24): [this teaches, if the choice lies between] my people and a heathen, my people has preference; the poor or the rich—the poor takes preference; your poor [i.e. your relatives] and the [general] poor of your town—your poor come first; the poor of your city and the poor of another town—the poor of your own town have prior rights.” Cf. a similar sentiment in Ant. 4.274. However, according to Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai (Baba Meẓia 75b), if a man is his neighbor’s creditor, the latter must not extend a greeting to him if that is not his usual practice, since even usury of speech is forbidden. Cf. Sir. 29:6: “If he can pay, his creditor will hardly get back half and will regard that as a windfall. If he cannot pay, the borrower has robbed the other of his money, and he has needlessly made him an enemy; he will repay him with curses and reproaches, and instead of glory will repay him with dishonor.” The statement that one should consider as gain the gratitude of those whom one has helped and the reward that he will receive from God is unique in Josephus, but the notion that God will reward and that the borrower will be grateful is found, to be sure, in the biblical law concerning pledges (Deut. 24:13): “When the sun goes down, you shall restore to him the pledge that he may sleep in his cloak and bless you; and it shall be righteousness to you before the Lord your God.” Goldenberg (88) comments that the interconnections between the two laws indicate that Josephus applied the exegetical rule of semukin (“juxtaposition”): when two laws are juxtaposed in the Bible (the law of pledges [Exod. 22:25-26] immediately follows that of usury [Exod. 22:24]), the details found in one may be applied also to the other (Berakot 21 b). Goldenberg (82) notes a partial parallel to Josephus in Sir. 29:6. While it is true that in Deut. 23:21 we read that one should not lend upon interest in order that God may bless one in all that he does (cf. Midrash Exod. Rabbah 31.2), Josephus is unique in stating that God’s reward for giving a loan without interest is to be considered as equivalent to the interest itself. Cf. Deut. 15:10: “You shall give to him freely, and your heart shall not be grudging when you give to him; because for this the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in all that you undertake.” Cf. Ant. 4.232, which mentions the gratitude from the needy and the reward from God for helping the poor during the harvest season. Cf. Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 2.17.74-78): “Now lending money on interest is a blameworthy action, for a person who borrows is not living on a superabundance of means, but is obviously in need, and since he is compelled to pay the interest as well as the capital, he must necessarily be in the utmost straits. And while he thinks he is being benefited by the loan, he is actually like senseless animals suffering further damage from the bait that is set before him. I ask you, Sir Money-lender, why do you disguise your want of a partner’s feeling by pretending to act as a partner? ... And therefore no one sympathizes when in your eagerness for larger gains you lose your capital as well. ... Such a person may well pay the penalty of his avarice by receiving back merely what he provided, and learn not to make a trade of other people’s misfortunes and enrich himself in improper ways. And the borrowers should be granted the privilege of the law’s charity, and pay neither simple nor compound interest, but just the principal. For later, as the proper occasions arise, they will make the same sacrifice to their present creditors and requite with equal assistance those who were the first to bestow the benefit.” Cf. also De Virtutibus 14.87. As Goldenberg (79) notes, for Philo, usury in and of itself is unjust; for Josephus, what is unjust is taking advantage of someone who is in desperate straits.

Josephus’ addition of silver and fruits is probably influenced, as Goldenberg (87-88) notes, by the immediately preceding passage concerning interest, which in the Bible (Lev. 25:37, Deut. 23:20) mentions money and food. Exod. 22:25 and Deut. 24:13 mention only clothing taken in pledge. Manuscripts ROMSP1L have αὐτῶν, meaning not “their own” but “their.” Cf. Tobit 4:8-9: “If you have many possessions, make your gift from them in proportion; if few, do not be afraid to give according to the little you have. So you will be laying up a good treasure for yourself against the day of necessity” (cited by Goldenberg [87 n. 1]). Cf. Mishnah ’Abot 2:12: “Rabbi Yose says: ‘Let your fellow’s money be as precious to you as your own.’” Cf. also Luke 6:35. This entire paragraph is Josephus’ addition. Goldenberg (87) notes the parallel in Sir. 29:2-3: “Lend to your neighbor in his time of need; repay your neighbor when a loan falls due. Keep your promise and be honest with him, and on every occasion you will find what you need.” As Nodet (ad loc.) notes, Deut. 24:10 is concerned merely to limit the abuse of the lender, since the beneficiary of the loan is reputed to be poor and searching only for the means of survival. Josephus considers also the duties of the borrower. So also Philo (De Virtutibus 16.89): “While the creditor must not abuse his power to deal inconsiderately and insolently with the borrowers, the latter must render the proper surety as a reminder to repay what belongs to another.” Similarly, Prov. 3:28, on the obligation to pay what is due: “Do not say to your neighbor, ‘Go, and come again, tomorrow I will give it’—when you have it with you.”

This is Josephus’ addition. See Goldenberg (89). As Goldenberg (85 n. 1) remarks, the Latin translation of this clause, non in domibus eorum introeundum est, is more in line with the biblical ‮לא תבא אל ביתו‬‎ and the LXX οὐκ εἰσελεύσῃ εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν αὐτοῦ (“You shall not go into his house”), as well as Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (‮לא תיעול לביתיה‬‎, “You shall not go into his house,” Deut. 24:10), than is the text of Josephus. As Nodet (ad loc.) remarks, the biblical statement (Deut. 24:10) that “when you make your neighbor a loan of any sort, you shall not go into his house to fetch his pledge” is ambiguous and can mean either a desire to exact a collateral pledge or actually to seize the pledged object, as Josephus and the Mishnah Baba Meẓia 9:13 seem to understand it. The former accords with Apion 2.208, which forbids appropriating goods that one did not place on deposit (therefore seizing a pledge by force). Josephus has understood the biblical statement about pledges (Deut. 24:10) as rendered by the LXX, i.e., “If your neighbor [already] owes you a debt, ... you shall not go into his house to take his pledge,” whereas the Hebrew says, “When you make your neighbor a loan..., you shall not [at the time when you make the loan] go into his house to fetch his pledge.” That one may take a collateral pledge only with the consent of a court is Josephus’ addition, which Goldenberg (89-90) notes is paralleled by the Mishnah Baba Meẓia 9:13: “He who lends money to his fellow should exact a pledge from him only in court.” Josephus seems to be speaking of a judgment authorizing seizure of a deposit or the possibility of entering to seize it, with no clear distinction between the creditor and his representative. The Mishnah (ibid.) authorizes a tribunal to force the borrower to give a pledge, but the lender may not himself enter the borrower’s home. The Talmud (Baba Meẓia 113b) cites a dispute as to whether only the court officer may enter to fetch the pledge, or whether the creditor himself may do so. Deut. 24:10-11: “When you make your neighbor a loan of any sort, you shall not go into his house to fetch his pledge. You shall stand outside, and the man to whom you make the loan shall bring the pledge out to you.” The phrase “who has come to him with the support of the law” is Josephus’ addition. Falk (1972:98) notes that with regard to chattels, the rule remained that a person could take the law into his own hands, and whoever comes first has a right to them; there was only a proviso in favor of orphans who inherited such chattels (Mishnah Ketubot 9:3). Later on it was held that “a person who lent to another should not make an attachment except through court” (Mishnah Baba Meẓia 9:3), i.e., that prior authority of the court must be applied for, before seizure of the debtor’s chattels. But the seizure was originally effected by the creditor himself, as we see here in Josephus. Only at a later stage was it held that the messenger of the court should go to seize the security from the debtor (Baba Meẓia 113b), and the creditor could no longer do so himself.

In this case the collateral pledge was given at the time of the loan and is simply a recognition of the debt. Exod. 22:26 and Deut. 24:12-13 do not mention the procedure in the case where the debtor is a rich person. Goldenberg (91) notes that a parallel to Josephus’ prescription on the point is the rabbinic statement (Baba Meẓia 114b): “Our rabbis taught: ‘And if he is a poor man, you shall not sleep in his pledge’ (Deut. 24:12); hence, if he is wealthy, you may sleep thus. What does this mean? Said Rav Sheshet: This is the meaning: ‘And if he is a poor man, you shall not sleep while his pledge is in your possession’; but if he is wealthy, you may do so.” On the other hand, a contrary view (Baba Meẓia 113b), as noted by Goldenberg (91 n. 1), says that a couch and a mattress must be left even in the case of a wealthy man. Cf. Philo (De Virtutibus 16.89), who, to be sure, does not mention the judicial procedure in this instance. Cf. Exod. 22:26-27: “If ever you take your neighbor’s garment in pledge, you shall restore it to him before the sun goes down; for that is his only covering, it is his mantle for his body; in what else shall he sleep? And if he cries to me, I will hear, for I am compassionate.” Cf. Deut. 24:12-13: “If he [the person who borrows an object] is a poor man, you shall not sleep in his pledge; when the sun goes down, you shall restore to him the pledge that he may sleep in his cloak and bless you; and it shall be righteousness to you before the Lord your God.”

Deut. 24:6 mentions only a mill or an upper millstone and gives as the rationale for this commandment that “he would be taking a life in pledge.” As Goldenberg (92) suggests, Josephus’ interpretation is implicit in the biblical clause (Deut. 24:6): “for he would be taking a life in pledge.” He notes that it is so understood by the Tannaim, the Targumim, and Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 3.36.204): “For one who deprives another of the instruments needed to preserve existence is well on the way to murder, since his hostile intentions extend to attacking life itself.”

Neither the biblical passages nor Josephus indicates the method of putting the culprit to death. Exod. 21:16: “Whoever steals a man [LXX Exod. 21:17: one of the sons of Israel], whether he sells him or is found in possession of him, shall be put to death.” Deut. 24:7: “If a man is found stealing one of his brethren, the people of Israel, and if he treats him as a slave or sells him, then that thief shall die; so you shall purge the evil from the midst of you.” Josephus, perhaps for apologetic reasons, speaks in general terms of the theft of a person, whereas the passage in Deuteronomy and the LXX of the passage in Exodus speak more specifically of the theft of an Israelite. The rabbinic tradition (Sanhedrin 86a) understands the eighth of the 10 Commandments (Exod. 20:15: “You shall not steal”) to refer to the stealing of human beings, since the 10 Commandments deal, in general, with capital offences. Cf. Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 4.4.19), who draws a distinction in the penalty for stealing an Israelite and stealing a non-Israelite: “The punishment for kidnapping, if the captives belong to foreign nations, should be such as is adjudged by the court; if they are fellow nationals whom they have not only kidnapped but sold, it is death without hope of reprieve. Yes, indeed, for such persons are kinsfolk, bound by a tie closely bordering on blood relationship though with a wider compass.” The Talmud (Sanhedrin 85b) asserts that the liability extends to the kidnapping of a man, woman, proselyte, manumitted slave, or minor. The Mishnah Sanhedrin 11:1 states that one who steals an Israelite is liable to be put to death by strangling only when he will have brought him into his own domain. The second-century Rabbi Judah bar Ilai adds: “and will have made use of him.” Josephus does not mention such conditions for the penalty of death. Cf. Exod. 22:6: “If a man delivers to his neighbor money or goods to keep, and it is stolen out of the man’s house, then, if the thief is found, he shall pay double.” Josephus omits the statement (Exod. 22:3) that a thief must pay twofold for stealing an animal when that animal is found alive in his possession. The Talmud (Baba Qamma 63b) states that the phrase “if the thief is found” in Exod. 22:6 refers to the bailee falsely alleging theft. Josephus omits the element that the money has been entrusted to someone, as well as the fact that if the thief is not found the person with whom the money was entrusted is to swear that he did not appropriate it and is to be free of responsibility. Josephus speaks only of theft of gold or silver, whereas Exod. 22:6 also mentions vessels; and Exod. 22:8 extends this to animals, clothing, and indeed any object. The Mishnah Baba Qamma 7:1 asserts that the law covering twofold restitution applies to anything, whether animate or inanimate. Belkin (1936-37:10-11) notes that the rabbis not only made a distinction between theft and robbery (Baba Qamma 79b) but also applied different laws to these two sorts of stealing. Although superficially robbery seems a more serious offense because of danger to life and limb involved in the use of force, Halakhah considered theft the more serious and punished it more severely because it was more dangerous to society and the community, inasmuch as it was more difficult to guard against than violent seizure. Indeed, in case of open robbery the rabbis did not prescribe any penalty except the restitution of the thing stolen. This distinction between theft and robbery is not found in Josephus. Josephus himself (Apion 2.216) lists theft of another man’s property among the crimes for which the biblical law’s punishments are more severe than those in force among other nations. Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 4.1.2) does make a distinction between theft and robbery: “Anyone who carries off any kind of property belonging to another and to which he has no right might be written down as a public enemy, if he does so openly and with violence, because he combines shameless effrontery with defiance of the law. But if he does it secretly and tries to avoid observation like a thief, since his ashamedness serves to palliate his misdeeds, he must be punished in his private capacity; and, as he is liable only for the damage that he has attempted to work, he must repay the stolen goods twofold and thus by the damage that he most justly suffers make full amends for the injustice of his gains.” Cf. Exod. 22:1: “If a thief is found breaking in, and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him.” Josephus omits the provision that if the theft is done in daytime (Targum Pseudo-Jonathan understands this to mean that if it is clear as the sun that he did not enter in order to kill), the homeowner is guilty if he kills the thief (Exod. 22:2). In Josephus’ lack of distinction between day and night, Goldenberg (93-94) sees a parallel in rabbinic interpretation (Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael Neziqin 13 (ed. Horovitz, p. 293). Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 4.2.7) says that if the thief is caught in the act before sunrise he may be slain in the very place where he has broken in. Josephus seems to go further and says that he may be slain even though he has penetrated no further than a breach in the wall. Philo justifies the slaying of the thief by noting that though he was actually engaged only in the minor crime of theft he was prepared, if prevented by anyone, to defend himself with his burglar’s tools and weapons. In the nighttime the victim cannot find anyone to help him, but in the daytime he can take the thief to a court. Colson (1939:8:426) notes that in Attic law (Demosthenes, Tim. 463; Plato, Leq. 9.874B) and in the XII Tab. (Tab. 8.12: si nocte furtum factum sit, si eum occisit, iure caesus esto) the thief at night may be legally killed. Weyl (1900:126-28) concludes that Josephus is simply following the Bible and that, since the homeowner is free from guilt when the thief is engaged in burglary, he certainly is free from guilt if the thief is already in the house. Weyl (1900:129) attempts to account for the biblical distinction between theft at night and during the day by positing that the difference between day and night is to be understood only figuratively. Parallel to Josephus in freeing the homeowner from guilt whether the thief was in the acting of breaking in or had already broken in is a tannaitic statement (Jerusalem Talmud, Sanhedrin 8.8.26c), noted by Goldenberg (95). The Talmud (Sanhedrin 72b) goes further and states that the thief may be slain not only if he breaks in through a wall but also if he is found on the roof, in the court, or in an enclosure attached to the house. Raba, at the end of the third and at the beginning of the fourth century, explains (Sanhedrin 72a) that the reason why the thief who breaks in may be killed by the homeowner is that no man remains passive when his property is concerned; therefore, the thief must have reasoned that the owner would oppose him and that, if so, he (the thief) would kill him (the owner). Hence the Torah permitted the owner to forestall this by slaying him. The Talmud (Sanhedrin 72b) goes even further and declares that the thief may be slain by any man and not merely the owner, since the thief is regarded as a potential murderer, whom even a stranger may kill in defense of the owner.

Josephus is not as specific as Exod. 21:37, which says “an ox or a sheep.” It is clear, however, from the fact that Josephus goes on to make a special case of the ox that he is including both large and small animals. B. Cohen (1945:118) notes that whereas Josephus asserts that those who steal farm animals make fourfold compensation, in actuality this law applies only to those who steal sheep (Exod. 21:37). Josephus omits the statement (Exod. 22:3) that if the animal stolen is found alive in the hand of the thief he is to pay double. In Ant. 16.3 Josephus notes that Herod enforced the ancient law whereby a thief was to pay a fourfold fine (here Josephus does not specify what was stolen and, if it was an animal, what was done to it), and if he were unable to do so he was to be sold into slavery for 6 years. According to Exod. 21:37, however, the thief pays (4 or 5 times its value) only if he has slaughtered or sold the animal. Neither Josephus here nor Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 4.3.12) mentions this qualification, and this might be another indication of Josephus’ indebtedness to Philo. See Weyl (1900:117-18 n. 4). Philo (ibid.) explains the reason why the thief pays fourfold for a sheep and fivefold for an ox: “The thief has to pay 4 sheep but 5 oxen for the one that he has stolen because the sheep renders 4 contributions—milk, cheese, wool, and the lambs which are born every year—, while the ox makes 5, 3 the same as the sheep, of milk, cheese, and offspring, and 2 peculiar to itself, ploughing and threshing.” Qiddushin 18a states that the thief is to be sold who cannot pay for the value of what he has stolen but not for his inability to pay the double repayment. Josephus does not have the rule found in Qiddushin 18a that if the worth of the thief is greater than the value of the stolen object he is not sold at all. Cf. Exod. 22:2: “If he [the thief] has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.” There is no indication in the biblical verse that the thief is to be a slave to those who condemned him. Josephus does not appear to have set a fixed limit for his servitude. Olitzki (1889:77) interprets καταδεδικασμένοις (“those who have condemned him”) as “through those who had brought about his punishment.” Weyl (1900:120) and Zeitlin (1962-63:187) take it as an ethical dative “to serve those whom he had harmed.” Zeitlin there remarks that there is no contradiction between the statement in Exod. 22:2 that if the thief had not the money to pay for his stolen goods he was sold into slavery and Josephus’ statement that he became the slave of the one from whom he had stolen. According to the Pentateuch, theft was considered a private delict, that is, the law intended that delinquents should be punished by becoming liable to a personal action by the injured party, the object of such action being either to recover damages or a penalty or both. The State had no power to interfere. The owner had the right to absolve the thief, enslave him, or sell him into slavery. Urbach (1960:150) remarks that Josephus certainly did not intend to say that the thief was to become the slave solely of those who brought him to judgement, since he himself speaks of Herod’s law ordering that a thief pay a fourfold fine and, if he were unable to do so, to be sold, to be sure not to foreigners, and to be released after 6 years (Ant. 16.3; cf. n. 891). But Josephus himself says (Ant. 16.4) that this punishment was unlawful. As to Josephus’ assertion (vs. Qiddushin 18a), which is to be found in neither the Bible nor the Talmud, that if the thief is too poor to pay the fine, he is to become a servant to whom he is adjudged to pay, B. Cohen (1945:117-19) suggests that it is very possible that Josephus is here interpreting Jewish law in order to bring it into harmony with the Roman rule (XII Tab., Tab. 8.14) that the thief should be adjudged to the person against whom the theft had been committed. Jackson (1975:3-4) has suggested that Josephus’ aim in accommodating Jewish to Roman law may have been to smooth his way with his Roman audience. Indeed, Josephus has a marked tendency in the Antiquities and in Apion to accommodate Roman sensitivities and values. However, Josephus nowhere indicates that he had studied or admired Roman law (and modesty is not one of his virtues); and, on the contrary, he insists on the unique excellence of Jewish law (Ant. 1.22-23, Apion 2.163). There would appear to be a contradiction between Josephus’ statement and the position of the Talmud (Qiddushin 18a) that a thief was sold into slavery only if he could not pay the principal but not if he could not pay the fine. Urbach (1960:141-89) and Zeitlin (1962-63:187) resolve this contradiction by suggesting that the Talmudic law belongs to a later period, namely, after the destruction of the Temple. Perhaps, however, Josephus is simply following a different interpretation: the authority of the rabbis was not always supreme even in the land of Israel.

Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 2.18.80-81) emphasizes that by using the term “fellow countryman,” Moses “indirectly sows in the soul of the owner the thoughts of his close relationship to the person in his power. It bids him not despise him as a stranger who has no charm to win his affection, but allow the lesson that the holy word suggests to create a preliminary sense of kinship, and thus feel no resentment at his approaching liberation. For people in this position, though we find them called slaves, are in reality laborers who undertake the service just to procure themselves the necessaries of life, however much some may bluster about the rights of absolute power that they exercise over them.” Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Exod. 21:2 states that he became a slave because of a theft that he committed. Josephus thus connects the subject of this paragraph with the topic of the preceding one. The Talmud (Baba Meẓia 71a) asserts that a proselyte cannot be acquired as a Hebrew slave, since, according to Lev. 25:10, the slave, when freed, returns to his own family. This is not possible in the case of a proselyte because once one becomes a proselyte one loses all relationship to one’s former family (Yebamot 62a, 97b; Bekorot 47a). Cf. Exod. 21:2: “When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve 6 years, and in the seventh [of his enslavement] he shall go out free, for nothing.” Similarly, Deut. 15:13-14, a provision of which Josephus omits: “And when you let him go free from you, you shall not let him go empty-handed; you shall furnish him liberally out of your flock, out of your threshing floor, and out of your wine press; as the Lord your God has blessed you, you shall give to him.” Exod. 21:3-4 states that if he was married at the time that he became a slave, his wife leaves with him at the end of 6 years, but that if his master gave him a wife and she bore him children, the wife and children belong to the master, and at the end of 6 years he leaves by himself. οἰκεῖα (“his own things”) is neuter plural and refers to his domestic situation generally. Cf. Exod. 21:5-6: “But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ then his master shall bring him to the judges [this is the rendering of the Targumim; Aquila and Symmachus render it as “his gods”; LXX τὸ κριτήριον τοῦ Θεοῦ, “the tribunal of God”], and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for life.” Cf. Deut. 15:16-17: “But if he says to you, ‘I will not go out from you,’ because he loves you and your household, since he fares well with you, then you shall take an awl, and thrust it through his ear into the door, and he shall be your bondman for ever.” Josephus omits completely the latter part of this verse—bringing the slave to the judges and to the door, boring his ear. According to Exod. 21:6, if a Hebrew slave declines to go free at the end of his 6 years of service, he remains the slave of his master “for life” (‮לעלם‬‎, LXX εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, “forever”). Josephus interprets “forever” as meaning “until the Jubilee year,” which is also the interpretation of the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Exod. 21:6; Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Neziqin 2 (ed. Horovitz, pp. 253-54); and Qiddushin 15a. In so doing Josephus bases himself on Lev. 25:39-41: “And if your brother becomes poor beside you, and sells himself to you, you shall not make him serve as a slave; he shall be with you as a hired servant and as a sojourner. He shall serve with you until the year of the Jubilee (LXX ἕως τοῦ ἔτους τῆς ἀφέσεως, “until the year of release, i.e. the Sabbatical year”); then he shall go out from you, he and his children with him, and go back to his own family, and return to the possession of his fathers.” Cf. Mishnah (Qiddushin 1:2): “A Hebrew slave...acquires himself by the jubilee year.” Cf. Ant. 3.282-83. It is not clear here whether the wife was acquired prior to the man’s becoming a slave, or whether she became his wife while he was a slave. Apparently, she is not of Israelite origin, inasmuch as a slave of Israelite origin would have been freed in the seventh year. Altshuler (1977:140) remarks that Josephus has combined the contradictory accounts of 3 biblical books (Exod. 21:2,5; Lev. 25:10, 40-41; Deut. 15:12, 16); to these he adds nothing but leaves out several significant details. Josephus does not cite the procedure of boring the ear (Exod. 21:6, Deut. 15:17), the payment to a slave who leaves after 6 years (Deut. 15:13-14), the references to enslavement in Egypt (Lev. 25:42-43, Deut. 15:15), or the separate laws for non-Hebrew slaves (Lev. 25:44-46). These last 2 omissions, notes Altshuler, seem to serve apologetic purposes (cf. Apion 1.223, 229-78; 2.8 for Josephus’ mention of Egyptian distortions of the Exodus story). Josephus’ statement that the wife of the slave and their children are freed with him in the jubilee year would appear to be incorrect, since according to Exod. 21:7-8, a master was not permitted to give his slave a Jewish wife. Josephus declares that a slave woman and her children go free with her in the jubilee year, but the rabbis affirm that the children of a Canaanite slave woman are like herself in all respects (Qiddushin 68b-69a) and that they are to be regarded as property (Megillah 23b). Revel (1923-24:293, n. 2) notes that Josephus omits mention of Exod. 21:7-11 regarding the sale by a man of his daughter to be a maid-servant, as well as Exod. 21:20-22 and 21:26-27, containing the law concerning the consequences if a man strikes his servant. Revel conjectures that Josephus may have considered that the exposition of these commandments would not reflect honor upon the Jewish law. It must, however, be recalled that Josephus had intended to write separate works on the Jewish laws (cf. Ant. 4.198 and note thereon).

Neither Deut. 22:1-3 nor Ex. 23:4 mentions gold or silver; they mention animals and garments, since they are more likely to be found. Deuteronomy generalizes this to “anything.” Goldenberg (1976-77:30) suggests that the change reflects different economic conditions. He notes that Josephus (Ant. 4.271) makes a similar modification with regard to the law of double payment for theft. The biblical animals there (Exod. 22:8) become gold and silver. As Gallant (248-49) remarks, the list of lost objects in Deut. 22:1-3—ox, sheep, donkey, garment, any lost thing—is almost identical with the list of objects (Exod. 22:3, 6, 8) for which, if stolen, one must pay a double penalty. Goldenberg (98 n. 2) notes that not only is the phrase “gold or silver” not found in the Bible or in the statement of rabbinic law of lost objects but also that when the phrase is used by the rabbis the order is “silver and gold.” He notes that Josephus has gold first in Ant. 6.201, 8.294, and 8.378, all of which are additions to the Bible, as well as in Ant. 5.96, where the Bible (Josh. 22:8, both the Hebrew and the LXX) has silver first. Goldenberg (1976-77:30-31) remarks that Deut. 22:1 makes no mention of where the lost items are found; it says only that they [the livestock] are “going astray.” (Deut. 22:1). Apparently, he says, Josephus felt that a literal translation (gold and silver would not “go astray,” as do livestock) would not be clear to his readers. He therefore puts the beasts in the desert and the money on the road; i.e., objects of this sort found in such places are clearly lost. Goldenberg notes that in the Mishnah Baba Meẓia 2:9 we also find the assignation of place: “A donkey or a cow found grazing on the road is not lost property.... A cow running in the vineyards, lo, this is lost property.” Cf. Tosefta Baba Meẓia 2:19= Baba Meẓia 30b-31a. In both Josephus and rabbinic literature, if the inanimate object is found on the road, it is considered lost, which is not the case for animals. This point is particularly worth noting, Goldenberg remarks, for it is in direct opposition to the LXX, which regards “the calf of your brother or his sheep wandering on the road” as lost (Deut. 22:1). Presumably, Josephus could have understood this phrase to be applicable not only to lost animals but also to the lost objects of Deut. 22:3. Philo (De Virtutibus 18.96) cites the case where the finder knows whose animal is lost: “Again he [Moses] says, if you see a beast belonging to one of your relations or friends, or in general to a person you know, straying in the wilderness, take it away and restore it; and if the owner is away at a distance, keep it carefully with your own, until on his return he can receive it as a deposit that he did not give, but that you, the finder yourself, restore through natural neighborly feeling.” Kohler (1931:81) notes a parallel law in the Zadokite Document (9:10-12), discovered by Schechter and later found at Qumran, according to which no one can take a thing lost unless he had a proclamation made in the open field; and then the owner must swear that it is his. Kohler shows that this corresponds with the ‮אבן טוען‬‎ (Baba Meẓia 28b), the “stone of the litigant” mentioned as existing in the time of Shimon ben Shetaḥ in 100 B.C.E. (Baba Meẓia 28b). Whoever lost something would go there and whoever found something would go there. The one would make proclamation and the other would identify the object and then take it. Goldenberg (1976-77:32-33) notes that there exists a clear rabbinic parallel to Josephus: “Originally they used to make proclamation...; however, after the destruction of the [First] Temple... it was enacted that proclamation should be made in the synagogues and schoolhouses” (Baba Meẓia 28b). Kohler notes that significantly the LXX translates Exod. 22:8: ‮על־כל־אבדה אשׁר יאמר כי־הוא זה‬‎, “for any kind of lost thing, of which one says, ‘This is it,’” showing that it must have read the passive, “of which it is said,” and that this is reflected in Josephus. Goldenberg (98-99) remarks that Josephus agrees with the rabbinic tradition (Tosefta Baba Meẓia 2:19) making reference to where the object was found (since, as Falk [1972:245] points out, the obligations of the finder may depend upon the place [Mishnah Baba Meẓia 2:3] and the owner knows thereby to whom to apply), whereas Deut. 22:1-3 makes no such distinction. Goldenberg (99-100) likewise mentions public proclamation of the place where it was found, though it is only in the fourth century that we hear of a rabbi (Rava, in Baba Meẓia 22b) who holds this view (Goldenberg, 101). According to the Mishnah Baba Meẓia 2:1, the finder is liable to make proclamation of any object which has an unusual trait. Goldenberg (1976-77:33) concludes that since we know from rabbinic sources that it was the Palestinian custom (see Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Deut. 22:3) to make proclamation of a lost object, we can therefore assume that the rest of Josephus’ statement—the content of this proclamation—was also a custom in Palestine. This is Josephus’ addition, perhaps inspired, as Nodet (ad loc.) suggests, by Lev. 25:17: “You shall not wrong one another.” Cf. Ant. 4.266, where Josephus similarly adds that it is not just to profit from the misfortunes of one’s fellow-tribesman. The phrase “in a wilderness” is not found in Deut. 22:1 in either the Hebrew or LXX text. The verb that the LXX and Josephus use for wandering in Deut. 22:1 is elsewhere associated with the desert (Gen. 21:14). Philo (De Virtutibus 18.96) also adds that the lost animal is wandering in a wilderness. Deut. 22:2 reads: “And if he [the owner] is not near you or if you do not know him.” Josephus transfers physical proximity to temporal immediacy, as Gallant (251) notes; and this transformation provides a point of connection with the bodily injury laws that follow shortly thereafter (Ant. 4.277). Thackeray (ad loc.) translates “forthwith.” Goldenberg (1976-77: 34-35; 1978:101-3) comments that such an understanding clearly contradicts the tannaitic sources. Tosefta Baba Meẓia 2:17 declares that “Originally, they would make proclamation during the 3 festivals and after the last festival for another 7 days. After the destruction of the Temple they decreed that proclamation be made for 30 days. From the time of danger [i.e., the Hadrianic persecutions] and thenceforth they decreed that it is enough for him to make his find known to his neighbors, relatives, acquaintances and fellow town dwellers.” A time span consisting of the 3 festivals plus an additional 7 days is hardly consonant with “forthwith.” Goldenberg therefore translates παραχρῆμα as “the present,” i.e., for the time being. Gallant (251 n. 149), however, objects that the occurrence of παραχρῆμα shortly thereafter (Ant. 4.277), where it definitely means “on the spot,” challenges Goldenberg’s understanding of this word. Thackeray (ad loc.) translates “keep,” but, as Goldenberg (1976-77:33-34; 1978:101) remarks, this gives the false impression that the finder may keep the object. Deut. 22:2 states that the lost object is to be brought to the finder’s home and kept there until the owner seeks it. The Mishnah Baba Meẓia 2:7 states that the finder is to keep it until he is able to check whether the claimant is a deceiver. In the meantime, according to Baba Meẓia 28b, the finder may work with the animal so that it may earn its keep. Goldenberg (1976-77:33-34) remarks that the fact that Josephus does not reproduce the biblical phrase, “until your brother searches for it,” and that he adds “calling God to witness” gives the unmistakable impression that if the owner is not found immediately, the finder may keep the object. But this is not what Josephus meant to convey: i.e., “let him watch over them” implies that he may not keep them. This last clause is Josephus’ addition to the biblical text (Deut. 22:1-3). However, it is found in connection with the laws of theft (Exod. 22:7): “If the thief is not found, the owner of the house shall come near to judges [LXX, ‘God’], to show whether or not he has put his hand to his neighbor’s goods.” The LXX on this passage reads that “the owner of the house shall come near to God and swears,” adding the clanse that he swears an oath. The language of the oath here, as Nodet (ad loc.) remarks, is imprecise and sufficiently different from vows and oaths properly spoken (see, e.g., Ant. 4.72-73); the wording is not, properly speaking, Jewish but rather has closer ties with Stoicism.

Cf. Exod. 23:5: “If you see the donkey of one who hates you lying under its burden, you shall refrain from leaving him with it; you shall help him to lift it up.” Cf. Deut. 22:4: “You shall not see your brother’s donkey or his ox fallen down by the way, and withhold your help [lit., hide yourself] from them; you shall help him to lift them up again.” Josephus omits that the animal belongs to someone who hates you and that the animal is lying under its burden but adds that the animal has fallen into mud owing to a storm. Goldenberg (1976-77:39 n.45) notes that in rabbinic literature (Tosefta Baba Meẓia 2:29) also, as in Josephus, the laws pertaining to lost objects and assistance to beasts are treated together. Deut. 22:4 mentions a donkey and an ox; Josephus generalizes to beasts of burden. Goldenberg (1976-77:36; 1978:109) notes that the phrase “suffering damage owing to a storm” is unparalleled in rabbinic literature and is Josephus’ own flourish. Gallant (253) suggests that Josephus may have been influenced by the description of animals “going astray,” where the Hebrew word ‮נדחים‬‎ (Deut. 22:1) has more violent connotations; e.g., see Deut. 19:5, where the word ‮ונדחה‬‎ is rendered by the LXX as ἐκκρουσθῇ (“is violently shaken,” “is knocked out”). Goldenberg (1976-77:111-12) notes that neither Deut. 22:4 nor Josephus mentions the burden upon the animal’s back, which is cited in the rabbinic tradition (Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Kaspa 20 [ed. Horovitz, p. 326]). As Goldenberg (1976-77:112) remarks, these items could have been added only if he understood Deut. 22:4 to refer to the animal and not its load. According to the Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Kaspa 20, Exod. 23:5 refers to the requirement to help with unloading, while Deut. 22:4 refers to the requirement to help with loading an animal. The Mishnah Baba Meẓia 2:10 asserts that the duty to help with unloading is Pentateuchal, whereas the duty to help with loading is not; but Rabbi Shimon says that the latter is also Pentateuchal. Goldenberg (107) concludes that in the early interpretations of the Bible, including Josephus, neither Exod. 23:5 nor Deut. 22:4 was thought to demand that one must help to relieve the animal’s burden; rather the requirement was merely to help the animal itself. See also Goldenberg (1976-77:111-12), where the development of this law is dealt with in detail. Goldenberg (1976-77:36-37) notes that, according to rabbinic tradition, under certain conditions one need not help the man and his beast, nor return a lost object (Sifre Deut. 222, 225 and parallels). The rabbinic tradition cites one of these conditions: i.e., if it is beneath the dignity of the finder to bother with the object (Mishnah Baba Meẓia 2:8). The principle is stated in the Tosefta Baba Meẓia 2:24: “If he would bother were the object his, he must trouble himself.” This is similar to the principle in connection with retrieving a lost object: “If he would retrieve the lost object were it his, he must return it; if he would unload and load the animal were it his, he must unload and load” (Baba Meẓia 30b). Josephus’ phrase “believing that the distress is his own” may be translated “since he believed he would have labored for himself,” and would thus, says Goldenberg, exactly parallel the rabbinic sources.

Cf. Deut. 27:18: “Cursed be he who misleads a blind man on the road.” Goldenberg (118) notes that Josephus agrees with the oral tradition in this law itself—one must show the road to one who has lost his way (Sifre Deut. 223)—and in placing the law of pointing out the road to one who has lost his way immediately after the law of lost objects (Tosefta Baba Meẓia 2:29). There (Ant. 4.274), we may note, Josephus also mentions the word “road” and the word “straying” (which has the same root as “deception” (πλάνῃ). For the rabbis the source of the requirement to show the road to one who has lost his way is not the law concerning the blind man (Lev. 19:14, Deut. 27:18) but the obligation to return a lost object to its owner, whether that object is a possession of the owner or the owner himself. Goldenberg contends that the juxtaposition of these two laws in both Josephus and rabbinic sources argues for the dependency of the former on the latter. Josephus, however, here also appears to extend the injunction against putting a stumbling block in front of the blind (Lev. 19:14, Deut. 27:18) into a law that one must point out the road to those who are ignorant of it. This would seem to be a direct refutation of the charge of such a bitter satirist as his contemporary, Juvenal, who declares (Sat. 14.103) that Jews do not point out the road except to those who practice the same rites. The charge would be that Jews keep their religion closed to all but a select few and help only their coreligionists. Cf. Apion 2.210: “To all who desire to come and live under the same laws with us, he [Moses] gives a gracious welcome, holding that it is not family ties alone that constitute relationship, but agreement in the principles of conduct. On the other hand, it was not his pleasure that casual visitors should be admitted to the intimacies of our daily life.” Josephus (Apion 2.211-12), in effect, answers such a charge as Juvenal’s thus: “The duty of sharing with others was inculcated by our legislator in other matters. We must furnish fire, water, food to all who ask for them, point out the road, not leave a corpse unburied, show consideration even to declared enemies. He does not allow us to burn up their country or to cut down their fruit trees, and forbids even the spoiling of fallen combatants; he has taken measures to prevent outrage to prisoners of war, especially women.” See Goldenberg (1976-77:38; 1978:113-17), who does not believe that Josephus is here answering anti-Jewish charges. Goldenberg (1976-77:40-41) remarks that the same interpretation of “a blind man” was given in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Deut. 27:18 (ed. Clarke, p. 240): “Cursed be the man who misleads a stranger on the road, for he is compared to a blind man.” It is this interpretation of Deuteronomy that Josephus uses when he speaks of misleading one who is ignorant of the road. That Jews must not hunt after laughter in dealing with those who are ignorant is Josephus’ addition. Goldenberg (1976-77:41) cites the ending of Sifra Qedoshim 2 (ed. Weiss, p. 88d): “Perhaps you will say: ‘I gave him good advice.’ God knows what was in your heart.” The meaning of this is that if one meant to give good advice but it turned out to be bad, he is not held accountable. If the intention was solely “for the pleasure of laughing oneself,” he is held accountable. Cf. Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 4.38.199-200), who, like Josephus, objects to laughing at the discomfitures of others: “Those who carry out or have a zest for such tricks [such as abusing a deaf-mute] are menaced by the law with the terrors of God’s wrath.... And his words are little less than a plain declaration to the workers of iniquity: ‘Ye senseless fools, you expect to go undetected by those whom you wrong when you count their calamities a laughing matter and work your wickedness against those parts in which misfortune has befallen them, against their ears by your reviling, against their eyes by the pitfalls which you set in their way.’” In his reply to his anti-Jewish critics, Josephus stresses that the Mosaic code was designed to promote humanity towards the world at large (Apion 2.146), that “our legislator” inculcated into the Jews the duty of sharing with others, and that the Jew must not only furnish food and supplies to those who ask for them but must also show consideration even for declared enemies (Apion 2.211-13). Gentleness (ἡμερότητα) and humanity (φιλανθρωπίαν) extend even to animals, whose use is authorized only in accordance with the Law. In forbidding deception and laughter at another’s discomfiture Josephus is paralleled by the Palestinian Targumim to Lev. 19:14 and Deut. 27:18, as Goldenberg (119-20) points out: “Before a stranger, who is compared to a blind man, do not put a stumbling block” (Fragmentary Targum, MS Paris, on Lev. 19:14); “Cursed be the man who misleads a stranger on the road, for he is compared to a blind man” (Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Deut. 27:18). The connection between the two parts of this section is that just as one must not put a stumbling block in the path of the blind, so one must not take advantage of the fact that someone is blind or deaf by reviling him. Apparently, Josephus divides the specific biblical prohibitions into general commands concerning instructions to uninformed travelers and treatment of the blind and deaf. Cf. Lev. 19:14: “You shall not curse the deaf nor put a stumbling block before the blind.” As Thackeray has pointed out, Josephus’ text here is doubtful. Most MSS. have ἀπόντα, “the absent one,” while the reading preferred by Thackeray is ἄοπτον, which he translates “the sightless.” However, as Goldenberg (1976-77:42) notes and Thackeray admits, in its one occurrence elsewhere this word means “unseen” (not “unseeing”). The Bible here speaks of reviling only the deaf; the blind are not mentioned in connection with cursing or blasphemy. Goldenberg suggests that Josephus expands the meaning of “deaf” to one who does not hear the curse, whether he be deaf or not; i.e., one absent, ἀπόντα. The text of Josephus would then read: “Let none revile the absent person or the deaf person (even if he be present).” This expansion of the meaning of “deaf” in the Bible is found also in a Midrash (Lekaḥ Tob on Lev. 19:14 [ed. Buber, p. 106]) compiled during the Middle Ages but based on early sources: “(Deaf) includes even one (i.e., who is able to hear but) who does not hear you.” Ὁμοίως μηδὲ βλασφημείτω τις τὸν ἀπόντα καὶ τὸν ἐνεόν.

The homicide, as Nodet (ad loc.) notes, is involuntary or at least without premeditation. Josephus changes the biblical “with a stone or with his fist” (Exod. 21:18) to without an iron weapon. Gallant (256) suggests that the fact that the weapon is described as without iron is intended to suggest that the case is one of unintentional homicide, since elsewhere (e.g. Num. 35:16) a murder weapon is described as “an instrument of iron.” Cf. Sifre Num. 35.16: “Iron kills in minute quantity, even a needle or ‮צנורא‬‎ [a goldsmith’s forked instrument].” Hence, in the case of delayed death, the assailant is unpunished. The Mishnah Sanhedrin 9:1, including Rabbi Nehemiah’s opinion (but not the Tosefta Baba Qamma 9:2), begins with a blow from a stone or fist, as in Exod. 21:18, which may be construed to exclude iron (although the intent there is to reinforce the majority opinion, that the perpetrator is considered a murderer unless the victim recovers, even where iron was not used). According to Num. 35:19, the “avenger of blood” is to inflict the penalty of death upon the murderer if the murder is premeditated, but the involuntary homicide may go to a city of refuge. Josephus does not mention this distinction here. This particular case is not found in Exod. 21:18-19. Goldenberg (1978:129-30; 1987:200-3) thinks that perhaps Josephus had in mind Exod. 21:12 (or Lev. 24:17, 21), which presents the more general case, that if a person strikes another so that he dies, he is subject to the death penalty. More likely, he suggests, Josephus deduced this element from the case in which the victim did not die. Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 3.19.106) has the same deduction in almost the same words as Josephus: “If his opponent dies at once, the striker too must die and be treated as he has treated the other.” The same conclusion is made by the later rabbis (e.g. Ketubot 33b): “Said Rabbi Jacob from Nehar Peqod in the name of Raba [fourth century]: [it, i.e., the death penalty, is to be derived] from the following verse (Exod. 21:19):... if he dies, they kill him; and if he does not die, ‘he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall have him thoroughly healed.’” Gallant (255) suggests that Josephus’ clause “let the one who has struck him suffer the same” has been influenced by the case of the assault on a pregnant woman (Ant. 4.278), which follows immediately and contains a lex talionis provision. It is unclear from Josephus what manner of death is to be inflicted on the murderer; but according to Jubilees 4:32, he must undergo the same type of death that he himself inflicted. Goldenberg (1978:129; 1987:202) notes that the word ἔπειτα (“then”) with a finite verb after a participle “is often used to mark an opposition between the participle and the verb, marking surprise or the like” (Liddell-Scott-Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon s.v. ἔπειτα II.3). Hence the translation should be: “If he is carried to his home and is ill for several days but [incongruously] nevertheless dies, let the one who struck him be free from punishment.” Altshuler (1977:145) finds this statement problematic, since Exod. 21:18 does not explicitly say what happens if one of the men does die immediately. Weyl (1900:56-57) suggests that Josephus has amalgamated the law pertaining to the killing of a freeman (Exod. 21:18-19) with the law pertaining to slave-beating (Exod. 21:20-21). The former states that if the injured person does not die, the assaulter pays for the loss of the injured person’s time and the medical bills. The latter reads: “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished; for the slave is his money.” Weyl notes two points of connection: the mention of delayed death, which is found only in the case of the slave, and the phrase “he shall be avenged (ἐκδικείσθω),” which is found in the case of a freeman; but as Altshuler (1977:145) remarks, Josephus never mentions slaves here, and Deuteronomy never says explicitly that a slave-killer should die, only that he should be punished. However, as Gallant (255 n. 154) notes, Josephus, in a given context, often borrows from biblical verses pertaining to other subjects. Josephus does not report Exod. 21:12-15 anywhere, so it is possible that he ignored 21:20-21 also, especially because that law is so similar to the ones above. He could well assume, either from Exod. 21:12 or from Lev. 24:17, 21, that the fighter here should die. Goldenberg (1987: 201) rejects Weyl’s explanation on additional grounds: “in a fight” corresponds to ‮וכי יריבון אנשׁים‬‎ pertaining to a freeman, not a slave (Exod. 21:18); “where there is no iron weapon” is a paraphrase for ‮באבן או באגרוף‬‎ (ibid.), which likewise pertains to a freeman; and “if he is carried to his home and after being ill” is a paraphrase of ‮ונפל למשׁכב‬‎, which pertains to a freeman. Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 3.19.107) has a passage very similar to that of Josephus with regard to the case of the person who does not die immediately from the blow. He offers an explanation as to why the assailant is free from punishment: “This payment [by the assailant] will release him from the death-penalty, even if the sufferer from the blow subsequently dies. For as he got better and walked abroad, his death may be due not to the blow but to other causes that often suddenly attack and put an end to persons whose bodily health is as sound as possible.” The rabbinic tradition (Mishnah Sanhedrin 9:1) has a dispute about this case: “He who hits his fellow, whether with a stone or with his fist, and they diagnosed him as likely to die, but he got better than he was, and afterward he got worse and he died—he is liable. Rabbi Nehemiah says, ‘He is exempt, for there is a basis to the matter [of thinking that he did not die from the original injury].’” Goldenberg (1978:128, 1987:202) cites a passage in the Tosefta that is parallel to Josephus’ statement: “If one smites his fellow...and it was determined that the injured party would live but he, nevertheless, died, his heirs receive monetary compensation,” but he who attacked is not put to death. The Tosefta (Baba Qamma 9:2) states: “If one smites his fellow ... and it was determined that the injured party would live, a second determination for death is not made,” the implication being that if he nevertheless died the assailant is not liable to the death penalty. The Talmud (Sanhedrin 78b) cites a dispute on the matter: “Our rabbis taught: If a man smite his neighbor and the blow was assessed to be fatal, yet he survived, he is dismissed [i.e. he is free from the death penalty]. If the injury was declared fatal, but subsequently lightened, a second assessment of the financial damage is made. If, thereafter, he grew worse and died, the second assessment is followed [i.e., he is liable to pay damages but is free from the death penalty]. This is Rabbi Nehemiah’s view. The Sages maintain: There can be no second assessment after the first [i.e., he is subject to the death penalty].” Sanhedrin 76b differentiates between weapon materials only if a puncture wound was caused, but not in the case of a blow by a blunt instrument. Cf. Exod. 21:18-19: “When men quarrel and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist and the man does not die but keeps his bed, then if the man rises again and walks abroad with his staff, he that struck him shall be clear; only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall have him thoroughly healed.” The one who struck the injured man is to pay, according to the Hebrew (Exod. 21:19), for ‮שׁבתו‬‎, which may mean either “his sitting down” or “his cessation,” i.e., from employment. The LXX indicates that he is to be paid for ἀργία, that is, “lack of employment.” Weyl (1900:97) suggests that the plural may suggest a case such as we find in the Mishnah Baba Qamma 8:1: “If the wound got better and opened up again, got better and opened up again, he remains liable to provide for his medical care.” Perhaps, in speaking of physicians, Josephus is thinking of a case in which the illness required manifold healing, possibly suggested by the plural τὰ ἰατρεῖα (“doctors’ fees,” “surgeries”). According to the Mishnah Baba Qamma 8:1, one who injures someone is liable on five counts: injury, pain, medical costs, loss of income, and indignity. According to Baba Qamma 85a, the loss of time and healing are mentioned together in Scripture because wherever there is liability for loss of time there is also liability for healing, but wherever there is no liability for loss of time there is no liability for healing.

Cf. Exod. 21:22: “When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.” Philo (De Congressu Quaerendae Eruditionis Gratia 24.137), in agreement with the Hebrew and LXX texts, understands that two men were quarreling and one of them happened to strike a pregnant woman, whereas Josephus here and Philo elsewhere (De Specialibus Legibus 3.19.108) omit mention of the quarrel between the men and state that a man comes to blows, presumably directly, with a pregnant woman. According to Belkin (1940:136-7), we can deduce from this passage that Josephus would not consider abortion a capital offense, whereas in Apion 2.202 he seems to imply, as Weyl (1900: 57-62) understands his words, that a woman is punished for abortion as a murderer. Aptowitzer (1924-25:87, n. 117), however, believes that the passage in Apion is only a “moral valuation.” The explanation that the punishment for causing a miscarriage is due to the crime of diminishing the population is Josephus’ addition. Cf. Apion 2.202, on abortion, and the statement of Ben Azzai (Yebamot 63b): “[He who does not engage in the propagation of the race is] as though he sheds blood and diminishes the [Divine] image.” Cf. Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 3.19.108): “He must be fined...for obstructing the artist Nature in her creative work of bringing into life the fairest of living creatures, man.” Note also Tacitus (Hist. 5.5.3): “They [the Jews] take thought to increase their numbers; for they regard it as a crime to kill any late-born child [i.e., after the father has made his will].” On the contrast between this feature of Jewish life and that of the Greeks and Romans see Stern (1980:2.41). Josephus makes no distinction, as do the LXX and Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 3. 19.108), as to whether the embryo was fully shaped, in which case the assailant must pay with his life. Whereas Josephus says that the man is to be fined by the judges and that a sum is also to be given to her husband, Exod. 21:22 speaks of only one fine to be determined by the judges. Ritter (1879:36) thinks that Josephus also is thinking of a single monetary payment. Weyl (1900:59-61) and Nodet (ad loc.) assert that Josephus’ view is based on the fact that there are two victims, the mother and the embryo, the latter affecting demography and society; and hence these require two payments. The LXX (Exod. 21:22) says that the assailant must pay the penalty imposed upon him by the woman’s husband, but does not mention the judges at all and does not appear to indicate that two fines are be paid. Apparently, Josephus understood ‮ישׁית עליו‬‎ (“he will lay upon him”) and ‮ונתן בפללים‬‎ (“and he will pay according to the judges”) (Exod. 21:22) as two separate clauses, i.e., the husband fixes the amount of the fine, and the man pays “as the judges determine.” Goodenough (1929:114) is of the opinion that, according to Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 3.19.108-9), as well as to Josephus, the assailant has to pay two fines—one, possibly, to some charitable institution for having prevented nature from bringing a human being into the world, and the other as compensation to the husband, and that Philo’s two reasons, “nature” and ὕβρις, roughly correspond to these. However, Philo refers neither to the judges nor to the husband. Nevertheless, as Belkin (1940:137) notes, in the whole field of tannaitic Halakah we have no evidence that such a fine was ever levied on a person. In the Bible also a fine is given by the assailant only to the person who has suffered an injury of some kind, not to a charitable institution. The Mishnah Baba Qamma 5:4 states that if a man intended to hit his fellow but instead hit a woman causing a miscarriage, he must pay compensation, namely the value of the embryo, to the husband. According to Baba Qamma 49a, which discusses the case in which a woman is struck and a miscarriage results, compensation for depreciation and pain is to be paid to the woman, in addition to the compensation for the loss of the embryo, which is to be paid to the husband. According to Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Exod. 21:22 and Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Neziqin 8 (ed. Horovitz, p. 276), the assailant pays only one fine, namely to the husband of the pregnant woman. Cf. Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 3.19.108-9): “But if the offspring is already shaped and all the limbs have their proper qualities and places in the system, he must die, for that which answers to this description is a human being.” In rabbinic law (Ḥullin 58a, Giṭṭin 23b, Nazir 51a, Baba Qamma 88b, Temurah 31a) the embryo is considered an integral part of the mother. Likewise in Roman law (Dig. 25.4.1 and 35.2.9), so also Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 3.20.117): “No doubt the view that the child, while still adhering to the womb below the belly, is part of its future mother is current both among natural philosophers whose life study is concerned with the theoretical side of knowledge and also among physicians of the highest repute.” Yet Philo mentions the death penalty for cases in which “the foetus is fully formed.” Cf. Exod. 21:23-25: “If any harm [to the woman] follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.” The Mishnah (Ketubot 3:2), basing itself on Exod. 21:22, asserts the principle that whoever incurs the death penalty at the hands of a court is free from the financial penalty. The Talmud (Sanhedrin 79a; cf. Ḥagigah 11a), however, cites the interpretation of Rabbi Judah the Prince, in harmony with the second-century Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai, that “you shall give life for life” refers to monetary compensation, i.e., that the value of the woman’s life is to be paid to the husband, since the word “give” (‮ונתתה‬‎ in Exod. 21:23 is the same as the word “pay” (‮ונתן‬‎) in the verse before it, Exod. 21:22, where it definitely refers to payment of money.

In Deut. 18:10-11 we are told that an enchanter, conjurer, charmer, consulter with familiar spirits, and a wizard are not to be tolerated among the Israelites, but there is no specific mention of a poisoner. Exod. 22:17 reads “You shall not permit a sorceress (‮מכשׁפה‬‎) to live.” The LXX renders the verse as φαρμάκους οὐ περιποιήσετε (“You shall not preserve poisoners”). The Codex Alexandrinus reads: φαρμάκους οὐ περιβιώσετε (“You shall not keep poisoners alive”). Similarly, the word ‮מכשׁפים‬‎ (Exod. 7:11) with reference to the sorcerers whom Pharaoh summoned is rendered φαρμάκους by the LXX. Weyl (1900:63) notes that murder by poison was extremely rare in Jewish antiquity; hence there is no mention of a specific penalty for it. Moreover, as Altshuler (1977:147) notes, possession of poison is not explicitly forbidden by Scripture, nor is intent to poison someone a capital offense in the Bible. Kohler (1931:81-82) suggests that the ultimate source of this law is Deut. 22:8, requiring a battlement for a roof lest someone fall from it. Rabbi Nathan (Baba Qamma 15b) in the second century extended this to prohibiting the breeding of a bad dog or keeping an impaired ladder. Belkin (1940:105) notes that Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 3.17.93-99) also states that the Law declares that poisoners, both male and female (whereas the word is feminine), are to be put to death. Prijs (1948:12) sees in the change from the feminine singular of Hebrew to the masculine plural of the Greek a reference to the Halakah in Sanhedrin 67a: “Our Rabbis taught: [You shall not permit] a sorceress [to live]: this applies to both man and woman.” Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 3.17.94) explains that the reason for the severity of the punishment of poisoners is that “hostile intentions if undisguised can be guarded against, but those who secretly frame and concoct their plans of attack with the aid of poisons employ artifices that cannot easily be observed.” Moreover, he adds (3.17.98-99), “maladies caused by poisoning have been found difficult to cure and sometimes entirely unamenable to treatment. However, the bodily troubles of the sufferers from these machinations are often less grievous than those that affect their souls.” Ritter (1878:28) thinks that Philo derived his view about poisoners from the LXX’s interpretation of Exod. 22:17, but Weyl (1900:65 n. 5) objects that the word φαρμάκους in the LXX more usually means enchanter rather than poisoner. Ritter (1879:28) thinks that Josephus derived this law from Philo, but Weyl (1900:64 n. 4) objects that Philo is referring only to the professional preparer of poisonous drink as deserving of death, whereas Josephus is speaking not of this but of the possession of poison. Goodenough (1929:106) remarks that in Roman, Greek, and Ptolemaic law, murder by poisoning is treated as a special crime, parallel to but not identical with murder. However, contrary to the view held by Philo and Josephus, Greek and Ptolemaic law regarded poisoning as parallel to murder only in case of fatality. Weyl (1900:64-70) and Goodenough (1929:107), therefore, state that the common source for Philo’s and Josephus’ laws of poisoning is the Roman republican law, the lex Cornelia de sicariis. Elon (1994:3:1032) notes that in imperial Rome the compounding of lethal poisons and other injurious drugs was very widespread; indeed, physicians and others were so occupied in this industry that it became necessary to invent antidotes. That Josephus may perhaps have been influenced here by Roman law (he has a consistent tendency to highlight shared Roman-Jewish values) may be seen in the fact that Josephus’ statement (Apion 2.207) that a judge who accepts bribes is liable to suffer capital punishment is found not in Jewish but in Roman law, as Weyl (1900:68) notes. The rabbinic tradition nowhere treats poisoners as such. As Gallant (258) remarks, there is no reference in Scripture to the lex talionis in connection with Exod. 22:17. Its mention here provides a point of connection with the other juxtaposed cases (Ant. 4.277-78, 280) where it is prescribed. The death penalty for the poisoner here is, strictly speaking, not a case of lex talionis, since the crime is the possession of poison, and, in any case, the would-be poisoner is not poisoned in punishment. Hence, Gallant suggests that the penalty is for the intended injury, as in the case of false testimony (Deut. 19:19) or, we may add, in the case of the stubborn and rebellious son (Deut. 21:18-21). Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 3.17.95) justifies the preemptive punishment in the case of poisoners: “The only course, then, is to anticipate them by meting to the actors the treatment that others may expect to suffer through their acts. For apart from other considerations the slayer who openly uses a sword or any similar weapon will make away with a few on one particular occasion, but if he mixes an injection of deadly poison with some articles of food his victims who have no foreknowledge of the plot will be counted by thousands.” However, as Nodet (ad loc.) notes, poisoners are not to be found in the list (Mishnah Sanhedrin 8:7) of those who are to be saved from doing evil at the cost of their lives.

Cf. Lev. 24:19-20: “When a man causes a disfigurement in his neighbor, as he has done it shall be done to him, fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he has disfigured a man, he shall be disfigured.” Cf. Deut. 19:21: “Your eye shall not pity; it shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.” Cf. Exod. 21:23-25 and Ant. 4.278. Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 3.33.182) insists on the literal interpretation of the lex talionis and indeed (3.33.181) emphasizes that those legislators who prescribe for malefactors punishments that do not resemble the crime deserve censure. However, as Falk (1972:165) remarks, Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 3.35.195) mentions that a condition for the enforcement of “an eye for an eye” was that the injurer did his act maliciously (ἐπιβεβουλευκώς, “plot against”). Baba Qamma 83b, in noting that one does not take “an eye for an eye” literally but rather pays compensation, notes that the parallelism between the adjacent verses “he who kills a beast shall make it good” (Lev. 24:18) and “when a man causes a disfigurement in his neighbor, as he has done it shall be done to him” (Lev. 24:19) requires that the penalty in the first case, which is compensation, should also be that in the second case. From the verse (Num. 35:31) “You shall accept no ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death,” one might conclude that one may accept ransom for damage done to principal limbs, though these cannot be restored, or one may have the option of paying with the loss of the limb or with the value of the limb; however, the Talmud concludes that just as in the case of striking a beast one is liable for pecuniary compensation, so also in the case of injuring a person. Falk (1972:40) notes that the scholium of Megillat Ta‘anit 4 (in HUCA 8-9:1931-32, p. 331, lines 8-9, ed. Lichtenstein) ascribes the literalist view to the Boethusians (whose views closely resembled those of the Sadducees); but it is also the view of a Pharisee, the first-century Rabbi Eliezer (Baba Qamma 84a), though the fourth-century Raba explains that what Rabbi Eliezer means is that the injured person would not be valued as if he were a slave, and the fourth-century Rav Ashi adds that the valuation would be made not of the eye of the injured person but of that of the assailant. Weyl (1900:103) suggests that Josephus’ position represents a stage in the development of the law, one that had not yet been reached by Rabbi Eliezer, a younger contemporary of Josephus. As Nodet (ad loc.) notes, Josephus does not take into account whether the assault was premeditated or not, nor does he reckon with the status of the victim, whether slave (Exod. 21:26-27, in which case the slave goes free) or free. In Josephus’ interpretation of the lex talionis (Exod. 21:24, Lev. 24:19), he gives the victim the choice of accepting a monetary settlement, whereas the rabbis (Baba Qamma 83b) prescribe a monetary penalty and declare that the amount is to be fixed by a court and not, as with Josephus, left up to the injured party to decide. The rabbis there argue that just as in the interpretation of “He who kills a beast shall make it good, life for life” (Lev. 24:18) the meaning is that compensation is to be paid, so in the verse that follows, “When a man causes a disfigurement in his neighbor, as he has done it shall be done to him” (Lev. 24:19), the meaning is that compensation is to be paid. The Mishnah Baba Qamma 8:1 indicates how the compensation is to be determined for the 5 items—injury, pain, medical costs, loss of income, and indignity. The literalist interpretation of the law was abrogated during the reign of Queen Salome Alexandra and thereafter the anniversary of this repeal was celebrated on the fourteenth of Tammuz (Megillat Ta‘anit 4 [in HUCA 8-9:1931-32, p. 331, ed. Lichtenstein]). Gallant (259) suggests that the concept of an optional monetary payment may have occurred to Josephus because of the case of the ox that gores a person (Exod. 21:28-31), which follows almost immediately after the lex talionis passsage (Exod. 21:23-25) and which in Josephus’ summary comes immediately (Ant. 4.281) after the present passage. In the case of the ox (Exod. 21:30), we find: “If a ransom is laid on him [the ox’s owner], then he shall give for the redemption of his life whatever is laid upon him.” Belkin (1940:99) concludes that it is probable that Josephus confused Jewish law with the law of the Romans, for the passage in Josephus is in agreement with Roman jurisprudence. In Roman law a distinction is made between membrum ruptum (“broken limb”) and injuria (“damage,” “harm,” “injury”). In the former case, if the two parties could not settle the matter between themselves, the talio was applied. In the latter case the penalty was a fine. See Mommsen (1909:42). The talio established by the law of the XII Tab. (Tab. 8.2) was not inflicted unless the delinquent could not agree with the person injured. Daube (1956:255-56), commenting on Matthew 5:38, “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,’” believes that it is likely that, by the time of Jesus, retaliation in the case of damage done to a person had been superseded by money penalties, that the testimony of Josephus here to the contrary must be ruled out, and that Jesus is referring to insult rather than to mutilation. See McNamara (1966:131 n.14). I.e., as Thackeray (ad loc.) explains, he requests an exorbitant sum.

Cf. Exod. 21:28: “When an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox shall be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be clear.” Apparently, Josephus did not distinguish between a tame ox and a vicious ox;, although in the context there is room to say that he is referring to a vicious ox, which would follow the halakhic norm. According to the Scriptural passage, the ox is put to death only if it has killed a person, though, according to Rabbi Eliezer (Mishnah Baba Qamma 4:9), the only proper precaution in the case of an ox that has done injury on 3 successive occasions is the slaughter knife, and hence even if the owner did take precautionary measures this would not absolve him from paying damages. The Talmud (Baba Qamma 46a) attempts to explain Rabbi Eliezer’s view by citing Exod. 21:29: “If the ox has been accustomed to gore in the past, and its owner has been warned but has not kept it in” (cf. the LXX, which, in speaking of such an ox, renders ‮ישׁמרנו‬‎ not as “kept in” but as “destroyed” [ἀφανίσῃ]), which it interprets to mean that precaution would have been of no avail in such a case. Abaye, however, explains Rabbi Eliezer’s dictum by citing the statement of Rabbi Nathan: “Whence do we learn that a man should not bring up a vicious dog in his house or keep a shaky ladder in his house? Because it is said: ‘You may not bring the guilt of blood upon your house’ (Deut. 22:8).” Support for Rabbi Eliezer’s position may be hinted at in Baba Qamma 91b, where the owner of an ox (presumably a dangerous ox) that had been marked for slaughter may claim compensation from another man who killed it for having deprived him of the commandment to kill it. Ritter (1879:51) thinks that Josephus derived his view directly from the oral tradition, as embodied in this statement of Rabbi Eliezer. However, inasmuch as Rabbi Eliezer’s position is also found in the LXX, it seems more likely that if Josephus agreed with Rabbi Eliezer’s position he derived it from the LXX, as Weyl (1900:71) remarks. Josephus omits reference to the statement in Exod. 21:28 that in this case the owner of the ox is “free” (‮נקי‬‎, “clean”). Various views are presented in Baba Qamma 41b-43a as to the meaning of this clause: the owner of the ox is prohibited to use the skin of the slain animal; the owner of the ox is free from paying half ‮כפר‬‎ (the indemnity paid by the owner of a tame ox that has gored a man to death; the owner is exempt from paying compensation in the case of a tame ox killing an embryo, which a human causing the damage would pay; the owner is exempt from compensating for the killing of a slave, a view attributed to Rabbi Aqiva (Baba Qamma 41b). The phrase “on a threshing-floor” is Josephus’ addition. Gallant (261) suggests that this addition may have been influenced by Deut. 25:4, which prohibits muzzling an ox while it is threshing. Josephus, in his version of that law (Ant. 4.233), mentions not the act of threshing but the place of threshing, namely the threshing floor. Perhaps this phrase is included in order to suggest that only if the ox killed by striking was it to be killed, but not if it killed in the course of ordinary work or unintentionally. Such an exemption is found in the Mishnah (Baba Qamma 4:6: “an ox scratching itself against a wall”), as explained in the Talmud (Baba Qamma 44a): that it was doing so for its own pleasure. Josephus thus explains why the animal is not ritually slaughtered, namely because it is unfit to be eaten. Baba Qamma 41a asserts that from the fact that the ox is stoned one can deduce that it is forbidden to be eaten. Therefore, the statement that it is not to be eaten is added to inform us that if the ox were to be slaughtered after the sentence had been passed upon it, its flesh would be forbidden for food. So Weyl (1900:72-73). Josephus omits the statement (Exod. 21:28) that “the owner of the ox shall be clear,” the meaning of which is debated in Baba Qamma 41b, i.e., whether it is paying the market value of a slave or the 30 shekels; the commentators on this passage (see Tosafot ad loc.) understand it to mean that the owner is exempt from both. Cf. Exod. 21:29: “But if the ox has been accustomed to gore in the past, and its owner has been warned but has not kept it in, and it kills a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death.” Philo elaborates (De Specialibus Legibus 3.26.145): “If the owner of the animal, knowing that it is savage and wild, has not tied it up nor kept it shut up under guard, or if he has had information from others that it is unmanageable, he must be held guilty as responsible for the death by allowing it to range at large.” Josephus does not indicate that the owner had been warned, only that he himself had known its dangerous nature beforehand. According to the Mishnah Baba Qamma 2:4, a dangerous ox is one about which people have given testimony for 3 days, or, according to Rabbi Meir, one against which people have given testimony 3 times. According to Baba Qamma 24a, a dangerous ox is one about which the owner had been warned 3 times in the presence of a court, that is, against which testimony has been given that it had engaged in 3 acts of goring. Cf. Exod. 21:30: “If a ransom is laid on him, then he shall give for the redemption of his life whatever is laid upon him.” The Talmud (Ketubot 37b and Sanhedrin 15b), the Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael Neziqin 10 (ed. Horovitz, p. 285), Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (ad loc.), and Sifre Num. 161 (ed. Horovitz, p. 221) interpret this to mean that the penalty of death is incurred “at the hand of heaven,” i.e., the offender is not subject to the jurisdiction of a court of law, and that he may pay a monetary fine and thus obtain atonement and is not put to death, the ransom being paid to avoid death by a Heavenly Act. See Weyl (1900:77-78). Josephus omits this provision for payment in place of execution. Cf. Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 3.26.145): “While the aggressive animal is to be put to death at once, the owner must also forfeit his life or else redeem it by a ransom, what punishment he must suffer or what compensation he must pay being left to the decision of the court.” According to the Mishnah ‘Arakin 3:3, if the ox killed a free man, the owner must pay his actual value. This reason is Josephus’ addition. Josephus omits the case (Exod. 21:36) in which it is known that the ox was wont to gore in time past and yet the owner has not kept him in, in which case he must pay ox for ox, and the dead ox is to belong to the claimant as part of the full payment.

As Nodet (ad loc.) notes, the Samaritan Pentateuch generalizes and asserts that these laws apply not only to an ox but to all domestic animals. The Mishnah Baba Qamma 5:7 applies to other animals what is written about oxen with respect to certain matters but not with regard to damages. In Exod. 21:32 this is “gores a slave,” but, presumably, not if the ox killed unintentionally, in which case, according to the Tosefta Baba Qamma 4:7, there is no difference whether it is a freeman or a slave who is killed, and no payment is made; the Talmud (Baba Qamma 43a-b), however, records a disagreement as to whether payment is required. Cf. Exod. 21:32: “If the ox gores a slave, male or female, the owner shall give to their master 30 shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned.” Josephus reverses the biblical order in speaking first of the stoning and then of the payment of 30 shekels. Presumably, the ox is one that has the status of a “goring ox” (so Tosefta Baba Qamma 4:7, Jerusalem Talmud Baba Qamma 4:6 [ed. Krotoschin, p. 4b], Mekilta de-Rabbi Shimon, Mishpatim on Exod. 21:32 (ed. Epstein, p. 184), although this is not explicit in Exod. 21:32. Cf. Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 3.26.145): “If, however, it is a slave who is killed, he must make good his value to the owner.” Cf. Exod. 21:35: “When one man’s ox hurts another’s, so that it dies, then they shall sell the live ox and divide the price of it; and the dead beast also they shall divide.” This verse refers to an ordinary ox, not one that has the status of a “goring ox.” Apparently, according to this passage, only the live ox is sold, whereas Josephus, who, it seems, is seeking uniformity in the treatment of both oxen, says that both are to be sold. Cf. Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 3.26.146): “If it [an ox] has gored not a man but one of the livestock, here too the owner of the beast that has caused its death must pay like for like, taking the dead animal for his own, and be thankful that, as the original cause of the wanton mischief, he does not suffer a greater loss.” Josephus omits the contents of Exod. 21:36: “If it is known that the ox has been accustomed to gore in the past, and its owner has not kept it in, he shall pay ox for ox, and the dead beast shall be his.” According to the Mishnah Baba Qamma 3:9, where the ox that is not reputed to be dangerous gored another ox, the damages are divided, though this does not mean a physical division of the remains but rather a division in actual value, which presupposes the sale of the living ox; but the owner of the aggressive ox is required to pay only half of the value of the damage that it caused (Mishnah Baba Qamma 1:4). On the other hand, where the ox that did the goring had a reputation as a dangerous animal, its owner must pay full damages.

It is not specified whether the one who dug or uncovered the well retained ownership of it or simply dug in a public place. As Nodet (ad loc.) comments, Josephus apparently has in mind a ditch that is in an intermediate position between the public and private domains. Presumably, Josephus is thinking of this when he indicates that everyone may fetch water, whereas if the well were in a strictly private domain it would be off-limits. Comparable is the case cited in the Mishnah Baba Qamma 5:5: “He who digs a pit in a private domain and opens it into a public domain, or in a public domain and opens it into a private domain, or in a private domain and opens it into a private domain belonging to someone else, is liable [for damage done by the pit].” Cf. Exod. 21:33-34: “When a man leaves a pit open, or when a man digs a pit and does not cover it, and an ox or an ass falls into it, the owner of the pit shall make it good; he shall give money to its owner, and the dead beast shall be his.” The statement that the pit must be closed by layers of boards is Josephus’ addition. As Gallant (264) remarks, this addition provides a link to the law that follows, namely the obligation to surround a roof with a protective wall. The Mishnah indicates that there would be liability for a pit that is accessible to the public (Baba Qamma 5:5), but for animals, not for objects or humans (Mishnah Baba Qamma 5:6), though the Tosefta Baba Qamma 6:14 does indicate that the proprietor would be liable for indemnification if someone fell in and was hurt. If we ask why when writing about a pit Josephus requires that it be closed in by boards, the answer may be that he is basing himself on Exod. 21:33: “When a man digs a pit and does not cover it, and an ox or a donkey falls into it.” However, Josephus is concerned about persons rather than animals falling into the pit; moreover, he writes in the language of a command, whereas the biblical passage simply indicates the monetary penalty in case a person does not cover it. This explanation of the reason for covering the well or pit is Josephus’ addition. Josephus here seems to be answering Juvenal’s charge (Sat. 14.104) that Jews conduct “none but the circumcised to the desired fountain.”

Josephus substitutes “animal” for “ox or donkey” (Exod. 21:33). Similarly, Exod. 22:9 and Ant. 4.275. The Mishnah Baba Qamma 5:7 likewise generalizes from the mention of “ox” to include all other animals. The Talmud Baba Qamma 53b concludes that the fact that the biblical text refers to an ox indicates that there is no responsibility if a man fell therein, and the fact that the text refers to a donkey indicates that there is no responsibility if inanimate objects were injured therein. Josephus does not specify to whom the dead beast belongs (Exod. 21:34). The statement in the Bible that “the dead beast shall be his” is ambiguous, i.e., whether it is the proprietor of the pit or the owner of the beast. Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 3.27.148) says that the carcass belongs to the proprietor. Likewise, according to the third- and fourth-century Babylonian Rabbis Ammi, Kahana, and the school of Hezekiah (Baba Qamma 10b-lla), the dead animal belongs to the proprietor. The value of the carcass is assessed, and the claimant takes it at this value in part payment, and the person who caused the damage pays him additionally whatever will make up for the whole loss that he has suffered. The third- and fourth-century Babylonian Rava in Baba Qamma 53b and the Mekilta de-Rabbi Shimon Mishpatim 11 on Exod. 21:33 (ed. Epstein, p. 186) conclude that it belongs to the owner of the dead animal. There is similar ambiguity in the case where a vicious ox gores another ox and where the Bible (Exod. 21:36) states that “the dead beast shall be his.” Since there is ambiguity, one cannot with certainty accuse Josephus of omitting an explicit component of the law, that is, that the carcass belongs to the proprietor. Gallant (265) notes a stem-assonantal link between the verb “pay” (καταβαλλέτω) at the end of the sentence concerning the pit and the verb περιβαλλέσθω (“place around”), which starts the sentence about the parapet, thus connecting the two laws. Deut. 22:8: “When you build a new house, you shall make a parapet for your roof, that you may not bring the guilt of blood upon your house, if anyone fall from it.” From the fact that the verse speaks of a “house,” the rabbis deduced that a house that is smaller than four cubits square is free from the obligation of a parapet. Sifre Deut. 229 notes that while a parapet must be built around pits, trenches, and caves, it is not necessary to build one around a gateway, a gazebo, or a portico. The twelfth-century Eliezer ben Samuel of Metz, in his Sefer Yere’im, edited by Avraham Abba Schiff (1901:209) explains this by remarking that people often utilize pits, etc., whereas gateways, gazebos, and porticos are seldom used. Likewise, according to rabbinic tradition (Baba Qamma 51a), where a public road is 10 handbreadths higher than a roof, and a man may fall from the former onto the latter, there is no liability to build a parapet, but if a public road is 10 handbreadths lower than a roof, and a man may fall from the latter onto the former, a parapet must be built. From Deut. 22:8 the rabbis also deduced that one is not permitted to do anything that would introduce danger into a situation, e.g., breed a bad dog or keep a shaky ladder in one’s house (Ketubot 41b, Baba Qamma 15b, 46a). From the fact that the verse states “your roof,” the rabbis (Ḥullin 136a) deduced that this implies the roof of a house used as a dwelling but not the roof of any other building. From the fact that the verse says “if the faller falls” (‮כי יפל הנפל‬‎), the school of the second-century Rabbi Ishmael deduced that the man who fell was predestined to fall, since the verse refers to him as a “faller” even though he has not yet fallen. Gallant (265-66) notes that Josephus replaces the 2 biblical cognate words “if the faller falls” by 2 words ἀποκυλισθέντας ἀπολέσθαι, which, being strongly assonantal, echo the assonantal quality of the cognates that they replace. Belkin (1940:119-20) notes that Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 3.27.148-49), like Josephus, combines the two laws concerning wells and battlements that appear separately in the Bible (Exod. 21:33, Deut. 22:8). The laws are similarly combined in Maimonides, Mishnah Torah, Neziqin, Hilkot Roẓeaḥ 11:7. The fence need not be so strong as to hold an animal but only a person. Ritter (1879:52) suggests that Josephus is following the lead of Philo, inasmuch as the two laws come from two widely separated portions of the Pentateuch. In this context Josephus apparently applies also to pits the commandment to set up a guardrail. Sifre Deut. 229 (on Deut. 22:8) also requires a wall around pits, trenches, caves, and fissures. Philo and Josephus both speak of the penalties following injuries caused by an uncovered pit, as well as of the prohibition against leaving the pit uncovered. Such a prohibition is based on Deut. 22.8, and therefore they combine these two laws to show that the guiding principle in both laws is the same. Josephus does not prescribe the penalty for failing to put up a parapet; Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 3.27.149) says that such a person is a murderer, even if no one is actually killed by the force of the fall, and must receive the same penalty as do those who leave pits wide open.

Josephus deals here with the gratuitous bailee. He does not deal with the bailee who is paid (Exod. 22:9-12). Exod. 22:7-9: “If a man delivers to his neighbor money or goods to keep, and it is stolen out of the man’s house, then, if the thief is found, he shall pay double. If the thief is not found, the owner of the house shall come near to God [Targum Ps.-Jonathan, on Exod. 22:7 ‘judges’], to show whether or not he has put his hand to his neighbor’s goods. For every breach of trust, whether it is for ox, for donkey, for sheep, for clothing, or for any kind of lost thing, of which one says, ‘This is it,’ the case of both parties shall come before God; he whom God shall condemn shall pay double to his neighbor.” Cf. also Lev. 5:21-24: “ If anyone sins and commits a breach of faith against the Lord by deceiving his neighbor in a matter of deposit or security, or through robbery, or if he has oppressed his neighbor, or has found what was lost and lied about it, swearing falsely—in any of all the things which men do and sin therein—, when one has sinned and become guilty, he shall restore what he took by robbery, or what he got by oppression, or the deposit that was committed to him, or the lost thing that he found, or anything about which he has sworn falsely; he shall restore it in full, and shall add a fifth to it, and give it to him to whom it belongs, on the day of his guilt offering.” The same expression of trespass is used earlier (Lev. 5:14) with regard to misappropriation of sacred objects. Both perpetrators are liable for a guilt-sacrifice, though the former is liable only if he swears falsely. Cf. Apion 2.208 and 2.216: “Even fraud in such matters as weights and measures, or injustice and deceit in trade, or purloining another man’s property, or laying hands on what one did not deposit—all such crimes have punishments attached to them that are not on the same scale as with other nations, but more severe.” Nodet (ad loc.) seeks to distinguish between Josephus’ word here in Antiquities, παρακαταθήκη, that he interprets as a private, paralegal deposit, and the word that he uses in Apion, κατέθηκε, which he interprets as a formal deposit. Sifra 22.2 cites Rabbi Aqiva as saying that whereas a lender or borrower or trader does not perform the loan or trade without a contract or witnesses, someone who entrusts an object to another person does not want anyone except God to know it; hence, when he denies it he denies it to God. Josephus’ presentation of the law of deposits has some similarities in language to that of Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 4.7.30-31), so that a hypothesis of borrowing or of a common source seems plausible. Cf. Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 4.7.30): “The most sacred of all the dealings between man and man is the deposit [παρακαταθήκη, the same word that is used by Josephus here in Ant.] on trust, as it is founded on the good faith of the person who accepts it. ... And this unseen transaction has assuredly the unseen God as its intermediary, to whom both naturally appeal as their witness.” Ehrhardt (1958:35-37) cites the story of Glaucus the Spartan (Herodotus 6.86) to illustrate the sacredness with which the receiver of a deposit should consider his trust. A woman, according to rabbinic Halakah, is normally excluded from operations involving a signature. Perhaps the situation here is one in which utensils were deposited without formality and that the guardian was not to utilize. Nevertheless, from what follows, it appears that the deposit was utilized in order to draw a profit. In practice, as we see in the Babatha archives (see Broshi:1992) and inscriptions from the Roman period concerning gifts by women to synagogues (see Brooten [1982] and Feldman [1996a]), women had greater legal power than is apparent in rabbinic texts. Exod. 22:6 and 11, as does Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 4.7.35-38), distinguishes between deposits of inanimate objects and those of living animals.

Or “on the whole,” “in general,” “completely.” Cf. Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 4.28.150: “Praise cannot be duly given to one who obeys the written law, since he acts under the admonition of restraint and the fear of punishment. But he who faithfully observes the unwritten deserves commendation, since the virtue that he displays is freely willed.” The concept of a guilty conscience is also found in rabbinic literature (Berakot 7b): “Rabbi Dostai [second century] the son of Rabbi Mattun says: It is permitted to contend with the wicked in this world. For it is said: ‘Those who forsake the law praise the wicked, but those who keep the law strive against them” (Prov. 28:4). Should somebody whisper to you: But is it not written: “Fret not yourself because of the wicked, be not envious of wrongdoers!” (Ps. 37:1), then you may tell him: Only one whose conscience smites him [lit., “whose heart knocks him”] says so.” Cf. Prov. 14:10: “The heart knows its own bitterness.” The editorial comment in this paragraph is Josephus’ addition.

Exod. 22:9 speaks of the deposit as a donkey, an ox, a lamb, or any beast. Josephus omits the case where the deposit was stolen (Exod. 22:6-7), since he has dealt with the subject of theft in Ant. 4.271-72. On the 7 judges cf. Ant. 4.214. Belkin (1940:171) notes that Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 4.7.34) says that the depositary is to come before God (Exod. 22:8), but actually the passage in the LXX reads that he is to come before “the divine court” (τὸ θεῖον δικαστήριον). To be sure, the Targumim translate “before God” by “before the judges.” In the same manner the Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Kaspa 19 (ed. Horovitz, p. 317) interprets Exod. 22:27 “thou shalt not curse God” as “thou shalt not curse the judges.” As Nodet (ad loc.) remarks, it appears improbable that Josephus here envisages the use of the Tetragrammaton (cf. Ant. 4.202). Cf. Sir. 23:9: “Do not accustom your mouth to oaths, nor habitually to utter the name of the Holy One.” So also Philo (De Decalogo 17.84): “To swear not at all is the best course and most profitable to life, well suited to a rational nature that has been taught to speak the truth so well on each occasion that its words are regarded as oaths; to swear truly is only, as people say, a ‘second-best voyage,’ for the mere fact of his swearing casts suspicion on the trustworthiness of the man.” Cf. Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 4.7.34): “If they [those who have stolen the deposit] are not caught, the receiver of the trust must go of his own free will to the court of God and with hands stretched out to heaven swear under pain of his own perdition that he has not embezzled any part of the deposit nor abetted another in so doing nor joined at all in inventing a theft which never took place.” Cf. the remark of Josephus (War 2.135) concerning the Essenes: “Any word of theirs has more force than an oath; swearing they avoid, regarding it as worse than perjury, for they say that one who is not believed without an appeal to God stands condemned already.” Cf. Matt. 5:33-37: “Again you have heard that it was said to the men of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’ But I say to you, Do not swear at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.... Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil.” On the stringency of oaths cf. Nedarim 20a: “Never make a practice of vowing, for ultimately you will trespass in the matter of oaths.” This is probably from the Hebrew word ‮פשׁע‬‎. However, this is translated in the Talmud (Baba Qamma 107b) and by Targum Onqelos on Exod. 22:8 as “liability.” Cf. Exod. 22:8-10. Josephus fails to delineate levels of liability among various kinds of watchmen. The Mishnah Shebu‘ot 8:1 enumerates four classes of watchmen; only an unpaid watchman may swear to absolve himself when an object is lost, but a paid watchman or borrower would be responsible for a loss, even if he were not negligent. According to the Mishnah Shebu‘ot 6:1 the oath is administered in those cases where the depositary admits that he did indeed receive a deposit. Where, however, he denies this, there is no oath. Since this is a case of suspicion, the law is similar to that of the wife who is suspected by her husband of adultery (Num. 5:11-31), where, in effect, the judgment is left to God (cf. Josephus, Ant. 3.270-73; Philo, De Specialibus Legibus 3.10.52). Josephus says that the depositary must swear that he made no use even of the smallest portion of it. Exod. 22:11 states that the depositary must swear whether he had not put his hand into his neighbor’s goods, but in the Mishnah Baba Meẓia 3:12 the meaning of this biblical phrase was interpreted differently by the schools of Shammai and Hillel. According to the school of Shammai, if the depositary only contemplated appropriating the deposit, even if it was lost or stolen later in a manner for which he could not be blamed, he had to restore all that he had received in trust. According to the school of Hillel, one could not be judicially compelled to restore a deposit that had been lost or stolen merely because he had intended to steal it. Philo agrees with Shammai, Josephus with Hillel. Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 4.7.34, 35) says that the depositary must take 3 oaths when he says that the deposit was stolen or lost: first, that he had no desire of appropriating what was deposited with him; second, that he did not give it up voluntarily to some other person; third, that he was not making a false statement of theft that had never taken place. According to Josephus, the depositary must take 2 oaths, first that the deposit had not been lost voluntarily or with wicked intention; second, that he had made no use of any part thereof. According to Baba Qamma 107b and Baba Meẓia 6a, the gratuitous bailee takes 3 oaths: that he did not cause the loss wilfully, that he did not use for himself what was entrusted to him, and that it is not in his possession. The oath that nothing was lost through his intention and wickedness is Josephus’ addition. The second oath mentioned by Josephus and the Talmud corresponds exactly to the first oath mentioned by Philo. According to the Mishnah (Baba Meẓia 3:1), if the bailee was unwilling to take an oath and instead paid for the loss, when the thief is found, he pays twofold restitution to the bailee or fourfold or fivefold restitution if he had slaughtered or sold the animal. So also according to Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 4.7.34), the receiver of the trust swears that he has not embezzled any part of the deposit. Baba Meẓia 41a notes a dispute between Rab and Levi as to whether unlawful use by the bailee must or need not involve damage. Josephus apparently agrees with the point of view that it need not involve actual damage for him to be responsible. Josephus omits the case of the false oath (Lev. 5:22), in which case the recipient of the deposit must restore it in full and add a fifth to it (Lev. 5:24).

Cf. Deut. 24:14-15: “You shall not oppress a hired servant who is poor and needy, whether he is one of your brethren or one of the sojourners who are in your land within your towns; you shall give him his hire on the day he earns it, before the sun goes down (for he is poor, and sets his heart upon it); lest he cry against you to the Lord, and it be sin in you.” Cf. Lev. 19:13. Cf. Philo (De Virtutibus 15.88): “The wages of the poor man are to be paid on the same day, not only because it was felt to be just that one who has rendered the service for which he was engaged should receive in full and without delay the reward for his employment, but also because the manual worker or load carrier, who toils painfully with his whole body like a beast of burden, ‘lives from day to day,’ as the phrase goes, and his hopes rest upon his payment.” Goldenberg (1978: 132-35; 1987:204) argues that the restriction of this law to “those who labor with their bodies” reflects early Halakah, which was then broadened, in the period after Josephus, to include rent for one’s animals or utensils. For μεμισήσθω ὅθεν (“let him be hated. Therefore”) Manuscript M and the editio princeps read μεμηνήσθω ὅτι (“let him remember that”). See Goldenberg (1978:135; 1987:204-5). Goldenberg (135 n. 2; 1987:206) suggests the possibility that μεμισήσθω (“let him be hated”) may have come from a misreading of ‮שׂנא‬‎ for ‮נשׂא‬‎ (“sets”). Gallant (268) notes the assonance linking the punishment, μεμισήσθω (“let him be treated with contempt,” “let him be hated”), and the crime, the withholding of μισθόν (“wages”). Goldenberg (1987: 205-6) notes the parallels of hating evil and hating the evil-doer found in Jewish literature contemporaneous with Josephus, e.g., Qumran material and New Testament sources. Josephus omits “whether he is one of your brethren or one of the sojourners who are in your land within your towns” (Deut. 24:14). Josephus here twice uses the verb ἀποστερέω (with regard to depriving a worker of wages), which he uses in Ant. 4.285 (in connection with depriving a man of the deposit that had been left with another); and thus he connects the two laws. This explanation is Josephus’ addition, i.e., withholding his wages would be, in effect, theft, like removal of his possessions; so also, as Goldenberg (1978:136; 1987:206) notes, Baba Meẓia 111a. Note the juxtaposition of theft and withholding wages in Lev. 19:13: “You shall not oppress your neighbor or rob him. The wages of a hired servant shall not remain with you all night until the morning.” Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 4.37.195) gives as the reason: “For it is against all reason that the well-to-do, with their ample means of livelihood should, after receiving the services of the poor, fail to render at once to the needy the recompense for their services.” Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 4.37.196) likewise juxtaposes theft and withhholding of wages: “He who having appointed the evening as the time in which a laborer should receive his recompense when he leaves for home, and does not even permit the wage, though its final payment is assured, to be delayed beyond the agreed hour—how much more does he forbid robbery and theft and repudiation of debts and other things of the same kind, and thus mould and shape the soul into the approved standard, into the form of true goodness itself.” Josephus, like the second-century Rabbi Ḥananiah (Baba Meẓia 111b), since it speaks of those who are subject to poverty or wealth, restricts the law to one who works with his body (see Goldenberg [1978:132-35; 1987:204]). In particular, the fact that Josephus, like the LXX, omits the resident aliens would appear to be particularly significant. As Nodet (ad loc.) remarks, Josephus does not appear here to allude to those who had sold their ancestral field before the following jubilee (Ant. 3.282), nor specifically to the Levites, who did not receive a portion in the division of the land, but rather to those who are outside the land of Palestine that had been conquered and divided; i.e., Josephus is thinking of the post-exilic or, more probably, contemporary situation—Jewish colonies outside of Judea or recent converts in Idumea or elsewhere. As Goldenberg (1978:136; 1987:206) notes, Josephus follows Deut. 24:14-15 in dividing the law into 2 parts, withholding of wages and delaying of payment. Josephus omits “before the sun goes down” (Deut. 24:15). Lev. 19:13 states that “the wages of a hired servant shall not remain with you all night until the morning.” The Mishnah Baba Meẓia 9:11 declares that the worker who completes his labor by day collects his wages any time that day, whereas the one who completes his labor by night collects his wages any time during the rest of that night and the following day; furthermore, a worker by the hour collects his wages any time of the night or day; a worker hired by the week, month, year, or seven-year cycle, if he completes his labor by day, collects on that day. Cf. Matt. 20:8, where, when evening comes, the owner of the vineyard says to his steward: “Call the laborers and pay them their wages.” Note that when the reconstruction of Temple had been completed, the people found work for the workmen (Ant. 20.220): “Hence, out of regard for the workmen and choosing to expend their treasures upon them—for if anyone worked for but one hour of the day, he at once received his pay for this—they urged the king [Agrippa II] to raise the height of the east portico.” Goldenberg (1978:137-38; 1987:206-7) cites these and other contemporaneous Jewish sources and concludes that while there was no extant Jewish law that requires immediate payment, it does not forbid it; and apparently, nonetheless, this was the practice. Josephus explains that he is to be paid on the same day because he is poor and sets his heart upon it. He, like the Bible, does not indicate the punishment to be inflicted upon those who transgress this commandment. Lev. 5:21-24 regards the non-payment of wages as a fraud to be fully repaid and with an additional fifth. In case of dispute between the employer and employee, the Mishnah Baba Meẓia 9:12 declares that if the worker did not lay claim to his wages or if the employer gave him a draft on a storekeeper or a money-changer, the employer has not transgressed the commandment; on the other hand, if the employee claims his salary within the allotted time, he swears that he has not been paid and collects his salary; if the allotted time has passed and he did not collect his salary, he does not take an oath and collects his salary. Nodet (ad loc.) thinks that Josephus may have regarded the case of the salary of the workman under the rubric of the deposit (Ant. 4.285-87), which immediately precedes the present discussion and where provision is made for disputed cases.

Cf. Deut. 24:16: “The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor shall the children be put to death for the fathers; every man shall be put to death for his own sin.” Deuteronomy (so also Ezekiel 18) speaks of putting to death; Josephus speaks of punishment generally. Josephus omits the punishment of fathers. Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 3.29.153-54) explains the reason for this commandment: “This order has in view those who set violence before justice or are strongly influenced by family affection. These last in their excessive and overwhelming devotion will often be willing and glad to sacrifice their guiltless selves for the guilty and die in their stead. They count it a great gain to be spared from seeing, parents their children and sons their parents, undergoing a punishment that they feel will make their afterlife intolerable and more painful than any death.” Josephus is perhaps thinking of the mythical Alcestis, who offers to die in place of her husband Admetus (Eur., Alc. 280-84). For οἴκτου μᾶλλον ἀξιοῦν (“deem them deserving rather of pity”) the Latin translation of Josephus reads misericordia praebenda est, non laesio (“pity, not injuring, ought to be rendered”). Perhaps Josephus is thinking of the bastard (Deut. 23:3), who is prohibited from marrying a born Jew. Cf. the apparent contradiction between “visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children’s children, to the third and fourth generation” (Exod. 34:7) and “Nor shall the children be put to death for the fathers” (Deut. 24:16), which the Talmud Berakot 7a resolves by asserting that one verse deals with children who continue in the same course as their fathers, and the other verse with children who do not continue in the course of their fathers. In the context of torts, this corresponds to the Mishnah Baba Qamma 8:4, that if a deaf person, imbecile, or minor wounds others, his “contact is evil” (i.e., he is exempt from payment, as are such persons’ parents). Josephus’ editorializing about youths is his own addition. Cf. his discussion of the rebellious son (Ant. 4.260-64). He also fails to report the conclusion of Deut. 24:16, that is, that one should die for one’s own sins. Kohler (1931:84-85) notes that Josephus’ version contradicts the views of the rabbis that children who have not yet reached the age of manhood may meet death at the hands of Heaven on account of various sins of their parents, namely unfulfilled vows, neglect of teaching children, neglect of the mitzvah of ‮מזזות‬‎ and ‮ציצת‬‎, and hating without cause.

The word that Josephus uses for eunuchs, γάλλους, is usually used (e.g., Arrian, Epic. Diss. 2.20.17) with reference to the priests of Cybele, the Phrygian mother goddess who loved Attis and who was associated with him in a mystery religion. They were eunuchs dressed in female garb who practiced self-mutilation. The word γάλλος in the sense of a eunuch is found in Greek literature only here and in Diogenes Laertius (4.43). Gallant (270) suggests that the point of connection between this law and the preceding paragraph is that eunuchs have no justification for not having children, inasmuch as parents are not responsible of the sins of their children. There is also an assonantal connection, namely that children permit (ἐπιτρεπόντων) themselves things that are contrary to their parents’ instruction, but that eunuchs do not have this justification, and one must turn away (ἐκτρέπεσθαι) from them. Cf. Matt. 19:11-12: “He [Jesus] said to them [his disciples], ‘Not all men can receive this precept [not to marry], but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.” In his strong language Josephus is perhaps influenced by the fact that his patron, the Emperor Domitian, was the first who issued a ban on castration, namely that of slaves (Suet., Dom. 7; Martial 2.60, 6.2; Dio Cassius 67.2.3; Amm. Mar. 18.4.5). See Hitzig (1899:1772-73). The implications of this clause are that this deprivation was (a) not by natural causes and (b) was self-inflicted. The former is the opinion of the third century Samuel in Yebamot 75b and Jerusalem Talmud Yebamot 8.2.9b; it is also an anonymous baraita in Yebamot 75b. The latter is not a necessary condition, as indicated by Tosefta Yebamot 10:3. The Mishnah Yebamot 8:2 asserts that those whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off are permitted to have sexual relations with a female convert and a freed slave girl and are prohibited only from marrying a born Jew. One who has such a condition from birth is permitted to marry a born Jew, since he is not regarded as wounded. Josephus does not deal with voluntary abstinence, such as was practiced by the majority of Essenes (War 2.120; Ant. 18.21), whom he appears to have admired greatly. Cf. Deut. 23:2: “He whose testicles are crushed or whose male member is cut off shall not enter the assembly of the Lord.” Cf. Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 1.60.325): “Knowing that in assemblies there are not a few worthless persons who steal their way in and remain unobserved in the large numbers that surround them, it [the law] guards against this danger by precluding all the unworthy from entering the holy congregation. It begins with the men who belie their sex and are affected with effeminacy, who debase the currency of nature and violate it by assuming the passions and the outward form of licentious women. For it expels those whose generative organs are fractured or mutilated, who husband the flower of their youthful bloom, lest it should quickly wither, and restamp the masculine cast into a feminine form.” Shabbat 110b derives the prohibition of castration from Lev. 22:24, which forbids offering as a sacrifice an animal whose testicles are bruised. Yebamot 63b quotes Rabbi Eliezer, who lived at the end of the first and at the beginning of the second century and who cites one of the Noahide commandments: “He who does not engage in propagation of the race is as though he sheds blood, for it is said, ‘Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed’ (Gen. 9:6), and this is immediately followed by the text, ‘And you, be fruitful and multiply’” (Gen. 9:7). The third-century Rabbi Jacob adds: “As though he has diminished the Divine image, since it is said, ‘For God made man in His own image’ (Gen. 9:6), and this is immediately followed by ‘And you, be fruitful and multiply’” (Gen. 9:7). When, in Yebamot 63b, the second-century Simeon ben ‘Azzai quotes these passages he is reprimanded as one who did not practice what he preached, since he was unmarried. Cf. Niddah 13a, quoting the third-century Rabbi Joḥanan: “Whoever emits semen in vain deserves death.” The third-century Rabbi Isaac and Rabbi Ammi are quoted as saying: “It is as though he shed blood.” Even one who indulges in sexual relations on the ninetieth day after conception is regarded as though he had shed blood, since this is said to be injurious to the embryo (Niddah 31a). Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 3.20.110) notes the prohibition of the exposure of infants, “a sacrilegious practice that among many other nations, through their ingrained inhumanity, has come to be regarded with complacence.” Hecataeus (ap. Diod. 40.3.8) notes that Moses “required those who dwelt in the land to rear their children, and since offspring could be cared for at little cost, the Jews were from the start a populous nation.” That Jews regarded infanticide as a crime is also noted by Tacitus (Hist. 5.5.3). There is no biblical or rabbinic source for this. Cf. Apion 2.202: “The Law orders all the offspring to be brought up, and forbids women either to cause an abortion or to make away with the foetus; a woman convicted of this is regarded as an infanticide, because she destroys a soul and diminishes the race.” Manuscripts MSPL read πρὸ τούτων (“before them,” i.e. before the infants’ birth). The reason here given for this commandment is Josephus’ addition.

This explanation is Josephus’ addition. Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 1.60.325) gives a similar explanation. Josephus is probably also thinking here of homosexuality, which is regarded as an abomination and the punishment of which is death (Lev. 18:22, 29; 20:13). I.e., one must remain true to one’s created form. This is Josephus’ addition. Lev. 22:24: “Any animal that has its testicles bruised or crushed or torn or cut, you shall not offer to the Lord or sacrifice within your land.” Cf. Deut. 23:2 and Ant. 4.290. Cf. Sifra Emor 7.11. Josephus has gone further and prohibits castration of humans under all circumstances, as does the Talmud (Shabbat 110b-111a), which extends it even to those who are already impotent or genitally maimed (see Jakobovits 1971:242-43). Such a ban is unique in Judaism, not being found in Buddhism, Confucianism, Christianity, or Islam (ibid.). Indeed, the ban is even extended to non-Jews in the Noahide Laws (Sanhedrin 56b). Cf. Philo (Hypothetica 7.7): “He [an Israelite] must not make abortive the generative power of men by gelding nor that of women by sterilizing drugs and other devices. There must be no maltreatment of animals contrary to what is appointed by God or even by a lawgiver.” Josephus omits mention of the exclusion of bastards, Ammonites, and Moabites (Deut. 23:3-4) from entering into the congregation of the Lord, i.e., from marrying born Jews.

See Ant. 4.196, 198. The transition here from discussions of peacetime to those of war is reminiscent of Ant. 3.287. Cf. Lev. 25:18: “Therefore, you shall do my statutes, and keep my ordinances and perform them; so you will dwell in the land securely.” Cf. Lev. 26:6: “And I will give peace in the land, and you shall lie down, and none shall make you afraid.” This would appear to be Josephus’ comment on the civil strife (στάσις) that characterized his own era.

τὸ ἀνθρώπειον (“human”) is characteristic of Thucydides (e.g., 1.22, 4.61) and is particularly common to Ant.17-19 (17.60, 118, 150, 180, 309, 354; 18.13, 30, 128, 256, 281; 19.41, 171), where Thackeray detects a Thucydidean assistant. This reflection is Josephus’ addition.

Once again Josephus, with an eye to the history of his own times, bewails the civil strife (στάσεως ἐμφυλίου) that beset the Judeans during the war against the Romans. Cf. War 1.10.

Josephus is probably thinking of the murderous deeds that he ascribes to the revolutionaries during the war against the Romans (see War 7.254-74). Josephus, in this prayer of his own, appears to lack interest in wars in Palestine itself; on the other hand, he is interested in the idea of Jews serving in armies outside of Palestine, whether under Alexander (Ant. 11.339) or in Egypt under the Ptolemies (Apion 2.49).

Cf. Deut. 20:1: “When you go forth to war against your enemies, and see horses and chariots and an army larger than your own, you shall not be afraid of them, for the Lord your God is with you, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt.” The Mishnah (Sanhedrin 1:1) classifies wars as either mandatory or voluntary. In the case of a voluntary conflict, the Mishnah here requires also the consent of the Great Sanhedrin of 71. Cf. Deut. 20:10. The idea of sending an embassy and heralds is Josephus’ addition; so also Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 4.41.221 and De Virtutibus 22.109). Nodet (ad loc.) calls attention to the Jerusalem Talmud (Shebi‘it 6.1.36c), according to which Joshua sent 3 distinct messages to the Canaanites seeking to avoid war, offering to spare them if they would accept the 7 commandments of Noah. Josephus here envisages an aggressive enemy. That the Israelites have a large army, horses, and weapons is Josephus’ addition. The Pentateuch is speaking here of a war of conquest. Cf. Philo’s discussion of how to treat those nations that renounce their alliance with the Israelites (De Specialibus Legibus 4.41.220-21): “For if these revolt, he [Moses] tells us, and shut themselves up within their walls, your well-armed fighting force should advance with its armaments and encamp around them, then wait for a time, not letting anger have free play at the expense of reason, in order that they may take in hand what they have to do in a firmer and steadier spirit. They must therefore at once send heralds to propose terms of agreement and at the same time point out the military efficiency of the besieging power. And if their opponents repent of their rebellious conduct and give way and show an inclination to peace, the others must accept and welcome the treaty; for peace, even if it involves great sacrifices, is more advantageous than war.” Cf. Philo (De Virtutibus 22.109), speaking of a defensive war: “They [the enemy] must not, he [Moses] declares, be yet regarded as enemies, even if they are at the gates or stationed beside the walls in full array and planting their engines, until envoys have been sent with invitations to peace, so that if they yield they may obtain the supreme boon of friendship, but if they refuse to listen and continue their opposition, you may, allying yourself with justice, advance to defend yourselves in the hope of victory.” Josephus omits the speech of the priest encouraging the troops before the battle and assuring them that God is with them and will give them victory (Deut. 20:2-4). On God as ally cf. Philo (De Virtutibus 8.45-46). Cf. Deut. 20:10: “When you draw near to a city to fight against it, offer terms of peace to it.” Josephus is particularly eager to point out that the Mosaic Code requires that every effort be made to avoid war and that, should war be necessary, it be conducted justly. Josephus, in view of his close contacts with the Romans, their ideals, and their methods of warfare, was presumably aware also of their laws of war, recorded, for example, in Cicero (Off. 1.11.34-36 and Rep. 3.23.34-35). As Cicero puts it, the one legitimate objective for making war is to live in peace unmolested; moreover, he says, international law teaches that a war is just only if it is duly declared after a formal demand for satisfaction. One is reminded as well of Virgil’s famous statement of the mission of the Romans, “to impose the way of peace, to spare subdued peoples, and to humble haughty ones” (Aen. 6.852-53). Josephus, in his considerable expansion of the above passage in Deuteronomy, recasts it in accord with these Roman ideals and methods of warfare. The statement that despite the fact that the Israelites have a large army, horses, and weapons, they do not deem it proper to be forced to go to war with the enemy is Josephus’ addition. Nodet (ad loc.) asserts that Josephus here ignores the wars of conquest, reconquest, and extension, and is, instead, here inspired by the case of the war of the other tribes against the Benjaminites, as retold by himself (Ant. 5.150-54; cf. Judg. 20), where, despite the fact that they were intensely angry because of the atrocious deeds of the Benjaminites and were impatient to rush into arms, were nevertheless restrained by their elders from doing so before they had discussed their grievances with them, “the law not permitting them to lead an army even against aliens without having sent an embassy and made other attempts of this nature to bring the supposed wrongdoers to repentance.” Cf. Philo, who similarly notes, in an expansion of the biblical passage (Num. 20:14-21), Moses’ efforts to persuade the king of the Edomites to allow the Israelites to pass through their land peacefully (De Vita Mosis 1.43.243).

Cf. Deut. 20:11: “If its [the enemy city’s] answer to you is peace and it opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall do forced labor for you and shall serve you.” Josephus omits the forced labor imposed upon the enemy. Cf. Deut. 20:12: “But if it [the enemy] makes no peace with you... then you shall besiege it.” The pride of the enemy in their self-declared superiority in strength is Josephus’ addition. Cf. Num. 27:16: “Let the Lord, the God of the spirits of all flesh, appoint a man over the congregation.” That God is commander-in-chief of the Israelite army is Josephus’ addition. Thackeray (ad loc.) notes that the phrase στρατηγῷ αὐτοκράτορι (“commander-in-chief”) is reminiscent of Thucydides 6.72. Cf. Num. 27:18-19: “And the Lord said to Moses, ‘Take Joshua the son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit, and lay your hand upon him; cause him to stand before Eleazar the priest and all the congregation, and you shall commission him in their sight.” The advice that the Israelites should choose as their commander, subordinate to God, the one man who is outstanding in virtue (ἀρετῇ) is Josephus’ addition. Josephus omits the speech of the priest “anointed for war” to the Israelites as they prepare for battle (Deut. 20:2-4). The Mishnah Soṭah 8:1 expands on this speech. Josephus replaces this priest with a general selected because of his aptitude for war. πολυαρχία (“government shared by many”). Cf. Ḥullin 60b: “Can two kings share one crown?” Cf. Thucydides 6.72, in which Hermocrates, a Syracusan statesman and commander, encourages the Syracusans, noting that what had led to their defeat was the number of their generals and the quantity of orders given (τὸ πλῆθος τῶν στρατηγῶν καὶ ἡ πολυαρχία), combined with the disorder and insubordination of the troops, but that if they had a few skilful generals and spent the winter in training they would have every chance of defeating their enemies. He suggests that the generals be few and elected with full powers (αὐτοκράτορας). Thucydides equates polyarchy with anarchy. Cf. the debate, after the massacre of the Magians, among the Persians as to which form of government—monarchy, oligarchy, or democracy—to choose, and the decision to choose monarchy (Herodotus 3.80-83). Cf. also the scene, after the assassination of the Roman emperor Caligula, in which while the Roman senate was deliberating what to do, “a shout arose from the soldiers who had stood by them, bidding them to choose a commander-in-chief [στρατηγὸν αὐτοκράτορα, the same phrase used here with regard to God] and not to ruin the empire by entrusting it to a multitude of rulers [πολυαρχίᾳ, the same word used here for a government shared by many]” (Ant. 19.249). Thereupon the senate “agreed that the government must be in the hands not of everyone but of a single man.”

Deut. 20:8 says “fearful and fainthearted.” The Mishnah Soṭah 8:5 quotes Rabbi Aqiva as explaining that such a person “cannot stand in the battle ranks or see a drawn sword” and Rabbi Yose the Galilean as saying “this is one who trembles on account of the transgressions which are in his hand.” In Deut. 20:3-8 the army is first mustered and then the commanders appointed (Deut. 20:9). The characterization of the army as pure, strong, and courageous is Josephus’ addition. Deut. 20:8 exempts the fainthearted because of their deleterious effect upon the morale of the troops: “What man is there that is fearful and fainthearted? Let him go back to his house, lest the heart of his fellows melt as his heart.” Josephus places this directive before the exemptions given to the builder of a new house, the planter of fruits, and the betrothed, whereas the Bible places this after those special exemptions. In Deut. 20:5 exemption is given to one who has built a new house but has not yet dedicated it, without indication that he has not yet had a year’s time to enjoy it. However, Deut. 24:5 states that “when a man is newly married, he shall not go out with the army or be charged with any business; he shall be free at home one year, to be happy with his wife whom he has taken.” Josephus omits as the reason for the exemption Deut. 20:7’s “lest he die in battle and another man dedicate it.” The Mishnah Soṭah 8:2 specifies that it makes no difference whether the house is for straw, cattle, wood, or storage (but not a gatehouse, portico, or porch: Soṭah 8:3), and whether one built, purchased, or inherited it, or received it as a gift, i.e., so long as it is new for him. I.e., in the fifth year. Deut. 20:6 specifies a vineyard. Josephus omits as the reason for the exemption, i.e., “lest he die in battle and another man enjoy its fruit.” The Mishnah Soṭah 8:2 specifies that it makes no difference whether it was a vineyard or 5 fruit trees (but not 4 fruit trees or 5 barren trees: Soṭah 8:3) and whether the man in question was one who planted the tree, sank it into the ground, or grafted it, and whether he had bought or inherited the vineyard or received it as a gift. Deut. 20:7 mentions only one who has betrothed a wife and not one who has recently married. The Mishnah (Soṭah 8:2) specifies that it makes no difference whether it was a virgin or a widow or a childless brother’s widow (awaiting the levir) whom he betrothed, though it does so in the case of a woman whom he had previously divorced (Soṭah 8:2). The phrase “on account of their wives” is omitted in the Latin translation. Nodet (ad loc.) suggests that Josephus has been influenced by a Hebraism, according to which the word ‮בית‬‎ (“house”) also signifies a wife (so Mishnah Yoma 1:1). Mention of the betrothed and recently married is Josephus’ addition. According to the Mishnah (Soṭah 8:7), the exemptions from military service apply only in the case of an optional war, while in the case of a war that is commanded by the Torah, there are no exemptions. Cf. Philo (De Virtutibus 5.30): “Just as hungry or thirsty people, when some food or drink presents itself, race in pursuit of it without a backward glance in their eagerness to partake of it, so those who have labored to gain a lawful wife or a house or a farm, and hopefully think that a time for using it is on the point of arriving, are distressed when they are robbed of its enjoyment, and thus, though present in the body, are absent in the better part, the soul, which is the determining factor of success or failure.”

As Nodet (ad loc.) remarks, Josephus is apparently thinking here of the way the Romans fought and established siege-camps. This characterization is Josephus’ addition. Deut. 20:19 speaks of besieging a city. Josephus omits the statement (Deut. 20:19) that the besiegers may eat of the trees. Even in his presentation of the Mosaic code Josephus is more dramatic. Here he is inspired to ascribe a voice to a tree by the comparison in Deut. 20:19 of trees to men. Thus, Deut. 20:19 presents the law that when engaged in a long siege the Israelites are not permitted to destroy the trees in the area. Josephus dramatically supplies the reason why the besiegers cut down the trees, the reason why they should not be cut down, and what the trees would say. He omits the statement (ibid.) that the rule applies when the Israelites have been besieging a city for a long time, that the trees are not to be likened to men, and that only the trees that are known not to be trees for food may be destroyed. Josephus’ explanation is applied to Deut. 20:19 by Josiah Pinto (1643) on Ta‘anit 7a. Nodet (ad loc.) suggests that Josephus, in making this strong statement, has in mind the situation in which Titus, when he recommenced the erection of siege-works (War 5.522-23), had great difficulty finding wood, because all the trees around the city had been felled for the previous works, so that the troops had to go as far as 90 furlongs (approximately 10 miles) to find wood. Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 4.41.226-29) similarly dramatizes the reaction of trees to the men who seek to cut them down: “‘For why,’ it [the soil of the trees] says, ‘do you bear a grudge against things that though lifeless are kindly in nature and produce kindly fruits? Does a tree, I ask you, show ill will to the human enemy that it should be pulled up, roots and all, to punish it for ill that it has done or is ready to do to you?’”

While it is true that “those who who were ranged against you” is in the masculine plural, Josephus does not specify, as does Deut. 20:13, that all the males are to be put to death. Midrash Deut. Rabbah 5.13 states that Moses offered the option of peaceful settlement even when waging a mandatory war. Jerusalem Talmud Shebi‘it 6.1.36c writes the same about Joshua’s conquest of the land of Israel. Josephus’ Moses enjoins slaying only those who resisted, reminding one of Virgil’s famous lines (Aen. 6.851-53):“Tu regere imperio populos, Romane, memento (hae tibi erunt artes), pacisque imponere morem, parcere subjectis, et debellare superbos.”(“You, O Roman, remember to rule the peoples under your sway (these will be your arts) and to impose the way of peace, to spare those subdued and to humble the haughty ones.”) Josephus’ concern for mercy will explain his deviation from the general biblical injunction (Deut. 20:13-14) that the Israelites are to slay all the men in battle but to take as plunder women, children, cattle, and everything else in the city. Cf. Deut. 20:15-18: “Thus you shall do to all the cities that are very far from you, which are not cities of the nations here. But in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God gives you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes, but you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, as the Lord your God has commanded; that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices that they have done in the service of their gods, and so to sin against the Lord your God.” Such a statement would presumably have been regarded by Josephus’ readers as illiberal. See Feldman (1998:557-58).

Deut. 22:5: “A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.” From the word “especially” one can see that Josephus has in mind the general application of this commandment. The special application of this prescription to warfare is Josephus’ addition. Weill, Thackeray, and Schalit all cite a parallel in Nazir 59a (add Sifre Deut. 226), in which Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob forbids women to bear arms or to go to war; indeed, Eliezer’s proof-text is Deut. 22:5. The word used for the apparel of a man, which a woman is prohibited to wear, is ‮כלי‬‎, which, as Weill comments, can signify either clothing or armaments. Similarly, σκεύη (the plural of the word σκεῦος, with which the LXX translates this), usually means implements, including military accoutrements or equipment. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Deut. 22:5 understands it to refer to the fringes of the talit and the phylacteries and to shaving the armpits; while Targum Neofiti, like Josephus, refers it to weapons of war. Cf. Philo (De Virtutibus 4.20-21): “It [the Pentateuch] considered that in such matters [habits of life and dress] the true man should maintain his masculinity, particularly in his clothes, which as he always wears them by day and night ought to have nothing to suggest unmanliness. In the same way he [Moses] trained the woman to decency of adornment and forbade her to assume the dress of a man, with the further object of guarding against the mannish-woman as much as the womanish-man. He knew that as in buildings, if one of the foundation stones is removed, the rest will not remain as they were.”

I.e., Ant. 4.199-301. Other laws are included in Ant. 3.91-294. A summary and evaluation of the Jewish constitution appears in Apion 2.145-295. This is Josephus’ projected work on “Customs and Causes,” which he also mentions in various places, though not all of these references are necessarily to the same work. Deut. 28:1-14. Deut. 27:15-26, 28:15-69. Josephus discusses these in further detail in Ant. 4.305-8.

On Moses as poet cf. the ascription to him of Psalms 90-100 (cf. Baba Batra 14b), as well as the identification by Artapanus of him with Musaeaus, the teacher of the mythical singer Orpheus (ap. Eus., Pr. Ev. 9.27.3-4). Deut. 32:1-43. This is a Hellenization. So also Josephus (Ant. 2.346) says that Moses composed in hexameter verse a song to God after the miraculous crossing of the Sea of Reeds. Manuscript M reads “the book.” Thackeray (1929:90-91) suggests that this, like the song to the well in Num. 21:17-18, was part of a collection of chants, which he identifies as the Sefer Hayashar, all of which are lyrical portions, taken mainly from the Bible, for the use of Temple singers. Similarly, Ant. 3.38 refers to a writing deposited in the Temple containing God’s prediction that water would come from the rock. Likewise, the statement, said to be written in the Sefer Hayashar (Josh. 10:13), that the sun stood still and the day was lengthened during the time of Joshua is said to be attested by writings laid up in the Temple (Ant. 5.61). Thackeray notes that, according to 2 Sam. 1:18, the Sefer Hayashar also contained David’s poetical lament over Saul and Jonathan. Schalit (ad loc.) thinks that the reference here in Josephus is to a work of the Apocrypha or Pseudepigrapha, such as the Assumption of Moses. Nodet (ad loc.) notes that there are several indications in Josephus that the cult of the Temple was restored to some extent after its destruction in the year 70, namely that Josephus always speaks in the present tense when he describes the Temple and the priestly cult (cf. Apion 2.193-98); but this may be merely Josephus’ way of saying that the concept of the Temple cult was very much alive in the mind of Jews even after its physical destruction. Deut. 33:6-25. This statement, that Moses’ final song contains a prediction of events to come, agrees with rabbinic tradition; see Sifre Deut. 307-33 and parallels, cited by Ginzberg (1928:6:155, n. 920). Cf. Ant. 4.320. Cf. Philo (De Vita Mosis 2.51.288): “Some of these [prophecies] have already taken place, others are still looked for, since confidence in the future is assured by fulfillment in the past.” μηδὲν ... διημαρτηκότος τῆς ἀληθείας (“not at all deviated from the truth”). The same phrase is used about the accuracy of the translation of early Jewish history by certain Greeks (οὐ πολὺ τῆς ἀληθείας διήμαρτον, War 1.17). Similar phrases are used about the accuracy of Nicolaus of Damascus’ account of Ben-hadad’s victory over King Ahab of Israel (οὐ διήμαρτε ... τῆς ἀληθείας, Ant. 7.103) and about the accuracy of certain Greek historians—Demetrius of Phalerum, Philo the Elder, and Eupolemus—who have not misrepresented early Israelite history (Apion 1.218). On the other hand, says Josephus, most Greek historians have departed from the truth (τῆς... ἀληθείας... διήμαρτον, Apion 1.217). Manetho, he adds, did not depart much from the truth (οὐ πολὺ τῆς ἀληθείας διημάρτανεν) so long as he followed the ancient records of the Jews.

Deut. 31:9: “And Moses wrote this law, and gave it to the priests the sons of Levi, who carried the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and to all the elders of Israel.” Deut. 10:1-2: “At that time the Lord said to me [Moses], ‘Hew two tables of stone like the first, and come up to me on the mountain, and make an ark of wood. And I will write on the tables the words that were on the first tables which you broke, and you shall put them in the ark.’” Ant. 3.138 states that Moses deposited the two tables within the ark, which he placed in the sanctuary. In Deut. 31:26 we read that Moses commanded the Levites: “Take this book of the law, and put it by the side of the ark of the convenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against you.” Ant. 3.90-92. According to 1 Kgs. 8:9, “there was nothing in the ark except the two tables of stone that Moses put there at Horeb.” According to Baba Batra 14b, the scroll of the Pentateuch was placed at the side of the tables and not between them. In addition, the fragments of the tablets that Moses broke when he first came down from Mount Sinai were likewise deposited in the ark (Tosefta Soṭah 7:18). Nodet (ad loc.) notes that Josephus has omitted the apparent contradiction between Num. 10:33, which states that the ark went before the Israelites 3 days’ journey to seek out a resting place for them, and Num. 14:44, which asserts that the ark did not depart from the camp. Cf. Exod. 17:8-16, Deut. 25:17-19; Ant. 3.39-58.

According to Deut. 27:2, on the very day on which the Israelites pass over the Jordan they are to set up stones and write upon them all the words of the Law. As Begg (1997:194) remarks, Josephus is more realistic in taking into account the threatening situation that the Israelites would face once they crossed the Jordan; hence they must first conquer the land. Josephus’ language here recalls that used by him just before this (Ant. 4.304), i.e., after they have conquered the land and established themselves in it they are to exact vengeance on the Amalekites. The manuscripts add ἐμπεριάγειν (“bring round”), a word that is found in extant Greek literature only here and in War 5.367 but that is omitted in the Latin version and in the editio princeps. If it is the correct reading, this would indicate, as Thackeray (ad loc.) remarks, that the altar set up by Moses (Ant. 4.308) was to be taken with the Israelites and not erected on the spot. Thackeray (ad loc.) and Nodet (ad loc.) think that the word is a gloss or a correction made by an assistant, intended to suggest a mobile installation. Josephus omits the detail (Deut. 27:5) that the altar is to be built of stones upon which no iron tool has been used. The LXX uses the word θυσιαστήριον for legitimate altars and βωμός for illegitimate ones. Josephus here and in Ant. 4.308 uses the word βωμός for the altar that the Israelites are to set up and, indeed, uses the two words interchangeably. See Daniel (1966:15-32) and Begg (1993:42 n. 209). Josephus omits the statement (Deut. 27:2-3) that when they have crossed the Jordan the Israelites are to set up stones on which they are to write all the words of the Law. Begg (1997:195) suggests that this omission may be due to the widespread parallelism between the stones and the altar (which is also constructed of stones, Deut. 27:5): both are to be erected upon Mount Ebal (Deut. 27:4), and both are to have the words of the Law inscribed upon them (Deut. 27:2, 8). Moreover, as Begg (ibid.) notes, Josephus here is in accord with Josh. 8:31-32, which states that it is on the stones of the altar that Joshua inscribes the words of the Law. According to the Mishnah Soṭah 7:5, the ark replaces the altar. Deut. 27:4-5: “And when you have passed over the Jordan, you shall set up these stones, concerning which I command you this day, on Mount Ebal, and you shall plaster them with plaster. And there you shall build an altar to the Lord your God, an altar of stones.” Josephus omits that the altar is to be built of unhewn stones, that no iron tool is to be used in building it, and that it is to be covered with plaster. That the altar is to be turned toward the East is Josephus’ addition. Begg (1997:196 n. 14) suggests that this orientation perhaps reflects Ezekiel 43:3, which states that the glory of God came from the East, and 47:1, which states that the Temple faced toward the East. The origin of this orientation may be the statement with regard to the encampment of the Israelites in the desert in Num. 2:3, which starts with the East side and uses the same phrase that Josephus uses here—“toward the rising sun”: “Those to encamp on the east side toward the sunrise shall be of the standard of the camp of Judah by their companies.” According to Apion (ap. Apion 2.10), Moses erected prayer-houses, open to the air, in the various precincts of the city of Heliopolis in Egypt, all facing Eastwards. The rule stated in the Mishnah Berakot 4:5 is that if one is riding on a donkey, he should dismount to pray, but if he cannot dismount he should turn his face (toward Jerusalem). Precisely the same phrase, πρὸς ἥλιον ἀνίσχοντα (“toward the rising sun,” i.e. toward the East) is found in Herodotus (3.98) with regard to the people of India who live furthest to the east of all the nations of Asia. Cf. Josephus’ statement with regard to the Essenes (War 2.128): “Before the sun is up they utter no word on mundane matters, but offer to Him [God] certain prayers, which have been handed down from their forefathers, as though entreating him to rise.” Deut. 27:12 does not mention the city of Shechem, nor does Josh. 8:30-33, in the description of the altar built by Joshua. The association of Shechem and Mount Gerizim does appear in Judg. 9:7 and in the Samaritan Pentateuch at the end of Deut. 11:30; likewise the rabbinic tradition (Mishnah Soṭah 7:5) uses language very similar to that of Josephus: “When Israel came across the Jordan and arrived before Mount Gerizim and before Mount Ebal in Samaria near Shechem.” Manuscripts MSPL read Σικίμων, i.e. Sikima, the city of Shechem. As Nodet (ad loc.) remarks, Josephus here (though not in Ant. 5.69) hesitates to give the exact site of the altar, because Gerizim would tend to give legitimacy to the Samaritans, whereas Ebal is a site of curses. The Mishnah Soṭah 7:5 states that when the Israelites crossed the Jordan they arrived at these mountains in Samaria near Shechem; so also, according to the Dead Sea fragment 4 QJoshua, as noted by Nodet (ad loc.). Eusebius (Onom., p. 64 [Klostermann]) suggests that the localizing of these mountains near Shechem is a Samaritan falsification, inasmuch as they, according to Deut. 11:30, were near Gilgal, which is itself near Jericho (so Josh. 4:19, the Madaba map, and an opinion cited by the Jerusalem Talmud [Soṭah 7.3.21c]). Whereas, according to Deut. 27:4-5 and Josh. 8:30, the altar was erected on Mount Ebal, Josephus here locates it near Shechem. Hebrew ‮גרזים‬‎ (Deut. 27:12), LXX Γαριζίν, Josephus Γαριζαῖος. Hebrew ‮עיבל‬‎ (Deut. 27:4), LXX Γαιβάλ, Josephus Βουλή (=“Counsel”). The editio princeps reads Γιβάλου, which seems to stand somewhere between the spelling (and sound) of the LXX and that of the existing Greek manuscripts of Josephus. Schalit (ad loc.) suggests that Josephus’ Βουλή may be an error for Ἠβούλ. The fact that Βουλή is not declined here is an indication, as Nodet (ad loc.) remarks, that this is not a matter of mere Hellenization. In Ant. 5.69, where Joshua (Josh. 8:30-35) sets up an altar in accordance with these instructions, Josephus refers to Mount Ebal as Ἥβηλος. Thackeray (ad loc.) suggests that the Hebrew is perhaps connected with the god Bel. Josephus omits the statement (Deut. 27:8) that on the stones of this altar are to be written all the words of the Law very plainly, which the Mishnah Soṭah 7:5 understands to indicate that they were written in the 70 languages traditionally said to be spoken throughout the world. According to Deut. 27:12-13, the tribes of Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Joseph, and Benjamin stood upon Mount Gerizim; the tribes of Reuben, Gad, Asher, Zebulun, Dan, and Naphtali stood on Mount Ebal. The Jerusalem Talmud (Soṭah 7.4.21c) asks how the Levites could at the same time be one of the tribes on Mount Gerizim and be in charge of the procedure of declaring the blessings and curses. Josephus omits mention of the statement by Moses and the Levitical priests to the Israelites (Deut. 27:9-10) that this day they (the Israelites) have become the people of the Lord and should therefore obey His commandments. Deut. 27:14 mentions only the Levites; Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Deut. 27:15 mentions priests and Levites. Josh. 8:33 states that all the Israelites stood on opposite sides of the ark before the priests and Levites. In his version of Joshua’s erection of the altar, Josephus (Ant. 5.69) locates the scene in Shechem “at the spot foreordained by Moses,” and says that he placed the altar on Mount Ebal, along with the Levites and priests. The Mishnah Soṭah 7:5, like Josephus, mentions both the Levites and the priests.

In Deut. 27:14 it is not those who stand on Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal who pronounce the blessings and the curses but rather the Levites who do so with a loud voice, whereupon all the people are to respond by saying “Amen.” According to Deut. 27:15-26, the curses are to be pronounced before the blessings (Deut. 28:1-14), followed again by curses (Deut. 28:15-68). There are similar lists of blessings and curses in Lev. 26:3-46. Josephus has very much abridged these lists. According to the Mishnah Soṭah 7:2, the blessings and curses are to be recited only in Hebrew. The Mishnah Soṭah 7:5, like Josephus, starts with the blessings and proceeds to the curses. The blessing upon those who were zealous in the worship of God is Josephus’ addition to Deut. 28:1. There is no response of “amen” to the blessings mentioned in Deut. 28:1-14. I.e., those on Mount Ebal. According to Deut. 27:15 (“And all the people shall answer and say, ‘Amen’”), the approval is given only to the curses, whereas Josephus has the approval given also to the blessings.

According to the Mishnah Soṭah 7:5, the curses are to be worded in exactly the opposite form as the blessings. Cf. Philo (Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres 36.177): “Then he [Moses] places upon them [Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal] the leaders of the tribes to show to those who need warning that curses are equal in number to blessings and (if we may say so without offence) of equal value. For praises given to the good and censure given to the bad are equally beneficial, since in the judgement of men of sense, avoiding evil and choosing good are one and the same.” Cf. Ant. 4.302, where Moses gives blessings and curses for the future actions of the Israelites. Calling to each other in confirmation of what is said is Josephus’ addition. It would seem that, according to Josephus, both those of Gerizim and those on Ebal pronounce both the blessings and the curses. Whereas Deut. 28:1-14 presents the blessings, and Deut. 27:15-26 and 28:15-68 the curses at length, Josephus is content merely to mention that there were blessings and curses. In contrast to Josh. 8:34, which states that Joshua read all the blessings and the curses, Josephus (Ant. 5.70), in his paraphrase of this passage, mentions only the curses. Josephus has added this reason why Moses recorded the blessings and curses of the Torah.

Schalit (ad loc.) translates “before his death.” According to Deut. 27:8, the Israelites, rather than Moses, are to inscribe not merely the blessings and the curses but the entire Torah. Moreover, according to Deut. 27:8, they are to write them upon the stones (and not, as here indicated, on the altar on both sides). According to Josh. 8:32, it is Joshua who wrote on the stones a copy of the law of Moses. The statement that Moses inscribed these curses upon the altar here is Josephus’ innovation, perhaps based on the parallel with Joshua. Perhaps what Josephus means is that they are part of the written Torah that Moses presented to the Israelites; but this will not explain Josephus’ additional statement that Moses actually inscribed them upon an altar. Begg (1997:199) suggests that Josephus ascribed the writing to Moses alone because it was hard to imagine all the Israelites writing en masse on the limited surface of the stones. Josephus’ statement that Moses inscribed only the curses may be due to his wondering how anyone could have inscribed all the numerous commandments of Deuteronomy in the limited space of stones. On the other hand, the rabbinic tradition (Mishnah Soṭah 7:5) states that the Israelites wrote on the stones all the words of the Torah—and in 70 languages. Deut. 27:6-7 specifies burnt offerings and peace offerings. That the Israelites should not offer further sacrifices here is Josephus’ addition. Josephus is refuting the Samaritan practice, which continued to sacrifice in these places, whereas, according to Josephus, sacrifices must be confined to the Temple in Jerusalem. On Josephus’ ambivalent attitude toward the Samaritans, see Feldman (1992a). This may refer only to the laws summarized here in Ant. 4.199-308, but more likely it refers to all the commandments in the Torah. Josephus here expresses the confident view that the Jews generally do observe these commandments. See Josephus’ tribute to the Jews’ loyalty to the commandments of the Pentateuch, including their readiness to endure torture and death rather than to violate them (Apion 1.42-43, 2.219, 232-35). On the general adherence of the Jews in the Diaspora to the commandments during this period, see Feldman (1993a:45-83); and, in particular, on the observance by Jews generally of such commandments as circumcision, the Sabbath, and dietary laws, see Feldman (1993:153-70).

In Deut. 29:1 there is no indication that the assembly was held on the following day, though it would appear that Moses delivered all of these exhortations on the very day that he died (Deut. 32:48). Deut. 29:10-11: “You stand this day all of you before the Lord your God; the heads of your tribes, your elders, and your officers, all the men of Israel, your little ones, your wives, and the sojourner who is in your camp, both he who hews your wood and he who draws your water.” As Nodet (ad loc.) remarks, in Josh. 9:21, 27, we read that the Gibeonites became hewers of wood and drawers of water for the Israelites; Josephus (Ant. 5.57), in his paraphrase of this passage, refers to them as public slaves. The composition of this assembly is similar to that which was present for the septennial reading of the laws (Deut. 31:12, Ant. 4.209). Josephus very much abbreviates this last speech of Moses (Deut. 29:2-33:29). Deut. 29:11 speaks of the Israelites entering into the covenant with God; Josephus here, as elsewhere, mentions not the covenant but the keeping of the laws. The image is that of accountants. Cf. Deut. 29:18: “Beware lest there be among you a man or woman or family or tribe, whose heart turns away this day from the Lord our God to go and serve the gods of those nations; lest there be among you a root bearing poisonous and bitter fruit.” Another case where leniency to relatives is to be avoided is that toward a rebellious son (Deut. 21:18-21, Ant. 4.260-64). Nodet (ad loc.) cites Deut. 13:2-4: “If a prophet arises among you, or a dreamer of dreams, and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder which he tells you comes to pass, and if he says, ‘Let us go after other gods,’ which you have not known, ‘and let us serve them,’ you shall not listen to the words of that prophet, or to that dreamer of dreams; for the Lord your God is testing you, to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.” Similarly Deut. 13:7: “If your brother...entices you secretly,” and Deut. 13:13-17. Josephus omits the sensitive statement concerning a prophet whose prophecy has been verified, perhaps because of the now famous prophecy (War 6.312; Tac., Hist. 5.13.2; Suet., Vesp. 4.5) that someone from Judea would become ruler of the world.

Cf. Deut. 13:7-10: “If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son, or your daughter, or the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, entices you secretly, saying ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which neither you nor your fathers have known, some of the gods of the peoples that are round about you, whether near you or far off from you, from the one end of the earth to the other, you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him; but you shall kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.” If the attempt is made secretly to seduce Israelites to worship other gods, there is to be no due process; but rather one is to take the law into one’s own hand and kill the offender. Cf. Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 1.58.316: “If a brother or son or daughter or wife or a housemate or a friend however true, or anyone else who seems to be kindly disposed, urge us to a like course, bidding us fraternize with the multitude, resort to their temples, and join in their libations and sacrifices, we must punish him as a public and general enemy, taking little thought for the ties that bind us to him; and we must send round a report of his proposals to all the lovers of piety, who will rush with a speed that brooks no delay to take vengeance on the unholy man, and deem it a religious duty to seek his death.” Philo (De Specialibus Legibus 1.9.54-55) does not distinguish between secret or open enticement and prescribes direct punishment by lynching, whereas the LXX (Deut. 13:9) says that “you shall surely report him,” implying a judicial process. On the question of lynching according to Philo see the controversial work by Seland (1995). Nodet (ad loc.) suggests, however, that Philo’s tone is more homiletical than juridical and perhaps does not correspond to practical reality. Deut. 13:13-17: “If you hear in one of your cities, which the Lord your God gives you to dwell there, that certain base fellows have gone out among you and have drawn away the inhabitants of the city, saying ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which you have not known, then you shall inquire and make search and ask diligently; and behold, if it is true and certain that such an abominable thing has been done among you, you shall surely put the inhabitants of that city to the sword, destroying it utterly, all who are in it and its cattle, with the edge of the sword. You shall gather all its spoil into the midst of its open square, and burn the city and all its spoil with fire.” In such a case, where the attempt was made to influence people openly to worship of other gods, due process is to be followed, with witnesses appearing before a court, as we see in the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 7:10). According to the Mishnah Sanhedrin 1:5, only the Sanhedrin of 71 can declare a city to be an apostate city; a city on the frontier cannot be so condemned, nor can 3 cities in one locale be so declared, and, in any case, Jerusalem cannot be so declared according to Sifre Deut. 93 (ed. Finkelstein, p. 154). Josephus omits the statement in Deut. 29:14-15: “Nor is it with you only that I make this sworn covenant, but with him who is not here with us this day as well as with him who stands here with us this day before the Lord our God.”

Cf. Num. 28-29. Num. 27:21:“And he [Joshua] shall stand before Eleazar the priest, who shall inquire for him by the judgment of the Urim before the Lord; at his word they shall go out, and at his word they shall come in, both he and all the people of Israel with him, the whole congregation.” The Mishnah Soṭah 9:12 states that when the latter prophets died out (at the time of the destruction of the First Temple), the Urim and Thummim were cancelled. Josephus himself (Ant. 3.218) says that the breastplate and sardonyx of the high priest ceased to shine 200 years before he himself composed his Antiquities, which would take us back approximately to the time of the death of John Hyrcanus (104 B.C.E.). Ant. 3.214-17. Cf. Num. 27:18: “And the Lord said to Moses, ‘Take Joshua the son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit [i.e. of prophecy, according to Targum Onqelos and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan], and lay your hand upon him.’” The statement that Joshua also prophesied in the presence of Moses is extra-biblical. Just as Moses (Ant. 4.320), at the close of his life, “prophesies” to each of the tribes the things that are past (Deut. 29:5-8), so the Book of Joshua is a prophetic book, as it is reckoned also by the rabbis (Baba Batra 14b); and Joshua himself is a member of Josephus’ own profession, that is, an historian, who, as we have noted, is akin to the prophet in his view. Cf. Ant. 4.165.

Cf. Deut. 29:1-7.

Cf. Deut. 28:52: “They [the enemy] shall besiege you in all your towns, until your high and fortified walls, in which you trusted, come down throughout all your land; and they shall besiege you in all your towns throughout all your land, which the Lord your God has given you.” In the long list of predictions of what will happen to the Israelites if they disobey the commandments (Deut. 28:15-69), there is no prediction of the destruction of the Temple. Cf. Deut. 28:68: “And the Lord will bring you back in ships to Egypt, a journey that I promised that you should never make again; and there you shall offer yourselves for sale to your enemies as male and female slaves, but no man will buy you.” The biblical text states that the Israelites will offer themselves for sale, but Josephus says that they will be sold, presumably by their captors. Cf. Deut. 28:15-68. There is in this biblical passage, however, no indication that the repentance of the Israelites would be of no avail.

Cf. Deut. 30:1-5. The prediction that God will restore the Temple is Josephus’ addition. This is Josephus’ editorial comment, the reference being to the destruction of the Temple in 586 B.C.E. by the Babylonians and in 70 C.E. by the Romans.

Manuscripts ROPL read στρατείαν (“expedition,” “campaign”) instead of στρατιὰν (“army”). Deut. 31:7: “Then Moses summoned Joshua, and said to him in the sight of all Israel, ‘Be strong and of good courage; for you shall go with this people into the land that the Lord has sworn to their fathers to give them; and you shall put them in possession of it.’” In Deut. 31:16 it is God who tells Moses that he is about to sleep with his fathers. Deut. 32:48 says that God told Moses that he was to die that very day, but there is no indication that Moses acknowledged this.

In his long address in Deut. 32-33, Moses does not express thanks to God. Manuscripts R and O read ὑμῖν (“to you”). Connected with the quality of φιλανθρωπία is that of showing gratitude. Thus Jethro, in a considerable amplification of the Bible (Exodus 2:20), compliments Moses for his sense of gratitude and for his requiting favors (Ant. 2.262). Likewise, in his last speech to the people, Moses, in a supplement to the Bible (Deut. 32), here renders personal thanks to God for the care that He had bestowed upon them.

Moses’ humble reference to himself as merely God’s sub-general (ὑπὸ στρατήγῳ) and underling (ὐπηρέτῃ, “subordinate”) is Josephus’ addition.

Deut. 32:3: “For I will proclaim the name of the Lord. Ascribe greatness to our God!”

Levine (1993:79-80) notes that Moses’ last sentence is his final warning against ὕβρις (ὑβριζομένων τῶν νόμων). His last words thus reiterate the message that Josephus has been underlining from the start: to obey the laws is to avoid ὕβρις and its punishment. On the contrary, nowhere does Philo emphasize the didactic warning highlighted in Josephus’ account of Moses; he does not use the ὕβρις motif at all in this regard. This a fortiori argument is Josephus’ addition.

Cf. Deut. 33:1-29. Josephus highlights the role of Moses as a prophet, twice identifying him as a prophet when the biblical text does not (Ant. 2.327 vs. Exod. 14:13; Ant. 4.320 vs. Deut. 33:1). See Feldman (1990). So also Philo (Legum Allegoriae 2.1.1). See Wolfson (1947: 2.16-20). Cf. Deut. 33:6-25. The description of the wailing for Moses’ approaching death becomes much more graphic in Josephus’ version. In the Bible it is only after Moses’ death that the Israelites bewail him for 30 days, but there is no description of the wailing itself (Deut. 34:8). In Josephus, however, we have a much more dramatic scene: the wailing is more moving because it takes place after Moses has told the Israelites about his approaching death but while he is still alive; the multitude bursts into tears, with the women beating their breasts; and the children wail even more, being too feeble to suppress their grief. Moses’ greatness is aggrandized by the fact that the children, we are told, in their lament, understand his virtues and grand achievements to an extent beyond their years. Perhaps most poignant of all is that even Moses himself is yet reduced to tears when he sees the laments of the people (Ant. 4.322).

This entire paragraph is Josephus’ addition.

Josephus is probably thinking here of the parallels in Stoic outlook, such as we find in the cases of Seneca the Younger and Marcus Aurelius. This description of Moses’ weeping is Josephus’ addition. Nodet (ad loc.) suggests that Josephus has added this in order that Moses should not appear to have received less honor than Aaron, who died with the eyes of the multitude upon him (Ant. 4.83).

Josephus’ account as a whole is given a heightened drama, with Moses touchingly bidding the weeping people farewell, withdrawing from them, telling them not to weep (compare Socrates’ words to his disciples in Plato’s Phaedo [117D7-E1]), facing his final moment alone. This entire paragraph is Josephus’ addition.

This entire paragraph is Josephus’ addition. The Bible simply states that Moses died (Deut. 34:5). Compare Num. 20:25-29, the account of the death of Aaron.

Hebrew ‮עברים‬‎ (Deut. 32:49), LXX Ἀβαρίν, Josephus Ἀβαρεῖ. According to Deut. 34:1, “Moses went up from the plains of Moab to Mount Nebo, to the top of Pisgah, which is opposite Jericho,” but does not mention Abarim. Abarim is a mountain range east of the mouth of the Jordan River and northeast of the Dead Sea, one of the peaks of which is Mount Nebo. According to Num. 34:47 Abarim is before Nebo. See Ferch (1992:1:6-7). Josephus omits God’s explanation to Moses as to why he was not permitted to enter the Land of Israel, namely that he committed an offense against Him at the waters of Meribath-Kadesh (Deut. 32:51). Josephus omits the statement (Deut. 34:1-4) that God showed Moses the entire land of Israel from the top of Pisgah on Mount Nebo.

Cf. Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ account of the disappearance of Aeneas (Ant. Rom. 1.64.4), in which case some conjectured that he had been translated to the gods, and the disappearance of Romulus (Ant. Rom. 2.56.2), in which darkness descended upon him from a clear sky, and the people believed that he had been caught up by his father Ares. Cf. Acts 1:10: “And when he [Jesus] had said this, as they [the apostles] were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight.” Goodenough (1953-68:9:117) notes that when Josephus says that Moses was taken πρὸς τὸ θεῖον he may mean that Moses was taken to heaven or “into divine nature.” He cites Midrash Deuteronomy Rabbah 11.10, where we read that when God bade the soul of Moses to leave his body he said, “Soul, go forth, do not delay, and I will raise thee to the highest heavens and will place thee under the Throne of Glory next to the Cherubim, Seraphim, and other troops of angels.” Josephus may here be contradicting the near-deification of Moses that Philo (De Virtutibus 11.73-12.76) reflects, as well as the common rumor of Moses’ assumption. Tabor (1989:237) notes that Josephus does not include the line from Deut. 34:6 about God Himself burying Moses and no one knowing to this day his grave site. According to Soṭah 14a, God buried Moses as an act of benevolence. The LXX and the Samaritan Pentateuch have “they [presumably the Israelites] buried him.” Moreover, Josephus adds the reference to the cloud’s suddenly descending upon Moses and his mysterious disappearance in a ravine. Tabor (1989:237) thinks that we must take Josephus’ line about Moses not “returning to the divinity” (in contrast to Enoch) as a conscious resistance to such contemporary evaluations of other extraordinary figures: Philo of Moses, the Christians of Jesus, or Dionysius of Aeneas and Romulus. But Josephus, he concludes, really wants to have it both ways. He somehow manages to recast his account so that it sounds like just such a scene—the tears and weeping, the withdrawal, the cloud descending upon Moses and his disappearance, with nothing said of his burial. Dionysius had said of Aeneas that his body could not be found (Ant. Rom. 1.64.4; cf. Diog. Laer. on Empedocles, 8.68). Josephus implies as much with Moses. At the same time he records that Moses “died,” since Moses, remarkably, had written this of himself while still living. Begg (1990:692) suggests that Josephus says that Moses did not return to the divinity but simply died because he wishes to emphasize Moses’ modesty, which runs through Josephus’ whole account of him, esp. Ant. 3.212, an extra-biblical passage. Thackeray (ad loc.) suggests that Josephus’ account is inspired by Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ version of the ascensions of Aeneas (1.64.4) and Romulus (2.56.2), but Herrmann (1970: 125) suggests rather that he is responding to the Church of Jerusalem’s narrative of the ascension of Jesus. He asserts that Josephus’ account here is comparable to that of Ant. 3.95-99, directed against those who said that when Moses remained for 40 days on Mount Sinai he had been taken back to God. Talbert (1975:424) suggests that Josephus’ combatting of the view that Moses had gone back to God is reinforced by his comment in Ant. 3.96, that when Moses was 40 days on the mountain receiving the Torah some said: “He has been taken back to the Divinity.” Fornaro (1979: 431-46) suggests that in his account of Moses’ death, as in his account of the disappearance of Enoch (Ant. 1.85) and Elijah (Ant. 9.28), Josephus is polemicizing against the Christian version of Jesus’ death and resurrection. However, whereas Josephus here says that Moses wrote that he had died lest people say that he had returned to the Divinity, elsewhere (Ant. 1.85) he says of Enoch, using the same phrase, that he had returned to the Divinity; hence such a phrase is unlikely to be part of a polemic against Jesus’ assumption. Goldin (1953: 278-80) notes that ambivalence toward Moses is characteristic of the rabbis, who feared lest he be magnified beyond human proportions. Ginzberg (1928, 6:151-52 n. 904) cites Assumption of Moses 1:15, which appears to combat the view that Moses did not die but was translated to heaven: “And I am now going in the presence of all the people to rest with my fathers.” Jacobson (657 on Bib. Ant. 19.16) objects that the proper translation is “And I now going to rest with my fathers and in the presence of all the people,” which is followed by a lacuna that, he thinks, contains a verb for the second phrase. The missing verb, however, may very well be “he died,” and this would, indeed, reinforce Ginzberg’s thesis. However, the parallel passage in Bib. Ant. 19.16, “He [God] buried him with His own hands in a high place” in lumine totius orbis, which James (1917:132) translated “in the light of the whole world,” that is, in public, more probably, as Jacobson here translates it, means “as a light for the entire world.” Apparently, however, as Talbert (1975:425 n. 38) points out, some Jewish circles must have portrayed Moses as becoming immortal, since we find that Celsus (ap. Origen, Contra Celsum 1.21) says that Moses attained divine honors. That Josephus was careful to emphasize the fact that Moses was human and not divine may be seen in the fact that on 8 occasions (Ant. 2.230, 271; 3.98, 180, 297, 316, 317, 320) he goes out of his way, in extra-biblical additions, to refer to Moses as a man. Cf. Deut. 34:5. The Talmud (Baba Batra 15a, Menaḥot 30a) raises the question as to how Moses could have written about his own death. One view, that of the second-century Rabbi Judah bar Ilai, or, according to others, Rabbi Nehemiah, is that the last 8 verses of the Torah (Deut. 4:5-12), which give the account of Moses’ death and burial, were written by Joshua. Josephus’ statement, that Moses himself wrote these verses, is in agreement with the view of the second-century Rabbi Simeon bar Yoḥai, that God dictated these verses and that Moses wrote them with tears. So also Philo (De Vita Mosis 2.51.291) declares that Moses “prophesied with discernment while still alive the story of his own death; told how he was buried with none present, surely by no mortal hands but by immortal powers; how also he was not laid to rest in the tomb of his forefathers but was given a monument of special dignity that no man has ever seen; how all the nation wept and mourned for him a whole month and made open display, private and public, of their sorrow, in memory of his vast benevolence and watchful care for each one of them and for all.” Josephus has omitted the statement (Deut. 34:5) that Moses died according to the word (‮על־פי‬‎, lit. “on the mouth,” which Baba Batra 17a understands to mean “by a kiss”). The rabbinic tradition (Soṭah 13b and parallels cited by Ginzberg (1928:6.161 n. 951) notes the view that some declared that Moses had never died. Cf. Philo (De Vita Mosis 2.51.288): “Afterwards the time came when he had to make his pilgrimage from earth to heaven, and leave this mortal life for immortality, summoned thither by the Father Who resolved his twofold nature of soul and body into a single unity, transforming his whole being into mind, pure as sunlight.” Great as Moses was as a leader, Josephus takes great pains to make sure that he will not be worshipped as a god. This was particularly necessary in view of the frequency among the Greeks of the apotheosis of heroes, such as Dionysus, Heracles (cf. Diodorus 4.38.3-5, 39.1-2), and Asclepius. See Lucian (Cynicus 13), where Heracles is called a divine man (θεῖον ἄνδρα). Cf. Pfister (1909-12); and Farnell (1921). Josephus may also be reacting to Sophocles’ account of the mysterious disappearance of Oedipus in Oedipus Coloneus, which bears a striking resemblance to that of Moses in his presentation. To the biblical account of Moses’ death (Deut. 34:1-6) Josephus has added lamenting people, a walk to the mountain, companions on Moses’ final walk, and “disappearance,” details which are found in no other post-biblical source, though those sources recount Moses’ last hours in far greater detail than does the Bible (see Jacobson [1993]). And yet, it is precisely these details that are found in Sophocles’ Oedipus Coloneus. This is particularly significant because Josephus is definitely indebted to Sophocles elsewhere (see Thackeray [1929:116-17]). In the play by Ezekiel (verses 68-89) Moses says that he dreamt about a great throne on top of Mount Sinai on which a noble man (i.e. God) was seated with a crown and a sceptre, which he gave to Moses. Although Jacobson (1983:89-97) interprets this scene as a polemic against the notion of the apotheosis of Moses, the text itself does not make that clear. Founders of cities were objects of religious devotion, as we see in Pausanias (10.4.10) (see Welles [1955:157]; and Talbert [1975:428]). Likewise, it was told of the philosopher Empedocles that after an evening party he disappeared and was nowhere to be found, and that one of those present at the party claimed to have heard a voice from heaven declaring that he was now a god (Heracleides of Pontus, ap. Diogenes Laertius [8.68]). Apollonius of Tyana is depicted as a god-like man (θεῖος ἀνήρ), whose divinity is manifest in his wisdom and virtue (ap. Philostratus, [Vita Apollonii 1.2, 2.17, 2.40, 5.24, 7.21, 7.38, 8.5, 8.7]). Again, when speaking of the death of Apollonius, Philostratus adds (8.29), “if he did actually die,” and then declares that no one ventured to dispute that he was immortal. Furthermore, a certain senator named Numerius Atticus swore that he had seen Augustus after his death ascend to heaven like Romulus and Proculus (ap. Suet., Aug. 94.4). Indeed, the motif of the apotheosis of rulers and philosophers became so widespread that it became the subject of satire in Seneca’s Apocolocyntosis and in Lucian’s Deorum Concilium and De Morte Peregrini. Moreover, stories were told of Alexander the Great’s attempt to throw himself into the Euphrates River so that it would be thought that he had passed directly to the gods. Cf. the elaborate picture painted by Pseudo-Philo (19.12), in which God tells Moses: “I will take you from here and lay you down to sleep with your fathers, and I will give you rest in your resting place and bury you in peace. All the angels will mourn over you, and the heavenly hosts will grieve. But no angel nor man will know your sepulchre in which you will be buried. You will rest in it until I visit the world. I will raise up you and your fathers from the earth in which you sleep, and you will come together and dwell in the immortal dwelling place that is not subject to time.” According to one view cited in the Mishnah ’Abot 5:6, the grave of Moses was one of the things created on the eve of the Sabbath of creation. Josephus omits the statement (Deut. 34:6) that God buried Moses and that no one knows the place of his burial “to this day” (which would imply that the account of Moses’ death was written after he had died). He also omits the statement (Deut. 34:7) that Moses’ eye was not dim nor his natural force abated.

Cf. Gen. 6:3: “The Lord said, ‘My spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh, but his days shall be 120 years.’” Josephus (Ant. 1.152) says that by the time of Terah, the father of Abraham, the duration of human life was already being curtailed and that it continued to diminish until the birth of Moses, after whom the limit of age was fixed by God at 120 years, the length of the life of Moses. Rabbinic tradition (Seder ‘Olam Rabbah 10 [ed. Ratner, p. 42], Qiddushin 38a, Soṭah 12b, Megillah 13b) puts Moses’ death on the seventh of Adar. It arrives at this date by noting that the Israelites wept for Moses 30 days (Deut. 34:8), that they prepared their provisions so that within 3 days they could pass over the Jordan (Josh. 1:11), and that they came up out of the Jordan on the tenth day of the first month (Josh. 4:19). This means that 33 days after Moses’ death they came up out of the Jordan. The tenth of the first month, Nisan, is 33 days after the seventh of Adar. Because he is said, according to an anonymous rabbi, to have been born on the seventh of Adar (Qiddushin 38a, Soṭah 12b; the sixth of Adar according to Megillah 13b), he lived exactly 120 years, since, according to Deut. 31:2, Moses told the Israelites “I am 120 years old this day.” Josephus, however, is in accord with the view expressed in Midrash Esther Rabbah 7.11 that Moses was born and died on the first of Adar. See Rappaport (127 n. 186). There is a problem in chronology, as noted by Nodet (ad loc.). According to Exod. 16:1, the Israelites came to the wilderness of Sin on the fifteenth day of the second month, i.e. Iyar, after they had left Egypt; and, on the following day (Exod. 16:6-7, 13) they received the manna. According to Exod. 16:35 they ate the manna for 40 years until they came to the border of the land of Canaan. According to Qiddushin 38a, the manna ceased to descend on the day of Moses’ death. Whether Moses died on the first or the seventh of Adar this would be before the completion of 40 years from the beginning of the descent of the manna. According to Josh. 5:12, the manna ceased on the day after the Passover, that is, on the fifteenth day of Nisan. This would still be one month less than 40 years after the fifteenth of Iyar, when the manna began to descend and would conflict with the tradition that the manna ceased on the day of Moses’ death.

Nodet (ad loc.) calls attention to Josephus’ editorial-like depiction of Moses in Ant. 1.19 as a Stoic-like sage who deemed it most necessary, in order to arrange his life properly, to study theology rationally and to follow the best of all models. On Moses’ superiority to all others see 3 Petirat Mosheh 71-72 (in Bet Ha-Midrasch, vol. 6, ed. Jellinek, pp. 71-72), cited by Ginzberg (1928:6:166 n. 961), who also notes (1928:6.90-91 n. 490), however, that some rabbinic sources (Sifre Num. 101 [ed. Horovitz, p. 100]) place the 3 patriarchs higher than Moses. However, other sources appraise Moses higher than the patriarchs (Ḥullin 89a and Philo, De Ebrietate 23.94). On the other hand, the Bible notes that Moses had a speech impediment (Exod. 4:10 and 6:12). On Moses as the Stoic-like sage see Ant. 2.229, where Josephus says that for contempt of toils he was the noblest of all the Israelites, and Ant. 4.323, where Moses tells the Israelites to halt their tears at his impending death. The fact that Moses himself broke down in tears (Ant. 4.322) is cited as most exceptional, since, we are told, Moses had always been persuaded that men should not be downcast at their approaching death. See Feldman (1993a:263-64).

This appreciation of Moses is Josephus’ addition. On the stress placed by Josephus on Moses’ ability as a general see note on Ant. 2.241 and Feldman (1993a:265-74). In contrast, Philo (De Vita Mosis 2.51.292), in summarizing Moses’ greatest achievements, refers to him as king, lawgiver, high priest, and prophet. Cf. Deut. 34:10: “And there has not arisen a prophet since in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face.” Herrmann (1970:126) suggests that this statement expresses Josephus’ hostility to Christianity. Josephus omits the statement (Deut. 34:10) that God knew Moses face to face.

Cf. Deut. 34:8. Aaron (Num. 20:29) and Miriam (Josephus’ addition in Ant. 4.78 to Num. 20:1) were likewise mourned for 30 days. Thackeray (on War 3.437) notes that while the period of mourning for men such as Moses and Aaron was 30 days, the normal period was 7 days (Sir. 22:12). However, Goldenberg (164) remarks that while this may have been true for biblical times, the 30-day period for non-leaders is at least as early as the Usha period (mid-second century) (Mo‘ed Qaṭan 23a). This statement about the extent of sorrow felt for Moses is Josephus’ addition.

This is Josephus’ addition. Cf. Ant. 3.317 on the admiration with which Moses was held for his virtue both in his own lifetime and thereafter. As Nodet (ad loc.) remarks, this is, in effect, the third conclusion to this book, the first 2 being at the end of Ant. 4.302 and 308. The reserve in this sentiment is reminiscent of the close of Ant. 4.158.

This transitional notice elaborates on the opening words of Josh 1:1 (“after the death of Moses the servant of the Lord...”) and recapitulates the account of Moses’ end given in Ant. 4.323-331. On Josephus’ portrait of Joshua overall see Feldman 1998: 443-60; Spilsbury 1998: 147-50. In proceeding directly from his notice on the death of Moses (// Josh 1:1a) to Joshua’s address to the people (// 1:10-11), Josephus passes over God’s extended opening speech to him of Josh 1:1b-9. On the phenomenon of “detheologizing” throughout Josephus’ version of the Book of Joshua, see Feldman 1998: 453-57.

Josh 2:1 specifies that there were 2 spies. Rabbinic tradition identifies the pair as Caleb and Phineas, or alternatively, as Perez and Zerah; see Ginzberg 1913: 4-5; 1928: 171, n. 10. Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 20.6) makes them Caleb’s sons Cenaz and Naam. In the Book of Joshua the dispatch of the spies (2:1) follows the exchange between the leader and the Transjordanian tribes (1:12-18). Josephus reverses this sequence. The above indications concerning the purpose of Joshua’ dispatching the spies and what he himself will do during their absence are Josephus’ additions to Josh 2:1.

This parenthetical notice recalls Josephus’ account of Moses’ awarding “Amoritis” to the 2 and 1/2 tribes in Ant. 4.166-171 (see Numbers 32). Marcus (ad loc.) follows Weill in suggesting that Josephus derives his qualification of “Amoria” as constituting a 7th part of the Canaanite country from the mention of the Amorites in the list of 7 peoples living in the land before the Israelites’ arrival in Josh 3:10, etc. In Josh 1:13 Joshua reminds the Transjordanians rather of Moses’ own word to them. On the Transjordanians’ promise to Moses; see Ant. 4.170.

This proposed motivation for the Transjordanians’ acting on their promise to Moses is Josephus’ addition to Joshua’s words in Josh 1:14-15. The chronological indication in Ant. 4.165 dates Moses’ granting their lands to the Transjordanians (4.166-171) to the time when he “was already an old man.” The above exhortation represents a generalization of the more specific directives Joshua gives the Transjordanians in Josh 1:14-15. This allusion to the Transjordanians’ “following” Joshua is a narrative transposition of their words pledging support for him in Josh 1:16-18. According to Josh 4:13 40,000 armed Israelites crossed the Jordan. In Josh 3:1 the Israelites depart from “Shittim.” Josephus’ name for the departure site corresponds to the opening component of its full biblical designation, i.e. “Abel-shittim” (see Num 33:49). In Ant. 4.176 the site is called “Abile”; see Feldman 2000 ad loc. In mentioning Israel’s advance at this point, Josephus reverses the sequence of Josh 3:1 and 2:2-24 where the spy story precedes the Israelites’ move to the Jordan. This indication has no biblical equivalent. The stadion equals 606 3/4 English feet; see LSJ s.v.

This notice on the spies’ return (see Josh 2:23) picks up on the mention of their dispatch in 5.2, following the account of Joshua’s initiatives during their time away in 5.3-4 (see Josh 1:12-18; 3:1). It employs the literary device of the litotes, in which a positive (“they knew all about”) is expressed by means of a negative.

The whole above sequence lacks a counterpart in Joshua 2 where, immediately upon entering the city, the spies repair (v. 1b) to Rahab’s house. The insertion makes clear that the spies did indeed carry out Joshua’s directive (see 5.2) that they reconnoiter the city, and provides an explanation of how they were able to do this without impediment, i.e. the inhabitants did not realize they were spies, taking them rather for curious tourists.

In Josh 2:1b (MT and LXX) the spies go to the house of the “harlot” Rahab. Josephus’ designation of her establishment corresponds to one meaning (“inn-keeper”) of the Aramaic term ‮פונרקיתא‬‎ used of Rahab’s profession in the Tg. of Josh 2:1b (the term also, however, may have the sense of “harlot”; see Levy s.v.) In Ant. 3.276 Josephus states that priests may not marry “inn-keepers,” a prohibition not otherwise paralleled in Jewish tradition; see Feldman 2000 ad loc. Josephus anticipates this specification about the location of Rahab’s residence from Josh 2:15. Josh 2:1b speaks of the spies’ “lodging” at Rahab’s house, thus seeming to envisage a longer stay for them.

This indication about what the king was doing when he received the report about the spies lacks a counterpart in Josh 2:2; it recalls the mention of the spies themselves entering Rahab’s place “for supper” in 5.7. On Josephus’ use of the designation “Hebrews,” see Harvey 1996: 124-29; Spilsbury 1998: 36-42. MT (Josh 2:1, etc.) ‮רהב‬‎ (Eng.: “Rahab”); LXX Ῥαάβ; Josephus Ῥαάβη. In Josh 2:2 the king is told only that men have come to spy out “the land,” not their actual whereabouts within the city. In having him supplied with this additional information, Josephus accounts for the king’s knowing where to send those who are to arrest the spies in what follows. In Josh 2:3a the king, through his messengers, commands Rahab herself to bring forth the spies. The above statement by the king concerning his intentions in having the interlopers brought before him replaces the declaration he instructs his men to make to Rahab in Josh 2:3b, i.e. the Israelites have come to spy out the land.

In Josh 2:4a and 6 there is a double reference to Rahab’s concealing the spies, separated by her words to the king’s men in 2:4b-5. Josephus first conflates the data of 2:4a and 6, and then has “Raabe” address the royal messengers. Niese reads “wall” here with the majority of the witnesses, whereas Marcus (ad loc.) follows the reading “roof” of E, which itself corresponds to the mention of the “roof” in Josh 2:6. This reference, echoing the wording of 5.7, lacks a basis in Rahab’s report to the royal messengers in Josh 2:4b. Josephus omits Rahab’s further statement (Josh 2:5a) that the spies had left at dusk when the city gate was about to be shut. These suggested motivations for a pursuit of the spies are an addition to Rahab’s “pursuit command” in Josh 2:5b.

This notice on the effect of Rahab’s words on the king’s men and their non-search of her establishment is Josephus’ amplification of Josh 2:7. This specification about the pursuers’ route is Josephus’ insertion. Josephus anticipates this notice on the unsuccessful outcome of the pursuit from Josh 2:22b. Conversely, he omits the mention of the shutting of the city gate following the pursuers’ exit in 2:7b.

In Josh 2:8 Rahab speaks to the spies on the roof itself. In having her first bring the men down into her house, Josephus makes her exchange with them occur in a more secure setting. This opening component of Rahab’s speech in Josephus’ version is an anticipation (and amplification) of her subsequent allusion (see Josh 2:12) to her having “dealt kindly” with the spies.

Josephus derives this item from the opening words (“I know that the Lord has given you the land”) of Rahab’s extended “theological confession” in Josh 2:9-11, the rest of which he leaves aside, likely finding it implausible in the mouth of a pagan (see, however, the note to “God” at 5.12). Josephus anticipates this item from Rahab’s subsequent, 2nd speech to the spies; cf. Josh 2:16. Josephus here amplifies Rahab’s plea at the end of Josh 2:13: “deliver our lives from death.” Her mention of the Israelites’ prior “decision” to annihilate Jericho’s inhabitants recalls Moses’ instruction in Ant. 4.300 that the “race of the Chananaians”— to which the people of Jericho belonged—were to be “obliterated utterly.” This concluding statement by Josephus’ Rahab picks up on her opening affirmation (Josh 2:9) about her “knowing” of the Lord’s intentions. It also provides a suggestion as to how the pagan foreigner Rahab obtained such knowledge. As to the nature of the “signs” to which Rahab alludes here, Marcus (ad loc.) suggests that these might be the miracles God had done for the Israelites as cited by Rahab in 2:10. On the word “sign” (Greek: σημεῖον) and related terms for “miracles” in Josephus, see Remus 1982: 543-44.

This opening word of recognition for Rahab’s services is Josephus’ amplification of the spies’ word to her in Josh 2:14. Joshua 2 does not explicitly recount the spies’ act of “swearing” to Rahab; cf., however, the allusions to this in vv. 12, 17, 20. Josephus omits the spies’ warning to Rahab about betraying their secret in 2:14b (and its recapitulation in 2:20). Josephus anticipates the spies’ “advice” to Rahab from their subsequent, 2nd exchange with her in Josh 2:18. In Josh 2:18 the spies propose the use of a scarlet “cord” by Rahab. “Cloths” would be more visible to the attackers. On Josephus’ characteristic (and non-biblical) title of στρατηγός (“general”) for Joshua, see Feldman 1998: 448. This indication about the intended purpose of the prescribed signal is Josephus’ amplification of the spies’ words in Josh 2:18.

Josephus spells out the meaning of the figurative phrase “his [i.e. the member of Rahab’s household who fails to remain inside] blood shall be upon his head” used by the spies in their address to Rahab in Josh 2:19a. This appeal to God replaces the spies’ acknowledgement (Josh 2:19b) that they will indeed be liable, should anyone of Rahab’s relatives who remains in her house be harmed.

In Josh 2:15 it is Rahab who lets the spies down. As they are on the point of descending a second exchange between her and them occurs (2:16-21a), which Josephus omits, having incorporated elements of it into his version of their preceding conversation. Josephus leaves aside the spies’ preliminary wait in the hills (Josh 2:22) until the Jericho pursuers have abandoned the search for them (as also Rahab’s instruction about this in 2:16), since, in his presentation, the pursuers have come back empty-handed even before the spies exit Jericho; see 5.10. Josephus has already anticipated mention of the spies’ own return in 5.5. In Josh 2:23 the spies report to Joshua alone. Josephus leaves aside the returned spies’ statement about the Lord’s having given Israel the land and the inhabitants’ faintheartedness of Josh 2:24, which itself alludes back to Rahab’s word about the inhabitants “melting away” before the Israelites in 2:9, likewise omitted by him. On Josephus’ down-playing of the biblical promises of the land as a response to the contemporary Zealots’ efforts to regain the land, see Amaru: 1980-1981; 1994: 95-115. Josephus has reported the succession of Eleazar as high priest in place of his dying father Aaron in Ant. 4.83 (// Num 20:28). Joshua’s submitting matters to these other organs of governance for their ratification is Josephus’ addition; similar such additions elsewhere serve to accentuate Joshua’s piety; see Feldman 1998: 452-53. On the “senate” (Greek: γερουσία; alternative translation: “council of the elders”) as the retrojection by Josephus of a much later institution into the time of Moses and Joshua, see Goodblatt 1994: 30-43, 90-99 and Mason 2003: 573-81.

The whole above sequence has no biblical basis. It functions to explain why a supernatural intervention, as spoken of in what follows, was needed to get the people across the Jordan. In Josh 3:13b it is Joshua—speaking in God’s name (see 3:9)—who assures the people that the Jordan’s waters will “stand in a heap.”

Cf. Josh 3:2, “at the end of three days.” In proceeding directly to the actual crossing here, Josephus passes over the various preliminary directives issued by the “officers” (3:2-3), Joshua (3:5-6), God (3:7-8), and Joshua speaking for God (3:9-13). See Josh 3:14. This mention of the Levites—as distinct from the priests—and the sacral objects they carry is Josephus’ addition. The insertion harks back to Ant. 3.258 (cf. Num 3:8), where Moses entrusts “the Tent and the sacred vessels” to the Levites. The insertion is noteworthy given Josephus’ overall tendency to downplay the Levites’ role in his retelling of biblical history (on which see Glessmer 1994: 139, 148-51). This specific mention of the women and children and of the people’s fear for their safety is Josephus’ addition.

Josephus here downplays the marvelous character of the event as described in Josh 3:15-16a, in which the waters above the transit site are heaped up at “Zamah,” while those below the site cease to flow. The people’s confidence—in contrast to their earlier anxiety (see 5.16-17)—and the allusion to God’s promise as cited in 5.16 are Josephus’ additions to Josh 3:16b.

See Josh 3:17. See Josh 4:18. In thus combining his version of 3:17 (see previous note) and 4:18, Josephus passes over the whole intervening sequence, 4:1-17: erection of 12 memorial stones in the Jordan itself (4:1-10); the Transjordanians’ leading the crossing (4:12-13), the Lord’s exaltation of Joshua (4:14), and Joshua’s directing the priests, in the Lord’s name, to come out of the Jordan (4:15-17).

Josephus supplies the 2 distance specifications in his version of Josh 4:19, from which, conversely, he omits—for the moment (but see 5.34)—the name of Israel’s initial campsite, i.e. “Gilgal.” See Josh 4:20-24 (the erection of the stones and their significance). Josephus derives his mention of Joshua’s “directions” about the picking up of the stones from the Jordan from Josh 4:5 (earlier passed over by him), where Joshua, speaking for the Lord (cf. 4:3), enjoins the tribal leaders to do this. Elsewhere too Josephus gives Joshua the “unbiblical” title “prophet”; see Ant. 3.165, 311, and cf. Feldman 1998: 447. Josh 4:20-24 does not qualify the erected stones as an “altar” or speak of sacrifice on them. Josephus’ addition of these items might reflect the influence of Deut 27:1-8 (cf. Ant. 4.305), where Moses prescribes (27:2) the erecting of stones, the building of an altar, and sacrifice on Mt. Ebal on the day (see 27:1) that Israel crosses the Jordan. See Josh 5:10, from which Josephus omits the specification that the feast was celebrated on the 14th day of the month. In combining mention of the memorial stones (Josh 4:20-24) and the Passover celebration (5:10), Josephus passes over the biblical notices on the fear of the Canaanite kings (5:1) and Joshua’s circumcision of the Israelites (5:2-9). His reason for omitting the latter passage might be that, in its tacit admission that the younger Israelite generation had not been circumcised during the desert wanderings (see vv. 5, 7), it reflects badly on his people and their adherence to a central requirement of the Law; see Spilsbury 1998: 149, n. 14. For his possible subsequent use of the notice of 5:1, see 5.22.

This notice on the advantages that the Israelites finally acquired upon entering the land is a Josephan insertion. It represents an implicit fulfillment of the biblical Moses’ promises about the good things awaiting the people in the promised land as cited in such passages as Deut 8:7-9; 11:8-12. See Josh 5:11, 12b. The Book of Joshua does not mention the Israelites’ acquiring “plunder” already at this point. See Josh 5:12a, which does not mention the length of time the manna was given to the people. Josephus supplies the same figure for the duration of the manna in Ant. 3.32 (// Exod 16:35).

This transition to the story of the fall of Jericho (Joshua 6) replaces the episode of Joshua’s encounter with the “commander of the army of the Lord” (Josh 5:13-15) that Josephus simply omits, perhaps because it has no further function in the subsequent story, ending as it does with Joshua merely being told to remove his shoes (see 5:15). In Josh 6:1 the reference is to Jericho’s being “shut up from within and without.” Josephus’ more general allusion to the Canaanites’ inactivity may reflect the reference to the “melting of the hearts” of the Canaanite kings and to their lack of “spirit” in Josh 5:1 (earlier passed over by him). This notice has in view the instructions issued by Joshua in Josh 6:6-7. Josephus leaves aside the initial divine directives about how Jericho is to be taken in 6:2-5; compare his omission of the Lord’s speech to Joshua in Josh 1:1b-9 (see 5.1). This mention of “the feast,” apparently the Phaska cited in 5.20, is Josephus’ addition. According to S.‘Olam Rab. 11.7 the siege of Jericho began only after the celebration of Passover had concluded. See Josh 6:8-9.

This translation follows that of Marcus (ad loc.) and is based on the reading of Lat (aliique sacerdotes). According to the Greek codices it is (the same) priests mentioned in 5.22 as carrying the ark who go on ahead, blowing their 7 horns—2 activities that would have been very difficult to perform simultaneously. Josh 6:8 designates the priests’ instruments as “trumpets of rams’ horns.” Josephus appends this reference to the purpose of the horn-blowing by the priests. Joshua 6 does not make specific mention of this group. See note to “oath” at 5.15. See Josh 6:11. Josephus omits Joshua’s prohibition of the people’s shouting until he gives them the order to do so, 6:10.

See Josh 6:14b. Josephus leaves aside the repetitive description of the proceedings on the 2nd day in 6:12-14a. Compare Joshua’s telling the people “the Lord has given you the city” in Josh 6:16b. On the verb εὐαγγελίζομαι (“announce good news”) used by Josephus to designate Joshua’s declaration to the people and its cognates, see Spicq 1982 (III): 296-306. Josephus repositions the 7-fold march of the Israelites around the city on the 7th day as related in Josh 6:15 to a point after the conclusion of Joshua’s instructions (6:16b-19), where it seems more chronologically appropriate.

With the above formulations Josephus spells out the meaning of Joshua’s instruction (Josh 6:17a) that the people “devote to the Lord for destruction” the city and everything in it. The language used (partially) echoes that of Moses’ instructions concerning the extermination of the inhabitants of the land in Deut 7:2; on the handling of this problematic text by Philo, Pseudo-Philo and Josephus, see Feldman 2003. See Josh 6:18a. Josephus omits the biblical Joshua’s warning (6:18b) about the violation of this prohibition bringing “trouble” on Israel. See Josh 6:19, where “vessels of bronze and iron” are specified as well, and it is prescribed that all metal items captured are to be put in the “treasury of the Lord.” Josephus appends a motivation for such handling of the plunder of Jericho, i.e. its status as the first city to be captured by the Israelites west of the Jordan. Josephus’ motivation of Joshua’s command concerning the sparing of Rahab in terms of the “oaths” given to her (see 5.12, 13, 15) replaces mention of her having hid the spies in Josh 6:17b (whose directive concerning Rahab Josephus likewise shifts to the end of his version of Joshua’s instructions, just prior to the fall of Jericho).

See Josh 6:15-16a. The purpose of the horn-blowing (v. 16a; cf. 5.23) is Josephus’ addition. See Josh 6:20a, where, however, the people “shout” (cf. Josh 6:10, 16) just prior to the collapse of the wall, and there is no allusion to the (non-) use of “machines,” etc.

Josephus elaborates on Josh 6:20b-21 with, e.g., mention of the inhabitants’ dismay which prevented them from resisting. From the list of the slain (6:21) he omits the various groups of animals. See Josh 6:24a, which speaks only of a burning of the city itself.

In Josh 6:22 the spies’ sparing of the family (6:23a) is preceded by Joshua’s directive that they are to bring out Rahab and her relatives. Josephus also omits the notice of 6:23b that the family was placed “outside the Israelite camp” once they had been removed from their refuge in Rahab’s house. Josephus elaborates on the summary statement of Josh 6:25a about Joshua’s “saving alive” all Rahab’s kin, while omitting the etiological notice of 6:25b that Rahab dwelt in Israel “to this day.” According to Rabbinic tradition, Rahab became a proselyte and married Joshua himself; various prophets and priests (e.g., Jeremiah) were descendants of this union. See Ginzberg 1913: 5; 1928: 171, n. 12.

These background notices to Joshua’s adjuring the Israelites not to rebuild Jericho (Josh 6:26) are Josephus’ insertions. See Josh 6:26. This Josephan appendix to Joshua’s curse (Josh 6:26) has in view the account of its fulfillment in the time of King Ahab as cited in 1 Kgs 16:34, a passage to which Josephus, curiously, has no equivalent in the context of his own account of Ahab. See Begg 1993: 154-55 for a discussion of the possible reasons for this omission. He leaves aside the appended statement about the Lord’s being with Joshua and the latter’s fame of 6:27.

Josephus elaborates on Josh 6:24b, underscoring the people’s obedience to Joshua’s commands and interjecting mention of the priests’ role. In repositioning mention of the disposition of the plunder to the very end of his account of Jericho’s fall, Josephus makes this the immediate transition to the following story of Achar’s (Achan’s) misdeed involving that plunder.

Josephus’ form of the culprit’s name corresponds to that of LXX; compare MT “Achan.” In focusing immediately on him, Josephus leaves aside the general editorial notice of Josh 7:1aα about a transgression having been committed by the entire people of Israel. On Josephus’ version of the “Achan-Ai story” (Josh 7:1-8:29) in 5.33-48, see Begg 2001. In Josh 7:1b, where a 3-member genealogy is given, “Zabdi” (LXX Ζαμβρεί) is Achan’s grandfather, “Carmi,” his father. Josephus anticipates the list of specific items taken by “Achar” from his confession of his theft in Josh 7:21 (where the “mantle” is qualified as “from Shinar” [MT])/ “variegated” [LXX]). He likewise conflates the biblical list’s mention of “200 shekels of silver” and “a bar of gold weighing 50 shekels” taken by Achan into a single metal object appropriated by him. In this editorial notice concerning the thief’s psychology, Josephus anticipates and elaborates on Achan’s confession in Josh 7:21 (“I coveted them [the dedicated objects] and took them”), adding the self-justifying allusion to God’s not “needing” such things. Josephus turns into a narrative notice about what Achan did at this point his subsequent confession (“they [the pilfered objects] are hidden in the earth inside my tent”) of Josh 7:21bβ, likewise supplying a motivation for his action. Having thus reworked the summary notice of 7:1aβ about Achan’s theft in light of the later 7:21, Josephus leaves aside the foreshadowing allusion to the Lord’s “anger” against all Israel of 7:1b.

This parenthetical notice about Israel’s campsite represents Josephus’ “delayed” use of Josh 4:19; 5:8-9. In Josh 5:9a God himself supplies a etymology for the name “Gilgal” (LXX Γάλγαλα, so Josephus), stating “on this day I have rolled away (Hebrew ‮גלל‬‎ [LXX: removed]) the reproach of Egypt from you.” Josephus recasts the divine affirmation into a “realization” by the people that they are now “free.” On “freedom” (Greek: ἐλευθερία) as a leitmotif of Josephus’ presentation of Jewish history, see Feldman 1998: 148. On the background of the concept in the Bible, Jewish tradition, and Greco-Roman literature, see Nestle 1972: 269-306; Heiligenthal 1983: 498-502; Jones 1992: 855-59.

MT (Josh 7:2) ‮העי‬‎ (Eng.: “Ai”); LXX Γαί; Josephus Ναϊά (Schalit s.v. reads Ἀϊά with E). Josh 7:2 situates Ai “near Beth-aven, east of Bethel.” Josephus simplifies the presentation of Josh 7:2-4a, where Joshua initially sends spies against Ai (v. 2) who, in turn, report to him that he need dispatch only 2,000 or 3,000 against it, given the fewness of its people (v. 3), whereupon 3,000 Israelites do proceed against the city (v. 4a). See Josh 7:5aα. Josephus compresses, omitting mention of the inhabitants’ pursuit of the Israelites (7:5aβ).

This (unbiblical) characterization of the fallen is paralleled in S. Eli. Rab. 18, p. 102. Josephus here elaborates on the laconic imagery used of the Israelites’ reaction in Josh 7:5b: “the hearts of the people melted, and became as water.”

This motivation for the people’s despairing reaction is a further Josephan elaboration of Josh 7:5b; see 5.36. The divine “promise” to which Josephus alludes here has a counterpart in God’s words to Joshua cited in Josh 1:1b-9 (previously omitted by him); see “no man shall be able to stand before you all the days of your life...” (v. 2) and “be strong and of good courage; be not frightened, neither be dismayed; for the Lord your God is with you wherever you go” (v. 9b). The allusion is an example of Josephus’ habit of making use also of those biblical passages that he does not reproduce as such. In Josh 7:6 it is Joshua himself who (together with the elders) engages in various mourning practices.

Greek: παρρησία; on the word, see Spicq 1982 (III): 526-33. Josephus’ (inserted) characterization of Joshua’s following prayer (Josh 7:7-9) has a counterpart in, e.g., b. Sanh. 43b. On the prayers of Antiquities 1-11 overall, see Harding 1994.

Greek: δοῦλος. Elsewhere Josephus uses this term in reference to “slaves/servants” of God in Ant. 11.90 (Zerubbabel and Jeshua), 101 (the Jews and their leaders); cf. 9.135, where the reference is to the “slaves” of foreign gods. The designation corresponds to the frequent biblical honorific title “servant (LXX: δοῦλος) of the Lord” used of Moses (see, e.g., Josh 1:1), David (see e.g., 1 Kgs 11:13), etc. This opening, more positive affirmation by Joshua about the source of the Israelites’ confidence in advancing into the land takes the place of his initial accusatory question to the Lord about his intentions in leading the people to their destruction and his (Joshua’s) own wish that Israel had remained beyond the Jordan in Josh 7:7. On the divine “promises” which Joshua invokes here see note to “courage” at 5.37.

This prefatory acknowledgement on Joshua’s part—which serves as a captatio benevolentiae—lacks a counterpart in Josh 7:8, where Joshua proceeds forthwith to deplore Israel’s ignominious defeat. This statement concerning the effect of the people’s defeat on them—which echoes Josephus’ own account of the matter in 5.36-38—lacks a counterpart in the biblical Joshua’s prayer.

This form of address (Greek: δεσπότης) replaces the double title “O Lord God” (Hebrew ‮אדני יהוה‬‎; LXX has simple Κύριε) used by Joshua in Josh 7:7; on Josephus’ use of the term δεσπότης overall, see Fischer 1958-1959. On his virtually complete avoidance of the title “Lord” (Greek: Κύριος) as a divine title—due, it would seem, to the absence of such a usage in secular Greek—see Schlatter 1932: 25-26; Begg 1993: 45, n. 219. Moses uses the same title as does Joshua here in addressing God at the moment of his commissioning in Ant. 2.270 (cf. Exod 3:11). This confident, concluding appeal replaces Joshua’s pointed question about what the Lord will “do for his great name” in the face of the anticipated Canaanite assault upon his people in Josh 7:9.

In Joshua 7 mention of Joshua’s prostration (7:6) proceeds his prayer (7:7-9) to God. Josephus condenses the lengthy divine reply of Josh 7:10-15. He, e.g., omits the Deity’s opening question (v. 10) about the reason for Joshua’s prostration and his specific instructions about how the culprit is to be found out (vv. 14-15). He likewise turns the Lord’s negative warning that he will not be with the people (v. 12b) unless the devoted things are removed from their midst into a positive promise of their perpetual victory should this be done. Joshua’s informing the people of God’s response is not mentioned explicitly in Joshua 7.

The presence of these figures for the lot-casting procedure initiated by Joshua is not mentioned in Josh 7:16. See 5.15 for Josephus’ recurrent insertions concerning Joshua’s cooperation with Israel’s other authorities. According to Pirqe R. El. 38 it was by examining the stones on the breast-plate of an (unnamed) high priest that Joshua determined that the culprit belonged to the tribe of Judah.

Josephus’ account of a 3-stage lot-casting procedure corresponds to the LXX (B) and OL versions of Josh 7:16-18, which lack the 2nd of the 4 stages recounted in MT, i.e. the “taking” of the Zerhaite clan within the tribe of Judah (7:17). In Josh 7:20-21 Achan makes his confession in response to a summons by Joshua (7:19). Josephus has his admission prompted rather by a divine “compulsion.” He here limits Achan’s confession to the mere acknowledgement of his deed (= 7:20), having anticipated the details concerning this (see 7:21) in his introductory account of the crime in 5.33. Josephus continues to compress and simplify the biblical account where, not Achan himself, but rather messengers dispatched by Joshua (Josh 7:22), bring out the stolen items (7:23). With this summary notice Josephus compresses the elaborate biblical account of Josh 7:24-25. In particular, he omits the (theologically problematic) source reference to Achan’s household sharing his fate. In so doing, he goes further in the line of LXX (B) and OL, which, while they do speak of the household’s being taken to the place of execution (7:24a), have no equivalent to the mention of their being “burned” and “stoned” together with Achan of MT 7:25bβ. Thereby, Josephus avoids the appearance of a contradiction between the procedure used in Joshua 7 and the prohibition of Deut 24:16 (= Ant. 4.289) of a culprit’s family members being punished along with him. This concluding notice takes the place of the complex of items making up Josh 7:26: the raising of a stone heap over Achan’s remains, the Lord’s turning from his anger, and the naming of the spot the “Valley of Achor” (Josephus also omits the previous references to this name and its etymology in Josh 7:24b-25a). In speaking of Achar’s “ignominious” (Greek ἀτίμως) burial, Josephus echoes his combined version of the laws of Lev 24:16 and Deut 21:22-23 in Ant. 4.202, according to which the blasphemer is to “buried ignominiously (Greek: ἀτίμως).” The specification that Achar was buried “at nightfall” echoes the wording of Deut 21:23, which states that the corpse of a executed person is not to “remain all night upon the tree.”

This transitional phrase, echoing God’s demand for such “purification” in 5.42, takes the place of the divine speech that precedes Joshua’s move against Ai (Josh 8:3a) in Josh 8:1-2. This phrase summarizes the extended segment (Josh 8:3b-8) devoted to Joshua’s instructions to the 3,000 “men of valor” whom he sets in ambush, prior to his own spending the night with the people (8:9). See Josh 8:10. Josephus passes over Joshua’s additional pre-battle measures (including a 2nd ambuscade of 5,000 men) cited in Josh 8:11-12. In Josh 8:14 there is specific mention of the “king of Ai” leading the sortie. Josephus nowhere mentions this figure in his version of Joshua 8. The reference to the pursuers’ state of mind and the grounds for this is Josephus’ embellishment of Josh 8:14. Josephus omits the notices on the total emptying of the city of its population in 8:16-17, which seem inherently implausible and which are not in accordance with his own subsequent presentation (or with Josh 8:24, which presupposes the continued presence of persons in the city); cf. note to “outside” at 5.46.

In Josh 8:18 Joshua’s signalling to those in ambush is done by means of his javelin (later, Josephus omits the notice of 8:26 about Joshua’s keeping his javelin extended until Ai has been destroyed as well) and at the command of the Lord; compare Josephus’ omission of the divine speech in 8:1-2. In light of Josh 8:16-17, the Israelites would be entering an empty city in 8:18. On Josephus’ divergent presentation, see note to “victory” at 5.45.

Josephus anticipates this notice on the slaughter of those in the city from Josh 8:24b, where it follows mention of the rout of the pursuers outside (8:20-24a). This is Josephus’ condensed account of the rout of the pursuers as described in Josh 8:20-24a. From this sequence, he omits, e.g., the notice on the capture of the king of Ai in 8:23 (accordingly, he likewise passes over the killing and burial of the king related in 8:29) as well as the entrapment (8:22) of the pursuers between the Israelite forces on their front and their rear (i.e. those coming out of the just destroyed city).

Josh 8:25 speaks of the women of Ai being killed—rather than captured—along with the males for a total of 12,000. Joshua 8 makes no mention of the city’s “children” or “servants.” See Josh 8:27a. Josephus substitutes mention of the area’s “wealth” for the indication of 8:27b that, in taking the cattle for themselves, the Israelites acted in accord with the Lord’s “command” to Joshua, i.e. the one given in 8:2b, a passage also not cited by him. Josephus interjects this site-name from 5.34, where he notes that Israel was camped at “Galgala” just prior to its advance against “Naia” (5.35). The 2 uses of the place-name “Galgala” form an inclusion around his version of the Ai episode in 5.35-48a. In Josh 8:26 the Israelites simply “take” the plunder of Ai on their own. Josephus’ formulation underscores both the authority of their leader Joshua and his astuteness as a general who knows how to keep his troops satisfied.

In attaching his version of Israel’s treaty with the Gibeonites (Josh 9:3-27) directly to his account of the capture of Ai (8:1-29), Josephus passes over 2 intervening biblical text-units, i.e. MT Josh 8:30-35 (the ceremonies at Mts. Ebal and Gerizim) and 9:1-2 (the coalition of the Canaanite kings against Israel (in LXX the 2 units appear in reverse order, while 4QJosa’s fragmentary version of MT Josh 8:30-35 comes at a still different point, i.e. prior to the circumcision report of MT Josh 5:2-7; see Noort 1998). Josephus reproduces the former text subsequently in 5.69-70; he has no equivalent to the latter passage. On Josephus’ version of the story of the Gibeonites (Joshua 9) in 5.49-57, see Begg 1997. This localization of the Gibeonites’ territory is unparalleled in Joshua 9-10. Josephus likely drew it from his own knowledge of Palestinian topography (Gibeon is located some 8 miles NW of Jerusalem). In Ant. 7.283 and War 2.516 Josephus cites the distance between “Gabao(n)” and Jersualem as being 40 and 50 stadia, respectively. The above remarks on the Gibeonites’ thought process in response to their hearing of the fate of Jericho and Ai are Josephus’ amplification of Josh 9:3. The allusion to Joshua’s being bent on the extermination of the Canaanite race echoes Moses’ directive on the matter as cited in Ant. 4.300.

This whole paragraph is an anticipated elaboration of Josh 9:17, where the Israelites discover that the Gibeonites’ cities comprise, in addition to Gibeon itself, “Chephirah, Beeroth, and Kiriathjearim” (MT; LXX Ἰαρείν). Josephus’ notice serves to explain, in advance, how 2 of these 3 sites (he does not mention “Beeroth”) came to be aligned with the Gibeonites.

This reference to the Gibeonites’ constituting a select embassy to send to the Israelites seems inspired by a later moment in the source account, namely Josh 9:11, where the Gibeonite envoys, in their exchange with Joshua, refer to their having been instructed by “our elders and all the inhabitants of our country” to “make a covenant” with the Israelites.

The envoys’ “thoughts” here are Josephus’ creation. They take the place of the enumeration of the camouflage measures adopted by them as cited in Josh 9:4-5. Josephus here both compresses and modifies the source’s double exchange, first between the Gibeonites and the Israelites (Josh 9:7-8a) and then between them and Joshua (9:8b-13). Leaving aside the former sequence entirely, he restricts himself to a few select items from the latter, amplifying these with an initial reference by the envoys to Joshua’s “valor” designed to win a favorable hearing from the general. In particular, the Gibeonites’ statement about being from “far off” echoes 9:9a, while their displaying the state of their garments in proof of this parallels 9:13b (9:12-13a cite additional such “proofs,” namely the state of their bread, wineskins, and shoes).

Josephus here makes delayed use of Josh 9:5’s mention of the worn-out clothes donned by the Gibeonites, using this to explain the reason for their approaching Joshua dressed in this odd fashion.

See the Gibeonites’ words about the purpose of their mission in Josh 9:11b, already anticipated by Josephus in 5.51. In 9:11b the Gibeonites request a “covenant” (Hebrew: ‮ברית‬‎); Josephus invariably substitutes alternative wording (here: φιλία, “friendship [treaty]”; συνθῆκαι, “agreements”) for the standard LXX rendering of this term, namely, διαθήκη, a word that was not current in the meaning “covenant” in secular Greek; see Begg 1993: 100-101, n. 609. This formulation recalls Rahab’s statement about her “knowing” of the Israelites’ future domination of Canaan, via “signs given her by God” in 5.12. Compare Josh 9:9b-10, where the Gibeonites simply claim to have heard of God’s dealings with Egypt and the 2 Transjordanian kings. The phrase “favor and gift (Greek: χάρις καὶ δωρεά) of God” used by the Gibeonites here echoes the same combination of terms—there in the plural—in Moses’ address to the people distressed by their lack of water in Ant. 3.14. On the word χάρις, see Spicq 1978 (II): 960-66. The envoys’ words to Joshua cited in Josh 9:8b-13 lack an equivalent to this double statement with its patent intention of currying favor with the hearers.

The words (“agreements,” “friendship [treaty]”) Josephus attributes to the Gibeonites here echo those of their earlier plea in 5.54. See Josh 9:15a. Josephus interjects the reference to Joshua’s “belief”; on “belief/faith language” (Greek: πίστις; πιστεύειν) in Josephus’ writings generally, see Lindsey 1993. He leaves aside the preceding mention (9:14) of the Israelites’ eating of the Gibeonites’ provisions (the earlier allusions to which [9:4, 12] were also passed over by him) without consulting the Lord. In Josh 9:15b it is the “leaders of the congregation” who swear and there is no mention of an assent by the people as a whole. On the combined role of Eleazar and the “senate,” there too in connection with an oath of protection, see 5.15.

This notice on the envoys’ return home lacks an equivalent in Joshua 9. The reference to the Gibeonites’ “deceit” is anticipated from Josh 9:22, where Joshua asks them “why did you deceive us?” In Josh 9:16 the Israelites as a whole hear, 3 days later, that the Gibeonites are in fact their “neighbors.” On the Gibeonites’ proximity to Jerusalem, see 5.49. See Josh 9:22. Josephus passes over the intervening sequence of 9:17-21, which features (9:18-21) a conflict between the leaders of the congregation and the people regarding the former’s (wrongful) swearing to the Gibeonites. Josephus’ omission of this item is understandable given that, in his version of 9:15, he has recorded the people’s assent to the oaths made by their leaders; see 5.55. For the source portrayal of intra-Jewish recriminations Josephus thus substitutes an idealized picture of the entire community acting in harmony. He likewise does not reproduce Joshua’s cursing of the Gibeonites and his imposition of menial tasks in the temple upon them as cited in 9:23, already prior to their attempt at self-exculpation in 9:24.

Cf. the Gibeonites’ words as cited in Josh 9:24. Josephus leaves aside their further statement, submitting themselves to whatever Joshua may decide concerning them of 9:25. See 5.55 for the role of these authorities earlier in the proceedings. In Josh 9:24 and 27 it is Joshua, acting alone, who imposes their future service upon the Gibeonites, while in 9:21 the leaders of the congregation take this initiative without reference to Joshua. Josephus’ portrayal of the Israelite leadership figures making a joint decision here recalls his similar presentations in 5.15 and 43. In his version of Joshua 9 harmony prevails, not only among the leaders, but also between them and the people (contrast Josh 9:18-20). In Joshua 9 there is likewise ambiguity as to whom/what the Gibeonites are to serve (see the divergent indications in vv. 21, 23, 27); Josephus clarifies the matter by specifying that they are to be “servants of the people.” This transition to his following account of the Israelites’ rescue of the Gibeonites from assault by the Canaanites is Josephus’ own creation.

In Josh 10:1-2 Adonizedek, king of Jersualem, “fears” because even the mighty Gibeonites have made their peace with the Israelites. See Josh 10:3-4; in v. 3 the names of the kings and their domains are cited. Josh 10:5 mentions the encampment of the 5 Canaanite kings near Gibeon, but not the Gibeonites’ sighting of them or a “spring” in the vicinity of the city. See Josh 10:6, where the content of the Gibeonites’ “appeal” to Joshua is spelled out.

This motivation for the Gibeonites’ appeal (5.58) is Josephus’ appendix to their making that appeal as cited in Josh 10:6. Its closing words concerning the aim of the Israelites’ campaign echoes the Gibeonites’ earlier perception concerning Joshua’s hostile intentions as reported in 5.49.

See Josh 10:7-9, from which Josephus omits the divine word of assurance to Joshua as he is setting out to battle (v. 8). In Josh 10:10a it is God who initiates matters by throwing the enemy coalition “into a panic.” Compare Josh 10:10b: “... and chased them by way of the ascent of Bethoron (LXX: Θρωνείν), and smote them as far as Azekah and Makkedah.” In War 2.521 “Bet-horon” is the site of the defeat of Cestius Gallus by the Jews in 66 CE. that precipitated full-scale war between them and the Romans. Greek: συνεργία. Josephus uses this term of God’s “cooperation” with humans also in War 4.26; 6.39 (plural); and Ant. 5.301. Josephus dramatizes the happening by adding thunder and lightning to the God-sent “hailstones” mentioned in Josh 10:11.

Josh 10:12-14 tells the miracle of the stopping of the sun in greater detail, citing the poetic words Joshua addresses to both sun and moon (v. 12b-13). On Josephus’ tendency to play down the miracles associated with the conquest, see Feldman 1998: 453-56. MT (Josh 10:16, etc.) ‮מקדה‬‎ (Eng.: “Makkedah”); LXX Μακηδά; Josephus Μακχίδα. Josephus here reduces to a minimum the circumstantial account of the fate of the 5 kings given in Josh 10:16-27. Compare Josh 10:13bα (LXX B lacks an equivalent): “Is this [the words of Joshua in 10:12b-13a] not written in the Book of Jashar?” Josephus’ invocation of “temple writings” as his source for the “fantastic” events associated with Joshua’s victory serves to give an heightened credibility to his summary account of those events. Elsewhere as well, Josephus interjects similar allusions to documents housed in the temple concerning events related by him; see Ant. 3.38 (“a writing lying in the temple reveals that God foretold to Moyses that water would thus issue forth from the rock”) and 4.303 (Moses left behind a hexameter poem [the Song of Moses, Deuteronomy 32] “in a book in the temple”), and the notes of Feldman 2000 ad loc.

This notice sums up Josh 10:28-42, which relates Joshua’s destruction of a whole series of named sites in the south of the land. See Josh 10:43 (MT; LXX B lacks an equivalent).

This transitional notice between Joshua’s southern (Joshua 10) and northern (Joshua 11) campaigns lacks a biblical equivalent at this juncture (cf., however, 10:2 with its reference to King Adonizedek’s “great fear”); it underscores the impression made by Israel’s military prowess upon all who heard of it. Josh 11:1-3 provides a much more detailed listing of the components of the enemy coalition assembled by Jabin, king of Hazor. That list does not, however, mention the “Philistines” (Josephus’ “Palestinoi”) explicitly; note, however, the reference to the kings “in the lowland,” the Philistine homebase, in 11:2. Josephus makes an initial mention of this people and their “hostile attitude” towards the Israelites, “due to an ancient enmity with them” in Ant. 2.322. Josh 11:5 (MT) locates the enemy encampment at “the waters of Merom” (LXX Μαρρών; Schalit s.v. proposes Μήρωθ for the form Βηρώθη read by Niese and Marcus here in 5.63); this site is generally localized in the same Galilean region where Josephus places their camp. He anticipates the name of his other Galilean city, Kedesh, from Josh 20:7. Josephus provides a description of the Upper and Lower Galilee of his time in War 3.35-43.

These “precise” figures replace, as often in Josephus, the Bible’s indeterminate ones; compare Josh 11:4: “... a great host, in number like the sand that is upon the seashore, with very many horses and chariots.” This interjected remark about Joshua and the Israelites’ emotional state is Josephus’ inference from God’s telling Joshua “do not be afraid of them [the enemy coalition]” in Josh 11:6 (// 5.65), which seems to presuppose that he (and they) have, in fact, entertained such fear.

See Josh 11:6. This notice concerning the effect of God’s word upon Joshua lacks a counterpart in Joshua 11.

See Josh 11:7. Josephus adds the specification concerning the duration of Israel’s march and dramatizes the violence of the battle. See Josh 11:8, from which Josephus omits the place names and the opening reference to the Lord’s giving the enemy into Israel’s hand. The explicit mention of the death of the enemy kings is his addition, paralleling their fate with that of the southern kings in 5.61.

In Josh 11:9bα Joshua hamstrings the enemy horses, as God had commanded him in 11:6. Josephus varies the wording between command (“disable,” 5.65) and execution (“do away with,” 5.67). This notice sums up the account of Joshua’s subsequent conquests and massacres in Josh 11:10-23 (12:1-24). Compare Josephus’ summary of Josh 10:28-42 in 5.62.

Josephus derives this figure for the duration of the conquest from Josh 14:10, where, with the conquest process (essentially) complete, Caleb states that 45 years have now elapsed since Moses promised him (14:9) him that he would enter the promised land. Of these, 40 were spent in the desert (see Ant. 3.32), this leaving the remaining 5 years for the occupation of the land. This statement picks up the extermination notices of, e.g., Josh 11:14, 17, 21. Cf. Josh 13:2-6, which specifies those portions of the country that remained unsubjugated. Josephus’ remark about the survivors’ finding safety behind their walls is his own. See 5.62, where Joshua returns to camp at “Galgala” following his victory on behalf of the Gibeonites. MT (Josh 18:1) ‮שׁלה‬‎ (Eng.: “Shiloh”); LXX Σηλώ; Josephus Σιλοῦς. See Josh 18:1, to which Josephus appends his remark about the rationale for Joshua’s choice of this particular site for the erection of the tent and the temporary nature of its placement there. Josephus describes the tent in detail Ant. 3.115-133 and inserts mention of its transport across the Jordan by the Levites in 5.17.

See Josh 8:30-31a (MT), where the site “Shechem” is not mentioned explicitly; Josephus’ naming of it reflects Moses’ prescription as cited in Ant. 4.305 (= Deut 27:5) that the altar be built “not far from the city of the Sikimites.” On the divergent placing of the MT segment Josh 8:30-35 in the various witnesses, see note to “Gabaonites” at 5.49. For more details on Josephus’ rendering of this passage in 5.69-70, see Begg 1997a; on the version of Pseudo-Philo in Bib. Ant. 21.7-10, see Begg 1997b. MT (Josh 8:33) ‮גרזים‬‎ (Eng.: “Gerizim”); LXX (Josh 9:6) Γαριζείν; Josephus Γαριζείς. MT (Josh 8:33) ‮עיבל‬‎ (Eng.: “Ebal”); LXX (Josh 9:6) Γαιβάλ; Josephus Ἥβηλος. In Josh 8:33 the people are lined up on either side of the ark facing the Levitical priests with half of them standing in front of Mt. Gerizim, the other half in front of Mt. Ebal. Josephus’ presentation, with its distinction between the “priests” and “Levites” and non-mention of the ark, corresponds more closely to his own rendering of Moses’ prescription on the matter in Ant. 4.305 (cf. Deut 27:11-14). The parenthetical reference to the presence of the altar on Mt. Ebal parallels the notice on Joshua’s building an altar on that site in 8:30.

In Josh 8:31b the sacrifices are mentioned prior to the dividing up of the assembly (8:32). Josephus omits the cross-reference to Moses’ command (see Deut 27:5-6a) about the way in which the altar is to be built of Josh 8:31a. Compare Josh 8:34, where Joshua (alone) reads “all the words of the law, the blessing and the curse.” In Ant. 4.306-307 (see Deut 27:11-13) the 2 divisions of the people (4.305) are designated to pronounce blessings and curses, respectively. Here in 5.70 Josephus speaks only of the latter (compare Josh 8:33, where blessings alone are mentioned). Compare Josh 8:32, where, in accordance with Moses’ injunction in Deut 27:8, what is written on the altar stones is rather a “copy of the law of Moses” (so also Bib. Ant. 21.7, while m. Soṭah 7.5 avers that the law was inscribed in the 70 languages of humanity). Josephus’ formulation on the point (partially) reflects his version of Deut 27:8 in Ant. 4.308, where Moses (proleptically) inscribes “them,” i.e. the blessings and the curses spoken of in 4.307, on both sides of the altar. This return to Shiloh (see 5.68) has no biblical basis.

Josephus derives the datum about Joshua’s age at the opening of 5.71 from Josh 13:1a. The appended considerations, which he attributes to the leader about the situation facing his people, are his own, taking the place of the divine speech to Joshua concerning the yet unconquered land and its division in 13:1b-7. Mention of the Canaanites’ awareness of the Israelites’ intention of “exterminating” them recalls the knowledge of Joshua’s purpose that Josephus attributes to the Gibeonites in 5.49. Josephus derives his reference to the assembly at Shiloh, which will establish the procedure for the division of the land west of the Jordan, from Josh 18:1.

This opening captatio benevolentiae takes the place of Joshua’s initial accusatory question to the people in Josh 18:3 (“how long will you be slack to go in and take possession of the land...?”). Josephus here has Joshua allude to the catalogue of 31 conquered kings whose cities are cited in Josh 12:(7-8)9-24. Joshua’s reference here is apparently to the Israelite rout of the northern coalition as described in 5.66 (where, however, it is stated that some few of the enemy did survive). In any case, neither this reference nor the preceding one to the 31 conquered kings has an equivalent in Joshua’s speech at Shiloh in Josh 18:3-7.

Joshua here articulates to the people those reflections which Josephus had previously attributed to him in 5.71-72. See 5.3-4 (// Josh 1:12-18). The above sequence elaborates on Joshua’s recalling the fact that the Transjordanians had already received their inheritance in Josh 18:7b.

In Josh 18:4 Joshua simply calls for the selection of 3 men from each tribe, and says nothing about ethical requirements for them and their task.

Compare Josh 18:8abα, where there is no mention of the people’s assent to Joshua’s proposal, nor a distinction between the tribal representatives and the professional “surveyors” who accompany them.

The plethron is equivalent to 10,000 square feet; see Rengstorf 1979 s.v. The above disquisition (5.76b-79) on the varying quality of the land that is to be kept in mind in its allotment is Josephus’ creation, no doubt drawn from his own knowledge of Palestinian topography. It recalls his comparative description of the various components of the land of Palestine in War 3.35-58.

This figure corresponds to the notice of 5.74 on Joshua’s dispatching “one man from each tribe” (i.e. other than the Transjordanian ones [who have already received their allotment] and the Levites [who will not be given a territory of their own]; cf. Josh 18:7). Josh 18:8 does not specify the number of those who set out on the surveying task; Joshua’s directive in 18:4 that 3 men from each of the (Cisjordanian) tribes are to be sent suggests that there were 30. Compare Josh 18:9, which does not indicate the duration of the surveyors’ tour, but speaks rather of their generating a description of the land according to its 7 divisions. On Joshua’s previous erection of the tent at Shiloh, see 5.68.

In Josh 18:10 itself Joshua allots the land on his own (cf., however, the summary statement of 19:51, where Eleazar and the “heads of the fathers’ houses” divide up the land along with him). 18:10 likewise makes no mention of the relative size of the tribes being taken into account in the allotment.

In the Book of Joshua Judah’s boundaries are described in 15:1-63, i.e. prior to the determination of the allotment procedure in 18:2-7. Josephus repositions the former segment to a more logical place, i.e. after the procedure has been fixed, likewise drastically compressing it. Josephus follows LXX Josh 15:1 in its name for the region which MT calls “Edom.” He notes the difference between the 2 names in Ant. 2.3, where he states that the Greeks “with greater dignity” designate as “Idumea” the land known in Hebrew as “Adomos” (“redness”). Josh 15:5 designates Judah’s eastern border as the “Salt Sea.” In War 4.476-485 Josephus gives an extended description of this body of water (which he there calls “Lake Asphaltitis”) and its surroundings in his own time. Whereas Josh 15:45-47 assigns Judah 3 Philistine towns i.e., Ekron, Ashdod, and Gaza, it does not mention “Ashkelon.”

In Josh 19:1 Simeon does receive the 2nd lot, not, however, after Judah (as in Josephus), but following Benjamin (18:11-28). Josephus generalizes the boundary indications for Simeon found in Josh 19:1-11, omitting, e.g., the Bible’s mention (see vv. 2, 9) that Simeon’s inheritance was in the midst of that of Judah. For his delimitation of Benjamin’s inheritance Josephus makes selective use of data found in Josh 18:12, 13, 16, 19. In Josh 18:11-28 Benjamin is the first of the tribes to be awarded its territory by lot at Shiloh, rather than the 3rd, i.e. after Judah and Simeon, as in Josephus. This statement, which picks up on Josephus’ (inserted) remarks in 5.76-79 about the fertility of the land, has no biblical counterpart. Josh 18:22 and 28, respectively, list Jericho and Jebus/Jerusalem among the Benjamite cities.

This is the form of the tribe’s name found in R and adopted by Niese. Marcus (ad loc.) reads the more biblical form Ἐφραίμ with SPLau. The Book of Joshua treats the inheritance of “Ephraim” in 16:5-10 as part of an extended segment (16:1-17:18) dealing with the allotments of the 2 descendants of “Joseph,” prior to presenting the allotment procedure itself in 18:1-10. As he did in the case of Judah (5.81), Josephus repositions the former text to a point after his version of the latter. Josh 16:10 avers that the Canaanites were not in fact driven out of “Gezer.” The “great plain” mentioned by Josephus is the “plain of Jezreel” or “Valley of Megiddo.” Josephus’ statement on the allotment of Cisjordanian Manasseh summarizes Josh 17:7-13, which mentions “Bethshean” and “Dor” as part of that allotment in v. 11. Josephus supplies the contemporary Greek name for the former city 3 further times, i.e. in Ant. 6.374; 12.348; 13.188. Photos of the site appear in Mason 2001: Appendix A, 207.

Josephus reverses the biblical sequence concerning the inheritances of Zebulun (Josh 19:10-16) and Issachar (19:17-23). The latter text does not mention Mt. Carmel as belonging to Issachar. Josephus’ Mt. “Itabyrion” is his equivalent for the “Tabor” (LXX B Γαιθβόρ) of Josh 19:22; see Marcus ad loc. The name occurs also in War 1.177; 2.573; 4.1, 54, 61; Ant. 5.203; 8.37; 13.306; 14.102; Life 188. See Josh 19:10-16, whose many proper place names Josephus leaves aside. The 2 bodies of water marking the boundaries of Zebulon according to Josephus are the contemporary sea of Galilee and the Mediterranean, respectively.

See Josh 19:24-31, which mentions (v. 28) “Sidon the Great” as a boundary for the territory of “Asher.” The “valley” mentioned by Josephus as making up the territory of Asher is the coastal plain along the Mediterranean south of Sidon, where the tribe was settled. Schalit (s.v.) views the reading “Arke” here (and in 5.86) as a mistake for “Ake,” the later Ptolemais. For “Ekdeipa” he conjectures (s.v.) “Ekdippa,” identifying this with the city of “Achzib” cited in Josh 19:29. “Ekdippa” is mentioned also in War 1.257.

Compare Josh 19:32-39, which, e.g., does not speak of Naphtali’s territory extending as far as Damascus. Marcus (ad. loc.) brackets the words “whence it descends through the northern regions as far as the city of Arke,” noting that the sequence is absent in Lat and calling it “unintelligible.”

Compare Josh 19:40-48. Of Josephus’ 5 place names, only 2, i.e. “Akkaron” (= Ekron, 19:43) and “Gitta” (= Gath-rimmon, 19:45) have a clear equivalent in the source. Of the remainder, “Iamneia” is Hebrew “Jabneh,” while “Azotos” is the LXX’s rendering of Hebrew “Ashdod”; see Schalit s.v. Josephus does not reproduce the notice of Josh 19:47 on Dan’s later change of territory, a development he will treat in some detail in 5.175-178.

With this summarizing notice compare Josh 19:51, which does not, however, allude to the nations descended from Canaan. In Ant. 1.139 Josephus, following Gen 10:15-17, lists 7 eponymous descendants of Chananaios who were later exterminated by the Hebrews. (Of these, the 3rd, “Amorraios,” appears in 5.89 under the country-name “Amoritis,” this bringing the total number of Chananaios’ descendants in 5.89-90 up to that enumerated in 1.139; see also 5.3, where Josephus calls “Amoria” the “7th part of country of the Chananaians”). Cf. Feldman 2000 ad loc.

See Ant. 4.166-171 (= Numbers 32) and the allusion to this in 5.3. In the Book of Joshua itself there is a detailed recapitulation of Moses’ awarding the Transjordanians their territories in 13:8-33. Josephus cites the name of the son of Chananaios who gave his name to “Amoritis” as “Amorraios” (the LXX’s equivalent for Hebrew “Amori”) in Ant. 1.139 (= Gen 10:16); see previous note. In Ant. 1.138 “Aroukaios” appears as a son of Chananaios who occupies “Arke” in Lebanon. Josephus’ form here corresponds to LXX’s rendering of MT “Arki” in Gen 10:17. See Ant. 1.138, which mentions “Amathous,” son of Chananaios, who founded a city with the same name (Hebrew: “Hamath,” cf. Gen 10:18). Cf. Ant. 1.138, where “Aroudaios,” son of Chananaios, is said to have occupied the island of Arados. In MT Gen 10:18 the name appears as ‮ארודי‬‎ (LXX Ἀράδαιος). With the above list of 4 unassigned sites, compare the enumeration of the unconquered territories in Josh 13:2-6, which mentions the “Sidonians” (vv. 4, 6) and the “entrance of Hamath” (v. 5).

In Josh 23:1 Joshua’s age (mentioned already in 13:1a= 5.71), but not his awareness of his successors’ dereliction of duty, is cited as the occasion for his following farewell discourse. Josephus’ additional motivation both underscores the urgency of Joshua’s admonition at this juncture, and serves to prepare his subsequent presentation, where, following Joshua’s death, Israel’s polity falls precipitously into disarray; see 5.132-135. By anticipating his version of Joshua 23 to this point, Josephus avoids having him deliver 2 farewell discourses back to back—as happens in Joshua 23-24. Whereas Joshua’s speech in Joshua 23 features urgent warnings against mixing with the indigenous nations (v. 7) and intermarrying with them (v. 12), it does not call for their actual extermination. The annihilation of the Canaanites as the goal of Israel’s entry into the land is a recurrent theme throughout Josephus’ account of the period of Joshua; see 5.12, 49, 59, 72. Greek: τὰ πάτρια ἔθη. On the word πάτριος (“ancestral”) as a key positive item of Josephus’ vocabulary and the various terms it modifies (“laws,” “customs,” etc.), see Schröder 1996. This “motivation,” itself harking back to Moses’ directive as cited in Ant. 4.300 (// Deut 20:17), for Joshua’s preceding admonition about exterminating the Canaanites has no clear equivalent in the speech of Joshua 23. Compare, however, v. 13, where Joshua warns that, should the Israelites intermarry with the Canaanites, the latter will become a “snare and a trap” to them, this eventuating in Israel’s loss of its land.

Josh 21:41 (see also Num 35:7 and Ant. 4.67) speaks of a total of 48 Levitical cities. As the above parenthesis indicates, Josephus’ figure here in 5.91 reflects his earlier mention of Moses’ establishing 10 such cities in Transjordania in Ant. 4.172. At this point, Josephus shifts from his version of Joshua’s farewell discourse (// Joshua 23), to an earlier initiative by him, i.e. the distribution of the Levitical cities west of the Jordan (// 21:1-42). This positive characterization of Joshua echoes that used of him in Josh 11:15: “he left nothing undone that the Lord had commanded Moses.” In 5.63 Josephus situated “Kedesa” in “the country of the Galileans.” See Josh 20:7. Josephus passes over the 3 Transjordanian refuge cities cited in Josh 20:8, having already alluded to Moses’ establishment of these in Ant. 4.172. He likewise leaves aside the extended preceding divine instruction to Joshua concerning the refuge cities and their functioning in Josh 20:1-6 that itself duplicates the Lord’s words about these in Num 35:9-34 (and summarized by Josephus in Ant. 4.172).

On Joshua’s earlier, general distribution of the plunder captured from Ai at Gilgal, see 5.48. In Josh 22:8 (// 5.96) it is to the Transjordanian troops alone that Joshua awards the various items of plunder (including also bronze and iron) at the moment he dismisses them to their homes.

Josh 22:1 does not mention a figure for the Transjordanians addressed by Joshua in 22:2-7. Compare the “precise” figures for the Canaanite forces introduced by Josephus in 5.64. Josephus reverses the order of Joshua 22 (// 5.93-114, the dismissal of the Transjordanians and its sequel) and 23 (// 5.90, Joshua’s farewell discourse many years after this; see v. 1), thus making also the Transjordanians recipients of that discourse. Compare Josh 22:4a: “... the Lord your God has given rest to your brethren, as he promised them....” Josephus’ specification concerning the everlasting validity of God’s land promise here is noteworthy, given his tendency to downplay this particular biblical promise; see note to “city” at 5.15. The same combination of divine titles, namely, “father” (Greek: πατήρ) and “master” (Greek: δεσπότης), appears in the prologue of Ant. in 1.20, there, however, with the universalizing qualification of God as “father and lord of all.” On Josephus’ use of the title “father” for God, see Schlatter 1910: 14-16; on this usage in turn of the era Jewish writings generally, see Strotmann: 1991.

On the Transjordanians’ committing themselves to participate in the conquest of the land west of the Jordan at Moses’ urging, see Ant. 4.169-171; cf. Joshua’s reminding them of this commitment in 5.3-4. Greek: δίκαιος. On this Josephan key word and its cognates and the background to his usage, see Mason 1991: 86-87, 142-49, 219-21; Feldman 1998: 113-16. Josephus here expatiates considerably on Joshua’s words of appreciation for the Transjordanians’ assistance and their obedience to him (and Moses) as cited in Josh 22:2-3. Thereby, he depicts the Transjordanians as exemplars of that sense of intra-Jewish solidarity he wishes to inculcate in Antiquities.

Greek: εὔνοια; the term recurs in 5.96, where the Israelites speak of their “loyalty” towards the Cisjordanians. On the word, see Spicq 1982 (III): 316-21. This further expression of gratitude in the name of the whole people lacks a parallel in Joshua’s words to the Transjordanians as cited in Josh 22:2-6.

This invitation to the Transjordanians to take some of the plunder acquired in the Cisjordanian campaign corresponds to that issued by Joshua in Josh 22:8. It echoes as well Josephus’ earlier notice on Joshua’s awarding the plunder to the whole people in 5.92. Compare Joshua’s opening words to the Transjordanians in Josh 22:2: “you have kept all that Moses... commanded you....” Joshua has already touched on the Transjordanians’ fidelity to what was asked of them in 5.94. His praise of them here echoes Josephus’ accolade for Joshua himself in 5.91. The circumstances of Moses’ death are described in Ant. 4.324-327. In 5.1 there is an allusion to this event, using a phrase similar to the one employed here in 5.96.

Joshua 22 twice cites Joshua’s dismissal of the Transjordanians, first in v. 4b, and then at the opening of v. 8. Greek: θεός εἷς. See the listing of similar formulas, inspired by the Shema‘ of Deut 6:4, concerning the oneness/unicity of God elsewhere in Josephus in Schlatter 1910: 16. Compare the formula εἷς θεός in Eph 4:6; 1 Tim 2:5. This extended affirmation of the solidarity between the Transjordanians and Cisjordanians is Josephus’ own amplification of the biblical Joshua’s words to the former. Joshua’s statement about his hearers’ common status as “descendants of Abraham” is paralleled in John 8:33, where the Jews make this claim for themselves (compare Matt 3:9// Luke 3:8, where John the Baptist warns them against complacent invocation of Abraham as their “father”). On Abraham’s “paternity” in Josephus overall, see Spilsbury 1998: 55-56; for references to Abraham as ancestor of the Jews in Greco-Roman authors, see Siker 1987: 197-201.

Greek: θρησκεία. On the word and its cognates, see Schlatter 1910: 77; 1932: 98, 242, 247. Greek: πολιτεία. On Josephus’ use of this term as a comprehensive designation for Israel’s God-given system of laws and form of government, see Troiani 1994; Schröder 1996: passim. On Moses as the mediator of Israel’s constitution, see, e.g., Ant. 3.213; 4.196, 302. This adjective (Greek: εὔνους) for God echoes the cognate noun εὔνοια (“loyalty”) used of him in 5.95; see note to “loyalty” at 5.95. On Josephus’ use of the term “ally” (Greek: σύμμαχος) as a title for God, see Attridge 1976: 79-80. In Josh 22:5a Joshua urges the Transjordanians to “observe the commandment and law” given them by Moses, while in v. 5b he specifies that this entails whole-hearted attachment to the Lord. Josephus replaces the latter element with a reference to the respective consequences of the Transjordanians’ heeding or not heeding his foregoing exhortation regarding the Mosaic “constitution.”

Compare Josh 22:6, where Joshua “blesses” the departing Transjordanians. Josephus eliminates this action on the part of the non-priest Joshua. The “parting notice” of Josh 22:9 identifies Shiloh as the site of the farewells, but makes no mention of the participants’ emotional state.

This word (Greek: σύμβυλον) is absent in E and Lat; both Niese and Marcus view it as a likely later addition. Josephus here expands the altar-building notice of Josh 22:10 with an editorial comment, inspired by the Transjordanians’ subsequent affirmation about what they have done in Josh 22:27, which makes clear, from the start, the (legitimate) nature of their construction. Contrast Bib. Ant. 22.1, where, right at the beginning of Pseudo-Philo’s version of the story, the Israelites are (correctly) informed that the Transjordanians are offering sacrifices on their altar and have instituted priests for their sanctuary. On Josephus’ and Pseudo-Philo’s versions of the Transjordanian altar story of Josh 22:10-34, see Begg 1997c and Spilsbury 1998: 150-53.

Greek: νεωτερισμός. On Josephus’ pejorative use of this term and its cognates in relation to the “revolutionaries” of his time and their “spiritual ancestors” of earlier periods (e.g., Jeroboam), see Feldman 1998a: 238; 2000: 397, n. 573; Mason 2001: 28, n. 122. Josephus elaborates Josh 22:12 (the Cisjordanians’ recourse to arms) with mention both of the (mistaken) thinking that prompts this and the purpose of their intended initiative. On the phrase “ancestral customs,” see 5.90. Related phrases will recur throughout Josephus’ altar story; see “ancestral laws” in 5.108 and 5.112 (here literally “the ancestrals”).

These indications concerning the Cisjordanians’ state of mind are a further elaboration of Josh 22:12. On the “will of God” concept in Josephus and the terms of the βουλ-stem (here: τὸ τοῦ θεοῦ βουλητόν) used by him in reference to this, see Attridge 1976: 74-76.

This intervention by the leadership has no counterpart in Josh 22:13-14, where, on their own, the people proceed to send a delegation to the Transjordanians. On Josephus’ tendency to denigrate “the crowd” as an entity in constant need of the moderating guidance of its leaders, see Feldman 1998: 145-47.

Josephus introduced this figure, the biblical “Phineas,” in Ant. 4.152. On the portrayal of him in Josephus and Pseudo-Philo, see Feldman 2002. See Josh 22:13-14, to which Josephus appends mention of the charge given the delegation. In Bib. Ant. 22.2 Pseudo-Philo eliminates the sending of a delegation and has Joshua and the elders address the culprits directly.

In Josh 22:15-20 the delegation as a whole addresses the Transjordanians. Josephus’ version consistently highlights the role of the priest Phineas in the proceedings. This statement by Phineas takes the place of the delegation’s opening question in Josh 22:16 (“what is this treachery which you have committed against the God of Israel...?”), which Bib. Ant. 22.2 expands into a series of accusatory questions. Greek: σωφρονέω. On Josephus’ use of this verb and its cognates in reference to the cardinal virtue of “prudence,” see Feldman 1998: 110-11, and, more generally, Spicq 1978 (II): 867-74. The word recurs twice subsequently in Phineas’ speech (5.109, 110), as well as in the Transjordanians’ response (5.112). These statements informing the Transjordanians of what has just transpired among their fellows (see 5.101-104) are unparalleled in the delegation’s speech in Josh 22:17-18 (+ 20), which itself features a series of further accusations against the culprits.

Such switches from indirect (see 5.105) to direct discourse in the course of a single speech are not infrequent in Josephus; see Begg 1993: 123-24, n. 772. This Josephan addition echoes the charge—likewise inserted by him—given the delegation in 5.104. Compare the leaders’ concluding words to the people, holding open such a possibility, in 5.103.

On God’s “providence”/ “providential care” (Greek: πρόνοια) as a key theme of Antiquities, see Attridge 1976: 71-106; Spilsbury 1998: 72-74. This expression of confidence by Phineas as to what he and those for whom he is speaking (“we”) do not think the Transjordanians have done stands in contrast to the consistently accusatory tone of the delegation’s speech in Josh 22:16-20. The statement’s reference to “strange gods” echoes the same phrase in the notice on the Cisjordanians’ hearing that the Transjordanians had built their altar as a “introduction of strange gods” in 5.101.

Greek: μετανοέω. On Josephus’ various “repentance terms,” see Schlatter 1932: 146-47; Dietrich 1936: 306-15. Compare the delegation’s appeal in Josh 22:19b: “only do not rebel against the Lord...,” which Josephus expands with a word of promise by Phineas. The phrase “ancestral laws” (Greek: νόμοι πάτριοι) here is a variant of the expression “ancestral customs” in 5.90, 101. See note to “ancestral customs” at 5.90. This threat, balancing Phineas’ preceding (conditional) promise, is a further Josephan elaboration of the biblical delegation’s speech. On the Israelites’ task of exterminating the Canaanites, see 5.49, 59, 72, 90.

Also this reminder of God’s inescapability lacks a counterpart in the delegation’s speech in Josh 22:16-20. Similar statements concerning God’s omnipresence and omniscience are found in, e.g., Ant. 2.129; 8.108; Apion 2.160; see Schlatter 1932: 26.

Compare the invitation (“but now, if your land is unclean, pass over to the Lord’s land... and take for yourself a possession among us”) issued to the Transjordanians in Josh 22:19a. Josephus appends an indication as to what would become of their present holdings in that eventuality. This concluding admonition takes the place of the warning reference to Achan’s sin and its consequences for Israel with which the delegation terminates its speech in Josh 22:20.

This opening statement replaces the invocation of the Lord with which the Transjordanians begin their defense in Josh 22:22-24. A version of the later segment does, however, occur at the conclusion of Josephus’ version of the altar-builders’ defense; see 5.113. The term “revolutionary intent” (Greek: νεωτερισμός) echoes the same expression in 5.101 (where Josephus himself states that the Transjordanians had not built their altar for such a purpose); see note to “intent” at 5.101. The related adjective νεώτερος (“revolutionary”) occurs at the end of the Transjordanians’ reply in 5.113.

This affirmation draws on the Transjordanians’ assurances of their commitment to the sacrificial service at the one legitimate altar in Josh 22:27, 29b. Their acknowledgement of the Hebrews’ “one, common God” picks up on Joshua’s reminder to them (5.97) “that there is one God who brought our ancestors and yours to life.” Likewise their references to the tent and the altar echo Phineas’ statement that their fellows could not think that they had abandoned these in 5.107. On the erection of the “bronze altar in front of the tent” in Moses’ time, see Ant. 3.149. See the Transjordanians’ double denial of the sacrificial character of their altar in Josh 22:26, 28b. Compare Bib. Ant. 22.3-4, where the Transjordanians assert that whereas their altar was indeed intended for sacrificial purposes, their motivation in constructing it was legitimate, i.e. that their descendants might be kept from turning to other gods as a result of their not having an altar of their own on which to sacrifice to the Lord. In Josh 22:27 the Transjordanians state that their altar is intended as a “witness” to their participation in the one legitimate sacrificial cult.

Greek: νεώτερος. See note to “intent” at 5.111. These concluding words of Josephus’ Transjordanians reflect those with which their biblical counterparts open their defense: appeal to what the Lord “knows” about them (Josh 22:22) and admission that they may rightly be punished by their fellows if they are, in fact, guilty of the charges made against them (22:23). The assembly’s reference to the “race of Abraham” echoes Joshua’s affirmation that all Jews are “descendants of Abraham” in 5.97.

See Josh 22:30-31, where Phineas acknowledges that the Transjordanians have not “committed treachery against the Lord” and thereby “saved” Israel. Compare the response made by Joshua to the Transjordanians’ self-defense in Bib. Ant. 22.5-6, in which he reproves them for failing to teach their sons God’s law and commands them to destroy their altar (as they proceed to do, 22.7). Compare Josh 22:32, where the entire delegation, rather than Phineas alone, reports back to Israel. In contrast to Josephus, who accentuates Phineas’ role in the affair, Pseudo-Philo’s version never mentions him. Josh 22:33 speaks of the entire people’s being “pleased” by the delegation’s report and foregoing their projected campaign. In contrast to MT Josh 22:10-34, which never mentions Joshua (in LXX 22:34 he gives a name to the Transjordanian altar), Josephus makes recurrent reference to his involvement in the affair. See already 5.103, where, along with the other leaders, he intervenes to restrain the crowd. Joshua 22 does not mention such an offering of sacrifices. In Bib. Ant. 22.7 sacrifices are offered by the Cisjordanians, but these are in expiation of their fellows’ sin. This concluding notice, alluding back to 5.93, where Joshua convenes—at an unspecified site—the assembly in order to dismiss the Transjordanians, takes the place of Josh 22:34 with its mention of the name (“Witness”) which the Transjordanians (MT; in LXX Joshua confers the name) give their altar. Josephus likely derives the site “Sikima” (Shechem) from Josh 24:1, where this is the place to which Joshua summons the Israelites for his final words to them (of which Josephus’ summary parallel appears in the immediately following 5.115).

Compare Josh 24:1, which does not mention the passage of 20 years, Joshua’s extreme old age (see, however, 13:1a= 23:1b; cf. 5.71, 90), or his calling together, not merely the various leadership groups, but (a portion of) the people as well. Greek: εὐεργεσία. On this term and its word-field, see Spicq 1978 (I): 307-13. This summary “reminder” takes the place of Joshua’s extended review of God’s benefits extending from Abraham down to the divine gifts to the current generation in Josh 24:2-13. In contrast to Josephus’ compression, Pseudo-Philo expatiates on the retrospective of Josh 24:2-13 in Bib. Ant. 23.4-11.

The text is uncertain here. SP’s reading runs “by showing him [God] every honor and that piety....” On “piety” (Greek: εὐσέβεια) as the fundamental requirement of the God-human relationship in Josephus, see Schlatter 1932: 37-38, 96-97; Feldman 1998: 126-29. Josephus uses the term φίλος (“friend”) of God in relation to humans rather infrequently; another such usage is in Ant. 6.20. Somewhat more often he speaks of individuals or the people as a whole as God’s “friend(s)”; see War 7.327 (the Jewish race); Ant. 5.213 (Gideon); 6.294 (Samuel); cf. Schlatter 1932: 39. Josephus here eliminates the “choice” between serving the Lord or other gods which Joshua offers the people in Josh 24:14-15; his Joshua does not even raise the latter possibility. This conclusion to Joshua’s final speech replaces the extended exchange between him and the people (Josh 24:16-24) on the possibility of their serving the Lord, which is itself followed by a renewal of the covenant (24:25), erection of a witness stone (24:26-27), and dismissal of the people (24:28). Pseudo-Philo does present a parallel to Josh 24:24 (the people’s pledge to serve the Lord) and 25 (the renewal of the covenant) in Bib. Ant. 23.14.

See Josh 24:29. This “breakdown” for the 2 key periods of Joshua’s life lacks an equivalent in Joshua 24. Josephus obtains the 25-year figure for Joshua’s time as leader by combining the indications given by him in 5.68 (the conquest under Joshua lasted 5 years) and 5.115 (20 years intervened between Joshua’s post-conquest initiatives and his final address to the people). In Bib. Ant. 24.6 the people speak of Joshua’s having led them, like Moses, for 40 years, while S.‘Olam Rab. 12.1 assigns him a term of 28 years.

Josephus begins his eulogy of Joshua with a double litotes. On such ability in public speaking as a key element of the cardinal virtue of “wisdom” that Josephus regularly ascribes to his heroes, see Feldman 1998: 104-5. The Book of Joshua itself lacks such an eulogy for Joshua; Josephus’ encomium for him itself echoes the words with which he introduces the hero in Ant. 3.49: “a most courageous man and excellent in enduring toil, and most capable in understanding, and in speech, one who worshipped God outstandingly....” Such eulogies are a recurrent feature in Josephus’ presentation of the heroes of his history. They serve to drive home the point that the Jews did indeed have their great men, possessing all the key virtues prized by his Greco-Roman readers.

Josh 24:30 supplies further details concerning Joshua’s burial place: “Timnath-serah” was Joshua’s own inheritance (see Josh 19:50) and situated “north of the mountain of Gaash” (MT; LXX B ἀπὸ Βορρᾶ τοῦ ὄρους τοῦ Γαλαάδ). Josephus leaves aside Josh 24:31 (Israel serves the Lord during the lifetimes of Joshua and the elders who survived him) and 32 (the bones of Joseph that had been brought up from Egypt are buried in Shechem). The latter omission is surprising in that Josephus does reproduce (Ant. 2.319) the notice of Exod 13:19 about Joseph’s bones being removed from Egypt by the departing Israelites, as well as Joseph’s own command about the matter (Gen 50:25= Ant. 2.200). Josephus’ notice about Phineas’ succeeding Eleazar his father has a certain parallel in the LXX plus at the end of Josh 24:33, which speaks of the former serving as priest in place of Eleazar until his own death. MT Josh 24:33 simply mentions Eleazar’s burial in Gibeah, “the town of Phineas his son.” MT Josh 24:33 calls Eleazar’s burial place “Gibeah,” LXX Γαβαάρ, this being then specified as a site belonging to his son Phineas that had been given him in the hill country of Ephraim. Josephus’ mention of a “monument” and a “tomb” for Eleazar are his own elaboration of the source burial notice.

On Josephus’ recurrent linkage of the priestly (here represented by Phineas) and prophetic functions, see Blenkinsopp 1974; Feldman 1990: 419-21. In Judg 1:1-2 the Israelites take the initiative in “inquiring,” in some unspecified manner, of the Lord about who should advance first against the Canaanites. Thereupon, the Lord responds to them directly, announcing that Judah, to whom he has awarded its land, is to go up first. This appended remark reflects the mention of the people’s “inquiring of the Lord” in Judg 1:1. See Judg 1:3. The words “they went out to battle” have been supplied, following Marcus (ad loc.), to fill an obvious lacuna in Josephus’ text.

This remark has no equivalent in Judges 1. Its insertion serves to heighten the magnitude of Judah’s subsequent victory. Judg 1:4-5 (MT and LXX) designates the battle site as “Bezek.” Judg 1:5 (MT and LXX) calls the enemy leader “Adonibezek.” Josephus supplies both the title of “king” for him and the explanation of the meaning of his name in Hebrew. Josephus adds this remark, harking back to the opening of 5.120, about the enemy’s state of mind as the hostilities commence.

Conflating the duplicate battle notices of Judg 1:4 and 5, Josephus draws his casualty figure from the former verse. His reference to the tribes’ fighting “splendidly” is an embellishment. He leaves aside the source’s double designation of the enemy as “the Canaanites and the Perizzites.”

Judg 1:6b specifies that the victors cut off Adonibezek’s “thumbs and great toes.” In Judg 1:7a Adonibezek’s “confession” ends with his affirming that God has “requited” him in accordance with his own treatment of the 70 kings who, having been deprived of their thumbs and great toes, ate scraps under his table. On the divine “inescapability” to which Josephus’ Adonibezek here alludes, see 5.109.

Judg 1:7b does not mention Adonibezek’s burial. Judges 1 does not refer to such a capture of other cities prior to Judah’s assault on Jerusalem itself (see v. 8). Josephus’ distinction between Jerusalem’s “lower” and “upper” parts, of which Judah captured the former, but not the latter, represents a reworking of Judg 1:8, where the entire city appears to fall to the besiegers. He introduces the distinction with an eye to the account of 2 Sam 5:6-10 (= Ant. 7.60-64), where Jerusalem is still not under Israelite control at the beginning of David’s reign (see also Josh 15:63, which states that the Judeans could not drive the Jebusites out of Jerusalem).

This reading of the site name follows that given in Judg 1:10a, MSPELat, and Marcus’s text; Niese reads “Nebron” with RO. Josephus leaves aside the city’s earlier name (“Kiriatharba”), just as he passes over the notice of Judg 1:9 about Judah moving against the Canaanites living in the hill country, the Negeb, and the Shephelah. Judges 1 does not explicitly mention Judah’s capture of Hebron or massacre of its population. Josephus elaborates on the reference to the expulsion of “the descendants of Anak” from Hebron by Caleb in Judg 1:20b (= Josh 15:14), taking the source’s phrase “descendants of Anak” in the sense of “giants” in light of Num 13:32-33, just as he does in his version of the latter text in Ant. 3.305, where he cites the spies’ report that “in Hebron... they had encountered the descendants of giants.” His appended mention of the giants’ bones still being available for viewing serves to confirm the reliability of the biblical references to these fantastic beings; compare his notice on the remains of Noah’s ark being displayed by the Armenians in his own time in Ant. 1.92; 20.25.

This award is not mentioned in the context of Judges 1. For the datum Josephus draws on Josh 21:11 (cf. his general summary of Joshua 21 in 5.91), where the Kohathite Levites are given “Kiriath-arba, that is Hebron.” The 2,000 cubits conferred on the Levites in addition to the city itself derive from LXX Num 35:4 (= Ant. 4.67), where this (MT has 1,000) is the prescribed extent of the pasture lands surrounding the Levitical cities. See Judg 1:20a. Earlier, Josephus passed over the fuller account of Caleb’s receiving his inheritance, Josh 14:6-15, where it is Joshua who awards Hebron to him (v. 13), just as he does not reproduce the divine directives of Num 14:24; Deut 1:36—to which he is alluding here—promising a portion of land to the faithful Caleb. In the present context, Josephus omits the sequence Judg 1:11-15 (= Josh 15:15-19, also omitted by him), featuring the capture of Debir (v. 11), and Caleb’s awarding his daughter Achsah to Othniel (vv. 12-13) and water-springs to her (vv. 14-15). He further passes over the reference to Caleb’s exclusion of the three sons of Anak (Judg 1:20b), given that in 5.125 he has already anticipated its content; see note to “displayed” there.

MT Judg 1:16 does not give the name of Moses’ father-in-law; LXX A+ calls him “Ioab,” LXX B “Iothar,” and LXX L etc. “Iobab.” In Ant. 2.258; 3.63-74 Josephus designates him as “Ragouel,” in line with the “Reuel” of Exod 2:18. On Josephus’ portrayal of the figure, see Feldman 1998a: 38-54. Judg 1:16 calls Moses’ father-in-law “the Kenite.” Josephus’ designation harmonizes with Exod 2:16 (cf. Ant. 2.257-258), where he is called “the priest of Midian.” Such an allotment of land to Jethro’s descendants by Judah is not explicitly mentioned in Judg 1:16, where the former simply “settle” with the latter after accompanying them on their migration. In Judg 1:16 the Kenites accompany Judah “from the city of palms into the wilderness of Judah which lies in the Negeb near Arad....”

Josephus conflates Judg 1:17 (the 2 tribes defeat the Canaanites) and 1:19a (Judah takes possession of “the hill country”). From the former verse he omits the mention of “Zephath” as the Canaanite site which was destroyed and so received the name “Hormath” (“ruin”), while from the latter he leaves aside its reference to God’s being with Judah. Josephus’ notice here has similarities and differences with both MT and LXX Judg 1:18. According to MT, the 2 tribes did capture the 3 Philistine cities of Gaza, Ashkelon, and Ekron (compare Josephus where they capture only the 2nd of these). In common with LXX, he mentions a 4th city, Azotus (= Hebrew Ashdod); whereas, however, LXX avers that none of the 4 cities were taken, Josephus differentiates between Ashkelon and Azotus, which were captured, and Gaza and Ekron, which were not. In 5.81 Judah was allotted the cities of Askalon and Gaza; at this point, the tribe gains actual possession of the former, but not the latter. Josephus’ reference to the “chariots” that impeded the capture of the 2 Philistine cities reflects MT Judg 1:19b (Judah “could not drive out the inhabitants of the plain, because they had chariots [‮רכב‬‎] of iron”). In LXX the Hebrew word is read as the proper name, i.e. “Rekhab” (see Jeremiah 35), who forbade the dispossession of the plains-dwellers. The Targum prefaces its rendering of Judg 1:19b with the statement “because they [the Judeans] sinned....” This concluding notice to the segment 5.120-128 (// Judg 1:8-20), focusing on the successes of Judah and Simeon, lacks a biblical counterpart.

This parenthetical comment harks back to 5.82 (cf. Josh 11:16) where the “Hierosolymites” are said to mark the boundary of Benjamin’s territory. It likewise anticipates the notice on Benjamin’s dealings with the Jebusites in Judg 1:21, which Josephus will elaborate in what follows. Both Judges 1 and Josephus’ own presentation in 5.124, 129 leave uncertain which tribe—Judah or Benjamin—was the intended master of Jerusalem. Josephus here explicates the statement of Judg 1:21 that the Benjamites did not expel the Jebusites from Jerusalem, the latter continuing to live among the former “to this day”: in their desire to devote themselves to farming, the Benjamites (whose example the other tribes follow), limited themselves to taxing the inhabitants, rather than exterminating them, as Joshua had enjoined; see 5.90.

This is an elaboration of Judg 1:22a, where it is the “house of Joseph” (of which “Ephraim” [Ephran] was a component) that goes up against Bethel; Josephus omits the remark of 1:22b about the Lord (so MT LXX B; LXX A has Judah) “being with” them.

In Judg 1:23-24 spies are dispatched against Bethel by “the house of Joseph” and it is they who address the man who has exited the city (whose earlier name, i.e. “Luz,” cited in 1:23b, Josephus omits). See Judg 1:25, which does not mention the Bethelite’s “swearing.” Josephus omits 1:26 (the spared man founds a new city to which he gives Bethel’s earlier name of “Luz”; see 1:23b).

This generalizing notice takes the place of Judg 1:27-36, which enumerates the failures of various tribes to expel the inhabitants from their respective territories (as well as their imposition of forced labor on them). The notice’s language echoes Josephus’ comment about Benjamin in 5.129, as well as his remark in 5.90 on Joshua’s perceiving the carelessness of those who would succeed him concerning “the public advantage.” The passage further serves to introduce an extended reflective insertion (5.132-135) on the causes and consequences of Israel’s fall into political degeneracy in the time after Joshua’s death. On this segment, see Attridge 1976: 135-36; Feldman 1998: 143-44.

In Judg 2:1 it is an “angel of the Lord” (the Targum substitutes “the prophet”) who addresses the people in the Lord’s name, having traveled from Gilgal to Bochim to do this. On this and other instances of Josephus’ replacing biblical mentions of “angels” with alternative formulations, see Mach 1992: 300-322 and Feldman 1998: 212-13. Josephus’ condensed version of the angelic word in Judg 2:1b-3 confines itself to adapting the statements of its vv. 2* (the Israelites have transgressed the prohibition of making covenants with the inhabitants) and 3bα (the inhabitants will become “adversaries” to them). He leaves aside the content of vv. 1b (the Lord has led the people from Egypt into the promised land and pledged not to break his covenant with them), 2* (Israel is to break down the inhabitants’ altars [LXX adds a prohibition of their bowing down to the gods of the natives and the call to break their statues], and the concluding rhetorical question, “what is this you have done?”), and 3abβ (the Lord’s resolve not to expel the inhabitants whose gods will be a “snare” to Israel).

This notice, preparing Josephus’ following characterization of the period of the Judges (see 5.135), elaborates on the reference to the people’s “weeping” in response to the angel’s words in Judg 2:4. Josephus leaves aside the etymological notice on the origin of the place name “Bochim” (meaning “weepers” in Hebrew) and the reference to the people’s sacrificing at this site (2:5). He likewise passes over the complex of notices Judg 2:6-10, (partially) paralleling those of Josh 24:28-31, concerning the death and burial of Joshua, etc., the latter segment having already been utilized by him in 5.117-119.

In 4.223 Josephus, when making his first use of the term in Antiquities, has Moses aver that “aristocracy (Greek: ἀριστοκρατία) and life therein is best.” On Josephus’ (positive) view of the aristocratic form of government and his identification of this with “theocracy,” see Feldman 1998: 145; 2000: 414, n. 696; Mason 2000: xxvi-xxvii. On the prominence of the gerousia (“senate”) in the period of Joshua, see note to “oath” at 5.15. The disappearance of the institution at this point is indicative of the marked difference between that period and the post-Joshua epoch that is now beginning. Deprived of the leadership provided by this body, the Israelites are bound to go astray, as Josephus will show them doing again and again throughout the period of the Judges. As Feldman (1998: 144) points out, the connection between obsession with money-making and political degeneracy is a topos of Greco-Roman writers as well; see, e.g., the preface to Livy’s history (#12), where he states: “of late, riches have brought in avarice, and excessive pleasures the longing to carry wantonness and licence to the point of ruin for oneself and of universal destruction.” This segment, with its focus on the political abuses into which the Israelites now fell, takes the place of the long introduction to the Book of Judges (Judg 2:6-3:6) where the emphasis is rather on Israel’s defection from the Lord, the former stress being one that would be more congenial to Josephus’ politicallyminded Gentile readers; see Feldman 2000a: 264-65. The concluding reference to the “civil strife” (Greek: στάσις) which engulfed the people at this point and the “cause” of this serves to prepare the story of the “Benjamite War,” itself occasioned by the “Gibeah outrage” (Judges 19-21), which in Josephus will follow immediately (5.136-174). On “civil strife” as a key, negatively-charged category in Josephus’ portrayal of the course of Jewish history in both War and Antiquities, see Feldman 1998: 140-42.

In Judges itself the story (Judges 19) of the Levite and his concubine (together with its sequel, the Benjamite War, Judges 20-21) stands as the book’s final episode. Josephus shifts his version of the biblical complex (5.136-178) to this early point in his retelling of the Judges period in order to provide a dramatic illustration of Israel’s (political) decline as presented by him in 5.132-135 (Josephus’ “antedating” of the above 2 episodes has a counterpart in S. Olam Rab. 12.4-5, which assigns them to the time of “Cusahan-rishathaim,” Israel’s first oppressor during the period of the Judges [see Judg 3:7-11]). In thus repositioning Judges 19, Josephus leaves aside the chronological note of 19:1a (“in those days, when there was no king in Israel...”) with its pro-monarchical implications, given his own anti-kingship stance, for which, see Feldman 1998: 502-504. On the retellings of Judges 19 by Josephus and Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 45-47), see Spilsbury 1998: 154-56; Begg 2000; and Feldman 2000a: 267-76. In Judg 19:1b the reference is to the “recesses” of the Ephraimite hill country where the Levite dwells. Josephus re-interprets the allusion in a (somewhat derogatory) socio-political sense, this reflective of his ambiguous stance towards the Levites overall. See Feldman 2000a: 267-69. In all witnesses for Judg 19:1b the Levite takes a “concubine.” Josephus enhances the status of both parties by speaking of a regular marriage between them. Judges 19 says nothing about the Levite’s feelings towards the woman. Josephus’ insertion on the matter is part of his sustained effort to accentuate the romantic dimensions of the episode; see Feldman 2000a: 269-73 and, more generally, Moehring 1957.

Josephus’ formulation here seems inspired by LXX AL (ὠργίσθη αὐτῷ) and OL Judg 19:2, which speak of the woman being “angry at” the Levite, as opposed to both MT, where she “plays the harlot against him” and LXX B, where “she goes from him.” Josephus’ subsequent references to the troubled course of their relationship are his elaboration of this item. In Judg 19:2 the “4 months” are the duration of the woman’s stay at her family home prior to the Levite’s coming to retrieve her. Josephus’ modification eliminates the “unromantic” suggestion that the Levite managed to live an extended period without his beloved (see 5.136) wife. Throughout Judg 19:2-9 only the woman’s father is mentioned. See Judg 19:3a, from which Josephus omits—for the moment—the appended parenthetical notice about the Levite’s having his servant and a couple of asses with him. He will make (modified) use of this notice subsequently; see 5.138.

Compare Judg 19:3b-4, where the Levite is entertained for 3 days by the woman’s father (alone; see note to “parents-in-law” at 5.137). Josephus here compresses the segment Judg 19:5-10aα, where the Levite is persuaded to remain the 4th day (vv. 5-7), but then insists on setting out, his father-in-law’s objections notwithstanding, on the evening of the 5th day (vv. 8-10aα). Josephus draws the figure of the Levite’s attendant from Judg 19:3aβ (earlier passed over by him; see 5.137). Judg 19:10b (like 19:3aβ) speaks of “a couple of asses” and of the woman’s simply “being with” the Levite.

Josephus supplies this indication concerning the distance between Bethlehem (the woman’s home according to 5.136) and Jerusalem. In Ant. 7.312 he cites a different figure for the same distance, i.e. 20 stadia. Compare Judg 19:11, where the servant proposes that they stop for the night specifically in “this city of the Jebusites.” The rationale appended to the servant’s proposal about stopping is Josephus’ own. In Bib. Ant. 45.1 (whose retelling of Judges 19 opens with a version of its v. 11), the party arrives first at Gibeah, i.e. their final destination in the Bible and Josephus.

See Judg 19:12a, where the Levite responds that they will not enter “the city of foreigners, who do not belong to the people of Israel.” On Jerusalem’s earlier avoiding full capture and/or extermination by the Israelites, see 5.124, 129. In Ant. 7.61 Josephus likewise identifies the Jebusites as being “of the race of the Chananaians.” In Judg 19:13 the Levite proposes to “draw near to one of these places, and spend the night at Gibeah or at Ramah.” The figure for the proposed distance still to be travelled is, like that given in 5.139, Josephus’ own. Josephus’ formulation here points up the irony of the situation: the party passes up a Canaanite city in favor of one belonging to “their own people” where, however, they will meet with unimaginable horrors. He highlights a similar irony in War (see 1.10, 27) where the Jews are treated better by the Roman enemy than by the fanatic rebel leaders. MT Judg 19:15 calls the site “Gibeah,” LXX Γαβαά. In Bib. Ant. 45.1 the party, having already passed by “Gibeah,” ends up stopping at “Nob.”

See Judg 19:15b. On “hospitality” (Greek ξενία; words of the ξεν- root permeate Josephus’ story of the Gibeah outrage) as a value whose practice on the part of the Jews—also towards non-Jews—Josephus highlights throughout Antiquities, see Feldman 1998: 122-23. The inhabitants of Gibeah thus appear as non-typical Jews in their lack of hospitality to the travelers. See Judg 19:16. Bib. Ant. 45.2 introduces the old man as “a certain Levite whose name was Bethac.” In Judg 19:17b the old man asks where the Levite is going and whence he has come; in Bib. Ant. 45.2b he asks simply “Are you Beel from my tribe?” In having the man note the provisions the Levite has in hand, Josephus anticipates the latter’s statement in Judg 19:19 about the “bread and wine” he has available.

The Levite’s response as cited in Judg 19:18 does not mention his status or the woman, but adds that no one had taken him in (see 19:15b). In having the Levite state that he is proceeding to “his own home” Josephus aligns himself with LXX ABL, where he speaks of going to “my home” as against MT, where his destination is rather “the house of the Lord.” In Bib. Ant. 45.2c the Levite simply acknowledges that he is indeed “Beel”; see 45.2b and see note on “fields” at 5.141.

See Judg 19:21, which Josephus amplifies with mention of the motivations behind the old man’s taking them in (he leaves aside the man’s preceding invitation, v. 20, which Pseudo-Philo [Bib. Ant. 45.2dg] turns into an ominous warning with, e.g., an allusion to the Sodomites’ assault on Lot and his guests [Gen 19:4-11]). See note on “hospitality” at 5.141. Josephus amplifies Judg 19:22 with mention of what prompted the assailants to come to the old man’s house and the state of mind in which they approach. This reference to the old man’s initial attempt to dissuade the assailants lacks a biblical parallel. In Judg 19:22 the assailants demand that the old man hand over his male visitor; Josephus’ modification reflects his embarrassment over the biblical picture of an anticipated homosexual rape on the part of Jews; see Feldman 2000a: 274-75. In Ant. 1.200 Josephus does reproduce the biblical (see Gen 19:5) notice on the Sodomites’ intention of forcing sexual relations on Lot’s male (angelic) visitors, but there the (would-be) perpetrators are not Jews. According to Bib. Ant. 45.3ab the men demand both of “Bethac’s” visitors, threatening to burn both him and them if he refuses.

In Judg 19:23 the old man invokes the Levite’s status as a visitor to his home in attempting to dissuade the assailants. Bib. Ant. 45.3cd represents “Bethac” as reminding those at the door that his visitors are “brothers” of them all and urging them to refrain from evil so as not to “multiply sins.” With this response by the assailants Josephus drastically intensifies the notice of Judg 19:25a (“the men would not listen to him”), which itself follows upon the host’s offering them his own virgin daughter and the Levite’s concubine in 19:24. By delaying his version of the old man’s “offer” to a later point in the exchange (see 5.145) and by highlighting the danger faced by him, Josephus depicts him as putting up more resistance to the assailants’ reprobate demands than does the Bible. In Bib. Ant. 45.3e the assailants’ response is the assertion that “strangers” have never hitherto given orders to local residents—as “Bethac” has just attempted to do.

This inserted remark on the old man’s hopeless situation continues Josephus’ endeavor to portray him in a more favorable light; see previous note. In Judg 19:24 the old man offers the assailants not only his daughter but also the Levite’s concubine. The host’s words here echo those of Lot facing the Sodomites’ demand that he hand over his (angelic) visitors to them in Ant. 1.201: “... he would offer his own daughters for their lust in place of them....” In Judg 19:24 the old man concludes his words to the assailants by calling on them not to violate the Levite. Josephus’ rendition of his words shows him evidencing equal concern for the security of both his guests, neither of whom he is willing to hand over to them. Going further in the same direction, Pseudo-Philo omits the old man’s “offer” completely.

This mention of a final attempt by the old man to dissuade the assailants, paralleling that introduced by him in 5.143, is Josephus’ insertion, designed to cast the figure in a more favorable light. Josephus here notably reworks the biblical presentation (Judg 19:25bα) according to which the Levite himself, at this point, takes the initiative in handing his concubine over to them. The modification is in line with Josephus’ previous emphasis on the Levite’s love for his wife—with which his biblical action at this point would hardly accord. Pseudo-Philo modifies similarly: in Bib. Ant. 45.3ef the assailants break in, carry off both the Levite and his concubine, but then release the former. Judg 19:25bβ does not mention the assailants’ lustful urges or their taking the woman to their houses.

Judg 19:26 makes no mention of the woman’s sentiments as she positions herself before the door of her host’s house. Compare Josephus’ earlier, also inserted reference to the woman’s being “ill-disposed” towards the Levite in 5.137. MT Judges 19 nowhere explicitly mentions the woman’s “death.” Josephus’ statement on the point here anticipates the LXX plus at the end of Judg 19:28a (“but she was dead”). Pseudo-Philo likewise anticipates mention of the woman’s death, further supplying a reason why she came to so bad an end, i.e. as divine punishment for her having once committed adultery with the Amalekites (Bib. Ant. 45.3f).

Judg 19:27 says nothing concerning the Levite’s state of mind as he encounters the woman’s body. Josephus’ extended insertion on the matter accentuates, once again, his attachment to his wife; see note to “from her” at 5.136.

Compare Judg 19:28a: “He said to her, ‘Get up, let us be going.’ But there was no answer (+ but she was dead, LXX).” In place of the biblical Levite’s brusque, heartless command, Josephus depicts him “coming to his senses” about the reality of what has happened. See Judg 19:28b. Bib. Ant. 45.4 has the man proceed to “Kadesh.” Josephus’ specification of “each tribe” as the recipient of the pieces corresponds to the LXX AL reading in Judg 19:29 (“to all the tribes of Israel”) against MT LXX B, where the pieces are sent “throughout all the territory of Israel.” Josephus’ mention of the instruction given to the bearers by the Levite corresponds to the LXX AL reading in Judg 19:30, where the words—which in MT and LXX B are placed on the lips of those beholding the body parts—are formulated rather as a command by the Levite concerning what the bearers are to say to the Israelites. Josephus likewise reformulates the content of the words in question, which in 19:30 involve an exclamation concerning the unprecedented character of the happening and a call to a joint consultation about this. Bib. Ant. 45.4 too cites the “message” of the Levite that is to accompany the pieces (here he claims to have been “locked up” at the moment his concubine was seized, whereas 45.3 states that he was removed from the house along with her).

Josephus’ reference to the people’s emotional reaction to seeing the woman’s remains is an amplification of the notices on their words (Judg 19:30, MT LXX B; see previous note) and their assembling (20:1). His allusion to no one’s ever having experienced such a thing echoes the opening words ascribed to the people (MT LXX B)/messengers (LXX AL) in 19:30, minus the appended chronological indication “from the day the people of Israel came out of Egypt until this day.” Bib. Ant. 45.5 introduces its version of Judg 20:1 with mention of the tribes’ being “disturbed.” On Josephus’ account of the Benjamite War episode (Judges 20-21) in 5.150-174, see Begg 1998 and Feldman 2000a: 276-90. In Judg 20:1 the assembly takes place at Mizpah; Josephus’ relocalization agrees with that of Bib. Ant. 45.5. Feldman (2000a: 289-90) suggests positively that “Shiloh” would be a more appropriate site for the assembly given the presence of the Tent of Meeting there (see Josh 18:1= Ant. 5.68; cf. the mention of the tent in the continuation of 5.150), while negatively Josephus may not have wished to place the Israelites’ “vengeful assembly” at the same locale where Saul (towards whom Josephus has a more positive stance than the Bible) would one day be chosen king, i.e. Mizpah (see 1 Sam 10:27= Ant. 6.60).

Judg 20:2 mentions the “chiefs of all the people of the tribes of Israel.” There, however, they simply “present themselves” in the assembly. Josephus’ attributing an active, restraining role to them here is highly reminiscent of his introducing “Iesous, Eleazar and the senate” in the exercise of a like role when the aroused people are ready to march against the Transjordanian altar-builders in 5.103. The “law” to which the senate alludes here is that of Deut 20:16, cited by Josephus in Ant. 4.296, which enjoins that before going to war with (foreign, but non-Canaanite) cities, Israel is to offer them terms. A fortiori then, this procedure must be used in dealings with a fellow Israelite city.

In Judg 20:12-13 the “tribes of Israel” dispatch a delegation on their own, without being urged to do so by their leaders. Josephus’ insertion continues to accentuate the role of the latter vis-à-vis the people as a whole; see previous note. In moving from Israel’s assembly (20:1) to its embassy to the Benjamites (20:12), Josephus passes over the intervening segment, 20:2-11, this consisting (mostly) of words spoken at the assembly, i.e. the Levite’s report of what had happened (20:4-7, a matter already known to readers from what precedes) and the Israelites’ resolutions concerning their response to this (20:8-11). In Bib. Ant. 45.5b the assembled people ask a rhetorical question about whether they should keep quiet in face of the crime. To this 45.6 attaches a divine word addressed to “the adversary,” wherein God announces his intention of frustrating the people’s projected initiative, given that they had failed to show a like indignation over Micah’s idol-making (see Judges 17-18= Bib. Ant. 44). Thereafter, one finds a certain parallel to Josephus’ insertion concerning the senate’s suggestion that the Gabaenes first be confronted concerning the charges against them; see 46.1a, where the Israelites propose that they go “and investigate the sin that has been committed.”

In Judg 20:12 the Israelites sent their emissaries “through all the tribe of Benjamin,” rather than specifically to Gibeah. Josephus modifies in light of the senate’s proposal in 5.152 that the people send to the Gabaenes. In Judg 20:13a the embassy’s demand concludes rather with a reference to the anticipated “putting away of evil from Israel” that would be effected through the execution of the culprits.

As the recipients of the envoys’ message (see 5.152, 153) the Gabaenes likewise are the ones to respond to this, whereas in Judg 20:13b the Benjamites as a whole reject what has been demanded of them all (20:12-13a). In 5.151 this same term (Greek: ἀλλότριος) was used to refer to non-Israelites; its utilization for fellow Israelites by the Gabaenes here underscores the depth of their estrangement from their own people. Josephus supplies the reasoning behind the Gabaenes’ rejection of the embassy’s demand. Josephus accentuates the Benjamites’ sense of solidarity with the “Gabaenes,” whom they perceive to be facing injury by the other Israelites. Compare Judg 20:14, where the Benjamites simply proceed to Gibeah to fight with Israel, with no mention of the thinking behind their initiative.

Josephus anticipates this item from Judg 21:1, where it appears as a kind of afterthought. This appended statement about the Israelites’ emotions as they pledge to make war upon the Benjamites (cf. Judg 20:8-11) echoes the (likewise inserted) reference to their “intense and just wrath” in 5.150.

This figure agrees with that given in Judg 20:17. Josephus here conflates the separate figures given for the (rest of the) Benjamites (MT 26,000; LXX AL 25,000; LXX B 23,000) and for those from Gibeah itself (700 in all witnesses) in Judg 20:15. His figure for the former group thus agrees with that of LXX AL. MT Judg 20:16a (LXX AB lack a number) gives a figure of 700 for the Benjamite/Gibeah slingers (i.e. the same total for the Gibeah warriors cited in 20:15). Josephus leaves aside the qualification of them (20:16b) as able to “sling a stone at a hair, and not miss.” His qualification of the archers as “left-handed” agrees with MT’s description of them, whereas LXX AB call them “ambidextrous.”

Josephus passes over the preliminaries to the first battle (Judg 20:18-20). In particular, he does not reproduce the preceding “consultation” of the Lord at Bethel by the Israelites cited in 20:18, to which the Lord responds by directing Judah to go up first. Thereby, Josephus eliminates the theological problem of the Lord’s seeming to encourage Israel to go into a battle that will end in its defeat (20:21). By contrast, Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 46.1) has the Lord unambiguously promise his support for Israel, doing this, as he comments, in order to fulfill his words (i.e. those announcing his intention of punishing Israel cited in 45.6; see note to “responsible” at 5.152). Cf. Feldman 2000a: 279-80. See Judg 20:22. Bib. Ant. 46.2d gives a figure of 45,000 for Israel’s casualties in the first battle. As Feldman (2000a: 279) points out, this appended remark has a close parallel in Josephus’ (also inserted) notice concerning the outcome of the battle between Israel and the Amalekites in Ant. 3.54.

This reference to the victors’ emotions is biblically unparalleled. Josephus here modifies the wording of Judg 20:23, where the Israelites first weep before and then inquire of the Lord who directs them to proceed again against the enemy. The modification reflects the same theological sensitivity evidenced in his omission of the first such consultation (20:18; see note to “Gaba” at 5.157), since here too the Lord seems to be misleading Israel, which in fact will suffer another defeat. Josephus further leaves aside the notice about the Israelites’ “taking courage” and reforming their battle lines in 20:22, which does not seem to cohere very well with the immediately following portrayal of their emotional state subsequent to their first defeat in 20:23a. By contrast, Pseudo-Philo not only reproduces, but elaborates the consultation scene of 20:23 in Bib. Ant. 46.3ac. See Judg 20:25, which does not mention an abandonment of the Israelite camp. In Bib. Ant. 46.3d the figure for the Israelite casualties is much higher than that in either the Bible or Josephus, i.e. 46,000.

This indication about Bethel’s proximity to the battle site at Gibeah is Josephus’ own. Compare Judg 20:26, which mentions the Israelites’ weeping before the Lord and offering sacrifices to him at Bethel as well. Bib. Ant. 46.4a cites the words of the people’s post-defeat lament, along with their prostration before the ark (cf. Judg 20:27), rending their garments, and putting ashes on their heads. It is the people as a whole who “inquire of” God in Judg 20:27a. In making Phineas their mouthpiece (compare his similar procedure in 5.120 vis-à-vis Judg 1:1), Josephus is likely inspired by the parenthetical notice of Judg 20:27b-28a about Phineas’ officiating before the ark at Bethel “in those days.” Likewise Pseudo-Philo depicts Phineas (Bib. Ant. 46.4-47.1) as the one who voices the people’s distress on this occasion (which, however, he does not locate at Bethel, as in the Bible and Josephus, but at Shiloh; see 46.3). In Judg 20:28bα the people simply ask whether they should go to battle yet again or desist. In Bib. Ant. 47.2 Phineas’ prayer culminates in the plea that the Lord make known why he has twice deceived the people regarding the outcome of the battles. Josephus continues to underscore the role of Phineas, now as the “prophet” through whom God speaks (compare 5.20); in Judg 20:28bβ God addresses the people directly, telling them to “go up” and announcing that he will give the enemy into their hand. Pseudo-Philo develops the Bible’s summary divine response into an extended discourse (Bib. Ant. 47.3-8) in which God, picking up his earlier word to “the adversary” (45.6), discloses that he “deceived” the people in punishment for their failure to respond as vigorously to Micah’s idolatry as they did to the violation of the Levite’s concubine.

See Judg 20:29, to which Josephus adds the further details about the division of the army into 2 divisions, of which one is placed in ambush at night. See Judg 20:31-32(39); Josephus appends the motivation behind the Israelites’ (pretended) flight. During the Galilean campaign, Josephus himself employed a similar tactic; see Life 399-400.

This notice on the complete emptying of the city of its defenders lacks a counterpart in Judges 20. Cf. Judg 20:33-34, 37-41a, whose confusingly repetitious description of the course of the battle Josephus simplifies and synthesizes; compare his similar treatment of the complicated battle account of Josh 8:1-29 in 5.45-48; and cf. Feldman 2000a: 278. Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 47.9) does likewise.

Josephus combines the 2 separate notices about the Israelites’ emerging from ambush of Judg 20:33b, 37 into a single one. See Judg 20:41b. See Judg 20:47. In Judg 20:43, 45 the Benjamites are killed on the roads as they flee.

Judg 20:47 specifies that the site in question was called the “rock of Rimmon” (a datum utilized by Josephus only subsequently; see 5.166) and that the escapees spent 4 months there. Josephus dramatizes their struggle to reach the place. This figure for the total Benjamite casualties agrees with that given in Judg 20:46 (itself a combination of the partial totals cited in 20:44-45: 18,000+ 5,000 + 2,000); compare 20:35 (25,100). According to Bib. Ant. 47.10, 85,000 inhabitants of Nob (i.e. the site of the outrage to the Levite’s concubine according to 45.1) were killed.

Josephus here combines (and modifies) data from Judg 20:37 (burning of Gibeah, killing of its inhabitants) and 20:48 (slaughter of the Benjamite persons and beasts and burning of all their towns). In the biblical presentation (see Judg 21:8-12) the dispatch of the 12,000 against non-cooperative Jabesh-gilead comes at a later point, i.e. after the end of Israel’s climactic battle with the Benjamites and in the context of the victorious Israelites’ post-battle assembly. As Feldman (2000a: 282) points out, Josephus’ having the Israelites undertake their violent initiative against Jabesh while still in the heat of battle, serves to exculpate their deed (of which Pseudo-Philo makes no mention).

See Judg 21:10b-12a. Josephus does not mention the expedition’s return to the Israelites at Shiloh (21:12b). Also this editorial comment about their motivation aims to exculpate the Israelites’ deed; see note on “Benjamites” at 5.164.

The account of the Israelites’ post-battle measures at Bethel in Judg 21:2-7 does not mention their “fasting” (see 5.159), but rather, weeping, questioning of the Lord (21:3), building of an altar, and sacrifices (21:4). On the people’s changed stance towards the Benjamites, see 21:6a (“the people of Israel had compassion for Benjamin their brother...”). This comment on the Israelites’ continued conviction of the rightness of their previous dealings with the Benjamites has no biblical counterpart. See Judg 21:13. “Roas” is Josephus’ Greek translation of the Hebrew name (“Rimmon,” i.e. “pomegranate” that LXX simply transliterates) for the survivors’ place of refuge. In his earlier mention of the 600’s escape (see 5.163) Josephus avoided naming the site (contrast Judg 20:47).

This speech of the messengers, expressive of the Israelites’ new-found sense of solidarity with the surviving Benjamites, is a Josephan invention.

See Judg 21:14a, to which Josephus appends the remark concerning the Benjamites’ “acknowledgement” (itself echoing the conviction he attributes to the Israelites themselves in 5.166). Cf. Judg 21:14, 16. Josephus inserts mention of “procreation” as the purpose for which wives are to be obtained for the remaining Benjamites. The addition echoes Josephus’ other statements about procreation as the end of marriage; see War 2.160-161; Apion 2.199; cf. Mayer-Schärtel 1995: 229-30.

See 5.155, where Josephus anticipates his reference to the Israelites’ pre-battle oath from Judg 21:1. In Judg 21:16-22 it is “the elders of the congregation” (v. 16) who alone speak regarding the problem of the wifeless Benjamites. Josephus enlivens the proceedings by having the problem addressed by 3 different sets of speakers (on this literary device, known as “trichotomy”, which Josephus introduces also in other biblical contexts, see Begg 1998: 295, n. 97). The first group of speakers, featured here in 5.169, posits the “thesis” (the abrogation of the oaths taken) to which the following speakers will propose, respectively, an “antithesis” and finally a “synthesis.”

Compare Judg 21:18, where the “elders” (see v. 16) point up the problem posed by the people’s earlier oath which prohibits them from now awarding their daughters to the remaining Benjamites. On Josephus’ recurring emphasis on the sanctity of the oaths taken by biblical characters and its apologetic import, see Feldman 2000a: 283-84. Josephus’ extended introduction of the 3rd and final speaker serves to arouse curiosity about how he will resolve Israel’s dilemma. See Judg 21:19. Josephus omits the verse’s extended indications concerning the location of “Shiloh.” Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 48.3) identifies the feast in question as “Passover.”

Cf. the command on the matter issued the Benjamites by the elders in Judg 21:20; Josephus’ speaker appends the reference to the Israelites’ own proposed non-involvement in the proceedings. In Bib. Ant. 48.3 the Israelites as a whole, without previous discussion, issue the command of 21:20 to the Benjamites. Compare Judg 21:22, where the elders’ proposed statement to the women’s male relatives is formulated in less “judgmental” terms, i.e. without mention of a failure on the part of the women’s fathers or reference to the people’s own excessive anger against the Benjamites.

Josephus dramatically elaborates the scene as described in Judg 21:23a. On the similarities and differences between Josephus’ account of the Benjamites’ wife-stealing and Livy’s story (1.9) of the Romans’ carrying off the Sabine women, see Feldman 2000a: 285-87. Josephus’ wording here echoes that used by him in 5.135, his introduction to the Gibeah Outrage/ Benjamite War complex (5.136-174), where it is the people’s preoccupation with agricultural pursuits to the exclusion of their civic responsibilities that leads to those calamities. Greek: εὐδαιμονία. On Josephus’ use of this key term of Greek moral philosophy, see Weiss 1979: 427-28; Feldman 1984-85: 241, n. 79; Mason 1991: 185. The term nowhere occurs in the LXX.

This concluding notice to Josephus’ version of Judges 19-21 (5.136-174) takes the place of the closing statements of Judg 21:24-25 (the Israelites depart to their inheritances; everyone does what was right in his own eyes due to Israel’s lack of king—cf. Judg 19:1, also omitted by Josephus).

In Judges 17-18 the story of the resettlement of the tribe of Dan is interwoven with that of Micah’s idol that ends up at the sanctuary of Dan. Josephus, apparently for apologetic reasons, completely omits the latter component of the story; see Feldman: 2000a: 257-58. Concentrating exclusively on the political aspect of Dan’s relocation, Josephus presents this happening in 5.175-178 by conflating the 2 biblical versions of the event, i.e. Judg 1:34 (earlier passed over by him) and 18*. (Conversely, Pseudo-Philo omits Dan’s move, while expatiating on Micah’s idol-making [Judges 17] in Bib. Ant. 44). In addition, Josephus reverses the sequence of Judges 17-18 and 19-21, making the latter— which he relates in highly compressed form—a mere appendix to the former—which he recounts in much greater detail (Pseudo-Philo retains the biblical order in Bib. Ant. 44-48).

This inserted editorial notice serves to prepare the Canaanite initiative in what follows; its wording picks up that used in 5.132, 135.

This event is not recorded in Judges. In 5.128 (cf. Judg 1:18) Josephus relates that whereas Judah captured “Askalon,” it failed to take “Akkaron.” See Judg 1:34.

Cf. Judg 18:1-2a, from which Josephus omits the (“pro-monarchical”) notice on there being no king of Israel in that time (v. 1a) and whose motivation for Dan’s initiative (“... for until then no inheritance had fallen to them,” v. 1bβ) he modifies, given that in 5.87 (cf. Josh 19:40-48) he has related Dan’s reception of its (initial) territory in the time of Joshua. Josephus conflates (elements of) Judg 18:7 (the spies’ arrival at Laish, “not far from the Sidonians”) and 8-10 (their report to the Danites), while passing over their visit to Micah’s idol sanctuary (18:2b-6). In eliminating the source reference (v. 7) to a city (“Laish”) that the spies come upon, Josephus prepares his own subsequent presentation, in which there will be no destruction of that city and its inhabitants (compare Judg 18:27). He mentions the proximity of Dan to “the sources of the lesser Jordan” again in Ant. 8.226; see also War 4.3. Cf. Judg 18:28b-29. Josephus here drastically abridges the biblical account, passing over the entire sequence Judg 18:11-28a, which tells of the Danites’ march towards Laish, including their stop at Micah’s shrine (vv. 13-26) and their slaughter of the inhabitants of Laish (vv. 27-28a). In omitting the latter segment, Josephus bypasses the apologetical problem posed by the Danites’ unprovoked assault on “a quiet and unsuspecting” people (Judg 18:27); in his version, the entire operation is a peaceful process in which the Danites simply move into unoccupied land. Finally, Josephus, in line with his overall apologetic tendency (see note to “cause” at 5.175), also omits the concluding verses (30-31) of Judges 18 with their mention of several unedifying religious developments, i.e. the setting up of Micah’s image at Dan and the extended functioning of a Mosaic priesthood there.

Greek: ἡ περὶ τὸ θεῖον ὀλιγωρία. Closely related formulations occur in Ant. 3.19 (subject: the people) and 9.204 (King Amaziah). This concluding note to Josephus’ account of Dan’s migration (5.175-178) creates an inclusion with his remarks concerning the background to that development in 5.176, just as it recalls his earlier remarks on the people’s fall into degeneracy after Joshua’s death in 5.132, 135. The segment has a certain biblical parallel in Judg 3:1-6, which highlights Israel’s fatal involvement with the earlier inhabitants.

Compare Judg 3:7-8aα, where God’s wrath is motivated rather by the people’s turning to the worship of “Baal and the Asheroth.” On the word “well-being” (Greek: εὐδαιμονία), see note to “well-being” at 5.173. Compare Cushanrishathaim (MT Judg 3:8); Χουσαρσαθωμ (LXX A); Χουσαρσαθάιμ (LXX B); “Cushan the sinner” (Tg.). MT Judg 3:8 calls him king of “Aram Naharayim,” LXX AB of “Syria of the rivers,” and Tg. of “Aram.” This is Josephus’ replacement for/ elaboration of the theological notice of Judg 3:8aβ: “(the Lord) sold them into the hand of Cushanrishathaim.”

Josephus elaborates on the simple mention of Israel’s 8-year servitude found in Judg 3:8b. Conversely, he leaves aside the Israelites’ “cry” to the Lord (3:9a), which prompts his intervention on their behalf (3:9b).

In Judg 3:9 Israel’s deliverer is rather “Othniel, the son of Kenaz, Caleb’s younger brother.” Previously, Josephus left aside the biblical mention of Othniel as the conqueror of Debir, Judg 1:13. Likewise Pseudo-Philo attributes Israel’s initial deliverance from its foes in the period of the Judges, not to Othniel, but rather to “Cenaz”; see Bib. Ant. 27, where the enemy whom he overcomes are the Amorites. The reference to Keniaz’ qualities is Josephus’ own. In Judg 3:10aα “the spirit of the Lord comes upon” Othniel, and there is no report of a message given him. On Josephus’ tendency to avoid biblical references to the (divine) “spirit,” see Best 1959; Levison 1996. On the “freedom theme” in his history, see note to “freedom” at 5.34. Judg 3:10bα simply mentions Othniel’s going “out to war.” Josephus highlights the paucity of those who support him in this initiative.

Josephus expatiates on Judg 3:10bβ: “the Lord gave Cushanrishathaim... into his [Othniel’s] hand, and his hand prevailed over Cushanrishathaim,” even while eliminating its theological indication, just as he did that of 3:8a; see note on “Chousarsath” at 5.180.

Judg 3:10aβ speaks of Othniel’s “judging” Israel, already prior to his engaging Cushanrishathaim (3:10b), and does not mention his being given office by the people in recognition of his victory. Compare Judg 3:11: “So the land had rest for forty [MT LXX B; LXX AL: 50] years. Then Othniel the son of Kenaz died.”

Compare Judg 3:12a: “And the people of Israel again did what was evil in the sight of the Lord.” Josephus adds a political dimension to the Bible’s theological statement concerning Israel’s regression. On “anarchy” (Greek: ἀναρχία) in Josephus, see Feldman 1998a: 145; the term is used by him only once elsewhere, i.e. in Ant. 6.84 (there in reference to the people’s political state during the 18 years that followed the death of Joshua).

Josephus’ form of the name corresponds to that of MT Judg 3:12; LXX calls him “Eglom.” Greek: ἡ ἀκοσμία ἡ κατὰ τὴν πολιτείαν. This phrase represents a play on words with the expression ὁ κόσμος τῆς πολιτείας (“the order of their constitution”) of 5.179. Josephus’ two remaining uses of the word ἀκοσμία (“disorder”) are in Ant. 5.255 and 6.369. Cf. Judg 3:12b-13a, from which Josephus omits mention of the help given King Eglon both by the Lord (v.12b) and the Ammonites and the Amalekites (v. 13a), thereby accentuating the success of Eglon personally.

See Judg 3:13b-14. In 3:13b the reference is to the enemy coalition’s (see 3:13a) getting possession of “the city of palms” (so MT and LXX; the Tg., like Josephus, identifies the site as “Jericho”). Josephus goes beyond the Bible in accentuating the severity of the 18-year servitude (3:14) Eglon imposed on Israel. Greek: λαβὼν οἶκτον. With God as subject this phrase occurs also in Ant. 1.188; 2.211; 5.201; cf. 4.40 (with the verb “to do”). In Judg 3:15aβ the Lord’s “raising up a deliverer” for the people comes in response to their “crying” to him. Josephus interjects the reference to the divine “pity” that prompts God to respond favorably to the people’s appeals.

So MT 3:15; in LXX MT’s ‮בן־הימיני‬‎ is rendered “son of Iemeni,” “Iemeni” being taken as the grandfather of the hero “Aod” (= MT “Ehud”). MT “Ehud”; LXX Αώδ; Josephus Ἰούδης. On Josephus’ treatment of this figure, see Feldman 1998a: 137-52. It is unclear whether or not the judge “Zebul” of Bib. Ant. 29 is to be identified with the biblical “Ehud” (see Feldman [1998a: 137-38, n. 2]); in any case, what Pseudo-Philo tells of the former figure bears no resemblance to the story of Ehud in Judg 3:12-30. This is the name of Ehud’s father according to both MT and LXX Judg 3:15. Josephus attributes these qualities to “Ioud” without explicit biblical basis; compare his appended characterization of “Keniaz” (biblical Othniel) in 5.182. With this wording, Josephus seems to take into account the divergent readings of both MT 3:15 (Ehud’s “right hand was restricted,” which RSV takes as a circumlocution for “left-handed”) and LXX which designates “Aod” as “ambidextrous.” See Feldman 1998a: 139-40, and cf. note on “left-handed slingers” at 5.156 on Josephus’ handling of the similarly divergent readings of MT and LXX Judg 20:16 in 5.156.

Josephus here modifies the statement of Judg 3:15bβ: “the people of Israel sent tribute (MT ‮מנחה‬‎, LXX δῶρα) by him [Ehud] to Eglon....” In his presentation, the “gifts” seem to come from Ehud personally, who thereby obtains for himself the easy access to the king presupposed in the biblical story.

Judg 3:18 does not specify the number of the tribute-carriers who accompany Ehud to Eglon. MT Judg 3:16 designates Ehud’s weapon as a “sword”; LXX calls it a μάχαιρα which may denote either a “sword” or a “dagger, knife.” Josephus’ term for the object is ξιφίδιον (“little sword, dagger”). Josephus leaves aside the additional details of Judg 3:16 concerning Ehud’s weapon, i.e. its being “two-edged,” the obscure specification of its length (RSV: “a cubit”), and his girding it “under his clothes.” This mention of the reasons for the guards’ negligence has no biblical counterpart; it explains, e.g., why Ehud was not—as might have been expected— thoroughly searched before approaching the king.

Judg 3:17 (MT) appends to its mention of Ehud’s presenting the tribute a characterization of Eglon as “a very fat man” (LXX calls him rather ἀστεῖος, “handsome”). As part of his overall endeavor to ameliorate the image of Eglon, Josephus omits the remark; see Feldman 1998a: 144-46. In Judg 3:19 Ehud appears to make an unmotivated trip to Gilgal once he has delivered the tribute, thereafter returning to Eglon. Josephus more plausibly represents him as continuing in attendance on Eglon, prolonging their interview by engaging the king in conversation. On Josephus’ attempt to dispose of the many such obscurities of the biblical story, see Feldman 1998a: 146-49. He derives his reference to the site of the exchange from Judg 3:20, which speaks of their meeting in Eglon’s “cool roof chamber.” Compare Judg 3:19b (Eglon commands “silence” [so MT LXX B; LXX A: “from the midst”], whereupon all the servants retire).

This reference to Ehud’s “anxiety” at the story’s climactic moment is a Josephan dramatization. See Judg 3:20bα. Josephus’ formulation spells out the (intended) purpose of Ehud’s announcement and of the king’s rising, while its designation of the divine message as a “dream” heightens the message’s interest for Eglon. In this connection Josephus also takes care to eliminate the duplication of Ehud’s announcement to the king as found in Judg 3:19aβ and 20b. On the topic of dreams in Josephus overall, see Gnuse 1996.

In Judg 3:20bβ Eglon simply “rises”; Josephus dramatizes, likewise providing a motivation for the king’s alacrity. Josephus here compresses the gory, degrading details of the assassination as related in Judg 3:21-22, these including the king’s excrement coming out, once he is run through (so MT 3:22; LXX lacks the item). See Judg 3:23. Josephus adds the notice on Ehud’s leaving the murder weapon behind, likely on the consideration that, should he be searched when exiting, the fact of his carrying of a weapon would undoubtedly cause his arrest.

The noun “freedom” (Greek: ἐλευθερία) here echoes the cognate verb ἐλευθερόω (“to free”) with which Josephus introduces his story of Ehud’s deed in 5.187. Josephus here modifies the account of Judg 3:26-28a, where the fugitive Ehud reaches “Seirah” (v. 26), whereupon he himself sounds the trumpet (v. 27) and summons those who gather to follow him, affirming that the Lord has given the Moabites into their hand (v. 28). By contrast, Josephus has Ehud giving a signal in Jericho itself to the inhabitants who then undertake to alert their compatriots on his behalf. He likewise replaces the theological statement of 3:28a with a call by Ehud that his hearers do something for the sake of “freedom”; see previous note.

Cf. Judg 3:24-25, from which Josephus omits the vulgar detail about the servants’ supposing Eglon to be “relieving himself” (v. 24b), and to which he adds mention of their reaction to their discovery of the king’s body. This notice, underscoring the speed of the Israelite assault that does not allow the Moabites to take counter measures, is an Josephan insertion.

See Judg 3:28b-29, the sequence of which Josephus rearranges, mentioning, e.g., the seizure of the Jordan ford (3:28bα) as a kind of afterthought.

Compare Judg 3:30a: “So Moab was subdued that day under the hand of Israel.” Judges 3 does not mention such an “appointment” of Ehud by the people; compare Josephus’ similar insertion concerning “Keniaz” in 5.184. Josephus’ notice here reflects the LXX plus at the end of Judg 3:30b which adds to MT’s statement “the land had rest for 80 years” the notice “and Aod judged them until his death.” Compare 5.184, where Josephus similarly replaces Judg 3:11’s figurative reference to the land’s “having rest” for 40 years with mention of Keniaz’ “exercising his rule” for that period. This “eulogy” for Ehud has no biblical parallel; compare Josephus’ (also inserted) opening mention of his qualities in 5.188. MT (Judg 3:31) “Shamgar”; LXX B+ Σαμαγάρ; LXX BA Σαμεγάρ. Josephus’ name for Shamgar’s father corresponds to that (“Anath”) given by MT and LXX A Judg 3:31 (LXX B has the corrupt form “Deinach”). Josephus’ reference to Shamgar’s 1-year rule— the Bible does not mention the duration of his leadership—takes the place of the exploit attributed to him by Judg 3:31, i.e. killing 600 Philistines with an oxgoad that he might have found too implausible.

Josephus expatiates on Judg 4:1: “and the people of Israel again did what was evil in the sight of the Lord.” The reference to “their slavery under the Moabites” harks back to the wording of 5.197. Compare Judg 4:2a: “Jabin king of Canaan.” Schalit (s.v. Ιάβινος) holds that the phrase Ἀβίτου τοῦ Χαναναῖων of the codices is a corruption of an original [Ι]αβι[ν]ου τοῦ τῶν Χαναναῖων. In 5.209 the codices do read a form of the name (“Joabin”) more in line with the biblical one. Just as he did in the case of Judg 3:8 (see note to “storm” at 5.180), Josephus avoids the reference to the Lord’s “selling Israel into the hand of” of Judg 4:2.

Judg 4:2a speaks of Jabin’s “reigning in Hazor.” This is Josephus’ first (and only) mention of a king (called “Abito” by him in 5.198) of Hazor. Thereby, he eliminates the problem posed by the Bible itself, where, after the mention of the killing of a King Jabin and the destruction of his city Hazor by Joshua in Josh 11:1, 10, Judg 4:2a now speaks of Jabin and Hazor as currently existing, with no indication that the reference is to a different king of that name or that Hazor had been rebuilt in the meantime. Josephus supplies this localization of Hazor. The body of water in question, mentioned also in War 3.515; 4.2, is the contemporary Lake Huleh. Judg 4:3bα mentions only the enemy’s “900 chariots of iron.” Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 30.3) supplies an even higher figure for their chariots, i.e. 8,000. Josephus’ characterization of “Sisares” here takes the place of the reference to “Haroseth-ha-goyim” as the residence of “Sisera” in Judg 4:2b.

Compare Judg 4:3bβ: “he (Jabin/Sisera) oppressed the people of Israel cruelly for twenty years.” Greek: ὕβρις. On Josephus’ use of this key term of Greek tragedy, see Feldman 1998: 180-81. The reference to God’s punishment being designed to make the people “become prudent” (Greek: σωφρονέω) here echoes the leaders’ urging that a delegation be sent to the Transjordanians that they might “become prudent” from their words in 5.105. See also 5.110; and see note on “prudent” at 5.105. The extended editorial comment of 5.200 has no counterpart in Judges 4. It recalls the wording of the moral of Josephus’ entire history as set out by him in Ant. 1.20.

Josephus, concentrating on Deborah’s role as “prophetess,” leaves aside the further personal details given in Judg 4:4-5: her husband Lappidoth and her “judging” Israel under the “palm of Deborah.” On Josephus’ treatment of this figure (whose role he, in contrast to Pseudo-Philo, tends to downplay), see Brown 1992: 38-92; Feldman 1998a: 153-62; 2001: 200-206; and Roncace 2000: 249-59. The only other figure of whom Josephus uses the feminine form προφῆτις (“prophetess”) is Huldah; see Ant. 10.50, 60. Josephus supplies this etymology for the Hebrew name “Deborah.” This same expression is used of God in 5.187; see note on “taking pity” at 5.187. In Judg 4:3a the Israelites appeal to God directly, simply “crying” to him “for help.” Josephus has them go through Deborah, intercession being one the key activities of the biblical prophets/ prophetesses in his presentation; compare his inserted reference to Josiah’s directing his delegation to ask the prophetess Huldah to intercede with God for the people in Ant. 10.59. Josephus draws his designation of Barak as Israel’s divinely appointed general from Judg 4:6, where Deborah informs him of God’s command that he assemble his men on Mt. Tabor. Josephus omits the name of Barak’s father (MT: Abinoam) and home-town (MT: Kedesh), while supplying an etymology for his name, just as he did for that of Deborah herself in 5.201.

See Deborah’s words to Barak as reported in Judg 4:6-7, from which Josephus omits, e.g., the name of the site (Mt. Tabor), where the Israelites are to assemble, the 2 tribes (Naphtali and Zebulon) from which Barak is to draw his army, and the place (“by the river Kishon”) where the battle will occur. Conversely, he introduces a “theological” explanation as to how the relatively small Israelite force (10,000 men) could have any hope of defeating the vastly larger enemy force (see 5.199).

In Judg 4:8 (MT) Barak does not, as does his Josephan counterpart, make Deborah’s sharing his command the condition for his accepting his commission, but only that she “go with him.” LXX amplifies his words with its attached explanation of his demand: “for I do not know the day when the Lord will place the messenger/angel on the good way with me.” Pseudo-Philo does not report a (verbal) response by Barak to Deborah’s instructions to him in Bib. Ant. 31.1. Josephus inserts this reference to Deborah’s emotional reaction to Barak’s response. Josephus’ formulation of Deborah’s answer picks up on his modification of Barak’s previous response to her. In Judg 4:9a Deborah simply states that she will accompany Barak, but then goes on to inform him that the campaign will not redound to his own glory in that the Lord intends “to sell Sisera into the hand of a woman.” Josephus will allude to Deborah’s statement subsequently, however; see 5.209. Josephus here conflates the data of Judg 4:10, 12, leaving aside the parenthetical reference to Heber the Kenite (4:11). On Mt. “Itabyrion” as Josephus’ rendering of the biblical “Mt. Tabor” (4:12), see note on “its breadth” at 5.84.

In Judg 4:13 the general Sisera acts on his own initiative in countering Israel’s movement. Judges 4 has no counterpart to this notice on the emotional state of Barak and his army in the face of the vastly superior enemy force. Compare Josephus’ (also inserted) reference to the dismay of Joshua and the Israelites prompted by the size of the enemy army in his rendition of Josh 11:4 in 5.64. Compare Deborah’s encouraging address to Barak in Judg 4:14a: “Up! For this is the day in which the Lord has given Sisera into your hand. Does not the Lord go up before you [Tg.: Is not the angel of the Lord going forth to insure success before you]?”

The entire sequence 5.205-206 represents Josephus’ dramatization of the rather jejune battle account of Judg 4:14b-15a, 16, in which once the Lord routs the enemy army (v. 15), Barak pursues and annihilates them (v. 16). Pseudo-Philo embellishes still more, affirming (Bib. Ant. 31.2; cf. Judg 5:20) that, at God’s command, the stars burned up 8,730,000 of the enemy in a single hour.

See Judg 4:15b, 17. In 4:17 “Jael” is called the wife of Heber the Kenite (cf. 4:11), and Sisera’s going to her is explained in terms of the existing “peace” between King Jabin and her husband. In Judg 4:18 it is Jael who takes the initiative in offering hospitality/protection to Sisera and who further covers him with a rug. Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 31.3) follows the Bible in this regard, likewise mentioning Jael’s beauty, her adorning herself for her meeting with Sisera, and the roses that Sisera sees scattered on her bed. See Judg 4:19, which does not mention the “curdled” state of the milk Jael gives Sisera, but adds that, once he had drunk, Jael “covered him” (so MT LXX B; LXX AL specify his face). Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 31.5-7) greatly embellishes the biblical “drinking motif,” citing, e.g., Jael’s extended prayer as she milks her flock to get the milk for Sisera (31.5).

In Judges 4, Sisera’s falling asleep is mentioned, not immediately after his drinking (4:19b), but rather at a later point (4:21bα, with his directive to Jael that she not betray his presence with her (v. 20) and her stealthy approach to him (v.21a) supervening. Like Josephus, Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 31.6) directly links Sisera’s drinking with his falling asleep. See Judg 4:21a, which distinguishes 2 different implements used by Jael in killing Sisera, i.e. a tent-peg and a hammer, and which further has her drive the peg through his “temple” (so MT LXX BL; LXX A reads “cheek” and adds that Sisera, before dying, “had a convulsion between Jael’s knees and emitted a sigh”). Pseudo-Philo embellishes the murder scene with mention of Jael’s reflection and prayer prior to perpetrating the deed, as well as of an exchange between her and the dying Sisera (Bib. Ant. 31.7). In Judg 4:22 Jael displays Sisera’s corpse to Barak himself. This is the case also in Bib. Ant. 31.9, where Barak responds with a word of benediction to what he is shown and then, having decapitated Sisera, dispatches the head to his (Sisera’s) mother (cf. Judg 5:28-30) with a mocking message.

This notice—to which Judges 4 lacks an equivalent—alludes back to Deborah’s announcement to Barak in Judg 4:9b, previously passed over by Josephus; see note to “it” at 5.203. Pseudo-Philo has something comparable at this point in his narration; see Barak’s statement upon viewing Sisera’s corpse in Bib. Ant. 31:9: “Blessed be the Lord who sent his spirit and said, ‘Into the hand of a woman Sisera will be delivered’.” (Like Josephus, Pseudo-Philo did not previously reproduce Deborah’s announcement of Judg 4:9b.) Compare this form of the king’s name (Greek: Ἰοαβινός) with the form found in 5.198, i.e. “Abito.” The above notice represents a reworking of Judg 4:23-24, highlighting the figure of Barak (unmentioned in the biblical sequence, which attributes the ultimate “destruction” of Jabin to the people of Israel as a whole), and adding explicit mention of the “razing” of Hazor (likewise unmentioned in 4:23-24). Josephus derives this round figure from Judg 5:31b, where however, it refers to the period of “rest” enjoyed by the land. Josephus, in line with his general tendency not to reproduce the poetic interludes of his biblical narrative sources, leaves aside the “Song of Deborah and Barak” (Judg 5:1-31a) that supervenes between the source components of 5.209, i.e. 4:23-24 and 5:31b, respectively; see Feldman 1998a: 160-161. By contrast, Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 32) elaborates on the Song’s content.

The Bible does not make explicit mention of the deaths of Barak and Deborah. Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 33) precedes his account of the latter’s demise with an extended farewell discourse by her. See Judg 6:3, where the 3rd group that assaults the Israelites is designated as “the people of the East.” Josephus omits the theological background statement of 6:1 about the Israelites “doing evil in the Lord’s sight” and the Lord in turn “giving them into the hand of the Midianites.” See Judg 6:4, to which Josephus adds mention of the enemy’s defeating the Israelites as a prelude to despoiling them, while omitting its specification of the extent of the Midianite penetration (“as far as Gaza”).

Josephus derives this chronological indication from the end of Judg 6:1, which is otherwise omitted by him; see note to “Israelites” at 5.210. Josephus elaborates on Judg 6:2b, which simply mentions the Israelites’ making themselves “dens in the mountains, caves and strongholds.”

Josephus elaborates on the reference to the enemy coalition coming up “whenever the Israelites put in seed” at the beginning of Judg 6:3, spelling out why they invaders showed up precisely when they did in Israel. On winter as the season of rains in Palestine, see, e.g., Song of Songs 2:11. In Judg 6:6 the Israelites, having been brought very low, “cry for help to the Lord.” Josephus omits the implausibly high figures for the enemy forces intimated by Judg 6:5 (they “come like locusts for number”; they and their camels are “innumerable”). Like the Qumran MSS 4QJudga, Josephus has no equivalent to the speech by a nameless prophet (6:7-10) replying to the people’s appeal to the Lord (6:6) denouncing them for their lack of fidelity to the Lord despite his benefactions to him. This speech has no effect on the subsequent course of events, while its negative tone seems out of line with God’s positive initiative on Israel’s behalf that he will thereafter set in motion through Gideon.

Greek: Γεδεών, the LXX form of the hero’s name (Hebrew: Gideon). On the portrayal of Gideon by Josephus, who (like Pseudo-Philo, Bib. Ant. 35-36) drastically abridges the Bible’s 3-chapter account of him (Judges 6-8), see Feldman 1998a: 163-76; 2001: 207-18; Roncace 2000: 257-74. On the treatment of Gideon in ancient Jewish and early Christian tradition overall, see Legasse 2000. Greek: Ἴασος. Judg 6:11 designates Gideon’s father as “Joash” (LXX: Ἰωάς). Josephus leaves aside the father’s clan affiliation (MT: “the Abiezrite”). Josephus derives Gideon’s tribal affiliation from Judg 6:15, where the hero alludes to his belonging to this tribe. His further characterization of Gideon as part of the tribe’s elite may have been inspired by the angel’s address to him in Judg 6:12, “you mighty man of valor” (compare Pseudo-Philo’s opening qualification of him as “a valiant man among all his brothers” in Bib. Ant. 35.1). By contrast, Gideon, in Judg 6:15b (= 5.214) calls himself the “least” in a family whose clan is itself the “weakest” in Manasseh; see note to “matters” at 5.214. The reference to the “threshing floor,” the regular place for beating out grain, takes the place of the “oak at Ophrah” owned by Gideon’s father, where Gideon is threshing according to Judg 6:11b. The modification serves to prepare Gideon’s retort to the angel at the conclusion of the paragraph. In Judg 6:12, as in Bib. Ant. 35.1, “an/the angel of the Lord” appears to Gideon. Of Josephus’ 2 alternative designations for the being here in 5.213, he uses the first, i.e. “vision” (Greek: φάντασμα) in place of (or alongside) biblical references to an “angel” in Ant. 1.325 (// Gen 32:1-2), 133 (// Gen 32:24-32); 3.62 (Exod 3:2); and 5.277 (// Judges 13); see Mach 1992: 308, n. 82. His other such term, i.e. “young man” (Greek: νεανίσκος/ νεανίας) is used by him in contexts where the Bible mentions angel(s) in Ant. 1.200 (// Genesis 19); and 5.279 (compare 5.277, where Josephus’ initial designation of 5.213, i.e. “vision” is employed of the figure who appears to Manoah’s wife). On the designation of angels as “young men” elsewhere in ancient literature, both Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian, see Mach 1992: 307-8, n. 81. Josephus leaves aside the odd detail about the angel “sitting” beneath the oak of Gideon’s father (6:11), prior to his speaking to Gideon (6:12). Compare Judg 6:12b: “The Lord is with you, you mighty man of valor.” As Feldman (1998a: 169) points out, Josephus’ phrase “friend of God” (Greek: φίλος τῷ θεῷ) serves to underscore Gideon’s piety, being likewise applied by him to the great prophet Samuel in Ant. 6.294. On the term φίλος (“friend”) as a designation for God in relation to humans, see note on “friend” at 5.116. Greek: εὐμένεια. The cognate adjective εὐμενής is used some 40 times by Josephus in reference to God. According to Schlatter (1910: 62) these words are Josephus’ most frequent terms for expressing God’s positive disposition towards humans. Gideon’s sarcastic reply here takes the place of the series of accusatory questions/assertions about what the Lord has (not) done for Israel made by him in Judg 6:13. Its wording harks back to the reference to Gideon’s fearing to thresh on the threshing floor at the beginning of the paragraph; see note on “floor” at 5.213. In Bib. Ant. 35.3 the angel responds to Gideon’s complaints with a speech justifying God’s ways in terms of Israel’s own sinfulness.

In Judg 6:14a there is a shift from “the angel of the Lord” (6:11) to the Lord himself as speaker. Josephus will introduce a like shift of speaker at a later point in his version; see 5.214b. The apparition’s summons to Gideon to act on behalf of Israel’s “freedom” here echoes similar language introduced by Josephus in his version of several of the preceding Judge stories (see 5.182, 187, 194). This summons replaces the Lord’s commission to Gideon of 6:14b: “go in this might of yours and deliver Israel from the hand of Midian; do not I send you?” In comparison with Judg 6:15, Josephus accentuates the modesty implicit in Gideon’s response; see Feldman 1998a: 167. Gideon’s reported remarks about himself here stand in contrast with Josephus’ earlier description of him as “among the most distinguished men of the Manassite tribe”; see note to “Manassite tribe” at 5.213. At this point (compare 5.213-214a) Josephus follows the source (Judg 6:16) in making the Deity address Gideon directly. Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 35) retains the angel as Gideon’s conversation partner throughout. At this point, Josephus omits 2 extended segments of the biblical Gideon story, i.e. the “fire miracle” by which the angel demonstrates his identity to Gideon (Judg 6:17-24) and Gideon’s own initiative against the pagan cult artifacts (Judg 6:25-32). The former omission is reflective of Josephus’ tendency to downplay the Bible’s miraculous element (see Feldman 1998a: 170-171), while the latter is in line with his endeavor to soft-peddle biblical instances of Jewish religious intolerance (see Feldman 1998a: 168). Pseudo-Philo does offer a—quite different—version of the fire-miracle (Bib. Ant. 35.5-6), but does not reproduce Gideon’s iconoclastic deed (cf., however, the allusion to this in the subsequent divine word of 36.4).

Josephus here drastically compresses the notices on Gideon’s initial assembling of the Israelite forces found in Judg 6:33-7:3. From that sequence he eliminates the reference to the divine Spirit’s “possessing” Gideon and so prompting his initiative (Judg 6:34; cf. note to “freedom” at 5.18a). He likewise passes over the “fleece miracle,” which Gideon is granted by the angel prior to proceeding further (6:36-40; Pseudo-Philo does likewise), just as he leaves aside the first, divinely ordered reduction of Gideon’s force, according to which the cowards are all to be sent home, this leaving 10,000 men remaining (7:2-3). Finally, Josephus omits Gideon’s alternative name, i.e., “Jerubbaal,” used of him in Judg 7:1 and occasionally elsewhere in Judges 6-8. The reason for this omission is Josephus’ dropping (see note to “Israelites” at 5.214) of the iconoclastic episode of Judg 6:25-32 which culminates in Gideon’s being given that name (v. 32) which itself recalls his father’s statement “let Baal contend (Hebrew: ‮יריב‬‎) for himself” (v. 31). In Judg 7:4 the Lord simply “speaks” to Gideon, the circumstances being left indeterminate. Compare 5.192-193, where in his account of the exchange between Ehud and Eglon (// Judg 3:20), Josephus interjects mention of the former’s (purported) dream. Josephus attributes a similar observation on human “self-love” to Moses in Ant. 3.190, the only other passage in his writings where he uses the word φίλαυτος (“loving oneself”). On the theme of envy, to which he has God allude here, as a leading factor in human affairs (and in his own personal experience) in Josephus’ writings, see Feldman 1998: 198-203. Josephus combines this characteristic reflection about human nature with his version of God’s expression of concern in Judg 7:2 that the Israelites are “still too many” and so will “vaunt themselves against me, saying, ‘My own hand has delivered me’.” Whereas, however, in Judges 7 this divine reflection is the basis for God’s directive ordering an initial reduction of the army via a dismissal of the cowards among them (7:3), which will then be followed by a 2nd such reduction in 7:4-7, Josephus omits the first reduction (see note to “men” at 5.215) and makes his rendering of 7:2 the grounds for the single reduction, corresponding to that of 7:4-7, which he will subsequently relate.

This indication of the purpose of the procedure that God is about to prescribe represents a Josephan expansion of the divine word in Judg 7:4. In Judg 7:4 God does not specify when the prescribed procedure is to be performed. Josephus derives this divine directive to Gideon from Judg 7:4a. He omits God’s appended general injunction (7:4b) that Gideon is to take with him those men whom he (God) will indicate, while those whom he tells him not to take along are to remain behind. With this formulation Josephus attempts to clarify the nature of the distinction between the 2 groups of “drinkers” spoken of by God in Judg 7:5b, i.e. those who lap the water “as a dog laps” and those who “kneel down to drink.” In his understanding the latter group is courageous, the former cowardly. In fact, however, this does not seem to be the sense of the source distinction in that the cowards have already been sent home by Gideon (7:3, omitted by Josephus; see note to “militarily” at 5.215). Some commentators suggest that the distinction is rather between alert soldiers (the “lappers”) and careless ones (those who kneel to drink), while others aver that no such qualitative distinction is intended and the procedure is a purely arbitrary way of dividing up the army into 2 groups, one of which will be retained, the other dismissed.

Josephus reverses the sequence of Judg 7:5, where Gideon first leads the army to the river (v. 5a) and then receives God’s more specific directive about what is to be done there (v. 5b). In describing the 300 as drinking “with their hands,” Josephus follows the reading of MT LXX B and Tg. Judg 7:6, as opposed to LXX AL, where they lap the water “with their tongues.” Josephus omits the further specification of 7:6 that the remainder of the army “knelt down to drink,” keeping all attention focussed on the group that will remain with Gideon. See Judg 7:7, from which Josephus omits God’s additional directive that the rest of the army return home. Going further than Josephus, Pseudo-Philo leaves aside, not just the first (Judg 7:3), but also the 2nd (7:4-7) divinely-prescribed reduction of the Israelite army. In Judg 7:8b the reference is rather to Midian’s camp. Josephus omits Gideon’s dismissal (7:8a; see 7:7b, God’s order that Gideon do this, also omitted by him) of the rest of his army, whose jars and “horns” (MT LXX AB)/ “trumpets” (LXX L) he, however, retains for subsequent use.

Josephus’ inserted reference to Gideon’s “fear” seems inspired by God’s word to him in Judg 7:10 (“but if you fear...”), while his motivation for that fear reflects the initial divine directive cited in 7:9, instructing Gideon to go down against the Midianite camp. In Judg 7:10 God directs Gideon to take with him “Purah your servant”; subsequently (see 5.219), Josephus will utilize this biblical designation for Gideon’s companion.

Here, Josephus aligns himself with Judg 7:11b in having Gideon accompanied, not by a “soldier” (see note on “soldiers” at 5.218), but by his “attendant” (whom MT calls “Purah”). Schalit (s.v. Φαρά), following J. Hudson, sees the form of the servant’s name read by the MSS (Θρουρά) as a corruption of the original one, which would have corresponded to LXX’s form, i.e. Φαρά. On Josephus’ version of the Midianite’s dream in relation to its biblical parallel in Judg 7:13-15, see Gnuse 1996: 167-68. See Judg 7:13a. Josephus “delays” the parenthetical notice of 7:12 on the size of the Midianite encampment; see note on “circle” at 5.224. This negative characterization of the “barley-cake” is Josephus’ addition to the Midianite’s narrative of his dream in Judg 7:13. In Judg 7:13 the barley-cake overthrows a single tent, which is designated as “the tent” without further specification (so MT LXX B; LXX A qualifies it as “the tent of Madiam”).

This initial “non-theological” interpretation of the dream without mention of Gideon has no counterpart in Judg 7:14, where the interpreter immediately identifies the rolling barley cake with the “sword of Gideon” into whose hand God has given “Midian and all the host.” Subsequently however, Josephus will have the speaker employ the language of 7:14; see 5.221. The above explanation, itself pointing back to Josephus’ inserted negative characterization of the barley cake in 5.219, as to how the Midianite came to his interpretation of his fellow’s dream lacks a biblical basis. As Feldman (1998a: 173) observes, the explanation elucidates a point which the Bible leaves unresolved, namely the nature of the connection between the barley cake and Israel, which would prompt the Midianite to think of the latter when hearing of the former. This is Josephus’ only use of the adjective “Asian” (Greek Ἀσιανός).

For this conclusion to the interpreter’s response, Josephus makes delayed use of his statement in Judg 7:14, where the speaker identifies the barley cake with the “sword of Gideon” into whose hand “God has given Midian and all the host.” See note to “army” at 5.220.

Cf. Judg 7:15, to which Josephus adds mention of Gideon’s emotional state at this juncture—contrast his “fear” in 5.218—and his telling his troops of what he had overheard in the Midianite camp. Also this reference to the effect of Gideon’s report on his men is a Josephan insertion. Pseudo-Philo replaces the sequence of Judg 7:7-18 with an account (Bib. Ant. 36.1-2) in which Gideon and his 300 hear the Midianites speaking to each other about their impending destruction by God, whereupon the spirit of the Lord “clothes” Gideon (cf. Judg 6:34, omitted by Josephus), who then urges his men to join battle.

Josephus combines Judg 7:16a (the division of the 300 into 3 groups) and 7:19a (their advance to the enemy camp at the start of the “middle watch”). Josephus provides an explanation for Gideon’s directive to his men in Judg 7:16b that they are to place their torches inside the empty jars. With this formulation Josephus combines the designations used for the musical instruments carried by the 300 in MT LXX AL (“horns”) and LXX L (“trumpets”) Judg 7:16.

This is Josephus’ delayed equivalent (see note to “heard it” at 5.219) to the notice of Judg 7:12 on the size of the Midianite camp, whose implausible figures (an army “like locusts for multitude,” camels like “the sand upon the seashore”) he does not, however, reproduce, just as he omits the similar indications of 6:5; see note to “save them” at 5.212.

See note on “trumpet” at 5.223. Josephus here conflates the instructions Gideon gives his men (Judg 7:18) and their execution of these (7:20).

The reference to the enemy’s being asleep because it is still night is Josephus’ embellishment of the battle account of Judg 7:21-23.

Josephus expatiates on the notice of Judg 7:22aβ about the Lord’s “setting every man’s sword against his fellow and against all the army,” specifying that God, in turning the coalition partners against each other, made use of the difference of languages among them; cf. the reference to the enemy camp being “grouped by nation” in 5.224. He omits the specifications of 7:22b concerning the end points of the enemy’s flight. Josephus embellishes the pursuit notice of Judg 7:23 with mention of the site at which the fleeing enemy forces become entrapped. Feldman (1998a: 175, n. 6) points out that in 5.162 Josephus gives a rather similar picture of the locality in which the Benjamites end up trapped as they flee from the Israelites. In Judg 7:24-25 it is specifically the Ephraimites who, in separate actions, kill the 2 Midianite “princes/ chiefs,” slaying “Oreb” at the “rock of Oreb” (MT; LXX A “at Sourin,” LXX B “at Sour”) and “Zeeb” at “the wine press of Zeeb” (MT; LXX AB transliterate “at Iakephzeb”). Pseudo-Philo does not mention the pair’s execution.

In Judg 8:10 the figure given for the surviving enemy forces is “about 15,000.” Josephus leaves aside, at this juncture, the confrontational exchanges between Gideon and first the Ephraimites (Judg 7:24-8:3) and then the men of Succoth and Penuel (8:4-9), which occur during his pursuit of the Midianites. He will, however, make a delayed use of the former episode in 5.230-231. His omission of the latter incident (likewise passed over by Pseudo-Philo) likely has do with its exemplification of those intra-Jewish animosities Josephus is concerned to attenuate throughout his Antiquities; see Feldman 1998a: 172. See Judg 8:11aβ. Josephus leaves aside the topographical indications concerning the battle site of 8:10-11aα as well as the notice of 8:11b about the Midianite army being “off guard.” Compare Zebah (MT); Zebee (LXX). Compare Zalmuna (MT); Salmana (LXX A); Selmana (LXX B). Schalit (s.v.) attributes Josephus’ form (Ζαρμούνης) to a confusion between the consonants λ and ρ.

See Judg 8:10 (the “earlier battle” here is the one described by Josephus in 5.227// Judg 7:22). For Josephus’ replacement of “the people of the East” (so 8:10) by “Arabs,” see note to “Israelites” at 5.210. Josephus anticipates this notice on the plunder taken from Judg 8:25-26, which cites earrings, crescents, pendants, royal purple garments, and camel collars. MT Judg 8:27 calls Gideon’s hometown “Ophrah,” while LXX reads “Ephrata.” Having earlier omitted Gideon’s threats against the inhabitants of Succoth and Penuel (Judg 8:4-9; see note to “army” at 5.228), Josephus naturally also leaves aside his execution of those threats as described in 8:13-17, prior to Gideon’s dealing with the Midianite kings in 8:18-21. Josephus reduces the narrative of Judg 8:18-21 to its core content, i.e. Gideon’s killing the kings with his own hands (8:21bα), even while introducing the specification that their execution took place in the hero’s hometown. In particular, he leaves aside the double exchange between the pair and Gideon (vv. 18-19, 21a), Gideon’s intervening command to his son Jether to slay the kings and the latter’s non-compliance out of fear (v. 20), and Gideon’s taking of the crescents on the necks of the kings’ camels (v. 21bβ). These 2 kings are nowhere mentioned by Pseudo-Philo.

In Judges 7-8 the Ephraimites’ complaint about not having been called on to join the fight against Midian (Judg 8:1-3) occurs in the midst of Gideon’s pursuit of the Midianites and its sequels (7:23-25; 8:4-21); see note to “army” at 5.228. Josephus’ placement of the complaint seems to make better sense, here at a point where the Midianite campaign has been definitively concluded and so there is no opportunity for the Ephraimites to participate. Josephus likewise eliminates the seeming discrepancy between the Ephramites’ complaint about not having been called out (8:1) and Gideon’s prior summons to them in 7:24, by leaving the latter passage aside. Pseudo-Philo makes no mention of the Ephraimites in his version of the Gideon story. This characterization of Gideon is a Josephan insertion. Its high praise of him reflects the importance Josephus attaches to maintaining peace among his people—as Gideon will do in what follows. See also his appended comment concerning Gideon’s initiative in 5.231. The designation of Gideon as “pre-eminent in every virtue (Greek: ἀρετή)” recalls God’s warning to him about human nature being hostile to those of “outstanding virtue (Greek: ἀρετή)” in 5.215. The truth of this divine observation is now being demonstrated in Gideon’s own experience with the Ephraimites. In Judg 8:2-3a Gideon responds to the Ephraimites’ complaint by exalting that tribe’s own achievement in capturing the Midianite princes Oreb and Zeeb (see 7:25) above his own. Josephus’ reformulation of Gideon’s response was necessitated by the fact that in 5.227 he has attributed the capture of the Midianite “kings,” not to the Ephraimites specifically, but rather to Gideon personally.

Cf. Judg 8:3b: “and their anger was abated, when he had said this.” This inserted evaluation of Gideon’s “pacification” of the Ephraimites reflects Josephus’ recurrent emphasis on the importance of intra-Jewish solidarity and the horrors of its opposite; see Feldman 1998a: 171-72. With this insertion Josephus foreshadows the massacre of the Ephraimites that Jephthah will perpetrate in Judges 12 (= 5.267-269).

This statement about Gideon’s desire to relinquish his military command takes the place of Judg 8:22-23, where Gideon refuses the people’s request that he and his descendants rule over them, declaring that God is to be their ruler, a passage which Pseudo-Philo omits entirely. One might have expected Josephus to reproduce the biblical sequence as he found it since this would seem to accord well with his own anti-monarchical outlook (on this see Feldman 1998: 502-4). Perhaps, however, he wishes the people’s similar proposal about a hereditary kingship in the time of Samuel (see 1 Samuel 8) to appear as a unique first in their history, and accordingly all the more reprehensible. Josephus derives this figure from Judg 8:28b, which speaks of the land having rest for 40 years in Gideon’s time. Here Josephus spells out the nature of Gideon’s reluctant “rule,” likely under the influence of the presentation of the “minor judges” in Judg 10:1-5; 12:7-13. In the interest of upholding Gideon’s standing as a model figure (see his inserted characterization of him in 5.230), Josephus leaves aside the following biblical incident (Judg 8:24-27), where Gideon fashions an idolatrous “ephod” from the various items the people give him at his request (on this see Feldman 1998a: 169-70). Pseudo-Philo (who offers a much less positive portrayal of Gideon than does Josephus) reproduces this episode in Bib. Ant. 36.3, where he speaks of Gideon’s making “idols” from what was given him and worshipping these himself (compare Judg 8:27, where Israel “plays the harlot” after Gideon’s ephod). See Judg 8:32, which further specifies that Gideon was buried in the tomb of his father Joash. Unlike the Bible, Pseudo-Philo addresses the question of why the idol-making Gideon should have lived to a “good old age” (so Judg 8:32). He has (Bib. Ant. 36.4) God answer the question with the statement that if Gideon were to die early, people would suppose that he had been struck down by Baal, just as Gideon’s father had challenged Baal to do to his son who had torn down that god’s altar (cf. Judg 6:31). The problem does not arise for Josephus given his omission of Gideon’s making of the idolatrous ephod; see note to “his rulership” at 5.232.

In Judg 8:30 Gideon’s sons and wives are mentioned prior to the notice on his death (8:32). On Josephus’ portrayal of Abimelech, see Begg 1996. Judg 8:31 leaves the mother of Abimelech unnamed. On the possible derivation of her name from the place-name “Arumah” of Judg 9:41, see Begg 1996: 147, n. 11. This is the form of the city’s name (MT: Shechem), read by LXX A Judg 9:1 (LXX B has Συχέμ). Josephus here combines elements of Judg 8:32 (Gideon’s death); 9:1 (Abimelech’s going to Shechem to his mother’s kin) and 8:31 (Shechem as his mother’s residence). He leaves aside the parenthetical notices concerning the general apostasy of the Israelites and their failure to duly requite Gideon’s family following his death of 8:33-35. The bracketed phrase above is adopted from Marcus (ad loc.) who, with reference to Judg 9:4 ([with the money given him] Abimelech “hired worthless and reckless fellows who followed him”), posits a lacuna in Josephus’ text at this point. In Judg 9:4a the Shechemites en bloc, at the urging of Abimelech’s kinsmen (9:3)—who themselves had been previously prompted by him (9:1-2)—give Abimelech “seventy pieces of silver out of the house of Baal-berith.” Josephus simplifies this whole presentation, having Abimelech deal exclusively with his natural supporters, i.e. his mother’s relations at this point, just as he leaves aside the mention (9:4) of “the house of Baal-berith” as the source for the money given Abimelech.

Josephus leaves aside several details from Judg 9:5 concerning Abimelech’s deed: the site of Gideon’s house (Ophrah, MT), the killing of the brothers “upon one stone,” and the status of “Jotham” (LXX A “Ioatham,” LXX B “Ioathan”) as the youngest son of Gideon. He likewise replaces the biblical explanation of Jotham’s escape (“for he hid himself”) with a reference to his “flight.” Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 37.1) motivates Abimelech’s fratricide by his desire “to be the leader of the people.” Josephus transfers the initiative behind Abimelech’s assumption of rule from the people of Shechem (who “make him king by the oak of the pillar at Shechem” in Judg 9:6) to Abimelech himself. On “tyranny” (Greek: τυραννίς) which Josephus, following Plato (Resp. 8.544D) and Aristotle (Pol. 4.8.1295 A), views as the worst possible form of government, see Feldman 1998: 147-48; Mason 2001: 118, n. 1102. Josephus’ application of the term to Abimelech’s rulership, establishes an implicit parallelism between him and his own arch-enemy, John of Gischala, whom he accuses of aspiring to “tyranny” (War 4.208) and designates as “the tyrant” (War 6.98, 129). With this appendix to his version of Judg 9:6, Josephus underscores the oppressive character of Abimelech’s rule.

This indication concerning the context in which Jotham addresses the people lacks a parallel in Judg 9:7 itself, but may be inspired by the reference to a (later) Shechemite festival in 9:27. In any case, the allusion helps explain the presence of a large audience for his words. Josephus inserts this parenthetical notation concerning the location of the mountain from which Jotham speaks. In 5.69 he mentions Mt. Garizin as the site where half the Israelite army took its place for the ceremony of sacrifice and imprecation that Joshua conducted on the facing Mt. Hebel. From Jotham’s opening words to the assembly in Judg 9:7 Josephus omits the (presumptuous) assurance that God will listen to them if they listen to him.

Josephus’ references to the trees’ past possession of the human capacity to speak and their meeting together are elaborations of the background for their opening initiative given in Judg 9:8. In Judg 9:8 the first tree to be asked is the olive, with the fig being approached only in 3rd place. Also Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 37.2) makes the fig the first tree to be offered rulership. In his version of the fig tree’s response (compare Judg 9:11), Josephus inserts both its explicit refusal and its appeal to the “innate honor” with which its fruits endow it. Like Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 37.2), Josephus has the vine approached in 2nd rather than 3rd place (so Judg 9:12). He inserts the transitional reference to the trees’ persistence in their quest to find a ruler.

In Judg 9:13 the vine is given a distinctive response of its own, i.e. an evocation of the wine it produces which gratifies both god(s) and men (so MT; the versions turn this into a reference to wine prompting humans’ praise of God [so LXX B] or being the source of libations for God [Targum]). Josephus both compresses the exchange between the olive and the other trees and makes the former the 3rd plant to turn them down (compare Judg 9:8-9, where the olive-tree is the first to be asked). Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 37.2) designates the trees’ 3rd candidate as the “apple tree” (malus). In contrast to both Josephus and the Bible, he likewise has each of the 3 plants that reject the offer of kingship relate a “prophecy” of what awaits Abimelech and the Shechemites, this inspired by the further course of the story in Judges 9.

Josephus inserts this motivation for the trees’ finally turning to the bramble (Judg 9:14). This explicit acceptance of the trees’ offer by the bramble is a Josephan addition to its words in Judg 9:15. In Judg 9:15 the bramble offers the trees both a positive (if they have acted in good faith they may take shelter in its shade) and negative (otherwise the “cedars of Lebanon” face destruction by its fire) outcomes for their initiative in offering it the rulership. Josephus’ rendition omits the source reference both to the trees’ possible good faith in choosing the bramble and to the cedars of Lebanon (that have not previously been mentioned in Jotham’s fable). Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 37.3-4a) greatly elaborates on the bramble’s answer, having it, e.g., invoke the role of the thorn in past biblical history and the symbolic significance of the 3 plants that had previously rejected the rulership; thereafter (37.4b), the bramble’s fire actually does consume the trees, this taking the place of the application given his parable by Jotham in Judg 9:16-20.

This negative statement of purpose is Josephus’ opening addition to Jotham’s “application” of his parable in Judg 9:16-20. Jotham’s concluding word in Judg 9:16-20 comprises a double conditional statement, vv. 16-19 and 20, of which the first contains an extended parenthesis (vv. 17-18), followed by a resumption of the protasis of v. 16 in v. 19. Josephus reduces the content of this conclusion to its 2 main elements: Gideon’s benefits to the hearers (cf. 9:17) and the comparison of the murderer Abimelech with “fire” (in 9:20 Jotham calls for “fire” to consume the Shechemites if they have acted dishonorably.) Moreover, whereas in Judg 9:18 Jotham charges the Shechemites alone with the murder of Gideon’s sons, Josephus’ formulation adds a reference to Abimelech’s own involvement in their deaths, in line with his account of their deaths in 5.234 (// Judg 9:5), where their murder is attributed solely to Abimelech. Judg 9:22 mentions “3 years” as the period during which Abimelech “ruled over Israel.” Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 37.5) gives him a reign of a year and a half. Josephus substitutes this general indication concerning Jotham’s hiding place for the proper place name cited in Judg 9:21, i.e. “Beer” (MT), “Baier” (LXX B), “Rara” (LXX AL).

This chronological indication refers back to Josephus’ (also inserted) mention of the “public festival” in 5.235. Josephus substitutes this alternative explanation (which picks up on Jotham’s accusation of them as co-murderers of Gideon’s sons in 5.239) for the Shechemites’ turning against Abimelech for the one cited in Judg 9:23, i.e. God’s sending an “evil spirit” between the 2 parties. Thereby he contrives to exculpate God from the responsibility for having set in motion the resultant chain of violence; indeed, throughout his version of Judges 9, Josephus omits any mention of the Deity’s involvement. In Judg 9:25a the Shechemites set ambushes against Abimelech on the mountain tops (and rob all passersby). Josephus’ having them rather expel Abimelech from the city looks to the continuation of the story (see 9:30, 34, 41), where Abimelech is consistently portrayed as being outside Shechem (where he had installed himself in Judg 9:1// 5.233). Subsequently, however, Josephus will make use of the content of Judg 9:25a; see 5.242a. In Judg 9:25b Abimelech is simply informed of the Shechemites’ initiatives against him; Josephus highlights the former’s resolve to requite their treatment of him. This notice combines an anticipation of the mention of the people’s going forth to harvest the grapes (// Judg 9:27) with an allusion to the effect on them of Abimelech’s hostile intentions; see previous note. The notice, in turn, will generate a whole series of additional Josephan expansions/modifications of the biblical account.

Judg 9:26a neither specifies the status of “Gaal” nor mentions his having not only relatives, but also “troops” around him. Josephus concretizes the general statement of Judg 9:26b (“the men of Shechem put their confidence in him [Gaal]”) in light of his previous mention of the Shechemites’ “anxiety” about going out to glean the grapes (5.240). In Judg 9:27a the Shechemites proceed into the field unescorted, with no mention of Gaal accompanying them.

See Judg 9:27, from which Josephus leaves aside a series of details: the treading of the grapes by the Shechemites, their holding a festival, and their going to “the house of their god” (cf. the “house of Baal-berith” in 9:4, which Josephus previously left unmentioned as well). This notice represents Josephus’ delayed use of the content of Judg 9:25a; see note to “tribe” at 5.240. It takes the place, at this juncture, of the “anti-Abimelech” speech by Gaal cited in 9:28-29 (to which Josephus will have Zebul allude in his version of the latter’s subsequent speech [9:38] in 5.245; cf. note to “evil” at 5.245).

Compare Zebul (MT Judg 9:30); Zeboul (LXX AB). Judg 9:30a does not mention Zebul’s relationship to Abimelech; Josephus’ insertion on the matter serves to explain how it is that the former, though one of the “rulers” of the Shechemites who are said to have turned against Abimelech as a body in Judg 9:23, 25a (see 5.240), should now be ready to assist him. Conversely, Josephus leaves aside the mention (9:30b) of Zebul’s “anger” at Gaal’s words against Abimelech (cf. 9:28-29). See Judg 9:31. In his report of Zebul’s “mission” Josephus has no equivalent to a problematic item of the source verse. In MT Zebul sends to Abimelech ‮בתרמה‬‎ (“in Tarmah”?, a mistake for “Arimah,” 9:41, so RSV), while LXX B and Tg. have him sending “secretly,” and LXX AL “with gifts.” Zebul’s statements about what he himself intends to do on behalf of Abimelech are Josephus’ amplifications of the former’s message as reported in Judg 9:31-33, which speaks only of what Zebul is urging Abimelech himself to do. The Josephan Zebul’s readiness to take an active role on Abimelech’s behalf accords with Josephus’ earlier (unbiblical) designation of him as the latter’s “close friend.”

Judg 9:34 mentions that Abimelech set the ambushes by night, dividing his forces into 4 companies. Judg 9:35 mentions Gaal alone standing at the city gate; Josephus’ joining Zebul to him has in view the continuation of the story in 9:36ff., where the pair will converse. In Judg 9:36a Gaal speaks of men “coming down from the mountain tops.”

In Judg 9:36b Zebul responds that Gaal has mistaken the “shadow of the mountains” for men. Josephus leaves aside Gaal’s mention (Judg 9:37) of the various directions from which those in ambush are advancing. With this initial question (see Judg 9:38), Zebul harks back to Gaal’s denunciation of Abimelech as cited in 9:28-29, which Josephus had previously passed over; see note to “supporters” at 5.242. Josephus accentuates the sarcasm of Zebul’s closing word to Gaal as cited at the end of Judg 9:38 (“go out now and fight with them”).

This (inserted) reference to Gaal’s emotional state contrasts effectively with the mention of his being “without a care” just previously in 5.244. See the battle account in Judg 9:39-40. Josephus introduces an ironic contrast between Zebul’s (sarcastic) reference to the “greatness of your [Gaal’s] valor” (5.245) and the latter’s leading the retreat before Abimelech here in 5.246. With this notice Josephus provides an answer to the question of what became of Gaal subsequent to his rout before Abimelech. Once again, he underscores Zebul’s active role as the “intimate” of Abimelech (see 5.243). Gaal’s expulsion from the city recalls that of Abimelech himself in 5.240.

Cf. Judg 9:42-43a, the sequence of which Josephus rearranges. Josephus here compresses the circumstantial battle account of Judg 9:43b-44.

See Judg 9:45. Compare Judg 9:46, where, subsequent to the destruction of Shechem itself (9:45), the “people of the Tower of Shechem” repair to “the stronghold (LXX A τὸ ὀχύρωμα) of the house of El-berith (cf. 9:4, 27).” Josephus’ reference to a “solid rock” as the group’s place of refuge here is reminiscent of “the rock of Rimmon” to which the surviving Benjamites flee in Judg 20:47 (cf. 5.166).

Josephus abbreviates the detailed description of Abimelech’s measures given in Judg 9:47-49a, leaving aside, e.g., his initial ascent of the (otherwise unknown) Mt. Zalmon at the beginning of v. 48. Josephus elaborates on the “firing” of the refuge site as mentioned in Judg 9:49aβ. Abimelech’s arson here recalls Jotham’s statement that he would turn out to be “no different from a fire” in 5.239.

Judg 9:49b mentions 1,000 as the approximate total for the men and women killed at the stronghold. This editorial remark might be seen as Josephus’ (anticipated) version of the theological commentary of Judg 9:57a: “God also made all the wickedness of the men of Shechem fall back upon their heads....” Its language echoes Jotham’s reference to the “many good things” the Shechemites had experienced from Gideon in 5.239. On the word “benefactor” (Greek: εὐεργέτης) and its cognates, see Spicq 1978 (I): 307-13.

This transitional notice is a Josephan insertion; it underscores the thirst for blood that animates all Abimelech’s initiatives. Compare Thebez (MT); Thebes (LXX A); Thēbēs (LXX B). See Judg 9:50-52a. Josephus omits the detail about the people mounting to the roof of the tower (v. 51b).

Judg 9:52b speaks of Abimelech drawing near to the tower door to set fire to it. In Judg 9:53 the “upper millstone” crushes Abimelech’s skull. Pseudo-Philo, having passed over the whole narrative of Judges 9 subsequent to Jotham’s parable (vv. 7-20= Bib. Ant. 37.2-4), does reproduce (37.5b) this notice on Abimelech’s death, joining it directly with mention of his one and a half year reign (37.5a; cf. Judg 9:22). See Judg 9:54 (MT LXX A), which specifies that the armor-bearer killed Abimelech with his (the armor-bearer’s) sword, which the latter had directed him to draw.

In Judg 9:56 Abimelech’s punishment is attributed explicitly to God. Josephus makes his punishment a requital also for his offenses against the Shechemites. Judg 9:57b speaks of the Shechemites undergoing “the curse” of Jotham. The “prediction” to which Josephus alludes here is Jotham’s concluding warning that Abimelech will prove “no different from a fire” in 5.239. As he did with Abimelech’s bad end (see previous note), Josephus avoids the attribution of this to God as found in 9:57a. Cf., however, 5.250, where he characterizes the Shechemites’ overthrow as their “judgment” for having repaid Gideon’s benefactions with evil; see note to “benefactor” at 5.250. In the sequence of Judges 9 the dispersal of the Israelites (v. 55) is mentioned prior to the theological commentary upon the punishment of both Abimelech (v. 56) and the Shechemites (v. 57).

The minor judge cited in Judg 10:3 is there called “Jair the Gileadite (LXX Galaadite)”; Josephus adds the further specification about his tribal affiliation (on Gilead as part of the tribal territory of “Manasseh,” see Josh 17:1). Like Pseudo-Philo, Josephus skips over the minor judge “Tola” of Judg 10:1-2, passing directly from Abimelech to Jair. Josephus’ figure for Jair’s sons agrees with that of MT Judg 10:4, whereas LXX AB read 32. He leaves aside the etymological indication of 10:4 about the cities obtained by Jair’s sons being called “Havoth-jair (LXX AB Ἐπαύλεις Ιαϊρ) to this day.” Josephus derives his figure for Jair’s term of office from Judg 10:3b, adding the mention of his being an old man at death. See Judg 10:5, where Jair’s burial site is called “Kamon” (= Josephus) in MT, Ραμμω in LXX A, and Ραμνών in LXX B. Josephus, on the basis of the mentions of “Gilead” in the context, specifies that it was in “Gadalene.” Unlike both the Bible and Josephus with their positive, albeit very brief portrayal of the judge Jair, Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 38) presents both a more extended and altogether negative picture of him as an instigator of idolatry who ends up being burned alive by the angel of the Lord.

Josephus generalizes Judg 10:6 with its lengthy catalogue of the other deities to which Israel now turned. He omits the divine reaction of anger and “selling” the people into the hand of their enemies from 10:7 (although he will utilize its names of the 2 oppressor peoples in what follows). “Peraia” is Josephus’ “updated” replacement for the localization given in Judg 10:8b, i.e. “beyond the Jordan in the land of the Amorites, which is in Gilead.” Josephus draws the names of Israel’s 2 oppressors from 10:7, where the Lord “sells them into the hand” of the Philistines and the Ammonites. In Judges 10-14, LXX AL mostly (i.e. 27 out of a total of 33 times) designate the Philistines with the general term ἀλλόφυλοι (“aliens”), whereas LXX B consistently calls them Φυλιστιιμ (“Philistines”) in accord with the MT designation; Josephus invariably uses the corresponding term “Palestinoi” (Παλαιστῖνοι) to denote the people in question. See Harlé 1999: 58-60. Josephus here synthesizes the data of Judg 10:7b-9 on the oppression of Israel by the Philistines and Ammonites. From that sequence he omits, e.g., the duration of the oppression (18 years, 10:8b; cf., however, his subsequent use of the figure in 5.263) and the mention of the various Cisjordanian tribes that the Ammonites are preparing to attack (v. 9). Conversely, he adds mention of the enemies’ “contempt” for Israel (this taking the place of the divine handing of Israel over to them [10:7a; cf. note to “laws” at 5.255] as the impetus for their assault). Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 39.1) offers no motivation for the Ammonites’ invasion of Israel.

Such sacrifices are not mentioned as part of the people’s appeal in Judg 10:10, which likewise does not refer to their being “made prudent” (Greek: σωφρονέω; see note to “prudent” at 5.105) by their afflictions. In Judg 10:10-16 there is an initial confession of sin by the people (10:10b), to which the Lord responds with a refusal to deliver them any longer (10:11-14), whereupon the people reply with a renewed confession and urgent appeal for help (10:15), which in turn prompts a change of heart on God’s part (10:16). Josephus leaves aside the first 2 elements of this sequence in order to concentrate on the people’s appeal. Thereby, he eliminates as well the Bible’s portrayal of a seemingly vacillating, indecisive Deity, who, having sharply rejected the people’s first appeal, then suddenly becomes solicitous for them when they renew their appeal. Compare Judg 10:16b: “(God) became indignant over the misery of Israel.” Josephus omits the preceding notice of 10:16a about the people’s putting aside their foreign gods (i.e. those catalogued in 10:6, a listing previously left aside by him) and serving the Lord. Pseudo-Philo, for his part, completely omits the sequence Judg 10:10-16.

Cf. Judg 10:17-18, from which Josephus omits, e.g., the specification that Israel camped at Mizpah in the face of the Ammonite threat (v. 17b) and the leaders’ affirmation (v.18b) that the one who assumes command against the Ammonites “will be head over all the inhabitants of Gilead.” In contrast to Josephus, Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 39.1) elaborates upon the words of those assembled at Mizpah. MT (Judg 11:1) ‮יפתה‬‎ (Eng.: “Jephthah”); LXX Ἰεφθάε; Josephus Ἰαφθᾶς. On Josephus’ ambivalent depiction of Jephthah, see Feldman 1998a: 177-92. Josephus derives Jephthah’s 2 qualifications from Judg 11:1a (Jephthah is called “a mighty warrior”) and 11:3b (“worthless fellows collected around Jephthah, and went raiding with him”). In the case of the latter verse, he eliminates its negative qualification of Jephthah’s associates, which might call into question his own suitability as a leader.

In Judges 11 the invitation to Jephthah (v. 6) is extended in the face of the new (or renewed) Ammmonite threat cited in v. 4, after that mentioned in 10:17, prior to the introduction of Jephthah in 11:1-3. Josephus has the invitation come in response to the single Ammonite incursion of which he speaks; see 5.257 and the note to “raid” at 5.261. Josephus here conflates elements of Judg 11:7 (Jephthah’s refusal of the offer of leadership) and 11:2 (the notice on his brothers’ expulsion of him, which he will reproduce parenthetically in 5.259). At the same time, he also “harmonizes” the divergent biblical indications concerning those responsible for Jephthah’s expulsion: compare Judg 11:2 (the brothers thrust him out) and 7 (Jephthah accuses the elders of having driven him out). In Josephus’ presentation, the Gileadites were complicit in the injustice done Jephthah in that they failed to aid him when he was being expelled by his brothers; see Feldman 1998a: 188, n. 21.

Out of concern for Jephthah’s image, Josephus substitutes a circumlocution for the straightforward statement of Judg 11:2 that he was “the son of a harlot” (MT ‮אשׁה זונה‬‎; LXX γυνή πόρνη); see Feldman 1998a: 179-80. In the same line the Tg. employs the term ‮פונדקיתא‬‎ for Jephthah’s mother, a term that may mean “innkeeper” and that it also uses of Rahab in Josh 2:1 (see note to “inn” at 5.7). Pseudo-Philo, going still further, omits any reference to Jephthah’s parentage. Cf. Judg 11:2, where is no mention of the brothers’ contempt for Jephthah (in Bib. Ant. 39.2 it is Jephthah himself who “envies” [Latin: zelo] his brothers). Josephus does not reproduce the name of Jephthah’s father, cited in Judg 11:1-2 as “Gilead,” perhaps because in the context (see 10:17-18; 11:4) this appears rather as a place name.

See Judg 11:3a, where Jephthah retires to “the land of Tob”; Pseudo-Philo retains this biblical place name in Bib. Ant. 39.2-3. Josephus has already mentioned (see 5.257) the associates who assemble around Jephthah according to 11:3b. Josephus here concludes his account of the (ultimately successful) negotiations between Gilead and Jephthah (11:9-11) that he introduced in 5.258 (// 11:6-8), but then broke off to supply background information, drawn from 11:1-3a, concerning Jephthah in 5.259-260a. As Feldman (1998a: 187) points out, Josephus eliminates the invocations of the Deity by both parties (see 11:9, 10), thereby downplaying the piety of the biblical hero. By contrast, Pseudo-Philo has Jephthah thrice mention God in his lengthy (single) reply to the Israelites in Bib. Ant. 39.4-5a.

This inserted transitional note underscores Jephthah’s enterprising character. Josephus conflates the double mention of “Mizpah” in the biblical Jephthah account; see Judg 10:17 (the people of Israel encamp at Mizpah prior to the introduction of Jephthah in 11:1-3) and 11:11b (the new general Jephthah speaks “all his words before the Lord at Mizpah”). Unlike Judg 11:12, Josephus does not explicitly designate Jephthah’s addressee as the Ammonite “king”; by contrast, Ant. Bib. 39.8 gives the king a name, i.e. “Getal.” The Ammonite “raid” of which Jephthah complains here is that mentioned in 5.257, the single such incursion cited by Josephus; compare 10:17 and 11:4, and see note to “perpetuity” at 5.258. In Judg 11:13 the Ammonite king asserts that, upon its departure from Egypt, Israel had appropriated his land and demands that this be restored peacefully (MT LXX A; LXX B adds “and I will go [away]”). Josephus’ designation “Amoraia” for the country the Ammonite king is telling the Israelites to vacate could be inspired by the mention of the “Amorites” in Jephthah’s subsequent reply to the king (see Judg 11:19, 20, 23). In any case, Josephus leaves aside the source verse’s specifications concerning the boundaries of the contested land (“from the Arnon to the Jabbok and to the Jordan”).

In this paragraph Josephus presents a drastically abridged and rearranged version of Jephthah’s reply as cited in Judg 11:14-27 (like MT and LXX B 11:14, he has no equivalent to the LXX AL plus at the end of the verse, i.e. “and the messengers returned to Jephthah”). Among the items from Jephthah’s discourse omitted by Josephus is the theologically problematic question of 11:24a: (“Will you not possess what Chemosh gives you to possess?”) with its seeming recognition of the existence and power of a deity other than the Lord; see Feldman 1998a: 188. Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 39.9) makes Jephthah affirm that the “gods” whom the Ammonite king claims gave him the disputed territory are, in fact, “no gods.” With this phrase Josephus alludes to Jephthah’s extended reminiscence of Israel’s conquest of Sihon, king of the Amorites, in Judg 11:19-23, which itself harks back to the account of this event found in Num 21:21-32 (cf. Deut 2:26-37) that Josephus reproduces in Ant. 4.86-95. Josephus’ reference to the Ammonite “accusation regarding Amoraia” has a counterpart in Bib. Ant. 39.9, where the Ammonite king threatens to “avenge the Amorites whom you have harmed.” Cf. Judg 11:15, where Jephthah reminds the Ammonite king: “Israel did not take away the land of Moab or the land of the Ammonites.” Josephus’ omission of the source reference to “the land of Moab” likely has in view the seeming irrelevance of this allusion, given that the dispute is between Ammon and Israel, not Israel and Moab. In the same line Josephus leaves aside Jephthah’s further statements concerning Israel’s march route (11:16-18), which in fact make no mention of Ammon itself, featuring rather its circumvention of Moab and Edom. Josephus here combines 2 distinct elements of the biblical Jephthah’s speech, i.e. his affirmation (Judg 11:24b) that Israel will possess “all that the Lord has dispossessed before us” and his reference to the 300 years during which Israel had been left undisturbed by the Ammonites in its possession of the now suddenly disputed regions (11:26). He leaves aside the intervening, seemingly extraneous, allusion to the case of the Moabite King Balak who never ventured to attack Israel (11:25), just he did the early references to Moab in Jephthah’s speech; see note to “this too” at 5.262. Compare Judg 11:27b, where Jephthah concludes his 2nd message to the Ammonite king with an appeal to the Deity (“the Lord, the Judge, decide this day between the people of Israel and the people of Ammon”).

This concluding notice to the “negotiations report” of 5.261-262 (= Judg 11:12-28) takes the place of the statement of Judg 11:28 that the Ammonite king paid no heed to Jephthah’s message. Josephus likewise leaves aside Judg 11:29, which tells of the coming of the divine spirit upon Jephthah and the latter’s resultant movements. Here again (see previous note), Josephus diminishes the explicit presence of God in the Jephthah story. In Judg 11:30 Jephthah “vows to the Lord.” On Josephus’ handling of Jephthah’s vow and its sequels, see Feldman 1998a: 182-91. Via his neuter formulation (ὅ τι), Josephus indicates that Jephthah anticipates meeting “something” (i.e. an animal) rather than “someone.” By contrast the participial form of MT Judg 11:30 (‮היוצא‬‎) leaves the matter open, while LXX (ὃς ἂν ἐξέλθῃ) and Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 39.10: “omnis qui mihi primus obviaverit”) specify that Jephthah was indeed thinking of a human being as his promised victim. Definitely presupposing as he does that the object of his promise will be an animal, the Josephan Jephthah appears a more precise speaker than in MT and less ready to shed human blood than he does in LXX and Pseudo-Philo. Characteristically, Josephus leaves aside the notice of Judg 11:32b (which Pseudo-Philo [Bib. Ant. 40.1] retains): “and the Lord gave them into his hand.” MT (Judg 11:33) ‮מנית‬‎ (Eng.: “Minnith”); LXX A Σεμωιθ; LXX B Ἀρνών; Josephus Μανιάθης. Compare the more expansive indications concerning Jephthah’s movements given in Judg 11:33 (MT): “from Aroer to the neighborhood of Minnith... and as far as Abel-keramim.” Judg 11:33 specifies 20 cities; Bib. Ant. 40.1 reads 60. This item lacks a counterpart in Judg 11:33. Compare Judg 11:33b: “So the Ammonites were subdued before the people of Israel.” Josephus’ substitute conclusion to the battle account features his characteristic use of “liberation language” throughout his account of the Judges period (and his history generally); see note to “desert” in 5.34. He derives his datum concerning the duration of the Ammonite oppression from Judg 10:8b.

The mention of Jephthah’s return “to his home at Mizpah” in Judg 11:34aα lacks the ominous foreshadowing Josephus interjects here. Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 40.1) gives a name, i.e. “Seila,” to the nameless daughter of the Bible and Josephus. On this figure in Josephus and Pseudo-Philo, see Brown 1992: 93-139. As Feldman (1998a: 185) points out, the Greek term used by Josephus here (μονογενής) is the same one employed by him of Isaac (see Ant. 1.222), another child facing immolation at the hands of his father. Thereby, he makes an implicit link between the 2 biblical stories of (near) human sacrifice. Josephus anticipates this datum from Judg 11:39b. He leaves aside the source detail (11:34aβ) about the girl coming to meet her father “with timbrels and dances” (cf. Bib. Ant. 40.1, where “Seila” leads a whole group of dancing women to meet Jephthah). In Judg 11:35 Jephthah first “rends his clothes,” while in Bib. Ant. 40.1 he “grows faint” upon seeing “Seila” emerge from the house. Josephus’ (re-) formulation of Jephthah’s words in Judg 11:35 tones down the father’s expression of deep distress and leaves aside his closing statement (“I cannot take back my vow”), both points where Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 40.1) adheres more closely to the Bible’s wording.

This editorial statement replaces the daughter’s own (initial) word as cited in Judg 11:36, in which she urges Jephthah to do as he had vowed, given that the Lord has in fact avenged him on his enemies. Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 40.2) expatiates on the daughter’s discourse of 11:36. Feldman (1998a: 190, n. 24) points out that, in contrast to the Bible, both Josephus and Pseudo-Philo make mention of the daughter’s willingness to die now that the people have recovered their “freedom.” The daughter’s willing acceptance of her fate here constitutes another implicit parallel between her story and that of Isaac, whom Josephus, going beyond the Bible itself, represents (Ant. 1.232) as urging his father to proceed with the sacrifice. In Judg 11:37 the daughter asks her father for 2 months to “go down on the mountains” and bewail “her virginity” with her companions. Josephus’ concluding “appendix” to this request underscores her submissiveness to her fate. Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 40.3) greatly expands on the daughter’s appeal.

See Judg 11:38a: “And he said, ‘Go’.” Josephus leaves aside the subsequent notice (11:38b) on the daughter’s doing as she had proposed. By contrast, Pseudo-Philo expands the content of 11:38b into a 4-paragraph (Bib. Ant. 40.4-5) “citation” of her words of lamentation. Compare 11:39a: “and at the end of two months, she returned to her father....” Josephus here renders more explicit the wording of Judg 11:39bα (“he did to her according to his vow which he had made”) in light of the language of Jephthah’s actual vow in 11:31 (and his own rendering of this in 5.263). Thereby, he leaves readers in no doubt that the daughter actually was sacrificed, rather than, e.g., living on in a state of perpetual virginity as some commentators have understood the biblical text to indicate; see Feldman 1998a: 183-35. Compare Bib. Ant. 40.8 (“he [Jephthah] did everything that he had vowed and offered burnt offerings”), which continues with an “unbiblical” mention of “Seila” being buried and wept over by the assembled virgins of Israel. This editorial comment concerning the wrongfulness of Jephthah’s vow and its execution has no counterpart in the “neutral” presentation of the affair in Judges 11 (MT and LXX). On the other hand, Josephus’ censure is paralleled in the Targumic addition at the end of Judg 11:39, where Jephthah is faulted for not consulting Phineas the priest about his vow, in Rabbinic tradition (for references, see Ginzberg 1928: 6:203, n. 109), and in Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 39.11), where immediately upon Jephthah’s making his vow (39.10) there is mention of God’s “anger” at this. The above comment takes the place of the etiological notice of Judg 11:39bβ-40 concerning the annual 4-day commemoration of the daughter’s fate by the Israelite women, which, Feldman (1998a: 184-85) suggests, Josephus may have found overly reminiscent of pagan mourning ceremonies for “deceased” divinities. In reproducing the notice, Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 40.8) specifies that the occasion was observed in the month of Seila’s death, beginning on the 14th day of the month.

Josephus here modifies Judg 12:1 in several ways: he omits the name of the site (MT Zaphon, LXX AL Sephim) where the confrontation occurs, recasts the Ephraimites’ speech in indirect discourse, and replaces their concluding threat (“we will burn your house over you with fire”) with their charge about Jephthah’s having kept to himself the benefits of the campaign (for the “plunder,” see the inserted reference to Jephthah’s taking this in 5.263). Pseudo-Philo leaves aside the entire episode of Jephthah’s dispute with the Ephraimites, Judg 12:1-6. Cf. Judg 12:2.

In this version of Jephthah’s words, drawn from Judg 12:3, Josephus supplies a reason why Jephthah felt bound to attack the Ammonites even without the Ephraimites’ support, omits the reference to the Lord’s giving the former into his hand (cf. his non-use of the similar notice in 11:32b), and turns his accusatory final question into a statement of rebuke. This concluding threat/warning has no parallel in Jephthah’s reply as cited in Judg 12:2-3. It underscores the hero’s effort to dissuade the Ephraimites from their projected initiation of civil war. Josephus’ depiction of Jephthah functioning in this capacity recalls his similar presentation of Gideon’s (successful) efforts at dissuading the same Ephraimites from fighting against him in 5.230-231.

This mention of the failure of Jephthah’s efforts at mollifying the Ephraimites is, like his immediately preceding warning at the end of 5.268, a Josephan insertion. It serves to place the blame for the Ephraimites’ subsequent disaster squarely on them and their refusal to pay heed to Jephthah’s warning. Like LXX Judg 12:4, Josephus lacks an equivalent to the obscure MT “motivation” for the Gileadites’ slaughter of the Ephraimites, i.e. “because they said, ‘You are fugitives of Ephraim, you Gileadites, in the midst of Ephraim and Manasseh’.” Josephus here combines elements of Judg 12:6b (the Ephraimite casualties) and 12:5a (the Gileadites’ seizure of the Jordan fords). He omits the “Shibboleth-test” of the Ephraimites’ identity (12:5b-6a), which could not readily be reproduced in Greek, as the (varying) LXX renderings of the MT sequence attest. Josephus introduced an explicit foreshadowing of the Ephraimites’ calamity here with the notice he appends to Gideon’s earlier mollifying of the tribe (Judg 8:1-3) in 5.230-231.

Josephus’ figure for Jephthah’s length of rule agrees with that given in MT and LXX AL Judg 12:7. LXX B reads 60 years, while Bib. Ant. 40.9 assigns him 10. MT Judg 12:7 has Jephthah buried “in the cities of Gilead.” LXX AB read “in his town in Galaad,” while LXX L offers “in his town in Seph in Galaad.” Schalit (s.v.) opines that the name of Jephthah’s place of burial as found in the MSS of Josephus, i.e. Σεβέη, is a corruption of the form, namely Μασφαθή, which appears in the near context; see 5.261. Barthélemy (1982: 106), on the other hand, suggests that Josephus’ Hebrew text of Judg 12:7 read ‮בצפה‬‎.

MT (Judg 12:8) ‮אבצן‬‎ (Eng.: “Ibzan”) LXX A Εσεβων; LXX B Ἀβαισάν; Josephus Ἀψάνης. Pseudo-Philo does not mention this judge. Having introduced the specification that “Ibzan” was a “Judean,” Josephus naturally identifies his biblical home-town with “Bethlehem” of Judah (see 5.136), whereas some commentators hold that the place intended in Judg 12:8 is rather the Bethlehem of Zebulon cited in Josh 19:15; see Harlé 1999: 196. See Judg 12:9a, from which Josephus omits the additional notice about Ibzan’s “bringing in” 30 wives for his 30 sons from outside his clan. Josephus embellishes the data of Judg 12:9b-10 on Ibzan’s term of office, death and burial with a negative evaluation of his tenure and an indication about his age at death. He infers that Ibzan—as also the 2 following minor judges, see below—did nothing “memorable” from the fact that his biblical source reports no victory won by him of the sort it attributes to the “major judges.”

MT (Judg 12:11) ‮אילון‬‎ (Eng.: “Elon”); LXX AB Αἰλών; Josephus Ἤλων. Reversing the biblical order, Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 41.2) mentions this judge after his successor “Abdon” of Judg 12:13-15. See Judg 12:11b. Pseudo-Philo (Ant. Bib. 41.2) assigns him a judgeship of 20 years. This negative evaluation, echoing that supplied by Josephus for “Ibzan” in 5.271, takes the place of the death and burial notice for “Elon” of Judg 12:12. By contrast, Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 41.2) credits the latter figure with taking 12 Philistine cities.

MT (Judg 12:13) ‮עבדון‬‎ (Eng.: “Abdon”); LXX A Λαβδων; LXX B and Josephus Ἀβδών. MT (Judg 12:13) ‮הלל‬‎ (Eng.: “Hillel”); LXX A Σελλημ; LXX B Ἡλλήλ; Josephus Ἤλων. In contrast to the Bible, where “Abdon’s” father is called “Hillel,” etc. Josephus gives this figure the same name as the preceding judge, i.e. “Elon,” likewise, however, assigning the first “Elon” to the tribe of Zebulon (5.272), the second to that of Ephraim (5.273). Josephus anticipates this notice on Abdon’s tribal affiliation from Judg 12:14, where his hometown, Pirathon, is said to be “in the land of Ephraim.” MT (Judg 12:13) ‮הפרעתוני‬‎ (Eng.: “the Pirathonite”); LXX AB ὁ Φαραθωνίτης; Josephus τῆς Φαραθωνιτῶν. Greek: αὐτοκράτωρ ἡγεμῶν. On the word αὐτοκράτωρ as the Greek equivalent of the Latin imperator, see Mason BJP 9: 140-41, n. 1403. This negative evaluation of Abdon’s judgeship lacks a biblical basis. By contrast, Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 41.1) ascribes to him a resounding victory over the Moabites in the manner of Jephthah’s defeat of the Ammonites.

See Judg 12:14; the equestrian excellence of Abdon’s descendants is Josephus’ embellishment. Pseudo-Philo omits the biblical details concerning Abdon’s family. Compare the more expansive geographical indications of Judg 12:15: “at Pirathon in the land of Ephraim, in the hill country of the Amalekites (LXX A: Lanak).” Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 41.1) has Abdon buried “in his city Effrata.” The reference to Abdon’s “splendid” burial is a typical Josephan embellishment of the biblical burial notice.

From Judg 13:1 Josephus leaves aside the double mention of the Lord as the one against whom the Israelites offended and who, in turn, handed them over to Philistine domination. Josephus inserts this transitional phrase between the source notice on the Philistine domination (Judg 13:1) and the following Samson story (13:2ff.).

MT (Judg 13:2) ‮מנוח‬‎ (Eng.: “Manoah”) LXX AB Μανῶε; Josephus Μανώχης. On Josephus’ version of the Samson story of Judges 13-16 in 5.276-317, see Feldman 1998: 461-89. Judg 13:2 says nothing concerning Manoah’s social standing; Josephus’ indications on the matter have a counterpart in Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 42.1), who traces his ancestry back 10 generations to Dan, the ancestor of his tribe, the Danites. The indications recall Josephus’ (likewise inserted) reference to Gideon’s high standing within the tribe of Manasseh in 5.213. In Josephus, as in the Bible, she remains nameless. Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 42.1) calls her “Eluma the daughter of Remac.” These indications concerning Manoah’s wife are Josephan embellishments of Judg 13:2; in Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 42.1b-2a) the couple quarrels about which of them is responsible for their childlessness. His inserted mention of the woman’s beauty recalls Josephus’ presentation of the Levite and his wife in 5.136. In both instances, Josephus amplifies the romantic/erotic elements of the source account; see Feldman (1998: 475-82) on this feature of Josephus’ retelling of the Samson story overall. Judg 13:2a simply mentions “Zorah” as Manoah’s home-town. Josephus may have drawn his reference to the “great plain” visited by the couple from Judg 13:9, where the woman is sitting “in the field” when the angel appears to her a 2nd time. Josephus here elaborates the summary statement of Judg 13:2b (“and his wife was barren and had no children”), keeping the focus on Manoah—his childlessness, his feelings, his prayer. In Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 42.2) the wife is the one who prays regarding the couple’s situation.

Josephus’ accentuation of the story’s erotic features and his echoing of the language of 5.136-137 concerning the Levite and his wife continue. Greek: ἄγγελλος. This word is textually unsure. It is found in MSPLauE and is printed as part of the text by Marcus (who, however, relegates the translation of it to a note [“a spectre, an angel of God”], omitting it in the body of his translation, where he reads “a spectre... from God”). Niese’s text omits the word; RO reads “a vision of a star from God.” Judg 13:3 (like Bib. Ant. 42.2) designates the figure as “the angel of the Lord.” Josephus here embellishes his corresponding designation of the figure (but see previous note) with terminology reminiscent of that used by him in 5.213 for Gideon’s (angelic, see Judg 6:12) visitor, i.e. φάντασμα (“vision”) and “young man” (νεανίας); see note to “Gedeon” at 5.213. His appended allusions to the apparition’s appearance pick up on his previous highlighting (see 5.276) of the woman’s own beauty. Josephus combines elements of the biblical angel’s opening (Judg 13:3b, the birth of a son to the woman) and closing (13:5b, the son’s role in effecting deliverance from the Philistines) words to Manoah’s wife. Between these, he inserts indications of his own concerning the child’s physical attributes, of which the reference to its “vigor” (Greek: ῥώμη) looks ahead to the explanation of the name “Sampson” in terms of the child’s “strength” he will give in 5.285. In Bib. Ant. 42.3 the angel, in accord with the woman’s prayer (42.2b), begins by addressing the couple’s dispute (see 42.1b-2a) about which of them is responsible for their childlessness, ascribing this to her.

Compare Judg 13:5aβ (“no razor shall come upon his head”); Josephus leaves aside the appended source statement, “the boy shall be a Nazirite to God [MT ‮נזיר אלהים‬‎, LXX A ναζιραίος θεοῦ, LXX B ἅγιος θεοῦ] from birth” (which Pseudo-Philo does reproduce in Bib. Ant. 42.2). In Judg 13:4 it is the mother-to-be who is told not to drink wine or strong drink (and to eat nothing impure). Pseudo-Philo’s angel instructs the woman (Bib. Ant. 42.3) to see to it to that her son does not drink grape drinks or eat anything unclean. Both Josephus and Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 42.3 in fine) go beyond the Bible in making explicit mention of the heavenly visitor’s departure.

Josephus’ wording of the woman’s report reutilizes the language of his own description of the angel in 5.277. The appended reference to the woman’s admiration for the angel’s appearance takes the place of her largely verbatim report of his words to her (Judg 13:4-5) in 13:6-7. In Bib. Ant. 42.4 the wife acknowledges to Manoah, on the basis of the angel’s announcement, that she had been in the wrong in their earlier dispute (see 42.1b-2) about the responsibility for their childlessness. Judges 13 says nothing about the emotional effect of his wife’s report upon Manoah; Josephus’ insertion echoes his mention of Manoah’s “immoderate jealousy” towards his wife in 5.277. Bib. Ant. 42.5 relates the Manoah “did not believe” his wife’s report, which left him “confused and sad.”

In Judg 13:8 it is Manoah who asks for the angel’s return in order that he might instruct them about a matter that has seemingly already been sufficiently elucidated, i.e. what they are to do with the promised son. Josephus transfers the prayer request to the woman, likewise providing it with a new, more compelling motivation/content; elsewhere as well, he accentuates the woman’s role in the proceedings, see note to “containers” at 5.283. Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 42.5) retains Manoah as the one praying, but has him ask whether he too is not worthy of hearing and seeing the angel. In Judg 13:9 the woman is alone “in the field” when the angel reappears. Josephus’ mention of the “suburbs” echoes his localization of Manoah’s initial prayer in 5.276. The woman’s request to the angel here makes her appear more respectful than in Judg 13:10a, where she simply runs off to find her husband once the angel manifests himself to her; in Bib. Ant. 42.6b the angel takes the initiative himself in commanding the woman to fetch her husband. Josephus leaves aside the woman’s actual report to her husband as cited in 13:10b.

This inserted reference to Manoah’s feelings as he approaches the angel echoes the mention of his “suspicion” prompted by his wife’s report concerning her visitor in 5.279. This formulation of Manoah’s initial query to the angel takes the place of his rather obvious question (“are you the man who spoke to this woman?”) and the angel’s affirmative answer in Judg 13:11. In Bib. Ant. 42.7 the angel initiates the exchange, directing Manoah “to go in to his wife and do all these things,” whereupon Manoah assents, asking that the angel ensure the realization of his promise, and the later promises to do so. Compare Judg 13:11bβ, where the angel responds affirmatively to Manoah’s question about his identity; see previous note. Josephus (negatively) aligns the angelic response with his version of Manoah’s opening question. Compare Manoah’s final word to the angel in Judg 13:17 (“what is your name, so that, when your words come true, we may honor you?”). Josephus leaves aside the former’s preceding question about his son’s future (and the angel’s reply to this which largely duplicates the wording of vv. 4 and 7) of 13:12-14. He likewise repositions Manoah’s attempt to detain the angel and prepare a kid for him (= 13:15) to after his inquiry about his name with a view to honoring him (13:17); see 5.282. Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 42.8) combines and elaborates Manoah’s 2 proposals about showing his appreciation for the angel (Judg 13:15, 17); he likewise supplies the angel’s name, i.e. “Fahdael,” in a concluding note to the reader, 42.10.

Josephus’ rendering of the angel’s answer replaces his (rhetorical) question of Judg 13:18 as to why Manoah has asked to be told his “wonderful” name with an explanation of his refusal of the proffered “gift” (cf. 13:16). This is Josephus’ (repositioned, see note to “gift” at 5.281) version of Judg 13:15-16a, where Manoah tries to “detain” the angel with the offer of a “kid,” only to be rebuffed by him. In Judg 13:16a the angel, on his own, suggests that, instead of trying to feed him, Manoah offer a sacrifice to the Lord. Josephus depicts an angel who, ultimately, is more responsive to the man’s desire to show him honor. He omits the appended parenthetical notice of 13:16b, “for Manoah did not know that he was the angel of the Lord.” On the “hospitality” theme in Josephus, see note to this word at 5.141.

Josephus avoids representing the “offerings” of the non-priest Manoah as a sacrifice to the Lord; contrast Judg 13:19 (and Bib. Ant. 42.9). He likewise gives the wife a role in the proceedings; compare his making her, rather than Manoah himself (so Judg 13:8), the one to pray for the angel’s return in 5.280, cf. note to “husband” at 5.280.

In Judg 13:20, which does not mention this initiative by the angel, the sacrifice seems to ignite of itself. Josephus’ addition has a parallel in Pseudo-Philo’s Bib. Ant. 42.9; both authors have, it seems independently, introduced a reminiscence of Judg 6:21, where the angel “ignites” Gideon’s sacrifices by touching them with his staff. Like Bib. Ant. 42.9, Josephus goes beyond Judg 13:20 in making explicit mention of the fire’s consuming the offerings. Judg 13:20aβ speaks of the angel’s ascending “in the flame,” as does Bib. Ant. 42.9. Josephus leaves aside the reference to the couple’s falling on their faces of 13:20b (and Bib. Ant. 42.10). He likewise passes over the parenthetical notice of 13:21 about the angel appearing no more and Manoah’s recognizing his identity (compare the remark of 13:16b about Manoah’s not knowing his visitor to be “the angel of the Lord,” also omitted by Josephus). This is Josephus’ indirect discourse version of Manoah’s words to his wife as cited in Judg 13:22: “We shall surely die for we have seen God,” with their identification of the angel previously seen by them with the Deity himself; Bib. Ant. 42.10 takes over and elaborates the biblical Manoah’s statement. See next note. Josephus here generalizes the catalogue of benefits received cited by the woman in Judg 13:23 to show her husband that the Lord did not in fact intend to kill them (Pseudo-Philo omits the wife’s response). In having the woman refer to God’s being seen by them (compare 13:23, where she alludes to the Lord’s showing them “these things”), Josephus has her identify their visitor as God himself, just as Manoah did previously; see previous note.

Josephus inserts these preliminaries to Samson’s actual birth (= Judg 13:24); they accentuate the woman’s role in his version of the story. In Judg 13:24 (and Bib. Ant. 43.1) the mother alone names the child. MT (Judg 13:24) ‮שׁמשׁון‬‎ (Eng.: “Samson”); LXX and Josephus Σαμψών. Neither Judg 13:24 nor Pseudo-Philo offers an explicit interpretation of Samson’s name. Josephus’ explanation picks up on his version of the angelic announcement (5.277) that the child to be born would be “of extraordinary vigor (ῥώμη).” On the meaning of the Hebrew name “Samson” and Josephus’ interpretation of it, see Rappaport 1930: xxxii and Feldman 1998: 465-466, nn. 8-12. The noun “strength” (ἰσχύς) and the cognate adjective “strong” (ἰσχυρός) are key words in Josephus’ presentation of Samson (5.276-317), in which the former term occurs 5 times (5.289, 307, 311, 312, 317) and the latter 6 times (5.277, 285, 302, 308, 309, 311). Or “regimen” (Greek: δίαιτα). On this word, which appears in a testimony of Clearchus of Soli concerning Aristotle’s being impressed by the “manner of life” of a Jew whom he met as cited by Josephus in Apion 1.182; see Feldman 1998: 112, 486; Mason in BJP 1, note to “regimen” at War 2.137. The term recurs in 5.305, where Josephus introduces a new, negative stage of Samson’s life. These indications about the young Samson represent Josephus’ adaption of the triple notice of Judg 13:24b-25: “and the boy grew, and the Lord was with him, and the Spirit of the Lord began to stir him....” to which Pseudo-Philo has no equivalent. Throughout his retelling of the Samson story, Josephus systematically eliminates the recurrent references to the operation of the Spirit upon him. The reference to the boy’s long hair echoes the angel’s command to his mother in 5.278. Feldman (1998: 483) notes that Josephus is unique among the ancient sources in according prophetic status to Samson.

In Judg 14:1 Samson travels to “Timnah” alone. Josephus’ mention of his parents’ accompanying him there is anticipated from 14:5. It would seem in fact to make more sense to have the parents go with Samson on his first trip to the foreign city rather than only on his subsequent one(s)—as one finds in the Bible. MT (Judg 14:1) ‮תמנה‬‎ (Eng.: “Timnah”); LXX Θαμνάθα; Josephus Θάμνα. Judg 14:1 does not mention this occasion; compare Josephus’ inserted reference to a “festival” in his version of Judg 9:7 in 5.235. See Judg 14:1b-2. From the parents’ rhetorical question of Judg 14:3, pointing up the inappropriateness of Samson’s request given the availability of women of his kin and people for him to marry, Josephus leaves aside, as he does consistently elsewhere, their derogatory reference to the “uncircumcised Philistines” that would likely cause offense to his (also uncircumcised) Gentile readers; see Höffken 2001: 400-401. This notice takes the place of Samson’s renewed appeal to his father (Judg 14:3b) that he get the woman for him. Compare the parenthetical notice of Judg 14:4a according to which the parents did not know that Samson’s desire for the Philistine woman was “from the Lord” who was “seeking an occasion against the Philistines.”

In Judg 14:5 his parents accompany Samson on his 2nd trip to Timnah; see note to “parents” at 5.286. Judg 14:5 sets the encounter in “the vineyards of Timnah.” Judg 14:6a attributes Samson’s successful assault upon the lion to the Lord’s Spirit coming upon him; Josephus omits this indication, just as did the earlier mention of the Lord’s Spirit “stirring” Samson in Judg 13:25; see note to “freely” at 5.285. This notice on Samson’s disposal of the lion’s cadaver takes the place of the double statement of Judg 14:6b-7 (Samson does not inform his parents of his exploit with the lion; he speaks with the woman who pleases him).

According to MT Judg 14:8 the bees were in the lion’s “body/carcass,” while LXX places them in its “mouth/gullet.” Josephus’ specification of 3 honeycombs lacks an equivalent in Judg 14:8-9a, which simply speaks of Samson’s removing “the honey” present in the lion’s corpse. Josephus here modifies the presentation of Judg 14:9, where, after eating some of the honey on the way, Samson gives a part of it to his parents, though without telling them where he obtained it (cf. Judg 14:6b, also omitted by him). Josephus’ version accentuates Samson’s attachment to the Philistine woman to whom he brings not only (all) the honey, but also “other gifts.”

From Judg 14:10 Josephus omits the role of Samson’s father who “goes down” to the woman as well as the statement that Samson’s providing a feast was in accord with the practice of young people of the time. Josephus’ mention of the townsfolk’s “anxiety” is in accord with the LXX AL reading in Judg 14:11, whereas the vocalized form of MT (and LXX B) refers rather to their “seeing.” On this key word of Josephus’ Samson story, see 5.277, 285, and the note to “strong” at 5.285. Josephus embellishes Judg 14:11, which does not mention the physical condition of the 30 attendants or the motivation behind their being assigned to Samson. Thereby, he underscores how great a threat Samson poses to the Philistines: 30 robust men are needed to keep him under restraint. This remark, leading into Samson’s posing of his riddle in Judg 14:12, has no biblical equivalent.

From Samson’s “proposition” in Judg 14:12-13a Josephus omits the negative alternative with which it closes, i.e. the Philistines will have to pay him what he is offering them for elucidating the riddle, should they be unable to do this. This mention of the Philistines’ state of mind as they urge Samson to tell them his riddle is Josephus’ embellishment of Judg 14:13b. Compare Judg 14:14a: “out of the eater came something to eat; out of the strong came something sweet.” Josephus’ substitution of “unpleasant” for “strong” makes for a better contrast with “sweet.”

Josephus’ chronological indication here is equivalent to the “on the fourth day” of LXX Judg 14:15, whereas MT reads “on the seventh day.” Cf. Judg 14:14b, which states that the Philistines “could not in 3 days tell what the riddle was.” In Judg 14:15 the Philistines threaten to burn the house(hold) of the woman’s father as well. Josephus likewise omits their (obscure) concluding question to the woman: “Have you invited us here to impoverish us?” Josephus summarizes the initial exchange between Samson and his wife (Judg 14:16), omitting, for example, the former’s reference to his not having told the riddle to his parents, just as earlier he left aside the notices on Samson’s not telling his parents about his killing of the lion (14:6b) and the source of the honey (14:9b).

In the biblical presentation (Judg 14:16a) the wife’s reference to Samson’s “hating” her comes in her initial words to him. Josephus, more effectively, has her reserve this emotionally charged claim to a later point in her attempt.

In Judg 14:17aβ Samson simply “tells” his wife. Josephus spells out what he tells her and supplies a reason for his readiness to do this, i.e. his “suspecting no deceit” on her part. See Judg 14:17b-18aα. In speaking of “sunset” rather than “sunrise,” Josephus agrees with MT LXX AL Judg 14:18 against LXX B and Tg. Josephus reverses the sequence of the Philistines’ answer in Judg 14:18aβ: “What is sweeter than honey? What is stronger than a lion?,” likewise retaining his substitution of “unpleasant” for “strong” from 5.290; see note to “unpleasant” at 5.290.

This retort replaces the (obscure) reply by Samson in Judg 14:18b: “If you had not plowed with my heifer [Tg. examined my wife], you would not have found out my riddle.” In Judg 14:19 Samson’s initiative is provoked by the Spirit’s “coming mightily upon him”; for the 3rd time (see notes to “freely” at 5.282, “hands” at 5.287) Josephus passes over a source mention of the Spirit acting on Samson. He further modifies the presentation of 14:19, where Samson “kills” the men of Ashkelon (apparently in the city itself) and appends the identification of this group as “Philistines.” Compare Judg 14:19b-20, where Samson’s “anger” prompts him to return to his father’s house, leaving his wife to be married to the best man. Josephus inserts the reference to the contempt for Samson’s anger by his former wife.

This introduction to the following episode of Samson’s burning the Philistines’ crops (Judg 15:4-5), with its reference to Samson’s anger (see 14:19b), replaces the exchange between Samson and his (former) father-in-law concerning the latter’s daughter(s) that eventuates in Samson’s announcement of his intention to harm the Philistines without incurring blame himself (15:1-3). This inserted notice about the time of year serves to prepare the following episode. See Judg 15:4-5, from which Josephus omits the catalogue of agricultural products destroyed by the fire.

In Judg 15:6a the Philistines have to be told, by an unidentified “they,” that Samson, reacting to the loss of his wife, is the culprit. Josephus makes them, more plausibly, figure things out for themselves. In specifying that the Philistines burnt the ex-wife’s “relatives,” Josephus goes together with LXX Judg 15:6b against MT which has them (only) burn her “father.” Josephus further spells out the reason for the Philistines doing as they do to the wife’s family. Having mentioned Samson’s acquiring his Philistine wife (cf. Judg 14:10) in Bib. Ant. 43.1, Pseudo-Philo (ibid.) proceeds immediately to the Philistines’ burning of her (Judg 15:6b) in retaliation for their having been “humiliated” by Samson.

Josephus passes over Samson’s preceding address (Judg 15:7) to the Philistines, in which he states that he will avenge himself upon them and then “quit” From Judg 15:8a he omits the idiom (“hip and thigh” [Tg.: horsemen along with footmen]) used to describe Samson’s slaughter of the Philistines. MT (Judg 15:8) ‮עיטם‬‎ (Eng.: “Etam”); LXX Ἠτάμ; Josephus Αἰτά. In speaking of “Aita” as a “rock” Josephus agrees with MT LXX B Judg 15:8 (“in the cleft of the rock of Etam”) against LXX AL that refer to Samson’s living “near the stream in the cave of Etam.” He bases his assignment of the site to Judah on 15:9, where the Philistines respond to Samson’s previous initiatives against them (15:8) by invading “Judah.” Compare Judg 15:10a, where the Judeans simply ask the Philistines: “why have you come up against us?” Josephus’ interjected reference to their status as Philistine “tributaries,” underscores the wrongfulness of the Philistine invasion of their territory. In Judg 15:10b the Philistines inform the Judeans that they have come to bind Samson in order that they might do to him as he had done to them. Josephus’ version of their answer provides a more compelling motivation for the Judeans’ following initiative regarding Samson, i.e. the Philistines spelling out what they must do to avoid being blamed by them.

See Judg 15:11a, into which Josephus inserts a motive for the Judeans’ acting as they do that itself harks back to the Philistines’ warning to them in 5.297. From the Judeans’ words in Judg 15:11bα Josephus omits their opening question (“do you not know that the Philistines are rulers over us?”), replacing this with an accusatory statement about what Samson has done to the Philistines and its potentially negative consequences, not simply for the Judeans themselves (so 15:11bα), but for all the Hebrews. He further passes over Samson’s initial reply (“As they did to me, I have done to them,” 15:11bβ), which interrupts the 2 parts of the Judeans’ address to him (15:11bα, 12a). The Judeans’ request for Samson’s cooperation is Josephus’ addition to their statement of their intentions regarding him as cited in Judg 15:12a. The addition suggests the Judeans’ awareness that, given Samson’s strength, they would be unable to take him without such cooperation on his part.

Compare Samson’s word to the Judeans in Judg 15:12b: “Swear to me that you will not fall upon me yourselves.” Josephus leaves aside the Judeans’ affirmative response to Samson’s request as cited in 15:13a. This Josephan insertion underscores the fact that Samson did indeed voluntarily submit himself—as the Judeans ask him to do in his presentation (see 5.298 and note to “endure this” there). Josephus leaves aside the specification of Judg 15:13b that the ropes were “new,” and substitutes an indication of the purpose of the Judeans’ “leading” him for the source reference to their “bringing him up from the rock.”

This is the term used in LXX Judg 15:14 to translate the Hebrew place name “Lehi,” meaning “Jaw-bone.” These indications concerning the strange place name “Jawbone” are Josephan additions to the mention of the site in Judg 15:14. This item has no biblical equivalent. Josephus provides both a characterization of (“joyful”) and a motivation for the “shouting” of the Philistines mentioned in Judg 15:14a. Judg 15:14b attributes the “dissolving” of Samson’s bonds to the action of the Lord’s “spirit” upon him. Characteristically, Josephus attributes Samson’s liberation rather to his own strength; see notes to “freely” at 5.285, “hands” at 5.287, “Palestinoi” at 5.293. Josephus’ mention of Samson’s finding the jaw-bone “at his feet” has a certain counterpart in LXX AL Judg 15:15: “([a jawbone] which have been discarded on the road”; cf. Tg.: “in the mud”); compare the qualification of it as “fresh” in MT. Mention of Samson’s “rushing” into the massed Philistines is his dramatic embellishment. The flight of the surviving Philistines is a Josephan embellishment of Judg 15:15.

With these editorial comments on Samson’s pride, Josephus attempts to account for the source sequence of events, in which, following Samson’s poetic claims about his exploit (Judg 15:16), a severe thirst afflicts him (15:18), in terms of the hubris of his words. He has used the word “cooperation” (Greek: συνεργία) for God’s assisting Joshua in battle in 5.60; see note to “cooperation” at 5.60. This is Josephus’ prose rendition of the miniature poem ascribed to Samson in Judg 15:16: “With the jawbone of an ass, heaps upon heaps, with the jaw-bone of an ass have I slain a thousand men.” The reference to the Philistines’ “flight” picks up on Josephus’ earlier inserted mention of this in 5.300.

Greek: ἰσχυρός. With his use of this term to characterize Samson’s thirst, Josephus introduces a word-play on the meaning of the hero’s name, i.e. “strong” as given by him in 5.285; see note to “strong” at 5.285. From Samson’s prayer of Judg 15:18 Josephus omits, as he did in his rendering of 14:3 in 5.286, the pejorative reference to the “uncircumcised Philistines”; see note to “compatriot” at 5.286.

The references to God’s motivation for providing the water and the character of the water provided by him are Josephus’ elaboration of Judg 15:19a. In MT and LXX B Judg 15:19 the water emerges from the “cavity” at Lehi, whereas in LXX AL Tg. its source is a protrusion in the jawbone of the ass itself. MT Judg 15:19b cites a double place name, i.e. “the spring of him who called [Hebrew: ‮אין הקורא‬‎]; it is at Lehi to this day.” Josephus’ single Greek name for the site echoes that used by him in 5.299. His reproduction of the source’s etiological notice about the place name perduring down until “this day” is exceptional; generally, he leaves such indications aside. In contrast to Josephus, Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 43.4) limits his utilization of the material of Judges 15 to a brief allusion to a few selected items: Samson’s killing the Philistines with the jawbone of an ass (15:15) the dissolving of his bonds (15:14), and his capture of the foxes (15:4), which items, he states, are written “in the Book of Judges.”

This motivation for Samson’s going to Gaza at this point (Judg 16:1) is Josephus’ own. With this formulation, Josephus “improves on” the presentation of Samson, who in Judg 16:1 sees a “harlot” in Gaza and goes in to her. Compare 5.7, where he has the spies go, not to the house of the harlot Rahab (so MT LXX Josh 2:1), but to “a certain inn”; see note to this phrase at 5.7. In Bib. Ant. 43.2 Samson’s Gaza exploit (Judg 16:1-3) is introduced with the simple notice “afterwards Samson got angry at Gaza.” In Judg 16:2 it is the Gazaites as a whole who lie in ambush against Samson. Josephus replaces the source’s mention of their remaining quiet all night and its statement about their intending to kill him in the morning with a specification concerning the purpose of the rulers’ ambushes.

This insertion provides an explanation of what prompted Samson to arise in the middle of the night (so Judg 16:3). Bib. Ant. 43.2 ascribes to Samson a prayer or statement of intention prior to his uprooting the city gates. In Judg 16:3 Samson transports the gates to “the top of the hill that is before Hebron.” Josephus’ explicit mention of his setting them down at the spot corresponds to the LXX plus at the end of 16:3 (and to Bib. Ant. 43.3, which further has Samson using one of the gate doors to kill 25,000 Philistines en route).

Or “regimen.” Greek: δίαιτα, the term used by Josephus in his introduction of Samson in 5.285, where it is the prudence of his “manner of life” that intimates the boy’s prophetic status; see note to this phrase there. He re-introduces the term at this juncture where a new, negative period of Samson’s career is beginning. With this editorial comment Josephus orients readers to the negative outcome of the following Delilah story (Judg 16:4-22) and the reason for this. Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 43.5) offers a comparable introduction to the story in which God pronounces advance sentence upon Samson for his “mingling” with Philistine women. Greek: ἑταιριζομένης. Josephus’ only other use of the verb ἑταιρίζω is in Ant. 8.417 (the “prostitutes” bathe in the pool stained by the blood of Ahab). MT (Judg 16:4) ‮דלילה‬‎ (Eng.: Delilah”); LXX A Δαλιλά; LXX B Δαλιδά; Josephus Δαλάλης. Josephus, like Pseudo-Philo, omits the biblical indication that she was living “in the valley of Sorek.”

Josephus’ reference to the Philistine leaders’ “promises” to Delilah are a generalization of the statement made to her by “the lords of the Philistines,” i.e. “we will each give you eleven hundred pieces of silver” in Judg 16:5. In Pseudo-Philo—who has no equivalent to 16:5—Delilah acts on her own initiative in trying to discover Samson’s secret. Josephus elaborates on Delilah’s opening request (Judg 16:6) that Samson disclose the secret of his strength with mention of the occasions on which she made her initial attempts.

Elaborating on Judg 16:7, Josephus points up both the falsity of the answer Samson gives Delilah and the reason for this. Josephus here agrees with the wording of LXX L Judg 16:7, whereas MT speaks of “(fresh) bowstrings” and LXX AB of “cords.” See Harlé 1999 ad loc.

Josephus rearranges the sequence of Delilah’s preliminary measures as cited in Judg 16:8-9a, adding mention of her getting Samson drunk (a detail which serves to confirm Josephus’ previous statement about Samson’s “altering his own manner of life” in 5.306, in that his drinking violates the divine prohibition issued even before his birth; see 5.278), and her binding him “as strongly as possible” (the use of the superlative form of the adjective ἰσχυρός here echoes the meaning of the name “Samson,” i.e. “strong” given by Josephus in 5.285; see note to “strong” there). Conversely, he leaves aside the source statement (16:8a) that the Philistine rulers brought Delilah the bowstrings/cords she will use. Judg 16:9aβ: “and she said to him, ‘The Philistines are upon you, Samson’.”

From Judg 16:9b Josephus omits the comparison used of Samson’s freeing himself from his bonds (“as a string of tow snaps when it touches the fire”), as well as its closing statement that the “secret of his strength was not known.” Josephus elaborates on the woman’s words as cited in Judg 16:10 by, e.g., having her evoke her “loyalty” (Greek: εὔνοια) to him and her ability to keep his secret.

This extrabiblical qualification of Samson’s 2nd response echoes Josephus’ introductory remark concerning his first reply to Delilah in 5.308. Josephus shares this figure for the number of ropes to be used with LXX AL Judg 16:11, whereas MT LXX B do not specify a number. Unlike the biblical witnesses, Josephus does not qualify the ropes to be used as “new.” This notice summarizes the more detailed description of the failure of Delilah’s 2nd attempt in Judg 16:12 with its repetitions of the account of her first try in 16:8-9. Josephus passes over Delilah’s 3rd appeal to Samson to disclose his secret to her (Judg 16:13a); his summary formulation of Samson’s instructions to her regarding his hair reflects the short MT reading in 16:13b as opposed to the more expansive LXX one.

As he did with Judg 16:12 in 5.311, Josephus here reduces to a mere allusion the source account of the failure of Delilah’s 3rd attempt (Judg 16:14, where MT lacks LXX’s opening reference to her weaving the 7 locks of Samson’s hair into a web; see previous note). In the same line Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 43.6) confines his rendition of Judg 16:6-14 to a single inquiry by Deliah and the notice that Samson “tricked her three times.” These editorial remarks, where the reference to Samson’s necessary “falling into misfortune” echoes Josephus’ statement of 5.306 about his involvement with Delilah being “the beginning of his calamity,” take the place of the quotation of Delilah’s words (Judg 16:15) and the notices on her pressuring Samson and the effect of this upon him (16:16). Greek: πρόνοια; the word here echoes the announcement to Sampson’s mother by the angel that she will have a son “in accordance with God’s providential care” in 5.277. From Samson’s reply in Judg 16:17 Josephus omits his statement about being a “Nazirite to God from my mother’s womb” (which itself picks up on the angel’s announcement concerning Samson’s future status in 13:5, also omitted by him). The closing declaration about his “strength” lying in his hair replaces the biblical Samson’s informing Delilah (16:17b) that if he is shaved, he will be left as weak as other men.

Josephus drastically abridges the source narrative (Judg 16:18-20) of the subduing of Samson, leaving aside, e.g., the Philistines’ bringing Delilah her reward money (16:18bβ; cf. 16:5b, also omitted by him), Delilah’s causing Samson to sleep on her knees (16:19aα), her cry that the Philistines are upon him (16:20aα), and Samson’s “not knowing that the Lord had left him” (16:20bβ). In having Delilah herself shave Samson, he diverges from 16:19aβ, where she summons “a man” (so MT LXX B; “a barber,” LXX AL [and Bib. Ant. 43.6]) to do this. From Judg 16:21 Josephus omits the mention of Samson’s being taken to Gaza and the degrading detail about his “grinding at the mill in the prison”; Pseudo-Philo lacks these items as well.

See Judg 16:22. In Judg 16:23a the occasion of Samson’s final exploit is a “sacrifice to the Philistine god Dagon.” Josephus likewise leaves aside the assembled Philistines’ declarations ascribing Samson’s capture to this deity in 16:23b-24. Josephus anticipates this parenthetical remark from Judg 16:26, where Samson asks to be allowed to feel “the pillars on which the house rests.” See Judg 16:25. Josephus’ introduction of the term “banquet” (Greek: συμπόσιον) gives a distinctly Hellenistic flavor to the proceedings.

Josephus expands Samson’s request to his attendant (Judg 16:26) with mention of the thoughts that prompt his initiatives at this point. He omits the figures for the assembled Philistines given in 16:27 (which, however, he will incorporate subsequently). Continuing the overall “detheologizing” trend of his Samson narrative, he likewise leaves aside the hero’s final prayer in 16:28 (upon which Pseudo-Philo elaborates in Bib. Ant. 43.7).

Into his version of Judg 16:29-30 Josephus incorporates the figure, i.e. 3000 (so MT AL LXX; LXX B 700), drawn from 16:27, for the Philistines on the roof, turning this into the number—left unspecified in 16:29-30 itself—of the Philistine dead (Bib. Ant. 43.8 gives the figure as 40,000). He omits the (exaggerated) claim of Judg 16:30b that in dying Samson killed more Philistines than he had while alive. See Judg 16:31b. Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 43.8) reproduces this chronological item as well.

As often, Josephus here appends a final “eulogy” for a biblical character which underscores certain features of his preceding presentation of that character. Thus, e.g., his allusion to Samson’s “strength” is a final echo of the key word of his entire Samson story; see the note to “strong” at 5.285. On Josephus’ penchant for balancing good and bad in his evaluation of the figures of his history, as evidenced here in his eulogy for Samson, see Mason in BJP 3: xxxii. Judg 16:31a localizes Samson’s burial in the paternal grave at a point “between Zorah and Estaol.” Josephus’ name (Σαρασᾶ, which Schalit s. v. views as a corruption of an original Σαρά) for Samson’s hometown in which he is buried seems to reflect the LXX form of the MT’s initial place name, i.e. Σαραά. Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 43.9) does not localize the paternal tomb in which he has Samson buried.Having anticipated the 2 concluding segments of the Book of Judges (chaps. 17-18 and 19-21) at the opening of his own version of the book (see 5.136-178), Josephus concludes his rendering of Judges with the figure of Samson, the protagonist of chaps. 13-16 (= 5.276-317). Immediately thereafter, in line with the arrangement of the LXX Bible (where Ruth stands as an appendix to the Book of Judges), he begins his parallel to the Book of Ruth (= 5.318-337). On Josephus’ (greatly abridged) version of Ruth, see Levison 1991: 31-44; Feldman 1991: 45-52; 1998a: 193-202; Sterling 1998.

MT (1 Sam 4:18b) ‮עלי‬‎ (Eng.: “Eli”); LXX Ἠλί; Josephus Ἠλείς. Eli’s title in 1 Sam 1:9 is simply “the priest.” Josephus, who (see 5.361) traces his ancestry back to Ithamar, son of Aaron, the first high priest, assigns him a higher dignity. Ruth 1:1 dates, in general terms, the famine of which it speaks “in the days when the judges ruled.” Josephus draws the name of the specific judge under whose rule he situates this happening from 1 Sam 4:18b, which ascribes to “Eli” a judgeship of 40 years, this, in the biblical sequence, taking place between those of Samson who preceded (see Judg 16:31) and Samuel who followed him (see 1 Sam 7:15). Tg. Ruth 1:1 dates the famine rather to the days of the judge Ibzan, while other Rabbinic writings place it under either King Eglon of Moab or Deborah; see Rappaport 1930: 44, #185; 129, nn. 203-205. MT (Ruth 1:2) ‮אלימלך‬‎ (Eng.: “Elimelech”); LXX Ἀβιμέλεχ; Josephus Ἀβιμέλεχος. See Ruth 1:2; Josephus makes this same linkage of Bethlehem and Judah in Ant. 5.271. He omits the further specification of 1:2 that Elimelech’s family were “Ephrathites.” Josephus inserts this “motivation” for the move by Elimelech’s household as cited in Ruth 1:2b; the insertion accentuates the severity of the famine. MT (Ruth 1:2) ‮נעמי‬‎ (Eng.: “Naomi”); LXX Νωεμείν; Josephus Ναάμις. MT (Ruth 1:2) ‮כליון‬‎ (Eng.: “Chillion”); LXX Κελαιών; Josephus Χελλίων. MT (Ruth 1:2) ‮מחלון‬‎ (Eng.: “Mahlon”); LXX Μααλών; Josephus Μααλών. Josephus reverses the biblical order of the sons’ names.

According to Ruth 1:4 the sons marry, seemingly on their own initiative, after the death of their father. MT (Ruth 1:4) ‮ערפה‬‎ (Eng.: “Orpah”); LXX and Josephus Ὀρφά. MT (Ruth 1:4) ‮רות‬‎ (Eng.: “Ruth”); LXX Ῥούθ; Josephus Ῥούθη. According to Tg. Ruth 1:4 Ruth was the daughter of Eglon, king of Moab (see Judg 3:12); some rabbinic sources make the same identification, while others call her Eglon’s granddaughter; for references, see Beattie 1994: ad loc. In Ruth 1:3-4 Elimelech dies before his sons, who then survive him for 10 years.

Cf. Ruth 1:6, where Naomi hears in Moab “that the Lord had visited his people and given them food.” Feldman (1998a: 196) points out that, whereas the Book of Ruth features 22 explicit mentions of the Deity, Josephus’ version contains only a single such mention, this coming at the very end of his rendition in 5.337.

Josephus here summarizes the initial exchange between Naomi and her daughters-in-law (Ruth 1:7-10), turning its direct into indirect discourse, and eliminating the poignant reference to Naomi’s kissing them and their weeping (1:9b).

This is Josephus’ abbreviated rendition of Naomi’s 2nd address to her daughters-in-law (Ruth 1:11-13), in which he characteristically (see note to “for it” at 5.320) passes over Naomi’s accusatory reference to “the hand of the Lord having gone forth against me” (1:13b). In Ruth 1:14b Orpah simply “kisses” Naomi; Josephus replaces this notice on Orpah’s initiative with one based on Naomi’s word to Ruth in 1:15, “see, your sister-in-law has gone back to her people....” As in the case of Ruth 1:9b (see note to “with her” at 5.321), Josephus omits the pathetic detail of 1:14a about the daughters-in-law “lifting up their voices and weeping.” Josephus limits himself to this generalized allusion to Ruth’s reply to Naomi in Ruth 1:16-17. In particular, he makes no reference to Ruth’s affirmation, at the end of v. 16, “your God shall be my God.” His suppression of this element likely reflects Josephus’ awareness of Roman sensitivities on the subject of Jewish proselytism; see Feldman 1998a: 198-199. By contrast the Targum on Ruth greatly accentuates the implicit biblical picture of Ruth as a proselyte. As he does regularly, Josephus also passes over the words of Ruth’s “oath” in 1:17.

MT (Ruth 2:1) ‮בעז‬‎ (Eng.: “Boaz”); LXX Βόος; Josephus Βοώζης (subsequently the name will appear under the form Βόαζος; see 5.327ff.). Josephus omits the characterization of Boaz found in 2:1, as “a mighty man/man of wealth” (which the Tg. interprets as “strong in the Law”). Tg. Ruth 1:6 further identifies Boaz with the judge Ibzan (see Judg 12:8-10) and accords him the epithet “the Pious.” Rappaport (1930: 44, #186) points out that Ruth 2:1 does not mention an initial reception of the women by Boaz and that Josephus’ own notice on the matter here seems to not cohere with his subsequent presentation (see 5.324// Ruth 2:5), where Boaz has to ask about Ruth’s identity. In any case, the notice replaces the reference to Bethlehem’s being “stirred” by the pair’s appearance and the women’s question “Is this Naomi?” in Ruth 1:19b. MT (Ruth 1:20) ‮מרא‬‎ (Eng.: “Mara”). LXX translates the word with Πικρά, while Josephus first transliterates with Μαρά and then translates with ὀδύνη (“pain”). Josephus’ explanation of the meaning of the 2 Hebrew names replaces Naomi’s reproachful assertions concerning the Lord (Ruth 1:20b-21), which themselves echo her assertion about the hand of the Lord being against her in 1:13b (also omitted by him).

Ruth 1:22b specifies that Ruth and Naomi came to Bethlehem “at the beginning of the barley harvest.” See Ruth 2:2-3a. In Ruth 2:3b Ruth “happens to come” to the field of Boaz. Josephus’ adverb τυχαίως (“luckily”) here introduces a word play with the noun εὐτυχία used by him in 5.323 in explaining the name “Naomi” as meaning “good luck.” See Ruth 2:4a, 5. Josephus omits Boaz’ initial exchange of greetings with the reapers (2:4b). On the seeming discrepancy between Boaz’ “inquiry” here and Josephus’ previous mention of his hospitable reception of Ruth and her mother-in-law in 5.323, see note to “hospitably” there. Ruth 2:6-7 cites in direct discourse the overseer’s words concerning Ruth. Josephus inserts the indication as to how he knew about her.

Josephus supplies this motivation for Boaz’ subsequent gracious words to Ruth (Ruth 2:8-9). Boaz’ prayer for “good things” (Greek: άγαθά) for Ruth echoes Naomi’s earlier prayer that her daughters-in-law acquire “other good things” in 5.321. This is Josephus’ version of Boaz’ words to Ruth as cited in Ruth 2:8-9 (from which he omits, e.g., the former’s rhetorical question of 2:9aβ: “have I not charged the young men not to molest you?”). Thereafter, he passes over the entire subsequent exchange between them (Ruth 2:10-13); in so doing he downplays the roles of both Ruth (who in his presentation has nothing to say in response to Boaz’ opening words to her) and of God (compare the invocation of him in Boaz’ blessing of 2:12) in the story.

Josephus here combines (elements of) Ruth 2:14 (Boaz offers Ruth “parched grain” to eat) and 2:17-18 (in the evening Ruth repairs to Naomi with the grain she had gleaned and her left-over food), passing over the intervening instructions (2:15-16) Boaz gives his young men about not impeding Ruth’s activities. This notice on Naomi’s solicitude for Ruth and the generosity of the townsfolk towards the former has no biblical counterpart. It accentuates the reciprocal concern of the women for each other; see Rappaport 1930: 44, #187, likewise taking the place of Naomi’s opening words to the returned Ruth in Ruth 2:19.

In what precedes Josephus’ form of the name has been “Booz”; see note to this name at 5.323. In Ruth 2:19b Ruth first tells Naomi with whom she has worked, giving his name as “Boaz.” Josephus leaves aside Naomi’s initial response (2:20a) to her report with its “blessing” of the provident Lord. Josephus appends this statement of hope by Naomi regarding Boaz’ “piety” (Greek: εὐσέβεια; compare the Targumic epithet “the Pious” for Boaz/Ibzan cited in note to “Booz” at 5.323) to her identification of him as a near relative in Ruth 2:20b. Thereafter, he omits the further exchange (2:21-22) between the women concerning where Ruth is to work henceforth. In Ruth 2:23a Ruth gleans with Boaz’ women through both the barley and wheat harvests. Josephus omits the notice of 2:23b about Ruth’s continuing to live with Naomi.

Josephus turns into a narrative notice Naomi’s words to Ruth concerning Boaz’ activities as cited in Ruth 3:2b (Boaz is winnowing barley on the threshing floor that night) and 3:4a (once Boaz lies down...). This Josephan insertion addresses the source difficulty as to how Naomi, sitting at home, could have known what Boaz was/would be doing, as is presupposed by her words to Ruth in Ruth 3:1-4; cf. previous note. Greek: χρήστος. On Josephus’ use of this term as an epithet for many of the good characters in his writings, see Feldman 1998a: 251-53. Josephus abbreviates Naomi’s series of instructions to Ruth regarding her dealings with Boaz at the threshing floor (Ruth 3:3-4). At the same time, he spells out more explicitly what Naomi has in mind with her instructions (sexual intercourse between the pair) and her hopes as to what this will lead to (Boaz’ being “kind” to them).

Josephus turns Ruth’s response to Naomi (“All that you say I will do”) of Ruth 3:5 into a notice on her motivation in acting as she now does. Thereby, he suggests that Ruth’s subsequent (planned) fornication with Boaz was in no way her own idea/desire, but simply an ultimate display of her whole-hearted obedience to her mother-in-law—even in this. See Levison 1991: 37. Josephus abridges the notices of Ruth 3:6-7 concerning Ruth’s carrying out Naomi’s instructions regarding the sleeping Boaz. His statement about Ruth’s initially being “concealed” from him draws on Naomi’s relevant directive as cited in 3:3b. From both Naomi’s instructions (3:4) and Ruth’s execution of these (3:7) Josephus eliminates the sexually “loaded” phrase about her “uncovering” Boaz’ “feet” (penis?). See Ruth 3:8-9a.

Compare Ruth 3:9b, where, after identifying herself, Ruth more assertively tells Boaz “spread your skirt over your maidservant; for you are next of kin.” By contrast, Boaz in Ruth 3:10-13 immediately responds to Ruth’s reply (3:9) with an extended discourse concerning his intentions in her regard that itself picks up her designation of him as “next of kin” in her reply. Josephus has Boaz wait until the morning to make his announcement to Ruth about what he envisages doing; see 5.331 and note to “law” there. Josephus utilizes elements of the biblical description of Boaz’ initiatives once morning comes: his directive that Ruth’s visit to the threshing floor not be known (Ruth 3:14b) and his giving her 6 measures of barley to take back with her (3:15a). Josephus appends a motivation for Boaz’ injunction as related in Ruth 3:14b, i.e. concern about “slander”; elsewhere too, he often interjects references to (good) biblical characters as victims of slander, thereby establishing a parallelism between them and himself whom he represents as having been lied about by his fellow Jews to his Roman imperial patrons (see Life 424-425, 429). He likewise goes beyond the Bible in making explicit that, contrary to Naomi’s instructions (see 5.328) and Ruth’s own readiness to act on these (5.329), Boaz and Ruth did not in fact have premarital relations.

In the Bible’s presentation the corresponding words of Boaz (Ruth 3:12-13) are delivered by him already the night before (see note to “moment” at 5.330). In transferring his words to the following morning, Josephus likewise modifies their formulation. In MT Ruth 3:12-13 Boaz speaks of both the nearer relative and himself as “doing the part of the next of kin” (Hebrew: ‮גאל‬‎) with Ruth. Josephus, who avoids this terminology throughout his version of Ruth, substitutes references to the relative’s legally “marrying” her; see Levison 1991: 38-39.

See Ruth 3:16b. Josephus omits both Naomi’s opening question to Ruth about how she has fared (3:16a) and the latter’s specific mention of the barley given her by Boaz (3:17; cf. 3:15). This editorial remark seems inspired by Naomi’s confident affirmation in Ruth 3:18 that Boaz “will settle the matter today.” It likewise echoes Naomi’s reference to Boaz as someone who might “take care” of them in virtue of his “piety” in 5.327. The account of Boaz’ preliminary initiatives given in Ruth 4:1-2 does not specify the time at which he undertakes these. Josephus here combines Ruth 4:1aα (Boaz goes up “to the gate”) and 4:2a (he directs “ten men of the elders of the city” to sit down). Josephus’ introduction of the term “senate” (Greek: γερουσία) here reflects his version of the law of levirate marriage (Deut 25:5-10) in Ant. 4.254-256, where (4.255) it is this body before which disputes—such as will occur in his rendition of Ruth 4 (see 5.335)—concerning this law are to be conducted. The biblical account does not mention Ruth’s presence at the proceedings explicitly. Josephus brings her on the scene here since he will give her an active part in the legal formalities to follow (see 5.335). In Ruth 4:1aβbα the relative chances on the scene, whereupon Boaz directs him to take a seat.

Josephus abbreviates and simplifies Boaz’ words to the nearer relative in Ruth 4:3-4a, which raise legal (and other) difficulties. First, Boaz’ statement in 4:3 about Naomi’s “selling” Elimelech’s property presupposes, contrary to Pentateuchal inheritance law (see Num 27:5-11), that Naomi would have received her late husband’s property. Secondly, Naomi’s possession of that property seems at variance with the previous depiction of her as one living in desperate poverty, dependent for her subsistence on whatever Ruth can glean in the fields of other people; see Levison 1991: 38. In view of these difficulties, Josephus has Boaz simply ask the next of kin whether he is currently “in possession of” the inheritances of Elimelech and his sons (the latter are not mentioned in Ruth 4:3). In Ruth 4:4b, the nearer relative, in response to Boaz’ urging (4:3), states “I will redeem it [Naomi’s property].” The “law(s)” to which the relative refers there is that of Lev 25:25 concerning the next of kin’s obligation to “redeem” the property that his impoverished relative has been forced to sell (Josephus does not reproduce this law in his version of Leviticus 25 in Ant. 3.281-285). Boaz’ words to the nearer relative in Ruth 4:5 pose a further legal difficulty in that, whereas he there states that, as the prospective buyer of Elimelech’s property, the nearer relative is also bound to “buy” Ruth “in order to restore the name of the dead to his inheritance,” the law of Lev 25:25 itself (see note to “kinship” at 5.333) does not mention any such obligation for the property buyer. Accordingly, Josephus has Boaz now invoke a distinct law, i.e. that of levirate marriage (Deut 25:5-10= Ant. 4.254-256) that is also incumbent on the next of kin. See Levison 1991: 38-39.

Compare Ruth 4:6a, where the relative’s stated rationale for declining to redeem Elimelech’s property is “lest I impair my own inheritance.”

In Ruth 4:9 Boaz calls “the elders and all the people” to witness only after the procedure with the sandal (4:7-8) has been completed. Josephus reverses this sequence, thus making the procedure one that is performed before the official witnesses as prescribed in Deut 25:9. Josephus here markedly modifies the presentation of Ruth 4:7-8, where there is reference to the nearer’s relative’s acting in accordance with a purportedly general “custom”—though one unknown to Pentateuchal law—whereby one entering into a agreement with another attests to that agreement by removing his sandal and handing this to the other party. Given the lack of legal basis for this custom, Josephus—who throughout his version of Ruth 4 has introduced repeated references to the “laws” that are (or should be) operative—substitutes another procedure involving a “sandal” (and one having to do with the precise case at issue, i.e. the relative’s obligation to marry the widow Ruth), namely, the levirate marriage requirement of Deut 25:9 (= Ant. 4.256, whose wording Josephus follows closely here in 5.335), which prescribes that the spurned widow, in the presence of the elders, is to remove her recalcitrant brother-in-law’s sandal and spit in his face. See Levison 1991: 39-40; and the notes on Ant. 4.254-256 in Feldman 2000 ad loc. This brief transitional phrase takes the place of the extended exchange (Ruth 4:9-12) between Boaz and the assembly concerning his intended marriage to Ruth. See Ruth 4:13. Josephus eliminates the source verse’s mention of the Lord’s “giving Ruth conception,” while inserting an indication concerning the time of the child’s birth that seems designed to underscore the fact that (so 5.330) “nothing happened” between Boaz and Ruth prior to their marriage; see Levison 1991: 37. One notes a similar concern on the part of Tg. Ruth in its handling of the nocturnal threshing floor scene (Ruth 3:6-14).

See Ruth 4:16. Josephus omits the women’s lengthy benediction of Naomi cited in 4:14-15 at this point, although he will incorporate an element of it into his explanation, later in the paragraph, of why the child is given the name he is. In Ruth 4:17 it is the neighborhood women who themselves name the son and who go on to make the curious statement, omitted by Josephus, that “a son has been born to Naomi,” whereas, of course, the son is in fact Ruth’s. MT (Ruth 4:17b) ‮עובד‬‎ (Eng.: “Obed”); LXX Ὠβήδ; Josephus Ὠβήδης. This phrase reflects the women’s benediction of Naomi (Ruth 4:14-15) earlier passed over by Josephus; see 4:15a: “he shall be to you a restorer of life and a nourisher of your old age.” It likewise echoes Josephus’ previous references to Naomi’s preoccupation with being “taken care” of by Boaz; see 5.327, 332. Josephus’ one other use of the word γηροκομία (“old age”) is in Ant. 7.183. Josephus supplies this etymology for the Hebrew name. MT (Ruth 4:17) ‮ישׁי‬‎ (Eng.: “Jesse”); LXX Ἰεσσαί; Josephus Ἰεσσαῖος. MT (Ruth 4:17) ‮דוד‬‎ (Eng.: “David”); LXX Δαυείδ; Josephus Δαβίδης. By means of this appendix to the mention of David with which Ruth 4:17 concludes, Josephus encompasses the whole series of kings Solomon through Zedekiah descended from David; he will repeat the same figure for the series in connection with the deposition of Zedekiah in Ant. 10.143. Conversely, Josephus omits the Book of Ruth’s own appendix (4:18-22) enumerating the generations from Perez to David.

With this notice Josephus responds to the question of why he chose to include the digressive story of Ruth, devoid as it is of noteworthy political/military events, at all: he did so given its account of the birth of a figure (“Obed”) from whom a series of key personages of his history, namely David and his 21 royal descendants, with whom his subsequent history will be so largely concerned, originated. See Feldman 1998a: 193-94. On this concluding sentence of Josephus’ version of Ruth as an echo of his opening statement concerning the purpose of Antiquities as a whole (Ant. 1.20), see Levison 1991: 31-33. As Feldman (1998a: 196) remarks, with its stress on God’s “power” as exemplified in the story of Ruth, the sentence reads rather oddly given the fact that, up till this point, Josephus has systematically eliminated all the Book of Ruth’s mentions of the Deity.

This transitional phrase looks ahead to the story of the Israelites’ defeat at the hands of the Philistines in 1 Samuel 4 (// 5.352-362), the background to which Josephus will now relate in dependence on 1 Samuel 1-3 (// 5.338b-351). Josephus introduced this figure as the ruler of the Israelites at the opening of 5.318, prior to his “digressive” reproduction of the Ruth story in 5.318b-337. MT (1 Sam 1:3) ‮חפני‬‎ (Eng.: “Hophni”); LXX B Ὁφνεί; LXX L Ὁφνί; Josephus Ὁφνίης. MT (1 Sam 1:3) ‮פנחס‬‎ (Eng.: “Phineas”); LXX BL Φινεές; Josephus Φινεέσης. Josephus leaves aside the designation of the sons as “priests of the Lord” from 1:3b. He will reproduce the preceding material of 1 Samuel 1, i.e. vv. 1-3a, dealing with Elkanah and his family in 5.341ff., following his portrayal of Eli’s renegade sons in 5.338-340(341), which he anticipates from 1 Sam 2:12-25.

Josephus uses this same combination of epithets for the Sodomites in Ant. 1.194. In thus assimilating Eli’s sons to those notorious evildoers, Josephus highlights their depravity. Josephus embellishes 1 Sam 2:12, which characterizes Eli’s sons as “worthless men who had no regard for the Lord.” Josephus here (like Pseudo-Philo in Bib. Ant. 52.1) summarizes the detailed description (1 Sam 2:13-17) of the way in which Hophni and Phineas used their “servants” to seize portions of the Israelites’ sacrifices in spite of the protests made. He likewise highlights the enormity of the pair’s misdeed by having them personally perform the sacrilegious theft. Josephus derives this additional offense—which Pseudo-Philo leaves unmentioned in Bib. Ant. 52— committed by the pair from 1 Sam 2:22b (which speaks of “the women who served [Tg.: came to pray] at the entrance to the tent of meeting”), passing over the intervening digressive material focussed on the boy Samuel of 2:18-21. To the source notice he adds the remark about the pair’s giving “gifts” to those women whom they “seduced.” On Josephus’ use of “tyranny language,” earlier applied by him to Abimelech’s rule in 5.234, see note to “tyranny” at 5.234.

This notice on Eli’s sentiments regarding his sons’ deeds takes the place of the account of his (unsuccessful) attempt to remonstrate with them in 1 Sam 2:23-25. Pseudo-Philo, after mentioning, at the start of Bib. Ant. 52.2, that the sons’ behavior “displeased” Eli, goes on to elaborate upon his remonstrance with them (52.2-3= 1 Sam 2:23-25a) and their rejection of this (52.4= 2:25b). Eli’s “expectation” regarding his sons’ fate at this juncture is Josephus’ addition. The Bible does not mention the people’s reaction to the sons’ doings. Josephus’ notice on the point has a counterpart in Bib. Ant. 52.2. MT (1 Sam 1:20) ‮שׁמואל‬‎ (Eng.: “Samuel”); LXX BL Σαμουήλ; Josephus Σαμούηλος. On the Josephan Samuel see Feldman 1998: 490-508, who points out (ibid: 491) that whereas the Bible itself uses the term “prophet” of Samuel only once (1 Sam 3:20), Josephus employs the noun and the corresponding verb of him no less than 45 times. Pseudo-Philo likewise makes multiple applications of “prophet terminology” to Samuel in Bib. Ant. 50-65. Josephus here foreshadows the divine announcement (1 Sam 3:11-14) of the doom of Eli’s house that Samuel transmits to Eli. Like Pseudo-Philo, he leaves aside the previous such announcement delivered by a nameless “man of God” to Eli personally in 1 Sam 2:27-36, given its similarity of content with 1 Sam 3:11-14, the climatic effect of which it accordingly greatly diminishes. Subsequently, however, he does evidence familiarity with the content also of 2:27-36; see notes to “single day” and “Eleazar” at 5.350. In 1 Sam 3:18b (as also in Bib. Ant. 53.13) Eli responds rather with words of submissive resignation to Samuel’s informing him of the Lord’s intended overthrow of his house.

This parenthetical remark serves to introduce the remainder of Antiquities 5, in which Josephus will relate, in turn, the origins of Samuel (5.342-351) and Israel’s defeat by the Philistines (5.352-362).

MT (1 Sam 1:1) ‮אלקנה‬‎ (Eng.: “Elkanah”); LXX BL Ἐλκανά; Josephus Ἀλκάνης. Neither 1 Sam 1:1 nor Pseudo-Philo mentions Elkanah’s Levitical status. Josephus derives the datum from 1 Chr 6:18-19 (Eng. 6:33-34). Contrary to his usual practice with significant biblical figures, Josephus (like Pseudo-Philo) does not reproduce the 4-member genealogy of Samuel’s future father from 1:1. MT (1 Sam 1:1) ‮הרמתים צופים‬‎ (Eng.: “Ramathaim-zophim”); LXX Ἁρμαθάιμ; Josephus Ῥαμαθά (Niese; Marcus ad loc. and Schalit s.v. read Ἁρμαθά with SPLauE). MT (1 Sam 1:2) ‮חנה‬‎ (Eng.: “Hannah”); LXX BL Ἅννα; Josephus Ἄννα. On the figure of Hannah in Josephus and Pseudo-Philo, see Brown 1992: 140-73. MT (1 Sam 1:2) ‮פננה‬‎ (Eng.: “Peninnah”); LXX Φεννάνα; Josephus Φέναννα. Josephus’ inserted reference to Elkanah’s love for the childless Hannah anticipates the mention of this in 1 Sam 1:5.

MT (1 Sam 1:3) ‮שׁלה‬‎ (Eng.: “Shiloh”); LXX Σηλώ; Josephus Σιλώ. Josephus omits the indication of 1 Sam 1:3a that Elkanah’s sacrificial pilgrimage to Shiloh was an annual affair. Josephus’ parenthetical explanation of Elkanah’s going on pilgrimage specifically to Shiloh harks back to 5.68 (= Josh 18:1). In 1 Samuel 1-3 the reference is to the “temple” (1:9; 3:3) or “house” (1:24) of the Lord at Shiloh, i.e. a permanent, stationary structure, rather than the portable tent spoken of by Josephus (who, however, will subsequently make reference to the “temple” at Shiloh; see 5.347). 1 Sam 1:4 speaks simply “of the day when Elkanah sacrificed.” Bib. Ant. 50.2 identifies the occasion as Passover. The “feast” mentioned by Josephus here is the one in which portions of the “communion sacrifice” were eaten by the offerers (see Lev 7:15), following the burning up of the Lord’s portion on the altar. Josephus omits 1 Sam 1:5b, which states that Elkanah gave the childless Hannah only one portion “because the Lord had closed her womb,” since this might seem to conflict with his prior mention (see 5.343 // 1:5a) of Elkanah’s “love” for Hannah. Pseudo-Philo completely omits the division of the sacrificial portions. In 1 Sam 1:6-7 Hannah’s “weeping” (v. 7b) is provoked rather by the taunts of Peninnah (the content of which Pseudo-Philo, Bib. Ant. 50.1-2, develops at considerable length).

Josephus here turns into a narrative allusion to Elkanah’s attempted “consolation” of his wife the series of solicitous, direct-discourse questions that Elkanah addresses to Hannah in 1 Sam 1:8 (and which Pseudo-Philo reproduces, with various modifications, in Bib. Ant. 50.3). The biblical account does not explicitly mention the (non-) effect of Elkanah’s words upon Hannah. 1 Sam 1:9b states merely that Hannah “rose”; Josephus’ supplying of a destination for her movement (this echoing his mention of the “tent of God” at Shiloh in 5.343) has a parallel in Bib. Ant. 50.3, where Hannah rises and goes “to Shiloh to the house of the Lord.” Josephus reduces Hannah’s lengthy conditional appeal in 1 Sam 1:11a to its core element, i.e. the plea that God give her a son. He likewise leaves aside the mention of her “deep distress” and her “weeping bitterly” from 1:10. In Pseudo-Philo’s version of her prayer (Bib. Ant. 50.4) Hannah invokes her past life of devotion as a reason why God should heed her appeal. This term (Greek: δίαιτα) serves to connect the future Samuel with Samson, of whom Josephus uses the term twice; see 5.285, 306; cf. note to “life” at 5.285. Josephus here generalizes Hannah’s 2nd, more particular promise in 1 Sam 1:11b (“no razor shall touch his head” [+ and wine and strong drink he shall not drink,” LXX BL]); he will, however, make allusion to its wording in 5.347; see note to “drink” at 5.347. From her initial promise he omits the explicit indication that the child’s dedication will last his entire life.

1 Sam 1:13a speaks rather of Hannah’s praying “to herself,” with only her lips moving. Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 50.5) explains this unusual mode of praying in terms of Hannah’s concern that if she prayed aloud and her prayer went unanswered, this would lead to further mockery of her by Peninnah and blasphemy of God himself by any who might learn of the matter. In 1 Sam 1:9b Eli is seated “on the seat before the doorpost of the temple of the Lord.” Pseudo-Philo lacks an equivalent. Compare 1 Sam 1:13b-14 (cf. Bib. Ant. 50.6), where Eli, witnessing Hannah’s lips moving as she prays silently, and supposing her to be drunk, enjoins her to “put away your wine from you.” Josephus’ version of Hannah’s response to Eli (1 Sam 1:15-16) inserts an explicit mention of her childlessness as the reason for her prayer. In Bib. Ant. 50.6 Hannah picks up on Eli’s calling her a “drunken woman” (see 1 Sam 1:14), affirming that she is “drunk with sorrow.” In 1 Sam 1:17 Eli tells Hannah to “go in peace” and expresses the prayerful wish that God will answer her appeal. Like Josephus, Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 50.6) has him more definitely promise Hannah the fulfillment of her prayer, having himself (so 50.7) been informed by God that a “prophet” was to be born to her. Neither writer reproduces Hannah’s response (“let your maidservant find favor in your eyes”) from 1 Sam 1:18a.

Hannah’s “hope” is not mentioned by either the Bible or Pseudo-Philo (who, however, adds [Bib. Ant. 50.7] that “she told no one what she had prayed”). In 1 Sam 1:18bα Hannah simply “goes her way”; Bib. Ant. 50.7 has her coming “to her house.” Compare 1 Sam 1:18bβ: “... she ate, and her countenance was no longer sad.” Pseudo-Philo does not mention Hannah’s “eating” at this point; in Bib. Ant. 50.3 she eats already before making her prayer at the Shiloh sanctuary. From the notice on the family’s return to Ramah in 1 Sam 1:19a, Josephus omits the reference to their first worshipping before the Lord; Pseudo-Philo leaves aside the entire sequence. Josephus likewise passes over the statements about Elkanah “knowing” his wife and the Lord’s “remembering” her of 1:19b. According to 1 Sam 1:20a (and Bib. Ant. 51.1) Hannah (alone) named the child. Whereas Josephus follows 1:20b in its (problematic) derivation of the name “Samuel” from the word “ask,” Pseudo-Philo (ibid.) avers that the name means “mighty” (Latin: fortis). In fact, the name “Samuel” means “God has heard.” Josephus here seems to conflate the family’s double pilgrimage subsequent to the birth of Samuel spoken of in 1 Sam 1:21-24, the first without Hannah, the 2nd, following Samuel’s weaning, including her. Pseudo-Philo too mentions only one pilgrimage after Samuel’s birth; see Bib. Ant. 53.1. Josephus draws his mention of the “tithes” from the reference to these in the LXX plus at the end of 1 Sam 1:21, which relates the initial pilgrimage of Elkanah’s household following Samuel’s birth. Conversely, he does not reproduce the list of victims subsequently brought by Hannah herself as cited, with variations among the witnesses, in 1 Sam 1:24a (MT has a total of 5, LXX 3). Pseudo-Philo too (Bib. Ant. 51.1) merely states that Hannah “brought gifts in her hands.” Josephus further passes over the (self-evident) remark of 1:24b about Samuel’s being “young” at this point; Pseudo-Philo (ibid.) avers rather that he was “very handsome” and that the “Lord was with him.”

This allusion to the motivation for Hannah’s subsequent action replaces the notice on the slaying of the sacrificial bull (see 1 Sam 1:24a) in 1:25a. Josephus combines 1 Sam 1:25b (Hannah’s presenting the child to Eli) and 1:28a (her declaration about “lending” the child to the Lord for life), passing over her intervening words to the priest in 1:26-27 and the family’s subsequent worship of God (1:28b). Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 51.2) gives a short version of Hannah’s statement to which he appends a more extended response by Eli, speaking of the future role of her son. This notice has no equivalent at this juncture in the sequence of the biblical account. It appears to represent a delayed use by Josephus of the longer text of Hannah’s vow in LXX BL 1 Sam 1:11b (see note to “common people” at 5.344), where she promises that her asked-for son will observe both these practices (cf. too the plus at the end of 4QSama 1 Sam 1:22, according to which Samuel was a lifelong “Nazirite”). Greek ἱερός. Earlier (see 5.343, 345), Josephus spoke of the “tent of God” at Shiloh; see note to “before” at 5.343. Here, under the influence of 1 Sam 1:9; 3:3, he mentions the “temple” at the site that became the boy Samuel’s home. See 1 Sam 2:11b. Josephus thus passes over the entire “Song of Hannah” (1 Sam 2:1-10) in accord with his tendency to either omit entirely or drastically reduce such biblical poetic pieces (cf. his non-reproduction of the Song of Deborah, Judges 5, in his version of the Deborah-Barak story in 5.200-209). By contrast, Pseudo-Philo expatiates on Hannah’s Song in Bib. Ant. 51.3-5, to which he further appends an extra-biblical account of the people’s acclamation of the youthful Samuel as their prophet in 51.6. Josephus likewise dispenses with the notice on Elkanah’s return home of 1 Sam 2:11a. See 1 Sam 2:21a, where, as a result of the Lord’s “visiting” Hannah, she has 3 additional sons, plus 2 daughters; Pseudo-Philo does not mention these younger siblings of Samuel’s. In directly juxtaposing the content of 1 Sam 2:11b and 21a, Josephus passes over the segments 2:12-17 (on Eli’s depraved sons, already used by him in 5.339) and 2:18-20 (Samuel’s clothing and Eli’s benediction of Elkanah and Hannah that he simply drops).

This is Josephus’ heading, employing the “prophetic language” characteristic of his account of Samuel (see note to “people” at 5.341), to the story of 1 Samuel 3 concerning the Lord’s initial communication with Samuel. It takes the place of the complex of preliminary notices in 3:1-3a (Samuel’s ministering before the Lord, the rarity of divine communications at this time, Eli’s blindness, and “the lamp of God” having not yet been extinguished). The Bible does not specify Samuel’s age at the time of the revelation related in 1 Samuel 3; Bib. Ant. 53.1 states that he was 8 years old. 1 Sam 3:3b specifies that Samuel was sleeping “in the temple of the Lord, where the ark of God was” (MT; LXX lacks the words “of the Lord,” while 4QSama has only “in the temple”; cf. “in the temple of the Lord,” Bib. Ant. 53.2). In 1 Sam 3:4a the Lord calls Samuel’s name twice, to which he immediately responds “here I am.” Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 53.2) prefaces God’s initial call with a lengthy divine reflection wherein God decides not to identify himself immediately to the boy Samuel, lest he be overwhelmed by this. Josephus provides a motivation for Samuel’s going to Eli (1 Sam 3:4b), as does also Pseudo-Philo (see Bib. Ant. 53.3: when God speaks, Samuel “recognizes this as the voice of Eli”). This is Josephus’ compressed version of 1 Sam 3:6-8a, where a 2nd and 3rd call by God and Samuel’s resultant going to Eli are related. Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 53.5-6) expatiates on the 2nd call sequence (3:6-7), while in response to the Lord’s 3rd call, he has Samuel respond to him, rather than going to Eli yet again (as in 3:8a).

Greek: διαυγασθείς. This participial form is Josephus’ only use of the verb διαυγάζω (“to be enlightened”). The codices SPE read the participle διυπνισθείς, a form of the verb διυπνίζω (“to awaken”), another hapax in Josephus. See 1 Sam 3:8b-9a. Josephus, in contrast to the Bible, has Eli aver, this time too (see 5.348) that he has not called Samuel. In Pseudo-Philo, where Samuel addresses God directly after his 3rd call to him (see note to “times” at 5.348), there is no mention of this 3rd intervention by Eli. Josephus expatiates on Samuel’s response to God’s 4th and final call in 1 Sam 3:10b, where he simply declares “speak, for thy servant hears.”

This inserted opening phrase of God’s response picks up on Eli’s instructing Samuel to make known his “availability” to God in 5.349. Compare the opening, figuratively-worded divine announcement in 1 Sam 3:11: “Behold, I am about to do a thing in Israel, at which the two ears of every one that hears it will tingle.” In 1 Sam 3:12-13 God speaks in general terms of his intention of punishing the house of Eli. Josephus draws his more specific announcement of the joint death of Eli’s sons from the word of the anonymous “man of God” (earlier passed over by him; see note to “children” at 5.340) in 2:34 (foreshadowed by him already in 5.340). Pseudo-Philo’s expanded version of God’s word to Samuel in Bib. Ant. 53.8-10 likewise contains reminiscences of the man of God’s announcement of 1 Sam 2:27-36, which he too does not reproduce as such. This announcement has no counterpart in the divine discourse of 1 Sam 3:11-14 itself. Here again, Josephus appears to be drawing on the word of the man of God in 1 Sam 2:27-36; see, in particular, v. 35 where, after the prediction of the death of Eli’s sons (v. 34), one reads: “I will raise up for myself a faithful priest....” The reference to Eleazar’s line succeeding that of Eli here likewise serves to prepare Josephus’ appendix on the high priestly succession (5.361-362) to his account of the Elides’ demise (= 1 Samuel 4) in 5.352-360. Josephus accentuates Eli’s personal, active responsibility for the fate of his house vis-à-vis 1 Sam 3:13, where God charges him merely with failure to “restrain” his sons’ blasphemy against him, doing so perhaps under the influence of the question of the man of God to Eli in 1 Sam 2:29: “... why honor your sons above me....?” From the divine word to Samuel of 3:11-14, Josephus leaves aside God’s concluding sworn declaration (v. 14) that “the iniquity of Eli’s house shall not be expiated by sacrifice or offering for ever.” He likewise passes over the appended notices (3:15a) on Samuel’s… “laying until morning” and then “opening the doors of the house of the Lord.” In contrast to both the Bible and Josephus, Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 53.11) does mention a verbal response by Samuel to God’s word to him in which the former bewails his having to be the bearer of so harsh a message.

Josephus makes Samuel’s reluctance (see 1 Sam 3:15b) the reason for Eli’s adjuring him (3:17) to tell him what he has heard from God, while leaving aside both Eli’s summoning of Samuel (3:16) and the wording of Eli’s oath with which he calls on Samuel to disclose the revelation (v. 17b). By contrast, Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 53.12-13) expatiates on the Samuel-Eli exchange of 3:16-18. This notice, picking up on the reference to Eli’s earlier “expectation” of God’s punishment coming upon his sons’ deeds (5.340), replaces the content of 1 Sam 3:18, where Samuel tells Eli everything and the latter responds with words of resignation concerning the Lord’s intentions. This summary conclusion to the story of the Lord’s first revelation to Samuel takes the place of the complex of notices on Samuel’s subsequent career and reputation in 1 Sam 3:19-4:1a (to which Pseudo-Philo also has no equivalent). With its use of the verb προφητεύω (“to prophesy”) it forms an inclusion, framing the intervening story of Samuel’s call (5.348b-350) with the occurrence of the same verb in 5.348a.

In 1 Sam 4:1b it is the Israelites who initiate the war (as they are said to do in 5.338, to which 5.352 alludes back). Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 54.1) agrees with Josephus on the matter. On Josephus’ version of 1 Samuel 4 in 5.352-362, see Begg 1996a. MT (1 Sam 4:1) ‮אפק‬‎ (Eng.: “Aphek”); LXX BL Ἀφέκ; Josephus Ἀμφεκᾶ (this is the reading adopted by Niese and Marcus; Schalit s.v. prefers that of P, i.e. Ἀμφέκα). Like Pseudo-Philo (see Bib. Ant. 54.1), Josephus leaves aside the source mention (1 Sam 4:1b) of the Israelites’ camping place, i.e. “Ebenezer” (which LXX BL transliterate). Josephus inserts mention of the Philistine “pursuit” of the surviving Israelites into the summary battle account of 1 Sam 4:2 (at the opening of 4:3 the defeated Israelites simply “come to the camp”). Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 54.1) leaves aside the casualty figures given by both the Bible and Josephus.

Josephus inserts this motivation for the Israelites’ sending for the ark as related in 1 Sam 4:3. 1 Sam 4:3 specifies that it is “the elders of Israel” who take the following initiative; like Josephus, Bib. Ant. 54.1 ascribes it to the entire people. Josephus’ designation of the Philistines’ opponents as “Hebrews” here (and in 5.353) may be inspired by the Philistines’ own use of that designation for their adversaries in 1 Sam 4:6, 9. In 1 Sam 4:3 (and Bib. Ant. 54.1) the Israelite elders propose to simply “bring” the ark from Shiloh on their own; Josephus’ rendering has them recognize the need to act through the proper political and religious authorities. In Bib. Ant. 54.1 the Israelites express confidence in the efficacy of the ark’s presence due to its containing the “testimonies” given by the Lord at Horeb. This ominous note of foreshadowing, with its allusion back to the divine words of doom cited in 5.340, 350, is appended by Josephus to the notice of 1 Sam 4:4a on the bringing of the ark to the Israelite camp. Compare Bib. Ant. 54.2, where, upon the arrival of the ark in the camp, the Lord responds by himself pronouncing doom on the sinful Israelites.

Josephus appends his remark on Eli’s warning his sons to the mention of their accompanying the ark in 1 Sam 4:4b. The remark serves to underscore Eli’s own attachment to the ark and so helps to account for his subsequent collapse upon hearing of its loss; see 5.359. This parenthetical remark has no biblical counterpart; it serves to the answer the question of why Eli himself did not accompany the ark. Rabbinic tradition also speaks of Phineas replacing his father already during the latter’s lifetime; see Ginzberg 1928: 221, n. 27.

This reference to the Israelites’ state of mind upon the ark’s arrival replaces the mention of the “mighty shout” raised by them in 1 Sam 4:5. Josephus reduces to this brief allusion the extended reflections concerning the ark attributed to the Philistines in 1 Sam 4:6-9. Pseudo-Philo has no equivalent to the entire sequence of 1 Sam 4:5-9 on the 2 sides’ reactions to the arrival of the ark. Josephus’ shift from the designation “Hebrews” (see 5.352) to “Israelites” for the people within this paragraph might reflect the allusion to “all Israel” crying out in 1 Sam 4:5.

This inserted foreshadowing echoes that appended by Josephus to his rendering of 1 Sam 4:4-5 at the end of 5.353; see note to “existed” at 5.353. Josephus prefaces the summary notice of 1 Sam 4:10a (“so the Philistines fought and Israel was defeated”) with this foreshadowing remark concerning the reversal of the 2 sides’ expectations as mentioned by him at the opening of 5.356. See 1 Sam 4:10b-11. As he did with those of the first one, Pseudo-Philo omits the Israelite casualty figures for the 2nd battle. On the other hand, he identifies (Bib. Ant. 54.3) the giant Goliath as the Philistine who both seizes the ark and kills Eli’s 2 sons.

Josephus combines into a continuous sequence the data of 1 Sam 4:12 (the Benjamite’s race to Shiloh, omitting the source mention of his rent clothes and earth-covered head) and 13b (his report in Shiloh and the effect of this). Pseudo-Philo identifies (Bib. Ant. 54.4) the Benjamite messenger as the future King Saul (whom he earlier, 54.3, mentions as having held the ark along with Eli’s sons).

Josephus here makes delayed use of the reference to Eli (1 Sam 4:13a), which in the source “interrupts” the account of the messenger’s activities (4:12, 13b). His specification that Eli was sitting “at one of the two gates” reflects the LXX plus (“beside the gate”) in 4:13a (to which Pseudo-Philo has no equivalent). Josephus adds a reference to Eli’s “inference” to the mention of his hearing the uproar in Shiloh of 1 Sam 4:14a. In 1 Sam 4:14b (and Bib. Ant. 54.4) the messenger approaches Eli on his own, once he hears the latter asking about the reason for the outcry in the city. Josephus turns the messenger’s summary report of the Israelites’ defeat and the death of Eli’s sons (1 Sam 4:17) into an elaborate psychological description of Eli’s response to this that itself harks back to the divine announcements made to Eli regarding their fate as cited in 5.340 and 350.

The Bible does not report Eli’s emotional reaction to his hearing that the ark too had been lost (see 1 Sam 4:17). Josephus’ insertion on the matter has a counterpart in Bib. Ant. 54.5 that speaks of him as “greatly despairing” when told of the ark’s loss. Josephus (like Pseudo-Philo, Bib. Ant. 54.5) leaves aside the additional details concerning Eli’s fall and death given in 1 Sam 4:18a, i.e. the breaking of his neck by the fall, and his being an old man and “heavy.” Josephus here makes use of the parenthetical reference, already alluded to by him in 5.354, to Eli’s age found in 1 Sam 4:15 (while omitting its further mention of Eli’s blindness). His figure for the priest’s age corresponds to that cited in MT and LXX L, whereas LXX B reads “90.” Josephus’ figure for the duration of Eli’s rulership (a topic introduced by him in 5.318) agrees with MT 4:18b, whereas LXX BL give him a 20-year judgeship. Pseudo-Philo mentions neither Eli’s age at death nor his length of tenure.

Josephus supplies this “reason” for the fact of the woman’s death as alluded to in 1 Sam 4:20 (“and about the time of her death...”). The reference to Phineas’ “bad luck” (Greek δυστυχία) here echoes the mention of the “bad luck” that is to come upon Eli’s sons according to the divine announcement cited in 5.340, this underscoring the fulfillment of that announcement. See 1 Sam 4:19b, to which Josephus adds the specification concerning the child’s age at birth. He leaves aside the attending women’s word to the mother about the birth of her son and her own lack of response to this of 1 Sam 4:20; Pseudo-Philo does reproduce the first part of this sequence in Bib. Ant. 54.6. 1 Samuel 4 does not explicitly mention the newborn child’s surviving his mother. In 1 Sam 4:21-22 it is the dying mother who names the child. Josephus’ modification reflects the fact that he has already mentioned her having died. MT (1 Sam 4:21) ‮אי־כבוד‬‎ (Eng.: “Ichabod”); LXX B Οὐαὶ Βαρχαβώθ; LXX L Οὐαὶ Βὰρ Ἰωχαβὴλ; Josephus Ἰαχώβης (this is the reading adopted by Niese; Marcus and Schalit read rather Ἰωχάβης). The duplicate explanation of the name “Ichabod” given in 1 Sam 4:21-22 (see also Bib. Ant. 54.6) connects the departed “glory” (Hebrew: ‮כבוד‬‎) to which the name alludes rather with the capture of the ark (and the death of Eli and Phineas, 4:21). On the name and the explanations of it given in the various biblical witnesses and in Josephus, see Grillet and Lestienne 1997: 169-70. Josephus will now round off his version of 1 Samuel 4 with an appendix, prepared by his earlier insertion within the divine announcement cited in 5.350 (see note to “Eleazar” at 5.350), concerning the high priestly succession.

The Bible itself nowhere represents Eli as a descendant of Aaron’s son Ithamar (the younger of the 2 who survived their father, Nadab and Ahihu having predeceased him; see Lev 10:2// Ant. 3.209). Josephus’ linkage of the 2 figures is, however, paralleled in Rabbinic (e.g., S. Eli. Rab. (11) 12, p. 57) and Samaritan tradition; see Begg 1996a: 181, n. 94. This notice echoes 5.119, where Josephus, in line with the plus of LXX Josh 24:33, mentions Eleazar’s bequeathing the high priesthood to Phineas.

Josephus derives the name of Phineas’ successor from 1 Chr 5:30 (Eng. 6:4): MT ‮אבישׁוע‬‎ (Eng.: “Abishua”); LXX B Ἀβεισού; LXX L Ἀβιούδ; Josephus Ἀβιεζέρης. According to Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 48.2; 50.3), Phineas was succeeded as high priest directly by Eli; see further Begg 1996a: 182, n. 101. MT (1 Chr 5:31) ‮בקי‬‎ (Eng.: “Bukki”); LXX B Βωέ; LXX L Βοκχεί; Josephus Βόκκι. MT (1 Chr 5:32) ‮אזי‬‎ (Eng.: “Uzzi”); LXX B Ὀζεί; L Ὀζί; Josephus Ὄζις. In Ant. 8.12 Josephus gives a list of the first 3 successors of Phineas (i.e. Iesous-Bokias-Jotham) that differs notably, not only from that cited in 1 Chr 5:30-31 (Eng. 6:4-5), but also from his own list (Abiezer-Bokki-Ozi) here in 5.362. According to 1 Chr 5:32 (Eng. 6:6) “Uzzi” was succeeded by his son “Zerahiah,” while “Eli” does not appear in the continuation of the high priestly list. As mentioned in the note to “Abiezer” at 5.362, Pseudo-Philo makes Eli the direct successor of Phineas himself. Josephus here looks ahead to Ant. 8.10-12, where, in connection with Solomon’s dismissal of David’s chief priest Abiathar and his replacement by Zadok (see 1 Kgs 2:26-27, 35b) he will pause, picking up on the language of 5.361-362, to trace the high priestly succession from the time of the Ithamaride Eli down to its recovery for Eleazar’s descendants by Zadok. The priest Josephus’ interest in the topic of priestly genealogy is further reflected in Ant. 10.151-153; 20.224-251; and Apion 1.30-36, 53.

Here at the beginning of a new book of the Antiquities, Josephus introduces an explicit cross-reference to the concluding event of Book 5 (see 5.356), i.e. the Philistine capture of the ark. On Josephus’ version of 1 Samuel 5, the story of the ark’s devastating stay in Philistia in 6.1-6, see Begg 1996b. Josephus uses the same name (“Azotus”) for the ark’s first stop in Philistia as does LXX 1 Sam 5:1; MT reads “Ashdod” (Bib. Ant. 55.3 leaves the site of Dagon’s temple unidentified). He omits the source mention of the starting point of the ark’s transport (i.e. “Ebenezer,”) just as earlier—see Ant. 5.352—he left aside the reference of 1 Sam 4:1b to this site as Israel’s pre-battle camping place. Josephus elaborates 1 Sam 5:2 with an identification of “Dagon” and mention of the ark’s “trophy” status. The former item has an equivalent in Bib. Ant. 55.3.

Josephus’ explicit mention of the Philistines’ “entry” into the sanctuary of Dagon here corresponds to the plus of LXX 1 Sam 5:2. Josephus inserts this indication concerning the purpose of the Philistines’ coming to Dagon’s sanctuary; in Bib. Ant. 55.3 they come to “inquire of their fate from” Dagon. This inserted phrase spells out the import of the following description of Dagon’s “posture” vis-à-vis the ark; it also introduces an ironic contrast with the immediately preceding reference to the Philistines’ intentions regarding Dagon: they come to pay homage to a deity who is himself paying homage to the ark. See 1 Sam 5:3a; Josephus derives his appended reference to Dagon’s “pedestal” from 5:3b, which speaks of Dagon being restored to his “place.” See 1 Sam 5:3b; Josephus appends the reference to the Philistines’ emotional response to their god’s discomfiture. Josephus here modifies 1 Sam 5:4, where, on their 2nd visit to Dagon’s temple, the Philistines discover his head and hands lying on the threshold, separate from his “trunk.” He likewise leaves aside the appended etiological notice of 5:5 on the custom of visitors’ stepping over the temple’s “threshold.” Bib. Ant. 55.3 conflates Dagon’s 2 “falls” as described in 1 Sam 5:3, 4 into one, and has the Philistines respond to their seeing him both fallen and dismembered on their first visit by “crucifying” Dagon’s priests. Thereafter, in a way analogous to Josephus’ presentation, it refers to the Philistines’ finding things “as on the day before” when they visit the temple the following day. Josephus’ statement on the effect of the Philistines’ seeing Dagon paying homage to the ark on their follow-up visits echoes (and intensifies) the language used by him at the opening of 6.2 to describe their initial visit.

Josephus avoids the anthropomorphic language of 1 Sam 5:6a according to which “the hand (Tg.: stroke) of the Lord was heavy upon the people of Ashdod.” Greek: εὐθανάτως; this adverb occurs only here in Josephus. On the Hellenistic anthropology (man as a composite of “body” and “soul”) presupposed here, see Schlatter 1932: 17-18. Josephus here dramatizes the brief (and unclear) notice of 1 Sam 5:6b concerning the nature of the inhabitants’ affliction. MT (ketiv) speaks of the Lord’s smiting them with ‮עפלים‬‎ (“tumors”?, “hemorrhoids”?), while LXX employs the term ἑδραί whose meaning is also disputed (in addition to “tumors/hemorrhoids,” the renderings “buttocks” and “residences” have been proposed; see Begg 1996b: 389, and nn. 34-35). In his earlier reference to the Philistines’ affliction in his speech to the defenders of Jerusalem, as cited by him in War 5.385, Josephus uses different language in describing this. Josephus’ reference to “mice” (or “rats”) here reflects the plus of LXX (cf. also OL) 1 Sam 5:6 about the vermin’s “going up into the land,” after having “swarmed in ships.” In the plus of LXX 1 Sam 5:6 the mice infestation leads rather to a “mortal panic in the city.”

See 1 Sam 5:7, where the afflicted inhabitants declare that the ark can no longer remain with them, given the weight of the Lord’s “hand” (see 5:6) upon them. As with his “Azotus” for MT’s “Ashdod” (see note to “Azotus” at 6.1), Josephus here reflects the LXX (“Askalon”) as opposed to the MT (“Ekron”) name for the ark’s new destination as cited in 1 Sam 5:10. At the same time he conflates the biblical account in which the ark is dispatched—without any prior request to the inhabitants as in Josephus—to “Ekron/Askalon” (5:10a), only after having been first sent to Gath as the result of a consultation between the Azotians and the Philistine “lords” (5:8-9; like Josephus, Pseudo-Philo makes no mention of the ark’s intermediate stop in Gath). This consultation, in turn, is the first of 3 such deliberations concerning the disposition of the ark featured in the Bible (see 5:8, 11; 6:2-8). Josephus (as does Pseudo-Philo) limits himself to a single, climactic consultation, corresponding to one related in 1 Sam 6:2-8 (see 6.8-12).

In 1 Sam 5:10a the ark is simply sent to “Ekron/ Askalon” without the inhabitants either being asked to receive it (compare 6.4) or giving their assent to this. (In fact, in 5:10b, the inhabitants respond to the ark’s arrival with the cry that the ark has been sent to them in order that the Lord might “slay” them.) In Bib. Ant. 55.4 the Philistines gather in Ekron without there being any prior mention of the ark’s coming there, as happens in the Bible and Josephus. Cf. the notices of 1 Sam 5:11b-12 on the baleful effects of the ark’s presence in Ekron/Askalon and the inhabitants’ response to this. As in the case of the Azotians (see 6.4), Josephus has the Askalonites act on their own initiative in ridding themselves of the ark. By contrast, in 1 Sam 5:11a the latter appeal to the lords of the Philistines to send the ark away and let it “return to its place.” The Bible does not relate an explicit response to this appeal on the part of the “lords” such that it remains unclear whether, in fact, the ark did depart Ekron/Askalon prior to its ultimate return to Israel. Josephus’ formulation here in 6.5 (and its sequel in 6.6) clarifies the matter.

This paragraph has no precise equivalent in the biblical account itself, although it might be viewed as Josephus’ “filling in” of the summary notice of 1 Sam 6:1 about the ark’s spending 7 months in the Philistine country. In specifying that the ark made its way to each of the 5 (major) Philistine cities, Josephus may have been inspired by the subsequent account in 1 Samuel 6, where the ark is accompanied by 2 sets of 5 golden objects, these representing (vv. 17-18) the 5 Philistine cities, instead of merely the 3 cities that the ark is explicitly said to have visited in 1 Samuel 5. Josephus will mention the 5 cities by name in 6.8.

This description of the “pan-Philistine” reaction to the ark’s continued presence has no biblical equivalent. It functions as a “lead-in” to the following account of the climactic conference concerning the disposition of the ark in 6.8-12 (= 1 Sam 6:2-8). On Josephus’ version of 1 Samuel 6, see Begg 1998a.

In 1 Sam 6:2 those who assume the leading position in the final consultation concerning the ark are the Philistine “priests and diviners” (MT; LXX and 4QSama add one or more additional similar category). Josephus, with an eye to the 2 earlier biblical consultations (see 5:8, 11), previously passed over by him, assigns the dominant role rather to the Philistine “lords” themselves. Neither 5:8 nor 5:11 mentions the cities which these lords head; Josephus derives his enumeration of their cities from the listing in (LXX) 6:17 (where the 5 golden tumors represent the 5 cities), while also varying its sequence. In 1 Sam 6:2-8 there is a double question-and-answer exchange between the Philistines and their priests and diviners about whether the ark should be sent back to Israel. In Bib. Ant. 55.4-6 2 sets of Philistine “wise men” offer complementary proposals for determining whether or not the ark has been the cause of their troubles. Josephus turns the proceedings into a 3-way discussion among the Philistine “rulers” as to what should be done with the ark and the reasons for/ intended outcome of their respective proposals. On this device of “trichotomy” and Josephus’ recurrent introduction of it for purposes of dramatic effect, see Begg 1998a: 18 and nn. 16-17, and cf. the previous instance in Ant. 5.169-171 (the question of how wives for the remaining 200 Benjamites are to be obtained). The motivation cited by the first group of speakers for their proposal here has a counterpart in Bib. Ant. 55.4, where the Philistines, assembled at Ekron, ask rhetorically concerning their present plight: “Is it not because of the Lord?”

Josephus’ 2nd group of speakers seem to advocate an Epicurean-like outlook according to which the gods do not concern themselves with human affairs. On Josephus’ references to/critique of Epicureanism, mostly notably in Ant. 10.278-290, see Van Unnik 1973; Feldman 1998: 192, 273-274, 640.

This introductory characterization of the 3rd group of speakers serves to highlight their proposal as the one that deserves the acceptance it will obtain. With this opening affirmation the 3rd group appears to set itself in opposition to the proposals of both previous groups. As will emerge, however, their suggestion is, in fact, a further refinement of the first group’s suggestion that the ark be returned. At this point Josephus finally rejoins the biblical presentation, i.e. 1 Sam 6:4, after going his own way in what precedes. In the biblical verse the first set of golden objects whose production is advocated by the Philistine priests and diviners (6:2) is designated by the same terms used for that with which the Lord is said to afflict the Philistines in 1 Sam 5:6, i.e. ‮עפלים‬‎ (MT)/ ἑδραί (LXX B); see note to “disease” at 6.3. Josephus derives his designation (“images”) for these items from the more expansive phrase used of them in LXX L 6:4 and MT 6:5, i.e. “images of your tumors” (?). Josephus’ wording here seems to reflect that of 1 Sam 6:17-18 (the objects are offered for the Philistine cities) rather than 6:4 (where they are rather to be presented “according to the number of the Philistine lords”). In MT 1 Sam 6:3-4a (as also in 6:8) the objects to be made are designated as a “guilt offering” (‮אשׁם‬‎; compare LXX: “offering for the plague”) that will cause the people “to be healed” (MT 6:3; + “and atonement shall be made for you,” LXX). This motivation for the proposed “thank offering” has no biblical equivalent. In specifying the number (i.e. 5) of the mice in this way, Josephus goes together with MT 1 Sam 6:4 (and LXX L 1 Sam 6:5), whereas LXX B 6:5 leaves the figure indeterminate. Compare 1 Sam 6:5a “... your mice that ravage the land.” Josephus omits the speakers’ appended theological exhortations of 1 Sam 6:5b-6 with their call to the Philistines to give glory to God in hopes that he might “lighten his hand” upon them (v. 5b), rather than hardening their hearts like the Egyptians of old who were nonetheless compelled to release the Israelites (v. 6).

Josephus here rearranges the sequence of 1 Sam 6:7-8a, where the cart (v. 7aα) is mentioned prior to the ark, the “box” (which is itself to be placed “beside” the ark in the cart), and the latter’s contents, i.e. the golden objects (v. 8a). In MT 1 Sam 6:7 (and Bib. Ant. 55.6) the cows are called “milch/milking,” whereas LXX, followed by Josephus, refers to them as ones which have “calved for the first time.” Like LXX too, Josephus has no equivalent to the further MT requirement concerning the cows, i.e. they are never to have borne a yoke. Josephus supplies a rationale for the proposed procedure with the cows and calves as laid down in 1 Sam 6:7b. See 1 Sam 6:8b, into which Josephus inserts the specification about the ark’s being brought to the intersection of 3 roads; this insertion has an equivalent in the proposal of the 2nd group of Philistine wise men in Bib. Ant. 55.7.

See 1 Sam 6:9a, from which Josephus eliminates the more specific destination mentioned (“to Beth-shemesh”); in Bib. Ant. 55.7 the speakers refer to the ark’s proceeding “straight to Judaea.” In 1 Sam 6:9b the speakers aver that the ark’s taking the alternative route would show that “chance” was responsible for the Philistines’ afflictions. In Bib. Ant. 55.7 the lesson is rather that they have been smitten for neglecting their own gods. The proposal about “pursuing” the ark, should the 2nd hypothetical possibility materialize, is unique to Josephus.

This transitional phrase, underscoring the persuasiveness of the 3rd group of speakers’ words, has no biblical counterpart. These 2 items relating to the execution of the proposed plan take the place of the various preliminary measures carried out in accordance with the priests’ and diviners’ injunctions given in 1 Sam 6:7-8a, as cited in 6:10-11. Also Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 55.8) introduces explicit mention of the ark’s being conducted to “the head of the three roads.” In 1 Sam 6:12 the cows proceed directly to Beth-shemesh (see 6:9), lowing as they go and not deviating “either to the right or left.” Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 55.8) specifies that the cows proceeded by the “right-hand” road. In 1 Sam 6:12b the Philistine “lords” follow the ark as far as “the border of Beth-shemesh.” Josephus supplies a rationale for their action. In Bib. Ant. 55.9, the Philistines, once they have seen the ark proceeding towards Judaea, “return the ark to Shiloh with timbrels, pipes and dances.”

MT (1 Sam 6:12, etc.) ‮בית השׁמשׁ‬‎ (Eng.: “Beth-shemesh”); LXX Βαιθσάμυς; Josephus Βήθης (Schlatter s.v. reads Βήθσιμις, while Schalit s.v., with reference to Lat’s “Bethsamis,” proposes Βηθσάμη). Josephus perhaps derives his localization of the site from Josh 15:10, where “Beth-shemesh” figures among the boundary points for Judah’s territory. Josephus embellishes 1 Sam 6:13’s simple mention of the “valley” in which Beth-shemesh is situated. See 1 Sam 6:14, whose reference to “the field of Joshua” as the cows’ precise stopping point Josephus omits. 1 Sam 6:13a specifies that the occasion was the wheat harvest. See 1 Sam 6:13bβ: “they rejoiced to see it.” This notice, effecting a transition between the villagers’ joyful seeing of the ark (6:13b) and their subsequent initiatives regarding it (6:14-15), has no biblical counterpart.

Josephus rearranges the sequence of 1 Sam 6:14-15, in which the taking down of the ark and the box (6:15a) is preceded and followed by references to the villagers’ sacrificing (6:14b, 15b). In his presentation, the sacrifices come after the removal of the ark from the cart as a climax to its reception in Beth-shemesh. In 1 Sam 6:15a “Levites” appear, seemingly “out of nowhere,” to remove the ark and the box with its “golden figures” and place these on the stone. Josephus has the villagers themselves, in their enthusiasm, perform these operations. He adds mention of the “mice” as a content of the box in light of the reference to these in 6.10, while deriving his localization of the rock from 6:14bα. Josephus here combines the Bible’s duplicate mention of the villagers’ “sacrifice” (1 Sam 6:14b, 15b). His inserted reference to their “holding a sacrificial feast” is perhaps inspired by the biblical mention of the “feasts” held in connection with subsequent movements of the ark; see Begg 1998a: 27, n. 80. 1 Sam 6:16b specifies that they returned “that day to Ekron.” Josephus omits the parenthesis-like complex of appended notices of 6:17-18 (the representative function of the golden tumors [vv. 17-18a] and the continued presence of the stone in the field of Joshua at Beth-shemesh [v. 18b; cf. 6:14a, also omitted by him]).

Greek ὀργὴ καὶ χόλος. Josephus uses this combination once elsewhere, i.e. in Ant. 9.288, where the worship of their native deities by those resettled in Samaria evokes God’s “wrath and anger” towards them. Josephus here follows the MT reading at the opening of 1 Sam 6:19 (“he [God] slew some of the men of Beth-shemesh...”), while prefacing this with a reference to the divine emotions (“wrath and anger”) that led to the villagers’ punishment. LXX (“The sons of Jechonias were displeased with the men of Baithsamus...”) reads quite differently at the start of 6:19. All textual witnesses to 1 Sam 6:19 read an additional, very high casualty figure, i.e. “50,000 men” to which Josephus has no equivalent. According to 1 Sam 6:19a the Bethshemites’ offense was their “seeing” the ark (Tg. elaborates with a reference to the villagers’ “rejoicing” to see the exposed ark). Josephus’ alternative “rationale” for their punishment assimilates the incident to another episode involving the ark as he will present this, i.e. God’s slaying the non-priest Uzzah for reaching out to steady the ark; see Ant. 7.81 (cf. 2 Sam 6:7// 1 Chr 13:10), cf. Rappaport 1930: 45, #190a. See 1 Sam 6:19b. This is Josephus’ only use of the adjective θεόπεμπτος (“God-sent”).

This transitional phrase echoes Josephus’ (likewise inserted) characterization of the villagers as “not worthy to touch the ark...” in 6.16. Greek: τὸ κοινόν. Josephus frequently uses this term to designate the Jerusalem governing body during the revolt in the Life and War; see Mason 2001: 48-49, n. 346. This sending by the villagers takes the place of the emotionally-charged questions they ask themselves in 1 Sam 6:20 (“Who is able to stand before Lord....? And to whom shall he go up away from us?”). Josephus’ substitution underscores the pan-Israelite significance of the ark and its placement. MT (1 Sam 6:21) ‮קרית־יערים‬‎ (Eng.: “Kiriath-jearim”); LXX BL and Josephus Καριαθιαρείμ. In 1 Sam 6:21-7:1aα the inhabitants of Kiriath-jearim remove the ark to their town when called upon to do so by the people of Beth-shemesh. Josephus makes the move a pan-Israelite initiative, just as he appends a localization for Kiriath-jearim itself (compare his localization of “Bethes” in 6.15).

MT (1 Sam 7:1a) ‮אבינדב‬‎ (Eng.: “Abinadab”); LXX BL Ἀμιναδάβ; Josephus Ἀμινάδαβος. Josephus’ form of the name thus corresponds to that of LXX against MT. 1 Sam 7:1a itself does not speak of “Abinadab” (MT; LXX “Aminadab”) as a Levite. Josephus likely derives his Levitical status from 1 Chr 15:10-11, where a Levite named “Amminadab” figures among those whom David commissions to carry the ark to Jerusalem. Compare his similar awarding of Levitical status to “Elkanah” in Ant. 5.342. Greek: δικαιοσύνη καὶ θρησκεία. This combination recurs in Ant. 8.120, where Solomon prays that his people may continue to exhibit these qualities. Josephus omits the specification of 1 Sam 7:1a that the “house” to which the ark was brought was “on the hill.” Greek: δίκαιος. On Josephus’ overall use of the terms δικαιοσύνη (“justice”) and δίκαιος (“just”) of 6.18 and their word-field, see Feldman 1998: 113-26; Mason 1991: 142-49, 213-21. Josephus’ inserted indications concerning Abinadab’s character provide an explanation as to why the ark was brought precisely to his house. 1 Sam 7:1b speaks of the consecration of Abinadab’s one son Eleazar as custodian of the ark. Josephus’ generalized reference to the former’s “sons” functioning in that capacity may have in view the fact that subsequently (see 2 Sam 6:3// 1 Chr 13:7) there is reference, not to the “Eleazar” of 1 Sam 7:1b, but to 2 other sons of Abinadab, i.e. Uzzah and Ahio, who attend the ark as its transport to Jerusalem begins. Josephus derives this indication concerning the duration of the ark’s stay at Abinadab’s house from 1 Sam 7:2a. This chronological indication represents Josephus’ delayed use of 1 Sam 6:1, where, however, the ark’s stay in Philistia lasts 7 months.

Josephus here seems to base himself on, while also greatly elaborating, the LXX reading(s) in 1 Sam 7:2b (B: the people “looked after the Lord”; L: they “turned to the Lord in peace”). Compare MT (“they lamented after the Lord”). The word “devotion” (Greek: θρησκεία) was used of Abinadab in 6.18; his devotion has now become that of the people as a whole. On Josephus’ version of 1 Samuel 7, see Begg 1997d. Josephus expatiates on the simple reintroduction of Samuel in 1 Sam 7:3aα (“Then Samuel said to all the house of Israel...”), appending a motivation for his speaking at this particular moment and underscoring the care with which he chooses his words.

Greek: εὐμενὴς... καὶ φίλος. Josephus employs the first of these adjectives some 40 times for God; on it see Schlatter 1910: 62; 1932: 30, and cf. the cognate noun εὐμενέια (“benevolence”) used of God in Ant. 5.213. On φίλος as an epithet for God in Josephus, see note to “friend” at 5.116. Samuel’s summons to the Israelites to act for the sake of “freedom” here recalls the similar exhortation of the angel, urging Gideon to “exert himself for freedom” in Ant. 5.214. This extended opening word of Samuel, with its focus on Israel’s recovering its lost “freedom,” has no counterpart in the address attributed to him in 1 Sam 7:3.

Greek: δίκαιοι. This term echoes the use of the words “justice” and “just” of Abinadab in 6.18. Josephus here generalizes the more specific call made by Samuel in 1 Sam 7:3 that Israel “put away its foreign gods and the Astaroth” (MT; LXX BL “the groves” [τὰ ἄλση]), likely out of deference to the sensibilities of his Gentile readers; see Feldman 1998: 304. Compare 1 Sam 7:3bα: “direct your heart to the Lord, and serve him only.” Josephus elaborates on the conditional promise with which Samuel concludes his address in 1 Sam 7:3: “... and he [God] will deliver you out of the hand of the Philistines.” The expansion echoes Josephus’ own discourse to the defenders of Jerusalem as cited in War 5.376-401, where he avers that, throughout Jewish history, the people’s own military efforts have proved unavailing, while their preservation and deliverance has been effected directly by God in those times when the people showed themselves worthy of such divine aid. Here, as often, Josephus thus intimates a parallel between himself and a great biblical figure, in this case Samuel. In addition, this shared message of himself and Samuel serves to highlight the implied warning to Josephus’ contemporaries about the futility of further military initiatives against Roman domination on their part, even as it holds out the hope that, should Jews of his own time endeavor to “be good and just,” God could and would free them from the Romans, as he had freed their ancestors; see Begg 1997d: 203, n. 30; 216. This concluding affirmation has no equivalent in 1 Sam 7:3. It focusses attention on the person of Samuel himself, a recurrent feature in Josephus’ rewriting of 1 Samuel 7 overall.

Josephus modifies the biblical notice (1 Sam 7:4) on the execution of Samuel’s directives by the people, accentuating his effectiveness as an orator in line with his remarks introducing the prophet’s speech in 6.19; see Feldman 1998: 496-97. MT (1 Sam 7:5) ‮המצפתה‬‎ (Eng.: “Mizpah”); LXX B Μασσηφάθ; LXX L Μασσηφά; Josephus Μασφατή. Josephus’ explanation of the site’s name takes the place of Samuel’s promise to pray for the people in 1 Sam 7:5b. The explanation itself involves a rather loose rendering of the Hebrew place name (see previous note) that would more literally translate as “the watchtower.” Like MT 1 Sam 7:6, Josephus lacks an equivalent to the LXX BL plus specifying that the water of the libation was poured “on the ground.” This reference to the people’s all-day prayer replaces the confession attributed to them in 1 Sam 7:6aβ (“We have sinned against the Lord”); cf. the mention of their “turning to God with prayers and sacrifices” in 6.19. Josephus leaves aside the seemingly extraneous notice about Samuel’s “judging” Israel at Mizpah of 7:6b.

Josephus expatiates on the summary reference to the Philistines’ hearing of the Mizpah assembly and advancing against Israel of 1 Sam 7:7a. In so doing, he accentuates the magnitude of the Philistine threat (and so, ultimately, the greatness of God’s thwarting this).

Josephus highlights the Israelites’ consternation in face of the Philistine threat in comparison with the simple mention of their being “afraid of” the Philistines in 1 Sam 7:7b. These opening words of the people, highlighting their feelings of helplessness before the Philistines, are unparalleled in 1 Sam 7:8, which begins directly with their appeal that Samuel not desist from interceding with God for them. The “former defeat” to which the Israelites allude here is the battle(s) of Aphek (see 1 Samuel 4 = Ant. 5.352-362). In this rendition of the people’s appeal for Samuel’s continued intercession of 1 Sam 7:8, Josephus, remarkably, has them mention Samuel prior to God himself as the source of their hoped-for deliverance.

Josephus supplies this verbal response by Samuel to the people’s appeal to him of 1 Sam 7:8. See LXX BL 1 Sam 7:9a, which, apparently misunderstanding MT’s reference to Samuel’s sacrificing the lamb as “a whole [Hebrew: ‮כליל‬‎] offering,” speak of his sacrificing it “with the whole people.” Josephus’ reformulation of the LXX reading underscores Samuel’s preeminence as one who acts for, rather than with, the people. Josephus elaborates on the mention of Samuel’s “crying to the Lord for Israel” of 1 Sam 7:9bα, spelling out what the prophet is asking God to do for the people. Once again (see 6.24), he inserts an allusion to the earlier Aphek debacle. His introduction of the biblical anthropomorphic expression “(God’s) right hand” (see, e.g., Exod 15:6) here is noteworthy, given his tendency to avoid such anthropomorphisms. Josephus’ wording here corresponds to that of LXX BL 1 Sam 7:9bβ (“and the Lord heeded him”), whereas MT speaks of the Lord’s “answering him.” Greek: εὐμενὴς καὶ σύμμαχος. Josephus uses this adjectival combination also in Ant. 4.296; 9.259 (both times of God, as here in 6.25). The initial term of the combination appears as a qualification of God in 6.20. Josephus supplies this content to the summary allusion to the Lord’s “answering” (MT)/ “heeding” (LXX) Samuel’s plea in 1 Sam 7:9bβ.

Josephus dramatizes the notice of 1 Sam 7:10a about the Philistines advancing while Samuel offers the holocaust: they come on the scene at the climactic moment of the sacrificial process. Greek: οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι (alternative translation: the Jews). This designation takes the place of the term “Hebrews” used for the people in 6.17, 23. On Josephus’ use of the designation in his writings overall, see Harvey 1996: 47-61; Spilsbury 1998: 37-42. Josephus supplies these remarks on the Philistines’ state of mind and the reversal of their expectations; they are reminiscent of his comments in Ant. 5.355 on the expectations of the Hebrews and Philistines prior to the (2nd) battle of Aphek, both of which get reversed.

Josephus notably elaborates and dramatizes the 3-part notice on God’s dealings with the Philistines of 1 Sam 7:10b (he thunders against them and throws them into confusion; they are routed before Israel). His presentation underscores the ironic reversal in which the Israelites earlier complain of being “defenseless” (Greek: γυμνός) before the Philistines (6.24), who, however, are themselves left “defenseless” by God (6.27).

1 Sam 7:11 does not mention Samuel’s involvement in the pursuit of the Philistines. Once again, Josephus accentuates his leadership role, this time as a general. According to 1 Sam 7:11 the pursuit extended “as far as below Bethcar” (MT ‮בית כר‬‎; LXX Βαιθχόρ). Josephus’ site-name (Κορραίων) reflects the 2nd component of the biblical one. Josephus thus has Samuel erect the stone at the point where the pursuit of the Philistines terminates. According to 1 Sam 7:12 he erected it rather between Mizpah and a 2nd site that is variously denominated in MT (‮השׁן‬‎, “the tooth”) and LXX (τῆς παλαιᾶς, “the old”). This indication concerning the purpose of the erected stone is peculiar to Josephus. In MT 1 Sam 7:12b Samuel names the stone “Ebenezer,” i.e. “stone of help” (LXX both transliterates and translates this Hebrew form). The Bible mentions “Ebenezer” twice previously as the site of Israel’s camp in its battle with the Philistines (1 Sam 4:1; 5:1), neither of which mentions are reproduced by Josephus. Marcus (ad loc.) suggests that Josephus might have read the ‘ezer (“help”) component of the Hebrew name “Ebenezer” as ‘oz (“strength”). Josephus’ explanation of the stone’s name picks up on his rendering of that name itself; see “the Strong One” at 6.28 and compare 1 Sam 7:12bβ (“for he said, ‘hitherto the Lord has helped us’.”)

This is Josephus’ 3rd distinct designation for his people in the course of his version of 1 Samuel 7; see “Hebrews” (6.23) and “Judeans” (6.26). Josephus elaborates on the summary statements of 1 Sam 7:13a (“the Philistines were subdued [MT; LXX the Lord humbled the Philistines] and did not again enter the territory of Israel”). His expansion underscores the overwhelming effect of the Philistines’ defeat upon them and the role-reversal—foreshadowed in 6.26—that took place between them and Israel as a result.

This notice, featuring the military initiative of Samuel (compare 6.28), replaces the anthropomorphic reference to God’s “hand being against the Philistines” throughout Samuel’s lifetime of 1 Sam 7:13b. 1 Sam 7:14a makes no mention of Samuel’s role in the recovery of the Israelite cities, attributing this rather to God (see the “divine passive,” “[the cities] were restored [to Israel]” of v. 14aα) and Israel (v. 14aβ). Josephus continues to accentuate the military initiative of Samuel. Josephus’ indication concerning the boundary points of the recovered territory reflects the reading of MT and LXX L 1 Sam 7:14aα (“from Ekron to Gath”) as opposed to LXX B (“from Askalon to Azob”). In 1 Sam 7:14b the reference is to the “peace” between Israel and “the Amorites.” Josephus’ phrase concerning “the remnant of the Chananaians” echoes similar formulations in Ant. 5.68, 90.

This form (αὐτοῖς) is the reading of the codices, which Niese follows. Marcus (ad loc.) suggests the emendation ἑκάστοις (“to each [group]”). The Bible does not mention such a reordering of the people by Samuel for judicial purposes. By means of this insertion, Josephus highlights the authoritative figure of Samuel in yet another of his capacities, i.e. as supreme legal authority. Josephus leaves aside the names of the 3 cities (Bethel, Gilgal, Mizpah) making up Samuel’s “circuit” as cited in 1 Sam 7:16a. The reading “annually,” corresponding to the Bible’s phrase “year by year,” is that of RO, followed by Niese and Marcus. The remaining witnesses have Samuel making his visitation “twice a year.” Greek: πολλὴν ἐβράβευεν εὐνομίαν; this same phrase recurs in Ant. 7.185, where Absalom claims that as king he would do for the people what Samuel is credited with doing here. Josephus elaborates on the notices of 1 Sam 7:16b (“and he [Samuel] judged Israel in all these places”) and 7:17aβ (“there also [i.e. in Ramah] he administered justice to Israel”), making Samuel the overall artificer of Israel’s legal system. Conversely, he leaves aside the references to Samuel’s coming to his home in Ramah and his building an altar there of 7:17aαb.

1 Sam 8:1a speaks simply of Samuel’s “becoming old.” Compare 1 Sam 8:1b: “he made his sons judges over Israel.” MT (1 Sam 8:2) ‮יואל‬‎ (Eng.: “Joel”); LXX Ἰωάλ; Josephus Ἰοῦλος. Josephus’ form of the name would appear to be a Latinization of the biblical one, being reminiscent of the alternate name of Aeneas’ son Ascanius, i.e. “Iulus” (see Virgil, Aen. 6.32). Feldman (1998: 498) finds here an indication that Josephus viewed Samuel as a “Jewish Aeneas.” MT (1 Sam 8:2) ‮אביה‬‎ (Eng.: “Abijah”); LXX B Ἀβιά; LXX L Ἀβιρά; Josephus Ἐβίᾳ (this is the reading of RO followed by Niese; Marcus ad loc. reads Ἀβίρα with M). MT (1 Sam 8:2) ‮באר שׁבע‬‎ (Eng.: “Beersheha”); LXX Βηρσάβεε; Josephus Βερσουβεί. On Josephus’ version of 1 Samuel 8, see Begg 1997e; Spilsbury 1998: 161-70. 1 Sam 8:2 represents both sons functioning at a single site, i.e. Beersheba. Josephus’ modification might be based on the consideration that it would have been highly inconvenient for the people as a whole to bring their cases to only one place, itself located in the extreme south of the land. Accordingly, in a way reminiscent of what Samuel did in the case of his own judicial activity (6.31), he has him partition the people between the 2 sites, one in the center of the country (Bethel; Josephus may have drawn this name from 1 Sam 7:16), the other in the south (Beersheba), each presided over by one of his sons.

Josephus supplies this “moral” to the story of Samuel’s reprobate sons. It serves to preclude readers’ blaming Samuel himself for the way his sons turned out (as they might well be inclined to do in light of Josephus’ previous story of Eli and his reprobate sons in Ant. 5.338-362). The pattern to which Josephus calls attention here has already been exemplified in the case of the liberator Gideon who engendered the tyrant Abimelech (see Ant. 5.239) and will further be illustrated in the succession of Israelite monarchs where good kings have bad sons and vice versa. One finds comparable remarks about the degeneracy of the Roman youth of the day in Cicero, Cael. 11.25; 12.28-29.

Josephus’ indictment of the sons here corresponds rather closely to that set out in 1 Sam 8:3. Feldman (1998: 503) sees Josephus’ language here (“even the crowd”) as another expression of his pervasive contempt for the masses. The above sentence, highlighting the sons’ depravity, represents Josephus’ elaboration of the charges made against them in 1 Sam 8:3 (and reproduced by him in what precedes); it recalls his remarks concerning the Israelites’ descent into degeneracy under the influence of luxury, pleasure, and obsession with money in Ant. 5.132-135. By contrast, Rabbinic tradition tends to downplay the sons’ offenses; see Begg 1997e: 333, n. 34.

In having the people as a whole approach Samuel at this juncture Josephus follows the reading of LXX 1 Sam 8:4 as against MT (where “all the elders of Israel” take the initiative). Likewise Pseudo-Philo (who has no parallel to the whole sequence 1 Sam 7:3-17) reflects the LXX reading of 1 Sam 8:4 in Bib. Ant. 56.1. Josephus interjects this reference to the people’s state of mind that prompts them to approach Samuel. MT (1 Sam 8:4) ‮הרמתה‬‎ (Eng.: “Ramah”); LXX Ἀρμαθάιμ; Josephus Ἀρμαθᾶ. Pseudo-Philo (cf. Bib. Ant. 56.1) does not specify where the people approach Samuel. In 1 Sam 8:5 Samuel’s age is mentioned before the deviance of his sons. Josephus’ reversed order highlights the latter point, even while it spells out the implications of Samuel’s age in a way reminiscent of his previous portrayal of the aged Samuel in 6.32.

In 1 Sam 8:5 (as also in Bib. Ant. 56.1) the elders (MT)/ people (LXX) simply command Samuel, “appoint for us a king.” Josephus depicts the people acting in a more deferential manner. In 1 Sam 8:5 the asked-for king is characterized as one who will govern Israel “like all the nations.” Josephus replaces this characterization with a reference to the king’s military function (this perhaps inspired by the divine word to Samuel concerning the king in 1 Sam 9:16b). The substitution is likely prompted by the consideration that Gentile readers might well take offense at the Bible’s presentation where the “assimilationist ideal” implicit in the request that Israel be given a king “like all the nations,” evokes unqualified condemnation by both Samuel and God; see Feldman 1998: 508. Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 56.1) has the people invoke Moses’ “word” of Deut 17:15 (“one from among your brethren you shall set as king over you...”) as the basis for their demand that Samuel now appoint them a king. 1 Sam 8:6 leaves Samuel’s “displeasure” at the people’s request unexplained. Josephus supplies a (political) rationale for his negative response. Feldman (1998: 502) points out that the “hatred of kings” that Josephus attributes to Samuel here would have resonated with Roman readers whose own tradition featured an early expulsion of kings from Rome and an ongoing concern over attempts to revive the institution as expressed, e.g., in the comment Cicero (Resp. 1.40.62; cf. also 2.30.52) places on the lips of Scipio: Tarquin, the last of Rome’s kings, “made the title of king odious (in odium venisse) to our people.” Josephus’ editorial comment concerning Samuel’s attachment to “aristocracy” harks back to the affirmation with which he has Moses introduce the “law of the king” (Deut 17:14-20) in Ant. 4.223: “Now aristocracy and the life therein is best.” See note to “already destroyed,” at Ant. 5.135.

This elaboration of the summary source reference to Samuel’s “displeasure” over the elders/ people’s request (1 Sam 8:6a) takes the place of the mention of Samuel’s “praying to the Lord” in 8:6b. Also Pseudo-Philo elaborates on Samuel’s reaction to the people’s word, having him (Bib. Ant. 56.2) reflect that their proposal that he now activate Moses’ word about appointing a king (56.1; cf. note to “misdeeds” at 6.36) is premature.

Greek: ἐμφανίζω. 1 Sam 8:7 makes no mention of a such an “epiphany” by the Deity who now addresses Samuel. Also elsewhere Josephus introduces divine “appearances” where the Bible itself refers only to God’s speaking to a person; see Begg 1993: 54-54, n. 300. Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 56.3) specifies that God spoke to Samuel “by night.” On the epiphany theme in ancient literature generally, see Pax 1955; Lührmann 1971. From the opening divine word of 1 Sam 8:7 Josephus omits God’s initial injunction that Samuel hearken to the people’s voice in everything. The ideal of rule by God alone to which Josephus alludes here— and in Apion 2.165, where he states that in his theocracy Moses placed “all sovereignty and authority in the hands of God”—might seem reminiscent of the views, rejected, of course, by Josephus himself, of Judas, the leader of the Sicarii, whom he portrays in War 2.118 as denouncing the Jews for acquiescing in Roman rule and human dominion when they had God as their true “master.” However, according to Josephus in a later reference to the Sicarii (see War 7.253-256), their purported concern for rule by God alone was in fact simply a cloak for their own avarice and cruelty; unlike Samuel (and Moses) then the Sicarii abused the ideal of God’s sole kingship for their own purposes.In contrast to both the Bible and Josephus, Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 56.3) “motivates” God’s urging Samuel not to be distressed over the people’s request in terms of the divine intention of sending a king, who after “destroying” the people, will himself be destroyed. From the Lord’s allusion to the people’s past history of sin going back to the time of the Exodus (1 Sam 8:8) Josephus leaves aside the specific charges about their having forsaken him and served “other gods.” This negative foreshadowing of what the request for a king will lead to for Israel has no equivalent in God’s word to Samuel in 1 Sam 8:7-9 (compare, however, the divine announcement of the coming king who will both destroy the people and be himself destroyed in Bib. Ant. 56.3; cf. note to “king” at 6.38). It might, on the other hand, be seen as an anticipation/adaptation of Samuel’s own word to the people in 8:18, where he warns them that their complaints to God about their king will meet with no response from him.

Josephus elaborates—in negative fashion—on the conclusion of God’s address (1 Sam 8:7-9) to Samuel, which ends (8:9; cf. 8:7) with his enjoining Samuel to hearken to the people’s voice after first setting before them “the ways” of their coming king. Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 56.3) concludes his version of the divine address (and of 1 Samuel 8 as a whole) with God’s announcement, inspired by 1 Sam 9:16, that Israel’s future king will appear before Samuel on the following day.

In 1 Sam 8:10 Samuel begins addressing the people immediately, nothing being said of his first (re-) convening them. Josephus’ insertion regarding the latter point is appropriate in that, in his presentation, an entire night has intervened (6.37) between the people’s initial request and the reply Samuel will now make to them in God’s name, during which time the people would not likely have remained around the prophet. This initial announcement by Samuel, echoing God’s injunction to him in 6.39, has no equivalent in his address to the people as cited in 1 Sam 8:10-18. It serves to make clear, right at the outset, that the people will in fact get the king they had requested. The biblical Samuel introduces his announcements concerning the king in more neutral fashion in 1 Sam 8:11 (“these will be the ways of the king who will rule over you...”); Josephus’ alternative wording picks up on the command given him by God in 6.39 (// 8:9). Whereas 1 Sam 8:11 speaks only of “the (one) king” the people have asked for and his way, Josephus accentuates the warning element of Samuel’s speech by having him refer to “kings” in the plural, all of whom will abuse their subjects in the same way. In line with this modification Josephus has Samuel (mainly) speak in what follows of what “they” (the kings) will require of their subjects, whereas in 1 Sam 8:11b-17 the reference is to “he” (the one king). Towards the end of his speech (see 6.42), however, there will be a shift to mention of the king in the singular. Josephus’ rendering of 1 Sam 8:11b accentuates the “highhandedness” with which the king(s) will impose various military roles on the Israelites’ sons. To its listing of these roles he adds that of “bodyguard(s),” a group who will figure prominently in his account of the various kings. 1 Sam 8:11b specifies that the Israelites’ sons will be required to “run before his [the king’s] chariot(s).” In mentioning “commanders of hundreds” here, Josephus follows LXX BL 1 Sam 8:12a as against MT, which speaks rather of “(commanders) of fifties.” Josephus reverses the order of the 2 types of activities spoken of in 1 Sam 8:12b, i.e. agricultural labor and the manufacture of armaments. In so doing, he more logically links the latter directly with the preceding mention of the military roles the Israelites’ sons will be forced to assume. His reference to “diggers of vineyards” replaces the Bible’s mention of the enslaved Israelites “reaping the king’s harvest.”

This announcement concerning the enslavement of the (male) Israelites is an initial anticipation of Samuel’s climactic warning of 1 Sam 8:17b “and you shall be his slaves,” that Josephus will reproduce in 6.42. Josephus makes his anticipation of the warning serve as a transition between Samuel’s warnings about what awaits the Israelites’ sons and their daughters. Josephus expatiates on the announcement of 1 Sam 8:13 about the 3-fold service that will be imposed on the Israelites’ daughters, underscoring, as he did in the case of the sons (see note to “bodyguards” at 6.40), the highhanded brutality involved. Josephus here generalizes the notices of 1 Sam 8:14-15, which enumerate the various agricultural items the king will award to his retainers. Josephus’ use of the term “bodyguards” as one of the categories among these retainers replaces the double source mention of the king’s “servants”; the term echoes (his likewise “unbiblical”) reference to the Israelites’ sons being appointed royal bodyguards in 6.40. With his mention of the kings’ appropriating their subjects’ “cattle” here Josephus aligns himself with the LXX BL reading in 1 Sam 8:16aβ, whereas MT refers to “your young men.” He has no equivalent to 8:16aα, where the king’s taking of the Israelites’ “menservants and maidservants” is announced (nor to the mention of their donkeys in 8:16bα).

Josephus elaborates on the brief, climactic statement of 1 Sam 8:17b (“and you shall be his slaves”), already anticipated by him in 6.41. This Josephan insertion serves to make the transition between Samuel’s announcements concerning what the king will do to the Israelites (1 Sam 8:11-17) and his prediction of their response to this (8:18). Its language echoes that of Josephus’ expansion of the divine word to Samuel (1 Sam 8:7-9) in 6.38, where God announces the Israelites’ eventual (vain) change of mind. Josephus supplies a content to the Israelites’ future “crying out” because of their king as announced in 1 Sam 8:18a, likewise generalizing this into a reference to (all their) “kings.” Josephus elaborates on the divine response to the people’s “cry” as announced in 1 Sam 8:18b: “but the Lord will not answer [MT; LXX give heed to] you in that day” (MT; LXX and 4QSama in those days; + for it is you who will have chosen a king, LXX). His expansion, e.g., underscores the people’s stupidity in wanting a king, once again suggesting Josephus’ disdain for the masses; see Feldman 1998: 503.

Josephus notably expands on the people’s dismissal of Samuel’s warnings and their renewed demand for a king as cited in 1 Sam 8:19, their obstinacy on this occasion contrasting with their ready acceptance of Samuel’s call to reform their lives in 6.22. Josephus’ embellishments further underscore that the people’s renewed demand for a king was not the one-time affair it appears to be in 8:19, but rather something that they kept pressing upon Samuel.

This opening motivation for the people’s renewed demand for a king is Josephus’ rendering of the people’s closing characterization of the king as one who “will go out before us and fight our battles” in 1 Sam 8:20. Its wording echoes that used by the people in formulating their initial request to Samuel in 6.36, where they ask for the appointment of a king who “would punish the Palestinoi with the judgments they still had coming to them....” This is Josephus’ delayed (see previous note) rendition of the people’s opening rationale for their demand for a king, echoing that voiced by them already in 1 Sam 8:4, of 8:20: “... that we also may be like all the other nations.” Josephus has the people spell out what such being “like the other nations” consists in, i.e. “being ruled by kings.” Thereby, he underscores the opposition between them and Samuel with his “hatred of kings” (see 6.36).

Josephus omits the 4 ancestors of “Kish” cited in 1 Sam 9:1, just as in Ant. 5.342 he passed over the extended genealogy of Elkanah given in 1 Sam 1:1. 1 Sam 9:1 characterizes Kish rather as an important/wealthy man. MT (1 Sam 9:1) ‮קישׁ‬‎ (Eng.: “Kish”); LXX B and Josephus Κείς; LXX L Κίς . Josephus’ reference to Saul’s preeminent mental qualities takes the place of the detail about his being “a head taller” than all the other Israelites (MT; than all the earth, LXX) in 1 Sam 9:2b. MT (1 Sam 9:2) ‮שׁאול‬‎ (Eng.: “Saul”); LXX Σαούλ; Josephus Σαοῦλος. On Josephus’ treatment of Saul, see Feldman 1998: 509-36.

Josephus’ insertions about the “beauty” of Kish’s donkeys and his delight in them serves to motivate his sending his son Saul himself to look for them as related in 1 Sam 9:3. With RO Niese omits the words “seeking the donkeys” that follow at this point in the other witnesses and that Marcus incorporates into his text. According to 1 Sam 9:4, Saul’s journey began in the hill country of Ephraim and ended up in the “land of Benjamin” with 2 additional named regions intervening. Josephus’ generalization of this itinerary begins, more logically, with Saul traversing the territory of his own tribe of Benjamin (see 6.45). In 1 Sam 9:5 Saul’s decision to return is taken “in the land of Zuph” (MT; Siph, LXX) and is announced by him to his servant.

In 1 Sam 9:6 the servant speaks only of “this city,” where the “man of God” is present and where the subsequent encounter between him and Saul will occur. Josephus names “the city” in question on the basis of 7:17, which designates “Ramah” (Josephus’ “Armatha”) as Samuel’s “home.” Bib. Ant. 56.4 offers a corresponding localization for the encounter, i.e. “Ramathaim.” The Josephan servant’s characterization of Samuel as a “truthful prophet” takes the place of the phrase used of him by his biblical counterpart, i.e. “a man of God... a man held in honor; all that he says comes true” of 1 Sam 9:6. The modification reflects Josephus’ recurrent stress on Samuel’s status as a “prophet”; see note to “Samouel” at Ant. 5.340. Josephus’ other uses of the phrase “truthful prophet” (Greek: προφήτης ἀληθής) are Ant. 8.296 (the potential lack of such a figure in the future); 8.408 (Micaiah); 9.23 (Elisha); 9.34 (ironically, of the “prophets” of Ahab and Jezebel). Like his servant (see 9:6) Saul in 1 Sam 9:7 speaks of the “man of God”; here too, Josephus uses alternative language (see note on “prophet” at 6.47) that underscores Samuel’s prophetic status.

Josephus’ appended comment concerning the servant’s reply in 1 Sam 9:8 elevates the status of Samuel by making clear that, in fact, he did not accept recompense for his prophetic services. Josephus has no equivalent either to the parenthetical remark about the terminological change from “seer” to “prophet” of 9:9 or to Saul’s assent to the servant’s proposal in 9:10a. In 1 Sam 9:11a Saul and his servant meet the maidens as they are “going up the hill to the city.” This question replaces the one—to which Saul and his servant would already appear to have the answer—of 1 Sam 9:11b, i.e. “Is the seer here?” The substitution seems inspired by the query about the whereabouts of the “seer’s house” that Saul will pose to Samuel himself in 1 Sam 9:18 (and that Josephus will reproduce in 6.50). As he did with the “man of God” language of 9:6-10, Josephus substitutes the term “prophet” for the alternative designation of Samuel, i.e. “seer” of 9:11. In Bib. Ant. 56.4 Saul encounters Samuel while walking “near the shrine” and asks, not the maidens, but Samuel himself, about the seer’s whereabouts. When Samuel identifies himself as that seer, Saul inquires whether he can tell him about the lost donkeys. This initial response by the maidens, relating back to the question Josephus has the visitors pose to them in what precedes, has no equivalent in the Bible, where the maidens begin their answer (1 Sam 9:12a) by stating that the seer is “here” and indeed is “just ahead” of the pair of visitors. According to the maidens’ answer in 1 Sam 9:12b-13, the people are waiting for the seer to bless their sacrifice on the high place (so MT; LXX renders as a proper place name, i.e. “in Bama”), after which the guests will eat. Josephus eliminates any reference to a sacrifice or a “high place” from their answer, turning the occasion into a secular “supper,” held in Samuel’s own house, at which, in Hellenistic fashion, one “reclines” to eat.

Josephus now indicates the reason for Samuel’s inviting people to his home for the supper, i.e. that they might be witnesses of the first appearance of the king whose imminent coming God has just announced to him; see 1 Sam 9:15. 1 Sam 9:15 does not mention such daily prayer by Samuel prior to God’s announcement; the insertion underscores the prophet’s piety. Compare Bib. Ant. 56.5, where following his encounter with Saul (56.4), Samuel asks the Lord to instruct him about his plans concerning the people. Josephus considerably abridges God’s announcement as cited in 1 Sam 9:15b-16, passing over the directive that Samuel anoint the one who will come to him and the divine statement concerning the military leadership the latter will provide against the Philistines (this role of Saul’s has already been anticipated in the people’s words about the king they are requesting of 6.35, 44). 1 Samuel 9 does not specify where Samuel was during and immediately after God’s communication to him in vv. 15-16. Josephus derives his reference to “the roof” (i.e. apparently that of Samuel’s own house; see 6.48) from 9:25, where Saul sleeps “on the roof” after eating. The reference to Samuel’s “coming down and going into the supper” picks up on the virgins’ mention (see 6.48) of his imminent “reclining at the supper.”

See 1 Sam 9:17. In 1 Sam 9:18 Saul, speaking to Samuel, poses— for the first time—his question concerning the whereabouts of the seer’s house. Josephus has already had him put the same question to the maidens in 6.48. He leaves aside the indication of 9:18 concerning the site of the pair’s meeting, i.e. the gate (MT)/ the town (LXX 4QSama). Josephus supplies this rationale for Saul’s asking his question of Samuel about the seer’s “house,” as he does in 1 Sam 9:18.

In MT 1 Sam 9:19aα Samuel responds “I am the seer,” while in LXX 4QSama he answers “it is I myself.” This notice, anticipating that of 1 Sam 9:22a, takes the place of the series of directives and promises given Saul by Samuel in 1 Sam 9:19aβb (to which Pseudo-Philo has a partial equivalent in Bib. Ant. 56.4). See 1 Sam 9:20a. This announcement replaces Samuel’s double question to Saul in 1 Sam 9:20b: “And for whom is all that is desirable in Israel? Is it not for you and for all your father’s house?” Josephus spells out more directly and emphatically Saul’s modest objection to Samuel’s promises to him that in 1 Sam 9:21a is voiced by the former in the form of 2 rhetorical questions about his being from the least tribe of Israel (Benjamin) and the least family of that tribe. Compare Gideon’s objection to his commissioning by the angel in Ant. 5.214. The translation “position” here follows the reading χῶραν adopted by Niese and Marcus; MSP have χρείαν (“need”). Once again, Josephus makes more emphatic Saul’s modest demurral regarding Samuel’s promises; compare his concluding question in 9:21b: “Why then have you spoken to me in this way?” On Josephus’ treatment of Saul’s quality of modesty, see Feldman 1998: 524-25. In Bib. Ant. 56.6, Saul, having alluded to the insignificance of himself and his house, goes on to affirm that, given his youth, he does not understand what Samuel has just told him (i.e. the Lord’s choice of him as ruler, 56.5= 1 Sam 10:1). Samuel then predicts that Saul’s word will prove to be like that of Jeremiah, who in Jer 1:6 objects to God’s call with the words “I am only a youth.”

Josephus has already mentioned Saul’s being brought to the supper by Samuel at the beginning of 6.51 (= 1 Sam 9:22a); he now resumes the point after the intervening exchange between the pair in the remainder of 6.51. His figure for the guests agrees with that of LXX BL 1 Sam 9:22b against MT (“about 30”). Conversely, Josephus follows MT in having Saul and his servant placed “at the head of the guests,” rather than merely “among them” (so LXX). Josephus compresses the sequence of 1 Sam 9:23-24, where, at Samuel’s direction (v. 23), the “cook” places the “leg (MT; LXX shoulder) and the upper portion” (? MT LXX L, > LXX B) before Saul, who is then urged to eat by Samuel, and does so (v. 24). Josephus’ use of the expression “royal portion” to designate that which is given Saul accentuates the new status he is imminently to receive. This reference to the departure of the other guests at bedtime replaces the transitional notice of 1 Sam 9:25a: “and when they came down from the high place (LXX from Bama) into the city...,” which would not correspond to Josephus’ portrayal of the supper taking place in Samuel’s own house within the city; see note to “invited” at 6.48. Josephus’ wording here seems to reflect that of LXX BL 1 Sam 9:25b-26a (“... and they spread out for Saul on the roof something in which to wrap himself, and he went to sleep...”) vs. MT’s “and he [Saul] spoke with Samuel on the roof. And they arose early....” Josephus supplies the indication concerning the servant’s sleeping arrangements.

In 1 Sam 9:26 Samuel calls to Saul “on the roof” (see 9:25 LXX) so as to “rouse” him. Compare 1 Sam 9:27, where Samuel speaks, more portentously, of “a word of God” that he has for Saul.

This statement corresponds to the LXX L plus at the end of 1 Sam 9:27: “and Saul spoke to his servant and he passed on before them.” Greek: τὸ ἅγιον ἔλαιον; this is the majority reading of the witnesses that Niese follows. Marcus (ad loc.) adopts the alternative reading of ROE Lat, i.e. τὸ αγγεῖον, ἔλαιον (“[taking] his vial, [poured] oil”), this corresponding to the wording of 1 Sam 10:1: “he took a vial of oil and poured it....” See 1 Sam 10:1a. In having Samuel speak of Saul as “king,” Josephus diverges from MT and LXX 1 Sam 10:1b, both of which use “lesser” titles for him, i.e. “prince” (‮נגיד‬‎) or “ruler” (ἄρχων; cf. the Latin princeps of Bib. Ant. 56.5), respectively. Conversely, his Samuel refers to Saul’s having been “appointed” by God rather than “anointed” by him (so both MT and LXX 10:1b). This modification is in line with the frequent practice of Josephus who rewords biblical mentions of the “anointing” of Israelite kings with their messianic connotations that might well grate on Roman sensibilities, given the Jews’ recent efforts at regaining their independence. On Josephus’ “anti-messianism,” see Feldman 1998: 151-54. Josephus’ wording of Samuel’s statement to Saul at the moment of the latter’s designation clearly reflects the longer LXX form of 1 Sam 10:1b. In particular, his reference to Saul’s having been appointed “against the Palestinoi and for vengeance on the Hebrews’ behalf” seems to echo the LXX plus “you shall save them [the Israelites] from the hand of their enemies round about,” just as the announcement of a “sign” for Saul corresponds to the continuation of this plus.

In the sequence of 1 Samuel 10, Saul’s encounter with the 3 pilgrims is the 2nd of the 3 “signs” that Samuel foretells to him. Josephus makes this, as the least dramatic of Saul’s 3 upcoming experiences, the first in the series, thereby giving the whole complex a more clearly climactic movement. In addition, he leaves aside the specification concerning the site of Saul’s announced encounter with the 3 men from 1 Sam 10:3, i.e. “the oak of Tabor” (MT LXX B; “the choice oak,” LXX L). So MT 1 Sam 10:3; LXX speaks of 3 “containers of bread.” In both MT and LXX the loaves are mentioned by Samuel in 2nd place. Josephus’ shifting the item to the head of the list may have in view the fact that of the 3 items mentioned in 10:3, this is the only one that will actually be offered to Saul (see 10:4). Both MT and LXX 1 Sam 10:3 have the 2nd man carrying 3 kids. Josephus’ modification might be inspired by the practical consideration that it would be difficult for one person to actually carry 3 kids. This remainder of Josephus’ version of Samuel’s announcement to Saul in 1 Sam 10:3-4 corresponds quite closely to the biblical wording.

In 1 Samuel 10 what is to transpire at Rachel’s tomb is the first of the 3 signs; Josephus makes it rather the 2nd; see note to “Bethel” at 6.55. The Bible makes earlier mention of that tomb in Gen 35:19-20 (cf. Ant. 1.343); 48:7. As he did with the localization “at the oak of Tabor” of 1 Sam 10:3, Josephus leaves aside the source placement of Rachel’s tomb, i.e. “in the territory (MT; LXX mountains) of Benjamin (at Zelah [?] MT, > LXX).” According to 1 Sam 10:2, Saul is to meet 2 men; Josephus lacks an equivalent to the LXX plus describing the pair as “walking with great strides.” Josephus omits the man’s further announcement as predicted by Samuel in 1 Sam 10:2b, i.e. his father’s anxiety about Saul has subsided, now that the donkeys have been found. In so doing he aligns the upcoming announcement with Samuel’s own previous assurance concerning the donkeys in 6.51 (= 1 Sam 9:20) that mentions only the donkeys’ safety, not the effect of this on Kish. MT (1 Sam 10:5) ‮גבעת האלהים‬‎ (Eng.: “Gibeah-elohim”); LXX BL (translating) (εἰς) τὸν βουνὸν τοῦ θεοῦ; Josephus Γαβαθά. Josephus omits the appended source mention of the presence of Philistine “garrisons” (or “prefects,” Hebrew: ‮נצבים‬‎; LXX both “translates” and transliterates this word: “[where there is] the construction of the Philistines and Nasib the Philistine”) at the site as irrelevant to Samuel’s prediction of what will happen to Saul there. Josephus leaves aside the catalogue of musical instruments carried by the prophets in 1 Sam 10:5. He likewise passes over the notation that the prophets will be “coming down from the high place” (MT; “from Bama,” LXX); compare his reworking of the reference of 1 Sam 9:12b-13 to the people’s sacrifice “on the high place,” which Samuel is to bless, see note to “invited” at 6.48. Greek: γενόμενος ἔνθεος. This phrase substitutes for Samuel’s announcement in 1 Sam 10:6 (“then the spirit of Lord will come mightily upon you”). The word ἔνθ(ε)ος, is absent in the LXX, but appears, e.g., in Plato, Ion 534B and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 2.48.1. Josephus uses the term ἔνθεος 6 times elsewhere: War 3.353 (of Josephus himself); 4.33 (Vespasian), 4.388 (“inspired men”); Ant. 6.76 (Saul); 8.346 (Elijah); 9.35 (Elisha), in all these instances (except for War 4.388) as part of the expression “to become inspired” of 6.56. See Begg 1993: 186, n. 1231. Josephus leaves aside the added indication of 1 Sam 10:6 according to which Saul will not only prophesy with the group, but will himself “be turned into another man.” This statement by Samuel concerning the effect of Saul’s prophesying upon those who witness it has no equivalent at this point in the biblical sequence. It might, however, be viewed as Josephus’ anticipation/ positive reformulation of the (derogatory) question placed on the lips of those who see Saul prophesy in 1 Sam 10:11: “what has come over the son of Kish?”

Josephus renders more definite the vague instruction given Saul by Samuel in 1 Sam 10:7, i.e. “do whatever your hand finds to do.” MT (1 Sam 10:8) ‮הגלגל‬‎ (Eng.: “Gilgal”); LXX B Γαλαάδ; LXX L and Josephus Γάλγαλα (this is also A. Rahlfs’ emendation of B). In 10:8a Samuel tells Saul “come down before me to Gilgal” (MT LXX L; LXX B: come down before Galaad). This interjected remark seems intended to obviate the difficulty that whereas 1 Sam 10:8 appears to envisage Saul’s proceeding immediately to “Gilgal,” in what follows he will be found at a variety of other sites before finally arriving there (see 1 Sam 11:14-15). Accordingly, at this point Josephus simply has Samuel tell Saul that he is to come to Gilgal whenever Samuel will summon him there. In 1 Sam 10:8a Samuel announces his intention of offering “burnt offerings and peace offerings” at Gilgal. Josephus has him speak rather of “thanksgiving sacrifices” to be offered “for these things” (i.e. Saul’s designation and its sequels). He likewise accentuates the status of Saul by making him a co-sacrificer along with Samuel (as also by omitting Samuel’s imperious concluding words to him—which will themselves only be picked up much later in 13:8—of 1 Sam 10:8b: “seven days shall you wait, until I come and show you what you shall do”; compare Bib. Ant. 56.7, where Samuel prescribes a 7-day wait, nor for Saul, but rather for the people who have come forward to demand that he give them the promised king). In 1 Sam 10:9aα Saul takes the initiative in leaving Samuel; Josephus portrays a more deferential Saul, who waits to be “dismissed” by Samuel. He passes over the mention of 10:9aβ about God’s “giving Saul another heart” as he leaves Samuel, just as he earlier omitted the similar phrase of 10:6: “you [Saul] shall be turned into another man.” Compare 1 Sam 10:9b: “and all these signs came to pass that day”; Pseudo-Philo (who has no equivalent to the sequence of 1 Sam 10:2-7) reproduces this summary notice in Bib. Ant. 56.7 and adds “are these [the signs] not written in the Book of Samuel?” Following his version of the summarizing statement of 1 Sam 10:9b, Josephus leaves aside the sequence of 1 Sam 10:10-13a, which relates the fulfillment of the 3rd of the “signs,” i.e. Saul’s prophesying (10:5-6), predicted by Samuel and the effects of this on those who witness it. The omission (Pseudo-Philo has no parallel to it either) might have been motivated by the fact that it represents something of a duplicate of the episode related in 1 Sam 19:18-24 (which Josephus will reproduce in 6.220-223). Recall too that in 6.56 Josephus seems to anticipate the onlookers’ words (“what has come over the son of Kish?”) of 10:11, making his version of these part of Samuel’s own prediction to Saul of what awaits him.

MT 1 Sam 10:14 designates Saul’s interlocutor as his “uncle.” Like LXX, Josephus here employs a more general word, i.e. συγγενής, with the meaning “relative”; in 6.129 he will qualify Abner more specifically as the son of Saul’s uncle, i.e. his cousin. Saul’s “uncle” remains nameless throughout their exchange in 1 Sam 10:14-16. Josephus derives the name of this figure from 1 Sam 14:50 (// 6.130) which mentions “Abner” as the uncle (or cousin) of Saul. With this inserted phrase—compare 1 Sam 10:13 where, after prophesying, Saul goes to “the (which?) high place”)—Josephus provides a transition to the exchange between Saul and his relative, which in the Bible begins quite abruptly with the latter suddenly addressing Saul in 10:14. The insertion likewise offers a rationale for Saul’s going in first place to this figure’s house (rather than—as might be expected—to that of his own father, Kish). In 1 Sam 10:14a Saul’s uncle/relative asks both Saul and his servant, “Where did you go?” Josephus at this point compresses the sequence of 1 Sam 10:14b-16a, in which Saul (so MT; LXX they: Saul and the servant) responds to his uncle’s question (“where did you [pl.] go?,” v. 14a) that, after unsuccessfully searching for the donkeys, he and his servant had repaired to Samuel (v. 14b), whereupon the uncle asks what Samuel had told him (v. 15), Saul responding that the former had assured them that the donkeys had been found (v. 16a).

Josephus expatiates on the closing notice of 1 Sam 10:16b (“but about the matter of the kingdom about which Samuel had spoken, he did not tell him anything,” MT LXX L [LXX B lacks the phrase “about which Samuel had spoken”]) with an indication concerning Saul’s motivation in keeping silent about Samuel’s other communications to him that he will develop in what follows. This typical Josephan moralizing reflection with its highly negative view concerning humans generally serves to further motivate Saul’s silence about the kingship he has been awarded by Samuel. It recalls the warning that “human nature is self-loving and hostile to those of outstanding virtue” that Josephus has God deliver to Gideon in Ant. 5.215. “Envy” (φθόνος) its sources, objects, and consequences, is a major theme throughout Josephus’ story of Saul, his histories generally, and his own autobiography. On the topic see: Mason 1991: 225-27; 2001: 78-79, n. 591; Feldman 1998: 198-203. As these authors point out, the theme is also prominent in Greco-Roman historiography and biography. Cornelius Nepos (Chabrias 3), e.g., notes the “envy” (invidia) that the achievements of various Athenian generals evoked among their compatriots.

In mentioning “Mizpah” here (see 6.22 = 1 Sam 7:5), Josephus omits the further specification of 1 Sam 10:17 that Samuel summoned the people “before the Lord” at that site. On Josephus’ version of 1 Sam 10:17-27, see Begg 1996c. This formulation takes the place of the “messenger formula” (“thus says the Lord...”) with which Samuel opens his discourse in 1 Sam 10:18a and which Josephus consistently avoids. Josephus generalizes Samuel’s words in 1 Sam 10:18, where he recalls God’s bringing Israel out of Egypt and delivering it from the hand of the Egyptians. The reference to “freedom” here echoes Samuel’s summoning the people to act on behalf of their freedom in 6.19-20. To Samuel’s reminiscence of Israel’s “rejection” of its God as expressed in its demand for a king in 1 Sam 10:19a, Josephus has him append a remark underscoring the people’s “ignorance” concerning their own best interests in making that demand. The remark recalls God’s declaration that the people had rejected him “so that he might not rule as sole king” in 6.38.

In developing the contrast between the human king and the “best of all” divine king (6.60), Josephus has Samuel hark back to his warning concerning the ways of the former in 6.40-42. Greek: οὐχ . . . ἴδιον ἔργον. Compare Ant. 8.280, where King Abijah designates God as “his own work” (ὃς ἔργον . . . αὑτοῦ). Josephus here has Samuel sum up on his charges concerning the wrongfulness of the people’s opting for a human king and rejecting their divine one (6.60-61) as a transition to the command he will now give them. The word translated “families” is σκῆπτρα, literally “staffs,” but often used in the LXX in the meaning of either “tribes” or “families.” In LXX B 1 Sam 10:19b Samuel calls on the people to group themselves κατὰ τὰ σκῆπρα καὶ τὰς φυλὰς ὑμῶν (“according to your families and tribes”; compare MT and LXX L: “by your tribes and your thousands”). Josephus uses the same 2 designations as LXX B, while reversing their order. Josephus has Samuel command the people not only to take their positions by groups (so 1 Sam 10:19b), but to also cast lots (as they do in the continuation of the biblical account).

MT (1 Sam 10:21) ‮המטרי‬‎ (Eng.: “the Matrites”); LXX B Ματταρεί; LXX L Ἀματταρί; Josephus Ματρίς. In specifying that first the tribe and then the family was taken “by lot,” Josephus follows LXX 1 Sam 10:20-21 with its use of the verb κατακληρόω, whereas MT speaks simply of their being “taken.” This formulation reflects the plus of LXX 1 Sam 10:21aβ: “and he [Samuel] brought the family of Mattarei (B)/ Amattari (L) near man by man.” 1 Sam 10:21bα reads simply “and Saul the son of Kish was taken (by lot).” Josephus spells out the import of his being thus “taken.”

Josephus anticipates his mention of Saul’s “hiding himself” in response to his being “taken” from 1 Sam 10:22b, where God informs the Israelites that Saul “has hidden himself among the baggage.” This extended insertion, highlighting Saul’s modesty, provides a motivation for his self-concealment that 1 Sam 10:21-22 itself leaves unexplained. It recalls Josephus’ accentuation of Saul’s modesty in response to Samuel in 6.51 (see note to “position” there) in comparison with his words in 1 Sam 9:21. The depiction of Saul here in 6.63 further serves to establish an association between him and such Roman heroes as King Numa, Cincinatus and Cato the Elder who showed reluctance to assume the offices that were pressed upon them.

Josephus elaborates on Saul’s “unfindability” (so 1 Sam 10:21bβ) with mention of the emotional effect of this upon the people. In making Samuel the subject of the “inquiry” of 1 Sam 10:22aα, Josephus agrees with LXX against MT, where “they,” i.e. the people as a whole, undertake the inquiry of God. Josephus gives a more definite content to Samuel’s “inquiry” than one finds in the rather allusive question he poses to God in 1 Sam 10:22aβ (“is there yet a man to come hither?” [MT]/ “did the man come hither?” [LXX]).

From the divine answer of 1 Sam 10:22b Josephus omits the detail that Saul was hiding “among the baggage,” given that this might appear degrading for a future king (and has, in any case, not been mentioned in what precedes). MT and LXX 1 Sam 10:23a differ as to who it is who “runs” and brings Saul back: in the former it the people as a whole, in the latter rather Samuel acting alone. Josephus seems to conflate the 2 divergent presentations with his reference to Samuel’s taking the initiative in dispatching men to fetch Saul. According to MT 1 Sam 10:23bα Saul “takes his stand among the people,” whereas in LXX Samuel “sets him in place.” Josephus follows the LXX in his ongoing highlighting of Samuel’s active role in the proceedings. 1 Sam 10:23bβ specifies that Saul was “taller than any of the people from his shoulders upward.”

This affirmation takes the place of Samuel’s question to the people of 1 Sam 10:24aβ: “do you see him whom the Lord has chosen?,” which might appear otiose given Saul’s actual presence among them (10:23). This is Josephus’ equivalent to Samuel’s affirmation in 1 Sam 10:24bα: “there is none like him among the people.” In 1 Sam 10:24bβ the people shout “Long live the king.” Josephus reverses the sequence of 1 Sam 10:25a, where Samuel first speaks to the people and then writes his words down. In 1 Sam 10:25a Samuel first presents orally and then writes down the “ordinance of the kingship” (MT ‮משׁפט המלכה‬‎; LXX B “ordinance of the king”). Seeing that Samuel has already discoursed at length on the “ordinance of the king” (‮משׁפט המלך‬‎, MT 1 Sam 8:9) in 1 Sam 8:10-18 (= 6.40-42), Josephus provides a new, more general content to his words here, i.e. future events. Josephus’ reference to Samuel’s “reading” his words to the people reflects the fact that in his presentation Samuel writes his words down before delivering them. 1 Sam 10:25a does not explicitly mention Saul as being among Samuel’s hearers. In 1 Sam 10:25aβ Samuel simply lays the book up “before the Lord.” Josephus replaces this vague indication with mention of a specific locale, i.e. “the tent of God” (see the references to this having been erected at Shiloh in Ant. 5.68, 343). He likewise supplies a rationale for such a storing of the book, i.e. its projected “witness” for later generations concerning the “predictions” Samuel has just made (on these as the content of his book/address, see note to “were to happen” at 6.66). Josephus’ presentation of Samuel’s initiatives here further serves to associate him with both Moses (see Ant. 3.38; 4.303) and Joshua (see Ant. 5.61), whose respective documents concerning the future are both laid up “in the temple.”

See 1 Sam 10:25b. With this inserted notice Josephus responds to the question of what Samuel himself did following the breakup of the Mizpah proceedings as related in 1 Sam 10:17-25 (= 6.60-66). For “Armatha” as Samuel’s “hometown,” see 6.35, cf. 1 Sam 7:17. MT (1 Sam 10:26a) ‮גבעתה‬‎ (Eng.: “Gibeah”); LXX B Γαβαά; LXX L (translating) τὸν Βουνόν; Josephus Γαβαθή. Josephus had Samuel announce Saul’s coming to this site in 6.57 (// 1 Sam 10:5). From 1 Sam 10:26b Josephus eliminates the reference to God’s “touching the hearts” of the “mighty men” who then simply accompany Saul to his home, while also accentuating the respect “good persons” accorded him. Josephus highlights both the extent of the opposition to Saul (this comprises the majority of the people; compare 1 Sam 10:27aα, where Saul is opposed only by “some worthless fellows”) and its all-encompassing manifestations (they not only “despise” him and bring him no presents [so 10:27aβbα], but also ridicule his supporters and show complete indifference to securing his favor). Like LXX B and 4QSama, Josephus has no equivalent to the plus of MT LXX L 10:27bβ, according to which Saul, in response to his opponents’ treatment of him, “held his peace.”

This chronological indication (absent in MT) stands at the same point in Josephus’ presentation as in LXX 1 Sam 11:1, i.e. at the very beginning of the account of Saul’s Ammonite war. By contrast, the corresponding notice of 4QSama appears only at a later point. MT (1 Sam 11:1) ‮נחשׁ‬‎ (Eng.: “Nahash”); LXX Ναάς; Josephus Ναάσης. This notice marks the transition from and contrast between the time of Saul’s being despised by many (6.67) and the “universal honor” that he subsequently acquired through his victory over the Ammonites. In what follows Josephus will give his amplified version of the 4QSama plus concerning Nahash’s Transjordanian campaign as found at the beginning of its 1 Samuel 11. This text reads in the translation of McCarter (1980: 199): “Now Nahash... had been oppressing the Gadites and the Reubenites grievously, gouging out the right eye of each of them and allowing Israel no deliverer. No men of the Israelites who were across the Jordan remained whose right eye Nahash... had not gouged out. But seven thousand men had escaped from the Ammonites and entered into Jabesh-gilead.” On Josephus’ version of 1 Samuel 11, see Begg 1997f. This general term for Nahash’s victims replaces mention of “the Gadites and the Reubenites” in the plus of 4QSama; see note to “for him” at 6.68. Josephus goes beyond 4QSama itself in magnifying the Ammonite threat with this reference to the size and character of Nahash’s army.

In the above sequence only Josephus’ reference to Nahash’s gouging out the Transjordanians’ right eyes has an actual parallel in 4QSama. What precedes in 6.69 is a further elaboration of the severity of the Ammonite threat, featuring the astuteness of Nahash and his readiness to mutilate all without distinction, the result being that the Transjordanians are thoroughly subjugated by him, not only for the present, but also for the future. The phrase “law of war” (Greek πολέμου νόμος; cf. Latin ius belli) used by Josephus here refers to the rights which success in war gave to the victor over the lives and property of the vanquished.

Josephus’ (military) rationale for Nahash’s practice of gouging out precisely the right eye of his victims has no parallel in the plus of 4QSama (compare MT 1 Sam 11:2bβ, where Nahash spells out the intended purpose of his threatened removal of the Jabeshites’ right eyes, i.e, “and thus put disgrace upon all Israel”). The notice takes the place of 4QSama’s own reference to the 7,000 Transjordanians who previously escaped to Jabesh-gilead (and who have no role in the continuation of the story).

With this transitional phrase, Josephus, after his preceding use of the 4QSama plus, reconnects with the joint story line of MT LXX 1 Samuel 11. MT (1 Sam 11:1) ‮יבשׁ גלעד‬‎ (Eng.: “Jabesh-gilead”); LXX B Ἰαβεὶς Γαλαάδ; LXX L Ἰαβὶς Γαλαάδ; Josephus Ἰαβίς (called by him the “metropolis” of Nahash’s enemies, the Galadenes [Γαλαδηνούς]). In 1 Sam 11:1b the Jabeshites take the initiative in asking Nahash for a treaty and promising to serve him. Josephus transfers the initiative in the negotiations to Nahash himself, once again underscoring his (current) control of events, likewise having him begin his message to the Galadenes with a call for their surrender. See 1 Sam 11:2a, where Nahash mentions his doing this as “the condition” for the “treaty” previously asked for by the Jabeshites (11:1b). Josephus leaves aside Nahash’s appended indication that the eye-gouging is intended to “put disgrace upon Israel” (11:2bβ), having already cited an alternative military rationale for the measure in 6.70. This warning as to what awaits the Jabeshites should they fail to surrender has no equivalent in Nahash’s words to them as cited in 1 Sam 11:2. The addition highlights the threat facing the Jabeshites, whatever response they make to Nahash. This conclusion to Nahash’s message, underscoring the hopeless dilemma the Jabeshites face, is Josephus’ own. With Nahash’s alternative here between the “minor” loss of a body part (the right eye) and total destruction, compare the word of Jesus in Matt 5:29 (and parallels): “If you right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell.”

This inserted notice concerning the disorienting first effect of Nahash’s message upon the recipients underscores the terrifying gravity of the threat posed by him. Josephus’ Jabeshites spell out what the messengers mentioned by them in their request of Nahash in 1 Sam 11:3a are to ask of their compatriots. Like LXX, Josephus has the entire population (rather than simply the city “elders,” so MT) make the request of Nahash. This possible positive outcome to the Jebeshites’ embassy is not mentioned in 1 Sam 11:3b, which they refer only to its negative outcome and the consequences for themselves. To the Jabeshites’ statement in 1 Sam 11:3b about what they will do should their embassy generate no help for them, Josephus appends this concluding reference to Nahash’s, getting to do whatever he wishes with them, should they end up surrendering.

Josephus inserts this response by Nahash to the Jebeshites’ appeal, whereas in 1 Sam 11:4 the messengers simply proceed to Gibeah without his permission being obtained. As in 6.71 (compare 11:2) Josephus accentuates the king’s domination of the proceedings. This reference to the messengers’ visitation of all Israel lacks a counterpart in 1 Samuel 11, where (see v. 4) only their going to Saul’s hometown is mentioned.

This description of the pan-Israelite response to the messengers’ report has no source basis. It serves to highlight Saul’s own subsequent efficacious initiative in the face of such universal paralysis. Compare the various designations used for the messengers’ destination in 1 Sam 11:4: “Gibeah of Saul” (MT); “Gabaa (to Saul)” (LXX B); “to the hill of Saul” (LXX L). Josephus embellishes the reference of 1 Sam 11:4b to the inhabitants of Saul’s town “weeping aloud.”

The witnesses for 1 Sam 11:5a differ as to how Saul “comes from the field”: “behind the oxen” (MT), “after the morning” (LXX B), “early after the oxen” (LXX L). See 1 Sam 11:5b.

In 1 Sam 11:6 the reference is to God’s spirit “coming mightily upon Saul” with the result that his “anger is greatly kindled.” Josephus’ substitute phrase (Greek: ἔθεος γενόμενος) is the same used by him in place of the mention of God’s spirit “coming mightily upon” Saul of 1 Sam 10:6; see note to “becoming inspired” at 6.56. In the biblical sequence Saul (so LXX; MT: they, i.e. the Israelites as a whole) dispatches the messengers back to Jabesh (1 Sam 11:9) only after the king has initiated a variety of other measures (11:7-8). Josephus’ reversal of this sequence reflects the consideration that the besieged Jabeshites would have been in desperate need of immediate reassurance. Whereas in 1 Sam 11:9 Saul promises deliverance “tomorrow,” Josephus, reflecting that it would have taken more time to assemble the Israelite forces (cf. 11:7-8), makes this “on the third day.” In 1 Sam 11:9 Saul seems to send back all the Jabeshite messengers. Josephus’ having him retain some of them as guides accentuates his status as a general who “thinks of everything.”

Josephus supplies this motivation for Saul’s initiative with the oxen as reported in 1 Sam 11:7a. In 1 Sam 11:7 Saul cuts the oxen “in pieces” rather than simply “hamstringing” them. 1 Sam 11:7aα (where MT speaks of “a yoke of oxen,” LXX of “two cows”) does not specify that it was Saul’s own beasts that were used by him. Josephus’ clarification of the point highlights Saul’s readiness to sacrifice personally for the cause of his compatriots. According to 1 Sam 11:7aβ Saul dispatched the pieces of the cut-up beasts throughout Israel with the threat to do the same to the oxen/cows of whoever did not join him. In Josephus the oxen are only hamstrung, not dismembered, and so cannot be practicably carried from place to place. Accordingly, Josephus turns Saul’s threat into a purely verbal one, minus the Bible’s accompanying visual reinforcement of this. Josephus supplies a specification, lacking in 1 Sam 11:7bα, as to where, when and how (i.e. “armed”) the Israelites are to meet Saul and Samuel. This indication concerning the intended sequel to the Israelites’ joining Saul and Samuel is Josephus’ addition to the wording of 1 Sam 11:7bα.

In 1 Sam 11:7bβ the people’s fear is a divinely-sent one; Josephus grounds it rather in Saul’s preceding threat; cf. the opening words of 6.77. Josephus’ reading here reflects the final verb of MT 1 Sam 11:7 (“they came out”) as against LXX’s “they shouted.” His inserted reference to “the designated time” picks up on Saul’s directing the Israelites to assemble “on the next day” in 6.77. The witnesses for 1 Sam 11:8a differ as to where, and by whom, Israel is mustered, compare: “he [Saul] mustered them in Bezek” (MT); “Abiezek mustered them in Bama” (LXX B); “Saul mustered them in Rama” (LXX L). According to Schalit (s.v.) the place name “Bala” read by Niese and Marcus in 6.78 is a corruption of the LXX B reading, i.e. Βαμά. Josephus gives a higher figure for the non-Judean Israelites than do either MT (300,000) or LXX and 4QSama (600,000) 1 Sam 11:8. Josephus’ figure for the Judean forces agrees with that of LXX 1 Sam 11:8 (and that reconstructed for 4QSama) as opposed to the 30,000 of MT.

10 schoenoi are equivalent to ca. 40-50 miles; see Marcus ad loc. These indications on Saul’s march are peculiar to Josephus; they portray Saul as an energetic general, determined to reach his goal by the stated time, i.e. before sunrise (see 6.76). See 1 Sam 11:11, which Josephus characteristically embellishes with mention of the suddenness of the attack and the unpreparedness of the enemy; compare, e.g., his description of Ahab’s victory over the Syrians in Ant. 8.377. 1 Sam 11:11bα does not mention Nahash himself being killed in the battle; Josephus’ insertion on the point satisfies readers’ curiosity concerning the king’s fate (and their sense of poetic justice regarding one who had himself caused such harm to the Israelites).

This notice on the reaction to Saul’s victory is biblically unparalleled; it accentuates Saul’s status as a successful general, just as it recalls the reference (6.68) to the “universal honor” Saul’s conduct in the upcoming Ammonite war was to bring him. Greek: πάντων ἄριστος; this is the same expression used of God as Israel’s king by Samuel in 6.60. Josephus’ insertion here in 6.80 underscores the universality of the popularity (see 6.68) that Saul’s victory won him: even his erstwhile confirmed detractors (see 6.67) now join in recognizing his abilities. These statements on Saul’s following up his victory portray him as a general who knows how to make full use of the opportunity afforded him by his success to definitively eliminate the Ammonite threat and gain riches thereby. Compare 1 Sam 11:11bβ, where there is no mention of Saul’s personal role in the post-battle situation: “... those who survived [i.e. of the Ammonites] were scattered so that no two of them were left together.”

This inserted statement concerning the general satisfaction with Saul’s kingship serves as a lead-in to the people’s subsequent demand regarding his detractors (see 1 Sam 11:12). In 1 Sam 11:12 the crowd addresses itself to Samuel. This rhetorical question takes the place of the one ascribed to the people in 1 Sam 11:12: “Who is it that said, ‘Shall Saul (+ not, LXX) reign over us’?” Josephus has already reintroduced Saul’s former detractors (see 6.67= 1 Sam 10:27) in 6.80. This appendix to the crowd’s words as cited in 1 Sam 11:12 is another expression of Josephus’ contempt for the masses; see note on “even the crowds” at 6.34.

Josephus follows MT and LXX L 1 Sam 11:13 in making Saul the one to respond to the crowd’s demand (which in 1 Sam 11:12 is addressed rather to Samuel); in LXX B+ Samuel is the respondent. Josephus embellishes Saul’s refusal to permit the death of his detractors (1 Sam 11:13) with mention of his initial expression of appreciation for the crowd’s attachment and by having him confirm his rejection of their demand with an oath. The translation follows the reading of RO as printed by Niese. Marcus adopts the rather different reading of SP, which he renders as follows: “... it were monstrous to defile that God-given victory with bloodshed and murder of men of their own race, and it better beseemed them to keep feast in a spirit of mutual good-will.” Whichever reading is preferred, one has here a Josephan expansion of the biblical Saul’s words of 1 Sam 11:13, in which he makes the king the mouthpiece for his oft-voiced condemnation of intramural Jewish violence; see Feldman 1998: 556. As one who attempts to mollify tensions within the people, Saul stands in the line of both Gideon (Ant. 5.230-231) and Jephthah (5.267-268).

See 1 Sam 11:14-15aα. Josephus agrees with LXX 1 Sam 11:15aβ in making Samuel (rather than the people as a whole, so MT) the subject of the action regarding Saul. He likewise follows LXX in speaking of Samuel’s “anointing” Saul, whereas in MT “they make Saul king.” In introducing mention of the “holy oil” with which Samuel anoints Saul here, Josephus harks back to his own presentation in 6.54 (cf. 1 Sam 10:1), where this same phrase appears (at least in the Niese reading); see note to “oil” there. On that earlier occasion, however, Samuel “pours” the oil on Saul’s head rather than “anointing” him as here in 6.83. Josephus rounds off his whole segment 6.32-83 (= 1 Samuel 8-11) dealing with the emergence of the monarchy with this phrase, which likewise serves as a lead-in for his following remarks on the evolution of the Israelites’ constitution in 6.84-85.

Greek: μαθητής. This is Josephus’ only use of the term as a designation of Joshua in relation to Moses. On his 14 total uses of the word (which occurs only 3 times in the LXX), see Begg 1993: 197, n. 1307. The name is absent in RO and bracketed by Niese; Marcus reads it without brackets, following the other witnesses. This is Josephus’ only use of the verb ἀριστοκρατέομαι (“live under an aristocratic form of government”). The term here echoes the cognate noun found in 6.36, where Josephus speaks of kingship as being much inferior to “aristocracy”; see note to “constitution” at 6.36. Josephus’ one remaining use of term ἀναρχία (“anarchy”) is in Ant. 5.185, where, following the death of the judge Kenaz, Israel falls into this condition. The only 18-year period cited in Josephus’ account of the Judges epoch is the time of Israel’s subjugation to Eglon king of Moab; see 5.187 and cf. Marcus ad loc. Whereas, however, the anarchy spoken of in 5.187 begins only after the death of Keniaz when Israel fell under the power of Moab, 6.84 suggests that such anarchy set in directly after the death of Joshua.

According to Josephus’ account of the Judges period, this constitutional shift occurred with the overthrow of King Eglon of Moab by “Ioud” (Ehud) (see Ant. 5.197)—which itself ended the 18 years of “anarchy” that set in after the death of Keniaz (see previous note)—and prevailed down to the new change of constitution that occurred with Saul’s accession to kingship (see 6.83). Greek: ἄριστος. The use of this term sets up a word-play with the verbal form ἀριστοκοκρατούμενοι (“living under an aristocratic form of government”) of 6.84, thereby reinforcing Josephus’ statement that the period of the Judges as spoken of in 6.85 did represent a “return” to the “aristocracy” of the time of Moses and Joshua. The term further echoes the references to God and Saul as “the best of all” in 6.60 and 6.80, respectively; see note to “the best of all” at 6.80. In the above reflective interlude Josephus thus distinguishes 4 distinct governmental stages in the period between Moses-Joshua and Saul’s accession: aristocracy, anarchy, return to aristocracy with the Judges, and kingship. According to Ant. 11.111 the Jews reverted to “aristocracy” (now combined with “oligarchy”) a 2nd time following the exile when the high priests assumed power, they, in turn, giving way to a revived kingship under the Hasmoneans.

1 Sam 12:1 makes no mention of Samuel’s “calling an assembly” prior to his speaking to the people (i.e. apparently in connection with their gathering at Gilgal, 1 Sam 11:14-15). Josephus’ inserted reference to the prophet’s convening of a (new) assembly confers extra solemnity on his following words; it has a parallel in Bib. Ant. 57.1. On Josephus’ version of 1 Samuel 12, see Begg 1997g. In moving immediately to Samuel’s summoning the people to give their testimony against him (// 1 Sam 12:3aα), Josephus passes over the leader’s opening words as cited in 1 Sam 12:1-2, i.e. the reminder that he has given them their asked-for king (v. 1), reference to the current presence among them of that king, himself, and his sons (v. 2a), and allusion to his own life-long leadership of the people (v. 2b). By contrast, Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 57.2) precedes Samuel’s call to testify in 57.3 with a reminiscence of God’s earlier punishment of the company of Korah (see Numbers 16), who had falsely claimed, in response to Moses’ question, that he had “taken” things from them. Greek: ὁ μέγιστος θεός. This is Josephus’ first use of this designation for God in Antiquities. On it, see Begg 1993: 156, n. 1010. The words “the good” [Greek: τοὺς ἀγαθούς] as a qualification of “the brothers” are missing in RO and not printed in Niese’s text. Marcus includes them with the other witnesses. In 1 Sam 12:3aα Samuel summons the people to testify “before the Lord and his anointed.” Leaving the mention of Saul’s presence for a later point (see 6.87), Josephus expatiates on the source’s reference to the Deity, anticipating the allusion in 12:6, 8b to God’s delivery of the ancestors from Egypt through the agency of Moses and Aaron. Josephus’ elaborations of Samuel’s simple summoning of the people to “testify” against him in 1 Sam 12:3aα underscore the confidence of his vindication with which Josephus’ Samuel issues that summons—he has no doubt that the people will have nothing to charge him with. This sequence corresponds to the last 3 questions in the 5-question series Samuel addresses to the people in 1 Sam 12:3: “Or whom have I defrauded? Whom have I oppressed? Or from whose hand have I taken a bribe [+ or a pair of shoes, LXX] to blind my eyes with it [MT LXX L; LXX B lacks these closing words]?” Like MT then Josephus has no equivalent to the LXX mention of the “shoes” that Samuel did not take.

Niese includes these words—compare the “ox” and “ass” about which Samuel asks in 1 Sam 12:3— within brackets in his text, affirming that they “appear to be spurious.” Marcus (ad loc.) reads them without the brackets; they are present in all witnesses. Josephus here expatiates on Samuel’s opening 2 questions according to 1 Sam 12:3 (“Whose ox have I taken? Or whose ass have I taken?”), likewise placing these at the end of the series of his possible misdeeds about which the people are being invited to testify. Pseudo-Philo’s development of Samuel’s call to “testify” in Bib. Ant. 57.3 is quite different from the biblical and Josephan ones: his prophet challenges the people to say whether their asking him for a king was prompted by his mistreatment of them. Josephus’ reserves until the end of Samuel’s discourse his parallel to the words which the leader opens his summoning the people to testify in 1 Sam 12:3: “testify against me before the Lord and his anointed.” In making this exhortation the conclusion of Samuel’s speech, Josephus omits his final words in 1 Sam 12:3, i.e. his promising to “restore” whatever the people might charge him with having “taken.” Thereby, he once again (see 6.86) underscores Samuel’s total confidence in his vindication by them, this excluding even the idea that might be anything that he will need to restore to them. Greek: ὁσίωσς... καὶ δικαίως. This adverbial collocation has an adjectival counterpart in Ant. 8.245, 295 (reverse order); 9.35 (here predicated of King Jehoshaphat). Josephus amplifies the people’s negative statement about Samuel’s having done no wrong (1 Sam 12:4) with this positive affirmation on their part. Josephus lacks an equivalent to the summary recapitulation of the Samuel-people exchange of 1 Sam 12:3-4 in 12:5. In Bib. Ant. 57.4 the people respond to Samuel’s call for them to testify (57.3) by declaring themselves and their king to be his “servants” and confessing that it was their unworthiness to be ruled by a prophet that prompted them to demand a king. Pseudo-Philo’s version of 1 Samuel 12 then concludes with the people weeping, acclaiming Samuel as prophet as Saul stands by, and sacrificing.

In place of the Bible’s summary introduction (“and Samuel said to the people,” 12:6a) to Samuel’s following admonition, Josephus introduces this elaborate transition that picks up on his previous exchange with the people and highlights the significance of what he will now say. Samuel’s “speaking with frank speech (Greek: παρρησία)” to the people in God’s name here is reminiscent of Joshua’s “using frank speech (Greek: παρρησία)” with God on behalf of the people in Ant. 5.38. Within his discourse of 1 Sam 12:6-25 Samuel comes to castigate the people’s demand for a king only in 12:17b. By having him mention the matter already at the outset of his speech, Josephus signals that the wrongfulness of that demand will be the speech’s main theme. By contrast, the biblical Samuel opens his discourse in 12:6-7 by recalling God’s appointment of Moses and Aaron in Egypt and his delivery of the people from there (v.6, already anticipated by Josephus in 6.86) and stating his intention of reminding the people of the Lord’s great deeds on behalf of their ancestors (v. 7).

In mentioning that not only Jacob himself but also his household went down to Egypt, Josephus reflects the plus (“and his sons”) of LXX 1 Sam 12:8aα. At the same time, drawing on Gen 46:27 (// Ant. 2.176); Exod 1:5, he supplies a figure for those who accompanied Jacob to Egypt, just as he inserts a reference to the motivation (“famine”; see Gen 42:1-3 [// Ant. 2.95]; 43:1-2 [// Ant. 2.114]) for his going there. Josephus inserts this reminiscence of the people’s multiplication in Egypt on the basis of Exod 1:7. Once again (see note to “to Egypt” at 6.89) Josephus’ reading reflects a LXX plus in 1 Sam 12:8, i.e. “and the Egyptians humbled them.” In 1 Sam 12:8aβ the ancestors “cry to the Lord.” This Josephan insertion picks up on the thesis statement of Samuel’s discourse as formulated by Josephus in 6.88, i.e. the wrongfulness of the people’s demand for a king—in whose absence God had delivered their ancestors. See 1 Sam 12:8b. In making Moses and Aaron— already cited in 6.86—the ones who bring the people into their land, Josephus follows the wording of MT as against LXX, where God himself is the subject of this action.

Greek: θρησκεία καὶ εὐσέβια; Josephus’ one other use of this combination is in Ant. 16.115, where the terms occurs in reverse order. He expands on the summary charge of 1 Sam 12:9a (“but they forgot the Lord their God”) in a way paralleled in the Tg.’s rendering (“they forgot the service of their God”). He likewise makes Samuel’s own hearers—rather than their ancestors (so 12:9)—the object of Samuel’s accusation. 1 Sam 12:9b speaks of God’s “selling the Israelites into the hand of” 3 enemy leaders/peoples, i.e. Sisera, the Philistines, and the king of Moab. Avoiding this formulation just as he did its occurrences in the Book of Judges, Josephus turns the allusion into a positive statement about God’s “freeing” Israel from the domination of 4 foreign nations. This initial entry in Josephus’ catalogue of the 4 nations from whose dominion God freed Israel (see note to “freed you” at 6.90) has no equivalent in 1 Sam 12:9b, whose opening allusion to Israel’s subjection to the Canaanite Sisera it replaces. The mention of “the Assyrians” here is a reference to Othniel’s (Josephus: Keniaz’) victory over King Cushan-rishathaim of Mesopotamia (Judg 3:7-11), whom Josephus calls “king of Assyria” in Ant. 5.180. Like the previously mentioned Assyrians, this people is absent from the catalogue of 1 Sam 12:9b. The allusion is to Jephthah’s victory over the Ammonites as described in Judg 11:32-33 (// Ant. 5.263). In 1 Sam 12:9b Israel’s subjugation to “the king of Moab” is mentioned after its domination by the Philistines. Josephus reverses this order, given that the Book of Judges treats Israel’s oppression by the Moabites (see Judg 3:14) prior to that by the Philistines (Judg 13:1). In addition, he turns the source’s negative reference to Israel’s submission to the Moabite king into a positive one concerning its triumph over the Moabites, as effected by Ehud (“Ioud”) in Judg 3:30 (// Ant. 5.197). The Philistines are the 2nd of the peoples/kings to be cited in 1 Sam 12:9b. The reference is to Samson’s exploits against the Philistines as related in Judges 13-16 (// Ant. 5.276-317). This phrase, echoing the wording of 6.88, 89, takes the place of the mention of the people’s confession/appeal in 1 Sam 12:10, which, in turn, prompted the Lord’s sending of the Judges cited in 12:11. In omitting the former item, Josephus underscores the gratuity of God’s saving intervention, which occurs without any preceding repentance by Israel. Josephus 2-member list of Israel’s generals contrasts with the 4 names cited, with variations, in the witnesses to 1 Sam 12:11a, i.e. Jerubbaal, Bedan, Jephthah, Samuel (MT); Jeroboam, Barak, Jephthah, Samuel (LXX B); Jerubbbaal, Barak, Jephthah, Samuel (LXX L); and Gideon [see Josephus], Samson, Jephthah, Samuel (Tg.). For more on Josephus’ list in comparison with the biblical ones, see Begg 1997g, 66, n. 66.

This question, reiterating Samuel’s reference (6.89) to God, “in the absence of a king,” freeing the people from their Egyptian slavery, takes the place of the immediate continuation of the Judge list of 1 Sam 12:11a, i.e. v. 11b (Israel’s dwelling in safety following the initiatives of the various Judges) and 12 (the threat of the Ammonite king Nahash [1 Samuel 11] prompts Israel’s demand for a king). Josephus’ omission of the latter item is readily understandable given the fact that in both the Bible (1 Samuel 8) and his own presentation (6.32-44) that demand is inspired rather by Samuel’s age, the unworthiness of his sons, and concern for future military leadership against the Philistines. Cf. 1 Sam 12:13, where Samuel makes parenthetical reference to King Saul’s presence at the assembly. Josephus anticipates this phrase concerning the purpose of the “sign” Samuel is about to announce (see 1 Sam 12:16-17a) from 12:17b. In thus proceeding directly from 12:13 (the presence of the king) to 12:16-17 (the announced sign and its purpose), Josephus reserves for a later point Samuel’s conditional promise/ warning of 12:14-15. Compare Samuel’s question in 1 Sam 12:17a: “Is not wheat harvest today?” (which in Palestine takes place in early summer, when the rains have ceased to fall). See 1 Sam 12:16-17a.

Compare 1 Sam 12:18, which, less dramatically, mentions only “thunder and rain.” Greek: ἀλήθεια. This reference to God’s confirming the “truth” of Samuel’s words echoes the designation of Samuel as a “truthful prophet” (προφήτης ἀληθής) in 6.47. Greek: χρηστός καὶ ἐπιεικῆς. This combination occurs only here in Josephus; the word χρηστός (“kind”) recurs in Josephus’ own eulogy for Samuel in 6.294. On the noun ἐπιείκεια and its cognates, see Spicq 1978 (I): 263-68. Greek ταύτην ἀφεῖναι τὴν ἁμαρτίαν (alternative translation: “to forgive this sin”). This phrase occurs only here in Josephus. Compare Luke 11:4, where the petition of the “Our Father” reads ἄφες ἡμῖν τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν (“forgive us our sins”). On the parallels between Josephus and Luke-Acts overall, see Krenkel 1894; Mason 2003: 251-95. This sequence represents an amplification, accentuating the status of Samuel, of the sequence concerning the people’s response to the God-sent storm in 1 Sam 12:18b-19, i.e. their “fear” of the Lord and Samuel, appeal for Samuel’s intercession, and confession of their additional sin in asking for a king.

Greek: συγγιγνώσκω. Josephus’ one other use of this verb with God as subject is in Ant. 11.129 (object: the Judeans). On the use of the term, its cognates, and word-field in Greek literature overall, see Metzler 1991. Josephus anticipates this promise by Samuel from 1 Sam 12:23a, making it the very first component of his response (12:20-25) to the people’s appeal for his intercession (12:19). This phrase echoes Samuel’s statement that he is going to induce God to make the wrongfulness of the people’s request for a king clear to them “through signs,” i.e. the “rainstorm in midsummer” in 6.91. Greek: ἡ Μωυσέως νομοθεσία. This is Josephus’ only use of this phrase. On his recurring (16 times in Antiquities 1-4) use of the cognate term νομοθέτης (“legislator”) for Moses, see Feldman 1998: 399. With this exhortation Josephus sums up and combines the conditional promises that Samuel makes his hearers in 2 different contexts of his biblical speech, i.e. 12:14 and 12:20-22, 23b-24.

This conditional warning synthesizes those voiced separately by Samuel in 1 Sam 12:15, 25. Compare in particular 12:15, where Samuel warns that if the people prove rebellious, then “the hand of the Lord will be against you and your king.” Josephus’ substitution of “blow” for the anthropomorphic “hand” of MT has a counterpart in Tg. With this narrative notice Josephus provides suitable closure to Samuel’s farewell discourse (which, biblically, ends abruptly in 1 Sam 12:25, with Samuel still speaking). Its formulation harks back to Josephus’ (likewise inserted) mention of Samuel’s convening an assembly in 6.86 and to the prophet’s statement about the need to reconfirm Saul’s kingship in 6.83 (cf. 1 Sam 11:14).

Like LXX B, Josephus has no equivalent to the (problematic) chronological indications of MT LXX L 1 Sam 13:1, which read literally: “Saul was a year old [Tg. glosses: there was no sin in him; cf. Bib. Ant. 57.5: “afterwards Saul fought with the Philistines for one year...”] when he became king, and he reigned... two years over Israel.” Josephus nowhere specifies Saul’s age at accession; subsequently, however, he will provide (divergent) figures for his length of reign, i.e. 40 years (6.378= Acts 13:21) vs. 20 years (10.143). 1 Sam 13:2aα speaks more generally of the 2,000 “being with” Saul at Michmash. The specific mention of Saul’s taking “bodyguards” echoes the Josephan Samuel’s announcement about the kings’ compelling certain of the Israelites’ sons to be their bodyguards in 6.40. In 1 Sam 13:2aβ Saul and the 2,000 establish themselves “in Michmash and the hill country of Bethel.” Schalit (s.v.) qualifies the place name read by Niese and Marcus in 6.95 (βέθηβος) as certainly erroneous and proposes substituting the form Βήθηλος in line with the biblical reference to “Bethel.” MT (1 Sam 13:2) ‮יונתן‬‎ (Eng.: “Jonathan”); LXX Ἰωναθάν; Josephus Ἰωνάθης. MT (1 Sam 13:2bα) ‮(ב)גבעת בנימים‬‎ (Eng.: “Gibeah of Benjamin”); LXX B Γαβεὲ τοῦ Βενιαμείν; LXX L Γαβαὰ τοῦ Βενιαμίν; Josephus Γεβάλ. Schalit (s.v.), in accordance with the variant of MSP Lat, reads τῆς Γαβὰς Παλαιστῖνοι. Josephus omits the concluding notice of 1 Sam 13:2 concerning Saul’s dismissal of the remainder of the people. MT 1 Sam 13:3aα mentions Jonathan’s defeating a Philistine ‮נציב‬‎ (“prefect”? “garrison”? [so LXX L and Josephus]) which, as in 1 Sam 10:5, LXX B understands as a proper name, “Nasib.” 1 Sam 13:3aα locates the site of the Philistine garrison at “Geba” (MT; LXX “translates” as “on the hill”) itself.

To his notice on Jonathan’s capture of the Philistine garrison (6.95= 1 Sam 13:3aα) Josephus attaches an explanation (“for”) concerning the Philistines’ current occupation of Israel that this notice presupposes. The first part of the explanation is peculiar to Josephus; it speaks of the Philistines’ occupation of Israelite sites with their garrisons—like the one just recaptured by Jonathan. The past “vanquishing of the Judeans” mentioned here is presumably that inflicted on them at the battle(s) of Aphek, 1 Samuel 4= Ant. 5.352-362. This continuation of Josephus’ “explanation” concerning the current Philistine presence in Israel is an anticipated adaptation of the Philistines’ words as cited in 1 Sam 13:19b: “... lest the Hebrews make themselves swords or spears.” Josephus’ specification of the weapons as ones “made of iron” reflects the LXX’s reference to there being no “ironsmith” in Israel in 13:19a, where MT simply refers to a “smith.” See 1 Sam 13:20. Josephus omits the attached detail of 13:21 concerning the charges levied by the Philistines for work on the various kinds of implements brought them.

See 1 Sam 13:3aβ, to which Josephus adds mention of the Philistines’ emotional reaction to what they hear. This additional (see note to “indignant” at 6.97) reference to the Philistines’ state of mind that prompts their move against Israel (1 Sam 13:5) might reflect the reference to Israel’s “having become odious to the Philistines” in 13:4a; see 6.98. Josephus anticipates his mention of the Philistine advance here from 13:5, reserving the intervening notices concerning Israel’s own follow-up to Jonathan’s exploit (13:3b-4) for a later point; thereby, he keeps together in a continuous sequence (the biblically interrupted) references to the Philistine response to Jonathan’s initiative in 13:3aβ + 5. 1 Sam 13:5 speaks in vague, poetic terms of the Philistine troops being “like the sand on the seashore in multitude.” As he does elsewhere, Josephus turns this indication into a “precise” (and very large) figure. This figure for the Philistine chariots corresponds to that read by MT LXX B 1 Sam 13:5; LXX L has 6,000. This figure for the Philistine cavalry accords with that read by both MT and LXX 1 Sam 13:5.

MT (1 Sam 13:5b) ‮מכמשׁ‬‎ (Eng.: “Michmash”); LXX B Μαχεμάς; LXX L Μαχμάς; Josephus Μαχμά. Josephus leaves aside the source specification that the city was located “to the east of Bethaven” (MT; “opposite Baithoron, to the south,” LXX). 1 Samuel 13 does not explicitly record such a move by Saul to “Gilgal” in response to his hearing of the Philistine advance (13:5). That city is, however, mentioned in 13:4 as the site where the Israelites are called—seemingly prior to the Philistines’ own move— to join Saul, while 13:7b mentions Saul’s still being “at Gilgal.” Cf. 1 Sam 13:3bα (“and Saul blew the trumpet throughout all the land...”), which precedes the mention of the Philistines’ own advance in 13:5. Josephus conflates the source’s separate references to Saul’s summons—issued by him prior to the mention of the Philistine advance in 1 Sam 13:5—of 13:3bβ (“let the Hebrews hear” [MT; “the slaves have revolted,” LXX]) and 13:4b (the people are called to join Saul at Gilgal). The reference to the recovery of “freedom” as the intended goal of the upcoming conflict echoes that of Israel’s earlier wars in the time of the Judges in Josephus’ presentation; see Ant. 5.182 (Keniaz), 194 (Ehud); and 6.20 (Samuel). Josephus’ mention of this psychological warfare tactic whereby Saul seeks to stimulate the Israelites’ courage has no explicit counterpart in 1 Samuel 13. Conceivably, however, it was inspired by the (LXX L) reading in 1 Sam 13:4aβ: “Israel held the Philistines in contempt” (MT: had become odious to the Philistines; LXX B: had been put to shame by the Philistines). For another possible allusion to this formulation by Josephus, see note to “outrage” at 6.97.

In 1 Sam 13:6a the Israelites see themselves “in straits” (MT; LXX: saw the difficulty of advancing into battle). Josephus adds mention of the emotional effect of what the Israelites see upon them. See 1 Sam 13:6b, where 5 different Israelite hiding places are mentioned. According to 1 Sam 13:7a, the Israelites crossed the Jordan “to the land of Gad and Gilead.” For the latter territory, Josephus substitutes mention of the tribe possessing it. He likewise omits 13:7b (“Saul was still at Gilgal, and all the people followed him trembling”) whose 2nd element, in particular, seems not to accord with the mention of the people’s hiding themselves and fleeing across the Jordan in 13:6-7a.

This notice on Saul’s summoning the prophet to him takes the place, at this juncture in Josephus’ presentation (see, however, 6.101), of 1 Sam 13:8a, where Saul is said to “wait seven days” in accordance with the command previously given him by Samuel, i.e. in 1 Sam 10:8bα (Josephus does not reproduce this command in his own rendition of Samuel’s words to Saul of 10:8 in 6.57 that has Saul simply being told that he is come to Gilgal when summoned by Samuel that they might offer sacrifices there). Accordingly, it is now necessary for him to have Saul take the initiative in bringing himself and Samuel together at this point. On Josephus’ version of the episode of Saul’s “first sin” (1 Sam 13:8-15a) in 6.100-105a, see Begg 1999. This initial directive by Samuel in response to Saul’s “summons” has no equivalent in 1 Sam 13:8 itself. It converts into a command for the present Samuel’s announcement concerning the sacrifice that will be offered at Gilgal as cited in 6.57 (// 1 Sam 10:8aβ; whereas in this source text Samuel speaks of himself as the sole future sacrificer, Josephus’ version of his saying in both 6.57 and 6.100 magnifies Saul’s status by having Samuel mention him as co-sacrificer.) This is the reading adopted by Niese in accordance with the septem of Lat (and the period specified by Samuel in 1 Sam 10:8). RO lack a corresponding figure. Marcus reads “6” with SPE. These concluding words of Samuel in answer to Saul’s summons represent Josephus’ “delayed” use of the prophet’s final directive to Saul in 1 Sam 10:8b (“Seven days shall you wait, until I come to you and show you what you shall do”). Josephus likewise renders the vague source formulation concerning what Samuel will do once the 7 days are up more definite, introducing an allusion to the current war context.

See 1 Sam 13:8a (Saul’s 7-day wait in accordance with the time previously fixed by Samuel in 10:8). This inserted phrase foreshadows both the course and the wording of the subsequent episode. See 1 Sam 13:8b. Josephus adds the reference to Saul’s “seeing” the 2 developments mentioned, this serving to motivate his following initiative. In 1 Sam 13:9 Saul first commands that victims be brought to him and then offers the sacrifice. Josephus’ formulation depicts Saul performing both operations himself. See 1 Sam 13:10.

Greek: παρουσία. On this word, see Spicq 1978 (II): 673-76. This extended opening discourse by Samuel, anticipating his subsequent charges about the king’s transgression of God’s commandment (see 1 Sam 13:13a, 14b), takes the place of his short initial question (“what have you done?”) of 13:11a. Josephus’ substitution of an accusatory statement for this question might be inspired by the consideration that, as a prophet, Samuel would/should have known what Saul had done, without having to ask him about this.

1 Sam 13:11b-12a features 5 extenuating circumstances cited by Saul in attempting to excuse his deed: the dispersal of his army, Samuel’s own failure to arrive, the Philistines’ mustering at Michmash, his supposition that they would come against him at Gilgal, and his own not yet having entreated the favor (literally: face) of the Lord. Of these 5 alleged motivations, Josephus’ version diplomatically passes over the 2nd (Samuel’s non-appearance) and 5th (with its anthropomorphic language). As for the remaining 3, Josephus “reinforces” the king’s invocation of the Philistines’ advance by having Saul state that he had actually received a report to this effect. In addition, he makes Saul begin his apologia by reminding Samuel that he had, at any rate, remained the 7 days prescribed by him, and then had acted as he did under the pressure of “necessity.”

Josephus derives the content of Samuel’s charges from 1 Sam 13:13a, 14b, where the prophet twice accuses Saul of having failed to “keep” God’s commandment. Compare 1 Sam 13:13b, where the reference is to the kingship (potentially) remaining in Saul’s line “forever.” With Roman sensibilities concerning Jewish messianic aspirations in mind, Josephus reduces the kingship’s (possible) duration to a “very long time.” He likewise leaves aside Samuel’s further announcement of 13:14a (“But now your kingdom shall not continue; the Lord has sought out a man after his own heart; and the Lord has appointed him to be prince over his people”). The omission might have in view the fact that this announcement reads like a (premature) duplication of what Samuel will tell Saul in 1 Sam 15:28 (// 6.150).

Josephus inserts this reference to Samuel’s emotional response to Saul’s misdeed. In having Samuel go to his “home” (i.e. Ramah/ Armatha; see 1 Sam 7:17 and 6.35, 67) at this juncture, Josephus offers a more plausible scenario than does MT 1 Sam 13:15a, where the prophet proceeds from Gilgal to “Gibea of Benjamin,” i.e. the likely residence of Saul (see 1 Sam 10:26; 11:4) with whom he has just had a dramatic altercation. Josephus’ presentation here likewise differs from that of LXX 13:15a, where, once Samuel “goes his way,” the remaining Israelite troops follow Saul, proceeding from Gilgal to “Gabaa of Benjamin.” Josephus draws his mention of the persons involved here (Saul, Jonathan, the 600) from 1 Sam 13:15b-16a. In referring, however, to Saul’s “going” with Jonathan to “Gabaon” (in 6.95 Jonathan was stationed at “Gebal”), he differs from 13:16a, which has king, prince, and people “staying in Geba (LXX Gabaa) of Benjamin.” Josephus anticipates the notice on the Israelites’ lack of weapons from 1 Sam 13:22. At the same time, he tones down the source’s implausible statement that Saul and Jonathan, alone among all the Israelites, had a sword or spear. Here Josephus explains the Israelites’ current lack of weapons via an explicit reminiscence of his earlier remarks (6.96), themselves drawn from 1 Sam 13:19-21, concerning the Philistine prohibition of the Israelites’ carrying iron weapons or making any use of iron.

Josephus summarizes the indications concerning the Philistines’ movements found in 1 Sam 13:16b-18 (+ 23), eliminating the source place names, while also inserting mention of the devastation they perpetrated during their advance. This notice on Saul’s (non-)response to the Philistine movements lacks a parallel in 1 Samuel 13. In acknowledging the king’s inactivity, Josephus also highlights the extenuating circumstance, i.e. his having a mere 600 men available to him (see 1 Sam 13:15b// 6.105).

MT (1 Sam 14:3) ‮אחיה‬‎ (Eng.: “Ahijah”); LXX Ἀχιά; Josephus Ἐχίας (this is the reading of RO followed by Niese; Marcus [ad loc.] reads Ἀχίας with the other codices and Lat). Josephus omits the names of the priests between Eli and “Ahijah” cited in 1 Sam 14:3 (which makes him Eli’s great-grandson). He likewise passes over the mention of Ahijah’s “wearing an ephod.” 1 Sam 14:2 places Saul “in the outskirts of Gibeah [MT; LXX: the hill; cf. Josephus] under the pomegranate tree which is at Migron” (MT; LXX B: of the magi; LXX L: in Mageddo). Feldman (1998: 518) calls attention to the similarity between Josephus’ description of the scene (including the threesome’s emotional response to what they see) and Aeschylus’ portrayal (Pers. 465-70) of King Xerxes mourning his men lost at Salamis, while seated on a lofty spot. See 1 Sam 14:1. Josephus’ supplies a motivation for Jonathan’s projected move against the Philistines mentioned in this verse, while leaving aside Jonathan’s reiteration of his proposal—this time in highly theological language and with use of the objectionable phrase “these uncircumcised [Philistines]”—of 14:6. The above bracketed words “upon them” are absent in RO.

See 1 Sam 14:7; Josephus accentuates the readiness of the armor-bearer to join Jonathan by having him aver that he will follow him even to the point of death. The biblical presentation does not narrate this initial movement by Jonathan. The “hill” in question is that cited in 6.107. 1 Sam 14:4-5 gives a somewhat different description of the site of the Philistine garrison, i.e. as positioned between 2 named crags (v. 4), one to the north facing Michmash, the other to the south, facing Geba (v. 5, MT LXX L; LXX B speaks, not of the crags of v. 4, but rather of 2 “routes”).

Josephus’ remark on the guards’ negligence and the reasons for this has no parallel in 1 Samuel 14. The insertion serves to magnify Jonathan’s subsequent feat in seizing the site.

Compare 1 Sam 14:8: “Behold we will cross over to the men, and we will show ourselves (MT; LXX fall upon) to them.” Josephus both modifies and rearranges the 2 alternatives as set out by Jonathan in 1 Sam 14:9-10: (a) they will not advance if the Philistines summon them to wait until they (the Philistines) come to them or (b) they will advance, should they urged by them to “come up.” He eliminates the theological allusion attached to the 2nd alternative in v. 10b (“for the Lord has given them into our hand”), while adapting Jonathan’s appended statement, i.e. “and this shall be the sign to us.”

Josephus appends this time indication to the mention of the pair’s “showing themselves to” (MT; entering, LXX) the Philistine garrison in 1 Sam 14:11a. See 1 Sam 14:11b. The Philistines’ words here echo those used to describe the Israelites’ self-concealment in 6.99 (// 1 Sam 13:6). Josephus provides a more definite conclusion to the Philistines’ “invitation” as cited in 1 Sam 14:12a (“[come up to us], and we will show you a thing”).

This notice, echoing Jonathan’s words to his weapon-bearer in 6.110 (“let us take this as a sign of victory”), substitutes for his theological affirmation in 1 Sam 14:12b (“the Lord has given them into the hand of Israel”).

The above sequence represents Josephus’ elaboration, magnifying the difficulty of the enterprise, of the brief notice of 1 Sam 14:13a: “Then Jonathan climbed up on his hands and feet and his armor-bearer after him.” Compare 1 Sam 14:13bα: “they [the Philistines] fell before Jonathan” (MT; LXX: they beheld Jonathan’s face). Josephus compresses the indications of 14:13bβ-14a concerning Jonathan and his weapon-bearer’s assault. He leaves aside the indication of 14:14b about the dimensions of the massacre site (MT)/ the weapons used (LXX). This phrase echoes that used by Josephus concerning the purpose of Jonathan’s enterprise in 6.107 (i.e. to bring “confusion and turmoil” on the Philistines), thus underscoring its success.

Josephus embellishes with a variety of vivid touches (e.g., the presence of different peoples in the Philistine camp, the tossing of some off the rocks) the general notice on the Philistines’ panic of 1 Sam 14:15 (from which he does, however, omit the reference to the “earthquake”).

See 1 Sam 14:16-17a, which does not explicitly mention the lookouts’ reporting what they see of the state of the Philistine camp to the king. In 1 Sam 14:17b a “census” of the army, conducted at Saul’s command (v. 17a), reveals the absence of the pair. 1 Sam 14:18a repeats the priest’s name (“Ahijah”) from 14:3 (= 6.107, where, in Niese’s reading, he is called “Echias”; see note to “Echias” at 6.107). Josephus here clearly reflects the reading of LXX 1 Sam 14:18, where Ahijah is told to bring “the ephod” as opposed to MT, where he is to fetch “the ark of God.” He leaves aside the attached parenthetical notice about Ahijah being the one who “bore the ephod in his hand in those days” (LXX; MT speaks of the ark being among the Israelites at that time). With this appended phrase Josephus spells out what it is Saul intends “Ahijah” to do by means of the priestly garment (cf. LXX 1 Sam 14:18a) he tells him to take. On “prophesying” as a characteristic (high) priestly activity in Josephus, see note to “prophesied” at Ant. 5.120. In supplying this answer by the priest to Saul’s inquiry, Josephus notably modifies 1 Sam 14:19, where, in the face of the increasing turbulence in the Philistine camp, Saul instructs Ahijah to “withdraw his hand,” even though no response has yet been obtained. See 1 Sam 14:20; the allusion to the Philistines’ mutual slaughter recalls the description of enemy forces’ fighting among themselves in 6.114.

See 1 Sam 14:22 (where the reference is to “those who had hid themselves in the hill country of Ephraim”). Josephus’ wording echoes his earlier mentions of the Israelite fugitives in 6.99 (// 1 Sam 13:6) and 6.111. He omits the source’s preceding notice (1 Sam 14:21) concerning those “Hebrews” who had previously joined the Philistines—a development nowhere mentioned in what precedes—now attaching themselves to Saul’s forces. Josephus’ figure for the Israelites involved in the pursuit corresponds to that of the LXX plus at the end of 1 Sam 14:23 (from which he omits the opening theological affirmation “so the Lord delivered Israel that day,” as well as the various place names cited). This foreshadowing remark represents an elaboration, alluding to the familiar Greek linking of prosperity and hubris (on which see Feldman 1998: 180-81), of the LXX reading at the opening of 1 Sam 14:24 (“and Saul committed a great mistake in ignorance [Greek: ἄγνοια, the same word used by Josephus] on that day”; compare MT: “and the men of Israel were distressed that day”). Josephus’ elaborated version makes clear, from the start, e.g., the reprehensibility of Saul’s subsequent initiative; compare his (also inserted) censure of Jephthah’s vow in Ant. 5.266.

Josephus supplies this prefatory motivation for Saul’s “curse” of 1 Sam 14:24aβ. See the quotation of Saul’s imprecatory words in 1 Sam 14:24bα. Josephus omits the statement with which 14:24 ends up, i.e. the entire people did in fact refrain from food in accord with Saul’s curse.

See 1 Sam 14:25-26, which does not cite either the presence of bees or the forest’s being part of Ephraim (conceivably Josephus derived this localization from the mention of Ephraim in 14:22 and/or the LXX plus at the end of 14:23). Conversely, Josephus does not reproduce the source reference to the “honey” the people encountered in the forest, nor their refraining from eating this. See 1 Sam 14:27, from which Josephus omits mention of Jonathan’s using his “staff” to extract the honey from the honeycomb and the result of his eating it, i.e. “his eyes became bright.” Josephus has not previously mentioned the people’s approving Saul’s curse; compare 14:24bβ, which states that, following Saul’s uttering of the curse, the people did, in fact, refrain from food.

Josephus’ statement about Jonathan’s ceasing to eat upon hearing of Saul’s prohibition is his addition to the notice of 1 Sam 14:28a, where he is simply informed of that prohibition; the expansion underscores Jonathan’s filial piety. Josephus has no equivalent to the (seemingly displaced) mention that “the people were faint” of 14:28b. From Jonathan’s words of disapproval for his father’s order in 1 Sam 14:29-30 Josephus leaves aside his statement in v. 29b: “see how my eyes became bright, because I tasted a little honey,” which itself harks back to the notice, likewise omitted by Josephus, at the end of 14:27 about Jonathan’s eyes “becoming bright” after eating the honey.

See 1 Sam 14:31a, whose place indications (MT: from Michmash to Aijalon; LXX at Michmash) Josephus leaves aside, just as he does the renewed (see 14:28b) mention of the people’s being “faint” in 14:31b. Compare 1 Sam 14:32, which specifies that the Israelites slaughtered the captured sheep, oxen and calves “on the ground.” Josephus (anachronistically) identifies the indeterminate “they” who inform Saul of the people’s offense in 1 Sam 14:33a (whose wording he likewise elaborates) as “the scribes” in light of this group’s status as the legal authorities of his own time. Josephus reproduces the biblical prohibition of eating blood (see Lev 17:11, etc.) in Ant. 3.260.

From Saul’s response in 1 Sam 14:33b to the report made him about the people’s eating of the blood (14:33a), Josephus omits his opening words, i.e. “you have dealt treacherously” (MT; LXX (mis)reads this as “in Geththaim”). Josephus supplies the concluding motivation for Saul’s directive about the sacrificial procedure laid down by him in 1 Sam 14:34a, this grounded in the biblical prohibition of eating blood; see note to “clean” at 6.120. See 1 Sam 14:34b-35 (into which Josephus inserts the reference to Saul personally sacrificing upon the altar that he erected).

Josephus turns into an extended narrative notice the words of Saul’s proposal and the people’s response as reported in 1 Sam 14:36abα, accentuating the latter’s readiness to follow the king’s lead. Ant. 6.107 called Saul’s priest “Echias” (cf. Ahijah, MT 14:3; Achia, LXX). Schlatter (s.v.; compare Schalit s.v. [Ἐχίαν τοῦ] Ἀχιτώβου) reads this same form also here in 6.122 (where the name “Achitob,” read by Niese and Marcus, corresponds to that of Ahijah’s father, i.e. “Ahitub” in 14:3). The priest is nameless in 1 Sam 14:36bβ. In 1 Sam 14:36bβ it is the (nameless) priest himself who takes the initiative at this juncture with his admonition “let us draw near hither to God.” Josephus accentuates the status of Saul who, just as he had earlier (see 1 Sam 14:18= 6.115), issues orders to the attending priest. Compare Saul’s double “inquiry” in 1 Sam 14:37a: “Shall I go down after the Philistines? Wilt thou give them into the hand of Israel?”

Josephus inserts explicit mention of the priest’s mediatorial role into his rendering of 1 Sam 14:37b: “But he [God] did not answer him [i.e. Saul, the questioner in 14:37a] this day.” This statement elaborates on Saul’s summary allusion to “this sin which has arisen today” that he summons the leaders of the people to recognize according to 1 Sam 14:38. The expansion accentuates Saul’s stature as one conversant with God’s way of acting.

Greek: ἱλάσκομαι. Josephus’ other uses of this verb are in War 5.385; Ant. 8.112; 10.59; Apion 1.308. As he did with Saul’s “sin allusion” of 1 Sam 14:38 (see 6.123), Josephus considerably elaborates upon the king’s oath as cited in 14:39a.

Josephus turns the statement of 1 Sam 14:39b that no one responded to Saul’s oath (14:39a) into a general approbation of this oath, basing himself on the mention of the people’s assent to the king’s plans in the immediately following 14:40b: “And the people said to Saul, ‘Do what seems good to you’.” Compare the corresponding directives given by Saul in 1 Sam 14:40a. This appended indication concerning the purpose of the “division” prescribed by Saul in 1 Sam 14: 40a takes the place of the notice on the people’s urging Saul to do whatever seems good to him of 14:40b (which Josephus has anticipated earlier in 6.125). The indication is inspired by the following account of the use of the lot procedure in 14:41-42 (where the LXX is considerably more expansive than the MT). With this equivalent to 1 Sam 14:42b (“and Jonathan was taken”) Josephus confines himself to the end process of the lot-procedure whose application is described in detail in 14:41-42. Perhaps the differences between the shorter MT and the longer LXX texts of these verses prompted Josephus to limit himself to an item that both witnesses have in common.

The Josephan Saul’s high-flown questions replace the king’s blunt command in 1 Sam 14:43a: “Tell me what you have done.” Josephus embellishes the opening words of Jonathan’s response in 1 Sam 14:43b with mention of his being unaware of the king’s earlier pronouncement and having violated this during the course of his pursuing the enemy. As in his version of 14:27 in 6.118, he omits reference to Jonathan’s use of his staff in obtaining the honey. Finally, he reserves Jonathan’s closing declaration of his readiness to die to a later point; see 6.127. Josephus’ expansion of Saul’s words sentencing Jonathan to death (1 Sam 14:44) highlights the king’s determination to respect his earlier oath at all costs. As usual, he leaves aside the actual “oath formula” (“God do so to me and more also...”) the source attributes to the king.

Greek: εὐγενῶς καὶ μεγαλοφρόνως. This combination occurs only here in Josephus; on the word εὐγενής, see Spicq 1978 (I): 301-4. This characterization of Jonathan as he faces death is Josephus’ own. Josephus develops Jonathan’s brief closing statement of 1 Sam 14:43bβ (“here I am, I will die”) into a discourse expressive of his magnanimity. Feldman (1998: 526-27) points out the similarities between Jonathan’s words and those that Josephus attributes to Isaac when facing death at the hands of his father in Ant. 1.232 as well as both texts’ reminiscences of a variety of Greco-Roman passages involving the killing of a child by a father, e.g., Livy 2.5 and Aeschylus, Ag. 228-30.

See 1 Sam 14:45a. Josephus prefaces the people’s “vetoing” of Saul’s intention to execute Jonathan with an allusion to their state of mind at this juncture. He omits the (superfluous) re-affirmation of their resolution in 14:45bα (“as the Lord lives, there shall not one hair of his head fall to the ground”) with its use of an oath formula and the figurative language that Josephus regularly avoids. Josephus’ formulation here seems to conflate the readings of MT (the people “ransom” Jonathan) and LXX (they “pray for” him) 1 Sam 14:45bβ.

Josephus introduces a double specification of the notice of 1 Sam 14:46a (“then Saul went up from pursuing the Philistines”), mentioning both his present destination and the impressive number of those slain by him (the figure is without biblical parallel). He leaves aside the reference of 14:46b to the Philistines also “going to their own place.” In MT 1 Sam 14:47 the 5 peoples/kings subjugated by Saul appear in the following order: Moab, Ammonites, Edom [+ Beth-rehob, LXX L, + Baitheor, LXX B], the kings [LXX: king] of Zobah [LXX: Souba], and the Philistines. Josephus adds the “Amalekites” from 14:48 (the name is missing in Lat and bracketed by Niese, though not by Marcus). MT (1 Sam 14:49) ‮ישׁוי‬‎ (Eng.: “Ishvi”); LXX B Ἰεσσιούλ; LXX L Ἰεσσιού; Josephus Ἰησοῦς (in 6.369 the name of Saul’s 2nd son appears as “Aminadab”). MT (1 Sam 14:49) ‮מלכי־שׁוע‬‎ (Eng.: “Malchishua”); LXX B Μελχεισά; LXX L Μελχισέδδε (L adds an additional son, i.e. Εἰσβαάλ); Josephus Μέλχισος. MT (1 Sam 14:49) ‮מרב‬‎ (Eng.: “Merab”); LXX Μερόβ; Josephus Μερόβη. MT (1 Sam 14:49) ‮מיכל‬‎ (Eng.: “Michal”); LXX Μελχόλ; Josephus Μιχαάλ. Josephus omits both the specification of the birth order of Saul’s 2 daughters from 1 Sam 14:49b and the name of his wife, i.e. “Ahinoam, daughter of Ahimaaz” from 14:50a.

MT (1 Sam 14:50) ‮אבינר‬‎ (Eng.: “Abner”); LXX Ἀβεννήρ; Josephus Ἀβήναρος. In 6.58 (// 1 Sam 10:14) when he first introduces “Abner,” Josephus designates him more generally as a “relative” of Saul. 1 Sam 14:50b is ambiguous as to which figure is Saul’s “uncle”: is it Abner or rather Ner, his (Abner’s) father? Josephus clearly opts for the later alternative, thus making Abner himself Saul’s cousin. MT (1 Sam 14:50) ‮נר‬‎ (Eng.: “Ner”); LXX Νήρ; Josephus Νῆρος. MT (1 Sam 14:51) ‮אביאל‬‎ (Eng.: “Abiel”); LXX Ἀβιήλ; Josephus Ἀβέλιος. 1 Sam 14:51 does not explicitly state, as does Josephus, that not only Ner, but also Kish was a son of Abiel (MT; LXX makes Ner the grandson of Abiel, inserting an additional name between them, i.e. Ἰαμείν [B]/ Ἰαβίν [L]). In 1 Sam 9:1, on the other hand, Kish is called son of Abiel (Josephus does not reproduce this genealogical indication in his introduction of “Keis” in 6.45, but seems to have it in mind here in 6.130). This concluding notice to Josephus’ account of Saul’s conflict with the Philistines (1 Samuel 13-14// 6.95-130) represents an amplification and synthesis of the references to his combat successes in 1 Sam 14:47-48, 52a, to which he adds, e.g., mention of Saul’s extensive military resources. The “beauty” of those selected by Saul is Josephus’ addition to 1 Sam 14:52b (where the chosen are designated as “strong and valiant”), as is the specification that they were intended to serve as royal “bodyguards.” Josephus introduces this same specification concerning the 2,000 men earlier chosen by Saul in his version of 1 Sam 13:2 in 6.95, which thus constitutes an inclusion with his notice on Saul’s choice of bodyguards here in 6.130.

With this inserted transitional notice Josephus “reconnects” Samuel and Saul, the former having separated himself from the king in 6.105 (// 1 Sam 13:15a) in view of their interaction throughout 1 Samuel 15. On Josephus’ version of this chapter, see Begg 1996d. In 1 Sam 15:1 Samuel reminds Saul of his having been sent by the Lord to “anoint” him; here, as frequently elsewhere, Josephus avoids that “Messianically-loaded” term. Samuel here alludes back to his words to Saul in 6.54 (// 1 Sam 10:1). Josephus supplies a motivation for Samuel’s summons of 1 Sam 15:1a that Saul heed the Lord’s words. On the theme of divine “leadership” (Greek: ἡγεμονία) in Josephus, see Schlatter 1932: 48.

See 1 Sam 15:2. To Samuel’s reminiscence of Amalek’s past offenses against Israel as cited in Exod 17:8-16 (// Ant. 3.39-61); Deut 25:17-19 (// Ant. 4.304) Josephus appends mention of the goal of the Israelites’ journey that Amalek had tried to impede. On Josephus’ treatment of the Amalekites overall, see Maier 1994; Begg 1997n.

Josephus rounds off his reproduction of Samuel’s directives from 1 Sam 15:3 with an explicit reference to that Mosaic “law” whose execution God is now enjoining, i.e. Deut 25:19 (// Ant. 4.304; cf. 3.60). The version of God’s instructions to Samuel about what he is to tell Saul in Bib. Ant. 58.1 quotes the actual words of Deut 25:19 rather than simply alluding to them, as Josephus does.

Josephus inserts this reference to Saul’s initial verbal response to the directives given him and the state of mind underlying his response. The insertion highlights the king’s piety. By contrast, such rabbinic texts as Midr. Samuel 18.2; b. Yoma 22.5 represent Saul as challenging the divine command of 1 Sam 15:3 that he kill also the cattle and children. Thereupon, a heavenly voice replies in the words of Qoh 7:16: “be not righteous overmuch.” Josephus’ rendering of 1 Sam 15:4 agrees with LXX against MT in a whole series of particulars: the muster-site (Galgala vs. “Telamin”) and the number of the 2 bodies of troops available to Saul, i.e. the 400,000 (MT: 200,000; both MT and LXX simply designate the first contingent as “infantry” without specifying that they were “Israelites” as Josephus does) and an additional 30,000 (MT: 10,000) men of Judah.

Josephus expatiates on the summary reference to Saul’s “laying in wait in the valley” of 1 Sam 15:5b, thereby accentuating his status as a general. Neither he nor the Bible identifies the “brook/valley” in question. Josephus combines (and embellishes) the notices on Saul’s defeat and slaughter of the Amalekites of 1 Sam 15:7, 8b, leaving the material of 15:6 (Saul’s warning to the Kenites) and 15:8a (his capture of Agag) for a later point.

Josephus inserts this transitional clause. Its phrase “prophecy of God” (Greek τοῦ θεοῦ προφητεία) occurs twice elsewhere in his writings, i.e. Ant. 8.289; 9.129. The phrase likewise recalls Josephus’ version of Exod 17:14 in Ant. 3.60: “Moses predicted (Greek προφητεύω) that the Amalekites would perish with utter annihilation”; see Feldman: 2000 ad loc. Josephus embellishes 1 Sam 15:5a (“he came to the city [MT; LXX, like Josephus, reads cities] of Amalek”) so as to build up Saul’s military stature. His inserted references to the siege devices employed by Saul against the Amalekite cities are reminiscent of those with which he elaborates the notice of 2 Kgs 25:1 concerning the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem in Ant. 10.132-134. In both instances Josephus is doubtless drawing on his personal experience as a general of contemporary siege practices. The “massacre notice” of 1 Sam 15:8b (already anticipated by Josephus in 6.135) speaks in general terms of Saul’s killing “all the people.” Josephus’ specific mention of “women and infants” here in 6.136 echoes his notice of these persons in the divine command of 6.133 (// 15:3) and thus underscores Saul’s fulfillment—up till this point—of that command in all its details. With this attached comment Josephus seeks to explain and extenuate Saul’s readiness to kill even the Amalekite “women and infants” as enjoined by God in 6.133 (// 1 Sam 15:3). See previous note.

MT (1 Sam 15:8a) ‮אגג‬‎ (Eng.: “Agag”); LXX Ἀγάγ; Josephus Ἄγαγος. Josephus supplies an “aesthetic” motive for Saul’s sparing of Agag as cited in 1 Sam 15:9a, this echoing his mention (6.130) that Saul chose youths of outstanding “size and beauty” for his bodyguards. Pseudo-Philo, in contrast, attributes (Bib. Ant. 58.2) Saul’s sparing of the Amalekite king to the latter’s promising to show him “hidden treasures.” In Bib. Ant. 58.3 God informs Samuel that Saul, having been “corrupted by silver,” also spared Agag’s wife. This editorial comment serves to prepare readers for God’s following condemnation of Saul.

Josephus uses the verb “hate” (Greek: μισέω) with the Deity as subject 4 times elsewhere: War 3.376 (object: suicide); Ant. 8.129 (passive, the unfaithful Hebrews), 318 (the vile); and 20.166 (the impiety of the Jewish rebels). These additional editorial comments on Saul’s sparing of Agag develop the contrast between God’s perspective and that of the king, further preparing readers for the former’s upcoming condemnation of the latter. With this mention of the people’s role in the proceedings Josephus returns to the source story-line (see 1 Sam 15:9), adding an explicit, negative evaluation of their initiative, comparable to the one previously supplied by him concerning Saul’s misguided actions in 6.137.

Like MT 1 Sam 15:9, Josephus mentions only the animals taken by the people; LXX speaks also of food and vineyards. This paragraph represents Josephus’ amplified version of 1 Sam 15:9 concerning the people’s differentiated way of dealing with the Amalekites’ property, depending on its quality.

Here Josephus picks up on the indication concerning the extent of Saul’s conquest in 1 Sam 15:7, where MT reads “from Havilah (LXX B Εὑειλάτ; LXX L Εὑιλάτ) as far as Shur (LXX B Ἀσσούρ, LXX L Σούρ), which is east of Egypt.” Marcus (ad loc.) comments: “Josephus reverses the direction [i.e. of 15:7, this proceeding east-to-west], assuming that Shur corresponds to Pelusium and that Havilah is somewhere near the Red Sea.” In 1 Sam 15:6 Saul issues an advance warning to the “Kenites.” Schlatter (1913 s.v.) reads this same name here in 6.140, while Rappaport (1930: 129, n. 12) proposes that, having the targumic reading in 15:6 (where Saul speaks to “the Shalmaite”) before him, Josephus made a connection between that form and the “Sikimites” (i.e. Shechemites) of whom he speaks here in 6.140, on the basis of Gen 33:18, where “Salem” is called “a city of Shechem.” 1 Sam 15:6 makes no mention of “Madiene,” i.e. “Midian,” referring only to the Kenites’ departure “from among the Amalekites.” Josephus’ introduction of the place name has in view his subsequent reference to Moses’ father-in-law Raguel/Jethro, whom both the Bible (see Exod 2:16; 3:1; Judg 1:16) and he (see Ant. 5.127) designate as a “Midianite.” See Saul’s warning the “Kenites” to separate from the Amalekites lest they suffer the same fate in 1 Sam 15:6a. Josephus supplies a different motivation for Saul’s special treatment of the Kenites/Sikimites than does 1 Sam 15:6b, where it is their (ancestors’) “kindness” to Israel on its journey from Egypt that prompts Saul’s timely warning to them. Conceivably, Josephus’ modification reflects the fact that the Bible does not explicitly mention the Kenites’ previous showing favor to the Israelites, a point noted in rabbinic tradition; see Begg 1996d: 397, n. 79.

1 Samuel 15 does not directly relate Saul’s homecoming (in MT 15:12 Samuel is informed of the king’s movements that have taken him towards Gilgal). Josephus not only fills this lacuna, but also provides a detailed description of Saul’s (deluded) state of mind as he returns to be confronted with the divine perspective on his acts. Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 58.2) has Saul bring Agag to “Ramaathaim,” i.e. “Ramah,” the home-town of Samuel according to 1 Sam 7:17, where their run-in occurs.

As in 6.138, Josephus pauses to take readers into the mind of God himself in order to highlight the contrast between the king’s self-evaluation (see 6.141) and the Deity’s view of his conduct.

This is Josephus’ only use of the verb μετανοέω (“change one’s mind, repent”) with God as subject; he likely derives the term from LXX 1 Sam 15:29, where it twice appears in that usage. See 1 Sam 15:10-11. Characteristically, Josephus avoids the Bible’s introductory phrase “the word of the Lord came to...,” making God speak to Samuel directly. Pseudo-Philo’s version of God’s word to Samuel in Bib. Ant. 58.3 is quite different, with the Deity first informing the prophet of Saul’s sparing both Agag and his wife. The royal pair are—Samuel is next informed—to be allowed a final coupling that night that will produce a son who will prove a “stumbling block” to Saul. Agag is then to be killed on the following day by Samuel, while his wife is to be preserved until her son is born. Josephus follows LXX 1 Sam 15:11bα in describing Samuel’s reaction as one of “grief,” whereas MT speaks of him rather as “angry.” In 1 Sam 15:11bβ Samuel simply “cries to the Lord” throughout the night. Josephus supplies a definite content to his “cry.”

Greek: συγγνώμη. This is the noun cognate of the verb συγγιγνώσκω used in 6.93 (see note to “pardon” at 6.93), where Samuel confidently informs the people that he will persuade God to “pardon” them. Here in 6.144 Samuel fails in his effort to win God’s “pardon” for Saul. Greek: ἐπιείκεια καὶ χρηστότης. This noun combination echoes that of the cognate adjectives used of Samuel himself in 6.92; see note on “kind and gentle” at 6.92. 1 Samuel 15 does not record a divine response to Samuel’s all-night cry (15:11bβ). Josephus not only does so, but also offers a motivation for the Deity’s negative response and an editorial comment that draws a moral about the perils of leniency from the divine response.

This transitional phrase prolongs Josephus’ extended insertion concerning God’s rejection of Samuel’s plea in 6.144. It likewise echoes the Deity’s statement to Samuel of 6.143 about “changing his mind” concerning his appointment of Saul. In 6.143 the verb used is μετανοέω, here in 6.145 rather μεταμέλεω (neither verb is elsewhere used by Josephus with God as subject; see note to “changed his mind” at 6.143). Josephus’ notice on Samuel’s movement draws on 1 Sam 15:12-13a (MT LXX L) where, having heard of Saul’s descent to Galgala, Samuel goes to him. He lives aside the preceding (irrelevant) details concerning Saul’s coming to Carmel and erecting a “monument” (literally: hand) there. See 1 Sam 15:13b.

Samuel’s question in 1 Sam 15:14 asks specifically about the noise of sheep and oxen and does not mention the camp. See 1 Sam 15:15. Josephus anticipates Saul’s further admission concerning his sparing of Agag from 1 Sam 15:20b, likewise having the king offer a rationale for this, which, however, does not agree with Josephus’ own editorial explanation of Saul’s initiative in 6.137 (i.e. his delight in Agag’s “beauty”). The effect of this discrepancy is thus to call Saul’s veracity into question. In passing from 1 Sam 15:15 (sparing of the beasts) to 15:20b (sparing of Agag), Josephus leaves aside the intervening sequence 15:16-20a, which for the most part seems simply to recapitulate the previous exchange between king and prophet in 15:13-15. Also Pseudo-Philo abridges the repetitious biblical exchange between Samuel and Saul. In Bib. Ant. 58.4, in response to Saul’s affirmation concerning the fulfillment of the prophet’s prediction about the Lord’s handing over of the enemy, Samuel first reiterates his lament over Israel’s premature demand for a king from 56.2 and then proceeds to denounce Saul for his transgression as a result of which Agag, who is about to be executed, will not show him his hidden treasures (as he had previously promised; see 58.2), just as the posthumous son to be born to Agag will be a stumbling block for Saul.

Greek: ἀγαθοὶ καὶ δίκαιοι. This same adjectival combination occurs (in reverse order) in Samuel’s speech to the people in 6.93, where he urges them to be “just and good.”

Compare Apion 2.192, where Josephus avers that God is to be worshipped by the practice of virtue, this being “the most holy way of worshiping” him.

This affirmation echoes many other statements by Josephus (see, e.g., Apion 2.150, 183) concerning the supreme importance of keeping the Law for Jews— an emphasis calculated to win the sympathy of Roman readers, given their own tradition’s stress on respect for law; see Feldman 1998a: 552; Spilsbury 1998: 57-58. The above 3-paragraph sequence (6.147-149) represents Josephus’ elaboration of Samuel’s remarks concerning the superiority of “obedience” over sacrifice in 1 Sam 15:22. Conversely, Josephus does not reproduce Samuel’s equating “rebellion” with “divination” and “stubbornness” with “iniquity and idolatry” from 15:23a. One might see Josephus’ emphasis on the point that God can be “pleased” apart from any sacrifice as reflecting the situation of Jews in his time who had lost the possibility of offering sacrifice (and been, in many cases, reduced to poverty), but who, he wishes to make clear, can still attain God’s favor by consistent obedience of the kind Saul himself failed to evidence.

Josephus amplifies Samuel’s charge of 1 Sam 15:23bα about Saul’s having “rejected the word of the Lord” with mention of the divine “wrath” against him that this provoked. This question, with its ironic reference to Saul’s “thinking” his proposed “sacrifice” of the beasts to be equivalent to their “extermination” as ordered by God, has no source equivalent. As he did with the summarizing accusation of 1 Sam 15:23bα, Josephus also elaborates upon the prophet’s “sentence” against Saul of 15:23bβ: “he [God] also has rejected you from being king (+ over Israel, LXX).”

In 1 Sam 15:24a Saul confesses transgressing not only Samuel’s words, but also those of the Lord himself. The conclusion of Saul’s assertion about the people in 1 Sam 15:24b is, not that he allowed them to plunder (so Josephus), but rather that he had “obeyed their voice”—a point not mentioned in what precedes. Josephus amplifies and intensifies Saul’s plea for “forgiveness” (1 Sam 15:25a) with a promise of amendment for the future. Saul in 1 Sam 15:25b requests that Samuel return with him so that he (Saul) might worship God. The Josephan Saul expresses greater deference towards Samuel as the one who would offer the sacrifice. The word rendered “unappeased” is the participle of the verb διαλλάττω. Ant. 7.153 will introduce a verbal contrast between Saul here and David in stating that God “was appeased” (διαλλάττεται) after the latter’s sin with Bathsheba. This transitional phrase, with its echo of Samuel’s earlier realization of God’s unwillingness to forgive Saul (see 6.145), takes the place of 1 Sam 15:26, where Samuel rebuffs Saul’s plea that he accompany him (15:25b), reiterating his condemnation of 15:23b.

Like LXX and 4QSama 1 Sam 15:27, Josephus specifies that Saul was the one to tear Samuel’s cloak, whereas MT leaves it ambiguous whether the subject of this action is Saul or Samuel himself. Josephus embellishes 1 Sam 15:27 with mention both of the motivation for Saul’s initiative and Samuel’s “haste” to be gone.

This qualification of David as Saul’s successor recalls the same combination of terms used for those who please God in 6.147; see note to “good and just” at 6.147. Samuel’s announcement in 1 Sam 15:28 is that the Lord has awarded Saul’s kingdom to “a neighbor of yours, who is better than you.” See 1 Sam 15:29 (which in MT contains a reference to the Deity’s “not lying” unparalleled in the LXX and Josephus). Both the Bible and Josephus leave unclear how their affirmations about divine immutability in 15:29 // 6.153 cohere with the statement they earlier (15:11// 6.143) attribute to God himself about his “thinking better of/ repenting of” having made Saul king.

To Saul’s renewed confession of sin in 1 Sam 15:30aα Josephus appends an expression of resignation by the king in the face of the divine refusal to forgive him, in which he submits to the immutability of God’s decisions as just affirmed by Samuel. In 1 Sam 15:30aβb Saul asks that Samuel also honor him “before the elders of my people,” a group nowhere mentioned earlier in the chapter. As in 15:25, he likewise speaks of himself as the (only) one who will worship God. In line with his modification of that earlier formulation (see 6.151), Josephus has Saul allude to Samuel’s being the one to worship. Josephus follows LXX 4QSama 1 Sam 15:31 (and his own formulations of Saul’s plea in 6.151, 154) in having Samuel be the one to worship. In MT it is Saul himself who worships.

In 1 Sam 15:32aα Samuel commands that Agag be brought to him, while in Bib. Ant. 58.4 he himself goes to him with sword in hand. In having Agag pose a question expressive of his realization of what awaits him at Samuel’s hands here, Josephus reflects the reading of LXX 1 Sam 15:32b as opposed to MT, where he makes rather the confident assertion “surely the bitterness of death is past.” Josephus has no equivalent to the (divergent) indications concerning the manner of Agag’s approach to Samuel in the various witnesses to 15:29aβ: “cheerfully” (?, MT), “trembling” (LXX), “imperiously” (Tg.). Josephus substitutes another formulation of the “measure for measure” (talion) principle for the one enunciated by Samuel in 1 Sam 15:33a according to which just as Agag’s sword had rendered women [Josephus specifies these as “Hebrews”] childless, so also his mother is about to be made childless. Both 1 Sam 15:33b and Bib. Ant. 58.4 have Samuel kill Agag personally. Josephus’ modification, which makes the prophet’s involvement in the gory deed a more indirect one, has a parallel in his handling of Elijah’s killing of the 450 prophets of Baal (see 1 Kgs 18:40 and compare Ant. 8.343). In both instances, Josephus may have felt qualms about the source depictions of prophetic figures personally perpetrating “Zealot-like” deeds of violence. By contrast, rabbinic tradition elaborates on the variety of techniques employed by Samuel in killing Agag; see Begg 1996d: 409, n. 161. Josephus omits the further specification of 1 Sam 15:33b concerning the place of Agag’s execution, i.e. “before the Lord.” MT (1 Sam 15:34a) ‮הרמתה‬‎ (Eng.: “Ramah”); LXX Ἀρμαθάιμ; Josephus Ἀρμαθά. Josephus has previously mentioned this city in connection with Samuel in Ant. 5.342; 6.35, 47, 67.

Josephus inserts this ominous indication concerning Saul’s state of mind following his confrontation with Samuel. In MT 1 Sam 15:34b Saul goes to his home “in Gibeah of Saul.” Josephus’ rendering reads like a conflation of LXX B (“Gabaa”) and LXX L’s “translation” of this (“the hill”). 1 Sam 15:35a states in global terms that Samuel “did not see Saul again until the day of his death.” In both the Bible and Josephus the pair actually do encounter each other once again during Samuel’s lifetime; see 1 Sam 19:24 (// 6.223).

Josephus here combines Samuel’s grieving for Saul (1 Sam 15:35bα) and God’s calling on him to desist from this (16:1a). In the Bible itself these 2 items are separated from each other by the “repetition” of the notice of 15:11 in 15:35bβ concerning God’s “repenting” of having made Saul king that Josephus leaves aside. Josephus likewise omits—as something obvious from what precedes—the “motivation” God gives for his ordering Samuel to desist from his mourning, i.e. the fact of his (God’s) having “rejected” Saul as king. Pseudo-Philo’s version of the exchange between God and Samuel at the opening of 1 Samuel 16 in Bib. Ant. 59.1 is distinctive: God begins forthwith by telling Samuel to go anoint the one whom he will tell him, since the time for that one’s kingship has now come. 1 Sam 16:1b speaks simply of the “oil” with which Samuel is to fill his “horn.” Josephus’ specification of the oil as “holy” recalls his similar qualification of the oil used to anoint Saul in 6.54; see note to “holy oil” at 6.54. On Josephus’ version of the story of David’s anointing in 1 Sam 16:1-13, see Begg 1996e. Josephus inserts the name of Jesse’s father from Ruth 4:17, 21-22 (// Ant. 5.336). In having God send Samuel to “Bethlehem,” Josephus agrees with LXX 1 Sam 16:1b, whereas in MT he is to go to “Jesse the Bethlehemite.” Josephus anticipates God’s use of this term from 1 Sam 16:3bβ. In 16:1b Samuel is simply told to “go to” Jesse. Josephus’ elaboration of Samuel’s response in 1 Sam 16:2a (“How can I go? If Saul hears of it, he will kill me”) underscores the magnitude of the (perceived) danger facing the prophet. This statement concerning the divine response to Samuel’s objection to his mission takes the place of God’s directive to the prophet in 1 Sam 16:2b: “Take a heifer with you, and say, ‘I have come to sacrifice to the Lord’.” Josephus’ version does seem to address Samuel’s security concerns more satisfactorily than does his biblical source—how in fact would Samuel’s acting in accord with God’s directive about the heifer in 16:2b serve to protect him against Saul’s intended violence? Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 59.1) replaces the exchange of 1 Sam 16:2-3 with one of his own, wherein Samuel asks whether God is now going to “destroy the kingdom of Saul” and God responds affirmatively. See 1 Sam 16:4a. Josephus leaves aside the continuation of the divine instructions to Samuel cited in 16:3 (which he has partially anticipated in 6.157).

Josephus eliminates the note of—unexplained— menace that marks Samuel’s encounter with the Bethlehemites in 1 Sam 16:4b-5, where they come “trembling” to meet him, asking whether he has come “in peace,” whereupon he assures them that he has. The Tg. does something analogous with its “neutral” rendering, “the elders of the city gathered to meet him,” while Pseudo-Philo leaves aside the “meeting scene” of 16:4b-5a completely. In having Samuel met, not simply by “the elders of the city” as in 16:4b, but by “all” (i.e. the Bethlehemites) Josephus accentuates the prophet’s status. This statement that Samuel did in fact offer the sacrifice announced by him in 1 Sam 16:5a has no explicit biblical parallel. In contrast to 1 Sam 16:5, where Samuel invites first the elders, and then Jesse and his sons, “to the sacrifice” Josephus introduces a distinction between the sacrifice (which Samuel alone offers) and the following sacred feast in which Jesse’s family is to participate (his reference to the latter occasion may have been suggested to him by Samuel’s reference to the company’s not “sitting down/coming to the table” until David arrives in 1 Sam 16:11). Given this modification, Josephus likewise leaves aside the cultic detail about Samuel’s “consecration” of both the elders and Jesse and his sons prior to their participation in the sacrifice of 16:5 (which Pseudo-Philo does reproduce in Bib. Ant. 59.2). Unlike 1 Sam 16:6 and Bib. Ant. 59.2, Josephus does not mention the son’s name, i.e. “Eliab” at this point. He supplies the specification about his being Jesse’s “eldest” on the basis of 1 Sam 17:13 and 1 Chr 2:13. Josephus anticipates his allusion to the first son’s appearance from God’s comment concerning him in 1 Sam 16:7. Josephus supplies a motivation, i.e., the youth’s appearance, for Samuel’s surmise (1 Sam 16:6) about his suitability for kingship, drawing this from the divine allusion to Eliab’s physique in 16:7 (see note to “handsome” at 6.158). In addition, Josephus reformulates Samuel’s surmise itself (“surely the Lord’s anointed [MT ‮משׁיחו‬‎; LXX (ὁ) χριστὸς αὐτοῦ] is before him”) so as to eliminate its use of the term “messiah,” which as Schlatter (1932: 257) notes, occurs only once in Josephus’ writings, i.e. in Ant. 20.200, where it is applied to Jesus in the so-called Testimonium Flavianum. By contrast, Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 59.2) does reproduce the Messiah designation of 16:6.

Greek: πρόνοια. This inserted editorial comment intimates the upshot of the following exchange between God and Samuel. In 1 Sam 16:7 God responds directly to Samuel’s “thoughts” concerning Eliab (16:6), without a preceding question by the prophet. Josephus reverses the sequence of God’s words in 1 Sam 16:7, where an analogous general statement about the divine as opposed to the human perspective (“for the Lord sees not as man sees,” LXX) follows the divine admonition to Samuel personally about not focussing on Eliab’s appearance.

This statement about what Samuel is (wrongly) doing is Josephus’ equivalent to the prohibition issued Samuel at the opening of God’s word to him in 1 Sam 16:7. Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 59.2) turns God’s word to Samuel into a divine censure for the latter’s lack of vision regarding Eliab’s (non-) suitability, notwithstanding Samuel’s earlier claim to be a “seer” (Bib. Ant. 56.4// 1 Sam 9:18), whereupon God immediately commands Samuel to anoint Jesse’s youngest son. With the above conclusion to the divine discourse Josephus spells out what God is seeking when, as 1 Sam 16:7bβ puts it, he “looks on the heart.” The list enumerates 3 of the 5, i.e. the standard 4 plus piety, cardinal virtues enumerated by Plato (see Prot. 349B), with “obedience” taking the place of “wisdom” and “prudence/temperance.” Of the 3 qualities, 2, i.e. “justice” and “courage” that the Lord states he seeks in a king here in 6.160 are attributed to David in the Josephan eulogy for him of 7.390-391.

Josephus streamlines the Bible’s narration, where it is only after (1 Sam 16:8-9) Jesse—on his own—has presented his next 2 sons (Abinadab, Shammah) to Samuel and seen them too rejected by him, that Jesse exhibits (16:10) all 7 of his (older) sons to Samuel, only to hear that God had chosen none of them. Pseudo-Philo, who has God instruct Samuel to anoint Jesse’s youngest son (Bib. Ant. 59.2) in direct connection with the former’s “misapprehension” of Eliab and Samuel then immediately summoning (59.3) that youngest son, lacks a parallel to the entire sequence 16:8-10. 1 Sam 16:10 speaks of Jesse’s 7 sons other than David himself, 3 of whom (Eliab, Abinadab, Shammah) are mentioned by name in 16:6-9. Josephus, on the contrary, has a total of 6 sons brought before Samuel prior to David, i.e. the eldest (6.158) plus the next 5 in age (6.161), all of whom he will now proceed to name on the basis of the list in 1 Chr 2:13-15. This is the reading of the codices RO, which Niese adopts. Both Marcus (ad loc.) and Schalit (s.v.) read rather “Eliab” following the codices MSP and in accordance with the name of Jesse’s eldest son as given in 1 Chr 2:13 (cf. 1 Sam 16:6). MT (1 Chr 2:13; cf. 1 Sam 16:8) ‮אבינדב‬‎ (Eng.: “Abinadab”); LXX Ἀμιναοδάβ; Josephus Ἀμινάδαβος. Josephus’ form thus corresponds to that of LXX against MT. MT 1 Chr 2:13 (cf. 1 Sam 16:9) ‮שׁמעא‬‎ (Eng.: “Shimea”); LXX Σαμμά; Josephus Σάμαλος. MT (1 Chr 2:14) ‮נתנאל‬‎ (Eng.: “Nethanel”); LXX Ναθαναήλ; Josephus Ναθαναήλος. MT (1 Chr 2:14) ‮רדי‬‎ (Eng.: “Raddai”); LXX Ῥαδδαί; Josephus Ῥάηλος. MT (1 Chr 2:15) ‮אצם‬‎ (Eng.: “Ozem”); LXX B Ἄσομ; LXX L Ἄσαμ; Josephus Ἄσαμος. Josephus’ insertion of this list of all David’s brothers here is contrary to his usual practice of leaving aside the names of minor biblical personages. The exception points up the importance of David’s family for his entire history.

In 1 Sam 16:10b there is no such “inquiry” of God by Samuel; rather, the prophet simply announces on his own that God has not “chosen” any of Jesse’s 7 (16:10a) sons, who have just been presented to him. Compare 6.159, where Josephus also introduces an explicit consultation of God by Samuel concerning Jesse’s firstborn, whereas 16:6 has him thinking to himself. See 1 Sam 16:11aα, in which Samuel asks Jesse: “Are all your sons here?” Compare Bib. Ant. 59.3, where Samuel, who already knows of the youngest son’s existence from God (59.2), simply commands Jesse to fetch him.

Josephus inserts this name (Δαυίδης; MT ‮דוד‬‎; LXX B Δαυείδ; LXX L Δαυίδ) of the youngest son into Jesse’s reply (1 Sam 16:11aβ) to Samuel’s question (16:11aα), anticipating the name from 16:13. On Josephus’ portrayal of David, see Feldman 1998: 537-69. See 1 Sam 16:11b. Josephus’ inserted reference to “the feast” harks back to his mention of the “sacred (feast)” in 6.158.

Feldman (1998: 542-43) notes that Josephus’ adjective here, i.e. ξανθός (“tawny”; cf. LXX 1 Sam 16:12 πυρράκης, “fiery red”) is the same one used by him to designate the “reddish” pottage that gave Esau his nickname in Ant. 2.2-3. Thereby, Josephus insinuates a connection between David and Rome whose origins Jewish tradition traces back to Esau and his descendants, the Edomites. Feldman (ibid: 543) further notes that the same term is used to describe the great heroes Achilles (Il. 1.197; 23.141) and Odysseus (Od. 13.399, 431) in Homer. See 1 Sam 16:12a; like MT, Josephus has no equivalent to the LXX specification that David was handsome “in the Lord’s sight.” Pseudo-Philo omits any mention of David’s appearance. According to 1 Sam 16:12b it is God who informs Samuel that the lad is the one he is to anoint (MT LXX L; in LXX B he is told to anoint David “for he is good”). Josephus has Samuel make this determination on his own (contrast his 2 inserted mentions of a consultation of God by Samuel concerning Jesse’s older sons in 6.159, 162), thereby intimating the prophet’s growth in spiritual insight over the course of the episode. Pseudo-Philo anticipates God’s directive of 16:12b to an earlier point, i.e. in connection with his word to Samuel concerning Eliab in Bib. Ant. 59.2. The fact of the whole party’s “reclining” at this point is not mentioned explicitly in 1 Samuel 16 (cf., however, 16:11b, where Samuel states that they cannot do this until David appears and 16:13aα, where Samuel anoints David “in the midst of his brothers”). In specifying that Samuel placed David beside himself Josephus accentuates the latter’s status.

See 1 Sam 16:13aα (cf. 16:1b), which mentions the “horn of oil” Samuel uses to anoint David. In recounting Samuel’s application of the oil to David, Josephus does not use the verb “anoint” (LXX χρίω) of 16:13 (and of God’s order to Samuel in 6.157), but rather an alternative term, i.e. ἀλείφω (whose other 2 occurrences in his writings are in War 2.123; 5.565). Compare his avoidance of the reference to “his [God’s] messiah” of 16:7 in 6.158. This adjectival combination picks up on God’s statement that he is looking, inter alia, for “justice” and “obedience” from the new king in 6.160. Greek: ὁ οἶκος λαμπὸς καὶ περιβόητος. The same phrase recurs in Ant. 7.94, where, responding to Nathan’s dynastic promise, David rejoices to know that he will have such a “house.” Greek: ἀοίδιμος. Josephus’ only other use of this term is in Ant. 19.53. As used here in 6.165, the term foreshadows the women’s chant, exalting David’s killing of ten thousands of the Philistines in 1 Sam 18:7 (// 6.193). Neither the Bible nor Pseudo-Philo records such an address spoken by Samuel to David at the moment of his anointing. Josephus’ insertion spells out the import of that anointing and prepares readers for the subsequent unfolding of David’s career.

1 Sam 16:13bβ specifies that he went to Ramah. 1 Sam 16:14a states that the “Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul.” Compare 1 Sam 16:13bα: “the Spirit of the Lord came mightily upon David from that day forward.” Once again, Josephus, in accord with his general tendency (see note to “freedom” at Ant. 5.182)—cf., however, the continuation of the paragraph and next note—reformulates a biblical reference to the operation of God’s spirit. Josephus here makes delayed (and exceptional; see previous note) use of the reference in 1 Sam 16:13bα to “the Spirit of the Lord coming mightily upon David from that day forward”; compare Bib. Ant. 59.3: “The Lord was with him from that day.” His other uses of the phrase “divine spirit” (τὸ θεῖον/υπνεῦμα) are in Ant. 4.108, 118 (recipient: Balaam); 6.222 (// 1 Sam 19:21: the 3 groups of messengers sent by Saul to apprehend David); 8.354 (the prophet Micaiah); and 10.239 (Daniel). 1 Sam 16:13bα does not mention such activity by David as a result of his reception of the Spirit. Josephus’ addition of the item has a counterpart in Bib. Ant. 59.4, where, following his anointing, David sings a lengthy song praising the Lord for his dealings with him (to this song, Pseudo-Philo appends a further extra-biblical addition in 59.5, this concerning David’s killing, by means of stones, a lion and a bear which have attacked his “oxen,” whereupon God announces that this exploit portends David’s future killing of Israel’s enemy [Goliath] with stones). As Feldman (1998: 450-61) notes, Josephus twice elsewhere interjects references to David’s prophetic status; see Ant. 7.334; 8.109. The title “prophet” is likewise applied to him in Acts 2:30. For another instance of Josephus’ linking the divine “spirit” and “prophesying,” see 6.222. Greek: δαιμονία. In line with his tendency to avoid biblical references to the (supernatural) “spirit,” Josephus substitutes this designation for the phrase “evil spirit” (LXX: πνεῦμα πονηρόν) of 1 Sam 16:14-16 here and in 6.168. Subsequently, when having Jonathan recall his father’s affliction, Josephus will combine his alternative designation with that of the source; see note to “demons” at 6.211. In all cases, however, he leaves aside the further specification of 16:14-16 that the force tormenting Saul was “from God/the Lord.” Thereby, he avoids attributing Saul’s malady to God personally. On “demonology” in Josephus, see Deines 2003. In describing the “demons” as “suffocating” Saul, Josephus aligns himself with the reading of LXX 1 Sam 16:14 against MT’s more general reference to the evil spirit’s “tormenting” him. Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 60.1) speaks of an “evil spirit” that “terrified” (Latin: prefoco) Saul. In 1 Sam 16:15-16 it is Saul’s “servants” who approach him with their advice. Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 60.2) has Saul himself take the initiative in securing the healing services of David. Greek: ἐξᾴδω; Josephus’ 2 remaining uses of this verb are in 6.168, 214 (both times in connection with Saul’s treatment). The servants’ proposal to Saul in 1 Sam 16:15-16 does not mention such a “spell-breaking” by means of song. Like LXX 1 Sam 16:16, Josephus transliterates the Hebrew term for the musical instrument in question, i.e. ‮כנור‬‎ (RSV: “lyre”). Josephus modifies the concluding words of the proposal made to Saul in 1 Sam 16:16: “when the evil spirit from God (> LXX) is upon you, he will play it [the lyre] and you will be well (+ and he will relieve you, LXX),” introducing mention of where David’s musical therapist is to position himself and of the “songs” that he is to sing as he plays.

See 1 Sam 16:17, where Saul assents to the servants’ proposal of 16:15-16. Josephus’ reproduction of the report given Saul about David in 1 Sam 16:18 omits the latter’s speaking ability and the concluding reference to the Lord’s being “with” him, while inserting mention of his age and deserving of attention. Josephus appends this motivation for Saul’s directing Jesse to send David to him as reported in 1 Sam 16:19. The addition echoes his earlier references to the king’s eye for (masculine) beauty; see 6.130, 137-138.

1 Sam 16:20 enumerates the gifts in question: bread, wine, and a kid. See 1 Sam 16:21, which states that Saul “loved” David greatly. See 1 Sam 16:23. Josephus’ insertion about David’s being Saul’s “sole physician” both highlights the latter’s stature and recalls the mention of the royal “physicians” (6.166)—whom David completely over-shadows at this point. Unlike the Bible and Josephus, Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 60.4-5) “quotes” the words of the song that David played for Saul, this comprising a “rebuke” of the king’s evil spirit.

As with his initial summons to Jesse (6.167), Josephus also provides a motivation for the king’s new directive (1 Sam 16:22) that David be permitted to stay with him. Josephus’ rearrangement of the sequence of 16:22 (Saul’s retention of David) and 16:23 (mention of David’s services to himself) in 6.168-169 appears more logical in that before deciding to keep David on, the king would naturally first test the youth’s ability to help him. 1 Samuel 16 does not mention Jesse’s response to Saul’s 2nd directive concerning David (v. 22).

Josephus inserts this indication, thereby establishing a chronological link between the preceding events and those to follow. This insertion reminds readers of the previous Philistine advance mentioned in 6.97 (// 1 Sam 13:5). MT (1 Sam 17:1) ‮שׂוכה‬‎ (Eng.: “Socoh”); LXX Σοκχώθ; Josephus Σωκώ. MT (1 Sam 17:1) ‮עזקה‬‎ (Eng.: “Azekah”); LXX Ἀζηκά; Josephus Ἀζηκώ. Josephus simplifies the indications of 1 Sam 17:1, where the Philistines first gather at “Socoh which belongs to Judah” (MT LXX L; LXX B: Idoumaia) and then encamp “between Socoh and Azekah, in Ephesdammim” (MT). On Josephus’ version of 1 Samuel 17, which stands intermediate between the longer text of MT (and such Greek witnesses as A and L) and the shorter text of LXX B (which entirely lacks the MT verses 12-31, 41, 50, 55-58), see Begg 1999a. In the Bible’s presentation Israel first (1 Sam 17:2) camps “in the valley of Elah” (MT; LXX B lacks the name of the valley, while LXX L translates this as “of the oak”), and then (17:3) “on the mountain” opposite the Philistine camp. Josephus passes over the initial camp site. 1 Sam 17:3 represents both armies as eventually camping on facing mountains after having previously encamped at other sites (see 17:1-2). Josephus magnifies Saul’s stature by ascribing the Philistines’ camp change to pressure exerted on them by him.

Josephus derives his mention of the “valley” between the 2 mountain camps from the closing words of 1 Sam 17:3 (MT LXX L; LXX B speaks rather of both sides taking up their positions at the foot of their respective mountains, with Israel in a “circular formation” beneath its mountain). Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 61.4) has a very different opening to his David and Goliath story from the biblical and Josephan ones. In it, David returns to his flocks (see 1 Sam 17:15), which he then successfully defends against Midianite raiders. Josephus follows MT 1 Sam 17:4 in having Goliath proceed from the Philistine “camp”; in LXX he comes “from the ranks.” MT (1 Sam 17:4) ‮גלית‬‎ (Eng.: “Goliath”); LXX Γολιάθ; Josephus Γολιάθης. MT (1 Sam 17:4) ‮גת‬‎ (Eng.: “Gath”); LXX Γέθ; Josephus Γίττα. The various witnesses to 1 Sam 17:4a offer divergent opening characterizations of Goliath: “a man of the betweens” (so literally MT; RSV: “champion”); “a capable man” (LXX); “a bastard” (vir spurius, Vulg.). Josephus’ qualification has in view the notice on Goliath’s height that will follow immediately in 17:4b. Josephus’ figure for Goliath’s height agrees with that of LXX 1 Sam 17:4b against MT’s “six cubits and a span.” Marcus (ad loc.) notes that the figure given by Josephus is equivalent to 6 ft. 8 in. This indication concerning the dimensions of Goliath’s weapons has no biblical equivalent. Josephus anticipates this item of Goliath’s equipment from 1 Sam 17:5b, where it follows mention of his helmet in 17:5a. Like MT LXX L, he lacks a parallel to the plus of LXX B in 17:5b according to which Goliath’s armor was made, not only of bronze, but also “of iron.” Like LXX B 1 Sam 17:5a, Josephus lacks an equivalent to the specification of MT LXX L that Goliath’s helmet was made “of bronze.” Josephus elaborates on the mention of Goliath’s “greaves” in 1 Sam 17:6a with his indication concerning their size and purpose. The precise identity of the item carried on Goliath’s shoulders according to 1 Sam 17:6b is uncertain; MT calls it a ‮כידון‬‎ (“javelin”?, “shield”?), LXX an ἀσπίς (“shield”). Josephus leaves aside the specification, common to all the biblical witnesses, that the item was made of bronze. 1 Sam 17:7aβ specifies that it was Goliath’s “spearhead” that weighted “600 shekels of iron.” Josephus leaves aside the comparison of the spear(head) with a “weaver’s beam” from 17:7aα. Josephus magnifies the threat posed by Goliath in speaking not of a single attendant for the giant, as does 1 Sam 17:7b, but of “many.” His generalizing indication that the person(s) in question bore Goliath’s “weapons” corresponds to LXX, whereas MT calls him a “shield-bearer.” Pseudo-Philo leaves aside the entire description of Goliath’s size and weaponry given in 1 Sam 17:4b-7.

1 Sam 17:8a speaks only of Goliath’s addressing the “ranks of Israel.” As he does throughout his version of 1 Samuel 17, Josephus accentuates Saul’s role in the proceedings; compare Bib. Ant. 61.2, where, having come forth from the Philistine camp, Goliath “looks upon Saul and Israel” and then proceeds to address each separately. This initial “invitation” to the Israelites to consult their own interests takes the place of Goliath’s— seemingly superfluous—opening double question to them in 1 Sam 17:8bα: “Why have you come out to draw up for battle? Am I not a Philistine, and are you not servants of Saul?” (MT; LXX: “and you Hebrews of Saul”). In Bib. Ant. 61.2 Goliath asks the Israelites, with reference to his own role in the Battle of Aphek (1 Samuel 4), as described by Pseudo-Philo in Bib. Ant. 54.3, “are you not the Israel who fled before me when I took the ark from you and killed your priests?”

See 1 Sam 17:8bβ-9. In Bib. Ant. 61.2 Goliath specifically challenges King Saul to be the one to come and fight with him, threatening that otherwise he himself will come and capture him and subjugate Saul’s people to the Philistine gods. This renewed appeal to the Israelites’ self-interest, unparalleled in 1 Samuel 17, echoes the opening of the Josephan Goliath’s speech in 6.172. It takes the place of Goliath’s bombastic concluding words in 1 Sam 17:10 with their partial repetition of what has already been said by him in 17:9: “I defy the ranks of Israel this day; give me a man that we may fight together.”

Neither Goliath’s retiring to the camp nor his reappearance before the Israelites on the following day is mentioned explicitly in 1 Samuel 17. Josephus anticipates this notice on the duration of Goliath’s challenge from 1 Sam 17:16 (MT LXX AL, > B). Pseudo-Philo too brings forward the “40 days” of Goliath’s challenging from 17:16, having (Bib. Ant. 61.2) Goliath announce, in his initial address to Israel and Saul, that he intends to “mock” for this period of time, equaling the number of days Israel rejoiced over its reception of the Law in the desert. The source equivalent to this notice on the reaction of Saul and his people is appended directly to Goliath’s initial challenge to them (17:8-10) in 1 Sam 17:11 (as also in Bib. Ant. 61.2). Josephus makes mention of their reaction only after they have been subjected to multiple challenges by Goliath. Josephus may have found inspiration for this picture of the 2 armies drawn up, but not venturing to fight, from 1 Sam 17:21: “And Israel and the Philistines drew up for battle, army against army” (MT LXX AL, > B).

Josephus inserts this transition to, and occasion for, Saul’s following initiative regarding David. Highlighting Saul’s role, Josephus has him take the initiative concerning David’s “placement” at this juncture. By contrast, in 1 Sam 17:15 David, on his own initiative, either “commutes” between Saul’s camp and his father’s sheep in Bethlehem (so MT) or returns permanently to Bethlehem (so LXX AL, > B; see also Bib. Ant. 61.1, where David’s return occurs prior to Goliath’s challenge). In line with LXX B, Josephus has no equivalent to the notices, reintroducing David, his father, and older brothers, and duplicating the presentation of 1 Samuel 16, of MT 17:12, 13b-14a. Josephus suggests a reason for Saul’s readiness to dismiss David (see previous note), i.e. the presence with himself of the 3 older brothers, as mentioned in 1 Sam 17:13a, 14b (whose indication that they had “followed Saul to the battle” and names and birth order he omits).

In speaking of such an initially full-time return by David to his sheep-tending duties, Josephus follows the formulation of LXX AL 1 Sam 17:15 (> LXX B) as opposed to MT, which portrays David commuting between his flocks and the Israelite camp; see note to “Jesse” at 6.175. Josephus abridges the detailed instructions given David by Jesse in MT LXX AL 1 Sam 17:17-18, omitting, e.g., the specific items he is to bring his brothers (and their commander).

See 1 Sam 17:23 (MT LXX AL, > LXX B). In thus combining his version of 17:23 (Goliath’s renewed challenge) directly with his rendering of 17:17-18 (Jesse’s dispatch of David), Josephus passes over the intervening (MT LXX AL) sequence 17:19-22, which relates, in circumstantial detail, David’s journeying to the site of the Philistine-Israelite standoff where, having deposited what he had brought with the baggagekeeper, he runs to greet his brothers. Josephus inserts this reference to David’s emotional response to his hearing Goliath’s words (whose offensiveness [“defaming and abusing the army”] he accentuates in comparison with the bland formulation of 1 Sam 17:23a, which has the giant simply “speaking the same words he had said before”). In having David address himself to his brothers upon hearing Goliath’s challenge and forthrightly declare his own readiness to meet that challenge at this juncture, Josephus notably modifies the account given in 1 Sam 17:24-27 (MT LXX AL), where the exchange is rather between David and the Israelite troops, the brothers not being mentioned as such, and where David, in a rather self-centered way, asks them (v. 26) what the one who kills Goliath would gain from this, without, however, affirming his own readiness to take on the task. Josephus thus depicts David in a considerably more disinterested, heroic light. Somewhat similarly, Pseudo-Philo has (Bib. Ant. 61.3) David respond to his hearing of Goliath’s provocations with the words: “Is this the time about which God said to me [see Bib. Ant. 59.5] ‘I will deliver into your hands by stones the enemy of my people’?”

This is the reading (Greek Ἰάναβος) of RO that Niese adopts. Marcus (ad loc.) and Schalit (s.v.) follow MSP, which, in line with the “Eliab” of 1 Sam 17:28, read Ἐλίαβος, just as they do in 6.161 (where Niese reads Ταλίαβος with RO; see note to “Taliab” at 6.161). Josephus leaves aside the mention of Eliab’s “indignation” over David’s words from 1 Sam 17:28a and replaces his opening question to him (“Why have you come down?”)—which he will end up answering himself at the end of 17:28b—with a statement spelling out the nature of David’s offense. This “order” replaces Eliab’s question in 1 Sam 17:28aβ (MT LXX AL): “where have you left those few sheep of yours in the wilderness?” In 1 Sam 17:29 (MT LXX AL) David responds rather petulantly to Eliab’s remonstrance: “What have I done now? Was it not but a word?” Josephus portrays a David who shows due deference to his eldest brother. This conclusion to the brothers’ exchange as reported in 1 Sam 17:28-30 MT LXX AL (to which Pseudo-Philo has no counterpart) represents Josephus’ modification of 17:30, where there is a reprise of the earlier discussion between David and the “people” (see 17:24-27) concerning the reward awaiting the one who kills Goliath. Josephus has David now reiterate his previous (see 6.177) readiness to take on the giant without any mention of such reward.

See 1 Sam 17:31 (MT LXX AL). In Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 61.4) Saul overhears David’s words himself and so does not need to be informed of these. 1 Sam 17:32 (where LXX B picks up after its long “minus” corresponding to MT LXX AL 17:11-31) represents David as initiating the conversation with Saul. Josephus portrays proper protocol being followed with Saul being the first to speak (as he does also in Bib. Ant. 61.4). In having David urge Saul personally not to be dispirited, Josephus follows the LXX reading in 1 Sam 17:32 (“let not the heart of my lord fail...”) as against MT’s more general “let no man’s heart fail....” In 1 Sam 17:32b David simply offers to go fight the Philistine. Amplifying his words, Josephus portrays a more self-confident (and “prophetic”) David. Pseudo-Philo gives a similar expansion to David’s opening statement (Bib. Ant. 61.4): “(.... I will go and fight the Philistine), and God will take away the hatred and disgrace from Israel.”

This added embellishment of David’s opening words of 1 Sam 17:32 highlights, once again, David’s disinterestedness: the fame to be anticipated from his elimination of Goliath will be, not his personally, but rather that of Saul’s army as a whole. In Pseudo-Philo the (initial) exchange between David and Saul ends with a reproduction of the former’s word of 1 Sam 17:32 in Bib. Ant. 61.4. Thereafter, David immediately sets out against Goliath, 61.5// 17:40, the whole intervening continuation of their exchange, 17:33-39, being passed over.

This notice concerning the positive impact of David’s words upon Saul is biblically unparalleled. It serves to heighten the stature of David, whose outstanding qualities are recognized by the king, even as he (initially) resists giving David permission to fight.

By placing David’s recognition of God’s help in his life at the very beginning of his reply to Saul, rather than only at the end of this (as in 1 Sam 17:34-37a), Josephus accentuates his piety. In 1 Sam 17:34 David makes back-to-back reference to “a lion or a bear” so that in what follows one is uncertain which animal in fact he is speaking of. Josephus clarifies by having David refer to the 2 beasts separately. David speaks of taking the lion by the “beard” in MT 1 Sam 17:35, and by the “throat” in LXX. Josephus dramatizes David’s dispatch of the beast as compared with his final words in 1 Sam 17:35: “I smote him and killed him.”

Compare 1 Sam 17:36a: “your servant has killed both lions and bears.” See 1 Sam 17:36b. Josephus’ rendition, in which not only the God’s “army” (as in 6.177), but also God himself is the object of Goliath’s abusive words, heightens the Philistine’s offense.

Josephus expatiates on Saul’s wish (“... the Lord be with you,” MT)/ affirmation (“the Lord will be with you,” LXX) of 1 Sam 17:37b, likewise reversing the biblical order of the king’s prayer and command that David “go.” Josephus agrees with LXX B 1 Sam 17:39aα in having Saul place the sword upon David, while in MT LXX L David does this himself. In contrast to both these witnesses to 17:38-39aα, he mentions David’s receiving the sword in 2nd place, before the helmet. Finally, like LXX, Josephus has no equivalent to MT’s 4th item of apparel (this appearing 3rd in its listing), i.e. “a coat of mail” (RSV).

Cf. 1 Sam 17:39aβ. David’s word to Saul about the latter’s weapons in 1 Sam 17:39bα is rather brusque: “I cannot go with these; for I am not used to them.” Josephus here, as throughout the passage, depicts a more deferential David. Josephus agrees with MT LXX L 1 Sam 17:39bβ in making David himself doff the weapons; in LXX B the subject is an indeterminate “they, one.” Josephus inserts the indication concerning the origin of the 5 stones that David takes according to 1 Sam 17:40a; conversely, he leaves aside the source description of these as “smooth” (MT LXX L)/ “perfect” (LXX B). Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 61.5) speaks of 7 stones on which David writes the names of his various “ancestors,” himself, and God. He adds that, at this point, God sent the angel “Zeruel” to David. See 1 Sam 17:40b. Josephus specifies that David carried the sling in his “right” hand. Like LXX B, he has no equivalent to the MT LXX AL plus of 1 Sam 17:41: “And the Philistine came on and drew near to David, with his shield-bearer in front of him.”

In 1 Sam 17:42 it is Goliath’s catching sight of David’s youthfully handsome appearance that causes him to despise him. Josephus’ alternative motivation, with its reference to the giant’s beholding David’s unusual “weapons,” is inspired by Goliath’s question in 17:43: “Am I a dog, that you come to me with sticks (MT; LXX: with a stick and stones)?” Josephus amplifies Goliath’s opening question to David of 1 Sam 17:43a (“Am I a dog...?”) with an alternative, “rather than a human.” For this interjected reply by David Josephus is clearly dependent on the plus of LXX B 1 Sam 17:43: “And David said: ‘But worse than a dog’.” MT and LXX L have no equivalent. Josephus supplies this notice of the emotional impact of David’s answer on Goliath. Compare 1 Sam 17:43b, where both MT and LXX speak of Goliath’s “cursing David by his gods” (Tg. has “idol”). Greek: ἐπιγείοι (literally: “on the earth”). Josephus’ one other use of this term for land animals is in Ant. 8.44. Greek: μετάρσια. Josephus’ uses this paraphrastic expression (“the raised-aloft ones”) for “birds” also in Ant. 1.32, 102. Josephus reverses the order of 1 Sam 17:44 (first birds, then beasts) and adds the specification concerning the purpose of Goliath’s leaving David’s body to these predators.

Josephus’ list of the 3 weapons with which, David states, Goliath is coming against him agrees for the first 2 (sword, spear) with 1 Sam 17:45a, whereas its 3rd item (“breastplate”) differs from that cited in both MT (javelin? shield?) and LXX (shield). Josephus’ previous enumeration of Goliath’s weaponry (6.171) did not refer to a sword. He introduces mention of it here because of its function in David’s subsequent beheading of Goliath. In 1 Sam 17:45b David states that he is coming against Goliath “in the name of the Lord...” whom Goliath has defied. Josephus’ formulation (“with God as weapon”) prolongs the “weapons-language” with which his David’s reply opens, contrasting his one divine weapon with the 3 man-made ones available to Goliath. To David’s announcement in 1 Sam 17:46a about God’s handing Goliath into his hand and his striking him down, Josephus appends a further, wider prediction by David, i.e. God’s overthrow also of the Philistine army. In so doing, he accentuates both David’s confidence about what is to happen and his prophetic foresight. David’s announcement in 1 Sam 17:46bα is that he is going to behead Goliath and then give the corpses of the (other) Philistines to the birds and the beasts (cf. Goliath’s threat to do this to David himself in 17:44). Josephus keeps attention focussed on the fate of Goliath himself, at the same time picking up on the “dog language” used earlier in the exchange between him and David. Feldman (1998: 563) notes that the term ὁμόφυλοι (“compatriots”), which Josephus almost invariably uses as a designation for Jews, is here exceptionally (and pejoratively) applied to the Philistines. Josephus combines and rewords David’s double statement concerning the purpose of Goliath’s upcoming overthrow by God in 1 Sam 17:46bβ-47a: “that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel and that all this assembly may know that the Lord saves not with sword and spear...” This concluding statement by David takes the place of that of 1 Sam 17:47b: “for the battle is the Lord’s and he will give you into our hand.” In Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 61.6) the extended biblical exchange between David and Goliath (1 Sam 17:43-47) is replaced by David’s monologue in which he informs the giant that they are descendants, respectively, of the 2 sisters, Ruth and Orpah. Once David kills, not only Goliath but also his 3 brothers, Orpah will be told (by the dead Goliath!) that his sister’s son has not spared his cousins.

1 Sam 17:48a speaks only of Goliath’s advancing to meet David. Josephus offers a more vivid picture, with mention of the giant’s physical and mental state.

MT LXX AL 1 Sam 17:48b (> LXX B) only mention David’s “running to meet Goliath.” Josephus highlights God’s presence with David at this moment, as he has in previous moments of the story; see 6.187, where the image of God as David’s “weapon” is used. On Josephus’ recurrent designation of God as an “ally” (Greek: σύμμαχος) of individuals or the people as a whole, see note to “ally” at Ant. 5.98. See 1 Sam 17:49. Like MT, Josephus has no equivalent to the LXX plus, specifying that the stone passed through Goliath’s helmet.

Josephus combines (selected) sequels to David’s felling of Goliath (1 Sam 17:49) as related in 17:50 (MT LXX AL, > LXX B: David’s not having a sword of his own) and 51a (David’s running forward, standing over Goliath, using the giant’s own sword to behead him). Pseudo-Philo’s version of the scene (Bib. Ant. 61.7-8) adds a final exchange between Goliath and David: the fallen giant urges David to quickly dispatch him and then rejoice. In response, David enjoins Goliath to behold his true slayer (i.e. the angel Zeruel; see 61.5). When Goliath does this, he confesses that it was not David alone who killed him, but also the superhuman figure accompanying him.

Josephus embellishes the summary notice of 1 Sam 17:51b on the Philistines’ flight with, e.g., indications concerning their state of mind and the ignominy of their behavior. 1 Sam 17:52a speaks only of the response to the Philistines’ flight on the part of the Israelites and Judeans, without mention of Saul himself. Josephus, as he does throughout his version of 1 Samuel 17, highlights the active role of the king. Josephus’ indications concerning the end points of the pursuit agree with those of LXX 1 Sam 17:52 (where the sites “Geth” and “Askalon” are actually mentioned twice). Compare MT (“as far as Gai and the gates of Ekron... on the way from Shaaraim as far as Gath and Ekron”).

Here, as often, Josephus introduces “precise” casualty figures where the Bible lacks these. As with the pursuit of the Philistines (see 6.191; compare 1 Sam 17:52), so also with the “return” from this, Josephus highlights the initiative of Saul, whereas the source (17:53a) speaks only of the Israelites’ returning. In 1 Sam 17:53 the Israelites “plunder” the Philistine camp. Josephus’ reference to Saul’s “burning” it is perhaps inspired by the MT plus in 17:53, which cites the Israelites’ “ardently pursuing after” (‮מדלק אחרי‬‎) the Philistines; cf. the mention of the Israelites’ “burning” (Latin: comburo) in their pursuit of the Philistines in various OL MSS. See Skehan 1976. According to 1 Sam 17:54 David deposited Goliath’s head in Jerusalem and installed the giant’s sword in his own tent. Josephus’ modifications have in view the difficulties posed by the biblical account: Jerusalem is not in Israelite hands at this point, and 1 Sam 21:10 will speak of Goliath’s sword being rather at Nob. Josephus, further reflecting that the giant’s sword would be a more appropriate (and much less “messy”) offering to God, has him dedicate this to him at an unspecified site, while keeping the head for himself.Like LXX B, Josephus has no equivalent to the MT LXX AL paragraph 1 Sam 17:55-58, where, in striking contrast with the account of Saul’s personally taking David into his service given in 1 Sam 16:14-23 (// 6.169), the king appears to know nothing of David’s identity and has to send his general Abner to inquire about him. Pseudo-Philo, conscious of the problem, asserts (Bib. Ant. 61.9) that Saul’s ignorance of David’s identity as recorded in 17:55-58 was due to the Lord’s angel (i.e. Zeruel)’s having “changed his [David’s] appearance.”

For his version of 1 Samuel 18, dealing with the beginnings of the rift between Saul and David, in 6.193-204, Josephus essentially follows the shorter text of LXX B, which lacks vv. 1-5, 10-11, 17-19, 29b-30 of MT (and LXX AL), segments that (mostly) duplicate what is found in other contexts of 1 Samuel. Thus, at the outset he has no equivalent to the MT segment 1 Sam 18:1-5 featuring Jonathan’s covenant with David (and paralleling 1 Samuel 20). Like B, he also lacks a parallel to the transitional phrase of (MT) 1 Sam 18:6a: “as they were coming home, when David returned from slaying the Philistine....” In place of this material, he begins immediately with a version of 18:6b, the women’s response to Israel’s victory. Greek: φθόνος καὶ μῖσος. This combination (in this or reverse order) occurs also in War 2.82 (subject: the friends of Archelaus’ relatives; object: Archelaus); 4.566 (subject: the Idumeans; object: John of Gischala); Ant. 2.10 (subject: Joseph’s brothers; object: Joseph); 20.29 (subject: the nobles of Adiabene; object: Izates); cf. also Ant. 13.288, 296, 401, 402. In MT 1 Sam 18:6b the women go to meet Saul, in LXX rather David. Josephus’ rendering avoids choosing between these 2 divergent readings. 1 Sam 18:6 (MT LXX B) cites 3 (LXX L has 5) “accompaniments” to the women’s reception: timbrels/ tambourines, songs of joy, and a 2nd musical instrument, of uncertain meaning in MT (Hebrew: ‮שׁלשׁים‬‎, RSV: “instruments of music”), which LXX renders by “cymbals.” Josephus rearranges the source sequence of the 3 items, while following LXX in its mention of “cymbals” as one of these. 1 Sam 18:7 refers in general terms to the “women” who sing to one another. Josephus introduces the distinction between the 2 groups of women.

See 1 Sam 18:8. Like LXX B, Josephus has no equivalent, at this juncture, to the verse’s opening words in MT LXX AL: “And Saul was very angry...” Cf., however, his possible anticipation of these—as also of the verse’s continuation, i.e. “and this saying displeased him”—at the opening of 6.193, with its notice on Saul’s being roused to “envy and hatred” against David. 1 Sam 18:9 speaks, more cryptically, of Saul’s “eyeing” David from then on. Like LXX B, Josephus lacks an equivalent to the segment 18:10-11 of MT LXX AL, which, in its description of Saul trying to pin David with his spear, represents a duplicate of 19:9-10.

1 Sam 18:12 offers a theological explanation of Saul’s fear of David, i.e. the fact of the Lord’s being “with” the latter, after abandoning the former (cf. 1 Sam 16:13-14). Josephus’ alternative explanation (Saul’s feeling David to be in too close proximity to himself) has in view Saul’s subsequent distancing David from himself. To this explanation he appends a further one, this recalling how David came to be in such proximity to the king, i.e. through Saul’s appointing him his armor-bearer (see 1 Sam 16:21b// 6.168). 1 Sam 18:13 has Saul remove David “from his presence”; Josephus rewords in line with his preceding reminiscence of Saul’s appointing David his armor-bearer. Josephus’ comment concerning Saul’s intentions in appointing David commander of a thousand (1 Sam 18:13a) takes the place of the notice on the latter’s “going out and coming in before the people” in 18:13b.

Greek: διευπραγέω; the word is a Josephan hapax. See 1 Sam 18:14, the order of whose elements (David’s success, God’s being with him) Josephus reverses. Having spoken at length of Saul’s intentions in 6.195, he leaves aside the attached notice (1 Sam 18:15) on the “awe/fear” David’s success caused Saul. Josephus here combines the notices concerning the “love” that David aroused on the part of both people (1 Sam 18:16a) and Saul’s daughter, i.e. Michal (18:20a). Like LXX B, he has no parallel to the intervening MT LXX AL sequence 18:17-19 concerning the first, abortive effort at marrying David to a daughter of Saul, i.e. the elder Merab, which “duplicates” the attempt involving the king’s younger daughter, Michal (whose name Josephus himself will not cite until 6.204) in 18:20-27. On Josephus’ overall portrayal of the David-Michal relationship, whose romantic dimensions he highlights, see Feldman 1998: 564-5. Josephus here elaborates on the summary notice concerning the figure of “Michal” and her “love” for David of 1 Sam 18:20a with mention of his virginal status and the strength of her feelings for David. The latter item, in turn, helps explain how it was, as 18:20bα (“and they told Saul”) reports, those feelings became public.

See 1 Sam 18:20bβ. Josephus appends the “explanation” of Saul’s “delight” in hearing of his daughter’s love for David. In contrast to 1 Sam 18:21a, which reports an inner monologue by Saul, in which he voices his anticipation that the marriage would prove a “snare” for David and turn the “hand of the Philistines” against him, Josephus makes the king’s perfidious intentions part of his address to his retainers. Thereby, he highlights Saul’s open cynicism. Like LXX B, Josephus has no equivalent to the attached notice—itself harking back to the account of the abortive previous match between David and Merab in 18:17-19 (MT LXX AL, no parallel in LXX L and Josephus; see note to “Saoul” at 6.196)—of MT LXX AL 18:21b: “therefore Saul said to David a second time, ‘you shall now be my son-in-law’.” In proceeding immediately to this condition (// 1 Sam 18:25a) attaching to Saul’s promise to give his daughter to David (18:21), Josephus reserves for a later point (see 6.199-200) the Bible’s initial, 3-way exchange (18:22-24) between Saul’s servants, David, and the king featuring David’s reminder to the servants of his lowly status. Josephus’ version of the condition of 18:25 has Saul ask for both a much larger number (600 vs. 100) and a different, less vulgar portion of the Philistines’ anatomy (heads rather than foreskins). In addition, it omits Saul’s (purported) reason for his request as cited at the end of v. 25a, i.e. desire for vengeance on his enemies.

Josephus incorporates into Saul’s words to his servants an expanded version of the editorial comment of 1 Sam 18:25b: “Now Saul thought to make David fall by the hand of the Philistines” (cf. 18:21). Thereby, he highlights, yet again (see note to “take it” at 6.197) the brazen cynicism of the king.

This directive is an expansion of the message— which Josephus will reproduce in what follows—Saul enjoins his servants to convey to David in 1 Sam 18:22, where they are told to inform him of the favor he enjoys with Saul and his retainers, and to urge him to become the king’s son-in-law. In addition, Josephus, rearranging the biblical sequence, has Saul entrust this (purportedly friendly) message to his servants (// 18:22) only after he has already informed them of his plans for ridding himself of David with the proposed marriage as a pretext (// 18:25). Thereby, he highlights the king’s deceitfulness; see 6.197,198. Josephus combines the wording of Saul’s directive to his servants in 1 Sam 18:22 (they are to tell David of the favor he enjoys with the king and his servants and urge him to become Saul’s son-in-law) with the notice on the servants’ delivery of the message to David of 18:23a. His rendering expands the circle of those said to “cherish” David from “all the king’s servants” to “all the people,” this echoing the language of 6.196 (// 18:16).

Greek: ταπεινός. On this adjective and its cognates, see Spicq 1978 (II): 878-85. See David’s reply to the servants in 1 Sam 18:23b, which Josephus’ rendering follows rather closely. See 1 Sam 18:24. Saul’s statement here about David’s possession of “courage and every other virtue” echoes the catalogue of virtues, including “courage,” that God prescribes for the king desired by him in 6.160. Saul, in spite of himself, recognizes that David possesses this range of virtues.

Saul’s above response, extending over 2.5 paragraphs, to the servants’ report of David’s initial, non-committal reply (1 Sam 18:23b) to his offer of his daughter, represents Josephus’ vastly expanded version of the king’s words in 18:25a (“The king desires no marriage present, except a hundred foreskins of the Philistines, that he may be avenged of the king’s enemies”), which Josephus has already anticipated in 6.197 (in both instances he makes Saul prescribe 600 Philistine heads as opposed to the 100 foreskins of 18:25). The expansion here in 6.200b-202 (fraudulently) insists on Saul’s personal “disinterestedness”; his one concern is, he claims, not his own enrichment, but obtaining a worthy son-in-law and husband for his daughter. Once again, Josephus underscores the king’s deceitfulness; see 6.197, 198, 199.

See 1 Sam 18:26a, which Josephus elaborates with mention of David’s being taken in by Saul’s deceptive words. Josephus’ emphasis on David’s eagerness to undertake the mission proposed by Saul seems to reflect— while also expatiating on—the (MT LXX AL) phrase (> LXX B) “before the time had expired” at the end of 1 Sam 18:26, which serves to introduce the mention of David’s setting out in 18:27. Josephus elaborates on David’s successful exploit against the Philistines as reported in 1 Sam 18:27a. In particular, he interjects a “theological explanation” of David’s success and mention of his “beheading” those he kills. He likewise brings the number of those actually slain by David (600) into line with the figure specified by the king in 6.197, 201 (compare the 200 foreskins David is said to bring back in 18:27 [MT; LXX: has 100] as opposed to the 100 prescribed by Saul himself in 18:25). See 1 Sam 18:27bα. Josephus interjects the reference to David’s “display” of what he has brought back.

Josephus supplies this motivation as to why Saul, however unwillingly, does proceed with the marriage, as he is said to do in 1 Sam 18:27bβ. See 1 Sam 18:27bβ. In 6.129 Josephus called the woman “Michaal” in line with the biblical form of her name (which he does not mention when reintroducing her in 6.196// 1 Sam 18:20).

Josephus inserts this transitional phrase, foreshadowing Saul’s subsequent initiatives against David. See 1 Sam 18:28-29a. In citing Saul’s perception of the people’s positive stance towards David, Josephus aligns himself with LXX B 18:28 (“all Israel loves” David) against MT (“Michal, the daughter of Saul, loves” him; LXX L conflates the 2 readings). This statement spells out the nature of Saul’s “fear” as cited in 1 Sam 18:29a, while likewise foreshadowing the king’s next attempt to rid himself of David. Like LXX B, Josephus has no equivalent to the complex of notices making up MT LXX AL 1 Sam 18:29b-30 (Saul’s ongoing hostility towards David; David’s proving more successful than Saul’s servants in his battles with the Philistines and so gaining high repute). In 1 Sam 19:1a Saul’s command to kill David is issued to Jonathan and “all his servants.” Josephus, more plausibly, has the directive addressed to a smaller, more reliable group.

Josephus inserts this reference to Jonathan’s surprise over his father’s changed disposition towards David, thereby underscoring the magnitude of the change. Josephus expands the mention of Jonathan’s “love” for David in 1 Sam 19:1b with a reference also to his respect for David’s moral qualities. On Josephus’ portrayal of the David-Jonathan relationship overall, in which he heightens the pathos of the biblical depiction, while also downplaying the homosexual suggestions of that depiction, see Feldman 1998: 565-7. See 1 Sam 19:2a, where Jonathan informs David “Saul... seeks to kill you.”

See 1 Sam 19:2b. Josephus’ use of the phrase “on the next day” corresponds to LXX’s “tomorrow morning” against MT’s “in the morning.”

In 1 Sam 19:3 Jonathan simply states that he will speak to his father about David and will report whatever he might learn; Josephus has him spell out what he intends to say to the king. Conversely, he leaves aside Jonathan’s reference to his intending to speak to his father “in the field” where David himself is hiding, since this would seem to make a report to David about their conversation unnecessary. Josephus adds this notice on the effect of Jonathan’s advice upon David.

Josephus expands the introductory notice on Jonathan’s speaking to Saul (1 Sam 19:4) with indications concerning the time and Saul’s state of mind. The latter item serves to motivate Jonathan’s venturing to speak to him at this particular moment and picks up on Jonathan’s reference to the “opportunity presenting itself” in 6.207. Josephus makes Jonathan begin his discourse with a question reminiscent of the one with which he concludes his plea in 1 Sam 19:5bβ: “why then will you sin against innocent blood by killing David without cause?” Jonathan’s invocation of David’s benefits both to the king personally and to all Israel by his overthrow of the Philistines draws on 1 Sam 19:4bβ-5a. His reference to David’s role in “punishing the Palestinoi” adroitly reminds Saul that this is just what he had claimed to want from David in 6.201. Josephus leaves aside mention of God’s role in David’s victory as well as the appended notice about Saul’s (MT; LXX: Israel’s) seeing and rejoicing over this in 19:5bα.

Josephus has Jonathan expatiate on his allusion to David’s slaying “the Philistine” in 1 Sam 19:5a. The mention of the “40 days” of Goliath’s challenge harks back to 6.174 (// 1 Sam 17:16). Continuing to amplify Jonathan’s words, Josephus now has him recall David’s most recent exploit, i.e. winning Michal’s hand at the price of the Philistine heads; see 6.203. See Josephus’ (likewise inserted) reference to Jonathan’s “deferring to David’s virtue” in 6.206 and to Saul’s feigned desire for a son-in-law who has “courage and every other virtue” in 6.200. With this, the 3rd and last of the (initial) series of “extrabiblical” arguments Josephus attributes to Jonathan, he represents him appealing to the king’s sense of family, particularly as regards his daughter.

With this appeal, Jonathan reaches the core component of his discourse, towards which the preceding and following “arguments” are all directed. See Jonathan’s opening exhortation in 1 Sam 19:4bα: “let not the king sin against his servant David.” When referring to Saul’s tormentor(s) earlier, Josephus designated these simply as “demons” (see 6.166, 168). He now combines that designation with the one used of them in 1 Sam 16:14-16, i.e. “evil spirit”; see note to “demons” at 6.166. Elaborating on his previous reminiscence of David’s benefaction to Saul personally (see 6.209), Josephus’ Jonathan now specifies the nature of that benefaction, i.e. his relieving Saul when he was possessed; see 6.168. With this statement Jonathan recapitulates his earlier references to David’s exploits in 6.209-210 (cf. 1 Sam 19:5a). The remark likewise points back to Jonathan’s mention of David’s role in “punishing the Palestinoi” at the opening of his discourse in 6.209, this, in turn, echoing Saul’s own claim about desiring this from David in 6.201. Josephus supplies this concluding affirmation with its allusion to the whole range of David’s merits for his greatly expanded version of Jonathan’s brief speech in 1 Sam 19:4-5.

See 1 Sam 19:6; Josephus appends the proverb-like moral that serves to motivate Saul’s positive response to Jonathan’s appeal. In his version of 1 Sam 19:7 Josephus underscores the positive outcome of Jonathan’s initiative; whereas in 19:7aβ Jonathan simply “shows David all these things,” Josephus has him informing him of the “kindness and safety” Saul has now awarded him.

1 Sam 19:8a depicts David going on his own initiative to fight the Philistines. Josephus has him act on the king’s orders; thereby he accentuates the wrongfulness of Saul’s subsequent attempt to kill David, who has just demonstrated his obedience to him. Josephus’ mention of David’s “return” as the necessary preparation for what follows replaces the reference to the Philistines’ flight in 1 Sam 19:8b. Josephus interjects this foreshadowing remark (and the attached allusion to Saul’s state of mind), thereby preparing readers for what now awaits the victorious David at Saul’s hands. On envy in the face of others’ success as a recurrent theme of Josephus’ account of Saul, see note to “distinctions” at 6.59.

In contrast to his earlier usage (see 6.166, 168,211), Josephus here speaks of “the demon” in the singular. Josephus amplifies the biblical notice on the evil spirit’s assault (1 Sam 19:9aα) with reference to its effect upon Saul and an allusion (“again”) to the demons’ previous attacks (see 6.166,168). As in his version of 1 Sam 16:14-23 in 6.166-169, he avoids the source qualification of the evil spirit as “from the Lord.” In comparison with 1 Sam 19:9aβb (“... as he [Saul] sat [MT LXX L; LXX B: slept] in his house with his spear in his hand, and David was playing the lyre”), Josephus, here too, highlights David’s acting in conformity with Saul’s orders; see note to “Palestinoi” at 6.213. As in 6.166, he portrays David, not simply playing his instrument, but singing as he does so. Josephus’ emphasis on the force of Saul’s throw replaces the statement concerning his intention in 1 Sam 19:10a (“Saul sought to pin David to the wall” [MT; LXX lacks to the wall]). Josephus leaves aside the detail of 1 Sam 19:10bα about the spear that David eludes “sticking in the wall.” Josephus’ inserted specification as to where David flees (1 Sam 19:10bβ) has in view 19:11, which speaks of Saul’s sending messengers “to David’s house.” His appended indication concerning the period David remains in his house likewise looks to the (LXX) timing of Saul’s initiative, i.e. “that night.” See next note.

Josephus agrees with LXX in connecting this temporal indication with the opening of 1 Sam 19:11 (Saul sends messengers to David “that night”) against MT, which links the phrase rather with the end of 19:10 (David escapes “that night”). Josephus inserts this additional, negative indication concerning Saul’s intentions in sending his men to David’s house (see 1 Sam 19:11a). According to 1 Sam 19:11a, Saul’s intention is simply to “kill” David the next morning. Josephus represents the king as concerned to give his intended murder the appearance of a legally sanctioned act. Josephus prefaces Michal’s warning David as recounted in 1 Sam 19:11b with these inserted background notices on her learning of Saul’s plan and the state of mind this provokes in her. The insertion underscores Michal’s attachment to David that prompts her subsequent exertions on his behalf.

Josephus elaborates on Michal’s brief warning in 1 Sam 19:11b (“If you do not save your life tonight, tomorrow you will be killed”) with, e.g., a reference to the divine aid she hopes will be given her husband. See 1 Sam 19:12.

This mention of Michal’s making up the bed “as though for a sick person” (compare 1 Sam 19:14b, where she informs Saul’s men that “he [David] is sick”) replaces the reference of 19:13a to her placing a first object, of uncertain meaning and variously denominated in the textual witnesses, in the bed, i.e. ‮התרפים‬‎ (MT; RSV: “an image”); “empty sarcophagoi” (LXX); “statues” (Tg.). Josephus’ specification that the item was a goat “liver” corresponds to LXX 1 Sam 19:13b. MT’s phrase ‮כביר העזים‬‎ (RSV: “a pillow of goats’ hair”) is of uncertain meaning (Tg. reads “a goatskin”). Josephus prefaces his notice on Saul’s sending to David’s house (see 1 Sam 19:14a) with a chronological indication that picks up on the reference to its still being night in 6.216. Josephus considerably embellishes Michal’s summary declaration (“he is sick”) of 1 Sam 19:14b: she confirms her verbal assertion with a “demonstration” of David’s condition, making use of the goat liver (19:13), and succeeds in persuading her hearers. Here, as in 6.215, Josephus goes beyond the Bible in highlighting the person, mental state, words, and effective initiatives of Michal.

This report by the messengers to Saul is simply presupposed in the presentations of MT and LXX L. It does have a certain equivalent in LXX B 1 Sam 19:14, where the word “he (David) is sick” is attributed, not as in MT and LXX L (as also in Josephus; see 6.217) to Michal, but rather to the messengers themselves (“and they said that he was sick”). See 1 Sam 19:15; cf. Josephus’ previous notice on Saul’s intentions regarding David in 6.215. 1 Sam 19:16 does not mention a report by the messengers of their “discovery” to the king. Josephus’ inserted reference to their doing so serves to prepare the following confrontation between Saul and Michal (19:17).

Greek: κατασοφίζομαι; there is a play on words here with the term σόφισμα (“trick”) used of Michal’s ruse in 6.218. To his reproduction of Saul’s accusatory words from 1 Sam 19:17a, Josephus prefaces this notice, intimating that by her subsequent response Michal will succeed in hoodwinking her father, just as she had earlier duped the royal messengers (see 6.217). Josephus expands on Michal’s report of David’s death threat (1 Sam 19:17b) with mention of his (purported) purpose in making that threat. 1 Sam 19:17 says nothing concerning the effect of Michal’s reply upon Saul. Josephus’ appendix on the point underscores the effectiveness of Michal’s self-defense.

Josephus mentioned Samuel’s departure for this, his home-town (MT: Ramah), in 6.155 (// 1 Sam 15:34) following his confrontation with Saul concerning the king’s Amalekite campaign. See 1 Sam 19:18a. Josephus concretizes the source’s general reference to David’s informing Samuel of “all that Saul had done to him” with specific mention of the spear-throwing incident of 6.214 (// 19:10). This rendering follows the reading of RO (μετὰ [τοῦ] θυμοῦ) adopted by Niese; Marcus (ad loc.) reads μετὰ τοῦ θεοῦ (literally: “with God”) on the basis of MSP. Greek: ἐπιτυχής. This adjective is hapax in Josephus. To his elaboration of David’s “report” to Samuel (1 Sam 19:18a), Josephus appends this summarizing remark concerning the basis of the king’s animosity towards David. The remark recalls Josephus’ earlier statement (6.213) that Saul “was grieved by his [David’s] success, as though he himself were still more imperilled by his actions.”

MT (1 Sam 19:18) ‮נוית‬‎(‮ב‬‎) (= ketiv; qere has ‮ניות‬‎(‮ב‬‎); commentators disagree as to whether this is a proper place name [RSV: “Naioth”] or a common noun, i.e. “[the] camps”); LXX Ἀυὰθ ἐν Ῥαμά; Tg. “in the house of study”; Josephus Γαλβουάθ (Schalit s.v. sees this form as a corruption of the Greek transcription of the name, itself reflecting a Hebrew ‮בגיות‬‎, actually read by Josephus). See 1 Sam 19:18b, which Josephus elaborates with mention of Samuel’s departing his home-town in response to David’s report. See 1 Sam 19:19-20a.

Compare 6.56, where Samuel informs Saul that he will meet “assembled prophets.” Josephus omits the detail of 1 Sam 19:20bα about Samuel “standing as head” over this group, just as he does the specification that the group itself was “prophesying.” In Tg. the reference is to “a band of teachers singing,” with Samuel “standing teaching them.” Here exceptionally, Josephus does reproduce a source reference (see 1 Sam 19:20bβ) to God’s “spirit.” His wording echoes that used by him in 6.166, where, once “the divine spirit” transfers from Saul to David, the latter begins to prophesy. In Tg. the Spirit prompts Saul’s messengers to “sing praise.” See 1 Sam 19:21. Josephus’ mention of Saul’s “wrath” reflects the LXX plus at the opening of 1 Sam 19:22. He leaves aside the following sequence (19:22aβb-23a) concerning Saul’s movements as well as the intervening exchange between Saul and an unidentified person concerning Samuel and David’s whereabouts (v. 22b); this exchange might appear otiose, given that in 19:19 Saul has already been informed about the pair’s current residence.

In 1 Sam 19:23b it is God’s Spirit which prompts Saul’s prophesying (Tg. has him “singing praise”). Josephus’ formulation underscores the stature of Samuel who, even at a distance, can elicit prophesying from others. Bib. Ant. 62.2 provides a content for Saul’s prophesying on this occasion according to which the spirit, speaking through him, informs him that he and his son are to die and that David will succeed as king. Thereupon, Saul, as directed by the prophetic spirit, departs, unaware that he has prophesied. Greek: ἔκφρων γίνεται. Josephus’ other uses of the term ἔκφρων are War 1.443, 544; Ant. 6.246. 1 Sam 19:23 lacks an equivalent indication. While he does reproduce the unseemly detail of 1 Sam 19:24 about King Saul stripping naked, Josephus stresses that his doing this was due to the extraordinary circumstances that had befallen him (the pressure of “much spirit” and his resultant loss of mind); see Feldman 1998: 527. In specifying that Saul lay stripped before both Samuel and David Josephus reflects the reading of LXX B 1 Sam 19:24bα, where Saul prophesies “before them,” as opposed to MT LXX L, where he does so only before Samuel. Josephus omits the cryptic question, “is Saul also among the prophets?,” with which the biblical account of the king’s prophesying concludes in 1 Sam 19:24bβ (Tg. replaces “prophets” with “scribes” in its version of the saying), likely given the fact that this same question has already been cited previously (see 1 Sam 10:12// 6.56) in connection with Saul’s initial “prophesying” after his anointing by Samuel.

See 1 Sam 20:1, whose 3 short, direct questions by David to Jonathan Josephus transposes into a series of affirmations by him in indirect discourse. Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 62.3-8) greatly elaborates on David’s opening word to Jonathan of 20:1. This “appeal” is Josephus’ expansion of Jonathan’s opening assurances (1 Sam 20:2) to David; Josephus’ subsequent portrayal of the David-Saul relationship will feature recurrent references to those who “slander” David to the king; the emphasis likely reflects Josephus’ own experience of the “slanders” of his fellow Jews to his Roman patrons as alluded to by him in Life 424-429. These exhortations have no counterpart in Jonathan’s reply to David as cited in 1 Sam 20:2. Cf. Jonathan’s statement in 1 Sam 20:2: “Behold, my father does nothing either great or small without disclosing it to me, and why should my father hide this from me?”

Josephus’ mention of David’s “swearing” at this juncture reflects the opening words (“David swore again”) of MT 1 Sam 20:3 as opposed to LXX’s “David replied.” The words “him murdered,” bracketed by Niese, are absent in RO Lat. Marcus retains them without brackets. This portion of David’s reply, with its sharp rejoinder to Jonathan’s efforts at soothing him, has no counterpart in the response of David cited in 1 Sam 20:3. This is Josephus’ rendering of David’s response (1 Sam 20:3) to Jonathan’s claim (20:2) that Saul would not withhold anything from him, including his intentions regarding David: “Your father knows well that I have found favor in your eyes; and he thinks, ‘Let Jonathan not know this, lest he be grieved (MT; LXX B: not wish it; LXX L: not report it to David)’.” Josephus leaves aside David’s concluding sworn statement “there is but a step between me and death.”

Josephus inserts this reference to the emotional effect of David’s response upon Jonathan. Compare 1 Sam 20:4, where Jonathan tells David: “whatever you say (MT; LXX desire), I will do for you.” Josephus prefaces David’s proposed plan of action that he presents to Jonathan in 1 Sam 20:5-7 with this affirmation by David of his awareness of the extent of Jonathan’s willingness to assist him. See 1 Sam 20:5a. Josephus’ having David make explicit mention of his dining “with the king” corresponds to the plus of MT.

Josephus leaves aside the chronological indication, “till the third day at evening” (MT; LXX till evening) that David appends to his proposal about staying hidden in the field in 1 Sam 20:5b. Josephus’ specification of the feast in question as a “tribal” one corresponds to LXX 1 Sam 20:6 (“a sacrifice... for the entire tribe”) as against MT’s “a sacrifice for all the family.” He leaves aside the further qualification of the occasion as “yearly” (MT)/ “of the days” (LXX). Finally, in Josephus’ version of David’s proposal Jonathan is not only to say that he was asked permission by David (so 20:6), but that he actually gave that permission. Compare 1 Sam 20:7a, where Saul’s single-word (hypothetical) response (“good”) is to be taken, according to David, as a sign that things will go well with him. In 1 Sam 20:7b it is rather Saul’s “anger” (MT; LXX his answering harshly) that will portend a threat for David.

David’s plea in 1 Sam 20:8aα is simply that Jonathan “deal kindly with your servant.” The Josephan David’s alternative appeal for a report concerning Saul’s state of mind might reflect David’s subsequent question to Jonathan in 20:10: “who will tell me if your father answers you roughly?” Compare 1 Sam 20:8aβ, where David invokes the “covenant of the God/the Lord” existing between himself and Jonathan. In accord with his consistent practice, Josephus replaces the biblical mention of a “covenant” (LXX: διαθήκη), in the sense of a solemn agreement regulating the relationship between 2 parties, with alternative terminology, here “pledges” (πίστεις). Like LXX B, Josephus has no equivalent to the account given in MT LXX L 1 Sam 18:1-4 of a previous covenant-making between David and Jonathan to which the former’s words here in 20:8 are alluding; see note to “women” at 6.193. Compare 1 Sam 20:8b, where David’s word to Jonathan concludes with the question “for why should you bring me to your father?”

Josephus prefaces Jonathan’s response to David (1 Sam 20:9) with this notice concerning the (negative) effect of the latter’s final word with its reference (6.228) to his killing David himself upon Jonathan. See the comparable indication inserted by him at the opening of 6.226. Josephus conflates Jonathan’s answer promising to disclose to David whatever might be his father’s evil intentions regarding him (1 Sam 20:9) and David’s follow-up question—which would appear to have just been answered by Jonathan—of 20:10: “who will tell me if your father answers you roughly?” Thereby, he eliminates the source’s seeming “mismatch” between Jonathan’s assurance and David’s response. See 1 Sam 20:11-12aα, whose wording Josephus modifies, amplifies and compresses. Thus, he has the pair go out into “the open air” rather than the “field” of 20:11, conflates Jonathan’s directive and its realization (compare 20:11), and introduces an explicit mention of Jonathan’s “swearing.” He likewise supplies a purpose for Jonathan’s new initiative regarding David and an opening, general content for his discourse.

Josephus has Jonathan expatiate on the “universal” characteristics of God in contrast to 1 Sam 20:12, which simply calls him “the God of Israel.” Elsewhere too he calls attention to the ubiquity and omniscience of God (see, e.g., Ant. 1.20; 6.263; 8.108, 227) in terms reminiscent of the Stoic belief in the all-pervading cosmic world-soul; see Feldman 1998: 194. This use of the term “witness” for God aligns Josephus’ version of Jonathan’s reply with that of LXX 1 Sam 20:12 (“The Lord... be witness”) against MT, which lacks the term. This reference to the pair’s “agreements” (Greek: συνθῆκαι) picks up on David’s invocation of the “pledges” (πίστεις) exchanged between them in 6.228. Josephus’ use of the term “agreements” here in 6.230 reflects, while also modifying, the MT reading at the opening of 1 Sam 20:16: “and Jonathan cut [a covenant] with the house of David.” Josephus compresses Jonathan’s statement concerning Saul’s 2 possible stances towards David—both of which he is ready to report to him—of 1 Sam 20:12b-13a.

Josephus here combines 2 distinct components of Jonathan’s discourse: “May the Lord be with you, as he has been with my father” (1 Sam 20:13b) and “... when the Lord cuts off every one of the enemies of David from the face of the earth...” (20:15b).

Josephus transposes into positive terms Jonathan’s plea in 1 Sam 20:15a: “do not cut off your loyalty from my house for ever (cf. 20:16a: “let not the name of Jonathan be cut off from the house of David”). Conversely, he leaves aside Jonathan’s appeal for himself personally: “if I am still alive, show me the loyal love of the Lord, that I may not die” (1 Sam 20:14, RSV following LXX). This reference to Jonathan’s “dismissal” of David replaces the notice of 1 Sam 20:17 about Jonathan’s making David swear again by his love for him whom he “loved as his own soul.” Feldman (1998: 366-67) sees Josephus’ omission of this biblical statement as indicative of his concern that the friendship of Jonathan and David not be viewed as a homosexual love affair. In reproducing Jonathan’s parting words to David (1 Sam 20:18-23), Josephus passes over the recapitulation of David’s own earlier remarks to Jonathan (20:5) about the upcoming feast and his absence from this being “missed” by Saul of 20:18-19aα. From Jonathan’s directive about what David is now to do (20:19aβb) he omits the closing mention of David’s remaining beside “the stone (heap)” (to which MT gives the name “Ezel,” LXX L transcribing with ergab). This component of Jonathan’s discourse have no biblical equivalent. Josephus introduces it in order to provide more of a preparation for the continuation of Jonathan’s speech.

In 1 Sam 20:20 (MT) Jonathan speaks of the “3 arrows” which he will shoot. Josephus adds the specification about what the boy is to do with the javelins/ arrows once, at Jonathan’s command, he has “found” them (20:21a). Marcus (ad loc.) points out that Josephus’ form αὐτοῦ leaves it unclear what or who the arrows will lie before: is it the target (“it”) or rather the lad (“him”)? Josephus modifies the 2 alternatives set out by Jonathan in 1 Sam 20:21-22a (Jonathan’s telling the lad that the arrows are on this side of him signifies safety for David, whereas his telling him that they are beyond him indicates that David is to depart). In Josephus’ rendition the directive that the lad fetch the arrows and deposit them in front of Jonathan has positive significance for David, whereas “the opposite” of this (presumably, Jonathan’s telling the lad not to bring him the javelins) points to danger for David.

This conclusion to Jonathan’s discourse, with its renewed appeal for his descendants (see 6.232), takes the place of 1 Sam 20:23, where, as in 20:12, Jonathan invokes the Lord (+ as witness, LXX). Josephus expands 1 Sam 20:24a with mention of the departing David’s taking Jonathan’s (verbal) “pledges” (πίστεις; see 6.228), i.e. those given him in 6.229-234, with him.

See 1 Sam 20:24b; Josephus interjects the reference to Saul’s customary self-purification. Josephus’ indications concerning the seating arrangements follow (with modifications) those of LXX 1 Sam 20:25abα, where Jonathan sits facing Saul (whose own seat is “by the wall”), while Abner sits at Saul’s side. In MT Jonathan is not “seated,” but rather “stands up.” In his rendition of 1 Sam 20:25bβ-26 concerning David’s absence from the table and Saul’s initial response to this, Josephus spells out the king’s vague reference (“something has befallen him,” v. 26aβ) to the source of David’s (supposed) current impurity, i.e. sexual intercourse, as does also Rabbinic tradition; see b. Pesah[ 3a. He likewise interjects mention of the king’s expectation that David would eventually appear.

See 1 Sam 20:27, which Josephus follows in having Saul call David, not by his name, but rather “the son of Jesse.” See 1 Sam 20:28-29a. In accordance with his version of David’s request in 6.227 (compare 20:6), Josephus has Jonathan state explicitly that he did grant David’s plea. Conversely, he passes over David’s (alleged) statement (20:29aβ) about being “commanded by his brother” to attend the affair in Bethlehem—a point not mentioned in David’s own proposal (20:6) about what Jonathan is to tell his father concerning his absence. This conclusion to Jonathan’s response to Saul takes the place of 1 Sam 20:29b, where, after citing David’s plea to him that he be allowed to go visit his brothers, Jonathan rounds off his reply with the words “for this reason he [David] has not come to the king’s table.” Josephus’ rendition underscores the bond between Jonathan (who has himself been invited to attend the feast in Bethlehem and wishes to do so) and David. In so doing, he likewise prepares for the vehemence of Saul’s outburst in what follows.

Josephus amplifies the introductory narrative notice of 1 Sam 20:30a: “Then Saul’s anger was kindled against Jonathan....” with mention of Jonathan’s resultant perception. Josephus replaces Saul’s invective against Jonathan’s mother in 1 Sam 20:30aβ, in which he calls Jonathan “the son of a perverse, rebellious woman” (RSV) with a denunciation of the “culprit” Jonathan himself. See 1 Sam 20:31a: “For as long as the son of Jesse lives upon the earth, neither you nor your kingdom shall be established.” Josephus’ Saul interjects a reference (“for them”) also to his own kingship that is endangered by David. See 1 Sam 20:30b: “do I [Saul] not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame, and to the shame of your mother’s nakedness?” Josephus tones down the vulgarity of the king’s language. See 1 Sam 20:31b, where Saul more emphatically avers “he shall surely die.”

Josephus conflates Jonathan’s double question of 1 Sam 20:32: “Why should he [David] be put to death? What has he done?” See 1 Sam 20:33a, where Saul is said to “hurl” (MT; LXX: brandish) his spear. This reference to the “friends’” intervention is Josephus’ insertion; it serves to explain how it was that Saul did not succeed in killing Jonathan. Here, as frequently elsewhere, Josephus introduces mention of the Greco-Roman institution of the royal “friends” where the Bible has no counterpart to this; see Begg 1993: 16, n. 54. See 1 Sam 20:33b. Josephus spells out the grounds for Jonathan’s realization concerning his father’s intentions, likewise interjecting the reference to Saul’s “hatred” for David.

Josephus’ reference to Jonathan’s “rushing out” reflects the vivid verbs used by LXX and 4QSama 1 Sam 20:34a as opposed to MT’s bland “he arose.” In the Bible, Jonathan leaves the table “in anger,” in Josephus rather in grief. Josephus’ mention of Jonathan’s “lamenting” over his own and David’s situation seems to reflect the double motivation for Jonathan’s not eating found in MT LXX L 1 Sam 20:34b, i.e. “for he was grieved for David (> LXX B), because his father had disgraced him.” In 1 Sam 20:35 Jonathan proceeds to “the field” and takes “a little lad” with him. Josephus spells out the purpose of his move, with reference back to Jonathan’s proposal in 6.232 (which mentions the plain as the place where he used to exercise).

With this transitional phrase, Josephus sums up the biblical narration (1 Sam 20:36-39) concerning Jonathan’s shooting the arrows and the boy’s collecting these in accordance with what he had earlier proposed to David (20:20-22// 6.233). See 1 Sam 20:40-41aα. MT 20:41aα mentions David’s rising “from beside the south,” while LXX has him rise “from beside the stone heap.” Greek σωτήρ. On this term and its word-field, see Spicq 1982 (III): 629-43. Josephus adds a word of recognition by David to his (silent) gesture of homage to Jonathan as mentioned in 1 Sam 20:41aβ (where David falls “to the ground” [MT LXX L, > LXX B], doing this “three times”).

Josephus inserts this action by Jonathan as a necessary transition between David’s prostration and the 2 friends’ subsequent embrace. See 1 Sam 20:41bα. Josephus provides a verbal content for the friends’ lament, thereby augmenting the pathos of the scene. Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 62.9-11) does something analogous via the extended, tearful discourse that he has Jonathan deliver on this occasion. This notice seems to reflect the obscure final words of 1 Sam 20:41, where David (so MT) finally “recovers” or “exceeds” himself. In speaking of the 2 men’s joint “recovery,” Josephus aligns himself with LXX. In 1 Sam 20:42 it is Jonathan alone who reminds David of their joint “oath” (and quotes its wording). Josephus accentuates the mutuality involved in the friends’ interaction, while by contrast, in Pseudo-Philo’s version of the scene (Bib. Ant. 61.9-11) Jonathan does all the talking. Josephus’ generalized reference to the pair’s “separating” takes the place of the more expansive notice of 1 Sam 21:1 (MT; Eng. 20:42bβ): “And he [David] rose, and departed; and Jonathan went into the city.”

MT (1 Sam 21:2 [Eng. 21:1]) ‮נבה‬‎ (Eng.: “Nob”); LXX Νόμβα; Josephus Ναβά. On the Josephan and Pseudo-Philonic versions of the story of the “Nob massacre” and its sequels (1 Samuel 21-22), see Begg 1997h. MT (1 Sam 21:2= Eng. 21:1) ‮אחימלך‬‎; LXX B Ἀβιμέλεχ; LXX L Ἀχιμέλεχ; Josephus Ἀβιμέλεχος. Josephus’ form of the name thus corresponds to that of LXX B (“Abimelech”) as opposed to MT and LXX L’s “Ahimelech” (Pseudo-Philo also calls him “Abimelech” in Bib Ant. 63.2). The Bible designates him simply as “priest.” For this description of what the priest “sees,” Josephus draws on 1 Sam 21:2bβ, where Ahimelech asks David: “why are you alone, and no one with you?” Ahimelech’s “wondering” here corresponds to the LXX reading in 1 Sam 21:2bα, where he is “astounded” to meet David (in MT he comes “trembling” to meet him). Josephus transposes into narrative Ahimelech’s direct discourse questions to David as quoted in 1 Sam 21:2bβ (see note to “present” at 6.242).

Cf. 1 Sam 21:3a. In 1 Sam 21:3b David speaks of the “young men” with whom he has “made an appointment” (MT? 4QSamb; LXX: has adjured). Josephus’ vague allusion to the site corresponds to the Hebrew idiom used by David, which the LXX first “translates” and then transcribes. In 1 Sam 21:4 David asks more specifically for “five loaves of bread.” Josephus supplies this motivation, designed to persuade Ahimelech to accede to David’s request. It replaces the extended discussion in 1 Sam 21:5-7 (MT= Eng. 21:4-6) between David and Ahimelech regarding the conditions for the priest’s giving—as he ends up doing—David and his men the holy bread/ bread of the Presence, since this is all he has in hand at the moment. Josephus’ passing over this sequence may reflect his concern not to bore gentile readers with such esoteric cultic particulars. It could likewise be prompted by a more intra-Jewish concern that the high-priest not appear a party to a violation of the stipulation of Lev 24:9 reserving the Bread of the Presence to the descendants of Aaron. Compare the controversy story featuring this prescription in Mark 2:23-28 and parallels.

Josephus anticipates this further request by David from 1 Sam 21:9a; thereby, he keeps together in a continuous sequence David’s 2 requests, for food and weapons, which in 1 Samuel 21 are separated by the parenthetical notice on the presence of Doeg in v. 8 (that Josephus himself appends to his version of David’s double request). He leaves aside the source’s motivation (21:9b) for the request, i.e. due to the urgency of his mission, David had not taken along any weapons. Josephus’ specification of Doeg’s ethnicity corresponds to that of LXX B 1 Sam 21:7 (= MT 21:8) and Bib. Ant. 63.2, as against MT and LXX L, which call him an Edomite/Idumean. MT (1 Sam 21:8= Eng. 21:7) ‮דאג‬‎ (Eng.: “Doeg”); LXX Δωήκ; Josephus Δώηγος. LXX 1 Sam 21:7 and Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 63.2) give Doeg this same title; MT (21:8) calls him “the chief of Saul’s herdsmen.” Like Pseudo-Philo, Josephus has no equivalent to the obscure mention of Doeg’s being “detained before the Lord” of MT 21:8. Josephus rearranges the sequence of Ahimelech’s reply (1 Sam 21:10a) to David’s request for weapons (21:9). He likewise omits various particulars of the reply (the site of David’s killing Goliath; the sword being wrapped in a cloth and located “behind the ephod” [this last item is absent in LXX B as well]). Conversely, he introduces an allusion to his own earlier notice on David’s dedicating—at an unspecified site—Goliath’s sword to God in 6.192 (compare 1 Sam 17:54, where what David takes to Jerusalem is Goliath’s head).

This transitional notice takes the place of 1 Sam 21:10b, where David first affirms that Goliath’s sword has no counterpart, and then asks Ahimelech to give it to him (LXX adds that he actually did so). Josephus expands the mention of “Gath” (MT)/ “Geth” (LXX) in 1 Sam 21:11 (Eng. 21:10) with indications concerning its being outside Hebrew territory and belonging to the Philistines. MT (1 Sam 21:11= Eng. 21:10) ‮אכישׁ‬‎ (Eng.: “Achish”); LXX B Ἀγχούς; LXX L Ἀκχούς; Josephus Ἄγχους. Josephus reduces the servants’ report to the king of 1 Sam 21:12 to its core component, i.e. the fact of David’s having killed numerous Philistines. He leaves aside all that precedes this in the source report, i.e. the reference to David as “king of the land,” the allusion to the women’s song, and the first part of their couplet (itself drawn from 1 Sam 18:7 // 6.193) mentioning Saul’s exploits. Josephus supplies a content for David’s “fear” of Achish as mentioned in 1 Sam 21:13. Josephus appends this indication concerning the purpose of David’s behavior to his reproduction of 1 Sam 21:14 (from which he omits the reference to David’s “marking” [MT]/ “drumming on and falling upon” [LXX] “the doors of the gate” and whose mention of David’s “spittle running down his beard” he turns into a notice on his “foaming at the mouth”).

Greek ἔκφρων. This is the same word used of Saul in the presence of David and Samuel in 6.223. Whereas, however, Saul actually was “out of his mind” on that occasion, David only pretends to be so here. Josephus inserts the reference to the king’s “anger”; the expulsion command he ascribes to Achish stands closer to the affirmation of LXX B 1 Sam 21:15 (“this fellow shall not come into my house”) than to the rhetorical question of MT (21:16) LXX L (“shall this fellow come into my house?”).

MT (1 Sam 22:1) ‮עדלם‬‎ (Eng.: “Adullam”); LXX Ὀδολλάμ; Josephus Ἀδολλάμη. Josephus’ inserted reference to the site’s being located in Judah corresponds to Josh 15:35. With this addition Josephus explains how David’s relatives “hear” of his whereabouts—as they are said to do in 1 Sam 22:1bα. See 1 Sam 22:1bβ. Josephus introduces mention of Saul as the source of the distress that prompts people to join David. He likewise tones down, by generalizing these, the unflattering qualifications used of these persons in 1 Sam 22:2 (debtors, malcontents), perhaps as Feldman (1998: 562) suggests, so as not to have the hero David surrounded by Zealot-like figures. Compare 1 Sam 22:2aβ: “and he became captain over them.” Josephus’ figure for David’s retinue corresponds to that given in 1 Sam 22:2b.

Josephus interjects this reference to David’s newfound confidence (contrast the “anxiety” ascribed to him in 6.245). From 1 Sam 22:3 Josephus omits the name (MT Mizpeh; LXX Massepha) of the Moabite site to which David comes. David’s request in 1 Sam 22:3 is that his parents might be with (LXX; MT go out to) the king “till I know what God will do for me.” The biblical account does not record a response by the king to David’s request, simply noting (1 Sam 22:4) that David left them with the king (MT; in LXX 22:4a David “beseeches the face of the king of Moab”) with whom they stayed the whole time “David was in the stronghold.”

1 Sam 22:5 supplies this figure with a name, i.e. “Gad.” The prophet Gad in 1 Sam 22:5a directs David not to remain in the “stronghold” (see 22:4), but to go to “the land of Judah.” Josephus’ designation for David’s destination (“the city of Saris”) clearly stands closer to that of LXX 1 Sam 22:5b (“the city of Sar(e)ik”) than to MT’s “the forest of Hereth.” According to Schalit (s.v.), the original reading of both LXX and Josephus was Χάρις.

Josephus supplies this notice on Saul’s response to the reports brought him about the sighting of David’s and his men (1 Sam 22:6a). This mention of Saul’s state of mind is peculiar to Josephus; it prepares readers for the king’s upcoming large-scale crime, i.e. the massacre of the priests of Nob.

In 1 Sam 22:6b Saul’s entourage consists simply of his “servants.” For the royal “friends” see 6.238 and see note to “friends” at 6.238. Josephus’ allusion to Saul’s tribal affiliation recalls 6.45 (// 1 Sam 9:1), where Saul’s father Kish is identified as belonging to the tribe of Benjamin. Josephus’ reference to Saul’s “palace on the hill” recalls 6.156 (where this is further localized as “in Gaba”). His mention of “the hill” corresponds to the LXX 1 Sam 22:6b translation of MT’s “Gibeah.” This is the same Greek term (meaning “field”) used by LXX 1 Sam 22:6b to designate the place under which (rather than on which, as in Josephus) Saul sits (MT has him sitting “under the tamarisk tree”). Josephus omits the further specification that Saul’s sitting place was “on the height” (MT; + in Bama, LXX). 1 Sam 22:6 speaks more generally of the “servants” who stand around Saul. Josephus cited the king’s “bodyguards” previously in 6.95, 130. He leaves aside the source mention of Saul’s holding his spear, given that the spear will have no function in what follows. In 1 Sam 22:7 Saul addresses his entourage as “Benjamites” (MT)/ “sons of Benjamin” (LXX). The Josephan Saul’s designation of his addressees as “compatriots” echoes Josephus’ earlier reference to Saul’s summoning “the tribe to which he himself belonged.” The biblical Saul’s discourse contains no such mention of the king’s previous favors to his hearers. Josephus’ insertion of the item serves to magnify their (purported) treachery in defecting from their benefactor.

In 1 Sam 22:7 Saul asks his hearers whether the “son of Jesse” is planning to award them various properties (“fields and vineyards”) and positions (“commanders of thousands and hundreds”). In Josephus’ rendition Saul has just recalled that he himself conferred such benefactions upon them. Accordingly, he now has the king ask if his rival has actually outdone him in this regard. As in the source, Josephus’ Saul avoids calling David by his name. Compare Saul’s charge in 1 Sam 22:8aα: “all of you have conspired against me.” This initial assertion about Jonathan and his influence upon Saul’s retainers has no counterpart in the king’s biblical speech.

In 1 Sam 22:8 Saul twice asserts that “no one has disclosed to him” Jonathan’s intrigues with David, this leaving the question of how then Saul could know of these. Josephus replaces this problematic assertion with a claim by Saul that he is “not ignorant” of Jonathan and David’s dealings with each other, even though he too leaves it unexplained how the king came by this knowledge. In LXX 1 Sam 22:8 Saul charges Jonathan with having “cut a covenant” (Greek: διαθήκη; MT lacks an equivalent noun). In accord with his invariable practice, Josephus replaces the Greek word in its meaning “covenant” with an alternative rendering. In 1 Sam 22:8bβ Saul’s 2nd charge against his son is that he has “stirred up my servant to lie in wait (MT; LXX to become a enemy)....” Josephus’ formulation applies to Jonathan the same conspiracy charge Saul has already made against his retainers. Compare 1 Sam 22:8bα: “None of you is sorry (MT; LXX exerts himself) for me or discloses to me...”

Josephus inserts this transitional phrase which serves to highlight Doeg’s own tale-bearing in what follows. See 6.244, whose qualifications of Doeg Josephus recapitulates here. Josephus’ designation of him as “keeper of Saul’s mules” at this juncture corresponds to LXX 1 Sam 22:9 (cf. 21:8), whereas MT refers to him as “standing by the servants of Saul.” As he does throughout his version of 1 Samuel 22, Josephus leaves aside the name of Ahimelech’s father, i.e. Ahitub that Doeg cites in 22:9. This is Josephus’ equivalent to the Doeg’s assertion “he [Ahimelech] consulted the Lord for him [David]” of 1 Sam 22:10a. For “prophesying” as a characteristic (high) priestly activity in Josephus, see Ant. 5.120 (Phineas); 6.115 (Ahitub). Neither Josephus nor the Bible, in their respective versions of the David-Ahimelech exchange, mentions David’s seeking such a “consultation” from Ahimelech. Josephus expands Doeg’s report of Ahimelech’s giving David food and the sword (1 Sam 22:10b) with mention of his dismissal of him. In Pseudo-Philo’s presentation Doeg takes the initiative in reporting Ahimelech to Saul, Bib. Ant. 63.2 (this notice is itself preceded [Bib. Ant. 63.1] by a biblically unparalleled announcement by God of his intention to destroy Nob, given its priests’ practice of taking the first fruits for themselves).

See 1 Sam 22:11a. Compressing, Josephus omits the notice on the family’s arrival before Saul (22:11b), as well as the king’s call to the priest to “hear” and the latter’ statement that he is at the former’s disposition (22:12). In prefacing Saul’s accusations (see 1 Sam 22:13) with this reminder that Ahimelech has not been wronged by himself, Josephus’ Saul highlights the latter’s (alleged) crimes. Compare Saul’s (also inserted) recalling of his benefactions to his retinue prior to his making his charges against them in 6.251. Saul’s 3 charges against Ahimelech correspond to those leveled by Saul in 1 Sam 22:13. This conclusion to Saul’s accusation takes the place of the king’s final words in 1 Sam 22:13: “... so that he [David] has risen against me to lie in wait as at this day.” Josephus’ keeps the focus on Ahimelech himself and his allegedly conscious offenses.

Josephus elaborates on the summary opening formula of 1 Sam 22:14 (“then Ahimelech answered the king”), accentuating the priest’s confidence in his own innocence. Ahimelech’s 3-fold characterization of David in relation to Saul here corresponds to the priest’s opening words in 1 Sam 22:14 (where as its 2nd item LXX has “charged with carrying out all your orders” for MT’s “chief [emended text for the extant verbal form “and turned aside to”] of your bodyguard”).

This reflective aside by Ahimelech lacks a biblical equivalent. Josephus turns Ahimelech’s rhetorical question —which he then proceeds to answer in the negative— of 1 Sam 22:15a (“Is this the first time I have consulted God for him?”) into a definite affirmation by him. This further exculpatory affirmation by Ahimelech, harking back to David’s declaration to him in 6.243, has no biblical parallel. Its wording reflects Ahimelech’s opening statement that in doing what he did for David he supposed himself to be acting in favor of Saul himself (6.256).

Greek: φιλανθρωπία. On this noun and its word-field, see Spicq 1958; 1978 (II): 922-27. Josephus’ version of Ahimelech’s appeal in 1 Sam 22:15bα (“let not the king impute anything to his servant or to all the house of my father”) underscores the total good faith with which he claims to have acted earlier. These concluding words of Ahimelech’s self-defense echo his opening characterization of David in 6.256. They take the place of the priest’s closing declaration in 1 Sam 22:15bβ: “for your servant has known nothing of all this, much or little.”

This editorial notice on the non-effect of Ahimelech’s words and the reason for this takes the place of Saul’s condemnation of Ahimelech and his house in 1 Sam 22:16 (which Pseudo-Philo does [Bib. Ant. 63.2] reproduce, immediately following his notice on the king’s summoning of the priest [// 22:11]). In 1 Sam 22:17a Saul commands his “runners” to kill the priests. The codices other than RO read the bracketed words “with his family” in line with Saul’s order as cited in 1 Sam 22:17a, prescribing the execution, not of Ahimelech personally, but of “the priests.” Niese omits the words, while Marcus makes them part of his text. Josephus supplies the motivation for the soldiers’ refusal to obey Saul’s command as mentioned in 1 Sam 22:17b. Conversely, he leaves aside, as something already sufficiently known, the rationale for the command Saul gives in 22:17aβ (i.e. the priests’ support for David and failure to report his flight to Saul). See 1 Sam 22:18a. In Pseudo-Philo Saul’s commands to both the soldiers and to Doeg (1 Sam 22:17-18a) are passed over, and he proceeds to kill the priests himself (Bib. Ant. 63.2).

1 Sam 22:18b says nothing about Doeg’s having assistants in killing the priests. Josephus’ introduction of these may be based on the consideration that it would have been difficult for one man to perform the task alone, given the large number of victims involved. This is the figure for the murdered priests read by Niese and Marcus on the basis of Lat and corresponding to LXX 1 Sam 22:18. RO read 85 (with MT 1 Sam 22:18); MSP have 385 (as does Bib. Ant. 63.4), while E gives 530. Josephus leaves aside the biblical specification that the slain priests “wore the linen (> LXX) ephod.” 1 Sam 22:19 does not specify the subject when mentioning that Nob was “put to the sword”; the immediately preceding context would seem to suggest that it was Doeg who did this (cf., however, 1 Sam 22:21, where, in reporting the Nob massacre to David, Abiathar attributes this directly to Saul; cf. also Bib. Ant. 63.2, where Saul personally kills the priests). Josephus’ formulation insists on Saul’s (ultimate) responsibility in view of the extended subsequent denunciation of the king he will append in 6.262-268. From the catalogue of the Nob slain in 1 Sam 22:19, Josephus omits the oxen, donkeys, and sheep. Conversely, he adds mention of the burning of the city.

MT (1 Sam 22:20) ‮אביתר‬‎ (Eng.: “Abiathar”); LXX Ἀβιαθάρ; Josephus Ἀβιάθαρος. See 1 Sam 22:20. Also Pseudo-Philo reproduces the biblical notice on Abiathar’s escape (Bib. Ant. 63.3). Josephus appends this cross reference to God’s announcement to Samuel—which the latter in turn conveys to Eli—concerning the fate of Eli’s house (Ant. 5.350// 1 Sam 3:11-14) to his account of Saul’s massacre of all but one of Eli’s line. In Pseudo-Philo the massacre is the realization of a different divine announcement, i.e. that cited by him in Bib. Ant. 63.1, pronouncing doom on the priests of Nob for their arrogation of the first fruits.

Josephus here begins his lengthy, 7-paragraph (6.262-268) appendix to the biblical account of the Nob massacre (1 Samuel 21-22). In this segment he both provides an evaluation of Saul’s deed (which the Bible itself leaves without explicit comment) and portrays the king as exemplifying the familiar tragic pattern in which good fortune evokes hubris that in turn leads to doom; see Feldman 1998: 531. Likewise Pseudo-Philo rounds off the story of the Nob massacre with an appendix of his own in which God pronounces judgment first on the people for their failure to show due outrage over the priests’ deaths (Bib. Ant. 63.3) and then on the informant Doeg (whose tongue will be attacked by a fiery worm, 63.4), the whole being rounded off with a summary source notice for Saul’s deeds (63.5). Josephus here echoes his mention of Saul’s “sparing neither infants, nor those of any other age” in 6.260. Neither the Bible nor Josephus himself makes previous mention of the presence also of “prophets” at Nob. Josephus’ introduction of these figures here might reflect his ascription of “prophetic” activity to the priest Ahimelech (and to the priesthood in general); see note to “prophets” at 6.268. This (non-biblical) description of Nob’s God-given status as the sole legitimate sanctuary accentuates the wrongfulness of Saul’s deed.

This description of the ways of the mere “private citizen” recalls Josephus’ portrayal of Saul’s own exemplary modesty and reticence prior to his accession; see 6.59, 63.

Greek: δυναστεία. This is Josephus’ only use of this term in Antiquities 1-11; he employs it with some frequency of rulership—both Jewish and Gentile—in the post-biblical period. Josephus inserts a Hellenistic touch into his reflections with this use of the term προσωπεῖον (“actor’s mask”) drawn from the language of the Greek theater. This is his only employment of the term in Antiquities; elsewhere, he uses it twice (War 1.471; 4.156). With this reference to the double “contempt” exhibited by those who have gained power, Josephus underscores the contrast with the earlier ways of such people, who in 6.263 are described as acting appropriately in their relations both with fellow humans and with God.

This illusion on the part of the powerful contrasts with their earlier faithfulness to God, motivated by their awareness that he knows not only deeds but thoughts; see 6.263. Such lack of “restraint” by the powerful is the reverse of their earlier “moderation” (6.263).

As Marcus (ad loc.) points out, the text appears defective at this point. The allusion here is, of course, to Saul’s taking Doeg’s insinuations about Ahimelech’s support of the renegade David at face value. The mention of the “fear” of the powerful at what they hear echoes Josephus’ attribution of Saul’s refusal to entertain Ahimelech’s protestations of innocence to his “terrible fear” in 6.259.

This “envy language” echoes that introduced by Josephus in 6.265, intimating that “envy” is the powerful’s decisive motivation in their dealings with their intimates—as was the case between Saul and David. This is precisely what Saul tried to do with David, whom he removed from his position as his armor-bearer and sent out to face death at the hands of the Philistines; see 6.195. This allusion to the mendacious reports that prompt people like Saul to deal with those closest to them as they do picks up on the mention of the powerful’s giving unwarranted credence to what they “hear” in 6.266. The 2 components of this general statement about the ways of the powerful have in view Saul’s dealings with Doeg and Ahimelech, respectively.

After the intervening, generalizing reflections on the ways of the powerful in 6.263-267, Josephus now returns to his opening focus on Saul himself (6.262), portraying him as an egregious example of everything he has been saying in the interval. This allusion to the constitutional change that occurred with Saul following the preceding period of the aristocracy/the Judges harks back to 6.84-85, where Josephus pauses to call attention to a series of such changes that took place over the course of Israel’s earlier history. This combination echoes the reference to Nob as the “ancestral home and nurse of priests and prophets” in 6.262. Josephus rounds off the figure of 305 for those slain given in 6.260. Cf. Josephus’ interjected remark (6.259) on Ahimelech’s failure to convince Saul who, due to his fear, did not believe the former’s self-defense. Neither the Bible nor Josephus himself speaks of an actual, physical “sanctuary/temple” at Nob. Given the city’s status as the residence of priests and prophets one might, however, call the site a virtual sanctuary, as Josephus does here. The qualification of Nob as the priests and prophets’ “ancestral [home]” here echoes the same phrase at the start of Josephus’ reflection in 6.262. The remark about Saul’s precluding the city from serving as such a site in the future recalls Josephus’ inserted notice about his “burning” Nob in 6.260.

After the long reflective interlude inserted by him in 6.262-268, Josephus now resumes the biblical story line with a recapitulation of his notice on Abiathar’s escape of 6.261 (// 1 Sam 22:20). In 1 Sam 22:21 Abiathar attributes the killing of the priests directly and explicitly to Saul.

See 1 Sam 22:22a. The verb “to slander” (Greek: διαβάλλω), used by David of Doeg’s report to Saul here (the Bible speaks more blandly of his “telling” the king), echoes Josephus reflection in 6.267, where he speaks of the powerful punishing on the basis of “slanders” (Greek: διαβολαί) that they hear. See also Jonathan’s urging David not to heed “slanderers” (Greek: οἱ διαβάλλοντες) in 6.224. See David’s confession as cited in 1 Sam 22:22b: “I have occasioned the death of all the persons of your father’s house.” From David’s concluding word to Abiathar in 1 Sam 22:23 Josephus omits his MT statement: “he that seeks my life seeks your life.”

1 Sam 23:1 mentions the name of the threatened city, rather than its people, i.e. “Keilah.” On Josephus’ version of 1 Samuel 23, see Begg 1998b. Josephus omits—for the moment—the further precision of 1 Sam 23:1 that the Philistine attack was directed against the site’s “threshing floors.” He will, however, use this item subsequently; see 6.272. Josephus introduces this figure as the medium of David’s “inquiring of the Lord” (1 Sam 23:2) in line with his overall tendency to insert references to “prophets” and “prophesying” where the Bible itself lacks such; compare his replacement of biblical mentions of Ahimelech’s “inquiring of the Lord” for David (1 Sam 22:10, 15) with statements about the priest’s “prophesying” in 6.254, 257. As in 6.249, David’s prophet remains anonymous. In 1 Sam 23:2 David’s question reads: “Shall I go and attack these Philistines?” 1 Sam 23:2-4 features a double inquiry by David and (positive) response by God (vv.2, 4) with an admission of fear by David’s men intervening (v.3). Josephus limits inquiry and response to a single one, likewise eliminating the confession by David’s troops that does not reflect well on the courage of his compatriots—especially since David has already received the divine commission to proceed against the Philistines. Josephus reverses the order of the slaughter and plunder notices in 1 Sam 23:5a, likewise generalizing the source’s “cattle” into “plunder.” Like MT, he has no equivalent to the LXX plus mentioning the Philistines’ “flight before” David.

These indications concerning the duration of David’s stay bring together the notice on his delivery of Keilah (1 Sam 23:5b) and the mention of the “threshing floors” from 23:1 (see note to “plundering it” at 6.271). Josephus leaves aside the reference to Abiathar’s coming to David at Keilah with ephod in hand of 23:6, since in his version of the sequels Abiathar and his device have no part to play. See 1 Sam 23:7a. Josephus appends this explanation of how it was that also Saul heard of David’s exploit (1 Sam 23:7a), while likewise underscoring its noteworthy character.

Josephus interjects this reference to Saul’s emotional response to what he hears (1 Sam 23:7b). Josephus’ rendering of Saul’s statement in 1 Sam 23:7b adds mention of Keilah’s “walls.” To Saul’s command to his forces in 1 Sam 23:8 Josephus appends the directive that they are to kill David. Thereby, he accentuates the tension surrounding David’s fate at this juncture.

See 1 Sam 23:9a. Josephus here reduces the biblical account of 1 Sam 23:9-12 with its double consultation of the Lord by David, using Abiathar and his ephod (see 23:6), and the corresponding divine responses (so MT LXX L; LXX B has only a single inquiry and reply by God) to its core content, i.e. God’s informing David that the Keillians will surrender him to Saul (// MT LXX L 23:12; compare LXX B 23:11, where David’s single question is whether the town will be “closed,” God answering that it will be). In Josephus’ rendering of 1 Samuel 23 the figure of Abiathar thus disappears completely, with God taking the initiative himself in warning David about the inhabitants’ intentions here in 6.274. This figure for David’s men corresponds to that given in LXX 1 Sam 23:13 (as well as in 6.247// 1 Sam 22:2); MT has 600. This designation for the site to which David repairs after leaving Keilah replaces the plethora of topographical indications (themselves varying from one textual witness to another) of 1 Sam 23:(13aβ)14a (RSV= MT: “in the strongholds in the wilderness, in the hill country of the Wilderness of Ziph”). Josephus apparently derives his own site name from 1 Sam 24:1 (MT; Eng. 23:29 // 6.282), where David takes up residence in the “strongholds (MT; LXX passes) of Engedi.” See 1 Sam 23:13b. Josephus leaves aside the subsequent, seemingly discordant notice of 23:14b: “And Saul sought him every day, but God did not give him into his hand.”

Josephus’ designation for David’s next stopping place reflects that of LXX 1 Sam 23:15, where MT’s form ‮בחרשׁה‬‎ (RSV: “at Horesh”) seems to have been misread as ‮בחדשׁה‬‎ and so rendered “the New.” Compare the obscure phrase of 1 Sam 23:16b: Jonathan “strengthened his [David’s] hand in God.” Josephus expatiates on Jonathan’s opening exhortation of 1 Sam 23:17: “Fear not.” This announcement corresponds to the 2nd (“you shall be king over Israel”) of the 4 predictions/ assurances Jonathan offers David in 1 Sam 23:17. This concluding reminder by Jonathan replaces the remaining assurances delivered by him in 1 Sam 23:17: “the hand of Saul... shall not find you... I shall be next to you; Saul my father also knows this.” Josephus’ omission of Jonathan’s statement about his having 2nd place to David once the latter becomes king (see previous note) perhaps reflects the consideration that this, in fact, constitutes a “false prophecy” in that Jonathan was to die simultaneously with his father and so never attained the position alongside David of which he speaks here.

Josephus’ insertion of this phrase represents a cross reference to the earlier sworn agreements between the friends as recorded by him in 6.241 (// 1 Sam 20:42). These concluding words of Jonathan to David replace the mention of the pair’s “making a covenant before the Lord” in 1 Sam 23:18a. See 1 Sam 23:18b into which Josephus inserts an allusion to the emotional impact of Jonathan’s words upon David. Thereby, he underscores the former’s status as an effective speaker.

1 Sam 23:19 narrates the Ziphites’ report in neutral terms. Via his reference to their “currying favor” with Saul, Josephus interjects a criticism of the Ziphites’ motivations that he will amplify in what follows. Josephus appends this claim to the Ziphites’ report of 1 Sam 23:19-20, thereby providing a ground for their confidence that they will indeed be able to apprehend David—as they assert they will in 23:20b. In reproducing the Ziphites’ report Josephus leaves aside most of the various geographical indications concerning the current whereabouts of both Saul and David given in 23:19.

Compare the opening words of Saul’s response in 1 Sam 23:21: “May you be blessed by the Lord; for you have had compassion on me.” Josephus’ wording eliminates the notion of God as the rewarder of evilminded informants—such as he represents the Ziphites to be. In the line of the shorter LXX B text of 1 Sam 23:22-23, Josephus drastically compresses the string of directives issued the Ziphites by Saul regarding David and announcements by him of what he himself intends to do found in MT LXX L.

Compare 1 Sam 23:24a, which speaks of the Ziphites going to Ziph “ahead of Saul.” This phrase is missing in the codices RO. Unlike Niese, Marcus reads the words without brackets. These remarks pick up on the reference to the Ziphites’ “currying favor” with Saul of 6.277. This parenthetical remark within Josephus’ extended appended critique of the Ziphites’ actions (6.279-280) foreshadows David’s frustrating of their schemes.

This term picks up on the “slander language” introduced by Josephus in 6.244, 267, 270. Josephus’ other uses of this accolade (Greek: θεοφιλής) are in War 1.331 (= Ant. 14.455, of Herod in the popular estimation); Ant. 1.106 (the antedeluvians); 1.346 (Isaac); 8.49, 190 (Solomon); 9.182 (Elisha); 10.215 (Daniel’s companions), 264 (Daniel himself); and 14.22 (the high priest Onias). Josephus expatiates on the mention of David’s “being told” in 1 Sam 23:25aβ with a final jab at the Ziphites and their reprehensible motives. Conversely, he leaves aside the complicated (and textually variable) indications concerning David’s initial place of refuge in the preceding 23:24b. According to 1 Sam 23:25bα the “rock” to which David escapes was situated in the “desert of Maon” (MT; LXX B Maan; LXX L τῇ Ἐπηκόῳ, i.e. “[the desert of] Hearing”). Josephus’ site name (Greek: Σίμωνος ἔρημος) likely reflects a form that figures among the topographical indications concerning David’s flight in 23:24b (earlier passed over by him), i.e. ‮הישׁימון‬‎ (MT; Eng.: “Jeshimon”); Ἰεσσαιμού (LXX B; LXX L renders with the same form it employs in 23:25b; see above). For further discussion, see Begg 1998b: 39, n. 72.

See 1 Sam 23:25bβ-26a, where Saul pursues David around “the mountain.” Josephus brings this indication into line with his previous mention (6.280// 23:25bα) of a “rock” as David’s place of refuge. His inserted reference to the “passes” from which David “withdraws” echoes the mention of these in 6.277, 280. See 1 Sam 23:26b-27, which quotes (v. 27) the words of the messenger who reports the Philistine incursion to Saul. Josephus expands the mention of Saul’s return (1 Sam 23:28a) with a reference to his motivation in returning. As Feldman (1998: 518) points out, the addition accentuates Saul’s magnanimity and patriotism. Conversely, he leaves aside the etiological notice of 23:28b: “therefore that place was called the Rock of Escape.”

Like LXX 1 Sam 24:1 (Eng. 23:29), Josephus speaks of “passes” rather than the “strongholds” of MT. MT (1 Sam 24:2= Eng. 1 Sam 24:1) ‮עין־גדי‬‎ (Eng.: “Engedi”); LXX B Ἐνγάδδει; LXX L Γαδδί. Josephus uses the adjective form Ἐνγεδηνή (whose nominal counterpart, i.e. Ἐνγεδών, he anticipated in 6.274; see note to “Engedon” at 6.274). On Josephus’ version of 1 Samuel 24, see Begg 1998c. In 1 Sam 24:2 (MT; Eng. 24:1) Saul is informed as “he returned from following the Philistines.”

This is the figure for Saul’s forces given by both MT and LXX 1 Sam 24:3a. Josephus leaves aside the topographical particulars of 1 Sam 24:3b-4aα: “in front of the Wildgoats Rocks... to the sheepfold (MT; LXX: sheepflocks) by the way....” Josephus expatiates on the size of the cave (compare 1 Sam 24:4aα) that needs to be so large in order to hold David and his 400 men, as will be mentioned in what follows. Josephus anticipates this notice from 1 Sam 24:4b, where it follows, as a kind of afterthought, the mention of Saul’s entry into the cave (24:4aβ). He likewise specifies the number of those with David in the cave, drawing the figure from 6.274 (= 1 Sam 23:13 LXX). This is Josephus’ version of the euphemism of 1 Sam 24:4aβ, where MT speaks of the king’s “covering his feet” and LXX of his “preparing himself.” With this inserted indication Josephus makes explicit what is presupposed in the biblical account, i.e. Saul’s (3,000, 1 Sam 24:3) troops did not go into the cave with him, thereby leaving the king defenseless before David and his men. This notice has no biblical counterpart. It constitutes the presupposition for the suggestion made to David by his men regarding Saul in 1 Sam 24:5a.

In 1 Sam 24:5a it is David’s men as a group who make the suggestion to him. Josephus attributes the proposal to the one man who, in his presentation (see 6.283) actually witnesses Saul’s entry. In the proposal made by David’s men in 1 Sam 24:5a reference is made to a previous divine word to David, promising to give his enemy into his hand so that he might do as he wished with him. Given that such a word has not been cited beforehand, Josephus turns the quotation of what God had (purportedly) said to David earlier into an allusion to the “God-given chance” Saul’s appearance in the cave represents for him. Josephus’ conclusion to the man’s proposal as to what David ought to do with Saul is quite different from the divine word quoted by David’s men in 1 Sam 24:5a (see previous note). The phrase “cut off his head” used by the Josephan speaker is the same one employed of David’s dispatch of Goliath in 6.190 (// 1 Sam 17:51): David is being urged to do with Saul exactly what he had done with his (and Israel’s) arch-enemy. See 1 Sam 24:5b. This is Josephus’ equivalent for the phrase of 1 Sam 24:6a: “David’s heart smote him.” These designations for King Saul replace the phrase “the Lord’s anointed” of 1 Sam 24:7b that Josephus tends to avoid. This reflection, motivating David’s previous statement about the wrongfulness of assaulting the king, substitutes for David’s closing words in 1 Sam 24:7b with their use of “messiah terminology”: “... seeing he is the Lord’s anointed.” The substitution introduces the contrast between Saul’s and David’s ways of dealing with each other, which is a marked feature of both 1 Samuel 24 and Josephus’ version. Josephus leaves aside the attached notice of 24:8a concerning David’s restraining his men from attacking Saul by his words.

See 1 Sam 24:8b-9a. In his explicit mention of Saul’s leaving the cave, Josephus agrees with MT LXX L 1 Sam 24:8b against LXX B, which lacks the item. See 1 Sam 24:9b, to which Josephus adds the reference to David’s gesture before Saul being in accordance “with custom.” Josephus here begins his greatly expanded version of David’s opening word to Saul in 1 Sam 24:10 (“why do you listen to the words of men who say, ‘Behold, David seeks your hurt’?”), likewise turning the Bible’s question into an admonition about what Saul should not do. The term “slander” harks back to Josephus’ reflection on Saul’s career in 6.262-268. This positive alternative to the wrongful course of action against which David warns Saul in what precedes is part of Josephus’ elaboration of David’s opening word in 1 Sam 24:10.

These appended reflections serve to explain the wrongfulness of the first course of action spoken of by David in 6.285 (i.e. listening to purveyors of slander) and the appropriateness of the 2nd (i.e. focusing on persons’ actions).

In this final part of his elaboration of David’s word in 1 Sam 24:10, Josephus has David draw practical conclusions for the case at hand from the general reflections developed by him in 6.285-286.

The above series of reproachful questions represents Josephus’ expansion of David’s opening, single query to Saul in 1 Sam 24:10: “Why do you listen to the words of men who say ‘Behold, David seeks your hurt’?”

After his preceding elaboration of David’s opening reproachful question of 1 Sam 24:10, Josephus now presents a condensed version of David’s words informing Saul of how he has just refrained from killing him in 1 Sam 24:11-12, leaving aside, e.g., the quotation of his earlier words to his men (24:11b= 24:7). Conversely, with the phrase “I was able [to cut off] your head,” he introduces a reminiscence of the proposal made to David by his companion in 6.284. This conclusion to David’s speech conflates his double appeal for divine vindication found in 1 Sam 24:13a and 16. Josephus leaves aside the intervening source segment 24:13b-15, where David twice avers that his own hand will not be against Saul (v. 13b, 14b), quotes a ancient proverb about wickedness emanating from the wicked (v. 14a), and points up, using the imagery of a “dead dog” and a flea, just how little of a threat he poses to Saul (v. 15). On the possible reasons for Josephus’ omission of this segment, see Begg 1998c: 464, n. 77.

This indication concerning the emotional impact of David’s words upon Saul take the place of Saul’s—seemingly otiose—question to David once the latter has finished speaking in 1 Sam 24:17a: “Is this your voice, my son David?” The replacement accentuates the positive image of David developed throughout Josephus’ version of 1 Samuel 24. Compare 1 Sam 24:17b: “And Saul lifted up his voice and wept.” 1 Samuel 24 says nothing about David joining in Saul’s lamentation. This is one among a number of such items that Josephus interjects into his version of 1 Samuel 24 so as to accentuate the positive—here his capacity for sympathy, even with a dangerous adversary—image of David; see note to “nature” at 6.290. See 1 Sam 24:18b: “... you have repaid me with good, whereas I have repaid you with evil.” The moral contrast between the 2 men, previously developed by David (6.284, 288, 289), is now picked up by Saul himself. Compare the opening of Saul’s address to David in 1 Sam 24:18a: “you are more righteous than I.” The term “ancients” does not figure in Saul’s own address in 1 Sam 24:18-22. Josephus may have found inspiration for its use here in 24:14, where David cites “a proverb of the ancients.” Leaving aside Saul’s reminiscence of David’s words to him of 1 Sam 24:11-12 in 24:19, Josephus directly connects the “justice of the ancients” (cf. 24:18a and see note to “justice of the ancients” at 6.290), which the king ascribes to David, with his rendition of 24:20a. In that rendition he turns into a prescription laid down by the ancients concerning the treatment to be accorded one encountered in the desert (which David has followed in Saul’s own case, thereby manifesting his righteousness) the statement (so LXX) or rhetorical question expecting a negative answer (so MT) of 1 Sam 24:20a about what one would do with the “enemy” one encounters. He leaves aside 24:20b, where Saul invokes the Lord’s recompense for David’s treatment of him (MT; in LXX the Lord’s rewarding the one who treats his enemy in the way portrayed in 24:20a is announced for the future).

See 1 Sam 24:21. Saul’s acknowledgement here recalls that attributed to Jonathan in his words to David in 6.275 (// 1 Sam 23:17): “He [David] was to reign as king and have the entire force of the Hebrews under him.” David’s coming rule has now been affirmed by both son and father. See 1 Sam 24:22. Josephus inserts the reference to David’s (presumed) “resentment,” the effects of which Saul is trying to preclude by getting David to swear not to harm his family. In 1 Sam 24:23a Saul, once David has sworn, returns home on his own initiative. Josephus’ reformulation depicts David as already now exercising that kingly role with regard to Saul that the latter had just recognized (6.291) will one day be given him by God. Josephus’ indication concerning the destination of David and his men clearly reflects that of LXX 1 Sam 24:23b: “to the pass of Messera” (MT: “to the stronghold”).

Josephus appends this mention of the people’s regard for Samuel to the notice of his death that he derives from 1 Sam 25:1a. He likewise inserts, as he does repeatedly throughout his presentation, the title “prophet” for Samuel. On Josephus’ version of 1 Samuel 25, see Begg 1996f. Josephus markedly embellishes the summary notices on Samuel’s being “mourned” (so MT; LXX B: they beat their breasts for him; LXX L: they beat their breasts for him and mourned for him) and “buried” in 1 Sam 25:1b.

MT (1 Sam 25:1bα) ‮רמה‬‎(‮ב‬‎) (Eng.: “in Rama”); LXX Ἀρμαθάιμ; Josephus Ἀρμεθᾶ (Marcus [ad loc.] reads Ἀρμαθᾶ with MSP). Josephus mentions “Armatha” as the hometown of Samuel’s father in Ant. 5.342. Josephus appends the reference to the “weeping” for Samuel and its character to the notice on his burial of 1 Sam 25:1bα. The addition establishes an implicit connection between Samuel and Moses, who likewise is wept over at his death (see Ant. 4.323// Deut 34:8).

This qualification of Samuel as “kind” (Greek: χρηστός) in Josephus’ (inserted) epithet recalls his earlier characterization of him as a “kind (Greek: χρηστός) and gentle father” in 6.92. Josephus uses this same designation (Greek: φίλος τοῦ θεοῦ) for Gideon in Ant. 5.213. Neither of these chronological indications on Samuel’s tenure has a biblical basis. Josephus reiterates the 2nd of them in connection with his closing notices for Saul in 6.378. Josephus’ extended epithet for Samuel in 6.294 takes the place of the closing words of 1 Sam 25:1, which mention David’s going “to the wilderness of Paran” (MT; LXX B: of Maan; LXX L: τὴν Ἐπήκοον).”

1 Samuel 25 does not use this qualification for Nabal, David’s antagonist. Josephus may have been inspired to apply the term to him given that the context (see 1 Sam 23:19 and 26:1) features the Ziphites as David’s opponents. This place name is likely a corruption of the form “Maan” cited by LXX B 1 Sam 25:2 (MT reads “Maon”) as Nabal’s place of residence; see Begg 1996f: 8, n. 11. Josephus makes no mention of the other site associated with Nabal in 25:2, i.e. “Carmel,” perhaps taking this to be, not the Judean town of that name (see Josh 15:55; 1 Sam 30:29)—which would fit the southern geographical context of the materials surrounding 1 Samuel 25—, but rather the (better-known) northern Carmel—a supposition that would entail a whole other setting for the Nabal story. These figures correspond to those given for Nabal’s 2 types of livestock in 1 Sam 25:2bα.

The Josephan David’s lengthy “instruction” to his men in 6.295 has no counterpart in 1 Samuel 25. It accentuates both David’s personal sense of justice and his concern to transmit this to his associates. This motivation for David’s preceding instructions to his men lacks a biblical basis. It serves to highlight the true character of Nabal as Josephus will go on to describe this as just the opposite of what David supposes it to be. Josephus uses the declined form (Greek: Νάβαλος) of the name as read by MT and LXX, i.e. “Nabal.” Josephus’ characterization of Nabal as a (proto) Cynic (Greek: ἐκ κυνικῆς ἀσκήσεως) picks up on the LXX’s (mis-) translation (i.e. κυνικός) of the Hebrew gentilic found in the qere of MT 1 Sam 25:3b (‮כלבי‬‎, “Calebite,” deriving from the proper name “Caleb,” meaning “dog”; compare the ketiv, ‮כלבו‬‎, “as his heart”). This is Josephus’ only use of the word “Cynic.” In 25:3 the characterization of Nabal follows that of his wife; Josephus reverses this sequence, thereby keeping together the data concerning Nabal that in 1 Samuel 25 are “interrupted” by the notice on Abigail of v. 3aβbα. Unlike 1 Sam 25:3, Josephus reserves mention of the woman’s name, i.e. “Abigail,” until a later point; see 6.301. To the listing of her intellectual and physical attributes in 25:3bα, Josephus appends a moral one, i.e. her being “good.”

Josephus here combines the notices of 1 Sam 25:4 (David learns of Nabal’s sheep-shearing) and 5-6 (his dispatch of 10 men with their words of greeting to the shearers), embellishing the latter item. Josephus here reverses the sequence of 1 Sam 25:7-8, where it is only at the very end of his message that David formulates his request for a contribution from Nabal (v. 8b), this after he has expatiated on his services to Nabal’s shepherds (v. 7), to which they will themselves attest. This concluding assurance, providing an additional motive for Nabal to respond favorably to David’s request, has no parallel in the message entrusted by him to his 10 messengers in 1 Sam 25:6-8.

Compare LXX 1 Sam 25:9b, where Nabal, in response to the messengers’ words, “leaps up” (MT: and then they [the messengers] waited). Josephus’ remark on the nature of his “reception” serves to prepare the ungracious words of Nabal that follow. Compare Nabal’s double opening question in 1 Sam 25:10a: “Who is David? Who is the son of Jesse?” Josephus interjects a contemptuous allusion to the state of mind of the runaway servants into his version of Nabal’s reply in 1 Sam 25:10b. He omits Nabal’s attached rhetorical question about bestowing his provisions on such people, 25:11.

Josephus appends mention of David’s emotional response to the report brought him as recounted in 1 Sam 25:12. See 1 Sam 25:13abα. Josephus’ rendition aligns itself with the shorter text of LXX B as against MT and LXX L. See 1 Sam 25:13bβ. Josephus’ appendix to the indications concerning the 2 groups of David’s men, these totaling 600, calls attention to the increase in David’s forces, beyond the figure last mentioned by him in 6.283, i.e. 400 (// LXX 1 Sam 23:13; MT has 600 already here). Josephus here anticipates the statement of intention parenthetically attributed to David in 1 Sam 25:22, long after he has begun his advance against Nabal in 25:13. From David’s words in 25:22, Josephus eliminates (as he regularly does) its opening oath formula, just as he passes over the vulgar expression (literally: “all who piss against the wall”) used there. This allusion to David’s emotional state picks up on the mention of his being “wrathful” at the opening of 6.299. Also here (see note to “night” at 6.299), Josephus anticipates David’s displaced statement of intention, in particular his expression of outrage at Nabal’s failure to requite his own benefits in kind, 1 Sam 25:21. He further amplifies David’s affirmation with a reference to Nabal’s having insulted his inoffensive messengers (see 6.298).

Josephus expatiates on the servant’s report of Nabal’s offense as cited in 1 Sam 25:14: “he railed at [MT; LXX: turned away from] them.” Josephus gives a shortened version of the informant’s lengthy report to Abigail of all that David’s men had done for Nabal’s shepherds, 1 Sam 25:15-16. Its language echoes that used in David’s own message to Nabal in 6.297. See 1 Sam 25:17, from which Josephus omits the servant’s exhortation that Abigail “consider what she should do” and his concluding statement that Nabal is “so ill-natured that one cannot speak with him.”

MT (1 Sam 25:3) ‮אבגיל‬‎ (Eng.: “Abigail”); LXX B Ἀβειγαία; LXX L and Josephus Ἀβιγαία. Josephus here for the first time, at the moment when she begins assuming an active role in the story, gives the name of Nabal’s wife (which 1 Samuel 25 had cited already in v. 3). Josephus generalizes the extended catalogue of assorted foodstuffs taken with her by Abigail in 1 Sam 25:18. Anticipating the reference to Abigail’s finding Nabal “drunk” on her return in 1 Sam 25:36, Josephus cites his condition as the reason for Abigail’s not telling him of her departure (25:19b). He leaves aside her words to the young men of 25:19a: “go on before me; behold I come after you.” In Josephus’ presentation then, it appears that Abigail goes forth unaccompanied to meet David, this highlighting the woman’s fearlessness. See 1 Sam 25:20, to which Josephus, recalling 6.299 (// 1 Sam 25:13), adds the figure (400) for those accompanying David. Thereby he accentuates the contrast between the solitary woman Abigail—he passed over the reference to the young men who precede her of 25:19a (see previous note))—and the large group of hostile men she encounters. Having already incorporated the statement of David’s intentions cited parenthetically in 25:21-22 in 6.299 (see notes there), he will move directly from Abigail’s encountering David (// 25:20) to her submissive gestures towards him (// 25:23).

Josephus’ verb (Greek: καταπηδάω) is the same one used by LXX B 1 Sam 25:23; MT and LXX L employ a blander term, i.e. “she alighted.” See 1 Sam 25:23-24aα. These words are absent from ROELat; they are bracketed by Niese, but not by Marcus. In Josephus’ rendition Abigail, leaving aside her opening confession of guilt and appeal for a hearing by David (1 Sam 25:24), begins immediately with the mention of her offending husband from 25:25a. Josephus supplies the meaning of his Hebrew name (of which the more precise rendering would be “fool”). Throughout, he notably rearranges the sequence of Abigail’s words. See 1 Sam 25:25b, where Abigail simply mentions the fact of her not having seen David’s men; Josephus has her “apologize” for this failure on her part.

Josephus derives Abigail’s plea for forgiveness from 1 Sam 25:28a, adding to this her exhortation that David “thank God.” Josephus draws this reference to God’s restraining David from bloodshed from 1 Sam 25:26a (whose opening oath formula he omits). This assurance might be seen as Josephus’ compressed version of Abigail’s (highly figurative) promises of what the Lord will do for David, should he refrain from evil in 1 Sam 25:28b-29. See 1 Sam 25:26b.

See 1 Sam 25:27; Josephus’ rendering shifts the focus from David’s acceptance of her “gifts” to his favorable response to the giver of those gifts, Abigail herself. This appeal lacks a biblical equivalent. It continues to focus attention on David’s acting for Abigail’s sake; see previous note. Greek: φιλάνθρωπος. This adjective echoes the negative adverb ἀπανθρώπως (“inhumanely”) used of Nabal’s reception of David’s delegation in 6.298, as well as the allusion to Nabal’s having been shown “much humanity” (Greek: φιλανθρωπία) by David’s men in 6.299. Abigail’s concluding statement here has no direct equivalent in the words of her biblical counterpart (although it might be seen as a transposition into a positive key of her negative reference to David’s not having to regret his shedding of blood and taking of vengeance in 1 Sam 25:31a). It does, however, incorporate her allusion to God’s appointing David “prince over Israel” in 25:30b. Josephus leaves aside Abigail’s closing plea (25:31b) that David “remember” her in the future.The Josephan Abigail’s final statement about what it is “fitting” (Greek: πρέπω) for David to do as designated king has a certain counterpart in the word addressed by John of Gischala to Titus in War 4.102, where he avers that it would be “fitting” (Greek: πρέπω) for the Roman commander to preserve not only the lives, but also the laws of those for whom is appealing.

See 1 Sam 25:35a. Josephus rearranges the biblical sequence in which David first addresses Abigail at length (25:32-34), then takes what she has brought (25:35a), and finally resumes his speaking to her (25:35b). See 1 Sam 25:32, where David begins his response by “blessing the Lord.” David’s characterization of God as “benevolent” (Greek εὐμενής) here echoes Abigail’s plea that David be “benevolent” (εὐμενής) to her in 6.304. See 1 Sam 25:34. Just as he did in the case of David’s initial statement of his intentions in 6.299 (// 25:21), so here in 6.305 Josephus rewords the vulgar expression “those who piss against the wall.” In addition, he appends a characterization of Nabal, reminiscent of that used in 6.299, which serves to justify David’s intended severity towards him and his household. This statement synthesizes David’s acknowledgement (1 Sam 25:32-34) of the role of both the Lord and Abigail in preventing him from acting on his murderous intentions. This announcement, in which David appears in the role of a (true) prophet of Nabal’s imminent demise, takes the place of his concluding assurance that he has “heard” Abigail’s appeal (1 Sam 25:35b).

1 Sam 25:35aβ quotes David’s words to her: “go up in peace to your house.” 1 Sam 25:36a represents Nabal feasting “like a king.” 1 Sam 25:36bα speaks of Nabal’s heart being “merry within him” and of his being “very drunk.” Josephus has already anticipated this notice in 6.301, prior to Abigail’s setting out; see note to “drink” at 6.302. See 1 Sam 25:36bβ. See 1 Sam 25:37a. Compare 1 Sam 25:37b: “his heart died within him and he became as a stone.” From the notice of 1 Sam 25:38 on Nabal’s dying 10 days after Abigail’s report to him, Josephus eliminates the theological indication about the Lord’s “smiting him.”

See 1 Sam 25:39a. This “lesson” learned by David from Nabal’s fate has no counterpart in 1 Samuel 25. As often, Josephus appends an explicit moral to the biblical story, this reminding readers of the overarching purpose of his work as set out in Ant. 1.20.

See 1 Sam 25:39b-40. Josephus eliminates the reference to Abigail’s “prostration” before David’s messengers in 1 Sam 25:41a, while also modifying her verbal response in 25:41b, where she speaks of herself as one whose task it would be to wash the feet of David’s servants. In his version it is a question of her (not) “touching” David’s own feet. In 1 Sam 25:42abα (the circumstantiality of which Josephus reduces), Abigail is accompanied by “five maidens.” To the summary notice on Abigail’s marrying David of 1 Sam 25:42bβ Josephus appends a motivation for this event, which picks up his triple characterization of her in 6.296 (// 25:3bα).

MT 1 Sam 25:43 calls David’s earlier wife “Ahinoam (LXX B Ἀχεινάν; LXX L Ἀχινάαμ) of Jezreel (LXX B: Israel).” Josephus’ name for the woman’s hometown (Greek: Ἀβίσαρος) seems to represent a corrupted conflation of her personal name and that of her city; see Schalit s.v. Josephus cites her name as “Achima” in 6.320 (// 1 Sam 27:3). MT (1 Sam 25:44) ‮מיכל‬‎ (Eng.: “Michal”); LXX Μελχόλ; Josephus Μελχά. Josephus recounts Saul’s marrying of “Michal” to David in 6.204 (// 1 Sam 18:27). MT (1 Sam 25:44) ‮פלטי‬‎ (Eng.: “Palti”); LXX Φαλτί; Josephus Φέλτιος. MT (1 Sam 25:44) ‮לישׁ‬‎ (Eng.: “Laish”); LXX B Ἀμείς; LXX L Ἰωάς; Josephus Λίσος. MT (1 Sam 25:44) ‮גלים‬‎ (Eng.: “Gallim”); LXX B Ῥομμά; LXX L Γολιάθ; Josephus Γεθλᾶ (Schalit s.v. calls this a form corrupted to the point of irrecognizability). Josephus will relate David’s “recovery” of “Michal” in Ant. 7.26 (// 2 Sam 3:15-16).

Josephus leaves aside the specification of 1 Sam 26:1 concerning Saul’s current whereabouts, i.e. at “Gibeah” (MT; LXX: “at the hill”). Cf. his like omission in 6.282 (// 1 Sam 23:19), where the Ziphites make their initial report to Saul. On Josephus’ version of 1 Samuel 26, see Begg 1997i. Josephus gives a more straightforward content to the Ziphites’ message, which in 1 Sam 26:1b consists of a rhetorical question concerning David’s current hiding place, this featuring several (textually variable) place names: “on the hill of Hachilah, which is on the east of Jeshimon” (RSV). See 1 Sam 26:2, from which Josephus eliminates the double reference to “the wilderness of Ziph” as the theater of operations. Josephus anticipates this temporal indication from 1 Sam 26:7a, where David and Abishai approach Saul’s encampment “by night.” According to 1 Sam 26:3, Saul encamped at the same spot where the Ziphites had reported David to be, i.e. “on the hill of Hachilah (LXX Ἑχελά)... on the east of Jeshimon.” Josephus apparently derives his name for the king’s campsite, i.e. “Sikella” from the LXX L reading in 1 Sam 26:4, where David learns that Saul had come “after him to Segelag”; see Marcus ad loc. (Alternatively, Schalit s.v. suggests that the original form here was Χίκελλα, this corresponding to the “Hachilah” of MT 26:3).

See 1 Sam 26:3b-4a, to which Josephus appends mention of the purpose of David’s dispatching the spies. Josephus’ reading here reflects that of LXX L 1 Sam 26:4b (already anticipated by him in 6.310): “he learned that Saul had come after him to Sekelag.” MT reads “he learned of a certainty that Saul had come,” LXX B “he learned that Saul had come well-prepared from Keila.” This phrase appears to reflect LXX’s specification in 1 Sam 26:5a that David rose “secretly” and went to Saul’s camp. MT (1 Sam 26:6) ‮אבישׁי‬‎ (Eng.: “Abishai”); LXX Ἀβεσσά; Josephus Ἀβισαῖος. MT (1 Sam 26:6) ‮צרויה‬‎ (Eng.: “Zeruiah”); LXX and Josephus Σαρουία. Josephus leaves aside the further specification of Abishai as “brother of Joab” given in 26:6. MT (1 Sam 26:6) ‮אחימלך‬‎ (Eng.: “Ahimelech”); LXX B Ἀβειμέλεχ; LXX L Ἀχιμέλεχ; Josephus Ἀβιμέλεχος. Josephus’ name-form thus corresponds to that of LXX B against MT LXX L; compare the similar case of his name for the priest of Nob in 6.242. MT (1 Sam 26:6) ‮החתי‬‎ (Eng.: “the Hittite”); LXX and Josephus ὁ Χετταῖος. Josephus anticipates (and reverses the sequence of) the names of David’s 2 companions from 1 Sam 26:6, where after David, seemingly alone, has approached Saul’s camp (26:5), they suddenly appear and are addressed by him. He thereby makes clear that the 2 were with him from the start; accordingly, he passes over the actual dialogue of 26:6, in which David asks who will accompany him to the camp and Abishai replies that he will do so. Moreover, in contrast to 26:7, Josephus has not only Abishai, but also Ahimelech, go with David to Saul’s camp.

See 1 Sam 26:5. Josephus has no equivalent to the (textually varying) specification as to where Saul was sleeping of 26:5bα: “within the encampment” (MT) vs. “in a chariot” (LXX). See 1 Sam 26:7. Josephus’ rendering highlights the figure of David, who both “recognizes” the king from his spear and refrains from harming him personally. Conversely, he leaves aside the repetitious (see 26:5// 6.312a) mention of the presence of Abner and the army around Saul of 26:7bβ. Josephus compresses the sequence of 1 Sam 26:8-9a, omitting the actual words of Abishai, declaring that God has handed Saul over to David and confidently volunteering to dispatch the king himself (v. 8). David’s affirmation here replaces the rhetorical question attributed to him in 1 Sam 26:9b: “... who can put forth his hand to the Lord’s anointed and be guiltless?,” likewise eliminating its “loaded” term “anointed.” The allusion to Saul as “vile” (Greek: πονηρός) by David here echoes his qualification of him with the same term in 6.284. In 1 Sam 26:10 David presents 3 different scenarios as to what might happen to Saul: “... the Lord will smite (LXX B: correct) him; or his day shall come to die; or he shall go down into battle and perish (LXX B: be added).” Josephus’ David limits his remarks to the first of these eventualities, thereby intimating that whatever befalls Saul will be God’s doing. This notice, echoing the earlier mention of David’s “not allowing” Abishai to assault Saul, replaces David’s closing statement, emphatically refusing to do violence to the “Lord’s anointed” of 1 Sam 26:11a.

See 1 Sam 26:12a, to which Josephus adds a motivation for David’s taking of the items. He leaves aside David’s command (26:11b) to Abishai to “take” the 2 objects, given that in 26:12a it is David himself who ends up carrying them off. Josephus’ highlighting of David’s daring replaces the statement of 1 Sam 26:12b about the divine origin of the “deep sleep” that befell Saul’s men and kept them unaware of what was going on around them.

The description of David’s movements in 1 Sam 26:13 does not mention such a stream; it speaks rather of the “great space” between him and Saul’s camp that resulted from those movements. Josephus appends this indication concerning the purpose behind David’s ascending the hill (see 1 Sam 26:13). From 1 Sam 26:14 Josephus omits David’s opening query: “Will you not answer, Abner?,” while inserting reference to his waking Saul’s whole force. Josephus’ rendition of Abner’s question stands closest to its form in LXX L 1 Sam 26:14b: “who are you, the one calling me, who are you?” Compare MT (“who are you that calls the king?”) and LXX B (“who are you, the one who is calling?”).

David’s self-identification in response to Abner’s question about who is calling him (6.314) takes the place of his odd opening counter-question in 1 Sam 26:15aα: “Are you not a man?” See 1 Sam 26:15aβbα. Josephus’ rendering underscores both Abner’s exalted status and his egregious failure to fulfill the responsibilities this entails. This sarcastic question is Josephus’ addition to David’s words to Abner in 1 Sam 26:15-16. Josephus compresses (and rearranges) the sequence of David’s words in 1 Sam 26:15bβ-16abα, where he first informs Abner of the penetration of Saul’s camp (v. 15bβ), then affirms that Abner’s behavior was not “good” (v. 16aα), and finally avers that, given his failure to “to watch over... the Lord’s anointed,” Abner is deserving of death (v. 16aβbα). For the 3rd time in his version of 1 Samuel 26, Josephus eliminates a source use of the term “anointed.” To David’s call to Abner to look for the 2 objects in question (1 Sam 26:16bβ), Josephus appends a indication of what this (vain) search is designed to disclose to him.

See 1 Sam 26:17aα. This extended notice on what Saul now “realizes” concerning David takes the place of Saul’s— seemingly superfluous—question whether the voice he has heard is that of David (1 Sam 26:17aβ) and David’s lengthy response (26:17b-20) with its mixture of affirmations of innocence, reproaches, and appeals to the Lord. This initial expression of gratitude by Saul, flowing out of the “realization” attributed to him in what precedes, has no biblical counterpart. The inserted mention of it by Josephus serves to accentuate the king’s capacity for magnanimity. Josephus reverses the order of Saul’s command and attached motivation of 1 Sam 26:21aβ (“return... for I will no more do you harm”).

Cf. Saul’s acknowledgement in 1 Sam 26:21bα: “... my life was precious in your eyes this day.” Josephus has Saul spell out in detail the nature of the “wrong” and his “erring exceedingly” that he confesses with regard to David in 1 Sam 26:21. This concluding statement, picking up on Saul’s acknowledgement of David’s solicitude for him of 6.317, represents a further elaboration of the king’s words in 1 Sam 26:21bα: “... my life was precious in your eyes this day.” It serves to accentuate the contrast between the 2 men’s dealings with each other that Josephus develops throughout his version of Saul’s discourse to David (6.316-317).

In 1 Sam 26:22 David mentions only the retrieval of Saul’s spear. In Josephus he does not forget the other object taken by him in 6.313 (// 26:12). Compare David’s earlier statement to Saul in 6.289 (// 1 Sam 24:13a, 16): “May God judge these things and examine the ways of each of us.” See 1 Sam 26:23, from which Josephus yet again (see note to “of it” at 6.315) eliminates a mention of the “Lord’s anointed.” He likewise leaves aside David’s appended prayer for God’s protection (26:24), as well as Saul’s response with its “benediction” of David and prediction of the great future that awaits him (26:25a); compare his omission of David’s earlier words to Saul in 26:17b-20. In both instances, Josephus’ compression of the 2 parties’ words might be influenced by the consideration that much the same ground has already been covered in the earlier scene between them as related in 6.283-291 (// 1 Samuel 24).

1 Sam 26:25b mentions David’s “return” (this duplicating the notice on his movements of 27:1) before that of Saul, and has the latter going “to his place” (so MT LXX L; LXX B: on his way). Josephus eliminates the duplication of the biblical notices on David’s moves subsequent to his encounter with Saul. This translation follows the conjecture of Niese (καταβάς), inspired by Lat’s descendere and adopted by Marcus ad loc. The codices have ἀναβάς (“going up”). MT 1 Sam 27:1a refers to “the land of the Philistines,” LXX BL to “the land of the aliens (Greek: ἀλλόφυλοι).” See 1 Sam 27:1a. Josephus interjects the reference to David’s “fear,” while leaving aside his reflections of 27:1b concerning Saul’s giving up his pursuit of him and his own escape. On Josephus’ version of 1 Samuel 27, see Begg 1997j. This figure corresponds to that of MT LXX L 1 Sam 27:2; LXX B has 400. The figure harks back to Josephus’ statement (6.299) about David having assembled 600 men by the time of his confrontation with Nabal. MT (1 Sam 27:2) ‮אכישׁ‬‎ (Eng.: “Achish”); LXX B Ἀγχούς; LXX L Ἀκχούς; Josephus Ἀγχοῦς. He omits the name of Achish’s father (MT: Maoch). Surprisingly, neither the Bible nor Josephus makes reference at this juncture to David’s earlier abortive approach to this same “Achish, king of Gath” as related in 1 Sam 21:11-16 (// 6.245-246). This inserted notation identifies “Gitta” (Gath) as one of the 5 member cities of the Philistine Pentapolis; see 1 Sam 6:17, cf. 6.20.

Mention of this “award” by the king is Josephus’ replacement for the notice of 1 Sam 27:3a that the “households” of David’s men also settled in Gath. MT (1 Sam 27:3) ‮אחינעם‬‎ (Eng.: “Ahinoam”); LXX B Ἀχεινάαμ; LXX L Ἀχινάαμ; Josephus Ἀχιμά (this is the reading of RO, which Niese and Marcus follow; Schalit s.v. reads Ἀχινά in line with Lat’s Achinam). Earlier (see 6.309; compare 1 Sam 25:44) Josephus referred to this first wife of David as being “from the city of Abisar,” without naming her. Here, he leaves aside her gentilic, i.e. “the Iezreelitess.” Josephus leaves aside the attached source indications concerning Abigail, i.e. her being a “Carmelitess” and Nabal’s widow. On David’s marriage to Abigail, see 6.308. Josephus supplies a reason for Saul’s failure, as cited in 1 Sam 27:4, to pursue David further at this point.

Josephus inserts a reference to David’s state of mind as he makes his request of Achish (1 Sam 27:5). See 1 Sam 27:5a. Josephus turns David’s allusive, rhetorical question of 1 Sam 27:5b (“why should you servant dwell in the royal city with you?”) into a more straightforward declaration on his part.

MT (1 Sam 27:6) ‮צקלג‬‎ (Eng.: “Ziklag”); LXX B Σεκελάκ; LXX L Σεκελάγ; Josephus Σέκελλα (thus Niese and Marcus; Schalit s.v. prefers the form Σίκελλα read by P and suggests that this form might reflect that of LXX A in 1 Sam 30:14). “Sekella/Sikella” was mentioned as Saul’s earlier camping place in 6.310, 311. Cf. 1 Sam 27:6b: “therefore Ziklag has belonged to the kings of Judah to this day.” Josephus’ reformulation reflects the fact that by his own time there had been no “kings of Judah” for centuries. In fact, Josephus never does return to the subject, as Marcus (ad loc.) points out. For other instances of the historian’s announcing that he will subsequently treat a given subject, but then failing to do so, see Begg 1997j: 6, n. 33. Josephus’ chronological indication does not fully agree with that of either MT (“a year [literally days] and four months”) or LXX (“four months”) 1 Sam 27:7. It might, however, be seen as an attempt to specify the indeterminate plus “days and” of MT, taken in its literal sense.

Josephus’ opening, general reference to the “targets” of David’s incursions corresponds to the LXX L plus at the start of 1 Sam 27:8: “(David and his men set forth) against everyone nearby.” Like LXX B 1 Sam 27:8, Josephus mentions only 2 particular peoples against whom David campaigns, having no equivalent to the “Girzites” which stands 2nd in the 3-member list of MT (LXX L reads “the Iezraite” at this point). Whereas his 2nd name, i.e. the Amalekites, corresponds to the 2nd designation in LXX B (and the 3rd of MT LXX L), his initial name, i.e. “the “Serrites” diverges from the first name of the various biblical witnesses, i.e. “the Geshurites” (Schalit s.v. does, however, see Josephus’ form as reflecting the “Gesiri” of LXX B; alternatively, Schlatter s.v. traces it back to a Hebrew form ‮השׂרי‬‎). Josephus omits the further precisions—which evidence much textual variation—regarding the extent of the territory raided by David given in 27:8b. From the list of David’s bellicose initiatives in 1 Sam 27:9 Josephus omits his killing of both men and women (which duplicates the notice on the matter of 27:11a), as well as the garments taken by him. The translation reflects that of Marcus ad loc., this agreeing with the statement of 1 Sam 27:11a (cf. 27:9) that David did not “leave alive” the inhabitants of the places he raided. As Marcus notes, however, the verb used by Josephus here (Greek: ἀπείχετο) could also mean “he spared.” On this alternative understanding, Josephus would be contradicting the biblical notice, thereby depicting David as a more merciful figure. On the other hand, it remains difficult to see how David’s sparing the inhabitants would further his goal of keeping them from reporting his raids to the king; see further Rappaport 1930: 50 #206. In any case, Josephus leaves aside the statement of 27:11b that David’s killing the peoples he raided was his standard practice throughout his time in Philistia. This item has no parallel in 1 Samuel 27. It underscores David’s attempt to ingratiate himself with (and repay) his benefactor Achish. The addition is perhaps inspired by the notice of 1 Sam 30:26-31 (// 6.357) about David’s dispatching spoil from his subsequent Amalekite campaign to the elders of various Judean cities.

Josephus provides a motivation (i.e. his seeing the plunder given him by David) for Achish’s question about the targets of David’s raids that in 1 Sam 27:10 itself lacks such motivation. The motivation, in turn, harks back to Josephus’ previous insertion concerning David’s sharing the plunder he had acquired with the king. Josephus substitutes these general indications concerning the sites of David’s incursions for the more specific localizations given in 1 Sam 27:10b (MT: the Negeb of Judah, the Negeb of the Jerahmeelites, the Negeb of the Kenites). See 1 Sam 27:12.

The cognate terms “ally” (Greek: σύμμαχος), “to be/ act as an ally” (Greek: συμμαχέω), and “alliance” (Greek: συμμαχία) occur a total of 7 times in Josephus’ account of David’s dismissal by the Philistines (// 1 Sam 28:1-2; 29:1-11) in 6.325-326, 351-355. This name for the Philistine mustering site has no equivalent in either MT or LXX 1 Sam 28:1a. Possibly, it reflects the plus of 4QSama, i.e. [‮ה‬‎]‮יזרעל‬‎ (“at Jezreel”). On this possibility (as well as alternative suggestions regarding the Josephan place name), see Begg 1997j: 10, n. 58. See 1 Sam 28:1b.

Josephus expatiates on David’s brief (and ambiguous) reply to Achish in 1 Sam 28:2a (“... you shall know what your servant can do”), stressing his concern to repay Achish’s favors. Josephus amplifies Achish’s promise (1 Sam 28:2b) with mention of its effect on David who, much more so than in the Bible itself, appears enthusiastic about being part of the Philistine undertaking. On Josephus’ retouching of the portrait of David in 1 Sam 27:1-28:2 as a way of legitimating his own comparable dealings with and stance towards the Romans, see Begg 1997j: 14-15.

Josephus omits the notice of 1 Sam 28:3a on the death, mourning for and burial of Samuel, given its duplication of the earlier mention of these same happenings in 25:1, expansively cited by him in 6.292-294. Pseudo-Philo, on the contrary, does reproduce the content of 28:3a within the context of his rendition of 1 Samuel 28 in Bib. Ant. 64.1. To this, in turn, he attaches a reflection by Saul who thinks to win himself lasting fame, like that of Samuel, by removing the diviners from the land (28:3b), only to have God pronounce judgment on him for his self-interested action. On Josephus’ and Pseudo-Philo’s versions of the “Endor incident” (1 Sam 28:3-25), see Brown 1992: 181-211. 1 Sam 28:3b speaks of 2 categories of mantics expelled by Saul: ‮ואבות ואת־הידענים‬‎ (MT; RSV: “the mediums and the wizards”)/ οἱ ἐγγαστριμύθοι καὶ γνώσται (LXX: “the ventriloquists and the diviners”). Josephus designates the 2 groups as οἱ μάντεις καὶ οἱ ἐγγαστριμύθοι (“the mantics and the ventriloquists”); Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 64.1) refers only to “wizards” (Latin: malefici). On Josephus’ use of the term “mantic” (Greek: μαντίς) and its cognates, (primarily) in reference to pagan “prophets,” see Feldman 1990: 416-18. Josephus’ use of the term ἐγγαστρίμυθος (“ventriloquist”), drawn by him from LXX 28:3, is limited to his account of the Endor incident, where it occurs 3 times; see 6.327, 329, 330. With these appended indications, Josephus generalizes the 2-member biblical list of 1 Sam 28:3b, while also, in view of what follows, making clear that Saul did exempt the prophets from his expulsion measure. The reference to Saul’s “hearing” of the Philistine move is Josephus’ addition to 1 Sam 28:4a; it helps account for the king’s counter-move as related in 28:4b. MT (1 Sam 28:4) ‮שׁונם‬‎ (Eng.: “Shunem”); LXX Σωμάν; Josephus Σούνη. Pseudo-Philo does not mention the site of the Philistine camp. On the other hand, he appends a motivation (Bib. Ant. 64.2) for their advance, i.e. their thinking to profit from the fact that Israel at this point no longer enjoyed either the spiritual support of Samuel’s prayer or the military leadership of David.

MT (1 Sam 28:4) ‮גלבע‬‎ (Eng.: “Gilboa”); LXX Γελβοῦε; Josephus Γελβουέ. Josephus’ precision about the site being a “mountain” draws on 1 Sam 31:1. Josephus spells out what it is about Saul’s seeing of the Philistine army that prompts his “fear” (1 Sam 28:5). In Bib. Ant. 64.3 Saul’s distress is attributed rather to his consciousness of the death of Samuel and the absence of David. 1 Sam 28:6 mentions 3 (legitimate) means used, without result, by Saul in his inquiring of the Lord: dreams, Urim, and prophets. Josephus, like Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 64.3), cites only the last of these (whose availability at this point he has prepared for by his inserted reference to their exemption from Saul’s expulsion of the mantics in 6.327; see note to “prophets” at 6.327). He will, however, have Saul also mention “dreams” when recounting his attempted “consultation” to Samuel in 6.334 (// 28:15). Josephus spells out the content of Saul’s “inquiry of the Lord” as mentioned in 1 Sam 28:6a.

Cf. 1 Sam 28:6b. In Bib. Ant. 64.3 God is not explicitly mentioned; rather, when Saul “seeks” prophets, none “appear to him.” Josephus inserts this description of the emotional effect of God’s silence (1 Sam 28:6b) on Saul. Josephus expatiates on the designation used by Saul in 1 Sam 28:7a for the person he has in mind (MT ‮אשׁת בעלת־אות‬‎, RSV: “a woman who is a medium”; LXX γυνὴ ἐγγαστρίμυθος), combining LXX’s word “ventriloquist(s),” with the specifying phrase “those who conjure up the souls of the dead.” In Bib. Ant. 64.3 Saul urges the people as a whole (compare 28:7a: his servants) to seek a “diviner” (Latin: divinus). Josephus appends a specification as to what Saul intends to ask the “medium” whom he commands be sought out for him in 1 Sam 28:7a. Compare Bib. Ant. 64.3, where Saul proposes to the people that they inquire of the “diviner” about “what I [Saul] should plan.”

Josephus interjects this explanatory remark concerning the procedure used by the particular type of “ventriloquist” Saul is seeking. MT (1 Sam 28:7) ‮עין דור‬‎ (Eng.: “En-dor”); LXX B Ἀελδώρ; LXX L Ἀενδώρ; Josephus Δῶρος. Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 64.3) places the diviner about whom Saul is informed by the people at “Endor.” He likewise has Saul told that her name is “Sedecla,” the daughter of a Midianite diviner who had earlier misled the Israelites (apparently the “Aod” of Bib. Ant. 34). Josephus interjects this detail about Saul’s journey (1 Sam 28:8a). In 1 Sam 28:8aα Saul “disguises himself” (MT LXX L; LXX B: covers himself completely) and “puts on other garments.” Bib. Ant. 64.4 has him “donning ordinary clothing.” By contrast, Josephus focusses not on what Saul puts on, but what he takes off. Josephus adds the qualification about the reliability of the 2 servants mentioned in 1 Sam 28:8aβ. Josephus leaves aside the specification that the threesome’s journey took place “by night” found in both 1 Sam 28:8bα and Bib. Ant. 64.4. Greek: μαντεύομαι. Josephus’ one other use of this verb is in Apion 1.306, where it has the sense “consult an oracle.” See 1 Sam 28:8bβ. In Bib. Ant. 64.4 Saul immediately commands the woman to bring up Samuel for him.

Josephus inserts mention both of the woman’s hesitancy to do what Saul has just requested and an initial statement of her intention not to act against the king’s earlier expulsion measure. In Bib. Ant. 64.4 the woman’s reply is limited to the declaration: “I fear Saul.” With this allusion by the woman to Saul’s earlier initiative, Josephus picks up on the biblical wording of her response (1 Sam 28:9a), following his inserted preface to this (see previous note). Cf. the woman’s comparable accusatory question in 1 Sam 28:9b, to which Josephus adds a statement of innocence by the woman that underscores the wrongfulness of Saul’s current effort to entrap her. Like LXX B 1 Sam 28:10a, Josephus lacks an equivalent to the specification of MT about Saul’s swearing “by the Lord” (LXX L: by God). He likewise, in accord with his regular practice, leaves aside the source’s oath formula (“as the Lord lives...”). In Bib. Ant. 64.4 Saul does not “swear,” but simply assures (// 28:10b) the woman that she will not be harmed by Saul “in this matter.” To the king’s statement Pseudo-Philo further attaches an appendix (ibid.), which ends up with Saul weeping to discover that his appearance has so changed that the woman, who—as she informs him— had earlier seen him many times, no longer recognizes him, this being a sign that the “glory of Saul’s kingship has passed from him.” Greek: μαντεία. Compare μάντεις in 6.327 and μαντεύεομαι in 6.330. Josephus has Saul expatiate on his promise to the woman of 1 Sam 28:10b that “no punishment shall come upon you for this thing.”

This mention of the effect of Saul’s sworn assurance on the woman takes the place of her question to him about whom he wants her to “bring up” in 1 Sam 28:11a. Whereas in 1 Sam 28:11b Saul simply asks that Samuel be brought up, Josephus has him specify that it is the latter’s “soul” (Greek: ψυχή) he has in mind. Neither 1 Samuel 28 nor Pseudo-Philo explicitly mentions the actual “calling up” of Samuel by the woman—as Josephus does here. This is Josephus’ only use of the word ᾅδης (“Hades”) in Antiquities; it occurs 4 times in the War: 1.596; 2.156, 165; 3.375. Josephus likewise interjects the indication concerning the woman’s ignorance of Samuel. Greek: θεοπρεπής. This term is hapax in Josephus. Josephus inserts the reference to the appearance of Samuel (anticipated by him from 1 Sam 28:14) and its emotional effect upon the woman into the account of her reaction given in 28:12, where she simply “cries out,” prior to addressing Saul. In Bib. Ant. 64.4, Pseudo-Philo, following his reproduction of the woman’s words to Saul from 28:12, has her add that, in her 40 years of raising the dead for the Philistines, she had never beheld a sight like the one she has just brought up. Josephus’ supplies an “explanation” as to how the woman was able to recognize Saul’s identity at this point; see her statement to this effect (“you are Saul”) in 1 Sam 28:12b. The explanation, i.e. Samuel’s informing her about the matter, takes the place of her preceding reproachful question to Saul (“why have you deceived me?”) in the source verse. In Bib. Ant. 64.4 it is the woman’s seeing Samuel and Saul together that prompts her recognizing the latter.

Compare 1 Sam 28:13a (// Bib. Ant. 64.5), where Saul replies: “Have no fear; what do you see?” In both MT and LXX 1 Sam 28:13b the woman uses plural forms in referring to the apparition as “gods” (Tg.: the angel of the Lord). Like the Targum, Josephus eliminates the source’s (potentially) polytheistic wording and plays down its attribution of divine status to Samuel’s ghost. Compare Bib. Ant. 64.5, where the woman states that “his appearance is not that of a man” and then mentions that the figure is being led “by two angels.” Josephus expatiates on Saul’s single, general question of 1 Sam 28:14aα (// Bib. Ant. 64.5): “what is his appearance?” (MT; LXX what do you recognize?). In MT 1 Sam 28:14aβ the woman qualifies the figure as “old,” in LXX rather as “erect.” Josephus’ inserted specification of Samuel’s “cloak” (1 Sam 28:14aβ) as “priestly” might reflect Samuel’s childhood association with the priesthood of Shiloh (see Ant. 5.347), as well his own personal priestly interests.

See 1 Sam 28:14b. Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 64.6) emphasizes that it was Samuel’s “mantle” in particular that caught the attention of Saul, who then recalled the incident of the rending of that mantle as described in 1 Sam 15:27. See 1 Sam 28:15aα. As in 6.332, Josephus specifies that what is brought up is the “soul” (Greek: ψυχή) of Samuel. Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 64.7) has Samuel follow his initial question (// 1 Sam 28:15aα) with an extra-biblical statement, in which he informs Saul that his current manifestation is to be credited, neither to the king nor to the medium, but rather to an order given him by God prior to his death. Josephus closely follows the wording of Saul’s response to Samuel in 1 Sam 28:15aβbα. In particular, whereas in 6.328 (see note to “prophets” at 6.328), he, in contrast to 28:6, referred only to Saul’s use of “prophets” in attempting to obtain an answer from God, he now, under the influence of 28:15, has the king mention his recourse to “dreams” as well. Saul’s words to Samuel in 1 Sam 28:15bβ end with him informing the latter that he has summoned him to “tell me what I should do.” Pseudo-Philo has no equivalent to Saul’s reply in 1 Sam 28:15aβb; in his presentation, Samuel speaks without interruption by Saul throughout Bib. Ant. 64.7-8.

Josephus inserts the reference to Samuel’s perceiving where things stand with Saul. In 1 Sam 28:16 Samuel questions why Saul is querying him, seeing that God has “become his enemy” (MT; LXX: has placed himself on the side of your neighbor). Josephus leaves aside Samuel’s preceding statement in 1 Sam 28:17a, with its reminiscence of his earlier announcement in 1 Sam 15:28, about God’s having “torn the kingdom out of your hand.” This announcement concerning David’s coming military achievements is Josephus’ addition to Samuel’s statement in 1 Sam 28:17b. Pseudo-Philo has no equivalent to the biblical Samuel’s declaration about Saul’s loss of his kingship to David. Josephus anticipates this announcement of Saul’s death from Samuel’s closing word to him in 1 Sam 28:19aβ.

To Samuel’s reminiscence of Saul’s transgression of the divine command concerning Amalek (1 Sam 28:18a), Josephus appends his version of the cross-reference of 28:17a to the former’s earlier announcement of the latter’s loss of kingship (6.150// 1 Sam 15:28). In Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 64.8) Saul’s coming loss of kingship is attributed, not to his disobedience to the divine command about Amalek, but rather to his “envy,” i.e. of David. Josephus, like Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 64.8), reduces the double notice on the Lord’s handing over the Israelite forces to the Philistines of 1 Sam 28:19 to a single one. For this concluding announcement by Samuel Josephus seems to draw on the wording of both MT (“tomorrow you and your sons [will be] with me” = Bib. Ant. 64.8) and LXX B (“tomorrow you and your sons with you will fall”) of 1 Sam 28:19aβ.

Josephus inserts this reference to Saul’s “speechlessness” into the description of his reaction to Samuel’s words in 1 Sam 28:20. By contrast, Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 64.9) has him repeat Samuel’s announcement about himself and his sons, and affirm “my destruction will be atonement for my sins.” Saul then immediately departs (// 1 Sam 28:25b), the whole intervening sequence of 28:20-25a, featuring the woman’s ministrations to the king, being left aside. Josephus offers a double, alternative explanation for Saul’s collapse, the first, i.e. the impact of Samuel’s words upon him, peculiar to himself, the 2nd, namely his preceding all-day fast, corresponding to that of 1 Sam 28:20bβ.

Josephus expatiates on the woman’s summary statement in 1 Sam 28:21: “I have taken my life in my hand.” On the ambiguity in the woman’s word concerning the connection between her “fear” of Saul and her not “recognizing” him, see Marcus ad loc. See 1 Sam 28:22, where the woman speaks only of Saul’s eating the “morsel of bread” she will set before him. Josephus has her allude to a more elaborate repast in view of the hospitality the woman will subsequently offer to her visitors; see 28:24-25a. Josephus here compresses the circumstantial account (1 Sam 28:23) of the eventual success of the woman’s plea. In particular, he makes no explicit mention of the role of Saul’s servants in the proceedings (although his use of the verb “helped persuade” [Greek: συνπείθω; see also συναναγκάζω (“joined in pressing”) earlier in the paragraph] in reference to the woman’s initiatives seems to allude to their involvement).

Josephus expatiates on the summary source reference to the woman’s “fatted calf in the house” (1 Sam 28:24a), thereby accentuating her generosity in using this to feed Saul. Brown (1992: 199) suggests that his elaboration has been influenced by Nathan’s account of the poor man’s beloved “ewe lamb” in 2 Sam 12:3. From the account of the woman’s measures on behalf of her guests in 1 Sam 28:24aβ-25aα, Josephus leaves aside the notices on her preparing unleavened bread to accompany the calf’s flesh. This notice on Saul’s successful return to the Israelite camp, echoing the woman’s plea that he eat and thereby regain the strength to get back to camp (6.338), renders more definite the concluding words of 1 Sam 28:25: “they (Saul and his servants) rose and went away that night.”

Josephus here pauses to interject a 3-paragraph (6.340-342) praise of the woman. On this eulogy and its portrayal of the woman as a (Jewish) exemplar of key Stoic virtues, e.g., clementia, humanitas, and hospitality, see Brown 1992: 200-203. The reference here is to Saul’s expulsion of the various classes of mantics, including the “ventriloquists” of whom the woman is one, as described in 6.327 (// 1 Sam 28:3b) that resulted in her loss of livelihood. In this initial part of his eulogy, Josephus commends the woman for what she did not do, i.e. requite Saul in kind for the harm he had done her or refuse to assist him, despite his being a stranger to her.

The reference here is to Saul’s unwillingness to eat; see 6.338. Josephus’ eulogy now turns to positive praise of the woman, i.e. for her compassion for one in distress, generosity despite her extreme poverty, and her unselfish motivation in acting on behalf of the doomed Saul. This appended maxim about how humans generally operate highlights the extraordinary character of the woman’s benefactions to Saul, who had previously done nothing for her and from whom she knew she had nothing to gain in the future.

Josephus now draws a general moral from his praise of the woman, urging readers to do as she did with the assurance that those who so act are sure to be rewarded by God. His admonition about doing good to others without any expectation of recompense by them is reminiscent of Jesus’ exhortation in Luke 6:35: “... do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great....” With this formula Josephus provides a clear conclusion to his interjected eulogy (6.340-342) of the woman.

Greek: ζηλόω. Here, in contrast to his usage in, e.g., Ant. 8.316, Josephus uses the verb in a positive sense. On Josephus’ tendency to avoid “zeal terminology,” given its appropriation by the “Zealots,” see Begg 1993: 152, n. 983; Spilsbury 1998: 143-44. Josephus now introduces a second appendix (6.343-350) to his account of the “Endor scene,” this one focussed on the person of Saul as an hero in the Greco-Roman mold and as lesson in right living and dying, especially for his fellow kings. On the passage— whose grandiloquent introduction aims to underscores its significance—see Feldman 1998: 521-22.

After the preceding general introduction, Josephus redirects attention to the figure of Saul, the source of the lesson he now wishes to impart, recalling in particular Samuel’s prediction of inescapable doom for him in 6.336. Josephus here goes beyond his own earlier account in spelling out how Saul might have responded, but in fact did not, to Samuel’s announcement. This is Josephus’ only use of the verb φιλοψυχέω (“to be attached to life”) in Antiquities; it occurs 3 times in the War (1.357, 650; 4.164). The cognate noun is used in Ant. 19.261, the cognate adjective in War 7.378.

Josephus here anticipates his account of the heroic deaths of Saul and his sons in 6.368-378. With this statement Josephus provides an answer to the question of why Saul did not at least try to protect his sons from the fate he knew awaited himself. On concern for the posthumous fame to be won by exposing oneself to certain death as a hallmark of Greco-Roman heroes—of whom Saul is the worthy Jewish counterpart in Josephus’ presentation—see Feldman 1998: 521.

As Feldman (1998: 521) points out, Josephus here attributes to Saul 3 of the 4 Greek cardinal virtues. Josephus now begins developing a contrast between the supposed courage of other warriors and that of Saul himself, which alone deserves to be called such. The difference between them, as he will proceed to show, lies not in what they do, but rather in the state of mind with which they enter into the conflicts they face.

Greek: εὔψυχος. On the word-field of this term, see Spicq 1978 (I): 337-38. The cognate noun εὐψυχία occurs at the conclusion of Josephus’ panegyric for Saul in 6.350. Greek: μεγαλότολμος. Josephus uses this adjective of Joshua in Ant. 5.118. These are the only certain occurrences of the term in the Josephan corpus; it is conjectured by Niese in Ant. 12.433. Josephus continues presenting the case of the only apparently courageous—those who engage in battle with some hope that they may emerge alive.

Having spoken of those whose courage is only apparent given that they confront danger with a hope of survival and victory (6.346-347), Josephus now focuses on the truly courageous, i.e. those who enter battle without any such hope.

Josephus here reaches the culminating point of his eulogy of Saul, representing him as one of those truly courageous fighters whose only hope as they go into battle is of posthumous fame (see 6.345). As the woman’s disinterested generosity is commended for imitation in 6.342, so is Saul’s “hopeless” courage here. Josephus’ concluding focus on kings as the primary addressees of his reflection regarding Saul’s career echoes the mention of “kings of nations” as those whom he aims to inspire by means of that reflection in 6.343.

This closing formula, with its recognition that readers might well have had enough of Josephus’ foregoing exaltation of Saul, makes the transition back to the Philistine threat introduced in 6.325, which will eventuate in Saul’s heroic death. The foregoing positive eulogy of Saul for the manner of his death serves to counterbalance Josephus’ extended negative exposé of his fall into hubris, envy, and paranoia in 6.262-268. Not all readers have found the sequence as soul-stirring as Josephus evidently intended it to be. See the tart comment of Montgomery (1920-21: 305, n. 45): “I doubt if there in any better example in all literature of absurd homiletics... than his moral reflections on Saul and the witch of Endor in Ant. 6.14.4.”

The cross-reference here is to the account of the Philistine movements in 6.325 (// 1 Sam 28:1). On Josephus’ version of 1 Samuel 29, see Begg 1998d. Josephus leaves aside the indications of 1 Sam 29:1 concerning the site of both the Philistine and Israelite camps, i.e. “Aphek” and “the fountain which is in Jezreel” (MT; LXX B: Aeddon [LXX L Ain] which is in Israel), respectively. He has previously assigned alternative camping sites to both sides, i.e. “Soune” for the Philistines (6.327) and Mount “Gelboue” for the Israelites (6.328). In MT 1 Sam 29:2 the Philistine “lords” (LXX: satraps) pass on “by hundreds and thousands.” Josephus’ (anachronistic) use of the Persian term “satrapies” in reference to their divisions appears to be inspired by the LXX designation for the Philistine leaders; see Marcus ad loc. See 1 Sam 29:2. Josephus specifies the number of David’s companions in accordance with the figure given by him for those who took refuge with David in Gath; see 6.319// 1 Sam 27:2.

Josephus’ term for these figures (Greek: στρατηγοί) is one of the 2 designations used by LXX L 1 Sam 29:3 (the other being “satraps,” the LXX B term; MT has “princes,” ‮שׂרים‬‎). The Bible does not explicitly mention their “seeing” David. The first part of the generals’ question according to Josephus corresponds to the reading of MT 1 Sam 29:3 (“what are these Hebrews [Tg.: Jews] doing here?”) as opposed to LXX (“who are these who are crossing over?”). Its 2nd part lacks a biblical counterpart. From Achish’s initial reply in 1 Sam 29:3b Josephus omits the variable indications concerning the duration of David’s stay with himself: “days or these two years” (so literally MT [RSV: for days and years]); “(this makes) days (that he has been with us); it is the second year” (LXX B); “it is already the second year of days” (LXX L). Earlier (6.322; cf. 1 Sam 27:7), Josephus stated that David spent 4 months and 20 days in the Philistine city of “Sekella.” This statement concerning David’s current intentions takes the place of Achish’s declaration in 1 Sam 29:3b: “... since he deserted to me I have found no fault in him till this day.” Achish’s report here concerning David echoes the latter’s own words to the king as cited in 6.326: “... he said that the time had come for him to repay his benefactions and make recompense for his hospitality.” On “ally language” as a Leitwort of Josephus’ version of 1 Sam 28:1-2; 29:1-11 in 6.325-326, 351-355, see note to “allies” at 6.325. On the apologetic thrust of this emphasis on David’s being a (loyal) “ally” of the Philistines, i.e. as intimating that (also contemporary) Jews can indeed be good allies of foreign powers and as legitimating Josephus’ own (David-like) role as “ally” of the Romans, see Begg 1998d: 118-19.

Josephus leaves aside the notice of 1 Sam 29:4aα concerning the emotional state of the Philistine generals, i.e. their “anger” at Achish (MT; LXX: “they were distressed because of him”). In having the Philistine commanders speak of David as (already) their “enemy,” Josephus diverges from 1 Sam 29:4bα, where they refer to the possibility of his becoming an “opponent” (MT ‮שׂטן‬‎; LXX ἐπίβουλος, “plotter”) in the upcoming battle. In 1 Sam 29:4aβ the commanders begin by calling on Achish to send David back “to the place which you have assigned him (i.e. Ziklag; see 1 Sam 27:6).” Leaving aside the source specification about where the dismissed David is to go for the moment (but see 6.354), Josephus appends his own motivation for the generals’ directive. Josephus turns into a single statement the generals’ double question of 1 Sam 29:4bβ: “For how could this fellow reconcile himself to his lord? Would it not be with the heads of the men here?”

Josephus has the generals reiterate their call for David’s dismissal from 1 Sam 29:4aβ, now reproducing the specification, based on 1 Sam 27:6 (// 6.355) about where David is to go. He likewise has them prescribe the dismissal of the 600 in David’s entourage (see 6.351). Josephus aligns his rendition of the quotation of the women’s acclamation as first reported in 1 Sam 18:7// 6.195 with his earlier evocation of this in 6.245 (// 1 Sam 21:12). In particular, in both 6.245 and 354, he eliminates the (irrelevant) mention of Saul’s exploits and specifies that those acclaiming David were “virgins” (compare 29:5a: “... they [the women] sang to one another...”). Josephus provides a more flowing transition between Achish’s exchange with the Philistine generals (1 Sam 29:3-5) and his following dialogue with David (29:6-10), noting in particular the king’s “agreement” with what the generals told him. In his subsequent report to David (6.355) Achish will, however, make no mention of his interior assent to the generals’ words; see note to “generals” at 6.355.

From Achish’s initial words to David in 1 Sam 29:6, Josephus eliminates the opening oath formula (“as the Lord lives”), while accentuating the king’s acknowledgement of David’s fidelity. Josephus inserts this statement by Achish, echoing his affirmation to the Philistine generals in 6.352, about his having taken David along as an “ally” (see note to “ally to them” at 6.352), given the latter’s impeccable behavior towards himself. In having Achish thus contrast his own view of David and what should be done with him with that of the Philistine commanders, Josephus aligns himself with the reading of MT LXX L 1 Sam 29:6b, where the king informs David “the lords do not approve of you”; compare LXX B, which lacks the negation. At the same time, Josephus’ king appears as less than candid in his words, distancing himself from the generals’ opinion of him, to David, given that just previously in 6.354, Josephus inserts a reference to Achish’s finding the generals’ negative remarks concerning David “well said.” Josephus here conflates the double “dismissal order” given David by Achish, first in 1 Sam 29:7 and then in 29:10 (whose longer LXX version with its reference to David’s going “to the place which I gave you” [see 29:4// 6.354] Josephus follows). In so doing, he passes over the (repetitious) intervening exchange between the 2 men of 29:8-9, where David (v. 8) voices a protesting question about Achish’s having no reason to doubt his loyalty to him that the latter has already answered in v. 7, Achish then responding (v. 9) with a reiteration of his earlier statements about the diverging perspectives of himself and the Philistine commanders regarding David. Achish’s concluding remark to David about what an “alliance” involves has no counterpart in 1 Samuel 29. On the other hand, the king’s directive that David “guard (Greek: φυλάσσω) the country” seems inspired by the LXX plus in 1 Sam 29:11, where David goes to “guard” (Greek: φυλάσσω) the Philistine country.

This inserted phrase serves to underscore David’s continued, ready obedience to his overlord— he had come along at the latter’s command (6.325) and now he goes back when so directed by him, without a word of demurral. In the same line, Josephus passes over David’s earlier protest (see 1 Sam 29:8) about Achish’s questioning his loyalty to him and directing him to depart; see note to “no wrong” at 6.355. Josephus anticipates this specification about where David goes from 1 Sam 30:1. It takes the place of the notice of 29:11b: “but the Philistines went up to Jezreel” (MT; LXX: the Philistines went up to fight against Israel). This transitional phrase, harking back to 6.325, where Achish summons David “to join him as an ally” on the Philistine campaign, substitutes for the notice of 1 Sam 30:1aα that David’s party reached Ziklag “on the third day.” On Josephus’ version of 1 Samuel 30, see Begg 1997k. See 1 Sam 30:1aβbα, where the Amalekites’ “raid” encompasses “the Negeb” as well. See 1 Sam 30:1bβ-2. Josephus inserts the reference to the Amalekites’ taking plunder also from the remainder of the Philistine country, perhaps under the influence of 30:16, where the Amalekites are pictured enjoying the spoil they had taken “from the land of the Philistines.”

For this notice on the losses that David and his men discover upon their arrival at Ziklag, Josephus combines elements of 1 Sam 30:3 and 5 (from which he omits the names of David’s 2 wives, who had previously joined him at Ziklag; see 6.321// 1 Sam 27:3). This action by David is not mentioned in 1 Samuel 30. Its insertion serves to highlight the emotional intensity of the scene, and David’s own role therein.

See 1 Sam 30:4. See 1 Sam 30:6aβ. Josephus’ addendum to the mention of the people’s distress over the loss of their family members in 1 Sam 30:6bα clarifies why this should have prompted them to threaten to kill David (30:6aβ), i.e. they blame David for what had happened. Whereas 30:6bα speaks only of the people’s grief for their children, Josephus, under the influence of 30:3, also mentions their “wives.”

This transitional phrase is Josephus’ clarifying rendition of 1 Sam 30:6bβ: “But David strengthened himself in God.” In 1 Sam 30:7a David commands Abiathar to bring him the “ephod.” Like LXX B, Josephus lacks an equivalent to MT and LXX L 30:7b, which state that Abiathar did as directed. Josephus’ last previous mention of Abiathar was in 6.261 (// 1 Sam 22:21). Josephus’ addition of this word to the source phrase “inquire of the Lord” (see 1 Sam 30:8a, where the grammatical subject is David himself) reflects both his tendency to introduce such terminology in contexts where the Bible lacks it and his characteristic linkage of priesthood and prophecy. Josephus expands David’s 2-part question in 1 Sam 30:8a about his pursuing and overtaking the raiders with 2 additional queries, these concerning his ability to “rescue” and “take vengeance,” should he catch up with the Amalekites. The 2nd of these additional questions is likely inspired by the divine assurance of 30:8b that he would indeed “rescue.”

Josephus limits the divine answer to David of 1 Sam 30:8b to its opening directive, i.e. “pursue,” leaving aside the appended assurances about his “overtaking” and “rescuing” (already incorporated by him into the wording of David’s question; see previous note). Josephus’ figure for those who accompany David agrees with that cited in MT LXX L 1 Sam 30:9aα, as opposed to the 400 of LXX B. MT (1 Sam 30:9) ‮בשׂור‬‎ (Eng.: “Besor”); LXX Βοσόρ; Josephus Βάσελος. Josephus leaves aside the indications of 1 Sam 30:9b-10 about 200 of David’s men staying behind at the brook due to exhaustion while the remainder press on (MT LXX L; LXX B differs considerably). He will, however, make use of the subsequent biblical allusion to this development (1 Sam 30:21); see 6.365. In 1 Sam 30:11a “they” find the Egyptian “in the open country” and lead him to David. Josephus’ compressed presentation has him found by David himself “at the brook.” Josephus anticipates these particulars concerning the man’s state from 1 Sam 30:12bβ. Continuing to keep attention focused on David himself, Josephus ascribes the man’s revival to David personally, whereas “they” attend to the Egyptian in 1 Sam 30:11b. He passes over the fig-cake and 2 clusters of raisins (> B) that are given the man according to 30:12a. Having anticipated the notice of 1 Sam 30:12bβ about the man’s state (see note to “food” at 6.360), Josephus directly links his revival (30:12bα) and David’s double question to him (30:13a). In 30:13 David’s initial question is “to whom do you belong?” The MSP variant in 6.360 features this same question.

From the man’s reply (1 Sam 30:13b) Josephus leaves aside his mention of being the “servant to an Amalekite”—this answering David’s opening question (“to whom do you belong?”) previously reworded by him (see note to “where he came” at 6.360)—as well as the chronological indication about his sickness having overtaken him “three days ago” (which he incorporated into his initial presentation of the man in 6.360). Josephus conflates and simplifies the man’s statement in 1 Sam 30:14, where he acknowledges his involvement in raids on portions of the Negeb belonging to 3 different entities (MT: the Cherethites, Judah, and Caleb), as well as in the burning of Ziklag itself. Continuing to streamline the biblical account, he leaves aside the appended exchange between David and the Egyptian of 30:15, in which David asks the latter whether he will conduct him to the Amalekites, and the Egyptian agrees to do so, provided that David swears neither to kill him or turn him over to his master. He will, however, incorporate David’s “guide request” of 30:15a into his subsequent narrative; see note to “guide to the Amalekites” at 6.362.

With this rendering of 1 Sam 30:16aα (“and when he [the Egyptian] had taken him down...”), Josephus once again highlights David’s initiative in and control over the course of events. His reference to the use of the man as a “guide” draws on David’s question to him about his willingness to “take him down” to the raiders in 30:15a, previously passed over by him. Josephus both elaborates on the picture of the Amalekites’ camp given in 1 Sam 30:16aβb (e.g., with his interjected reference to their breakfasting and being “already drunk”), and simplifies this (he does not reproduce the notice on the 2 sources of the Amalekites’ plunder, i.e. the land of Judah and the land of the Philistines—see, however, note to “withdrew” at 6.356).

Josephus greatly elaborates on the summary mention of David’s “smiting” the Amalekites of 1 Sam 30:17a. Feldman (1998: 563-64) points out that his embellishment of the massacre scene with a variety of gory details has a counterpart in his treatment of Abraham’s victory over the kings (Gen 14:14-15) in Ant. 1.177. He further suggests that, in both instances, Josephus may have found inspiration in Herodotus’ account (1.211) of Cyrus’ rout of his enemies.

1 Sam 30:17a mentions only David’s role in the massacre; Josephus gives credit to his men as well. Whereas the LXX seems to extend the massacre over 2 days (“from the early morning light until the evening of the next day”), Josephus, like MT, limits it to a single day. See 1 Sam 30:17b. Josephus compresses the circumstantial enumeration of the recovered plunder given in 1 Sam 30:18-20, omitting, e.g., mention of the flocks and herds and the designation of these as “David’s spoil” from v. 20.

See 1 Sam 30:21a. As pointed out earlier (see note to “a certain brook called Basel” at 6. 360), Josephus does not reproduce the notices in 30:9b-10, to which this passage alludes. Here, he passes over the appended account—with its variations among the textual witnesses—of 30:21b concerning the encounter of David and his forces with the 200. 1 Sam 30:22 attributes the refusal to “all the wicked and base fellows among the men” who had accompanied David. Josephus extends the refusal to the entire 400. From the objectors’ words in 1 Sam 30:22 Josephus omits the “children” of the 200 whom they would allow the latter to take back along with their wives.

With this qualification of the proposed scheme by David, Josephus “reapplies” the source characterization of the objectors themselves (“all the base and wicked fellows,” 1 Sam 30:22a) to their proposal, substituting this for David’s opening declaration in 30:23: “you shall not do so, my brothers (> B).” Josephus’ explicit mention of the “enemies” upon whom God has allowed David and his men to take vengeance aligns his wording with the plus of LXX L in 1 Sam 30:23, whereas in MT and LXX B David speaks generally of “what the Lord has given us.” See 1 Sam 30:24b. Josephus has no equivalent to David’s (extraneous) question of 30:24a (“who would listen to you [the objectors] in this matter?”) or to the attached plus of LXX (“they [the 200] are not inferior to you”).

Josephus’ impersonal formulation reflects that of LXX 1 Sam 30:25 (“that became an ordinance and legal prescription for Israel...”) as opposed to MT’s “he (David) made it a statute...” The biblical provision for the distribution of plunder among the participants in a campaign that Josephus reproduces here has a counterpart in Roman military history as reported by Polybius (10.16.5). According to this author, following his capture of New Carthage, Scipio directed that the spoils of the city be divided equally among his entire force, including the reserves, those left to guard the camp, and even the sick. Josephus’ wording follows MT 1 Sam 30:26a, which seems to identify David’s “friends/neighbors” with the “elders of Judah” as the recipients of the spoils, whereas LXX L distinguishes the 2 groups, and LXX B speaks of David sending “the plunder of Judah” to the “elders” and “his neighbors.” He leaves aside David’s appended word of 30:26b designating his award as a “present for you from the enemies of the Lord” (MT LXX L; LXX B: “behold plunder taken from the enemies of the Lord”). This closing formula for Josephus’ version of 1 Samuel 30 (6.356-367) takes the place of the list of 13 localities to which David dispatches the plunder in 1 Sam 30:27-31.

See 1 Sam 31:1// 1 Chr 10:1. Josephus reserves for a later point the sources’ reference to the Israelites’ flight; see 6.369. On Josephus’ version of 1 Samuel 31 // 1 Chronicles 10, see Begg 1999b. 1 Sam 31:2// 1 Chr 10:2 speak simply of the Philistines pursuing Saul and his sons and killing the latter. Josephus, in line with his earlier eulogy of Saul (6.343-350), accentuates the heroic resistance offered by both the king and his sons.

Josephus’ embellishment of 1 Sam 31:2// 1 Chr 10:2 continues with this appended statement that, prior to being killed themselves, Saul and his sons inflicted many casualties. Greek: Ἀμινάδαβος, the declined form of the name of Saul’s 2nd son as read by LXX L 1 Sam 31:2 and LXX BL 1 Chr 10:2. The MT of both verses reads “Abinadab,” while LXX B 1 Sam 31:2 has “Ionadab.” In 6.129 Josephus calls Saul’s 2nd son “Iesous.” MT 1 Sam 31:2// 1 Chr 10:2 read “Melchishua”; LXX B 1 Sam 31:2 has Μελχεισά, LXX L 1 Sam 31:2 and LXX BL 1 Chr 10:2 Μελ(ε)ισσούε, and Josephus Μέλχισος (as in 6.129). This is Josephus’ delayed version of the “flight notice” of 1 Sam 31:1aβ// 1 Chr 10:1aβ; he “motivates” the Israelites’ flight as their response to the deaths of the 3 princes. With this appended notice on the circumstances attending the Israelites’ flight, Josephus heightens the drama of the scene.

This notice on Saul’s fleeing along with his retinue has no counterpart in the biblical sources. This reference to the decimation of Saul’s retinue might represent an anticipation of the MT LXX L reading in 1 Sam 31:6, which states that “all his (Saul’s) men” were killed that day. To 1 Sam 31:3// 1 Chr 10:3’s mention of the Philistine “archers,” Josephus adds “javelin-throwers.” The reference to Saul’s being “wounded” reflects the LXX reading in 1 Sam 31:3 and 1 Chr 10:3, whereas the vocalized MT in both verses speaks of the king’s “writhing in fear because of the archers”—not, in any case, the image of Saul Josephus wishes to convey. Josephus’ attached remarks on the effect of his wounds on Saul prepare his following description of the king’s inability to complete his attempted suicide. Josephus explains the king’s command to his armor-bearer as cited in 1 Sam 31:4a// 1 Chr 10:4a in terms of the former’s being so weakened by his wounds that he is unable to kill himself. From Saul’s command in the source texts he eliminates the derogatory designation of the Philistines as “these uncircumcised,” while also compressing the enumeration of the reasons why Saul wishes to die at this point. In Pseudo-Philo Saul, prior to commanding his armor-bearer to kill him (Bib. Ant. 65.2), asks himself (65.1) while he is still trying to live, given Samuel’s announcement (see 64.8) that he and his sons are to die this day.

See 1 Sam 31:4b// 1 Chr 10:4b. At this point, Josephus begins incorporating elements of the alternative account of Saul’s death, i.e. the report made to David by the Amalekite as cited in 2 Sam 1:6-10, into his version of 1 Samuel 31// 1 Chronicles 10. He does this out of a concern to harmonize the 2 apparently discordant narratives (Pseudo-Philo proceeds similarly in Bib. Ant. 65.3-4). Specifically, he draws here on 2 Sam 1:6, where the Amalekite speaks of his encountering Saul “leaning on his spear”—Josephus turning this into a “sword” in line with the presentation of 1 Sam 31:4b// 1 Chr 10:4b— and 1:7 (which mentions Saul’s “looking behind him”). See 2 Sam 1:7-8a, from which Josephus omits Saul’s calling to the youth and the latter’s responding “Here I am.” In Bib. Ant. 65.3-4, in a reversal of the sequence of 2 Sam 1:8-9, Saul asks the youth to kill him before inquiring who he is. See 2 Sam 1:8b-9. Josephus modifies the motivation given by Saul for his request to be dispatched by the Amalekite in 1:9, i.e. “for anguish has seized me, and yet my life still lingers,” which seems to detract from Saul’s heroic image. In Bib. Ant. 65.4 the youth identifies himself more specifically as Edabus, the son of Agag, who was conceived just prior to his father’s execution (see 58.3-4). Saul then recalls Samuel’s words concerning this figure, whom he now commissions (65.5) to report his having killed him to David and to ask David “not to remember my hatred and injustice.” For other identifications of Saul’s killer elsewhere in Jewish tradition (Doeg, the son of Doeg), see Begg 1999b: 492, n. 53. Feldman (1998: 532-33 and nn. 32-33) draws attention to Josephus’ lack of comment on Saul’s (assisted) suicide, notwithstanding his emphatic condemnation of that practice in the speech delivered by him in War 3.361-383 (compare Eleazar’s discourse to the defenders of Masada urging their joint suicide cited, with apparent approval by Josephus in War 7.323-336, 341-388). Feldman attributes the lack of such negative commentary on Saul’s deed to Josephus’ desire not to detract in any way from the heroism of the king’s death.

Josephus reverses the order of the 2 items that the Amalekite mentions having removed from Saul’s body in 2 Sam 1:10. The reference to the youth’s self-concealment is his own addition. See 1 Sam 31:5// 1 Chr 10:5. Josephus seems to be drawing here on the MT LXX L plus in 1 Sam 31:6 with its reference—already anticipated by him in 6.370—to the demise of “all Saul’s men” (1 Chr 10:6 speaks of the death of all Saul’s “house”). The mention of “Mt. Gilboa (Gelboue)” as the site of their death stems from 1 Sam 31:1 // 1 Chr 10:1; Josephus previously mentioned the mountain as Saul’s camping place in 6.328.

Like 1 Sam 31:7, Josephus distinguishes between 2 groups of Israelites who respond to Saul’s defeat, i.e. those across the Jordan and those living “in the plain,” i.e. of Jezreel (1 Chr 10:7 mentions only this latter group), even while reversing the sequence in which they appear there. To the notice on the Israelites’ flight (1 Sam 31:7a// 1 Chr 10:7a) Josephus appends an indication as to where they headed. See 1 Sam 31:7b// 1 Chr 10:7b.

See 1 Sam 31:8// 1 Chr 10:8. In his explicit mention of the Philistines’ “beheading” the bodies, Josephus goes together with MT LXX L 1 Sam 31:9 against LXX B 31:9 and 1 Chr 10:9. In both 31:9-10 and 10:9-10, the reference is to the Philistines’ dealings with the remains of Saul alone. Josephus, in 6.374-375, has their measures extend also to the sons’ remains, given that in 31:8// 10:8 the Philistines discover the bodies of both Saul and his sons. Josephus provides a content for the “good news” that the Philistines send their messengers to convey in 1 Sam 31:9// 1 Chr 10:9. He generalizes the recipients of that news in comparison with both sources, i.e. “the house of their idols and the people” (MT 31:9)/ “their idols and their people” (LXX 31:9 and 1 Chr 10:9). Josephus uses the same form (Ἀστάρτειον) as does LXX 1 Sam 31:10 to designate the site where the armor is deposited (compare MT 31:10: the temple of Astaroth; 1 Chr 10:10: the temple of their gods). MT (1 Sam 31:10b) ‮בית שׁן‬‎ (Eng.: “Beth-shan”); LXX B Βαιθέμ; LXX L Βαιθσάν; Josephus Βηθσάν (so RO, which Niese and Marcus follow). In 1 Chr 10:10b it is Saul’s “skull” that is “nailed up” in the temple of Dagon. Josephus had previously noted this newer, Greek name for Hebrew “Beth-shan” in Ant. 5.83.

1 Sam 31:11// 1 Chr 10:11 designate the site as “Jabesh-gilead.” Although neither the Bible nor Josephus make the connection explicit, the initiative on Saul’s behalf undertaken by the town’s population undoubtedly was inspired by his delivery of them from the threat by King Nahash of Ammon (see 1 Sam 11:1-11 // 6.68-80). Josephus supplies this indication concerning the inhabitants’ motivation for acting as they now do. Josephus embellishes the biblical references (1 Sam 31:12// 1 Chr 10:12) to the “valiant men” of Jabesh, here again underscoring the courage of his people for Gentile readers.

Josephus’ wording here reflects that of 1 Sam 31:12 as opposed to 1 Chr 10:12 (which does not mention either the all-night march or the wall of Beth-shan). In referring to the bodies of Saul’s “sons,” Josephus aligns himself with MT 31:12 against LXX, which mentions only the body of Jonathan. This further accentuation of the valor of the Jabeshites takes the place of the concluding words of 1 Sam 31:12 (otherwise followed by Josephus), i.e. “and they (the Jabeshites) burned them (the bodies of Saul and his sons) there,” which is also lacking in 1 Chr 10:12. See, however, next note.

Greek: κλαύσαντες. Niese (ad loc.) conjectures καύσαντες (“burning”) in light of the reference in 1 Sam 31:12b to the Jabeshites “burning” the bodies. See previous note. Josephus’ designation for the burial site represents an elaboration of that given in LXX BL 1 Sam 31: 13, i.e. “beneath the field (Greek: ἄρουρα) of Jabeis.” MT 31:13 has the corpses buried under a tamarisk, 1 Chr 10:12 under a terebinth. Compare the similar case in 6.251 // 1 Sam 22:6. As often in his burial accounts, Josephus embellishes the notice of 1 Sam 31:13b// 1 Chr 10:12b, which mentions only a 7-day fast by the Jabeshites for Saul and his sons.

See 6.336, where the soul of Samuel informs Saul: “... tomorrow you, having fallen in battle along with your sons, will be with me.” Josephus here adapts the reflection on the death of Saul in 1 Chr 10:13-14, where Saul is first charged generally with unfaithfulness to the Lord and not keeping his “word,” and then more specifically with “consulting a medium” (see 1 Sam 28:3-25, a passage not reproduced by the Chronicler). For the latter charge, Josephus, who nowhere explicitly condemns Saul’s consultation of the medium, substitutes 2 others, i.e. Saul’s disobedience to the command that he exterminate the Amalekites (6.131-15 // 1 Samuel 15) and his massacre of the priests of Nob (6.250-268// 1 Sam 22:6-19). Midr. Samuel 24.7, commenting on 1 Chr 10:13, states that Saul died for 5 sins, the 2nd and 3rd of which are those cited by Josephus here. This chronological appendix has no equivalent in either 1 Samuel 31 or 1 Chronicles 10. Josephus has already mentioned the 18 years of Saul and Samuel’s co-rule in 6.294. His further datum of 22 years for Saul’s subsequent sole rule here gives the king an overall reign of 40 years; this agrees with the figure cited by Paul in Acts 13:21, but diverges from Josephus’ own dating in Ant. 10.143, where Saul is assigned a reign of 20 years. Lat harmonizes 6.378 and 10.143 by reading, not 22, but rather 2 years for the time Saul reigned alone in the former text; Rappaport 1930: 51, #210 holds that the reading in 6.378 (40 years for Saul’s total reign) stems from a Christian scribe, influenced by Acts 13:21. The 2nd century BCE Jewish historian Eupolemos (in the extract from Alexander Polyhistor cited by Eusebius in his Preap. ev. 9.30.2) assigns still another duration to Saul’s reign, i.e. 21 years. In contrast to 1 Chr 10:14 (“therefore the Lord slew him”) Josephus avoids attributing Saul’s death directly to God.

2 Sam 1:1 dates David’s return to Ziklag “after the death of Saul.” In synchronizing the battle of Mt. Gilboa in which Saul lost his life (1 Samuel 31// 1 Chronicles 10// Ant. 6.368-378) with David’s coming back to Ziklag after his successful pursuit of the Amalekites (1 Samuel 30// 6.356-367), Josephus excludes any idea that David might have been present for the battle as an ally of the Philistines. On Josephus’ version of 2 Samuel 1, see Begg 1999c. Josephus derives this double chronological indication from 2 Sam 1:1b and the opening words of 1:2. 2 Sam 1:2aα speaks simply of “a man from Saul’s camp.” Josephus’ more definite designation reflects the fact that in his version of 1 Samuel 31// 1 Chronicles 10 in Ant. 6.368-378 he has, for the purpose of harmonizing the 2 accounts, introduced elements from 2 Samuel 1, in particular the figure of the Amalekite who claims to have slain Saul in this text (see 2 Sam 1:6-10// 6.371-372). See 2 Sam 1:2aβ.

See 2 Sam 1:2b. See 2 Sam 1:3, where (v. 3b) the man responds that he has “escaped from the camp of Israel.” In having the man continue his report here, Josephus passes over David’s interjected question of 2 Sam 1:4a about the outcome of the battle. In 2 Sam 1:4b the man mentions only Jonathan as having perished along with his father. The plural “sons” of Josephus’ version reflects the notice of 1 Sam 31:2 // 1 Chr 10:2// Ant. 6.369 according to which 3 of Saul’s sons perished with him.

Here too (see note to “to him” at 7.2), Josephus passes over an interruption of the man’s report by David, who in 2 Sam 1:5 asks how he knows that Saul and Jonathan are indeed dead. In 2 Sam 1:6 the man reports additional details about his encounter with the wounded Saul that Josephus leaves aside, given that he has already related that encounter in detail in Ant. 6.371. In proceeding immediately to the man’s confession of having killed Saul at the latter’s request (// 2 Sam 1:10a), Josephus passes over his report of the initial exchange between himself and Saul (1:8-9), given his anticipation of this in Ant. 6.371. The man’s explanation of why Saul asked him to dispatch him and why he had agreed to do this (which replaces the indications on the matter given in 2 Sam 1:10b) harks back to Josephus’ own description of Saul’s inability to finish himself off due to his weakened condition in Ant. 6.370-371.

See 2 Sam 1:10b, to which Josephus adds the opening indication concerning the purpose of the man’s bringing the 2 items to David. Josephus has already introduced an anticipated mention of his taking these in Ant. 6.372; both there and here in 7.4 he specifies that the objects were of “gold.” Josephus interjects this notice of the effects of the man’s display upon David. From 2 Sam 1:11-12 Josephus leaves aside both the “fasting” of David and his retinue and the “occasion” of their mourning rites, the death of the king, princes, and people.

This remark on David’s particular sorrow for Jonathan has no explicit parallel in 2 Samuel 1; cf., however, his emotionally charged words concerning the latter in 1:25-26. This notice, highlighting the magnanimity of David, lacks an explicit biblical parallel. Its reference to David’s distress over the death of his persecutor Saul does reflect the exclusively positive tenor of his eulogy for the king in 2 Sam 1:17-27, while the mention of his punishing the regicide looks ahead to what follows immediately in 1:13-16.

Josephus anticipates this word of judgment from 2 Sam 1:16b, where it stands, rather illogically, after the man has already been put to death at David’s command (1:15). He leaves aside David’s preceding word of 1:16a (“your blood be upon your head”). Josephus conflates the sequence of 2 Sam 1:13 (David’s asking where the man is from [a question already posed by him in 1:3// 7.2] and the latter’s reply that he is “the son of an Amalekite”) and 15 (at David’s direction, one of his men kills the Amalekite). He leaves aside David’s intervening question of 1:14 to the man about his daring to “destroy the Lord’s anointed” with its problematic “Messiah-language.” This general notice takes the place of the “source reference” for David’s lament (2 Sam 1:17) and the actual text of that lament in 1:18-27. In not reproducing the wording of the source poem, Josephus follows his earlier procedure regarding the Songs of Deborah (Judges 5) and of Hannah (1 Sam 2:1-10).

Josephus inserts this transitional phrase. 2 Sam 2:1 speaks simply of David’s “inquiring of the Lord.” Josephus inserts mention of a (nameless) prophetic intermediary, just as he did in his rewriting of 1 Sam 23:3 in Ant. 6.271. Josephus compresses the double exchange between David and the Lord in 2 Sam 2:1, where David first asks whether he should go up to any of the Judean cities and then, when he is told to do so, asks which city it should be. See 2 Sam 2:1b-2a. Josephus interjects the reference to David’s leaving “Sikella” (i.e. Ziklag; see 7.1) to go to Hebron. 2 Sam 2:2 gives the names of the 2 women, i.e. Ahinoam and Abigail; as in Ant. 6.357 (// 1 Sam 30:5) Josephus omits these. Similarly, in Life 1-6 he passes over the names of the women of his own family line. See 2 Sam 2:3a, which mentions “his men who with him, every one with his household” accompanying David. Josephus omits the notice of 2:3b about the whole party settling “in the towns of Hebron.”

In 2 Sam 2:4a the Judeans “anoint” David their king; characteristically, Josephus replaces this verb with one lacking its “messianic” associations. 2 Sam 2:4b mentions only the burial of Saul himself; Josephus’ addition of his sons brings what David “hears” into conformity with the Jabeshites’ deed as described by him in Ant. 6.377 (// 1 Sam 31:12-13// 1 Chr 10:12). Josephus rewords David’s message of 2 Sam 2:5-6a so as to eliminate its double invocation of the Deity, first in the benediction of v. 5 and then in the petitionary prayer of v. 6a. In 2 Sam 2:6b David alludes to “this thing” which the Jabeshites have done; Josephus has him spell out its content. See 2 Sam 2:7b whose verb “anoint,” echoing that of 2:4a, Josephus replaces here as well (see note to “king” at 7.8). He leaves aside David’s exhorting the Jabeshites to resolution and the motivation of this in terms of Saul’s death of v. 7a.

Josephus here recalls the personal data concerning Abner given by him in Ant. 6.129-130 (// 1 Sam 14:50b-51). Expatiating on the notice of 2 Sam 2:8 concerning Abner’s initiative, Josephus inserts both a characterization of him and a reference to the report about the death of the king and the 3 princes (cf. Ant. 6.369) that prompts his action on behalf of Saul’s surviving son. Josephus’ reference to the “camp” from which Abner takes Saul’s son corresponds to the plus of LXX BL 2 Sam 2:8. MT (2 Sam 2:8) ‮אישׁ בשׁת‬‎ (Eng.: “Ish-bosheth”); LXX B Ἰεβόσθε; LXX L Εἰσβάαλ (MS 93; emended text Ἰσβάαλ), Μεμφιβόσθε (MSS 19 108 82 127); Josephus Ἰέβοσθος. 2 Sam 2:8b does not explicitly mention the “Jordan”; Josephus introduces the term in light of source’s use of the verb “bring over.” In 2 Sam 2:9 Abner makes Ish-bosheth king over various named regions on both sides of the Jordan, summed up in the phrase “all Israel,” while 2:10b notes that “the house of Judah followed David.” Josephus leaves aside the series of (displaced) chronological notices of 2:10a (Ish-bosheth accedes at age 40 and rules 2 years) and 2:11 (David rules at Hebron for 7 1/2 years).

MT (2 Sam 2:8) ‮מחנים‬‎ (Eng.: “Mahanaim”); LXX B Μανάεμ (LXX L “translates” the Hebrew name with the phrase “in the camps”); Josephus Μάναλις. Josephus’ “translation” of the Hebrew place name corresponds to that given in LXX L 2 Sam 2:8b; see previous note. Josephus, alluding back to 7.8, supplies both a purpose and a motivation for Abner’s move as related in 2 Sam 2:12, where he advances from “Mahanaim to Gibeon.”

MT (2 Sam 2:13) ‮יואב‬‎ (Eng.: “Joab”); LXX Ἰωάβ; Josephus Ιώαβος. On Josephus’ (highly ambivalent) portrayal of Joab—whom he mentions for the first time here—see Feldman 1998a: 203-14. Josephus adds the indication concerning Joab’s rank to the mention of him in 2 Sam 2:13, anticipating this from 8:15. Josephus previously mentioned “Souria” (“Zeruiah” in the Bible) as sister of David in Ant. 6.311 (cf. 1 Sam 26:6). The Bible nowhere names the husband of Zeruiah and the father of her 3 sons; cf., however, the reference to this figure’s tomb in 2 Sam 2:32. Marcus (ad loc.) suggests that Josephus might have in mind the father of another biblical Joab, i.e. “Seraiah” (LXX: Σαραί) mentioned in 1 Chr 4:14. Alternatively, Σουρί might be seen as an erroneous partial duplication of the name of Joab’s mother (Σαρουίας) cited a few words back in 7.11. In 2 Sam 2:13a Joab sets out on his own initiative; Josephus underscores his subordination to King David. Josephus has mentioned this figure (“Abishai” in the Bible) as a companion of David in Ant. 6.311-312 (// 1 Sam 26:6-9). MT (2 Sam 2:18) ‮אשׁהאל‬‎ (Eng.: “Asahel”); LXX Ἀσαήλ; Josephus Ἀσάηλος. Josephus anticipates his mention of the presence of Joab’s 2 brothers on the expedition from 2 Sam 2:18. 2 Sam 2:13a speaks of David’s “servants” accompanying Joab. MT 2 Sam 2:13a designates the site of the encounter as “Gibeon.” Josephus’ form of the place name corresponds to that of LXX. This indication takes the place of the mention of the 2 forces sitting on opposite sites of the pool in 2 Sam 2:13b.

Josephus provides a motivation for Abner’s proposal (which in 2 Sam 2:14a reads: “let the young men arise and play before us”) to which Joab gives his assent in 2:14b (“let them arise”), likewise clarifying the meaning of the term “play” used by Abner. He makes part of the agreement itself the number of those who are to fight, anticipating the figure from 2:15. Josephus inserts the detail about the generals’ choosing the fighters. This preliminary action of the fighters is not mentioned in the account of the contest given in 2 Sam 2:16. See 2 Sam 2:16, from which Josephus omits the etiological notice of v. 16b about the site being called “Helkath-hazzurim” (RSV note: “field of the sword-edges”; LXX: “field of the plotters”).

See 2 Sam 2:17. 2 Sam 2:18 simply mentions the presence of Joab along with his 2 brothers at the moment of Abner’s defeat and then moves immediately to a focus on Asahel. Josephus highlights the initiative of the general Joab as the pursuit gets under way.

In 2 Sam 2:19 Asahel seems to pursue Abner on his own initiative. In Josephus’ presentation he does so in response to Joab’s exhortation; see previous note. This notice, underscoring Asahel’s speed, takes the place of the image used in 2 Sam 2:18b, which calls him “as swift of foot as a wild gazelle.” See 2 Sam 2:19. Josephus leaves aside the (superfluous) initial exchange between the 2 men of 2:20, in which Abner asks Asahel if it is he, and the latter responds affirmatively.

See 2 Sam 2:21. Josephus uses the same word (πανοπλία, “armor”) as does LXX for that which Asahel is urged to “strip.” The corresponding MT term (‮חלצה‬‎; RSV “spoil”) is of uncertain meaning. In 2 Sam 2:22 Abner asks, rhetorically, how, if he kills Asahel, he could face his brother Joab. Josephus’ rendition accentuates the 2 men’s amity and hence Abner’s unwillingness to do the deed to which Asahel’s continued pursuit is driving him. Josephus omits the gory details of 2 Sam 2:23aβbα, where Abner strikes Asahel with the butt of his spear with such force that it comes out his back.

See 2 Sam 2:23bβ. Josephus provides a motive for the brothers’ continued pursuit (2 Sam 2:24a) when the rest of the army abandons this (2:23bβ). MT (2 Sam 2:24) ‮אמה‬‎ (Eng.: “Ammah”); LXX B Ἀμμάν; LXX L Ἐμμάθ, Ἀμμαθ; Josephus Ὄμματον (this is the reading of M, which Niese follows; Marcus adopts that of SP, i.e. Ἀμμάταν). Josephus omits the designation of the site as a “hill” (cf., however, 7.17), as well as the indication about its location (“which lies before Giah on the way to the wilderness of Gibeon”) of 2:24b.

In 2 Sam 2:25 it is the Benjamites who take their stand as “one band” behind Abner “on top of a hill.” Josephus turns Abner’s threefold question to Joab of 2 Sam 2:26 into a characteristic statement by him, highlighting the wrongfulness of civil strife. On the theme of “civil strife” in Josephus, see Feldman 1998: 140-43, 610-11; 1998a: 556. This statement by Abner, justifying his killing of Asahel, has no biblical counterpart. This notice takes the place of Joab’s initial (obscure) response to Abner in 2 Sam 2:27, in which he swears that if Abner had not spoken, his men would have abandoned their pursuit only in the morning. See 2 Sam 2:28 whose concluding remark about there being no further fighting Josephus omits.

Josephus inserts the reference to Joab’s pitching camp. Josephus’ “translation” of the site name is in accord with the LXX B reading in 2 Sam 2:29; compare “Mahanaim” (MT); “in the camps of Madaim” (LXX L). See 7.10, where Josephus gives the Hebrew site name as “Manalis” and provides the translation “Camps” for this. 2 Sam 2:32 mentions the burial of Asahel alone by an indeterminate “they.” Josephus accentuates Joab’s piety by making him the one to bury, not only Asahel, but all the fallen troops; see Feldman 1998a: 205.

These figures correspond to those given in 2 Sam 2:30-31 for the losses on the 2 sides. See 2 Sam 2:32, from which Josephus omits mention of the all-night march from Bethlehem to Hebron by Joab and his men.

See 2 Sam 3:1.

Josephus omits the specification that the sons in question were born to David “in Hebron” (2 Sam 3:2a; see 3:5b). He supplies the total figure for the sons listed in 3:2b-5a. This phrase, bracketed by Niese (but not by Marcus) is absent in RO. MT (2 Sam 3:2b) ‮אחינעם‬‎ (Eng.: “Ahinoam”); LXX B Ἀχεινόομ; LXX L Ἀχινάαμ; Josephus Ἀχινά (the same form read by him in Ant. 6.320). Josephus leaves aside the source qualification of her as “of Jezreel.” MT (2 Sam 3:2) ‮אמנון‬‎ (Eng.: “Amnon”); LXX and Josephus Ἀμνών. On “Abigail,” see Ant. 6.295-309 (// 1 Samuel 25); 6.320 (// 1 Sam 27:3). Josephus leaves aside the notation of 2 Sam 3:3a about her being “the widow of Nabal of Carmel.” MT (2 Sam 3:3a) ‮כלאב‬‎ (Eng.: “Chileab”); LXX Δαλουιά; Josephus Δανίηλος. Josephus derives his alternative name for David’s 2nd son, born to him by Abigail, from 1 Chr 3:1. MT (2 Sam 3:3b) ‮מעכה‬‎ (Eng.: “Maacah”); LXX Μααχά; Josephus Μαχάμη. MT (2 Sam 3:3) ‮תלמי‬‎ (Eng.: “Talmai”); LXX B Θομμεί; LXX L Θολμί; Josephus Θολομαῖος. MT 2 Sam 3:3b calls him “king of Geshur” (LXX B “Geseir”; LXX L “Gessir”). MT (2 Sam 3:3) ‮אבשׁלום‬‎ (Eng.: “Absalom”); LXX Ἀβεσσαλώμ; Josephus Ἀψάλωμος (this is the reading of RO that Niese and Marcus follow; the remaining witnesses read Ἀβεσ(σ)άλμος). MT (2 Sam 3:4a) ‮חגית‬‎ (Eng.: “Haggith”); LXX B Φεγγείθ; LXX L ’Αγγίθ; Josephus Ἀήθη (this is the reading of RO adopted by Niese; Marcus ad loc. and Schalit s.v. read Ἀγίθη with MSP). MT (2 Sam 3:4) ‮אדניה‬‎ (Eng.: “Adonijah”); LXX B Ὀρνείλ; LXX L Ὀρνιά; Josephus Ἀδωνίας. MT (2 Sam 3:4b) ‮שׁפטיה‬‎ (Eng.: “Shephatiah”); LXX B Σαβατεία; LXX L and Josephus Σαφατίας. MT (2 Sam 3:4b) ‮אביטל‬‎ (Eng.: “Abital”); LXX B Ἀβειτάλ; LXX L Ἀβιτάαλ; Josephus Ἀβιτάλη. MT (2 Sam 3:5a) ‮עגלה‬‎ (Eng.: “Eglah”); LXX B Ἀιγάλ; LXX L Ἀγλά; Josephus Γαλαάδ (this is the reading adopted by Niese; Marcus reads Αἰγλᾶς with SP). MT (2 Sam 3:5) ‮יתראם‬‎ (Eng: “Ithream”); LXX B Ἰεθεραάμ; LXX L Ἰεθραάμ; Josephus Γεθερσᾶς (this is the reading of ROM followed by Niese; Marcus ad loc. and Schlatter s.v. read Ἰεθρόας with SE).

This transitional phrase (see 2 Sam 3:6a) picks up the topic of the civil war from 7.20, after the interlude concerning David’s family in 7.21. This inserted characterization of Abner echoes that of 7.9, where he is called “a man of energy and good by nature.” These notices on Abner’s influence on the people and the support for Saul’s son this generated render more specific (and positive) the statement of 2 Sam 3:6b: “Abner was making himself great in the house of Saul.”

MT (2 Sam 3:7) ‮רצפה‬‎ (Eng.: “Rizpah”); LXX Ῥεσφά; Josephus ‘Ραισφᾶ (this is the form read by Niese; Marcus adopts the “Respha” [= LXX] of Lat). MT (2 Sam 3:7) ‮איה‬‎ (Eng.: “Aiah”); LXX B Ἰάλ; LXX L Σιβά; Josephus Σιβάτης; Schalit s.v. Σιβάθης attempts a reconstruction of the original reading of the name in Josephus on the basis of Lat “Ansebath.” In 2 Sam 3:7b there is no reference to some 3rd party “complaining” to Ish-bosheth about Abner’s deed, this causing him to confront Abner. Josephus’ insertion of such a reference accounts for the king’s knowledge of the happening. In LXX BL 2 Sam 3:7-8 the name of the one confronting Abner is Μεμφιβόσθε, the son of Jonathan (and grandson of Saul) featured in 2 Samuel 9. Josephus reads the MT form of the name, as cited by him in 7.9. Josephus provides a motivation for Abner’s “anger” as cited in 2 Sam 3:8aα (this inspired by Abner’s enumeration of his benefactions to the Saulides in v. 8bα). He leaves aside Abner’s self-derogatory opening words of v. 8aβ: “Am I a dog’s head of Judah?” (MT; LXX BL lack the words “of Judah”). He further omits Abner’s reference to the “fault” with which he is being charged (v. 8bβ) and his oath formula at the beginning of v. 9. See 2 Sam 3:10 whose array of place names, demarcating the extent of David’s prospective kingdom, Josephus omits, substituting an extended motivation for Abner’s intended initiative. He further omits the notice of 2 Sam 3:11 on Ish-bosheth’s failure to respond to Abner due to his fear of him.

Josephus’ specification of David’s whereabouts reflects the LXX L reading in 2 Sam 3:12 (LXX B reads “to Thailam,” while MT has “[Abner sent messengers to David] where he was”). Like LXX, Josephus has no equivalent to the opening words of Abner’s message to David as cited in MT 3:12, i.e. “to whom does the land belong?” Josephus characteristically rewords Abner’s proposal in 2 Sam 3:12 so as to eliminate its phrase “make a covenant (LXX: διαθήκη).”

Josephus motivates David’s acceptance of Abner’s proposal (2 Sam 3:13a), while once again (see previous note) eliminating the source’s use of the term “covenant.” Josephus tones down David’s peremptory demand as cited in 2 Sam 3:13b (“you shall not see my face, unless...”), while also spelling out the motivation behind David’s request. The name, absent in Lat, is bracketed by Niese, but not by Marcus. In 2 Sam 3:14 David refers to the 100 Philistine foreskins procured by himself, while in 1 Sam 18:27 the figure given is 200. Josephus takes care to harmonize David’s words here with his own previous account in Ant. 6.202-203; in both instances David’s required wedding gift is 600 Philistine heads. Josephus conflates the content of the separate orders given by David to Abner (2 Sam 3:13) and to Ish-bosheth (3:14) concerning the return of his wife. He delays mention of David’s address to Ish-bosheth until a later point; see 7.26.

MT (2 Sam 3:14) ‮פלתיאל‬‎ (Eng.: “Paltiel”); LXX B Φαλτιήλ; LXX L Φαλτίου; Josephus Ὀφέλτιος (this is the majority reading adopted by Niese and Marcus; Schalit s.v. suggests rather Φέλτιος, this corresponding to the form of the name found in Ant. 6.309// 1 Sam 25:44). Josephus leaves aside the name of Paltiel’s father (MT 2 Sam 3:14: Laish), having given this as “Lis” in 6.309. In 2 Sam 3:15 it is Ish-bosheth who actually effects the return of Michal to David, in line with David’s injunction to him in 3:14. Josephus makes the return a joint initiative of Abner and the king, with the former taking the leading role. This is Josephus’ delayed use of David’s order to Ish-bosheth as cited in 2 Sam 3:14, the wording of which he generalizes, given that he has already drawn on its allusion to the bridal price paid by David for Michal in formulating the king’s command to Abner in 7.25. Josephus omits the pathetic biblical scene—reflecting badly on David’s compassionate image—of Paltiel following his wife, weeping as he goes, until he is directed by Abner to return (2 Sam 3:16). Greek: ταξίαρχοι. As Mason (2001: 114, n. 1053) points out, the precise meaning of this term depends on the size of the “unit” (Greek: τάξις) that these officers are commanding. Here, as elsewhere, Josephus leaves the matter indeterminate. Abner’s (single) interlocutor in 2 Sam 3:17 is “the elders of Israel.”

Abner’s speech to the elders in 2 Sam 3:17 mentions only their desire to have David as their king. Josephus’ inserted remark about Abner’s past efforts to restrain their impulse picks up on the reference to his keeping the Israelites loyal to Ish-bosheth in 7.22. Abner’s invocation of the divine promise to David in 2 Sam 3:18a does not mention Samuel as the mediator of that promise, nor speak explicitly of God’s having appointed David “king.” Josephus’ formulation recalls his account of the anointing of David by Samuel in Ant. 6.164-165. Compare 2 Sam 3:18b, where there is reference to David’s delivering Israel also from all its (other) enemies. Concentrating on the Philistine threat, Josephus has Abner recall God’s word through Samuel (see Ant. 6.165) that David would not only defeat, but also “subdue” them.

With this inserted notice on the audience’s reaction, Josephus highlights Abner’s effectiveness as a speaker.

In his rendering of 2 Sam 3:19a, Josephus interjects a notice on the special status of the Benjamites that prompts Abner to speak to them separately. He plausibly infers that Ish-bosheth would have drawn his bodyguards from the tribe to which he himself, as a son of the Benjamite Saul (see 1 Sam 9:1// Ant. 6.45), belonged. Once again (see note on “cause” at 7.28), Josephus inserts mention of the persuasive effect of Abner’s words on his audience. Josephus delays to the end of the paragraph his rendition of the statement of 2 Sam 3:19b about Abner’s going to report the mind of his audiences to David; see note to “entire tribe” at 7.29. From 2 Sam 3:20a Josephus omits the specification that Abner came to David “at Hebron.” Josephus adds this reference to Abner’s concern that he get an oath from David and the explanation as to why he wished to be given this personally rather than through intermediaries. See 2 Sam 3:19b. The “entire tribe” here is the Benjamites mentioned earlier in the paragraph.

Josephus expatiates on the king’s hospitality as mentioned in 2 Sam 3:20b. See 2 Sam 3:21a. Once again, Josephus eliminates the source’s use of the phrase “make a covenant,” likewise having Abner suggest a reason why the people need to be “brought” to David, i.e. that they might see the one on whom they are conferring the kingship for themselves.

Josephus’ conflation of 2 Sam 3:21b (David’s dismissal of Abner) and 22a (Joab’s arrival) omits the latter verse’s mention of Joab and David’s servants having been on a raid from which Joab had bought back much plunder. He likewise passes over the notice of 3:22b that Abner was no longer in Hebron at the moment of Joab’s return, which seems to duplicate the reference to David’s dismissing Abner in 3:21b. 2 Sam 3:23 merely reports that David had dismissed Abner, who had gone away “in peace.” The more specific information given Joab about David and Abner’s dealings according to Josephus serves to better motivate his subsequent reactions. Greek: δεινὸν ὄντα συνιδείν πράγματα. This same phrase recurs in Ant. 12.63 in reference to King Ptolemy. This editorial sequence goes beyond the biblical account in exposing the psychology behind Joab’s subsequent deed and providing an evaluation of it. The comment reflects Josephus’ sustained interest in jealous rivalry among commanders, a matter highlighted by him in Life 46-61.

Earlier, Josephus had highlighted the “slandering” of David to Saul by various parties (see Ant. 6.267, 280, 285). Now yet another good character, Abner, is about to be slandered by an envious compatriot—just as happened to Josephus himself from the side of his fellow Jews (see Life 425, 428b-429). These words of warning take the place of the pointed, reproachful questions about why David dealt with Abner as he did with which Joab begins his address to the king in 2 Sam 3:24. The Josephan Joab appears more tactful in his approach to David. Joab’s concluding charge in 2 Sam 3:25b is that Abner came to David in order to spy on his doings. Josephus substitutes a reference to the (purported) ultimate aim of his visit, i.e. the shoring up of Ish-bosheth’s rule. Joab’s initial charge against Abner in 2 Sam 3:25 is that he came to David to “deceive” him. The Josephan Joab intensifies the charge—and the irony, given that it is he himself who is trying to deceive David. Josephus amplifies Joab’s charge that Abner has come to “deceive” David in 2 Sam 3:25a, appending a claim about the state of mind in which his rival has departed.

Josephus interjects this notice on the failure of Joab’s first initiative and his recourse to a still more outrageous one. The insertion sets up a contrast between Joab, the ineffectual speaker, and Abner, whose words did have their desired effect (see 7.28-29). It also contrasts David (and the Roman emperors) who did not believe the “slanders” told them concerning Abner and Josephus, respectively, and Saul who credited those made against David (see Ant. 6.285); cf. note to “the king” at 7.32. In recounting Joab’s dispatch of his messengers (see 2 Sam 3:26a), Josephus underscores the deceitfulness of Joab, who fraudulently recalls Abner in David’s own name on the alleged ground that there were things that the latter had forgotten to tell him—this from a man who has just charged Abner himself with “deception and deceit” (7.32).

MT (2 Sam 3:26b) ‮בור הסרה‬‎ (RSV: “the cistern of Sirah”); LXX B τοῦ φρέατος τοῦ Σεειράμ; LXX L τοῦ φρέατος Σεειρά; Josephus (conflating the 2 Hebrew words of MT) Βησηρᾶ. Josephus supplies the indication concerning the site’s distance from Hebron. Josephus inserts this notice on Abner’s state of mind, thereby accentuating both his vulnerability and the criminality of Joab, who will take advantage of that vulnerability. In introducing the notice of 2 Sam 3:27a on the encounter of the 2 men at the gate, Josephus interjects mention of the deceitful hypocrisy of Joab’s “welcome,” likewise making this the occasion for a moral maxim (cf. the likewise interjected maxim about people putting more faith in what they do themselves rather than what others do for them in 7.29).

Josephus adds several details to the summary account of Abner’s murder in 2 Sam 3:27: the dismissal of Joab’s servants and the presence of Abishai (this last anticipated from 3:30, where Abishai appears unexpectedly as a co-assassin of Abner). He likewise has Abner struck in the “side” rather than in the “belly,” thereby assimilating his killing to that of the 24 champions in 7.12, who strike each others’ “ribs and sides.”

Josephus modifies the concluding words of 2 Sam 3:27, where the narrator reports, seemingly as his own view of things, that Abner died “for the blood of Asahel his [Joab’s] brother.” In Josephus’ presentation this becomes a mere (and fraudulent) claim on Joab’s part, as is evident from what follows. As Marcus (ad loc.) points out, Josephus’ mention of “Hebron” as the site of the battle in which Asahel lost his life is a “slip” for the actual site as reported both by the Bible (Gibeon, 2 Sam 2:12-13) and Josephus himself (“Gabaon,” 7.11). Here in 7.36 Lat does, in fact, read “Gablon.” Having cited Joab’s alleged motive for killing Abner as suggested by 2 Sam 3:27, Josephus now goes on—without any (explicit) biblical warrant, but echoing his previous statements in 7.31—to adduce the real reason.

Josephus’ 2-paragraph reflection on the corrupting effects of the struggle both to attain and retain positions of power has no biblical counterpart. As Feldman (1998a: 212) points out, however, it is reminiscent of the extended remarks Josephus appends to Saul’s killing of the priests of Nob in Ant. 6.262-268.

Josephus inserts this reference to David’s emotional response to Abner’s killing. Josephus amplifies and dramatizes David’s statement (2 Sam 3:28) disassociating himself from Abner’s murder, with, e.g., mention of the hand gesture accompanying this. Josephus’ reference to David’s “terrible curses” generalizes 2 Sam 3:29, where David pronounces 5 particular imprecations against Joab’s house.

Josephus inserts this reference to the motivation behind David’s preceding statements, underscoring the king’s concern for his reputation as a respecter of oaths. See 2 Sam 3:31a. From David’s directives concerning Abner’s funeral there, Josephus omits the surprising and off-putting detail that the murderer Joab is himself to participate in the funeral.

In 2 Sam 3:31b David alone is said to follow the bier; Josephus’ inserted mention of the participation also of the aged and the leadership groups adds solemnity to the occasion. This inserted element accentuates the intensity of David’s distress. It recalls Josephus’ likewise inserted mention of the Jabeshites “beating their breasts” as they bury Saul and his sons in Ant. 6.377. Josephus embellishes the simple statement about David’s “weeping” of 2 Sam 3:32aβ with mention of the intended effect of that weeping, this echoing the king’ own earlier affirmation on the matter as cited in 7.39.

2 Sam 3:32aα simply states that “they buried Abner at Hebron.” Josephus accentuates both David’s personal role in the burial and its lavishness. As he did in the case of David’s lament for Saul and Jonathan (2 Sam 1:17-27), Josephus does not reproduce the actual wording of his lament for Abner as cited in 3:34. On the other hand, he heightens the pathos of the scene with mention of David’s own “sobbing” and the eventual involvement of others in the lament. This inserted reference to the emotional impact of Abner’s death upon David echoes the (also inserted) mention of his being “grieved in soul” in 7.39. Here, David’s distress serves to motivate his subsequent refusal to eat. In 2 Sam 3:35a “all the people” urge David to eat. Josephus, more plausibly, has the request emanate from the king’s intimates. In accord with his usual practice, he omits the actual wording of David’s “oath” as cited in 3:35b.

Josephus greatly expands on the summary notice of 2 Sam 3:36 about the people’s being “pleased” by David’s treatment of Abner’s remains, as well as by everything he did. The phrase “keeping his pledge (Greek: πίστις)” echoes the reference to David’s concern that he not appear to have “violated his sworn pledges (Greek: πίστεις)” in 7.40. It is now clear that David has convinced everyone that he is indeed not a pledgebreaker.

This (inserted) remark picks up on Josephus’ rendition of David’s statement in 7.39: “He testified to all... that he had no part in Abenner’s murder...,” as well as to the allusion to the king’s concern for his reputation in 7.40. This comment underscores, one last time, Josephus’ positive depiction of Abner, just as it points up the loss his murder entailed for the whole people. Compare David’s word to his servants as cited in 2 Sam 3:38: “Do you not know that a prince and a great man has fallen this day in Israel?”

This opening affirmation concerning God’s omniscience and his ability to requite all wrongs has no equivalent in David’s final word concerning Abner’s murder in 2 Sam 3:39. It does, however, echo similar statements elsewhere in Josephus’ writings; see, e.g., Ant. 1.20; 10.278-281. From David’s “confession” about his “weakness” vis-à-vis Joab and his brother in 2 Sam 3:39a, Josephus eliminates his designation of himself as “anointed king.” Compare David’s prayer in 2 Sam 3:39b: “the Lord requite the evildoer according to his wickedness.” This closing formula to Josephus’ story of Abner (7.9-45) has no biblical parallel.

MT 2 Sam 4:1 leaves “Saul’s son” unnamed. As they do throughout the chapter, LXX BL (wrongfully) designate the Israelite king as Μεμφιβόσθε. Josephus supplies the correct name when re-introducing him here. On Josephus’ version of 2 Samuel 4, see Begg 1998e. According to Ant. 6.129, Abner was the son of Saul’s uncle Ner, i.e. Saul’s first cousin. This would make Ish-bosheth, the son of Saul, Abner’s second cousin. 2 Sam 4:1a speaks of Ish-bosheth’s “hands drooping” when he hears of Abner’s death. Josephus’ description of his emotional response recalls his references to David’s own reaction (see 7.39, 42) to that event, just as he intimates a reason for Ish-bosheth’s responding as he does. Josephus leaves aside the notice of 4:1b that “all Israel was dismayed” by Abner’s murder, thereby keeping attention focussed on Ish-bosheth. This inserted phrase prepares readers for what awaits Ish-bosheth at the hands of the pair who are about to be mentioned (// 2 Sam 4:2). MT (2 Sam 4:2) ‮רמון‬‎ (Eng.: “Rimmon”); LXX Ῥεμμών; Josephus Ἐρέμμων. MT (2 Sam 4:2) ‮בענה‬‎ (Eng.: “Banah”); LXX B Βαανά; LXX L Βαναία; Josephus Βανά (this reading, reflecting the “bana” (bena) of Lat, is the one adopted by Niese and Marcus). MT (2 Sam 4:2) ‮רכב‬‎ (Eng.: “Rechab”); LXX Ῥηχάβ; Josephus Θαηνός. On the possible origin of Josephus’ form of the name, see Begg 1998e: 243, n. 17.

Josephus leaves aside the further specification about the brothers’ father being “from Beeroth” and the attached parenthetical information concerning this site and its inhabitants given in 2 Sam 4:2b-3. 2 Sam 4:2a designates the brothers as “captains of raiding bands.” Josephus inserts this notice on the motivation for the brothers’ subsequent deed. He has no equivalent, at this point, to the parenthetical and seemingly extraneous mention of Jonathan’s crippled son Mephibosheth in 2 Sam 4:4. He will, however, reproduce its content in his version of 2 Samuel 9 in 7.113, where this figure comes to the fore.

Josephus’ inserted reference to Ish-bosheth’s being “alone” and “without guards” in his version of 2 Sam 4:5 helps account for the assassins’ ability to gain access to the king (whom one would normally expect to be properly guarded). Josephus’ reference to the state of the doorkeeper clearly reflects the LXX reading (“the doorkeeper of the house had been cleaning wheat, but she grew drowsy and slept”) of 2 Sam 4:6 as opposed to MT’s “and hither they [the assassins] came into the midst of the house fetching wheat; and they smote him [Ish-bosheth] in the belly.” See 2 Sam 4:7a.

From 2 Sam 4:7b Josephus omits the detail about the pair’s march taking them “by way of the Arabah.” Josephus’ inserted notice on the expectations with which the brothers make their journey, recalls his notice on their reason for killing Ish-bosheth in 7.47; see note to “from him” at 7.47. The brothers’ statement to David in 2 Sam 4:8 is ambiguous: is David’s “enemy” Saul or Ish-bosheth? By omitting the former name from his version, Josephus eliminates the basis of the ambiguity. He likewise leaves aside the brothers’ affirmation that “the Lord has avenged” David; in his presentation the pair claim all “credit” for themselves.

This foreshadowing remark has a counterpart in that with which Josephus introduces the brothers in 7.46; see note on “plot” at 7.46. These opening words of David’s response— which make clear from the start his evaluation of the brothers’ deed and his intentions regarding them—take the place of the king’s oath formula of 2 Sam 4:9 (“as the Lord lives who redeemed my life from every adversity...”). In 2 Sam 4:10 David refers to the one who reported Saul’s death to him, thinking he was “bringing good news.” Josephus’ alternative allusion to this figure echoes his mention of the regicide’s showing David Saul’s crown in 7.4 (cf. Ant. 6.372). This acknowledgement of the extenuating circumstances surrounding the Amalekite’s killing of Saul has no counterpart in 2 Sam 4:10. It recalls the regicide’s statement in 7.3 (cf. Ant. 6.371) that Saul had “appealed to” him to dispatch him, while also underscoring the still greater reprehensibility of the brothers’ deed, for which there are no such extenuating circumstances.

Josephus interjects this rhetorical question as a lead-in to David’s accusation of and pronouncing sentence on the pair in 2 Sam 4:11. The question highlights the brothers’ miscalculation in supposing that they would be rewarded by David for their deed; see 7.47. Compare David’s charging the pair with the killing of a “righteous man” in 2 Sam 4:11a. Josephus accentuates the accusation by adding mention of Ish-bosheth’s past favor to the assassins, his own former clients.

Compare David’s statement to the assassins in 2 Sam 4:11b: “I shall [so LXX] now require his [Ish-bosheth’s] blood at your hand and destroy you from the earth.” These concluding words of David’s response to the brothers have no equivalent in 2 Samuel 4. They highlight both David’s resolve to do right by Ish-bosheth in every respect and his concern for his own good name (compare 7.40). In 2 Sam 4:12aα David entrusts the execution of the brothers to “his young men.” Josephus’ formulation attributes the deed to David personally, thereby accentuating his passionate determination to requite their crime. He leaves aside the reference to the hanging up of the pair’s hands and feet “beside the pool at Hebron” from 4:12aβ. Josephus’ attribution of the burial to David personally corresponds to the 4QSama reading in 2 Sam 4:12b, whereas in both MT and LXX BL an indeterminate “they” see to the head’s burial. Josephus accentuates the respect shown Ish-bosheth’s remains by David with the inserted reference to his “honoring” the head “in every way.” Like LXX B 1 Sam 4:12b, he lacks an equivalent to the specification that Abner’s tomb was located “in Hebron” (so MT, 4QSama [restored], LXX L).

In 2 Sam 5:1a// 1 Chr 11:1a David is first approached by “all (the tribes of) Israel” and thereafter (5:3// 11:3) by “all the elders of Israel.” Josephus reverses this sequence: the leaders come first (7.53) to David who subsequently dispatches them to bring the entire people (7.54). This reference to the leaders’ long-time devotion to David replaces the opening affirmation of the Israelite tribes in 2 Sam 5:1b // 1 Chr 11:1b: “Behold we are your bone and flesh.” In 2 Sam 5:2a// 1 Chr 11:2a the tribes recall David as one who “led out and brought in” during Saul’s reign, the reference being to his military leadership role. Josephus clarifies and concretizes this formulation with an allusion to David’s being appointed “chiliarch” by Saul; see Ant. 6.195// 1 Sam 18:13. In 2 Sam 5:2b// 1 Chr 11:2b the tribes evoke a divine word—not previously cited in either complex— addressed to David and designating him as one who is be “shepherd” of Israel and “prince” over the people. With his mention of Samuel as the mediator (for which he may have been inspired by the language of 1 Chr 11:3b: “[they anointed David as king over Israel] according to the word of the Lord by Samuel”) Josephus turns the “missing” referent of the allusion in his sources into a clear-cut reminiscence of Samuel’s word to David on the occasion of his anointing as quoted in Ant. 6.165 (and echoed by Abner in his address to the people in 7.27). From the double divine announcement cited in 2 Sam 5:2b// 1 Chr 11:2b, Josephus leaves aside the reference to David’s future shepherd role, while also having him designated “king” rather than (mere) “prince.” This element has no counterpart in the divine word to David as recalled by the tribes in 2 Sam 5:2b // 1 Chr 11:2b. It does, however, echo the announcement made by Samuel (Ant. 6.165) to David at his anointing concerning his future military role (as also the allusion to this by Abner in 7.27).

Greek: κατευωχέω. Whereas this verb is used only infrequently by authors prior to Josephus (e.g., only once each by Herodotus and Philo), it is a Josephan favorite, occurring 12 times in his corpus. I owe this observation to Prof. Steve Mason. This sequence, featuring the initiatives taken by David in response to the leaders’ preceding statement, replaces the series of events narrated in 2 Sam 5:3// 1 Chr 11:3, i.e. the coming of the Israelite elders to David, his “making a covenant” with them, and their anointing him king; see note to “Hebron” at 7.53. Josephus’ alternative presentation of what happens at this juncture characteristically avoids the sources’ “covenant” and “anointing” terminology, while also preparing for his use of the segment 1 Chr 12:24-41 in what follows. The reference to David’s feasting of the leaders at this point is inspired by the notice of 1 Chr 12:40 concerning the 3 days of eating and drinking enjoyed by the crowds that came to Hebron; it likewise echoes Josephus’ account of David’s reception of Abner in 7.30.

Josephus at this point begins making use of 1 Chr 12:24-41 (MT; Eng. 12:23-40), the list of the tribal forces who repair to David at Hebron in order to turn the kingship over to him (see 12:24). In so doing, he leaves aside—for the moment—both the intervening segment of 1 Chronicles (11:4-12:23) and the chronological notices concerning David’s kingship of 2 Sam 5:4-5. See 1 Chr 12:25. This remark about the previous loyalties of the 6,800 Judeans has no counterpart in 1 Chr 12:25. It serves to answer the question of why these Judeans come to David at this point, seeing that, according to Josephus’ other biblical source, i.e. 2 Sam 2:4, the “men of Judah” have already acknowledged David as their king at Hebron. The addition reflects Josephus’ attempt to integrate the data of both Chronicles and Samuel.

See 1 Chr 12:26. The figure given in 1 Chr 12:27 (both MT and LXX) is 4,600. Conceivably, Josephus’ number, i.e. 4,700 is influenced by 12:28, where there is reference to the 3,700 men who accompany Jehoaida; see next note. MT (1 Chr 12:28) ‮יהידע‬‎ (Eng.: “Jehoaida”); LXX B τωαδάς; LXX L Ἰωαδά; Josephus Ἰώδαμος. 1 Chr 12:28 designates “Jehoiada” as “prince/ leader of the house of Aaron.” MT (1 Chr 12:29) ‮צדוק‬‎ (Eng.: “Zadok”); LXX B Σαδώκ; LXX L Σαδδούκ; Josephus Σάδωκος. The source calls him “a young man mighty in valor.” Josephus’ alternative designation anticipates Zadok’s priestly service under David and Solomon. See 1 Chr 12:29b. 1 Chr 12:30a (MT and LXX) cites 3,000 Benjamites. Cf. 1 Chr 12:30b, which states that the majority of the 3,000 Benjamites who now approach David had “hitherto kept their allegiance to the house of Saul.”

See 1 Chr 12:31. See 1 Chr 12:32. Greek: τῶν δυνατωτάτων. This phrase, absent in MLat, is bracketed by Niese and omitted by Marcus. 1 Chr 12:32 designates the 18,000 Manassehites as “those who were expressly named to come and make David king.” 1 Chr 12:33 mentions 200 “chiefs” of Issachar “who had understanding of the times to know what Israel ought to do,” plus “all their kinsmen under their command.” Josephus supplies a “precise” number for the latter group.

See 1 Chr 12:34a. This statement represents Josephus’ interpretation of the notice in 1 Chr 12:34b that the Zebulunites “came to help [David] with singleness of purpose.” It further explains why the numbers of this tribe should be greater than those of any other individual tribe that came to David. This notice on the weapons of the tribes Simeon-Zebulun as listed in 7.56-58a has no biblical equivalent. In making “Gad” the basis of the comparison Niese follows the majority reading of the witnesses, this looking ahead to the catalogue of weapons carried by the Transjordanian tribes—on which Gad was one—in 7.59. Marcus (ad loc.) opts for the conjecture of Reinach, i.e. “Judah,” which would connect the notice here with the mention of the Judeans’ “shields and lances” in 7.55. Compare 1 Chr 12:35, where the number of (ordinary) soldiers from Naphtali is specified as 37,000, and it is they (rather than the 1,000 leaders) who carry shields and spears.

See 1 Chr 12:36. See 1 Chr 12:37. See 1 Chr 12:38, which speaks in general terms of the Transjordanians’ having “all the weapons of war.” This appended notice has no equivalent in the sequence of 1 Chr 12:24-41.

Josephus here combines the data of 1 Chr 12:39 (the assembly’s coming to David to make him king) and 12:41 (the victuals brought by the tribes to Hebron). He positions the latter item at a more logical point than does the Bible, where it appears only after the mention of the “feasting” at Hebron in 12:40. He likewise abbreviates the extended catalogue of provisions cited in 12:41. See 1 Chr 12:40. This feasting by the crowds recalls David’s previous “entertaining” of the leaders in 7.54. Josephus here modifies the sequence of 1 Chronicles, where the Hebron banqueting scene (12:24-41) is immediately followed, in 13:1-8, by David’s leading all Israel in procession with the ark with Jerusalem as the ultimate goal. He does so in order to first accommodate a source segment (2 Sam 5:6-10// 1 Chr 11:4-9) dealing with the prerequisite for David’s ark-initiative, i.e. his capture of Jerusalem, which he had previously passed over in connecting the data of 1 Chr 11:1-3 (// 2 Sam 5:1-3) directly with those of 12:24-41; see note to “assembled” at 7.55. In particular, he combines into a continuous sequence elements drawn from 2 distinct contexts in 1 Chronicles, i.e. the people’s feasting at Hebron (12:40) and their proceeding as a body with David to Jerusalem (11:4, MT LXX L [in LXX B as well as in 2 Sam 5:6 David is accompanied by a smaller group, i.e. “his men”]). On Josephus’ version of David’s capture of Jerusalem, see Begg 1998f.

Neither 2 Sam 5:6 nor 1 Chr 11:4 identifies the Jebusites as “Canaanites” (as Josephus does here, as well as in War 6.439 and Ant. 5.140). Cf., however, Gen 10:16 (// Ant. 1.138) where the Jebusites are listed among the descendants of “Canaan.” Josephus’ inspiration for this notice is clearly 2 Sam 5:6bα, where the Jebusites declare to David “the blind and the lame [Tg. the sinners and the guilty] will ward you off.” Josephus dramatizes and reinforces this declaration by having the defective persons not simply referred to, but actually displayed before David on the walls. His presentation has a certain parallel in Pirqe R. El. 36.5, where the Jebusites mount idols on the walls, while informing David that he will not be able to enter until he removes these. Cf. the appended editorial remark concerning the Jebusites’ declaration to David (2 Sam 5:6bα) in 5:6bβ: “... thinking, ‘David cannot come in here’.” Josephus interjects the reference to David’s “wrath” that prompts his undertaking the siege.

These remarks on David’s state of mind as he undertakes the siege are without biblical parallel. Josephus’ sources (see 2 Sam 5:7// 1 Chr 11:5) do not clearly distinguish such an initial stage in David’s conquest of the city, seeming rather to envisage a single-step seizure of “the stronghold of Zion/city of David” by him. Josephus’ having David get possession first of the “lower town,” and only then of the (more difficult) “citadel” (see 7.63-64), recalls his presentation in Ant. 5.124 (compare Judg 1:8), where the Israelites do occupy the “lower town” of Jerusalem, but are unable to gain control of the “upper town,” given the strength of its walls. Reading 7.62-64 in light of 5.124 underscores the military achievement of David who accomplishes what the Israelites before him were unable to do, i.e. secure mastery of both the lower and the upper (the citadel) sections of Jerusalem.

In relating the 2nd stage of David’s campaign (7.63), Josephus elaborates on the king’s promise of military command to whoever “smites the Jebusites” in 1 Chr 11:6a. In so doing, he leaves aside the (obscure) alternative version of 2 Sam 5:8, in which David urges anyone intending to smite the Jebusites to ascend the “water shaft” (?) in order to attack the blind and the lame (see 5:6) whom he hates, a directive which, the verse concludes, gave rise to the saying “The blind and the lame shall not come into the house (+ of the Lord, LXX).” Josephus’ elaboration of 11:6 elucidates the king’s ultimate intention (i.e. not simply “smiting the Jebusites,” but capture of the citadel) in making his offer and spells how this is to be accomplished (i.e. by climbing up through the surrounding ravines—this indication might represent an interpretation of the Hebrew phrase ‮בצנור‬‎, RSV: “the water shaft” of 5:8).

This inserted remark underscores the effectiveness of David’s preceding words. Josephus embellishes the summary notice of 1 Chr 11:6b: “Joab the son of Zeruiah went up first, so he became the chief.”

Neither biblical source mentions such an “expulsion,” which, however, is also cited by Josephus in War 6.439. Josephus omits the specification of 2 Sam 5:9b // 1 Chr 11:8a that David’s “building” of the city was “from the Millo (inward/ in complete circuit).” Josephus reverses the sequence of 2 Sam 5:9// 1 Chr 11:7 (David’s dwelling in the citadel, its being called “the city of David”). He adds the specification concerning the duration of David’s residence there. Josephus makes delayed use of this chronological datum reported in 2 Sam 2:11 and 5:5a now at the moment when David’s “Hebron period” actually ends. This theological conclusion to the story of David’s capture of and taking up residence in Jerusalem is Josephus’ version of 2 Sam 5:10// 1 Chr 11:9, where David “grows stronger” due to the Lord’s being “with him.”

MT (2 Sam 5:11) ‮חירם‬‎ (Eng.: “Hiram”); LXX Χειράμ; Josephus Ἱέρωμος (this form of the king’s name corresponds to that used by Josephus’ extra-biblical authorities, Menander and Dios, whom he cites in Ant. 8.136-150 and Apion 1.112-125). In making the overture of the Tyrian king come immediately after David’s capture of Jerusalem, Josephus follows the sequence of 2 Samuel (5:11-12), whereas the parallel text of 1 Chronicles (14:1-2) mentions this only at a later point, i.e. after David’s initial, failed attempted to bring the ark to Jerusalem (13:5-14). Neither 2 Sam 5:11-12 or 1 Chr 14:1-2 mentions such a proposed alliance between Hiram and David. Josephus’ notice on the matter is likely inspired by (and designed to prepare for) the statement of 1 Kgs 5:1b (MT // Ant. 8.50): “Hiram always loved David.” In any case, the fact of King Hiram’s readiness to conclude such an alliance with David accentuates the latter’s status. See 2 Sam 5:11// 1 Chr 14:1. Josephus omits the appended theological notice on David’s recognition of God’s establishing and exalting his kingship of 5:12// 14:2, which appears to duplicate that of 5:10// 11:9, previously utilized by him in 7.65. This notice on David’s further building activities, subsequent to Hiram’s overture, lacks an explicit equivalent in the sources (it might represent, however, Josephus’ further elaboration of the summary indications in 2 Sam 5:9b// 1 Chr 11:8a about David’s “building of the city,” already cited by him in 7.65). According to 1 Chr 11:8b Joab “repaired the rest of the city.”

This notice “resumes” elements of Josephus’ previous statements in 7.65 by way of transition to his following discussion of the city’s different names throughout history. Josephus mentions that the city’s name was earlier “Solyma” also in Ant. 1.180, where “Abram” meets Melchizedek, “king of Solyma” (in the source text, Gen 14:18, Melchizedek is called rather “king of Salem”). Compare War 6.438, where Melchizedek is credited with renaming “Solyma” as “Hierosolyma.” This is the reading of the codices, which Niese follows. Marcus (ad loc.) regards the reading as a gloss and suggests reconstructing the original text to read “afterwards they named it Hierosolyma,” in line with Josephus’ statements in Ant. 1.180 and War 6.438 (see previous note). The reference to Homer in the text printed by Niese is apparently inspired by Od. 5.283, where there is mention of the “Solymian hills.” That allusion is picked up by the poet Choerilius (a contemporary of Herodotus), whom Josephus quotes in Apion 1.173, and then proceeds to affirm that Choerilius’ reference is to “us” since the “Solymian hills are in our country”; see Marcus ad loc. The text is problematic here. Niese follows the reading τὸ... ἱεροῦ of RO, which yields the above translation, in which it is the word “temple,” rather than “Solyma,” that is said to mean “security” (= Hebrew ‮שׁלום‬‎). Given the obvious incorrectness of this etymology, Marcus (ad loc.) favors the reading ἱερὸν... (τὰ) Σόλυμα of MSP and renders “calling the temple (hieron) Solyma, which, in the Hebrew tongue, means ‘security’,” this making “Solyma” the word meaning “security.” According to Eupolemus (in the excerpt from Alexander Polyhistor cited by Eusebius, Praep. ev. 34.11), the name “Jerusalem” and its Greek rendition “Hierosolyma” for the city are a corruption of the name originally given the temple built by Solomon, i.e. hieron Solomonos.

Jebus/Jerusalem was assigned to the Benjamites in particular in Joshua’s day; see Josh 18:28 (// Ant. 5.82, 129). This parenthetical notice draws on statements of Josh 15:63 and Judg 1:21, according to which the Judeans/Benjamites were unable to drive out the Jebusites who continued to dwell in Jerusalem “to this day.” These statements appear to stand in tension with Judg 1:8, where Judah and Simeon capture and burn Jerusalem. On Josephus’ attempt to resolve this biblical contradiction via a distinction between the “lower town” of Jerusalem, which the Judeans and Simeonites did capture, and the “upper town,” which they could not, see Ant. 5.124 (cf. 5.129, where the Benjamites allow the population of Jerusalem to pay them tribute). On the biblical chronological indications drawn on by Josephus in arriving at this figure, see Marcus ad loc. Modern chronology would posit an interlude of ca. 200 years between Joshua’s occupation of the land and David’s capture of Jerusalem.

This is the form of the name read by Niese. Marcus (ad loc.) follows the conjecture of J. Hudson, i.e. Ὀρόννα. Josephus anticipates his mention of this figure from 2 Sam 24:16// 1 Chr 21:15, where he is called “Araunah”/“Ornan,” respectively (MT; LXX reads Ὀρνά in both instances). See Ant. 7.318-334, Josephus’ version of the story of David’s census (2 Samuel 24// 1 Chronicles 21). Josephus makes mention of the figure already at this point lest, after his double reference to the general expulsion of the Jebusites by David (7.65, 67), readers be subsequently surprised to learn of the continued presence of this particular Jebusite in Jerusalem.

After the interlude of 7.67-69 concerning Jerusalem, its names and history and the figure of Arauna, Josephus now picks up, once again, on the sequence of his 2 biblical sources, in which the catalogue of David’s later womenfolk and offspring (2 Sam 5:13-16 // 1 Chr 14:3-7// 7.70) follows immediately on the account of Hiram’s initiative (5:11-12// 14:1-2// 7.66) in David’s favor. Josephus reverses the sequence of 2 Sam 5:13, where David’s concubines are mentioned before his (later) wives (the parallel text, 1 Chr 14:3 speaks only of wives). This is the reading of the codices, which Niese retains. Given the fact that the following list actually cites 11 names of David’s sons, Marcus (ad loc.) follows the emendation of the Ed. prin., i.e. ἕνδεκα (“ll”). Conceivably, the figure “9” read by Niese derives from 1 Chr 3:8, where the 2nd group of David’s latter-born sons is said to total “9.” The Bible contains no less than 3 listings of David’s latter-born sons: 2 Sam 5:13-16 (11 names); 1 Chr 3:5-8 (9 names); and 1 Chr 14:4-7 (13 names). Each of these lists contains numerous textual variants, just as they all differ among themselves to some extent. The names on Josephus’ own list, in several instances, have no recognizable counterpart in any of the biblical lists. The first name in the lists of 2 Sam 5:14// 1 Chr 14:4 is “Shammua,” while 1 Chr 3:5 reads “Shimea.” Schlatter (s.v.) views Josephus’ initial name as a corruption of the former form. 2 Sam 5:14; 1 Chr 3:5; and 1 Chr 14:14 all read “Shobab” as their 2nd name. According to Schalit (s.v.) the first 2 names on Josephus’ list as read by Niese originally constituted a single name, i.e. Σεαμμούαμα, which would itself be a corruption of the first name in 2 Sam 5:14// 1 Chr 14:4, i.e. “Shammua.” This name (Greek: Σεβάς) conceivably reflects the form Ἰεσσεβάν in LXX L 2 Sam 5:14 (compare MT: “Shobab”). Josephus’ 4th name corresponds to the 3rd name in all 3 biblical lists (2 Sam 5:14; 1 Chr 3:5; 1 Chr 14:4). This 5th name in Josephus’ list corresponds to the 4th name in all 3 biblical lists (2 Sam 5:14; 1 Chr 3:5; 1 Chr 14:4). Josephus has no equivalent to the notice—unique to 1 Chr 3:5—that the mother of David’s first 4 latter-born sons was “Bathshua, daughter of Ammiel.” This 6th name on Josephus’ list reflects the 5th name in all 3 biblical lists (2 Sam 5:15; 1 Chr 3:6; 1 Chr 14:5), i.e. “Ibhar.” Compare “Elishua” (2 Sam 5:15; 1 Chr 14:5)/ “Elishama” (1 Chr 3:6). Schalit (s.v.) suggests that this form is a conflation of the last name in LXX 1 Chr 14:5 (Ἐλειφάλεθ; MT “Elepelet”) and the first name in LXX 14:6 (Νάγεθ; MT “Nogah”). Schalit (s.v) suggests that this form might reflect a mis-rendering of the final consonant of the name “Nepheg” of 2 Sam 5:15; 1 Chr 3:7; 1 Chr 14:6. Mez (1895: 40) and Schalit (s.v.) see this form as a corruption of the Hebrew name “Japhia” of 2 Sam 5:15; 1 Chr 3:7; 1 Chr 14:6 in which the latter’s middle consonant, i.e. ‮פ‬‎, has been mistaken for a ‮נ‬‎. Schlatter (s.v.) on the contrary, derives the form from the “Eliada” of 2 Sam 5:16; 1 Chr 3:8. This final son in Josephus’ list corresponds to the last figure in all 3 biblical lists, i.e. “Eliphelet” (2 Sam 5:16; 1 Chr 3:8; 1 Chr 14:7). MT (1 Chr 3:9) ‮תמר‬‎ (Eng.: “Tamar”); LXX Θαμάρ; Josephus Θαμάρα. The lists of 2 Sam 5:13-16 and 1 Chr 14:3-7 do not mention this figure. None of the biblical lists—of which that of 2 Sam 5:13-16 is the only one (see v. 13) to mention David’s “concubines” in addition to his wives—makes this distinction among David’s latter-born sons. Josephus anticipates this notice about Absalom and Tamar being full siblings from 2 Sam 13:1 (// Ant. 7.162). He mentions the mother of Absalom, i.e. “Machame,” in 7.21 (// 2 Sam 3:3= Maacah).

Here again, Josephus avoids the word “anointed” used in 2 Sam 5:17a// 1 Chr 14:8a. On Josephus’ version of David’s double victory over the Philistines (7.71-77// 2 Sam 5:17-25// 1 Chr 14:8-17), see Begg 1999d. In reporting that victory prior to David’s initiative of bringing the ark to Jerusalem, Josephus follows the sequence of 2 Samuel 5-6 as opposed to 1 Chronicles 13-16 (where the Philistine wars are related [14:8-17] in the interlude between the first abortive [1 Chronicles 13] and the second, successful [1 Chronicles 15-16]) attempt at moving the ark). The notice on the Philistines’ move against David in 2 Sam 5:17a// 1 Chr 14:8a does not mention “Jerusalem.” Josephus leaves aside the reference to David’s initial response to this threat, i.e. his “going down to the (which?) stronghold” (2 Sam 5:17b)/ “going out before [LXX to meet] them” (1 Chr 14:8b). In MT 2 Sam 5:18// 1 Chr 14:9 the Philistines operate in “the valley of the “Rephaim.” Josephus’ designation of the valley, i.e. τῶν Γιγάντων (“of the giants”) corresponds to the LXX’s rendering (i.e. “valley of the Titans [τῶν Γιτάνων]”) of the Hebrew name. Josephus adds this indication concerning the location of the valley. In MT 2 Sam 5:18 the Philistines “spread out” in the valley, whereas in LXX BL 5:18 and 1 Chr 14:9 they “make a raid” there.

Josephus’ other uses of this title (Greek: ὁ τῶν Ἰουδαίων Βασιλεύς) are in War 6.103 (Jehoiachin), 439 (David); 7.71 (Alexander Janneus); Ant. 14.9 (Herod), 36 (Alexander Janneus); and 15.373, 409; 16:291 (all of Herod). It corresponds to the designation used for Jesus in, e.g., Matt 27:29; Mark 15:18, 26; Luke 23:37, 38; John 19:3, 19, 21. The above parenthetical phrase, accentuating David’s piety, lacks a counterpart in the biblical sources. In 2 Sam 5:19a// 1 Chr 14:10a David consults God directly, without any human intermediary. With Josephus’ interposition of such an intermediary here, compare 7.7, where he introduces “the prophet” as the one through whom David makes the “inquiry of God” cited in 2 Sam 2:1. Here in 7.72 Josephus leaves indeterminate which of the 2 “high priests” previously mentioned in connection with David, i.e. Abiathar (see Ant. 6.359) and Zadok (see 7.56) the king employed on this occasion. This formulation in indirect address replaces David’s 2-part, direct-address question in 2 Sam 5:19a// 1 Chr 14:10a (“Shall I go up against the Philistines? Wilt thou give them into my hand?”).

In 2 Sam 5:19b// 1 Chr 14:10b God answers David’s (unmediated) inquiry of him (5:19a// 14:10a; see note to “priest” at 7.72) directly. Josephus’ reference to the high priest’s “prophesying” recalls Ant. 5.120, where the priest Phineas “prophesies” God’s directive that Judah take the lead in exterminating the Canaanites. Josephus leaves aside the name of the battle site as given in 2 Sam 5:20aα// 1 Chr 14:11aα, i.e. “Baal-perazim.” Josephus embellishes the summary notice of 2 Sam 5:20aβ// 1 Chr 14:11aβ about David’s “striking down” the Philistines. Conversely, having left aside the place name “Baal-perazim” from 5:20aα// 14:11aα (see previous note), he likewise passes over the attached etymological/etiological indications concerning that name of 5:20b// 14:11b. In addition, he leaves for the conclusion of his 2nd battle account (see 7.77) the sources’ notices (2 Sam 5:21// 1 Chr 14:12) on the Israelites’ handling of the Philistine “gods/idols” that fell into their hands following the first battle.

This sequence has no equivalent in the sources. It serves to underscore the magnitude of David’s success by vastly augmenting the forces arrayed against him. Thereby, Josephus aims, as often elsewhere in Antiquities, to rebut claims about the Jews’ lack of military distinction. Compare the similar case of War 1.7-8, where he insists the Judeans had posed a serious challenge to the forces of Vespasian and Titus. On the whole subject, see further Feldman 1998: 106-109.

I.e. the fact that, contrary to what one might suppose from reading the source accounts of David’s initial victory over them, the Philistines were energetic and courageous, rather than “sluggish” and “cowardly,” in their dealings with the Israelites; see 7.74. The sources know of only one battle between David and the Philistines prior to the 2nd, decisive one. In introducing mention of multiple intervening Israelite victories, Josephus highlights both the continuing resolution of the Philistines and David’s efficacy as a military leader. As in 7.71 (compare 2 Sam 5:18// 1 Chr 14:9; see note to “there” at 7.71), Josephus’ reference to the Philistines’ “encamping” replaces sources mentions of other operations now undertaken by them, i.e. “coming up and spreading out” (MT 2 Sam 5:22)/ “making raids” (1 Chr 14:13 and LXX 2 Sam 5:22).

In contrast to 2 Sam 5:23a// 1 Chr 14:14a, Josephus spells out the content of David’s (2nd) “inquiry.” He likewise varies David’s title from 7.72, where he is called “king of the Judeans.” Just as in 7.73 (compare 2 Sam 5:19b// 1 Chr 14:10b; see note to “prophesied” at 7.73), Josephus replaces a direct divine answer to David with mention of a high priestly “prophecy.” Josephus’ phrase here (ἐν τοῖς ἄλεσει τοῖς... Κλαυθμῶσι) rather closely corresponds to that of LXX 2 Sam 5:23b// 1 Chr 14:14b, where David is told by God to approach the Philistines ἀπὸ τοῦ ἄλσους τοῦ κλαυθμῶνος (“from the grove of the weeper”). In MT, where David is instructed to come upon them opposite ‮(ה)בכאים‬‎, it is uncertain whether the reference is to some kind of tree (RSV: “balsam trees”) or to a place name, i.e. “Beka’im,” meaning “weepers.” Josephus supplies this indication concerning the site referred to in the divine directive of 2 Sam 5:23b// 1 Chr 14:14b. Compare his inserted localization of “the valley of the Giants” in relation to Jerusalem in 7.71 (// 2 Sam 5:18// 1 Chr 14:9); see note to “city” at 7.71. Here again (see note to “Weepers” at 7.76), Josephus’ wording (τὰ ἄλση σαλεύεσθαι) stands closer to that of LXX L 2 Sam 5:24 and LXX 1 Chr 14:15 ([τὴν φωνὴν] τοῦ συνεισμοῦ αὐτῶν ἄκρων τῶν ἀουῶν, “the sound of the agitation of the tops of the pear trees”) than to the MT’s “sound of marching in the tops of the balsam trees” (RSV). Josephus’ reference to “no wind blowing” elaborates on the LXX reading.

Josephus inserts this transitional phrase, picking up on his version of the divine order to David in 7.76. Josephus embellishes the notice (2 Sam 5:25a// 1 Chr 14:16a) about David acting in accord with his divine instructions, underscoring the certainty of his success in so acting. Once again (see note to “to flight” at 7.73), Josephus elaborates on the summary notices on David’s “slaying the Philistines” (2 Sam 5:25b)/ “[the Israelites’] striking down the camp of the Philistines” (1 Chr 14:16b). Josephus omits the starting point of David’s pursuit, i.e. Geba (MT 2 Sam 5:25b)/ Gibeon (LXX 2 Sam 5:25b// 1 Chr 14:16b). He adds the specification concerning the status of its end point, i.e. Gezer (MT)/ Gazara, Gazera (LXX). This notice about the copious plunder David obtained from the Philistine camp has no source counterpart. For a similar case, see Ant. 6.80. Josephus has transferred this notice on the fate of the Philistine sacred objects from the first (see 2 Sam 5:21// 1 Chr 14:12) to the 2nd battle (see note to “flight” at 7.73), thereby giving it a more climactic character. His wording of the notice reflects that found in 1 Chr 14:12 (the Philistine “gods” are burned with fire) as opposed to 2 Sam 5:21 (where the Philistine “idols” [MT; LXX: gods] are “carried off” by David and his men [in LXX L, there is a conflation of the 2 presentations, i.e. after carrying off the Philistine “gods,” David commands that they be “burned”]). Josephus has no equivalent to the closing theological notice, unique to 1 Chr 14:17, concerning the universal dissemination of David’s “fame” and the Lord’s causing the fear of him to befall all nations.

Josephus supplies this transitional phrase, placing David’s next initiative, i.e. his transporting the ark to Jerusalem, in explicit relation to his previous Philistine triumph. On Josephus’ account of the ark’s move to Jerusalem (7.78-89), see Begg 1997l. See 1 Chr 13:1, where David consults with “the commanders of thousands and of hundreds, with every leader.” The parallel text, 2 Samuel 6 lacks mention of this prior consultation by David, who there (see 6:1) simply assembles the picked force that will accompany him and the ark on its way (6:2). In 1 Chr 13:2 David proposes such a “summoning” to “all the assembly of Israel” for its approval (which it does grant, 13:4). 1 Chr 13:2 designates the first group of those to be summoned as “our brethren who remain in the land of Israel.” Josephus’ designation might reflect the reference to “the chosen men of Israel” of 2 Sam 6:1. Josephus omits the (irrelevant) qualification of the priests and Levites as “in the cities that have pasture lands” of 1 Chr 13:2. Josephus renders more explicit David’s proposal as cited in 1 Chr 13:3a (“let us bring again the ark of our God to us”). In so doing he draws the name of the ark’s current place of residence from 1 Chr 13:5 (cf. his earlier mention of its stay there in Ant. 6.18// 1 Sam 7:1) and that of its intended new home from, e.g., 2 Sam 6:10// 1 Chr 13:13. David’s positive prescription about the treatment of the ark once it reaches its destination has no equivalent in his words concerning it as cited in 1 Chr 13:3.

Josephus has David spell out the consequences of the neglect of the ark during Saul’s reign as confessed by him in 1 Chr 13:3. Having passed over David’s making his proposal to the pan-Israelite assembly (1 Chr 13:2; see note to “to himself” at 7.78), Josephus likewise leaves aside the notice on the assembly’s giving its assent from 13:4; see, however, 7.79. Compare 1 Chr 13:5, where David “gathers all Israel from the Shihor of Egypt to the entrance of Hamath....” This phrase, with its reference to what “they had decided” might reflect the mention of the assembly’s giving its assent to David’s proposal in 1 Chr 13:4; see note to “to himself” at 7.78. This reference to the David (alone) approaching the ark takes the place of the mention of king and people proceeding to the site (“Baal-judah” [MT 2 Sam 6:2]/ “Baalah, Kiriathjearim which belongs to Judah” [1 Chr 13:6]) where the ark is currently stationed. 2 Sam 6:3// 1 Chr 13:7 attribute the “carrying” of the ark to an indeterminate “they.” Josephus’ specification concerning the carriers reflects the prescription cited by him in Ant. 3.136 (compare Deut 10:8), making the priests the designated bearers of the ark. This form of the name corresponds to that read by LXX L 2 Sam 6:3 (and to that given by Josephus himself in Ant. 6.18). MT 6:3// 1 Chr 13:7 call the figure “Abinadab” in accord with his name in MT 1 Sam 7:1. As in his rendering of 1 Sam 7:1 in 6.18, Josephus leaves aside the mention of Abinadab’s house being “on the hill.” So 2 Sam 6:3a// 1 Chr 13:7a. I.e. the priests who previously carried the ark out of Abinadab’s house. In MT 2 Sam 6:3b// 1 Chr 13:7b the reference is to 2, not further identified, individuals, i.e. “Uzzah and Ahio.” The LXX of both verses reproduces the first of these proper names (i.e. as “Oza”), but then takes the MT’s 2nd name as a (plural) common noun, i.e. “his [Oza’s] brothers.” Josephus will mention “Uzzah/Oza” only subsequently (7.81). Whereas his use of the term “brothers” here in 7.80 does reflect the LXX reading in 6:3// 13:7, given his non-mention of “Oza” as this point, the figures in question become “brothers” not of him, but rather of the one individual named in 7.79, i.e. “Aminadab” (just as the “sons” whom Josephus mentions here without biblical basis are likewise those of Aminadab). Given that Josephus has previously identified Aminadab himself as a “Levite” (see Ant. 6.18), his “brothers and sons” here in 7.79 are implicitly Levites as well. Josephus anticipates his mention of the “oxen” involved in the ark’s transport from 2 Sam 6:6// 1 Chr 13:9. His notice here in 7.79 about the priests’ entrusting the further transport of the ark to the (Levitical; see previous note) relatives of Aminadab and the oxen creates an implicit conflict with the prescription of Ant. 3.136, according to which the ark was “not carried upon a wagon but was borne by the priests.” On the “anti-Levitical/ pro-priestly polemic” operative in the background here, see S. Schwartz 1990: 88-90.

Josephus’ reference to the assembly’s “songs” reflects (and embellishes) 1 Chr 13:8 (and LXX 2 Sam 6:5), whereas MT 6:5 refers to “instruments of cypress wood(?).” This phrase generalizes the mention of “lyres and harps” in 2 Sam 6:5// 1 Chr 13:8. 2 Sam 6:5// 1 Chr 13:8 mention the assembly’s “dancing,” but not the recitation of “psalms.” These instruments appear in the list of 1 Chr 13:8, but not that of 2 Sam 6:5. These instruments are also cited last in both 2 Sam 6:5 and 1 Chr 13:8. Whereas each of the 2 source verses mentions a total of 5 specific kinds of musical instruments (though differing somewhat as to which these were), Josephus lists only 2 (trumpets and cymbals). This phrase, without parallel in the account of the ark’s progress in 2 Sam 6:5// 1 Chr 13:8, echoes Josephus’ (likewise inserted) mention of the ark’s intended destination in 7.78.

Josephus’ form (Greek: Χειδῶν) of the name of the owner of the threshing floor corresponds to that given in MT LXX L 1 Chr 13:9 (LXX B does not cite a name). Compare “Nacon” (MT 2 Sam 6:6), “Nodan” (4QSama), “Nodab” (LXX B 2 Sam 6:6), “Orna the Jebusite” (LXX L, a reading inspired by the reference to this figure’s “threshing floor” in 2 Sam 24:16// 1 Chr 21:15). MT (2 Sam 6:6// 1 Chr 13:10) ‮עזה‬‎ (Eng.: “Uzzah”) LXX Ὀζά; Josephus Ὀζᾶς. This is Josephus’ first mention of this figure; see note to “sons” at 7.79. Cf. 2 Sam 6:7aα// 1 Chr 13:10a: “the anger of the Lord was kindled against Uzzah.” Josephus reverses the sequence of 2 Sam 6:6-7// 1 Chr 13:9-10 by mentioning Uzzah’s death, due to the Lord’s anger, prior to the offense that provokes this. In supplying an object (i.e. the ark) for the oxen’s action, Josephus aligns himself with LXX 2 Sam 6:6bβ// 1 Chr 13:9bβ against MT, where an intransitive verb is used (RSV: “the oxen stumbled”). In making explicit mention of Uzzah’s “hand” Josephus agrees with 1 Chr 13:9 (as well as 4QSama LXX 2 Sam 6:6) against MT 2 Sam 6:6, which lacks the specification. In making the “steadying” of the ark the purpose of Uzzah’s action, Josephus follows 1 Chr 13:9 (and LXX L 2 Sam 6:6) against MT 2 Sam 6:6, which states that he actually did “steady” it (LXX B conflates both readings). Josephus’ explanation of God’s slaying Uzzah seems to conflate those given in 1 Chr 13:10 (and 4QSama 2 Sam 6:7): “because he put forth his hand to the ark” and 2 Sam 6:7 (MT LXX L > LXX B): “because of his error/ rashness,” while elucidating the latter in terms of his foregoing (implicit) identification of Uzzah as a (non-priestly) Levite who, as such, was not allowed to touch the ark (see Ant. 3.136 and cf. note to “oxen” at 7.79).

Josephus’ indication concerning David’s emotional reaction to Uzzah’s death reflects the term “dispirited” used in LXX 2 Sam 6:8 as opposed to the “he was angry” of MT 4QSama 6:8 and 1 Chr 13:11. None of the biblical witnesses mentions a response by the people, as does Josephus. Here, exceptionally, Josephus does reproduce the etiological notice on the name for the place of Uzzah’s death (MT: Perez-Uzzah, “breaking out against Uzzah”) from 2 Sam 6:8b// 1 Chr 13:11b, even though in what precedes his rewording (“the king and people were distressed at the death of Ozas”; see 7.82) eliminates the preparation for this notice provided in 6:8a// 13:11a: “(David was angry dispirited because) the Lord had broken forth upon Uzzah.” Josephus elaborates on the statement about David’s being “afraid” of God and his attached rhetorical question concerning the (im)possibility of the ark’s coming to him in 2 Sam 6:9// 1 Chr 13:12, spelling out what/why David “fears” at this point.

Josephus follows 1 Chr 13:13a in stating as a fact that David did not bring the ark into the city to his house. 2 Sam 6:10a merely avers that David was “unwilling” to do this. This characterization of the ark’s (temporary) host has no equivalent in the notice concerning “Obed-edom” as that host in 2 Sam 6:10b// 1 Chr 13:13b. Josephus’ inserted qualification of him does serve to account for the ark’s being placed with this figure in particular, just as its echoes his (likewise inserted) designation of Aminadab, the ark’s earlier custodian, as “just” in Ant. 6.18 (// 1 Sam 7:1). MT (2 Sam 6:10// 1 Chr 13:13) ‮עבד־אדום‬‎ (Eng.: “Obed-Edom”); LXX B 2 Sam 6:10 (and LXX 1 Chr 13:13) Ἀβεδδαρά; LXX L 2 Sam 6:10 Ἀβεδδαδάν; Josephus Ὠβαδάρος. This designation takes the place of the sources’ indication (2 Sam 6:10// 1 Chr 13:13) that Obed-edom was a “Gittite.” Josephus could have found biblical inspiration for his attribution of Levitical ancestry to the ark’s new host in 1 Chr 15:18, where an “Obed-Edom” figures in a list of Levitical singers appointed by David (cf. also 1 Chr 26:4, 8, where the sons of an Obed-edom appear in a context dealing [see 26:1] with the Levitical Korahites). In similar fashion, Josephus, drawing on 1 Chr 15:10-11, makes the ark’s earlier custodian, Aminadab, a Levite (Ant. 6.18// 1 Sam 7:1). Rabbinic tradition as well designates the Obed-edom to whom David confides the ark as a Levite; see, e.g., Num. Rab. 4.20. See 2 Sam 6:11a// 1 Chr 13:14a. Josephus makes the ark itself the source of benefits to Obed-edom, whereas 2 Sam 6:11b// 1 Chr 13:14b have the Lord “blessing” him and his household.

In passing directly from the benefits brought Obed-edom by the presence of the ark (2 Sam 6:11// 1 Chr 13:14// 7.83) to David’s “hearing” of these (// 2 Sam 6:12a), Josephus follows the sequence of 2 Samuel 6 as opposed to that of 1 Chronicles, where between David’s first (13:1-14) and 2nd (15:25-16:43) attempts at moving the ark, a long segment (14:1-15:24) supervenes. Within that segment, one can distinguish the Chronicler’s parallel to 2 Sam 5:11-25, i.e. 14:1-17 (Hiram’s overture, David’s latter-born sons, and the Philistine wars), already reproduced by Josephus in 7.66-77, and a passage (15:1-24) unparalleled in 2 Samuel, featuring directions given by David and addressed to the Levites in particular, in view of the upcoming, 2nd attempt at moving the ark. Josephus’ omission of this latter sequence is understandable, given its general highlighting of the Levites and its assigning them—rather than the priests (see Ant. 3.136 and cf. note to “oxen” at 7.79)—the carrying of the ark (see 1 Chr 15:12). On the other hand, Josephus does draw selectively on the segment in assigning a Levitical ancestry to the ark’s 2 hosts, i.e. Aminadab (Ant. 6.18; cf. 1 Chr 15:10-11) and Obed-edom (7.83; cf. 1 Chr 15:18); see note to “Levite by birth” at 7.83. Josephus expatiates on 2 Sam 6:12a (David’s hearing of the Lord’s blessing Obed-edom and his household because of the ark), highlighting both the far-reaching extent of those blessings and the “message” they convey to David. To this elaboration he appends a summary version of 2 Sam 6:12b// 1 Chr 15:25 about David’s resuming his transport of the ark.

In specifying that it was the “priests” who lifted up the ark during the 2nd attempt at moving it, Josephus diverges from both 2 Sam 6:13 (the identity of the “bearers of the ark” is left indeterminate) and 1 Chr 15:26 (the Levites bear the ark; cf. 15:12). On the other hand, the specification is in accord with his own statements in Ant. 3.136 (the priests are to carry the ark) and 7.79 (the priests convey the ark out of Aminadab’s house). Josephus’ reference to these 7 “choirs” clearly reflects the plus of LXX BL 2 Sam 6:13. In contrast to all textual witnesses of 2 Sam 6:13 and 1 Chr 15:26, Josephus does not mention the offering of sacrifices en route, perhaps so as not to detract from the sacrifices that will take place at the climatic moment of the ark’s actual arrival in Jerusalem (see 2 Sam 6:17b// 1 Chr 16:1// 7.86). Josephus here seems to conflate the wording of LXX 2 Sam 6:14 (“David was sounding with well-tuned instruments”) and MT 6:14 (“David was dancing with all his might”). In contrast to both 2 Sam 6:14 and 1 Chr 15:27, he does not mention the “linen ephod” worn by David on this occasion, lest, perhaps, the king appear to have arrogated to himself this component of the high-priest’s vesture (see Exod 28:39 and cf. Begg 1997l: 24, n. e). Josephus likewise has no parallel to the additional notice of 1 Chr 15:27 about both the king and the Levitical ark-bearers and musicians wearing “robes of fine linen” on this occasion. Given the fact that he denounces the permission given the Levitical singers by King Agrippa II to wear “linen robes” just like the priests, as a violation of ancestral custom that was certain to provoke punishment of the people (see Ant. 20.216-218), it is not surprising that Josephus here leaves aside a “biblical precedent” for the Levites’ wearing such linen robes. The historian further omits the mention of the “shouting” and the playing of one or more instruments that accompanies the ark’s entry into Jerusalem in 2 Sam 6:15// 1 Chr 15:28. “Michal” has last been mentioned in 7.26 (// 2 Sam 3:14-15), where David’s “recovery” of her from her 2nd husband is related. According to 2 Sam 6:16// 1 Chr 15:29, Michal “despised David in her heart.”

See 2 Sam 6:17a// 1 Chr 16:1. Like 2 Samuel 6, Josephus has not previously mentioned the erection of a tent for the ark by David. By contrast, 1 Chr 15:1 does provide such a notice. In making David the sacrificing subject, Josephus agrees with 2 Sam 6:17b against 1 Chr 16:1b, where an indeterminate “they” offers sacrifice. He passes over the appended notice of 2 Sam 6:18// 1 Chr 16:2 about David’s “blessing” the people in the Lord’s name, doing so out of concern that David not appear to be usurping a priestly prerogative, i.e. the cultic, public blessing of the people, which, e.g., Num 6:22-27; Deut 10:8 present as a task of the priests; see note to “house” at 7.86. 2 Sam 6:19// 1 Chr 16:3 do not mention “infants” among the recipients of David’s largess. Josephus’ Greek terms for the 3 kinds of “baked goods” distributed by David to the people are notably similar to those used in LXX 2 Sam 6:19; see Ulrich 1978: 248. In the list of foodstuffs given to the people by David in 2 Sam 6:19// 1 Chr 16:3 only 3 such items are mentioned. This 4th and final item on Josephus’ list lacks a clear-cut counterpart in the sources. It may, however, reflect the rabbinic understanding of the Hebrew term ‮אשׁפר‬‎ (which stands 2nd in the MT of both verses and which the Greek witnesses take as designating some kind of pastry) as denoting a choice portion of meat (on this, see McCarter 1984: ad 2 Sam 6:19). Alternatively (or additionally), Josephus may have been inspired to mention the item given his previous reference to David’s “peace-offerings,” i.e. that (animal) sacrifice of which the worshippers also received a share. In 2 Sam 6:19b// 1 Chr 16:43a the people depart on their own. Josephus accentuates David’s control of the entire proceedings by having him dismiss them. Josephus omits the whole segment of 1 Chronicles 16, i.e. vv. 4-42, that comes between the Chronicler’s notices on David’s feasting the people (16:3) and their departure (16:43a). This segment comprises a recitation by the Levites, at David’s command (16:8), of portions of various psalms (16:9-36) and further cultic prescriptions concerning the Levites (16:37-42). Given the character of this material (focus on the Levites, an extended poetic interlude), its omission by Josephus accords with his practice elsewhere; see, e.g., his handling of 1 Chr 15:1-24 as mentioned in note to “heard” at 7.84. 2 Sam 6:20aα// 1 Chr 16:43b have David going to “bless his household.” Josephus omits mention of this household blessing, just as he did David’s blessing of the entire people; see note to “offerings” at 7.86.

Drawing on 2 Sam 6:20aβb, Josephus resumes his reference to Michal from 7.85 (// 2 Sam 6:16// 1 Chr 15:29). The Chronicler has no parallel to the unseemly exchange between Michal and David of 2 Sam 6:20aβb-23// 7.87-89. These opening positive words of Michal to her husband represent an elaboration of the summary plus that follows the notice on her going out to meet David in LXX 2 Sam 6:20, i.e. “she blessed him.” Josephus’ elaboration of the queen’s “blessing” is part of his over-all strategy of toning down Michal’s aggressively sarcastic intervention in 6:20, with its denigration of David. This phrase, bracketed by Niese, but not by Marcus, is missing in RO (and in Michal’s words in 2 Sam 6:20, which mention only David’s female servants). Josephus’ indirect discourse version of Michal’s words softens the intense sarcasm of her counterpart in 2 Sam 6:20: “How the king of Israel honored himself today, uncovering himself today before the eyes of his servants’ maids, as one of the vulgar fellows [LXX dancers] shamelessly uncovers himself.” His inserted reference to David’s “dancing” picks up on the mention of this in 2 Sam 6:16// 1 Chr 15:29// 7.85.

Josephus expatiates on David’s opening statement concerning the “object” of his display as cited in 2 Sam 6:21aβ: “it was before the Lord” (MT; LXX: before the Lord I shall dance). From David’s allusion to the Lord’s giving him greater honor than Saul and his household in 2 Sam 6:21bα Josephus omits the specification that the Lord did this by making him [David] “prince over Israel.” He likewise leaves aside David’s declaration in 6:21bβ: “and I will make merry before the Lord.” As in 2 Sam 6:22a, Josephus has David affirm his determination to persist in the behavior Michal finds objectionable. Whereas, however, in that verse David envisages a different response to his activity from Michal (i.e. contempt) and the maids (i.e. honor), Josephus’ David asserts his indifference to their common assessment of his performance. Thereby, he underscores David’s resolve to continue expressing his thanks to the Lord in his previous manner.

Josephus modifies the seemingly absolute statement of 2 Sam 6:23 that Michal had no children “to the day of her death,” given the mention of her children elsewhere in the Bible. In his presentation it was only during her marriage to David that she remained childless. See next note. This addition to the (problematic; see note on “no children” at 7.89) notice of 2 Sam 6:23 on Michal’s childlessness poses problems of its own in light of what one reads in other biblical contexts. Marcus (ad loc.) takes “the man” referred to by Josephus here as Adriel the son of Barzillai, given that 2 Sam 21:8 (MT and LXX B) mentions Adriel’s 5 sons by Michal (LXX L reads “Merob” in line with the statement of 1 Sam 18:19 [MT, no parallel in LXX B and Josephus], where Adriel’s Saulide wife is not Michal, but her sister Merab). On the other hand, the further reference to David’s taking Michal back from the man by whom she had her 5 children would seem to have in view, not Adriel, but rather Palti[el] to whom Saul gives her (1 Sam 25:44// Ant. 6.309) and from whom David recovers her (2 Sam 3:15// 7.26), seeing that the Bible does not mention either Saul’s conferring Michal on Adriel (in 1 Sam 18:19 it is Merab whom he gives to him) or David’s recuperation of her from him. By omitting the name of Michal’s other husband, Josephus contrives to have his notice cover the case of both Adriel and Paltiel, apparently presuming that the casual reader would not notice the problems involved. In fact, as Marcus (ad loc.) points out, Josephus makes no further mention of Michal. In his version of 2 Sam 21:8 (see previous note) in 7.296 he speaks in general terms of “the 7 descendants of Saoul’s family” rather than specifically of the 5 sons Michal bore Adriel. For a similar case of Josephus’ announcing that he will treat some matter at a later point in his work, but then failing to do so, see on Ant. 5.31.

Josephus develops this notice on the state of mind that prompts David to raise the possibility of building a house for the ark with Nathan on the basis of the narrative reference to the king’s “residing in his house” of 2 Sam 7:1a// 1 Chr 17:1a and David’s own allusion to the ark’s current tent-dwelling in 7:2// 17:1b. His opening mention of David’s affairs improving daily as willed by God might be seen as his adaptation of the phrase of 2 Sam 7:1b: “... the Lord had given rest from all his enemies round about.” The Chronicler’s omission of this phrase and Josephus’ modification of it likely reflect the fact in what follows many further wars by David with his enemies will be recounted. On Josephus’ (highly abridged) version of 2 Samuel 7// 1 Chronicles 17 in 7.90-95, see Begg 2000b.

Continuing his description of David’s state of mind as he approaches Nathan, Josephus spells out in advance the import of the king’s allusive words to the prophet as quoted in 2 Sam 7:2// 1 Chr 17:1b about his own dwelling in a cedar house, while the ark resides in a tent. Josephus’ reference to Moses’ earlier speaking of the building of a sanctuary lacks a counterpart in either 2 Samuel 7// 1 Chronicles 17, or the Pentateuch itself. On the other hand, the reference does have a ba-sis in Ant. 4.200, where Moses ordains that there should be “one Temple” in the city that God would designate “through prophecy.” The cross reference serves to invest David’s project with Mosaic authority. MT (2 Sam 7:2// 1 Chr 17:1b) ‮נתן‬‎ (Eng.: “Nathan”); LXX Ναθάν; Josephus Νάθας. Josephus does not reproduce the actual words of the king to Nathan, having made use of these in describing David’s state of mind in 7.90. In his (garbled) version of the David-Nathan exchange of 2 Samuel 7// 1 Chronicles 17, Eupolemus (in the excerpt of Alexander Polyhistor cited by Eusebius, Preap. ev. 30.5) has David ask God at the outset where he is to build the altar. Thereupon “an angel” appears above the site of the future altar and orders him not to proceed with the temple-building. Subsequently, this angel is identified as “Dianathan,” apparently a corruption of the biblical “Nathan.” It would appear that Eupolemus is conflating the accounts of 2 Samuel 7// 1 Chronicles 17 and 2 Samuel 24// 1 Chronicles 21, turning the prophet Nathan of the first pair of texts into the angel featured in the 2nd. See 2 Sam 7:3// 1 Chr 17:2. This notice, spelling out the effect of Nathan’s response on David, lacks a biblical counterpart. It serves to underscore the king’s piety.

Compare 2 Sam 7:4// 1 Chr 17:3, where “the word of God comes to Nathan.” On Josephus’ penchant for inserting references to appearances by God where the Bible lacks them, see note to “appeared” at Ant. 6.38. Here in 7.92, Josephus’ mention of such a theophany may be inspired by the statement of 2 Sam 7:17// 1 Chr 17:15 about Nathan’s speaking to David “in accordance with all this vision.” Neither 2 Samuel 7 nor 1 Chronicles 17 records God’s approbation, in principle, of David’s plan of building him a temple. Josephus anticipates the item from 1 Kgs 8:18// 2 Chr 6:18, where Solomon quotes the Lord’s telling his father that “he did well” in thinking to build a temple. With this opening insertion, Josephus blunts the thrust of God’s words in 2 Sam 7:5-7// 1 Chr 17:4-6, which reject David’s plan out of hand. Josephus prefaces the rhetorical question of 2 Sam 7:5 and prohibition of 1 Chr 17:4, both expressing God’s disavowal of David’s temple plan, with a motivation for the divine veto. This motivation indicates that, whereas the project is as such a commendable one, nevertheless David personally will not be allowed to carry it out. Josephus draws the content of this motivation from a series of subsequent biblical statements about why David himself was prevented from building the temple; see 1 Kgs 5:17; 1 Chr 22:8; 28:3. Having now presented his (expanded) parallel to 2 Sam 7:5 // 1 Chr 17:4, he passes over the whole segment 7:6-11// 17:5-10 in which God elaborates on his rejection of a temple in principle and then speaks of his own past/ future benefits for David personally and for Israel as a whole. Josephus will make use of the latter item subsequently; see 7.95. In a similar way, Eupolemus (in the excerpt from Alexander Polyhistor cited by Eusebius, Praep. ev. 30.5) has the angel “Dianathan” (see note to “Nathas” at 7.91) forbid David to erect the temple in view of the bloodshed and wars in which he had been involved.

Cf. 2 Sam 7:12a// 1 Chr 17:11a: “... when your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your ancestors.” Josephus elucidates the biblical euphemism, adding an explicit promise of a long life for David, a promise that finds an implicit realization in 7.389, where Josephus, going beyond his biblical sources, states that David lived 70 years. Josephus reverses the sequence of 2 Sam 7:12b-13// 1 Chr 17:11b-12, in which the Lord’s raising up David’s son as his successor is mentioned prior to that son’s building a “house” for “my name” (2 Sam 7:13)/ “for me” (1 Chr 17:12). Thereby, he highlights the importance of the temple building vis-à-vis the Davidic succession. Neither source text names Solomon as David’s promised successor; Josephus draws the name from 1 Chr 22:9; 28:6 where, in citing the divine promise of 17:11b-12 (// 7:12-13), Solomon introduces a mention of his own name. According to Eupolemus (in the excerpt from Alexander Polyhistor cited by Eusebius, Praep. ev. 30.6) the angel “Dianathan” (see note to “Nathas” at 7.91) commands David to entrust the temple building task to his (unnamed) son and to collect the necessary materials himself. David responds (30.7), in an extrabiblical elaboration, to the order by dispatching miners to an island in the Red Sea to procure the gold that will be needed. See 2 Sam 7:14a// 1 Chr 17:13a. Josephus spells out the implication for Solomon personally of the father-son relationship between the Lord and David’s successors generally spoken of in the sources. Josephus’ formulation of the repeated promise concerning the duration of David’s dynasty of 2 Sam 7:12bβ, 13b, 16 // 1 Chr 17:11bβ, 12b, 14 eliminates the sources’ allusion to the Davidic line enduring “forever.” Thereby, he disposes of the problem that David’s dynasty had, in fact, ceased to rule already centuries before his own time, as well as the promise of its eventual revival implicit in the use of the term “forever” that might well make his Roman patrons uneasy. This is Josephus’ elucidation of the cryptic warning regarding David’s successor found in 2 Sam 7:14b (but not in 1 Chronicles 17): “when he commits iniquity, I will chasten him with the rods of men, with the stripes of the sons of men.” The announcement prepares for Solomon’s subsequent defection and the disasters this will bring with it. Josephus has no equivalent to the additional plus of 2 Sam 7:15, where God announces that, while he will punish David’s successor if he sins, he will not withdraw his “favor” from him, as he did from Saul.

This transitional phrase takes the place of the notice on Nathan’s delivering God’s message to David in 2 Sam 7:17// 1 Chr 17:15. This mention of David’s initial, emotional response to Nathan’s message has no biblical parallel. Its wording picks up on the promise concerning David’s dynasty and its duration in 7.93. With this mention of his approaching the ark Josephus specifies where it is that David “goes in,” as he is said to do at the opening of 2 Sam 7:18// 1 Chr 17:16. Cf. 7.79, which cites David’s “approaching the ark” that is now to be brought to Jerusalem. In 2 Sam 7:18a// 1 Chr 17:16a David “sits before the Lord.” Rabbinic tradition was divided as to whether this biblical phrase was to be taken literally and whether it provided biblical warrant for a special privilege of the Davidic kings; see Begg 2000b: 12-13, n. 39. Josephus, in any case, depicts David in a more reverential posture; compare S. Eli. Rab. 18, p. 89, where David first “prostrates himself” on the ground and then “seats himself before the Presence.” Josephus compresses and generalizes the extended opening segment (2 Sam 7:18b-21// 1 Chr 17:16b-19) of David’s prayer, in which he humbly acknowledges what God has done for him.

For this portion of David’s prayer Josephus makes delayed use of God’s recalling that he took David from shepherding his flock to be prince over his people Israel in 2 Sam 7:8// 1 Chr 17:7. The wording used, with its reference to David’s past “lowly [state]” (Greek: ταπεινός) is also reminiscent of the reference to Obed-edom’s earlier “lowliness” (Greek: ταπεινότης) in 7.84. God prospers both of those who show due solicitude for the ark. Here Josephus has David echo God’s promise concerning the continuation of his dynasty in 7.93 and his own joy over this in 7.94. This component of the king’s prayer likewise vaguely reflects David’s references to the divine word concerning his “house” in 2 Sam 7:18b-19// 1 Chr 17:16b-17. This phrase synthesizes David’s invocation of the Lord’s past benefits for his people, above all his delivering them from slavery in Egypt, in 2 Sam 7:23-24 // 1 Chr 17:21-22. This concluding notice on David’s “exit” following his response to God takes the place of the extended final segment of the king’s prayer in 2 Sam 7:25-29// 1 Chr 17:23-27, where David implores the Lord to maintain his dynasty forever. Overall, in line with his consistent tendency, Josephus drastically shortens David’s 12-verse biblical prayer.

The reference here is to Samuel’s promise of all-sided military success to the newly anointed David in Ant. 6.165. Josephus here alludes to the previous divine promises concerning David’s “descendants” of Ant. 6.165 and 7.93. The entire above paragraph is Josephus’ elaboration of the summary transitional formula of 2 Sam 8:1// 1 Chr 18:1: “... it came to pass after these things [i.e. the dynastic promise featured in 2 Samuel 7// 1 Chronicles 17]....” On Josephus’ version (7.96-110) of David’s conquests as described in 2 Samuel 8// 1 Chronicles 18, see Begg 1999e. Eupolemus (in the excerpt from Alexander Polyhistor cited by Eusebius, Praep. ev. 30.3-4) gives a summary version of the biblical accounts, in which, e.g., he introduces mention of place names (“Commagene”) and peoples (e.g., the Itureans and Nabateans) of his own time. He likewise represents David as imposing tribute on “Souron” king of Tyre and Phoenicia and making a friendship treaty with “Vaphres” king of Egypt.

2 Sam 8:1a// 1 Chr 18:1a begin immediately with David’s “defeat” of the Philistines. Josephus’ insertion of the above preliminaries to David’s victory accentuate his stature as a provident commander.

Josephus now, finally, comes to reproduce the datum of 2 Sam 8:1a// 1 Chr 18:1a on David’s defeat of the Philistines. The sources diverge as to what David “took” from the Philistines following his defeat of them. Josephus’ own indication on the matter seems to reflect the reading of LXX BL 2 Sam 8:1b, where the object is “the appropriated/common (land).” Compare MT 8:1b: “Metheg-ammah” (rendered as a place name by RSV, but possibly meaning “supremacy”) and 1 Chr 18:1b: “Gath and its villages.” See 2 Sam 8:2aα// 1 Chr 18:2aα whose reference to David’s “defeating” the Moabites Josephus elaborates. This notice reflects the plus of 2 Sam 8:2aβbα, in particular the reading of MT LXX L, where the ratio of those killed/left alive by David is 2 to 1 (in LXX B it is rather 2 to 2). Josephus leaves aside the gruesome source details concerning the process employed (measuring off the Moabites with a cord, having them lie on the ground).

See 2 Sam 8:2bβ// 1 Chr 18:2b. Greek: Ἀρτάζαρος; this is the reading of the codices ROE followed by Niese. Marcus (ad loc.) reads Ἀδράζαρος with MSP (and 7.105). Compare MT (2 Sam 8:3// 1 Chr 18:3) ‮הדדעזר‬‎ (Eng.: “Hadadezer”); LXX Ἀδραάζαρ. MT (2 Sam 8:3) ‮רחב‬‎ (Eng.: “Rehob”); LXX B Ῥαάβ; LXX L Ῥαάφ (1 Chr 18:3 does not mention Hadadezer’s father); Josephus Ἀραός (Schalit s.v. suggests that this form reflects a metathesis of the first 2 letters of the original form, i.e. Ῥααός). MT (2 Sam 8:3// 1 Chr 18:3) ‮צובה‬‎ (Eng.: “Zobah”); LXX Σουβά; Josephus Σωφήνη (which Schalit s.v. views as a corruption of an original Σωβᾶ, both here and in Ant. 8.204, 259). Josephus leaves aside the obscure indication of 2 Sam 8:3b// 1 Chr 18:3b that David’s defeat of Hadadezer occurred as he (David? Hadadezer?) was going to restore/set up his monument/ power at the River (i.e. the Euphrates). This figure corresponds to that given in 2 Sam 8:4// 1 Chr 18:4, where, however, it appears in last place in the listing of casualties inflicted by David. This figure stands between the low number (1,700) for the slain horsemen/charioteers given in MT 2 Sam 8:4a and the much higher figure, i.e. 7,000, cited by LXX BL 8:4a and 1 Chr 18:4a (as also by the codices MSP in 7.99). This figure corresponds to the plus of LXX BL 4QSama BL 2 Sam 8:4a// 1 Chr 18:4a, where it stands first in the listing of Hadadezer’s casualties. MT 2 Sam 8:4a lacks the item. See 2 Sam 8:4b// 1 Chr 18:4b. MT’s use of the term ‮רכב‬‎ leaves it ambiguous whether David “hamstrung” the captured “chariot horses” (so RSV) or rather “dismantled” the chariots themselves. By employing the same Greek term ἅρματα (“chariots”) as does the LXX, Josephus clarifies the matter.

2 Sam 8:5a// 1 Chr 18:5a designate David’s next opponent as a nation, i.e. “Aram of Damascus.” In his naming the leader of that nation, as also for his designation of his domain, Josephus anticipates the wording of the notice drawn from Nicolas of Damascus that he will quote in 7.101. Josephus interjects these background details— also perhaps derived from Nicolas of Damascus (see previous note)—concerning the Syrian intervention in favor of Hadadezer as related in 2 Sam 8:5a// 1 Chr 18:5a, thereby providing a motivation for that intervention. With this inserted remark Josephus prepares readers for the outcome of the upcoming battle. Josephus elaborates the summary account of 2 Sam 8:5a// 1 Chr 18:5a, which does not explicitly mention either a battle or the Syrian defeat. Josephus draws his (extra-biblical) localization of the conflict at the Euphrates from the report of Nicolas that he will cite in 7.101. 2 Sam 8:5b// 1 Chr 18:5b speak of 22,000 Syrians slain by David; neither mentions a flight by the survivors.

On Nicolas, the court historian of Herod the Great, and Josephus’ use of his no longer extant Histories, see Wacholder 1962 and 1989: 147-72. Josephus cites this non-biblical author—as he does such other Greco-Roman historians as Herodotus—with a view to enhancing the credibility of his Bible-based account in the eyes of Gentile readers, whose own writers he can show attesting to events narrated in the Jewish Scriptures. See Josephus’ anticipated use of this name for David’s opponent in 7.100. Cf. Josephus’ designation of Adad as king of “Damascus and Syria” in 7.100. Cf. Josephus’ utilization of this wording of Nicolas’ account in his elaboration of 2 Sam 8:5a// 1 Chr 18:5a in 7.100: “joining battle at the Euphrates river, he was defeated...”

This editorial remark introduces Josephus’ following, additional quotation from Nicolas whose wording it echoes. In Ant. 8.156 Josephus, this time writing on his own, calls attention to the succession of Alexandrian kings, each named “Ptolemy” after the founder of the dynasty.

In this instance (contrast that of Michal’s progeny in 7.89), Josephus does follow through on his promise of relating the matter at a later point; see Ant. 8.363-392 (// 1 Kings 20). Cf. note to “for them” at 7.105.

Josephus derives this phrase from Nicolas as quoted by him in 7.101. Compare 2 Sam 8:6bα// 1 Chr 18:6bα, where the Syrians “become servants to David.” Josephus’ formulation highlights David’s own active role in the process. See Sam 8:6a// 1 Chr 18:6a, where the Syrians take the initiative in paying tribute rather than having David impose this on them; see previous note. This mention of David’s “return” prepares the following notice on his activities in Jerusalem. It takes the place of the allusion to the divine source of David’s victories in 2 Sam 8:6bβ// 1 Chr 18:6bβ (which Josephus will, however, utilize subsequently; see 7.105 and cf. note to “his wars” at 7.105). This is Josephus’ (correct?) rendering of the Hebrew term ‮שׁלטים‬‎ of 2 Sam 18:7// 1 Chr 18:7, which has often been understood to mean “shields” (see RSV; cf. Begg 1999e: 157, n. 56); he shares the rendering with Symmachus. LXX 8:7 speaks of golden “bracelets/anklets,” LXX 18:7 of “collars.” None of the biblical witnesses mentions these items (compare the plus of LXX L 2 Sam 8:7: “and the golden weapons and the spears”). In 2 Sam 8:7// 1 Chr 18:7 the objects are removed by David from “the servants of Hadadezer” (see 8:3// 18:3). Josephus substitutes Nicolas’ form of the king’s name. 2 Sam 8:7// 1 Chr 18:7 refer simply to David’s bringing the objects to Jerusalem. Josephus’ formulation prepares for that of Ant. 8.259 (// LXX 1 Kgs 14:26), where he will speak of Pharoah Shishak’s removing the golden quivers that “David had dedicated to God.”

This foreshadowing notice reflects the 4QSama LXX and OL plus at the end of 2 Sam 8:7, which NAB renders “these [i.e. the golden objects spoken of earlier in the verse] Shishak [LXX: Susakeim], king of Egypt, took away when he came to Jerusalem in the days of Rehoboam [LXX B: Jeroboam], son of Solomon.” Josephus’ added reference to Shishak’s removal of “much other wealth” has in view his presentation in Ant. 8.258-259 (// 1 Kgs 14:26), where the king carries off a variety of items from Jerusalem. As with the “announcement” of 7.103, Josephus does make good on this editorial promise; see Ant. 8.258-259. This parenthetical phrase represents Josephus’ delayed use of the theological notice on the source of David’s victories of 2 Sam 8:6b// 1 Chr 18:6b; see note to “returned” at 7.104. This phrase reflects the LXX reading (“from the elect cities”) in 2 Sam 8:8// 1 Chr 18:8, where it substitutes for MT 8:8’s 2nd proper place name, i.e. “Berothai.” On the name of David’s opponent, see note to “Artazar” at 7.99. MT (2 Sam 8:8) ‮בטח‬‎ (Eng.: “Betah”); MT (1 Chr 18:8a) ‮טבחת‬‎ (Eng.: “Tibhah”); LXX B (2 Sam 8:8) Μασβάκ; LXX L (2 Sam 8:8) Ματεβάκ; LXX B (1 Chr 18:8a) Μεταβηχάς; LXX L (1 Chr 18:8a) Ταβαάθ; Josephus Βατταία. MT (2 Sam 8:8) ‮ברתי‬‎ (Eng.: “Berothai”); MT (1 Chr 18:8a) ‮כון‬‎ (Eng.: “Cun”); Josephus Μάχων (Schalit s.v. traces this form back to the name found in Chronicles, where it is preceded by the preposition ‮מ‬‎, thus ‮מכון‬‎). LXX does not have a 2nd proper place in either 2 Sam 8:8 or 1 Chr 18:8a, but rather the phrase “from the elect cities”; see note to “beautiful cities” at 7.105. Josephus appears to conflate the readings of both MT and LXX 2 Sam 8:8// 1 Chr 18:8a with his 2 proper place names, plus an equivalent to the LXX phrase “elect cities.” These actions of David, preparatory to his taking the cities’ metals to Jerusalem, have no equivalent in 2 Sam 8:8// 1 Chr 18:8a. Josephus’ insertion of them accounts for David’s being able to remove the cities’ riches and accentuates his success as a general.

2 Sam 8:8// 1 Chr 18:8a speak only of the cities’ bronze. Josephus’ mention also of their precious metals accentuates the wealth their capture by David brought the Israelites. This characterization of the cities’ bronze lacks a counterpart in 2 Sam 8:8// 1 Chr 18:8a. The insertion intimates an explanation as to why David bothered to remove the captured bronze, especially since, according to his own presentation, David obtained precious metals from the cities as well (see previous note). Josephus’ allusion to various cultic objects later made by Solomon here corresponds to the plus, lacking in MT 2 Sam 8:8, of LXX 8:8 and MT LXX 1 Chr 18:8b. Josephus relates Solomon’s making of the “Sea” in Ant. 8.79-80. Here, he prefaces mention of the object’s odd name with an indication of its nature, i.e. a “large vessel.” Josephus describes Solomon’s fabrication of these objects in Ant. 8.85. His mention of them here reflects the reading of LXX 2 Sam 8:8 and 1 Chr 18:8b against MT, which lacks them. Josephus’ 2-member list of Solomon’s constructions does not mention the various additional bronze objects made by him according to one or other of the biblical textual witnesses, i.e. pillars (BL OL 2 Sam 8:8; MT LXX 18:8b); “all (B OL 8:8) the vessels (of bronze)” (LXX L OL 8:8; MT LXX 18:8b; LXX B 8:8 lacks of bronze); and the altar (OL 8:8). This chronological notice as to when Solomon fabricated the objects in question has no biblical counterpart.

MT (2 Sam 8:9//1 Chr 18:9) ‮חמת‬‎ (Eng.: “Hamath”); LXX 2 Sam 8:9 and LXX B 1 Chr 18:9 Ἡμάθ; LXX L 1 Chr 18:9 Αἱμάθ; Josephus Ἀμάθη. Josephus reserves mention of the king’s own name until 7.108. Josephus expatiates on the notice of 2 Sam 8:9 // 1 Chr 18:9, where the king simply learns of David’s destruction of the entire army of Hadadezer (see 8:3// 18:3// 7.100). In particular, he introduces reference to the emotional effect of the news on the king and his objective in subsequently dispatching his son to David. MT (2 Sam 8:10) ‮יורם‬‎ (Eng.: “Joram”); MT (1 Chr 18:10) ‮הדורם‬‎ (Eng.: “Hadoram”); LXX BL (2 Sam 8:10) Ἰεδδουράν; LXX B (1 Chr 18:10) Ἱδουραάμ; LXX L (1 Chr 18:10) Ἁδωράμ; Josephus Ἀδώραμος. See 2 Sam 8:10a // 1 Chr 18:10a, to which Josephus adds the appeal for an alliance with David, this picking up his earlier insertion concerning the king’s objective in sending to David; see 7.107a.

To the catalogue of the various metal vessels sent to David in 2 Sam 8:10b// 1 Chr 18:10b, Josephus appends the detail concerning their antique character, thereby heightening the value of the gift. MT (2 Sam 8:10) ‮תעי‬‎ (Eng.: “Toi”); MT (1 Chr 18:10) ‮תעו‬‎ (Eng.: “Tou”); LXX B (2 Sam 8:10) Θούου; LXX L (2 Sam 8:10) Ἐλιάβ; LXX BL (1 Chr 18:10) Θῶα; Josephus Θαῖνος. Josephus has held over the king’s name until this point, where he introduces it as a kind of afterthought. These 2 preliminary actions by David in response to the emissary from Hamath are Josephus’ additions. The first of them offers an appealing image of a Jewish leader responding favorably to a appeal for a friendship pact from the side of a weaker Gentile party, this serving to rebut contemporary charges about Jewish xenophobia. On such charges and their refutation as a recurrent concern throughout Josephus’ writings, see Feldman 1998: 121; 1998a: 557-58. See 2 Sam 8:11-12// 1 Chr 18:11, from which Josephus omits the list of the nations that supplied David’s spoils (8:12// 18:11b). His mention of David’s drawing these from both “cities” and “nations” conflates the variant readings of LXX BL 8:11 and MT 8:11// MT LXX 18:11a, respectively.

This affirmation draws on the closing notice of 2 Sam 8:14b// 1 Chr 18:13b: “The Lord gave victory to David wherever he went.” As formulated by Josephus, the notice serves as a lead-in to the following account of a victory won, not directly by David, but by one of his commanders. In making “Abishai” the one through whom the victory is won, Josephus follows 1 Chr 18:12 as opposed to both 2 Sam 8:13 (David himself is the victor) and Ps 60:2 (Joab wins the battle). 1 Chr 18:12 calls Abishai “the son of Zeruiah,” a designation used of him by Josephus in Ant. 6.311 and 7.11. He anticipates Joab’s title from 2 Sam 8:16// 1 Chr 18:15, having previously related Joab’s obtaining this by being the first to scale the walls of Jerusalem in 7.64. Josephus’ designation of David’s target as Idumea/ Idumeans (= Edom/ Edomites) corresponds to the readings of 1 Chr 18:12; LXX BL 2 Sam 8:13 (and Ps 60:2), whereas in MT 8:13 the enemy is “Aram.” This is the enemy casualty figure given in 1 Chr 18:12// 2 Sam 8:13; Ps 60:2 reads 12,000. Josephus omits the location of the battle in “the Valley of Salt,” common to all 3 biblical texts. In 2 Sam 8:14a// 1 Chr 18:13a the double sequel to Israel’s victory is that David installs garrisons in Edom and the Edomites become his servants. Josephus spells out what it meant for the Edomites to become David’s “servants,” i.e. they had to pay taxes to him. David’s double “imposition” on the defeated Idumeans here in 7.109 corresponds to his treatment of the vanquished Syrians in 7.104.

See 2 Sam 8:15// 1 Chr 18:14. The word “just” (δίκαιος) is a key term in Josephus’ characterization of David, see Ant. 6.165; 7.130, 391. The qualification of David as one who “pronounced judgment with an eye to truth” sets him in contrast with the sons of Samuel, who did precisely the opposite according to Ant. 6.34. See 2 Sam 8:16a// 1 Chr 18:15a and cf. 7.109. MT (2 Sam 8:16b// 1 Chr 18:15b) ‮יהושׁפט‬‎ (Eng.: “Jehoshaphat”); LXX Ἰωσαφάτ; Josephus Ἰωσάπατος. MT (2 Sam 8:16b// 1 Chr 18:15b) ‮אחילוד‬‎ (Eng.: “Ahilud”); LXX B (2 Sam 8:16b) Ἀχειτώβ; LXX L (2 Sam 8:16b) Ἀχιτώβ; LXX B (1 Chr 18:15b) Ἀχειά; LXX L (1 Chr 18:15b) Ἀχιλούδ; Josephus Ἄχιλος. The precise meaning of the various Hebrew and Greek terms used to designate Jehoshaphat’s office in 2 Sam 8:16b// 1 Chr 18:15b is uncertain. In RSV’s rendering he is called the “recorder.” 2 Sam 8:17a// 1 Chr 18:16 call Zadok “son of Ahitub.” Josephus derives his association of Zadok (already introduced by him as “high priest” in 7.56// 1 Chr 12:29) with Phineas, grandson of Aaron, from the genealogy of 1 Chr 5:30-34; 6:35-37. He will expatiate on Zadok’s ancestry in Ant. 8.11-12. According to 2 Sam 8:17b// 1 Chr 18:16b David’s other priest was Ahimelech son of Abiathar. Josephus’ identification of him rather as Abiathar himself does, however, correspond to Abiathar’s role both earlier and later in David’s reign in the Bible’s own presentation, just as it matches the list given in 2 Sam 20:25b, where Zadok and Abiathar are cited as David’s priests. This datum lacks a source counterpart, but does accord with Josephus’ recurrent practice of introducing this Hellenistic court term into his biblical paraphrase. MT (2 Sam 8:17b) ‮שׁריה‬‎ (Eng.: “Seraiah”); MT (1 Chr 18:16b) ‮שׁושׁא‬‎ (Eng.: “Shavsha”); LXX B (2 Sam 8:17b) Ἀσά; LXX L (2 Sam 8:17b) Σαραίας; LXX B (1 Chr 18:16b) Ἰησοῦς; LXX L (1 Chr 18:16b) Σουσά; Josephus Σισάς. Josephus uses the same Greek word (grammateuj& ) for Sisa’s office as does LXX. MT (2 Sam 8:18a// 1 Chr 18:17a) ‮בניהו‬‎ (Eng.: “Benaiah”); LXX B (2 Sam 8:18a) Βαναί; LXX L (2 Sam 8:18a); LXX BL 1 Chr 18:17a; and Josephus Βαναίας. MT (2 Sam 8:18a// 1 Chr 18:17a) ‮יהוידה‬‎ (Eng.: “Jehoiada”); LXX B (2 Sam 8:18a) Ἰανάκ; LXX L (2 Sam 8:18a and 1 Chr 18:17a) Ἰωάδ; LXX B (1 Chr 18:17a) Ἰωδᾶε; Josephus Ἰωάδης. This is Josephus’ generalizing equivalent for the 2 groups (“Cherethites and Pelethites”) that Benaiah commanded according to 2 Sam 8:18a// 1 Chr 18:17a. MT 2 Sam 8:18b calls (all) David’s sons “priests.” Josephus follows LXX 8:18b and MT LXX 1 Chr 18:17b in designating them in non-priestly terms, i.e. as royal officials/attendants. The specification that only his “older” sons served in this capacity is Josephus’ own.

The allusion here is to the exchange between David and Jonathan as related in Ant. 6.276. This editorial remark, preparing David’s subsequent initiative and representing it as an expression of the king’s habitual sense of gratitude, takes the place of the abrupt transition with which 2 Samuel 9 opens. On Josephus’ version of this chapter (which has no parallel in Chronicles), see Begg 1998g: 166-71.

Josephus turns David’s question (2 Sam 9:1) about whether any descendants of Saul survive into a command that such survivors be sought out. 2 Sam 9:2 designates “Ziba” as “a servant of the house of Saul.” Josephus does not mention the man’s name until a later point; see 7.115. Josephus omits as superfluous the king’s question “Are you Ziba?” and the latter’s response that he is of 2 Sam 9:2b. Josephus’ formulation of David’s question of 2 Sam 9:3a avoids its (presumptious) phrase “kindness of God” (RSV) in reference to David’s intended benefactions, while also reiterating the idea that such benefactions will be a return for those received by him from Jonathan of 7.111.

In 2 Samuel 9 the son’s name is not mentioned by Ziba in his response of v.3b. Josephus anticipates the name, in the form Μεμφίβοσθος, from 9:6, where MT reads ‮מפיבשׁת‬‎ (Eng.: “Mephibosheth”); LXX B Μεμφιβόσθε; and LXX L Μεμφίβααλ. Josephus’ form of the name thus corresponds to that of LXX B. Josephus here gives his delayed version of 2 Sam 4:4, which relates, in the form of a parenthesis, to which Ziba alludes in 9:3b, the origin of Mephibosheth’s lameness. From his rendering of the former verse Josephus omits the detail that the prince was 5 years old at the time of the accident. This transitional phrase synthesizes the affirmative response by Ziba about the survival of a Saulide, David’s further question about his whereabouts, and Ziba’s reply to this of 2 Sam 9:3b-4. MT (2 Sam 9:4-5) ‮מכיר‬‎ (Eng.: “Machir”); LXX BL Μαξείρ; Josephus Μάχειρος. Josephus omits the name of his father, “Ammiel” (MT). MT (2 Sam 9:4-5) ‮לו דבר‬‎ (Eng.: “Lo-debar”); LXX Λαδαβάρ; Josephus Λάβαθα (which Schalit s.v. suggests could reflect the form ‮בית‬‎ [“house”] in MT 9:4-5). This inserted remark serves to explain what Mephibosheth is doing at Machir’s house.

See 2 Sam 9:6a. Josephus omits the parties’ opening exchange of 9:6b, where David inquires about Mephibosheth’s identity and the latter declares himself his servant. Compare his omission of the similar exchange between David and Ziba in 9:2b; see note to “him” at 7.112. Josephus transposes into positive terms David’s urging Mephibosheth “not to fear” at the opening of 2 Sam 9:7. He leaves aside the king’s attached general statement of his intention to show Mephibosheth kindness for the sake of his father Jonathan—a point already addressed in 7.111-112. Josephus goes beyond the Bible in having David explicitly award Mephibosheth the property, not only of Saul (so 2 Sam 9:7), but also of Jonathan himself. In designating Saul as Mephibosheth’s “grandfather” Josephus aligns himself with LXX L 2 Sam 9:7 as opposed to MT LXX B, which call him his “father.” See 2 Sam 9:7bβ.

See 2 Sam 9:8a. Josephus leaves aside Mephibosheth’s self-abasing reference to himself as a “dead dog” unworthy of David’s attentions of 9:8b. MT (2 Sam 9:9) ‮ציבא‬‎ (Eng.: “Ziba”); LXX B Σειβά; LXX L Σιβά; Josephus Σιβᾶς. This is Josephus’ first mention of the figure’s name (see note to “Saoul” at 7.112), which appears rather abruptly at this point in his presentation. See 2 Sam 9:9, where David refers to Mephibosheth as “the son of your [Ziba’s] lord.” Josephus’ designation of Mephibosheth as a “boy” (Greek: παῖς) at the time of David’s favoring him goes beyond the Bible’s own indications (cf. the reference to his having a son of his own in 9:12, which Josephus nonetheless will reproduce in 7.117). Josephus leaves to a later point in the paragraph the mention of Ziba’s sons and servants, who are to assist him in cultivating Mephibosheth’s land according to David’s order in 2 Sam 9:10. For this portion of David’s directive Josephus follows LXX L 2 Sam 9:10, where the king enjoins Ziba to bring food (literally “loaves”) “to the house of your master,” further specifying where that house is situated, i.e. in Jerusalem. MT reads simply “you [Ziba] shall bring,” while LXX B has “you shall bring to the son of your master.” Josephus leaves aside the additional source specification concerning the intended disposition of what Ziba is to bring, i.e. Mephibosheth (so MT LXX B)/ his household (“they,” LXX L) will eat this. David’s words to Ziba in 2 Sam 9:10a conclude with the statement that Mepibosheth is to always eat at his table (see 9:7). Josephus’ turning this statement into a command that Ziba “bring” him has in view the handicap and age of Mephibosheth who, in his presentation, is only a “boy”; see note to “gift” at 7.115. With this mention of David’s final award to Mephibosheth, Josephus combines the figures for Ziba’s household given parenthetically in 2 Sam 9:10b with the statement of 9:12b about all who lived with Ziba becoming Mephibosheth’s servants; cf. also David’s injunction in 9:10a that Ziba’s sons and servants are to cultivate Mephibosheth’s land along with him.

Josephus prefaces Ziba’s statement of acquiescence to David’s directives of 2 Sam 9:11a with mention of his doing obeisance to the king. Thereby, he sets up a parallel between Ziba and Mephibosheth, who twice earlier prostrated himself before David (see 7.114// 9:6; 7.115// 9:8). Josephus combines into one the double notice on Mephibosheth’s eating at David’s table, 2 Sam 9:11b and 9:13a, of which the first mentions his being treated like one of David’s own sons. He adds the opening remark about Ziba’s departing, following his response to the king (// 9:lla). MT (2 Sam 9:12a) ‮מיכא‬‎ (Eng.: “Micah”); LXX B Μειχά; LXX L Μιχά; Josephus Μίχανος. Josephus’ reproduction of this source mention of Mephiboseth’s having a son of his own seems to stand in a certain tension with his earlier use of the term “boy” for the former himself; see note to “gift” at 7.115.

This closing formula, rounding off the account of David’s benefactions to the surviving Saulide in 7.111-116, underscores, once again, the king’s magnanimity. It takes the place of the reiteration of the fact of Mephibosheth’s lameness (see 2 Sam 9:3b) in 9:13b.

This inserted editorial comment explains the Ammonites’ subsequent reaction, while also precluding reader suspicions about David’s own motives in sending to Hanun. See 2 Sam 10:3// 1 Chr 19:3, whose opening rhetorical question by the leaders about whether the envoys have indeed been sent as a honor to Hanun’s father Josephus converts into a (false) claim about the “pretext” of David’s initiative. In having the leaders assert that David intends to spy out “the country” Josephus aligns himself with 1 Chr 19:3 against 2 Sam 10:3, which reads “the city.” He adds the reference to the Ammonite “force” as a further object of David’s (purported) spy venture. Josephus appends this “practical conclusion” to the leaders’ accusation concerning David’s purported spying of 2 Sam 10:3// 1 Chr 19:3.

Josephus inserts this reference to the effect of the charges upon the king, this prompting him to act as he now does. Josephus prefaces the king’s measures against the envoys with this evaluation, which, by highlighting their reprehensibility, prepares for the vehemence of David’s response. In specifying that Hanun cut off (only) “half” of the envoys’ beards, Josephus agrees with MT 2 Sam 10:4 against LXX, which lacks this specification (and 1 Chr 19:4, which speaks only of a “shaving”). Josephus omits the sources’ graphic specifications that the envoys’ garments were cut “in the middle, at their hips” (2 Sam 10:4// 1 Chr 19:4, RSV). Josephus augments the closing mention of Hanun’s dismissing the envoys in 2 Sam 10:4// 1 Chr 19:4 with this indication concerning the deliberately provocative intention behind his treatment of them. The concern to match words with deeds and seeming with being, evidenced by Josephus’ formula here, was fundamental in both Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian moral philosophy; see, e.g., Plato, Resp. 7.514A-517C; Sir 3:8; 3 Macc 3:17; 4 Macc 7:9; Luke 24:19; Acts 7:22. It likewise surfaces elsewhere in the Josephan corpus (see, e.g., War 1.110-112; Ant. 17.41; Apion 1.18). I owe this observation to Prof. Steve Mason.

In 2 Sam 10:5// 1 Chr 19:5 David deals with the envoys through intermediaries since the former are too ashamed to appear before him. Josephus has him see their condition for himself, this provoking his anger. These statements concerning David’s intentions in the face of what has happened, preparing readers for the subsequent conflict, take the place of David’s enjoining the envoys to remain in Jericho until their beards grow back (2 Sam 10:5b// 1 Chr 19:5b). That injunction which would be out of place in his own presentation, where the envoys have already been seen by the king, presumably in Jerusalem; see previous note.

In 2 Sam 10:6aα// 1 Chr 19:6aα the Ammonites “see” that they have made themselves “odious” (literally: stinking) to David. 2 Sam 10:6 attributes the subsequent military measures to the Ammonites as a whole, while 1 Chr 19:6 ascribes them to “Hanun and the Ammonites.” This indication concerning the “hire price” corresponds to the plus of 4QSama 2 Sam 10:6 and 1 Chr 19:6 (both of which specify “silver” talents), lacking in MT LXX 10:6. This designation (Greek: Σύρον) for the name of the first of the Ammonites’ “hires” reflects the gentilic τὸν σύρον (“the Syrian”) of LXX 2 Sam 10:6, whereas the other textual witnesses for 10:6 and 1 Chr 19:6 speak rather of the country of Aram/Syria. See next note. This specification makes clear that Josephus understood “Syros” as a proper name, rather than the gentilic (“the Syrian”) intended by the corresponding reading of LXX 2 Sam 10:6; see previous note. This designation for “Syros’” people has a counterpart in LXX BL 1 Chr 19:6, which mention “Syria of Mesopotamia” as the first of the Ammonites’ “hires.” Compare “Aram of Beth-rehob” (MT 2 Sam 10:6); “Syria and Roob” (LXX B 2 Sam 10:6); “the Syrian and Baithraam” (LXX L 2 Sam 10:6); “Aram-naharaim” (MT 1 Chr 19:6). This name for the 2nd of the Ammonite “hires” according to Josephus corresponds to the place name “Zobah,” which appears in MT and 4QSama 2 Sam 10:6// MT 1 Chr 19:6; cf. “Souba” (LXX L 10:6) and “Sobal” (LXX BL 19:6). In a way similar to his preceding handling of LXX L 2 Sam 10:6’s reading “the Syrian” (see note to “Syros” at 7.121), Josephus takes the sources’ place name as that of a king, with whom the Ammonites contract an alliance. Josephus spells out the purpose of the Ammonites’ “hiring” as cited in 2 Sam 10:6// 1 Chr 19:6. Josephus derives this datum from the plus of 2 Sam 10:6. Compare “Maacah” (MT 4QSama 2 Sam 10:6// MT 1 Chr 19:7); “Amalek” (LXX B 2 Sam 10:6); “Maacha” (LXX L 2 Sam 10:6); “Syria of Moocha” (LXX B 1 Chr 19:7); “Syria of Maacha” (LXX L 1 Chr 19:7). Josephus follows 4QSama LXX B (Εἰστώβ) LXX L ( Ἰστώβ) 2 Sam 10:6 in reading the MT’s phrase ‮אישׁטוב‬‎ (RSV: “men of Tob”) as a proper name, i.e. Ἴστοβος. 1 Chr 19:7 has no equivalent. 2 Sam 10:6 (MT) assigns “Maacah” 1,000 and the “men of Tob” 12,000 troops for a total of 13,000. Josephus’ overall figure for the Ammonites’ “hires” (32,000, i.e. 20,000 + 12,000) corresponds to that given in 1 Chr 19:7, where, however, the figure concerns, not hired men but “chariots.” Josephus has no equivalent to the plus with which 1 Chr 19:7 concludes: “(the forces hired by the Ammonites) encamped before Medeba. And the Ammonites were mustered from their cities and came to battle.”

Josephus inserts this notice, highlighting the king’s courage, piety, and justice, on David’s state of mind in the face of the enemy initiatives. See 2 Sam 10:7// 1 Chr 19:8. Josephus inserts mention of Joab’s status as commanding general on the basis of 7.110// 2 Sam 8:16a// 1 Chr 18:15a.

Josephus inserts this reference to Joab’s camping, drawing the name of the Ammonite capital city from 2 Sam 11:1// 1 Chr 20:1// 7.129. See 2 Sam 10:8// 1 Chr 19:9. Josephus’ mention of the Ammonites’ stationing themselves “at the gates” corresponds to the phrase “at the entrance of the gate” of MT LXX B 10:8, as opposed to “the entrance of the city” of LXX L 10:8 and 19:9. Like 19:9, which speaks of “the kings who had come,” Josephus has no equivalent to the list, replicating that of 10:6, of the 4 allied contingents given in 10:8.

See 2 Sam 10:9// 1 Chr 19:10, which designate those against whom Joab arrays his elite forces globally as “Aram/Syria.” Josephus’ reference to “Syros” as the proper name of an allied king corresponds to his reading in 7.121. See 2 Sam 10:10// 1 Chr 19:11. See 2 Sam 10:11// 1 Chr 19:12.

In 2 Sam 10:12a// 1 Chr 19:13a Joab urges the Israelite forces to “play the man for our people, and for the cities of our God.” Josephus omits Joab’s closing statement of 10:12b// 19:13b (“may the Lord do what seems good to him.”). On this omission as part of Josephus’ general downplaying of Joab’s piety, see Feldman 1998a: 207-8.

2 Sam 10:13// 1 Chr 19:14 mention neither an initial resistance by the Syrians nor Joab’s slaying of many of them. Josephus’ insertion of these items makes Joab’s victory appear more impressive. See 2 Sam 10:14a// 1 Chr 19:15a, into which Josephus inserts mention of the Ammonites’ “fear” of Abishai and their “imitation” of the Syrians. See 2 Sam 10:14b// 1 Chr 19:15b, which Josephus amplifies, underscoring Joab’s military success.

In 2 Sam 10:15// 1 Chr 19:16 the reference is to measures taken, not by the Ammonites, but rather by the Syrians, their allies, in the face of their initial defeat. Josephus’ formulation keeps attention focussed on the former, given their role as the instigators of the whole affair, just as it directs attention, in first place, to their state of mind, i.e. their unbroken resolution to continue the conflict. The (Syrian) ruler to whom the Ammonites now turn is called “Hadadezer” in 2 Sam 10:16// 1 Chr 19:16, i.e. the king earlier defeated by David according to 2 Sam 8:3// 1 Chr 18:3// 7.99. Josephus’ alternative designation (Greek: Χαλαμάς) seems inspired by the name (wrongly) given the “River” (i.e. the Euphrates) in LXX L 2 Sam 10:16, i.e. Χαλααμά (cf. B: Χαλαμάκ). Alternatively, or in addition, as Marcus (ad loc.) and Schalit (s.v.) suggest, Josephus’ name for the king could reflect the site mentioned in MT 2 Sam 10:16-17 (though not in 1 Chr 19:16-17), i.e. ‮חילם‬‎ (“Helam”; LXX: Αίλάμ). 2 Sam 10:16// 1 Chr 19:16 designate the Syrians’ newly acquired allies as “the Syrians who were beyond the River,” who are procured either by King Hadadezer (so 10:16) or by the Syrians collectively (so 19:16). MT (2 Sam 10:16) ‮שׁובך‬‎ (Eng.: “Shobach”); MT (1 Chr 19:16) ‮שׁופך‬‎ (Eng.: “Shophach”); LXX B 2 Sam 10:16 Σωβάκ; LXX L 2 Sam 10:16 Σαβεέ; LXX B 1 Chr 19:16 Σωφάρ; LXX L 1 Chr 19:16 Σωφάκ; Josephus Σέβεκος. As Marcus (ad loc.) points out, Josephus, in line with a tendency found elsewhere in Antiquities, simply “invents” these figures which, given their magnitude, serve to heighten David’s subsequent victory over so large an enemy army.

Josephus’ reproduction of the notice of 2 Sam 10:17a// 1 Chr 19:17a calls attention to David’s change of tactics at this point, i.e. he no longer (compare 10:7// 19:7// 7.122) entrusts the campaign to a general, but assumes command in person. Thereby, he both magnifies the extent of the new enemy threat and David’s personal military prowess in overcoming it. Like 1 Chr 19:17, Josephus has no equivalent to the mention of David’s proceeding “to Helam” of 2 Sam 10:17; see note on “Syrians” at 7.127. This notice, highlighting David’s military success, takes the place of the sequence of 2 Sam 10:17b-18aα// 1 Chr 19:17b-18aα, in which the Arameans take their stand, fight with David, and eventually flee before Israel. Josephus’ figures for the enemy casualties correspond to those given in 1 Chr 19:18aβ, whereas 2 Sam 10:18aβ reads 700 chariot(eer)s and 40,000 horsemen (MT LXX B; LXX L: 700 horsemen and 40,000 infantry). See 2 Sam 10:18b// 1 Chr 19:18b, where Shobach/Shopach is called “commander of their [the Syrian] army.”

2 Sam 10:19a// 1 Chr 19:19a speak of “(the kings [so 10:19a, > 19:19a]), the servants of Hadadezer” who now submit; Josephus’ substitution reflects the fact that the figure of Hadadezer is absent from his rendering of 2 Samuel 10// 1 Chronicles 19 (see note to “Syrians” at 7.127), just as it picks up on his reference to the Ammanites’ hiring “Chalam, the king of the Syrians beyond the Euphrates” in 7.127. Josephus’ mention of the “gifts” sent by those whom David has just defeated concretizes the reference to their “becoming subject to” him in 2 Sam 10:19a// 1 Chr 19:19a. He has no equivalent to the concluding notice about the Syrians’ “fearing to help the Ammonites any more” of 10:19b// 19:19b. This notice has no parallel in either biblical source. It serves to get David back from his foreign campaign to Jerusalem, where he “remains” during Joab’s siege of Rabbah according to 2 Sam 11:1// 1 Chr 20:1. Josephus thus interprets the expression of 2 Sam 11:1// 1 Chr 20:1, which translates literally as “at the return of the year,” while leaving aside the sources’ further specification that this was the time “when kings go forth to battle.” MT (2 Sam 11:1// 1 Chr 20:1) ‮רבה‬‎ (Eng.: “Rabbah”); LXX BL 2 Sam 11:1 Ῥαββάθ; LXX B 1 Chr 20:1 Ῥάββαν; LXX L 1 Chr 20:1 Ῥαββα; Josephus Ἀραβαθά (thus Niese; Marcus ad loc. and Schalit s.v., both here and in 7.123, follow the conjecture of J. Hudson, i.e. Ῥαβαθά).

Greek: Θεοσεβής. On this adjective (which Josephus will apply to David again in 7.153) and its noun cognate, see Spicq 1978 (II): 375-78. Josephus adds this foreshadowing of the following episode of David’s sin with Bathsheba, at the same time underscoring how “out of character” David’s behavior on this occasion was. In contrast to the Chronicler, however, he does not hesitate to reproduce the sordid episode related in 2 Sam 11:2-27. See 2 Sam 11:2. Josephus omits the source detail about David “arising from his couch,” substituting the statement that the king’s walking on the roof in the late afternoon was in accord with his regular practice, and accentuating the woman’s attractiveness. MT (2 Sam 11:3) ‮בת־שׁבע‬‎ (Eng.: “Bathsheba”); LXX BL Βησάβεε; Josephus Βεεθσαβή. In 2 Sam 11:3 David learns her name in response to his inquiry about her. Josephus leaves aside the names of both her father (“Eliam”) and—for the moment (but see 7.131)—her husband (“Uriah the Hittite”). Josephus interjects this 2-part indication concerning the intensity of David’s passion for Bathsheba. Josephus compresses the circumstantial account in 2 Sam 11:4 of the David-Bathsheba encounter. In particular, he passes over the incriminating detail that “Bathsheba was purifying herself from her uncleanness,” which makes David a violator also of the prohibition of having sexual relations with a menstruating woman of Lev 18:19.

Josephus expatiates on Bathsheba’s laconic message to David in 2 Sam 11:5b (“I am with child”), having her recognize both the wrongfulness of her act and its potentially fatal implications for her. The reference to the “ancestral laws” ironically echoes the mention of David’s “strictly keeping” these in 7.129. This qualification of “Uriah” has a counterpart in the plus of 4QSama 2 Sam 11:3, where it is attached to the initial mention of his name. MT (2 Sam 11:3, etc.) ‮אוריה‬‎ (Eng.: “Uriah”); LXX B Ὀρείας; LXX L and Josephus Οὐρίας. Cf. 2 Sam 11:6, where the wording of David’s command to Joab is cited, as is the latter’s execution of this. In 2 Sam 11:7 David asks Uriah about Joab, the people, and the war.

In making explicit mention of a response by Uriah, Josephus follows the plus of LXX L 2 Sam 11:7 (“he said ‘it is well’”) against MT and LXX B, which lack this. This notice is perhaps inspired by (and anticipated from) 2 Sam 11:8b, where there is mention of “a present (Tg.: meal) from the king,” which follows Uriah as he withdraws from David’s presence. Josephus thus interprets David’s ambiguous/euphemistic command in 2 Sam 11:8a (“[go down to your house] and wash your feet”). See 2 Sam 11:9a, where those among whom Uriah sleeps are called “all the servants of his [Uriah’s] lord.”

Josephus reverses the sequence of David’s 2 questions to Uriah in 2 Sam 11:10b, attaching the first of these (“have you not come from a journey?”) to his rendering of the 2nd (“why did you not go down to your house?”) as its conclusion. Josephus re-arranges the sequence of Uriah’s words in 2 Sam 11:11, where Uriah first evokes the situation of the Israelite forces and then asks rhetorically whether he should enjoy himself at home. From Uriah’s reply Josephus omits his opening statement (“the ark and Israel and Judah dwell in booths [or at Succoth]),” given that the ark’s presence on the campaign has not been mentioned previously either by the Bible or himself. He further omits Uriah’s concluding sworn affirmation that he will not do what David has been urging.

See 2 Sam 11:12a. Josephus specifies the vague biblical indication (“tomorrow I will let you depart”) concerning what David intends to do with Uriah the next day. He leaves aside the statement of 11:12b that Uriah did in fact remain in Jerusalem that and the following day. Josephus’ rendering of the notice of 2 Sam 11:13a about David’s making Uriah drunk specifies how the king contrived to do this, likewise underscoring the calculation with which the king proceeds. To 2 Sam 11:13b Josephus adds the remark about Uriah’s state of mind. The reference to his having no “desire” (Greek: ἐπιθυμία) for his wife echoes by contrast the statement of 7.130 that David was “unable to restrain his desire” (Greek: ἐπιθυμία) for Bethsheba.

Josephus prefaces David’s initiatives as related in 2 Sam 11:14-15 with this reference to his emotional response to Uriah’s behavior. Josephus expands on David’s message to Joab (2 Sam 11:14-15) with indications on why and how Uriah is to be disposed of.

See 2 Sam 11:15. Josephus leaves aside the (self-evident) source indication concerning the purpose of the measures Joab is instructed to carry out, i.e. that “Uriah be struck down and die.” See 2 Sam 11:14. Josephus adds the detail about the sealing of the letter. The sealing ensures that Uriah would not be able to read the letter himself and so discover what awaits him. The transmission of letters, the danger of their interception, and the precautionary measures that letter-writers might take regarding the content of their messages are matters of considerable interest to Josephus, as appears especially from the Life; see 89-90, 177-181, 220-223, 228-229, 241, 245, 254-255, 260, 272, 285-287, etc. I owe this observation to Prof. Steve Mason.

Josephus prefaces this transitional phrase to the account of Joab’s measures given in 2 Sam 11:16. 2 Sam 11:16 simply notes Joab’s positioning Uriah at a point where he knew the enemy forces were brave. Josephus has Joab go beyond his instructions in offering Uriah (false) assurances of support in his mission.

This appeal by Joab to Uriah’s concern for his good reputation is Josephus’ further amplification of the measures taken by him as cited in 2 Sam 11:16. Uriah’s (positive) reaction to Joab’s appeal to him (see previous note) and the latter’s instructions to Uriah’s comrades are both Josephus’ additions.

2 Sam 11:17a merely states that the Ammonites “came out and fought with Joab.” Josephus dramatizes with his references to their psychology and preliminary measures.

This retreat by Uriah’s comrades in accordance with Joab’s command (see 7.138) is not mentioned in 2 Samuel 11. Here too, Josephus elaborates on the summary notice of 2 Sam 11:17b that some among David’s servants, including Uriah, fell. His embellishment accentuates Uriah’s heroic stance and military prowess: he does not die before first slaying many of his attackers. He thereby proves himself worthy of the accolades that Joab had hypocritically bestowed on him in sending him to his unwitting death; see 7.138.

2 Sam 11:18 speaks of a single messenger, whom Joab instructs, in very general terms, to tell the king “all the news about the fighting.” In having Joab simply allude to (the likelihood of) the king’s anger at the messengers’ report, which they in turn are to counter by mention of Uriah’s death, Josephus conflates the data of 2 Sam 11:20aα, 21b. He thereby leaves aside the series of quite specific questions that Joab, rather implausibly, tells the messengers David will pose to them in his anger, 11:20aβb-21a.

Having expatiated on the report Joab entrusts to the messenger(s) in 7.141 (compare 2 Sam 11:18), Josephus leaves aside the the content of their report to the king as cited in 11:23-24. The extended LXX plus following 2 Sam 11:24 mentions David’s “anger” at the report made him. Josephus turns into a statement the reproachful question about why the Israelites approached so near the city, with which David’s response opens in the LXX plus after 2 Sam 11:24. He adds mention of the appropriate alternative tactic that reflects the siege practice of his (Josephus’) own time. Josephus continues to draw on the LXX plus following 2 Sam 11:24, turning David’s question about Abimelech and his death at the hands of a woman as cited there into a statement recalling that episode (related by him in Ant. 5.252// Judg 9:53-55). In fact, LXX has David recall this incident twice, i.e. in Joab’s surmise about how the king will respond to the message brought him [11:21= MT] and here in his actual response (no MT parallel). Like MT then, Josephus has the case of Abimelech cited only once. Whereas, however, MT makes the case part of Joab’s surmise about how David will react, Josephus incorporates it into the king’s reply.

This practical conclusion, drawn from David’s foregoing allusion to Abimelech’s fate, elaborates on the king’s final question to the messenger in the LXX plus after 2 Sam 11:24, “why did you go close to the wall?,” which itself reiterates his initial query to them. The military literature of Josephus’ time (see, e.g., Frontinus [1. praef.]) emphasized, as David does here, that generals should learn from their predecessors. I owe this observation to Prof. Steve Mason.

Like the LXX, Josephus reserves this final element of the messenger’s report to after the king’s initial, reproachful response, whereas in MT the messenger appends this as the conclusion to the single report he makes David in 2 Sam 11:23-24. At this point, Josephus speaks of a (single) messenger in accordance with the biblical account, whereas earlier (7.141-142) he referred to “messengers.” Josephus inserts this reference to David’s change of mood; compare the mention of his being “displeased” in 7.142 and Joab’s telling the messengers what to do when they see David “becoming wrathful” with them in 7.141. Cf. 2 Sam 11:25a. Josephus expatiates on David’s evocation of war’s caprice there.

Josephus expands on David’s directives concerning the renewal of the siege as cited in 2 Sam 11:25b. In particular, he has him, echoing contemporary Roman military practice, again allude to the use of siege equipment (see 7.142), and spell out what is to be done with the city’s population once it has been captured. Josephus supplies this notice on the (one) messenger’s return; see note to “Urias” at 7.144.

2 Sam 11:26 does not specify the duration of Bathsheba’s mourning. See 2 Sam 11:27a.

See 2 Sam 11:27b, where God is “displeased” at “the thing that David had done.” Josephus expatiates on the mention of God’s “sending” Nathan to David of 2 Sam 12:1a with a variety of additional items: God’s state of mind, his showing himself to the prophet (for this, see 7.92), and the content of the divine communication to him. This inserted preface to Nathan’s “parable” (2 Sam 12:1b-4) serves to explain why it is that the prophet does not immediately and directly accuse David in accordance with what God has just told him.

This further preface to Nathan’s parable seems to reflect the LXX L plus in 2 Sam 12:1b, where Nathan begins his words to the king: “judge this case for me.” See 2 Sam 12:1b-3aα.

This reference to the man’s emotional bond with the lamb takes the place of the further details concerning his care for it in 2 Sam 12:3aβb, i.e. its drinking from his cup and lying in his bosom. See 2 Sam 12:4.

2 Sam 12:5a speaks of David’s “anger” against the rich man of the parable. Josephus’ figure agrees with that of MT and LXX L* 2 Sam 12:6 (and with the law of Exod 21:27 [Eng. 22:1]// Ant. 4.272) against the “7-fold” of LXX B and some LXX L manuscripts (cf. Prov 6:31). Josephus reverses the order of the double sentence pronounced by David in 2 Sam 12:5bβ-6a, making the sequence more logical (the man is first to make restitution and then be executed). He omits both David’s opening oath formula (12:5bα) and the appended motivation of his sentence in terms of the man’s lack of pity (12:6b). Josephus embellishes Nathan’s laconic statement of 2 Sam 12:7a: “you are the man,” with allusion to the king’s offense, self-condemnation, and impending punishment.

This inserted reference picks up on the mention of God’s “wrath” in 7.147. Josephus thus goes beyond the Bible in highlighting God’s emotional response to David’s deed. Josephus, here too, avoids the term “anointed” of 2 Sam 12:7b. Josephus adds this reference to God’s subjugation of the nations to David to Nathan’s mention of the divine appointment of him as king in 2 Sam 12:7bα. Both benefits appear together in Samuel’s word to David at his anointing in Ant. 6.165. See 2 Sam 12:7bβ. According to Nathan’s word in 2 Sam 12:8a, the wives whom the Lord has given David were those of Saul. Josephus’ reformulation reflects the fact that the Bible does not elsewhere refer to David’s obtaining his predecessor’s wives. On David’s “lawful wives,” see 7.70. Josephus compresses Nathan’s repetitious accusations against David as cited in 2 Sam 12:9, 10b into a single general charge of showing contempt for God (compare 12:9a, 10bα) coupled with a single specific charge of adultery and murder (compare 12:9b, 10bβ, where this charge is made twice).

With the episode of Absalom’s violation of David’s concubines (2 Sam 16:21-22) in view, Josephus substitutes this designation of the culprit for the vaguer “your neighbor” of 2 Sam 12:11. In 7.214 he will introduce a reference to the fulfillment of Nathan’s announcement here. By inserting this prediction of Absalom’s revolt into Nathan’s announcement Josephus accentuates his prophetic powers. See 2 Sam 12:12, where more figurative language (“before the sun”) is used in reference to the public character of David’s punishment. Josephus makes this announcement the conclusion/climax to Nathan’s judgment speech (7.151-152// 2 Sam 12:7-12), whereas in the Bible it comes (12:14b) only after the complex of notices recounting David’s confession of sin (12:13a) and Nathan’s declaration of divine pardon (12:13b), this coupled with a renewed mention of his offense (12:14a) as the ground for the child’s fate.

Josephus amplifies David’s brief confession of 2 Sam 12:13a (“I have sinned against the Lord”), supplying mention of the king’s emotional state and the outward manifestation of this (“tears”) as well as a statement about David’s normal godly manner of life reminiscent of his similar, exculpatory remarks in 7.130; note in particular the use of the term “God-fearing” (Greek: θεοσεβής) for David in both 7.130 and 153. The remark here in 7.153 seems inspired by 1 Kgs 15:5: “David did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, and did not turn aside from anything he commanded him all the days of his life, except in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.” In 2 Sam 12:13b Nathan informs David that the Lord “has put away his sin” and that he will “not die.” See 2 Sam 12:15a. Josephus has anticipated Nathan’s parting announcement of the child’s death of 12:14 (see note to “his birth” at 7.152), from which he omits the motivation of this in terms of David’s offense.

See 2 Sam 12:15b. Josephus amplifies the notice of 2 Sam 12:16-17 on David’s intercessory initiatives with a variety of items: the king’s emotional state, the reason for his undertaking these measures (i.e. his attachment to Bathsheba), and the “black garment” donned by him. His explicit mention of David’s placing himself “on sackcloth” reflects the LXX plus in 12:16. He replaces the designation “the elders of his [David’s] house” of 12:17 with the more general term “servants” drawn from 12:18.

See 2 Sam 12:18, where what the servants recall is their having spoken to David in vain (cf. 12:17).

In 2 Sam 12:19a David sees the servants “whispering together.” Compare 2 Sam 12:19b, where David asks and is answered by the servants as a group. 2 Sam 12:20aα has David simply changing his clothes. Josephus’ inserted reference to the white garment donned by him sets up a contrast with the king’s previous putting on a black garment; see 7.154. In 2 Sam 12:20aβ David goes “into the house of God,” where he “worships.” Josephus’ substitution of a reference to “the tent of God” reflects the fact that a permanent “house” has not yet been built for God, and recalls the notice of 7.86 on David’s setting up the tent for the ark.

See 2 Sam 12:20b. Josephus prefaces the retainers’ question to the king (2 Sam 12:21) with this notice on their inner reaction to his behavior, into which he incorporates an anticipated version of their words to him. The servants’ initial asking permission to query David about his strange behavior is a Josephan amplification of 2 Sam 12:21, reflecting his concern with proper royal protocol.

Josephus inserts this opening component of David’s reply (2 Sam 12:22-23); it serves to accentuate the king’s mental superiority vis-à-vis his questioners. This positive statement takes the place of David’s reporting his asking himself about the possibility of the Lord’s sparing the child in 2 Sam 12:22b. Josephus compresses David’s triple affirmation concerning the futility of any further lamentation for the child of 2 Sam 12:23. The Bible reports no such reaction by the servants. It reminds one of the acclaim for Solomon’s wisdom evoked by his judgment in the case of the 2 prostitutes in 1 Kgs 3:28 (// Ant. 8.34). In making David the one to name the child, Josephus follows the MT ketiv of 2 Sam 12:25 against the qere, which has Bathsheba name him. The LXX’s verbal form could have either parent as its subject. 2 Sam 12:24-25 assigns 2 names to the newly born child: Solomon and “Jedidiah,” of which the latter is connected with the Lord’s “loving” the child and is given him in accordance with a divine message conveyed by the prophet Nathan. Josephus simplifies matters, eliminating all reference to a 2nd name for the child—in fact, “Jedidiah” is never used for him again in the Bible—and making “Solomon” the (single) name given him in line with Nathan’s announcement in 7.93 that this was to be the name of the son who would succeed David.

Josephus inserts these indications on the preliminaries to Joab’s actual capture of Rabbah (2 Sam 12:26 // 1 Chr 20:1b) under the apparent inspiration of Joab’s statement in 12:27 about his having taken the “city of waters.”

Josephus replaces the negative motivation for Joab’s summons to David given in 2 Sam 12:28: (David is to come) lest Joab himself take credit for the city’s capture with a positive one: David should come in order to get the credit due him. 2 Samuel 12 does not mention such a commendation of Joab by David. As Feldman (1998a: 295) notes, this is one of the few instances where Josephus goes beyond the Bible in portraying Joab positively. See 2 Sam 12:29 (in 1 Chr 20:1b the city’s capture is attributed, not to David, but to Joab). Earlier (see 7.123, 129) the Ammonite capital is called “Arabatha.” This “permission” is not mentioned in the biblical accounts of Rabbah’s fall. It portrays David as a general who is solicitous for his men rather than only concerned to obtain plunder for himself—as he might appear to be in the source presentations.

2 Sam 12:30a// 1 Chr 20:2a do not identify the crown’s precious stone. 2 Sam 12:30a// 1 Chr 20:2a seem to speak of a one-time placing of the crown on David’s head, rather than of his constantly wearing this. 2 Sam 12:30b// 1 Chr 20:2b speak in more general terms of the vast spoil removed from the city by David. Josephus has David impose a still harsher penalty on the capital’s inhabitants than do 2 Sam 12:31a // 1 Chr 20:3a, where he simply puts them to hard labor. In 2 Sam 12:31bα// 1 Chr 20:3bα the inhabitants of the other Ammonite cities, like those of Rabbah itself (see previous note), are put to hard labor.

2 Sam 12:31bβ// 1 Chr 20:3bβ note that the king was accompanied back to Jerusalem by “all the people.” Josephus interjects this transitional notice with its ominous foreshadowing of the following “Tamar episode” (2 Samuel 13); on Josephus’ version of this episode, see Begg 1996g. The wording of the notice echoes that used to introduce David’s own sin with Bathsheba in 7.130. See 1 Sam 13:1b, whose reference to the woman’s beauty Josephus embellishes, just as he did in the case of Bathsheba (see 7.130 and compare 2 Sam 11:2). 2 Sam 13:1a speaks of “Tamar” simply as Absalom’s “sister”; Josephus has already mentioned her name and the pair’s status as full siblings in 7.70; he cites the name of their common mother (“Machame”) in 7.21. On Josephus’ portrayal of Absalom, see Feldman 1998a: 215-29.

This specification is lacking in 2 Sam 13:1b; Josephus derives it from 2 Sam 3:2// 7.21. See also 7.173 and note on “grief” at 7.173. 2 Sam 13:2 speaks vaguely of “it seeming impossible to Amnon to do anything to her [Tamar]”; Josephus spells out the reason for this, i.e. she was a virgin who was kept under guard. Josephus elaborates on the reference of 2 Sam 13:2 to Amnon’s “making himself sick” because of Tamar, highlighting the effects of his passion upon him.

MT (2 Sam 13:3) ‮יונדב‬‎ (Eng.: “Jonadab”); LXX B Ἰωνναδάμ; LXX L Ἰωναθάν; Josephus Ἰωνάθης. In designating Jonadab as the son of David’s brother “Shimeah” (MT) 2 Sam 13:3 makes him Amnon’s cousin. Josephus will reproduce the source notices on Jonadab’s parentage when this is repeated in 13:32; see 7.178. The Bible itself does not call Jonadab Amnon’s “friend.” 2 Sam 13:3 calls Jonadab “very wise” (Hebrew: ‮חכם‬‎). ’Abot R. Nat. 9 specifies “wise in evil.” In Josephus’ presentation Jonadab’s “perceptiveness” is evidenced first of all by his noticing Amnon’s condition. Josephus incorporates into his account of what Jonadab perceives the content of his question to Amnon in 2 Sam 13:4: “... why are you so haggard morning after morning?” In 2 Sam 13:4 Jonadab simply asks Amnon to tell him what is wrong. Josephus highlights the latter’s previously mentioned “perceptiveness” by having him inform Amnon that he has already divined the nature of his “ailment.” The term “desire” (Greek: ἐπιθυμία) used of Amnon was previously applied to David (7.130), Uriah (7.134), and Amnon himself (7.163).

In 2 Sam 13:4b Amnon refers to Tamar as “Absalom’s sister.” Josephus’ Amnon uses a phrase which calls attention to the half-sibling relationship between himself and Tamar. Josephus modifies the conclusion of Jonadab’s proposal according to 2 Sam 13:5, where Amnon is to ask David to have Tamar prepare food for him so that “I may see it, and eat it from her hand.” Josephus’ rendering sets out a more ultimate goal for the suggested procedure, i.e. Amnon’s full recovery.

See 2 Sam 13:6a; Josephus underscores the fact of Amnon’s acting on Jonadab’s advice. 2 Sam 13:6b does not mention an initial inquiry by David concerning Amnon’s health. Josephus generalizes Amnon’s request to the king, which in 13:6b recapitulates the wording of Jonadab’s proposal to the former (13:5). 2 Sam 13:7 relates David’s (single) sending to Tamar to direct her to go to Amnon’s house to prepare food for him and her going there. Josephus substitutes 2 stages to David’s instructions: Tamar is first conveyed to Amnon’s residence at David’s direction and then personally told by him what she is to do, the king’s injunctions then concluding with an appended rationale, i.e. Amnon’s readiness to “eat from her hands.”

See 2 Sam 13:8b-9aα, which lists a total of 6 actions performed by Tamar in Amnon’s sight. See 2 Sam 13:9aβbα. Josephus provides a motivation for Amnon’s command that all are to withdraw.

From 2 Sam 13:9bβ-10a Josephus leaves aside the (purported) rationale for Amnon’s request of Tamar, i.e. “that I may eat from your hand.” See 2 Sam 13:10b-11. Words of the βια-stem (here the verb βιάζομαι, “to do violence”) permeate Josephus’ version of 2 Samuel 13, occurring a total of 6 times. On the root in Josephus overall, see Moore 1974-1975. Tamar’s initial attempt to dissuade Amnon as cited in 2 Sam 13:12 does not refer to the “laws,” affirming rather “such a thing is not done in Israel.” The “laws” in question are presumably those of Lev 18:9, 11; 20:17 (cf. Deut 27:22; Ezek 22:1), forbidding sexual relations with a half-sister. Josephus himself does not cite these laws in his version of the pentateuchal legislation. Compare Tamar’s statement in 2 Sam 13:13aβ, “you would be one of the wanton fools in Israel,” which itself follows her rhetorical question of 13:13aα: “as for me, where could I carry my shame?” Josephus thus omits Tamar’s reference to the negative effects of Amnon’s deed for herself in order to concentrate attention on a potentially more persuasive point, i.e. its deleterious consequences for himself. Whereas in 2 Sam 13:13a Tamar evokes the negative consequences of Amnon’s intended action for herself and for him (see previous note), Josephus has her enlarge the perspective, reminding Amnon that their entire family stands to suffer, should he proceed with his intent. The addition recalls Josephus opening statement about a disaster befalling David’s “house (hold)” in 7.162.

See 2 Sam 13:13b. Commentators on 2 Sam 13:13b debate the intention behind Tamar’s urging Amnon to speak to the king about her and her assurance that David will give her to him. Josephus, who has had Tamar previously allude to the “laws,” i.e. those forbidding sexual relations with a half-sister (see note to “laws” at 7.168), clarifies the matter: Tamar knows that what Amnon desires is legally impossible, and is simply “playing for time” with her closing words to him. See 2 Sam 13:14, which Josephus amplifies with reference to the intensity of the lust that drives Amnon to consummate the rape.

This is the reading (Greek: διακόρησις) of MP, which Marcus adopts; Niese reads κορεία (“virginity, maidenhood”) with ROE. (Both Greek terms are quite rare in writers before Josephus). Reinach (ad loc.) conjectures μετὰ κόραν (“after surfeit”). 2 Sam 13:15a specifies that Amnon’s hatred for Tamar was greater than his previous love for her. B. Sanh. 21a quotes R. Isaac’s dictum that Amnon’s dramatic shift of feeling towards Tamar was to due to his having damaged his sexual organ while having intercourse with her. See 2 Sam 13:15b. Josephus adds the qualification of Amnon’s command as an additional insult. See 2 Sam 13:16a, where Tamar’s word to Amnon is cited in direct discourse. See 2 Sam 13:16a. Josephus’ Tamar introduces the contrast between immediate and later, nocturnal expulsion and spells out what the former would entail for her. Josephus passes over the appended narrative (13:16b) statement that Amnon “would not listen to her.” From Amnon’s command to his servant concerning Tamar, 2 Sam 13:17, Josephus omits the concluding injunction that he is to “bolt the door after her.” He likewise passes over the actual execution of Amnon’s orders by the servant as related in 13:18b.

Josephus anticipates this item from 2 Sam 13:19aβ, amplifying it with indications concerning Tamar’s emotional state. Josephus generalizes the notice of 2 Sam 13:18a, where the reference is to the clothing worn by “the virgin daughters of the king.” This phrase (Greek: τῶν ἀρχαίων) corresponds to an oft-proposed emendation, i.e. ‮מעולם‬‎ (“of old”) for the MT form, i.e. ‮מעילים‬‎ (“garments”) in 2 Sam 13:18a. Josephus’ description of the item of clothing in question seems to represent a conflation of the terms used for it in LXX B (“a long-sleeved tunic”) and LXX L 2 Sam 13:18a (“a tunic reaching to the ankles”). MT employs a phrase of uncertain meaning, i.e. ‮כתנת פסים‬‎ (RSV: “long robe with sleeves”). Josephus adds this indication concerning the purpose of the garment in question. Josephus combines the 1st and 4th of the 4 actions attributed to Tamar in 2 Sam 13:19, expanding the latter with mention of the “object” of her “crying.” He has anticipated her 2nd source action (rending her garment) to an earlier point in the paragraph, while he leaves aside the 3rd, i.e. her laying her hand upon her head.

Josephus substitutes this question for the one asked by Absalom in 2 Sam 13:20aα, i.e. “Has Amnon your brother been with you?,” which leaves one wondering how Absalom surmised this. In 2 Sam 13:20aβ Absalom does not wait for an answer by Tamar to his initial question to her (see 13:20aα). Josephus inserts an allusion to the fact of her responding before Absalom resumes his speaking. In 2 Sam 13:20aβ Absalom urges Tamar to “hold her peace” and not “take this to heart,” given Amnon’s status as her “brother.” Josephus’ version at least acknowledges that a rape has occurred. Josephus interjects this notice on the effectiveness of Absalom’s words to Tamar as cited in 2 Sam 13:20a. Josephus’ word for Tamar’s state (Greek: χηρεύουσα, literally “widowed”) is the same as that used by LXX BL 2 Sam 13:20b. He adds the indication concerning the extended duration of her stay with her brother.

See 2 Sam 13:21. This appended remark concerning David’s non-activity in the face of Amnon’s deed reflects the plus of LXX BL 2 Sam 13:21 (partially preserved also in 4QSama): “... but he did not grieve the spirit of Amnon his son because he loved him, because he was his first-born.” Josephus earlier inserted a reference to Amnon’s status as David’s eldest son in 7.163, which serves to prepare his allusion to that status here in 7.173. Josephus expands the notice of 2 Sam 13:22 on Absalom’s not speaking to Amnon because (or in spite of) his “hating” him for his violation of Tamar with a foreshadowing of his subsequent initiative against Amnon. The verb μισέω (“to hate”) used of Absalom’s stance towards Amnon here recalls Josephus’ comment about the “hatred” (Greek: μῖσος) for Tamar that came over the satiated Amnon in 7.170.

This same noun (Greek: πταῖσμα) occurs at the opening of the “Tamar interlude” in 7.162, which speaks of a “disaster” befalling David’s household. Its presence there and here in 7.174 serves to frame Josephus’ version of the Tamar story in 7.162-173. MT (2 Sam 13:23) ‮בעל חצור‬‎ (Eng.: “Baal-hazor”); LXX B Βαιλασώρ; LXX L Βασελλασώρ; Josephus Βελσεφών. Schlatter (1913, s.v.) suggests that Josephus’ form has been influenced by the place name “Baal-zephon” in Exod 14:2. In locating “Belsephon” in “Ephraim,” Josephus agrees with MT and LXX B 2 Sam 13:23 against LXX L, which places it in “Gophraim” (= Hebrew “Ophrah”). 2 Sam 13:23b-24 appears to contain a double invitation by Absalom, i.e. first to the princes, seemingly made directly by him, and then a request to David that he and his “servants” attend the festival. Josephus has Absalom approach David at the outset to invite both him and his brothers. In specifying that the invitation is “for a feast,” Josephus is perhaps inspired by the LXX plus at the end of 13:27: “Absalom made a feast like the feast of the king.”

In 2 Sam 13:25a David declines to have “us all” go “lest we be burdensome to you.” Josephus has the king specify that he is turning down the invitation for himself personally, thus opening the way for Absalom to renew his earlier invitation regarding his brothers. This 2nd, generalized request by Absalom takes the place of his specific appeal that Amnon be permitted to accompany them (2 Sam 13:26a), which itself so arouses the king’s suspicions (13:26b) that Absalom must “press” David on the matter until he finally relents (13:27) Josephus further shortens the exchange between David and Absalom by omitting the latter’s unsuccessful “pressing” of the king to attend in person and the latter’s giving his “blessing” to the upcoming festival (13:25b). See 2 Sam 13:28.

Josephus amplifies the princes’ reaction in 2 Sam 13:29b with reference both to their emotional state and the “goal” of their flight. He further substitutes “horses” for “mules” as their mounts. See 2 Sam 13:30.

Josephus interjects this notice on David’s emotional response to the news. Josephus adds this remark on the impact of David’s overwhelming grief upon him, i.e. it keeps him from checking into the veracity of the report. The addition serves to highlight by contrast the cool calculation that “Ionathes” will display in what follows; see 7.178. Josephus’ mention of David’s lamenting and the object of this takes the place of the notice on 2 Sam 13:31b that has the king’s “servants” rending their garments along with him. Josephus thereby keeps attention focussed on David personally and his manifestation of grief.

MT (2 Sam 13:32) ‮שׁמעה‬‎ (Eng.: “Shimeah”); LXX B Σαμά; LXX L Σαμαά; Josephus Σαμᾶς. In his introduction of “Ionathes” in 7.164 Josephus left out the name of his father and the latter’s relation to David as cited in 2 Sam 13:3; see note on “of his” at 7.164. Josephus provides a “supporting argument” for Jonadab’s opening word in 2 Sam 13:32a, where he simply urges David not to suppose that all his sons have been killed. The Josephan Jonadab expresses his supposition about Amnon’s death more tentatively and prudently than does his biblical counterpart, who asserts this as a fact in 2 Sam 13:32b. Josephus passes over Jonadab’s repetition of his 2-part affirmation of 13:32 (the other sons are not dead, but only Amnon) in 13:33.

Mention of these echoes Josephus’ reference to the princes’ mounting their “horses” in 7.176. In linking the princes’ arrival (// 2 Sam 13:36aα) with Jonadab’s statements about their fate (// 13:32-33), Josephus passes over the intervening 13:34-35, in which the watchman perceives the approach of many people and Jonadab reacts by identifying these as David’s sons, whose safe return he has just predicted.

Josephus expatiates on the summary mention of the king and princes’ grieving in 2 Sam 13:36abb. As in his rendition of 13:31 in 7.177, he omits the participation of David’s servants in the mourning. MT (2 Sam 13:37) ‮גשׁור‬‎ (Eng.: “Geshur”); LXX B Γεδσούρ; LXX L Γεσσείρ; Josephus Γεσσούρα. Like MT, Josephus has no equivalent to the varying geographical precisions appended to the name “Geshur” in LXX BL, as well as in 4QSama. See 2 Sam 13:37a, 38. Josephus has previously mentioned the name (“Thomomai”) and kingdom of Absalom’s maternal grandfather in 7.21 (// 2 Sam 3:3). He omits the intervening notice on David’s morning for his son (Absalom) “day after day” of 13:37b.

In 2 Sam 13:39a David “longs to go forth to Absalom.” Josephus’ rendering appends an indication of the king’s plans regarding Absalom once they are reunited. His reference to the cessation of David’s “wrath” against Absalom replaces the allusion to the king’s being “comforted for” the deceased Amnon in 13:39b. This transitional notice takes the place of the mention of Joab’s “perceiving that the king’s heart went out to Absalom” of 2 Sam 14:1.

Josephus drastically reduces the account of Joab’s “instructing” the woman in 2 Sam 14:2-3, omitting, e.g., her status as a “wise woman” residing in Tekoa, the prohibition of her anointing herself, and Joab’s supplying her with the words she is to say. The one item added by Josephus is his reference to the woman’s age. Continuing to abridge the biblical account, Josephus passes over the woman’s approach to David, her homage to him and request for help, the king’s inquiry about her problem, and her introducing herself as a widow (2 Sam 14:4-5). In his version, she begins presenting her case immediately. See 2 Sam 14:6.

In 2 Sam 14:7 the woman’s “whole family” takes the initiative in demanding that she hand over the culprit. For Josephus’ version of the law of blood vengeance (Exod 21:12-14; Num 35:19-21) to which the woman is alluding, see Ant. 4.277. Josephus reformulates in non-figurative terms the woman’s statement of 2 Sam 14:7bα (“thus they [the family] will quench my coal that is left”). He passes over her concluding declaration about her husband being left without a “name” or “remnant” on earth (14:7bβ). He further omits the appended dialogue between David and the woman (14:8-10), in which the king twice reassures her (vv. 8, 10), with her offer to assume “guilt” in place of the king supervening (v. 9). Josephus here synthesizes the woman’s various requests of the king regarding her surviving son as cited in 2 Sam 14:(7)11a, 15-16. These words, affirming the effectiveness of David’s decisions, might be seen as Josephus’ replacement for the woman’s fulsome statement about the king’s being “like the angel of God to discern good and evil” in 2 Sam 14:17.

See 2 Sam 14:11b, from which Josephus leaves aside the king’s oath formula and the figurative language of his declaration (“not one hair of your son shall fall to the ground”). He previously passed over the king’s earlier, preliminary responses to the woman of vv. 8 and 10; see note to “age” at 7.183. This expression of thanks by the woman takes the place of her asking permission to speak further to the king and David’s granting this (2 Sam 14:12), as well as her (obscure) reproachful question of 14:13a: “why then have you planned such a thing against the people of God?”

With these statements by the woman, linking her own case with that of David and Absalom, and affirming the wrongfulness of the king’s continued resentment towards his son, Josephus elucidates her rather obscure, figurative remarks on the matter in 2 Sam 14:13b-14. He mentioned the king’s getting over his “wrath” towards Absalom in 7.181; here in 7.184 then, the woman is requesting David to do something that, in fact, he has done prior to her appeal. The juxtaposition of the 2 formulations points up the magnanimity of David, who has already laid aside his anger on his own.

This statement, highlighting both David’s insight and Joab’s attachment to his son, takes the place of the king’s calling on the woman to answer honestly whatever he may ask her and her reply, urging him to speak, in 2 Sam 14:18. Josephus drastically compresses the sequence of 2 Sam 14:19-20, where to the king’s question about Joab’s involvement (14:19a) the woman replies affirmatively with extended words of flattery for David (14:19b-20). See 2 Sam 14:21. Josephus appends this statement by David concerning his current stance towards Absalom to the king’s directive that his son be brought back (2 Sam 14:21). The addition echoes the editorial remark in 7.181 that David’s “wrath” towards Absalom had “ceased over time” as well as the woman’s plea (7.185) that David lay aside his “wrath” against his son. See also note on “the other” at 7.185.

See 2 Sam 14:22, from which Josephus omits the actual wording of Joab’s response to the king. See 2 Sam 14:23.

See 2 Sam 14:24a. Josephus provides a motivation for David’s directive to his son. Cf. 2 Sam 14:24b, where Absalom is said to dwell in his own house and not enter the king’s presence in accord with David’s double directive in 14:24a. Josephus appends the notice about Absalom’s being looked after by the servants.

Josephus inserts this remark, highlighting the non-effect of Absalom’s travails on his appearance, as a transition to the following parenthetical segment concerning Absalom’s physique (// 2 Sam 14:25-27). See 2 Sam 14:25, which avers that Absalom was “without blemish” from head to crown. Josephus markedly embellishes the notice of 2 Sam 14:26 concerning the extraordinary weight of Absalom’s hair when cut “at the end of every year,” giving the same figure for the weight of the hair at its weekly cutting as does the Bible for the once-a-year cut. Rappaport (1930: 53, #219; 131, n. 232) calls attention to the comparable statement attributed to R. Joses in b. Naz. 5a according to which Absalom, in line with princely practice, used to have his hair cut each Sabbath eve. Josephus’ figure agrees with that of MT, 4QSama and LXX B 2 Sam 14:26 against LXX L’s 100. This equivalency replaces the specification of 2 Sam 14:26 according to which the 200 shekels that Absalom’s hair weighed were “by the king’s weight.” On the problem of the relationship between the 2 units of weight cited by Josephus, see Marcus ad loc.

Josephus anticipates this chronological indication from 2 Sam 14:28, which further specifies that throughout this time Absalom did not enter David’s presence (see 14:24b). See 2 Sam 14:27. Josephus does not here reproduce the source’s name(s) for Absalom’s daughter; MT LXX B have “Thamar,” LXX L rather “Maacha” (the name given her in 1 Kgs 15:2 as well). See next note. Josephus here follows the plus at the end of LXX BL 2 Sam 14:27, itself inspired by the subsequent reference to the later history of Absalom’s daughter in 1 Kgs 15:2 (// Ant. 8.249). In designating the son of Tamar and Rehoboam as “Abias,” Josephus goes together with LXX L 2 Sam 14:27 (“Abia”) against the “Abiathar” of LXX B.

Josephus expatiates considerably on Absalom’s request to Joab as reported in 2 Sam 14:29aα, where he simply calls on the latter to “send him to the king.” Josephus compresses the sequence of 2 Sam 14:29, where there is a double sending by Absalom and a double disregard of this by Joab. In 2 Sam 14:30a (see 14:31) it is Joab’s own barley field, rather than an field adjacent to this, which the servants are instructed to burn. Josephus passes over the notice on their execution of Absalom’s order, 14:30b. This transitional notice, with its mention of Joab’s learning of the field-burning, might reflect the extended plus of 4QSama and LXX BL at the end of 2 Sam 14:30: “Joab’s servants came to him with their clothes torn and said, ‘The servants of Abishalom had set the property on fire’.” (trans. McCarter 1984 ad loc.) See 2 Sam 14:31.

In 2 Sam 14:32 Absalom begins by reminding Joab of why he had sent for him, i.e. that he might bring the king a message from himself, further asserting that he should have stayed in Geshur (a version of this assertion appears at the end of Josephus’ version of Absalom’s speech; see note to “towards me” at 7.192). Josephus’ version of Absalom’s reply incorporates a mention of Joab’s previous disregard of Absalom’s summons, while also echoing the wording of his original message to Joab (7.191). This appeal for Joab’s mediation takes the place of Absalom’s statement in 2 Sam 14:32b: “now therefore let me go into the presence of the king; and if there is guilt in me, let him kill me.” This concluding affirmation by Absalom represents Josephus’ version of the message that the prince had intended Joab to take to the king according to 2 Sam 14:32a: “Why have I come from Geshur? It would be better for me to be there still.” The statement picks up the key word “wrath” used of David’s feelings towards Absalom in 7.181, 185, 186.

Josephus inserts this notice on the effect of Absalom’s words upon Joab. See 2 Sam 14:33a. Josephus expatiates on the summary source reference to Joab’s “telling” the king. 2 Sam 14:33bα mentions only Absalom’s prostration, not his request for pardon. 2 Sam 14:33 concludes with David “kissing” Absalom. Josephus supplies a preparatory action by the king (raising the prostrate Absalom) and replaces the royal kiss with an affirmative response to Absalom’s— likewise added—request for pardon.

Josephus interjects this indication about the brevity of the interval between Absalom’s being pardoned by his father and his undertaking initiatives that will eventuate in his revolt against David. He thereby accentuates Absalom’s heedlessness and ingratitude. 2 Sam 15:1 speaks merely of “a chariot and horses.” In 2 Sam 15:1 Absalom’s 50 attendants are called “those who run before him.”

Compare 2 Sam 15:2aα, where Absalom positions himself “at the way of the gate” (4QSama lacks “of the gate”). According to 2 Sam 15:2aβ Absalom addressed himself indiscriminately to all those who approached the king for judgment of their cases. Josephus has him focus on the group that would most likely be amenable to his subversive words, i.e. those who had lost their cases; see Feldman 1998a: 222. Josephus leaves aside the opening, introductory exchange (2 Sam 15:2b) between Absalom and those with cases in which the former asks the latter where they have come from and is informed by them of their tribal affiliation. He thereby has Absalom come immediately to the key issue. This is Josephus’ intensified version of Absalom’s assertion in 2 Sam 15:3 that, whereas his hearers had good cases, David had failed to provide anyone to hear them. For the Josephan Absalom, there are judges available, but these cannot be relied on to exercise their office appropriately. Compare 2 Sam 15:4, where Absalom expresses the wish that he himself might be a “judge,” so as to be able to give justice to those who come. Josephus’ wording here echoes Ant. 6.32, where Samuel is said to do what Absalom here claims he would do if he had the authority, i.e. “establish a sound legal system.” Josephus leaves aside the notice of 15:5 on Absalom’s raising up and kissing those who pay him homage.

See 2 Sam 15:6b: “so Absalom stole the hearts of the men of Israel.” The word translated “curried favor” is the participle of the verb δημαγωγέω, a term used by Josephus also of his arch-rival, Justus of Tiberias; see Life 40 and cf. Feldman 1998a: 224; Ma-son: 2001: 45, n. 242. Josephus inserts this transitional phrase which suggests an explanation as to why Absalom waited so long (i.e. 4 years) before undertaking his revolt. Josephus gives the same figure for the amount of time elapsed as does LXX L 2 Sam 15:7 (and Syriac and Vulg.) against the improbable 40 years cited by MT (2 Hebrew MSS read 40 days) and LXX B. He adds the specification concerning the starting point of the period in question, having this commence with David’s pardoning of Absalom (see 7.193); he thereby underscores the enormity of the latter’s deed in rising up against his pardoner. Josephus compresses Absalom’s extended address to the king concerning the vow he wishes to make at Hebron in 2 Sam 15:7-8. Josephus here seems to combine (and abridge) the data of 2 Sam 15:12b (the constant increase of Absalom’s supporters) and 15:10 (Absalom’s dispatch of messengers throughout Israel to urge people to acclaim him king when they hear the sound of the trumpet).

MT (2 Sam 15:12a) ‮אחיתפל‬‎ (Eng.: “Ahithophel”); LXX B Ἀχειτόφελ; LXX L Ἀχιτόφελ; Josephus Ἀχιτόφελος. According to 15:12a Absalom “sent/sent for” this figure. Josephus uses the same gentilic for Ahithophel as does LXX L 2 Sam 15:12a (MT calls him a “Gilonite,” LXX B a “Tekonite”). At this point, he leaves aside the name of Ahithophel’s city (MT: “Giloh”), which, however, he will insert into his account of Ahithophel’s returning to die there in 7.228 (where in line with the gentilic “Gelmonite” used by him here in 7.197, he calls the site “Gelmon”). See 2 Sam 15:11. In the sequence of 2 Samuel 15, Absalom’s “sacrificing” is associated, not with the 200 Jerusalemites (v. 11), but rather with his summoning of Ahithophel (v. 12a). This closing notice on Absalom’s launching his coup represents another (see note on “by him” at 7.196) echo of 2 Sam 15:10, where Absalom dispatches “secret messengers” throughout all the Israelite tribes to urge that, when the sound of the trumpet is heard, he be acclaimed king.

Josephus elaborates on the notice concerning David’s being informed of his son’s initiatives (2 Sam 15:13), elucidating the king’s interior response to this and highlighting, once again, the reprehensibility of Absalom’s deeds; see note to “short time” at 7.194. Josephus turns into a narrative notice the opening words of David’s address to his servants in 2 Sam 15:14: “Arise, and let us flee.” He likewise introduces a specification concerning the king’s intended destination, based on the subsequent course of the story.

2 Sam 15:14a has David speaking to all his “servants” present in Jerusalem. Josephus makes him consult a more select body, made up of those whose loyalty could most be counted on. Josephus gives this new, more pious, content to David’s words to his retinue of 2 Sam 15:14, where the Deity is not mentioned, and it is rather the threat posed by Absalom which is in focus. He leaves aside the servants’ response, pledging their continued loyalty, of 15:15. See 2 Sam 15:16. Josephus mentioned David’s “concubines” in 7.70 (// 2 Sam 5:13) without specifying their number. 2 Sam 15:17a has “all the people” (MT; LXX house[hold]) accompanying David. Josephus omits the detail about the party’s “halting at the last house” of 15:17b. In 2 Sam 15:18 the 600 are qualified as “Gitittes who had followed him [David] from Gath.” For Josephus’ earlier references to the 600 as David’s pre-kingship companions, see Ant. 6.299, 319, 351, 360. From the list of David’s supporters in 15:18 Josephus omits the obscure groups of the “Cherethites” and the “Pelethites.”

Josephus reverses the order of Samuel 15, where the fugitive David encounters first Ittai the Gittite (vv. 19-22) and then the cultic officers (vv. 24-29). The reversal could reflect the greater long-term significance of the latter meeting. In speaking of “Abiathar” alongside Zadok, Josephus follows MT 2 Sam 15:24 (where he appears in 3rd place, after Zadok and the Levites, in the phrase “and Abiathar went up [or was sacrificing]”) against LXX L, where the Levites carry the ark ἀπὸ Βαιθάρ (“from Baithar”). LXX B conflates the readings of MT and LXX L. Josephus earlier mentioned Abiathar and Zadok (in reverse order) together as David’s joint high priests in 7.110. In 2 Sam 15:25a David addresses himself to Zadok alone; Josephus has him speak to all the cultic officers previously enumerated in 15:24. His appended motivation for David’s directive that the ark be brought back to Jerusalem (// 15:25a) picks up on the positive scenario cited by the king in 15:25b (God will restore him to Jerusalem), while leaving aside the more negative possibility (if God is not pleased with David, he may do what seems good to him with him) adduced by David in 15:26. In 2 Sam 15:27-28 (compare 15:25) David addresses his word about being kept informed concerning events in Jerusalem to Zadok; Josephus, as in what precedes, has the king speak to all the cultic officers who have come out to him. Cf. 2 Sam 15:28, where David announces that he will await a word from the priests “at the fords of the wilderness.” Greek: διάκονοι. On Josephus’ use of this word and its cognates in light of biblical and extra-biblical Greek usage, see Collins 1990: 111-15, 120-21, 129-30, 131-44, 164. MT (2 Sam 15:27) ‮אחימעץ‬‎ (Eng.: “Achimaaz”); LXX B Ἀχειμαίας; LXX L Αχιμάας; Josephus Αχίμανος (this is the reading adopted by Niese, whereas Marcus ad loc. and Schalit s.v. read Αχίμας). MT (2 Sam 15:27) ‮יהונתן‬‎ (Eng.: “Jonathan”); LXX Ιωναθάν; Josephus Ιωνάθης. In 2 Sam 15:27 the 2 priestly sons are mentioned as part of David’s address. Josephus transposes the mention into an editorial remark appended to David’s words, which underscores the pair’s reliability.

MT (2 Sam 15:19) ‮אתי‬‎ (Eng.: “Ittai”); LXX B Γεθθί; LXX L Ἠθί; Josephus Ἔθις. MT (2 Sam 15:19) ‮הגתי‬‎ (Eng.: “the Gittite”); LXX τὸν Γεθθαῖον; Josephus ὁ Γιτταῖος. Josephus drastically abridges the sequence of 2 Sam 15:19-22, where David urges Ittai to return (vv. 19-20), the latter demurs (v. 21), and David acquiesces in his coming with him (v. 22a). He likewise leaves aside the appended notices on Ittai’s actual “passage” (v. 22b) and the crossing of the Kidron by king and people (v. 23).

See 2 Sam 15:30, which adds mention of David’s own “weeping” and the (un)covered heads of king and people. See 2 Sam 15:31a. Josephus inserts the reference to the emotional effect of the report upon David. In 2 Sam 15:31b David prays that God will “turn Ahithophel’s counsel “into foolishness” (MT LXX L; LXX B: “frustrate”). Josephus’ rendition may have been inspired by the notice concerning the fulfillment of David’s prayer in 2 Sam 17:14 (// 7.221), where Absalom decides that Hushai’s plan is superior to that of Ahithtophel, doing so in accordance with the divine decision of doom upon himself (17:15). Josephus appends this remark, underscoring the urgency of David’s prayer, perhaps inspired by 2 Sam 16:23 (a passage not reproduced by Josephus in its biblical context), where the counsel of Ahithophel is said to be the equivalent of an “oracle of God” in the eyes of both David and Absalom.

With his phrase “the summit” Josephus translates the MT form ‮הראשׁ‬‎ of 2 Sam 15:32, which LXX BL transliterate as a proper place name, i.e. (τοῦ) Ῥοώς. Josephus intensifies the pathos of the source reference to David’s (or the people’s) “worshiping God” at the summit in 2 Sam 15:32a. MT (2 Sam 15:32) ‮חושׁי‬‎ (Eng.: “Hushai”); LXX Χουσεί; Josephus Χουσίς. Josephus leaves aside Hushai’s gentilic, i.e. “the Archite.” In introducing Hushai as David’s “friend,” Josephus follows LXX BL 2 Sam 15:32, whereas in MT this title appears only at the very end of the exchange between him and David in 15:37.

Josephus adds the reference to Hushai’s lamenting and the reason for this to the description of his other mourning practices cited in 2 Sam 15:32b. He thereby accentuates both the pathos of the scene and Hushai’s solidarity with the fugitive David. This reference to David’s initial response to Hushai’s mourning takes the place of the king’s brusque opening declaration in 2 Sam 15:33 that Hushai will be a burden to him, should he accompany him (which Josephus does reproduce subsequently in the paragraph). Josephus thus portrays a king who, in his first response, appears more sympathetic to and appreciative of Hushai’s grieving on his behalf. In his version of David’s request of Hushai in 2 Sam 15:34, Josephus inserts a reference, inspired by 15:35-36, where David asks him to make use of the 2 priests’ sons in sending him word about what he hears in the palace, to a further mission he has in mind for him, i.e. to ascertain Absalom’s plans. His rendition of the former verse makes no use of its extended plus in LXX B (in LXX L this comes at the end of 15:36), according to which Hushai is to say to Absalom: “your brothers departed, O king, after the departure of your father and now I am your servant, O king. Spare my life” (trans. McCarter 1984: ad loc.). This is Josephus’ delayed version of David’s opening statement to Hushai in 2 Sam 15:33. See note to “grieving” at 7.204. Josephus omits—although see note to “Achitophel” at 7.204—David’s extended remarks on the 2 priests’ sons through whom Hushai may get word to him about developments in Jerusalem. See 2 Sam 15:37, the content of which Josephus prefaces with an allusion to the persuasive effect of David’s speech on Hushai.

As in 7.111-116, Josephus uses this name for the Saulide, corresponding to that of MT LXX B 2 Sam 16:1, as against the “Memphibaal” of LXX L. See 2 Sam 16:1a. Josephus inserts this cross reference to his earlier presentation of the 2 figures in 7.111-116 (// 2 Samuel 9); see especially 7.115. Josephus markedly compresses the catalogue of supplies brought by Ziba as well as the exchange between David and him regarding these (2 Sam 16:1b-2), turning the latter into a “directive” by Ziba without a prior question by David.

Josephus substitutes this proper name for the ambiguous phrase used by David in his question of 2 Sam 16:3a: “where is your master’s son?”—who is the “master” (Jonathan? Mephibosheth?) and who the “son” (Mephibosheth?, Mica [2 Sam 9:12]?) here? Josephus appends a motivation for Mephibosheth’s (purported) “expectation” about gaining the kingship that is keeping him in Jerusalem according to Ziba (2 Sam 16:3b). Josephus expands the notice (2 Sam 16:4a) concerning David’s “donation” to Ziba with a reference to the king’s emotional response to the latter’s report as well as a motivation for his making the property award to him. This notice on Ziba’s emotional state replaces his concluding statement to David in 2 Sam 16:4b: “I do obeisance; let me ever find favor in your sight, my lord the king.”

MT (2 Sam 16:5) ‮בחורים‬‎ (Eng.: “Bahurim”); LXX B Βουρείμ; LXX L Χορράμ; Josephus Χώρανος (This is the reading adopted by Niese and Marcus ad loc.; Schalit s.v. proposes Βοκχόρης as the original form, i.e. the name found in 7.225, where Josephus is reproducing the reference to “Bahurim” of 2 Sam 17:18). MT (2 Sam 16:5) ‮שׁמעי‬‎ (Eng.: “Shimei”); LXX Σεμεεί; Josephus Σαμούις. MT (2 Sam 16:5) ‮גרא‬‎ (Eng.: “Gera”); LXX Γηρά; Josephus Γηρᾶ. See 2 Sam 16:5-6, where (v. 6) David’s entourage consists of all his servants, all the people, and all the “mighty men.”

Josephus elaborates on Shimei’s opening words to David according to 2 Sam 16:7: “begone, begone, you man of blood, you worthless fellow.” Josephus reverses the order of 2 Sam 16:8, where Shimei speaks first of the Lord’s vengeance on David for the blood of Saul’s house and then of God’s deposing David in favor of Absalom. He inserts the reference to Shimei’s “thanking God” for these developments. 2 Sam 16:9 refers to the reaction of Abishai alone, who designates Shimei as a “dead dog” and asks David’s permission to behead him. This editorial remark, prefacing David’s response to Abishai, takes the place of the king’s (obscure) opening question in 2 Sam 16:10a: “What have I to do with you, you sons of Zeruiah?”

These opening statements by David represent a elaboration of his injunction “let him [Shimei] alone, and let him curse” in 2 Sam 16:11bα. In having David himself qualify Shimei as a “dog,” Josephus transfers to the king himself Abishai’s reference to Shimei as a “dead dog” in 16:9. This declaration of resignation by David makes explicit what is implicit in his words in 2 Sam 16:10-12. It likewise echoes 7.199, where Josephus has David “consign everything to God, the judge.” Compare David’s double recognition of the divine prompting behind Shimei’s cursing of him in 2 Sam 16:10b, 11bβ. Josephus elaborates on David’s declaration in 2 Sam 16:11aβ: “Behold my own son seeks my life; how much more now may this Benjamite.” His inserted negative qualification (“impious”) of Absalom echoes the extended remarks on David’s reaction to his son’s revolt introduced by him in 7.198 (compare 2 Sam 15:14), highlighting its reprehensibility. Josephus has David voice a more definite hope than that attributed to him in 2 Sam 16:12, where he merely alludes to the possibility that the Lord will “look upon my iniquity” (so MT; LXX affliction) and “repay me with good.”

2 Sam 16:13 also mentions Shimei’s “throwing stones and flinging dust.” Josephus inserts the reference to David’s ignoring Shimei’s provocations. In his mention of “the Jordan,” Josephus agrees with the 2 LXX L manuscripts 19 and 108 in 2 Sam 16:14, whereas the other witnesses to that verse do not specify where David and his party arrive. MT 2 Sam 16:14 has David “refreshing himself” upon his arrival, whereas LXX refers to the whole party doing so. Josephus’ formulation highlights the king’s solicitude for his supporters.

2 Sam 16:15-16a which mentions (v. 16a) the name of David’s “friend,” i.e. Hushai (see 7.203// 2 Sam 15:32). After the interlude featuring David’s movements in 7.205-210, Josephus now returns to the scene in Jerusalem introduced at the end of 7.204. Compare 2 Sam 16:16b, where Hushai twice (MT; once, LXX) greets Absalom with the acclamation “Long live the king.” Josephus expands Absalom’s double question of 2 Sam 16:17 about Hushai’s initiative (2 Sam 16:16) with a reference to the latter’s “reputation,” this underscoring how “out of character” his current move appears to be. Josephus prefaces the words of Hushai’s response (2 Sam 16:18-19) with this editorial evaluation of them.

See 2 Sam 16:18, where Hushai evokes the same 2 sources for Absalom’s authority that he is now professing to recognize. See 2 Sam 16:19b, where Hushai declares his intention of “serving” Absalom as he had his father. Josephus’ version has Hushai echo Absalom’s challenge to him about his being David’s “friend,” with a particular reputation for “fidelity” in 7.211. The rhetoric Josephus attributes to Hushai here recalls Herod’s argument before Augustus: his recent switch of sides is not, the former tries to convince the latter, a matter of disloyalty to his previous patrons; rather he now intends to show Augustus the same loyalty he had previously displayed towards Antony (War 1.386-392). I owe this observation to Prof. Steve Mason. Josephus appends this closing statement of “satisfaction” by Hushai about how things have developed to his words as cited in 2 Sam 16:18-19.

Together with the editorial comment at the end of 7.211 (see note to “prudent” at 7.211), this added remark about Hushai’s persuasiveness frames Josephus’ version of his answer in 7.212. See 2 Sam 16:20-21a. Cf. the notice on David’s leaving his concubines behind in 7.199// 2 Sam 15:16. Josephus has Ahithophel spell out the meaning of his reference (2 Sam 16:21b) to Absalom’s making himself “odious to” (MT; LXX shaming) his father with the proposed course of action: by so egregious a deed, he would render any rapprochement between himself and David impossible. Josephus appends this statement about the people’s current stance to Ahithophel’s proposal in 2 Sam 16:21.

See 2 Sam 16:22, which Josephus prefaces with an allusion to the effect of Ahithophel’s counsel. This fulfillment notice, alluding back to 7.152 (// 2 Sam 12:11-12), has no source equivalent. It takes the place of the parenthetical notice concerning Ahithophel’s counsel being regarded as “the oracle of God” by both David and Absalom of 16:23, which Josephus has anticipated in his remark about Ahithophel’s astuteness in 7.202; see note to “advantageous” at 7.202.

In 2 Sam 17:1 Ahithophel offers his 2nd suggestion unasked. Josephus’ transitional phrase has Absalom take the initiative in requesting his further advice. Josephus’ figure corresponds to that of LXX L 2 Sam 17:1b, whereas MT and LXX B read 12,000. Josephus focusses on these 2 core elements of Ahithophel’s proposal in 2 Sam 17:1b-3a, leaving aside such additional details as David’s present demoralized state (v. 2aα) and the image, used by Ahithophel in connection with his promise to bring all the people back to Absalom, of a bride coming to her husband’s home (v. 3a). This affirmation replaces Ahithophel’s statement of 2 Sam 17:3b that Absalom need eliminate only one man (David) in order for the entire people to be at peace.

2 Sam 17:4 mentions all the elders of Israel being pleased with Ahithophel’s plan as well. See 2 Sam 17:5. Josephus’ inserted reference to Hushai’s title underscores the irony of the situation in which the latter, a supposed traitor to the king, will, in fact, prove himself David’s “chief friend” by the fatal advice he gives Absalom. See 2 Sam 17:6. Josephus’ remark about the realization that prompts Hushai’s counter-proposal takes the place of his initial statement in 2 Sam 17:7, in which he calls Ahithophel’s plan “not good”—an opening that might appear too blunt, especially after Absalom himself has been said to approve that plan in 17:4.

See 2 Sam 17:8abα. Josephus leaves aside the biblical Hushai’s image of David and his men as a bear bereft of her cubs (+ a sow snared in the wild, LXX B). His inserted reference to David’s remaining in his camp “for the moment” sets up a contrast with what the king will do once evening comes (17:8bβ).

See 2 Sam 17:8bβ-9a. Josephus recasts Hushai’s words in 2 Sam 17:9b-10, where he speaks of the possibility that some of Absalom’s men will be killed in combat, with the resultant reports of a rout generating panic even among his most courageous supporters. In so doing, he has Hushai highlight the threat posed by David himself.

Josephus inserts this transitional exhortation within the 2 parts of Hushai’s speech, i.e. his refutation of Ahithophel’s proposal (7.217-218// 2 Sam 17:7-10) and the presentation of his own plan (7.219-220// 17:11-13). Whereas in 17:7 Hushai asserts that Ahithophel’s advice is “not good,” Josephus has him declare that it is his own which is “best.” Compare the figurative language of 2 Sam 17:11a, where Hushai urges that “all Israel from Dan to Beersheba” be assembled to Absalom like “the sand by the sea.” Josephus accentuates Hushai’s admonition of 2 Sam 17:11b that Absalom “go to battle in person.”

This assurance takes the place of Hushai’s figurative language in 2 Sam 17:12, where he speaks of Absalom’s forces lighting upon David “as the dew falls on the ground.” Throughout his rendition of Hushai’s speech in 7.217-220 (// 2 Sam 17:7-13), Josephus consistently either leaves aside or recasts its many images. In 2 Sam 17:13 Hushai refers to Absalom’s forces using “ropes” to drag David’s refuge city into the valley so that not even a pebble will remain. Josephus substitutes mention of the more elaborate siege procedures with which he was familiar from his own military experience.

See 2 Sam 17:14. In reproducing the “theological commentary” of v. 14b, Josephus leaves aside its concluding indication of the purpose of the Lord’s causing Ahithtophel’s plan to be rejected, i.e. “that he might bring evil upon Absalom.” He thereby avoids attributing “evil” to God.

To Hushai’s report in 2 Sam 17:15 Josephus adds the approval of his own proposal by Absalom. As in 7.216 (// 2 Sam 17:4), he leaves aside the role of the “elders of Israel” in the proceedings. Josephus omits Hushai’s negative injunction of 2 Sam 17:16a that David not overnight at “the fords of the wilderness,” while specifying that he is to cross “the Jordan.” His version may be influenced by the LXX L plus, i.e. (David is to pass over) “the waters.” In 2 Sam 17:16b Hushai warns David not to let himself and his people be “swallowed up,” the subject of this action being left unspecified. Josephus inserts the reference to Absalom and the possibility of his reversing his endorsement of Hushai’s own proposal, this making it imperative that David immediately put himself beyond his reach.

2 Sam 17:17a speaks of the priests’ sons (on these see 7.200) waiting at “En-rogel.” Josephus explains how they come to be in their current position. 2 Sam 17:17b speaks of the maidservant’s general practice of coming and “telling” the priests’ sons, given the impossibility of their own entering the city. Josephus has her come on this particular occasion to relay Hushai’s message of 7.222.

Josephus inserts this comment on the sons’ reaction. Its positive qualification of the pair echoes his reference to them as David’s “reliable ministers” in 7.200. Josephus elaborates the notice of 2 Sam 17:18aβ about the sons’ speedy departure with mention of their “judgment” that prompts this.

Compare 2 Sam 17:18aα, where it is a “lad” who sees the pair and reports them to Absalom, this prompting their speedy departure. Josephus has their departure motivated, not by fear at having been reported, but rather, more loftily, by obedience to their fathers’ commands; see 7.224. MT (2 Sam 17:18) ‮בחורים‬‎ (Eng.: “Bahurim”) LXX B Βαορείμ; LXX L Βαιθχορρών; Josephus Βοκχόρος. Earlier (see 7.207), where 2 Sam 16:5 mentions “Bahurim” as a stopping place of the fugitive David, Josephus uses a different name for the site, i.e. “Choran”; see note to “Choran” at 7.207. Here in 7.225 he inserts the reference to the proximity of “Bocchores” to Jerusalem. This request has no counterpart in 2 Sam 17:18b-19, where, once the pair has descended into the well, the woman, on her own, conceals the opening. Here, as in what follows, Josephus goes beyond the Bible in accentuating the woman’s stature as a “2nd Rahab”; see note to “them” at 7.226 and to “ways” at 7.227.

In 2 Sam 17:18b the young men descend the well on their own. The witnesses for 17:19 offer various possibilities as to what substance (grain [MT], sand, dried fruit cakes [so LXX L]) was used by the woman to conceal their hiding place. Josephus’ specification (wool) is unique to himself. Josephus expatiates on the woman’s answer as cited in 2 Sam 17:20bα, where she speaks of the pair’s having “crossed the brook of water (MT)/ in haste (LXX L).” Her allusion to their having drunk in her house has a counterpart in OL. With this addition to the woman’s response of 2 Sam 17:20bα Josephus establishes a parallel between her and Rahab, who in Ant. 5.9 (// Josh 2:6) avers that the Israelite spies can readily be apprehended if pursued. See 2 Sam 17:20bβ.

Josephus continues to highlight the woman’s role with this preface to 2 Sam 17:21, where she is not mentioned and where all attention goes to the initiatives of the priests’ sons who, on their own, emerge from the well and go to David. Compare Josephus’ presentation of Rahab in Ant. 5.11-12, where, once the pursuers have disappeared, she takes the initiative in bringing the spies down from the hiding place (the roof) where she had concealed them, and then urges them to return to their own place. See 2 Sam 17:21. Josephus underscores the pair’s eagerness to fulfill their mission, while omitting their (presumptuous) “command” to David that he cross over quickly. Josephus recasts as a directive by David to those with him the notice of 2 Sam 17:22 that by daybreak the whole company had crossed the Jordan.

Josephus, basing himself on his earlier reference in 7.197 (// 2 Sam 15:12 [where the place is called “Gihon” in MT) to Ahithophel as the “Gelmonite,” inserts the name of his hometown into the notice of 17:23aα on his departure thither. Josephus elaborates on the summary notice of 2 Sam 17:23aβ about Ahithophel’s “setting his house in order.” Specifically, he turns this into an address by him to his assembled household in which he first (accurately) predicts the outcome of Absalom’s revolt, thereby demonstrating both the extent of his own wisdom (see 7.202) and Absalom’s folly in rejecting this.

With this conclusion to the speech he puts on Ahithophel’s lips, Josephus has him prepare hearers and readers for his coming suicide and to spell out—as the Bible itself does not—his rationale for undertaking this. 2 Sam 17:23bα does not specify where Ahithophel hangs himself. This phrase lacks a biblical counterpart; it picks up on Ahithophel’s previous speech to his servants announcing what he intends to do and the reason for this. Into the burial notice of 2 Sam 17:23bβ Josephus introduces a mention of those who perform the burial and their preliminary act of cutting him down. On the other hand, he passes over the source specification about Ahithophel’s being buried “in the tomb of his father.” Like the Bible, Josephus offers no evaluation of Ahithophel’s suicide, just as he left Saul’s similar deed without comment in Ant. 6.371.

See 7.227 // 2 Sam 17:22. After the “Ahithophel interlude” of 7.228-229 (// 2 Sam 17:23) Josephus now resumes his account of David’s movements. Greek: Παρεμβολαί. Josephus shares this “translation” of the Hebrew place name “Mahanaim” of 2 Sam 17:24 (transliterated by LXX B as Μανάειμ) with LXX L. He mentioned the site previously as Ish-bosheth’s “capital” in 7.10 // 2 Sam 2:8. This qualification of the site lacks a counterpart in 2 Sam 17:24. Josephus appends his parallel to the account of David’s reception in the Transjordan (2 Sam 17:27-29) directly to his mention of David’s arrival at “The camps” (// 17:24a), reserving the sequence concerning Absalom’s concurrent initiatives (// 17:24b-26) for a later moment; see 7.232. He likewise adds reference to the feelings of David’s Transjordanian hosts. MT (2 Sam 17:27) ‮ברזלי‬‎ (Eng.: “Barzillai”); LXX BL Βερζελλεί; Josephus Βερζελαῖος. In the listing of 17:27 this figure is mentioned only in 3rd place; Josephus’ “advancing” him to first position might reflect the fact that, of David’s 3 Transjordanian hosts, only he will reappear in the subsequent course of the story. Josephus omits the name of his city, i.e. “Rogelim.” MT (2 Sam 17:27) ‮שׁבי‬‎ (Eng.: “Shobi”); LXX B Οὐεσβι; LXX L Σεφεεί; Josephus Σειφάρ. In 17:27 he is the first of the 3 figures to be mentioned. This designation takes the place of the more elaborate indications concerning “Shobi” given in 2 Sam 17:27, where he is called “son of Nahash from Rabbah of the Ammonites.” MT (2 Sam 17:27) ‮מכיר‬‎ (Eng.: “Machir”); LXX BL Μαχείρ; Josephus Μάχειρος. This title for “Machir”—previously mentioned by Josephus in 7.113 (// 2 Sam 9:4) as the guardian of Mephibosheth—substitutes for the name of his father (“Ammiel”) and his city (“Lo-debar”) given in 2 Sam 17:27.

With this opening notice Josephus here sums up the long list of supplies brought David according to 2 Sam 17:28-29, underscoring the large quantities of everything provided. Like MT 2 Sam 17:28, Josephus lacks the LXX specification concerning the number, i.e. 10, of beds made available to David’s forces. Josephus reduces the 13 items cited in 2 Sam 17:28 to 4, while adding a reference to “wine.” This summary notice on the donated supplies takes the place of the realization attributed to David’s hosts in 2 Sam 17:29b, i.e. that his men are “hungry, weary, and thirsty.”

Josephus rounds off his account of David’s reception in the Transjordan (7.230-231) with this phrase. Josephus combines the data—previously passed over by him (see 7.230)—of 2 Sam 17:24b and 26 concerning Absalom’s advance, appending to the latter verse the specification on the proximity of Absalom’s camp to that of David. MT (2 Sam 17:25) ‮עמשׂא‬‎ (Eng.: “Amasa”); LXX B Ἀμεσσά; LXX L Ἀμεσσεί; Josephus Ἀμασᾶς. See 2 Sam 17:25a. Josephus appends the mention of Amasa being a relative of Joab. In what follows (// 2 Sam 17:25b), he will indicate that the men were cousins, sons of 2 sisters. MT (2 Sam 17:25) ‮יתרא‬‎ (Eng.: “Ithra”); LXX B Ἰοθόρ; LXX L Ἰεθέρ; Josephus Ἰέθρας. Josephus omits the gentilic of Amasa’s father: the Israelite (MT)/ the Izreelite (LXX L)/ the Ishmaelite (LXX A and 1 Chr 2:17). MT (2 Sam 17:25) ‮אביגל‬‎ (Eng.: “Abigail”); LXX and Josephus Ἀβιγαία. Josephus leaves aside the indication of 2 Sam 17:25b that Abigail was the daughter of “Nahash” (so MT LXX B; LXX L: Jesse), the sister of Zeruiah. In his presentation it is Abigail herself who is Zeruiah’s sister. Josephus has already mentioned “Sarouia” as David’s sister in Ant. 6.311.

2 Sam 18:1a does not specify the number of men “mustered” by David. See 2 Sam 18:1b, which Josephus prefaces with mention of David’s “decision” that prompts him to organize his forces as he does. Josephus’ explicit mention of this point reflects the opening plus of LXX L 2 Sam 18:2. See 2 Sam 18:2a. The 3rd of David’s commanders was introduced by Josephus in 7.201 under the name of “Ethis (= MT 2 Sam 15:19 Ittai) the Gittite.” Neither that earlier reference or the corresponding biblical passages designates him as David’s “close associate and friend.”

See 2 Sam 18:2b, which quotes David’s words to this effect. In 2 Sam 18:3 those responding to David are “the people.” Josephus turns the people’s opening words, forbidding David to go with them, of 2 Sam 18:3 into a (positive) editorial evaluation of the friends’ response. This initial statement by the friends takes the place of the people’s double affirmation in 2 Sam 18:3 that their flight or the loss of the lives of half of them will be of no concern to the enemy. Josephus adapts the people’s concluding words in 2 Sam 18:3, where they aver that David is worth 10,000 of themselves and that it is better that he send them help from (MT; LXX: to) the city. This final remark by the friends has no biblical counterpart. The meaning appears to be that the enemy, not finding David with the first detachment they engage, would conclude that there must be another such detachment with which he is present, and be intimidated by this realization. The tactical advice given David by Josephus’ friends here has a counterpart in Josephus’ approximate contemporary Onasander (Strat. 33), who counsels generals to stay back from the actual fighting. I owe this observation to Prof. Steve Mason.

2 Sam 18:4a quotes David’s word resigning himself to what the people “think best.” This exhortation by David to battlefield heroism lacks a counterpart in 2 Sam 18:4b, where David simply watches as his forces march forth. Josephus’ insertion underscores David’s concern, as the great general he is, to provide his men with the encouragement they need prior to battle. It likewise attenuates the impression left by the biblical presentation (see 18:5) that David’s only concern at this critical moment is with the welfare of his rebel son Absalom. See 2 Sam 18:5a. Josephus intensifies the royal appeal by having David refer to the harm he might do himself should Absalom be killed. This inserted notice, highlighting the king’s piety, takes the place of the mention of the whole army’s hearing David’s injunction to his generals to spare Absalom in 2 Sam 18:5b (to which Josephus will allude in 7.240).

2 Sam 18:6 localizes the battle in the “forest of Ephraim” (MT LXX B; LXX L: Maainan) and does not mention Absalom’s countermove.

The above sequence, featuring the state of mind of the 2 armies, represents an elaboration of the rather jejune and anti-climactic notice (2 Sam 18:7a) on the outcome of the long-awaited battle: “the men of Israel were defeated by the servants of David.”

2 Sam 18:7b-8 does not explicitly mention such a flight/pursuit, and speaks of the “forest devouring more than the sword.” In 2 Sam 18:9aα it is Absalom who chances upon (MT; LXX L: was far ahead of) David’s troops. Josephus’ inserted reference to the rebel’s appearance harks back to 7.189// 2 Sam 14:25.

Josephus amplifies the mention of Absalom “riding upon his mule” of 2 Sam 18:9aβ with an allusion to the prince’s anxiety and flight and the royal status of the mule. In 2 Sam 18:9bα it is Absalom’s “head” that gets caught in the tree branches. Josephus’ description echoes the mention of the prince’s abundant hair in 7.189 // 2 Sam 14:26. Similarly, b. Soṭah 9b affirms that that which was the source of Absalom’s pride, i.e. his hair, became the cause of his downfall during his flight. In the above reading, which follows the text printed by Niese, Josephus amplifies the notice about the mule’s proceeding on its way of 2 Sam 18:9bβ with mention of Absalom’s falling prey to David’s men. The words “by the enemy” are, however, missing in Lat and omitted by Marcus who translates “(the branches) which held him up.”

See 2 Sam 18:10. In 2 Sam 18:11 Joab asks the man why he did not kill Absalom and affirms that he would have rewarded him with both money and a “girdle” had he done so. Josephus’ figure for the reward money agrees with that given in 4QSama and LXX L as against the 10 “pieces of silver” of MT and LXX B. His explicit mention of “shekels” has a counterpart in LXX L. See 2 Sam 18:12, which itself harks back to the notice—previously passed over by Josephus (see 7.235)—of 18:5b about the whole army’s hearing David’s command to his generals to spare Absalom. Josephus omits the man’s further affirmation (18:13) that had he killed Absalom and gotten into trouble with David for this, Joab would not have intervened to protect him.

In MT 2 Sam 18:14a Joab responds that he will “not waste time” with the man, whereas in LXX L he avers “I shall begin then with you.” Josephus has him use the man to lead him to Absalom. Josephus’ allusion to Joab’s “shooting” Absalom seems to reflect the reading of LXX L in 2 Sam 18:14b, which speaks of his using 3 “darts” to dispatch him, whereas MT LXX B refer to 3 “sticks.” According to 2 Sam 18:15, Joab’s 10 “armor bearers” strike and kill Absalom. This initiative might appear otiose after the mention of Joab himself piecing him through the heart with 3 darts/sticks in 18:14 (see previous note). Josephus accordingly assigns them a different task, i.e. removing the already dead Absalom from the tree.

See 2 Sam 18:17a, which Josephus amplifies with mention of the tomb-like appearance of the stone-heap. He “holds over” the attached (disruptive) notice on the Israelites’ flight to their homes of 18:17b until the end of 7.244. See 2 Sam 18:16, to which Josephus appends the reference to the “sparing of his compatriots” by Joab—a rare positive touch in his portrayal of this figure. He reverses the sequence of 18:16-17a, where Joab’s sounding of the retreat is mentioned prior to the burial of Absalom.

See 2 Sam 18:18a. On the “Royal Valley,” see McCarter 1984: 408 ad loc. Josephus specifies the material of the “pillar” and the site’s distance from Jerusalem. See the etiological notice of 2 Sam 18:18bβ: “it is called the hand (Tg.: place; RSV: monument) of Absalom to this day.” Compare 2 Sam 18:18bα, where Absalom states that he erected the pillar, given that he had “no son to keep his name in remembrance.” Josephus’ rewording of this statement has in view the discrepancy between it and 2 Sam 14:27 (// 7.190), which affirms that Absalom had 3 sons. Jewish tradition resolves the “contradiction” on the supposition either that Absalom’s sons had predeceased him (so Kimchi) or that “no son” in 18:18 means “no worthy son” (so b. Soṭah 11a); see Rappaport 1930: 131, #234. The reference is to 7.190, which, unlike the source parallel (2 Sam 14:27), does not name Absalom’s daughter. Josephus draws the name here in 7.243 from that earlier biblical text.

This appended notice on the future career of Absalom’s daughter picks up on and echoes Josephus’ statements concerning her in 7.190, themselves drawn from the LXX plus in 2 Sam 14:27. Compare Ant. 8.248, where, in line with 1 Kgs 15:2, he designates the wife of Rehoboam and mother of Abias, not as Tamar herself, but rather as her daughter “Machane,” the grand-daughter of Absalom. This is Josephus’ delayed equivalent to 2 Sam 18:17b; see note to “tomb” at 7.242.

See 2 Sam 18:19. Josephus’ specification that Ahimaaz addressed his word “to Joab” reflects the plus of LXX L. This figure was introduced by Josephus in 7.201.

Josephus clarifies Joab’s rationale for rebuffing Ahimaaz’ request according to 2 Sam 18:20, where he is simply told that he cannot carry a message that day “because the king’s son is dead.” In Josephus’ presentation, Ahimaaz is so identified with the bearing of good news that he would be the wrong man to bring the bad news of Absalom’s death to David. See 2 Sam 18:21. Like LXX BL Josephus turns the ethnic designation of MT (“the Cushite”) into a proper name, i.e. “Chousis,” the friend of David (and purported traitor) introduced in 7.203.

Josephus expands Ahimaaz’ renewed request (2 Sam 18:22a) with a statement by him that picks up on Joab’s earlier explanation (7.246) as to why it would be inappropriate for him to carry bad news to David. Ahimaaz now declares that he will only deliver the good news that is his trademark. Josephus compresses and simplifies the sequence of 2 Sam 18:22b-23a, where Joab first tries to dissuade Ahimaaz, warning him that he will get no reward for the news he wishes to bring (v. 22b), but then, in the face of Ahimaaz’ continued insistence, tells him to “run” (v. 23a). 2 Sam 18:23b speaks of Ahimaaz’ taking “the circular route” and outrunning the Cushite. Josephus inserts an explanation as to why only Ahimaaz, and not also “Chousis,” took the shorter route.

Josephus expands 2 Sam 18:24a with mention of the purpose of David’s “sitting” where he does. See 2 Sam 18:24b-25a. Josephus introduces the reference to the lookout’s not recognizing Ahimaaz, this explaining why he does not identify him by name to the king. His specification that the lookout saw the man running “towards him” reflects the LXX BL plus at the end of v. 24b.

From David’s statement in 2 Sam 18:25bα Josephus omits its opening words, i.e. “if he is alone,” whose connection with what follows (“there are tidings in his mouth”) is not evident. See the (2nd) exchange between lookout and king reported in 2 Sam 18:26. See 2 Sam 18:27a. Compare David’s reply in 2 Sam 18:27b, where he begins by designating Ahimaaz as “a good man.” Josephus has the king focus not on the (“good”) person of the messenger but rather on the good news he brings.

See 2 Sam 18:28a. Josephus’ reference to Ahimaaz’ “appearing” stands closer to LXX L’s opening verb (“he approached”) than to the “he cried out” of MT LXX B. In 2 Sam 18:28b Ahimaaz takes the initiative in reporting his news; in Josephus he waits until asked by the king. From his report Josephus omits the reference to God as the author of the victory. See 2 Sam 18:29a. Josephus expatiates on Ahimaaz’ answer (2 Sam 18:29b), likewise reversing its order, in which Joab’s sending him is mentioned prior to his own being unable to investigate the uproar at the scene. Josephus’ reference to Ahimaaz’ “hearing” this uproar corresponds to LXX L, in contrast to MT and LXX B, where he speaks of “seeing” it. Josephus omits David’s appended order that Ahimaaz take his place and the latter’s doing so, 18:30.

See 2 Sam 18:31. Josephus adds the reference to Chousis’ paying homage, thereby paralleling him with Ahimaaz (see 7.250// 18:28a). As he did with Ahimaaz’ report (7.250, cf. 18:28b), Josephus omits the invocation of the Deity from that of Chousis. See 2 Sam 18:32.

Josephus adds this transitional formula, foreshadowing the emotional state of both king and army in what follows. 2 Sam 19:1a (MT; Eng. 18:33a) depicts David ascending to “the chamber over the gate.” Josephus embellishes the summary reference to David’s “weeping” in 2 Sam 19:1a (Eng. 18:33a). He thereby accentuates the intensity of the king’s grief. See 2 Sam 19:1b (Eng: 18:33b). Josephus appends this remark explaining why David reacts as he does to the death of his rebel son.

Josephus here compresses the circumstantial sequence of 2 Sam 19:2-4 (Eng: 19:1-3) with, e.g., its double mention of the king’s grief becoming known.

See 2 Sam 19:5 (Eng: 19:4), from which Josephus omits the repetition of David’s words of 19:1 (Eng: 18:33), already reproduced by him in 7.252. In introducing Joab’s intervention (// 2 Sam 19:6 [Eng. 19:5]), Josephus portrays him as acting more sympathetically and respectfully than does his biblical counterpart with his added reference to his “comforting” the king and his address to him as “master.” Josephus compresses Joab’s opening words as reported in 2 Sam 19:6-7a (Eng: 19:5-6a) with, e.g., its extended catalogue (19:6) of David’s family members whose lives David’s “servants” have saved, only to have David himself “cover their faces with shame.” He likewise reverses the sequence of 19:7a, where Joab speaks first of those whom David “loves” (i.e. those who hate him) and then of those he “hates” (i.e. those who love him).

For this part of Joab’s discourse, Josephus elaborates on the general’s evocation (2 Sam 19:7 [Eng. 19:6]bα) of the hypothetical case (“if...”) of Absalom’s being alive and all David’s men dead at this moment. The elaboration, inter alia, reminds David that Absalom would not be mourning for him if he were in the former’s position. This concluding charge replaces the final words of 2 Sam 19:7 (Eng. 19:6) where Joab avers that if Absalom were alive and all David’s supporters dead, the king “would be pleased.” Joab’s characterization of Absalom’s behavior as “impious” picks up on David’s own references to his son’s “impiety” in 7.198, 209.

This exhortation has no direct counterpart in Joab’s speech of 2 Sam 19:6-7 (Eng. 19:5-6). Josephus has Joab spell out what David should say to his soldiers when he goes out to address them— as the general calls on him to do in 2 Sam 19:8 (Eng. 19:7)aα. Josephus accentuates and personalizes Joab’s conditional warning as compared with 2 Sam 19:8 (Eng. 19:7)aβ, where Joab simply avers that “not a man will stay with you this night,” without any reference to his own role in the process of David’s threatened abandonment. This concluding warning substitutes for Joab’s assertion in 2 Sam 19:8 (Eng. 19:7)b that David’s abandonment by his supporters would be the worst evil ever to befall him. Once again (see previous note), the Josephan Joab underscores his own part in bringing about the calamities with which he threatens David.

Josephus adds this transitional notice on the salutary effect of Joab’s speech upon David. See 2 Sam 19:9 (Eng. 19:8)a. Josephus inserts the reference to David’s changing his clothes (or “appearance” as Marcus ad loc. translates)—something that would be necessary after the king’s “self-disfigurement” as described in 7.252. In comparison with 2 Sam 19:9 (Eng.19:8)bα, Josephus accentuates the enthusiasm of the people’s response to David’s initiative. He appends the concluding notice about the outcome of the affair.

See 2 Sam 19:9 (Eng. 19:8)bb, which itself picks up on the reference to the Israelites’ flight to their homes in 18:17b (// 7.244). Cf. 2 Sam 19:10 (Eng. 19:9)a, where the returnees send through “all the tribes of Israel,” recalling David’s past “delivering” of them, from the Philistines in particular.

Josephus heightens the self-critical character of the Israelites’ references to David’s flight and their “anointing” of Absalom in 2 Sam 19:10 (Eng. 19:9)b-11 (Eng. 19:10)aα. In his presentation they confess that they expelled David and “reproach themselves” both for this and their appointment of Absalom. Here again, Josephus avoids a source reference to a royal “anointing.” See 2 Sam 19:11 (Eng. 19:10)aβ. Josephus embellishes the Israelites’ concluding words in 2 Sam 19:11 (Eng. 19:10)b, where they simply ask why “you” (i.e. their fellow Israelites) are “not saying anything” about bringing David back. In so doing, he accentuates their desire to see the king return to them and makes their failure to ask David to resume office an additional ground for communal self-reproach.

Josephus’ positioning of this notice at this point reflects its placement in LXX BL, i.e. at the end of 2 Sam 19:11 (Eng. 19:10), whereas in MT it concludes 19:12 (Eng. 19:11). See 2 Sam 19:12-13 (Eng. 19:11-12). Josephus’ rendition underscores the wrongfulness of Judah’s lack of initiative and speaks of the kinship between David and the tribe in terms, not of common “bone and flesh,” but rather of a shared “blood.”

2 Samuel 19 says nothing of such a reproach, which the 2 priests are to convey to Amasa from David. Josephus’ insertion on the matter picks up on his introductory presentation of Amasa and his receiving the command of the rebel Absalom’s forces in 7.232 (// 2 Sam 17:25). Cf. 2 Sam 19:14 (Eng. 19:13). From David’s words for Amasa there, Josephus eliminates the opening oath formula, while adding the assurance that David has already forgiven Amasa for his part in Absalom’s rebellion and the reference to the former’s appointment by the latter (see 7.232// 2 Sam 17:25).

Josephus supplies this notice on the effect of the messengers’ words on Amasa. 2 Sam 19:15 (Eng. 19:14) MT and LXX B state that “he (David?, Amasa [so LXX L]?) swayed the heart of all the men of Judah,” with the result that they asked David and “all his servants” to return. Josephus follows the specification of LXX L about Amasa being the one whose “influence” with the Judeans prevailed. This notice has no equivalent in 2 Samuel 19 (where it is only in v. 42 (Eng. v. 41) that the Israelites approach David). Here too (see previous note) Josephus goes beyond the Bible in highlighting Amasa’s initiatives on David’s behalf, as well as his persuasive abilities, which convince not only Judah but also (all) Israel.

2 Sam 19:16 (Eng. 19:15)aα represents David as returning “to the Jordan.” Josephus’ formulation has the king’s ultimate goal in view. See 2 Sam 19:16 (Eng. 19:15)b. Josephus omits the specification that the Judeans stationed themselves “at Gilgal” for their meeting with the king. See 2 Sam 19:17-18 (Eng. 19:16-17). On “Samouis,” see 7.207-210; on “Siba,” see 7.111-116, 205-206.

2 Samuel 19 does not mention such a bridgebuilding activity by Shimei and Ziba in conjunction with the Judeans; compare 19:19 (Eng. 19:18)a, where the pair “crosses the ford to bring over David and his household.” In Ant. 5.16 Josephus interjected a notice on the absence of bridges over the Jordan at the time of Joshua’s invasion of the land. Apparently, the Jordan was, for Josephus, still without bridges in David’s reign; this necessitated the building of one to facilitate David’s passage, as related here in 7.264. This greeting of David by the Judeans lacks a biblical parallel. In 2 Sam 19:19 (Eng. 19:18)b Shimei “falls down before” David, who is about to cross the Jordan. Josephus’ version of this event echoes the mention of the “bridging” of the Jordan at the start of 7.264. See 2 Sam 19:20 (Eng. 19:19) with its double appeal for pardon by Shimei, from which Josephus omits the allusion to the occasion of his offense, i.e. during David’s flight from Jerusalem. See 2 Sam 19:21 (Eng. 19:20). Josephus generalizes Shimei’s specific claim to have been the first “of all the house of Joseph” to approach the king on his return.

See 2 Sam 19:22 (Eng. 19:21). Here too, Josephus takes care to reword the phrase “the Lord’s anointed” used by Abishai in reference to David. As in the case of David’s earlier, identical response to Abishai in 2 Sam 16:10a (// 7.209), Josephus here reformulates the king’s obscure opening question of 19:23 (Eng. 19:22)a: “what have I to do with you, you sons of Zeruiah?” Josephus embellishes David’s allusion to the sons of Zeruiah being “an adversary” to him (2 Sam 19:23 [Eng. 19:22]a), spelling out what their playing such a role involves.

In making the sons of Zeruiah the subjects of this verb Josephus aligns himself with the “you (pl.) know” of LXX L 2 Sam 19:23 (Eng. 19:22)bβ as against MT and LXX B, where David refers to his own (“I”) knowing that he is king of Israel. This statement by David corresponds to the king’s rhetorical question in 2 Sam 19:23 (Eng. 19:22)bα (“shall any one be put to death in Israel this day?”), where it precedes his further rhetorical question about knowing that he is king over Israel this day in 19:23 (Eng. 19:22)bβ; see previous note. David’s declaration here is reminiscent of the victorious Saul’s swearing not to permit the execution of those who had earlier opposed his kingship in Ant. 6.82. See 2 Sam 19:24 (Eng. 19:23)a, where David simply informs Shimei that he will not be put to death. This notice on Shimei’s response to David’s words takes the place of the king’s “oath” to him in 2 Sam 19:24 (Eng. 19:23)b, confirming his promise that Shimei will not “die.” See, however, 7.388, where Josephus, following 1 Kgs 2:8, does have the dying David allude to the “pledge” Shimei obtained from him that he would not be harmed “at that time”; cf. note to “vengeance” at 7.388.

MT 2 Sam 19:25 (Eng. 19:24)a calls Mephibosheth simply “son of Saul”; in LXX BL he is “son of Jonathan, son of Saul.” On the triangular exchange between David, Mephibosheth and Ziba in 7.267-271 (// 2 Sam 19:25-31[Eng. 19:24-30]), see Begg 1998g: 174-78. 2 Sam 19:25 (Eng. 19:24)b adds that Mephibosheth had “not dressed his feet” (+ and cared for his hands, LXX L), and refers to his not having trimmed his beard/mustache rather than his hair. With this added comment concerning Mephibosheth’s actions, Josephus vouches for the sincerity of his subsequent protestations of attachment to David in a way the Bible itself does not. In 2 Sam 19:28 (Eng. 19:27)a (// 7.269), Mephibosheth claims to have been slandered by Ziba. Anticipating the claim, Josephus also invests it with his own authority as narrator: Mephibosheth had in fact been slandered to the king; see 7.206 (// 2 Sam 16:3b).

2 Sam 19:26(25)a does not mention Mephibosheth’s “paying homage” to David; Josephus has him do so, as had the suppliant Shimei before him (7.264// 2 Sam 19:19 [Eng. 19:18]b). He omits the problematic source indication that Mephibosheth came “to Jerusalem” for his meeting with the king, given that the latter will only arrive in Jerusalem at a much later point; see 2 Sam 20:3. See 2 Sam 19:26 (Eng. 19:25)b. In 2 Sam 19:27 (Eng. 19:26) Mephibosheth complains of being “deceived” by Ziba. Josephus’ reference to his having “directed” Ziba to prepare for his departure corresponds to the LXX BL reading, whereas in MT Mephibosheth claims that he intended to saddle the ass himself. The allusion to Ziba’s insolent treatment of his master takes the place of the biblical Mephibosheth’s assertion about his planned accompaniment of David once his mount had been prepared.

With this statement Josephus spells out the import of Mephibosheth’s reminding David that he is “lame” at the end of 2 Sam 19:27 (Eng. 19:26): that condition precluded his accompanying David on foot— as he otherwise certainly would have done. See 2 Sam 19:28 (Eng. 19:27) and cf. note on “Siba” at 7.267. Josephus underscores the falsity of Ziba’s charges by having Mephibosheth invoke his “piety” (Greek: εὐσέβεια) towards David. This statement of confidence by Mephibosheth replaces his designation of David as one “like an angel of God” in 2 Sam 19:28 (Eng. 19:27)b; Josephus earlier avoided the wise woman of Tekoa’s use of such “angel language” for David in his version of 2 Sam 14:17 (cf. 14:20) in 7.183. The 2 terms applied to David by Mephibosheth here (“just,” “[loving] truth”) occur together in Josephus’ own remark about the king in 7.110.

Josephus elaborates on Mephibosheth’s allusion to his father’s “house” all being “doomed to death” before David in 2 Sam 19:29 (Eng. 19:28)a. Josephus greatly embellishes Mephibosheth’s summary mention of his having been given a place at David’s table in 2 Sam 19:29 (Eng. 19:28)bα (even while passing over the rhetorical question about his not having any further right to appeal to the king of 19:29 [Eng. 19:28]bβ). He thereby underscores the contrast between what Mephibosheth deserved and what he actually received from the magnanimous David. The reference to David’s treating him like an honored relative recalls 7.116.

Josephus inserts this notice on David’s (interior) decision, this involving the king’s realization that Ziba had indeed spoken falsely of Mephibosheth—as both the latter (7.269) and Josephus himself (7.267) have affirmed. This report by David to Mephibosheth of his previous decision concerning the latter’s property (see 7.206// 2 Sam 16:4a) takes the place of the curt question with which the king interrupts Mephibosheth’s apology in 2 Sam 19:30 (Eng. 19:29)a: “Why speak any more of your affairs?” Compare 2 Sam 19:30 (Eng. 19:29)b, where David commands Mephibosheth and Ziba to “divide the land.” Josephus makes the procedure more specific, just as he adds the assurance of pardon for Mephibosheth. In 2 Sam 19:31 (Eng. 19:30) Mephibosheth expresses his satisfaction that David “has come safely home.”

Josephus had introduced this figure—there called “Berzelai(os)”—as one of those welcoming the fugitive David in 7.230// 2 Sam 17:27. For his re-introduction of him here, he draws on 2 Sam 19:32 (Eng. 19:31), omitting its notice on his advanced age (80 years), which will be cited by Barzillai himself subsequently; see 7.273 (// 2 Sam 19:36 [Eng. 19:35]). Josephus turns the single source epithet (i.e. “great”; RSV: wealthy) for Barzillai into a double characterization of him as “great and distinguished.” The Josephan David’s promise to tend to Barzillai “in his old age” reflects the wording of LXX BL 2 Sam 19:34 (Eng. 19:33), whereas in MT David simply promises to provide “for you” (Barzillai). The promise of being treated “like a father” is Josephus’ elaboration of the offer David makes Barzillai in 2 Sam 19:34 (Eng. 19:33).

This notice, with its mention of Barzillai’s motivation for declining David’s offer, replaces his opening rhetorical question in 2 Sam 19:35 (Eng. 19:34)a: “how many years have I still to live, that I should go up with the king to Jerusalem?” See 2 Sam 19:36 (Eng. 19:35)aα. Josephus turns Barzillai’s rhetorical question about his inability to enjoy pleasures into a statement. His appended reference to what “positively” the old man is awaiting at this point, i.e. death and the tomb, anticipate Barzillai’s request that he be allowed to die near his parents’ grave in 2 Sam 19:38 (Eng. 19:37)aβ. From Barzillai’s request to be allowed to return in 2 Sam 19:38 (Eng. 19:37)a, Josephus omits the motivation given by him for that request, i.e. “that I may die in my own city, near the grave of my father and my mother.” Rather, he has Barzillai point out that David’s dismissal of him will be the true satisfaction of his desires. Josephus further places Barzillai’s request at the center of his reply to David’s offer, whereas in 2 Sam 19:35-38 (Eng. 19:34-37) this comes only after he has finished a series of complaints about his present state. Here too (see note to “care” at 7.273), Josephus transposes Barzillai’s rhetorical question of 2 Sam 19:36 (Eng. 19:35)aβ into a statement by him about what he can no longer do.

Compare 2 Sam 19:36 (Eng. 19:35)bα, where Barzillai asks rhetorically whether he can still listen to male and female singers. Josephus, who has already anticipated his request to be dismissed from 19:38 (Eng. 19:37)aα in 7.273, omits the remainder of Barzilai’s discourse as cited in 19:36bβ-37 (Eng. 19:35bβ-36): his question about why he should be a burden to the king, proposal to accompany David to the Jordan, and further query about why the king should give him the proposed reward. Josephus supplies this notice on David’s agreeing to dismiss Barzillai. MT (2 Sam 19:38) ‮כמהם‬‎ (Eng.: “Chimham”); LXX B Χαμαάμ; LXX L Ἀχιμαάμ; Josephus Ἀχίμανος. In designating this figure as Barzillai’s “son,” Josephus follows the plus of LXX L, where, after alluding to him as “your [David’s] servant” (so MT and LXX B), Barzillai goes on to call him “my son.” In 2 Sam 19:38b-39 (Eng. 19:37b-38), it is Barzillai who requests David to show favor to “your [David’s] servant Chimham,” and David agrees to do so. Josephus accentuates the king’s magnanimity by having him volunteer to provide for this figure.

Compare 2 Sam 19:40 (Eng. 19:39), where Barzillai’s return home is preceded by mention of the crossing of people and king, as well as of David’s kissing and blessing of Barzillai. See 2 Sam 19:41 (Eng. 19:40), from which Josephus omits the mention of “Chimham” accompanying David, which he has already anticipated in his notice on Barzillai’s “leaving his son behind.”

2 Sam 19:42 (Eng. 19:41)a speaks globally of “all the men of Israel” coming to David at an unspecified location; Josephus derives his localization of the encounter from 19:41 (Eng. 19:40), where David’s advance to “Gilgal” is mentioned. Compare 2 Sam 19:42 (Eng. 19:41)a, where the Israelites complain about the Judeans’ having “stolen David away” and escorted him and his entourage across the Jordan. This “request” is Josephus’ reformation of the Judeans’ question to the Israelites in 2 Sam 19:43 (Eng. 19:42): “why then are you angry about this matter?” Josephus elaborates on the Judeans’ opening affirmation in 2 Sam 19:43 (Eng. 19:42) (“because the king is near kin to us”), spelling out the import of their status for their dealings with David. In 2 Sam 19:44 (Eng. 19:43)b the Judeans ask—rhetorically—whether they have eaten at David’s expense or been given gifts by him. In place of the first of these questions, Josephus appends an indication as to why—contrary to what would be expected—they had received no gifts from their relative the king.

Josephus supplies this transitional notice on the (non-) effect of the Judeans’ reply on the Israelites. This affirmation of kinship with David by the Israelites and their challenging of the Judeans’ exclusive claims in this regard has no counterpart in the Israelites’ response as cited in 2 Sam 19:44 (Eng. 19:43). This statement corresponds to the Israelites’ opening words in MT 2 Sam 19:44 (Eng. 19:43) (“we have ten shares in the king, and in David also we have more than you”); Josephus, with his reference to the 11 non-Judean parts of the people, takes care to correct the mathematical problem of his source (10 tribes plus Judah), which seems to leave one of the 12 tribes unaccounted for. The Israelites’ further claim about “having a prior claim” (which might alternatively be rendered “we are older”—see Marcus ad loc.) seems to reflect the LXX BL plus (“and furthermore we, not you, are firstborn”) that comes between the 2 parts of their MT affirmation in LXX. This concluding declaration by the Israelites replaces their double closing question (“Why then do you despise us? Were we not the first to speak of bringing back our king?”) as well as the notice about the Judeans’ words being “fiercer” than those of the Israelites at the end of 2 Sam 19:44 (Eng. 19:43).

Josephus supplies this transitional phrase. The above phrase (Greek: στάσει χαίρων) is used twice elsewhere by Josephus: Ant. 13.291 (Eleazar the Pharisee) and Life 87 (the inhabitants of Tiberias who opposed Josephus). Josephus expatiates on the single phrase (MT ‮אישׁ בליעל‬‎, “a worthless fellow,” RSV) used in 2 Sam 20:1 to characterize “Sheba.” MT (2 Sam 20:1) ‮שׁבע‬‎ (Eng.: “Sheba”); LXX BL Σαβεέ; Josephus Σαβαῖος. On Josephus’ account of Sheba’s revolt in 7.278-293 (// 2 Samuel 20), see Begg 1998i. MT (2 Sam 20:1) ‮בכרי‬‎ (Eng.: “Bichri”); LXX B Βοχορεί; LXX L Βεδδαδί; Josephus Βοχορίας. Josephus’ designation of Sheba’s tribal affiliation reflects MT (and LXX B) 2 Sam 20:1’s calling him “a man of my right hand,” an alternative designation for “Benjamin,” the “son of the right hand.” LXX L qualifies him as “a man of Arachi.” Josephus dramatizes the indications of 2 Sam 20:1a, which simply refers to Sheba’s being “there” for the Israelite-Judean dispute (2 Sam 19:42-44 [Eng. 19:41-43]) and of his speaking in that context. Josephus omits the concluding portion of Sheba’s declaration according to 2 Sam 20:1b, i.e. “every man to his (MT LXX L; LXX B: your) tents, O Israel.”

In 2 Sam 20:1 Sheba’s blowing of the trumpet/ horn is mentioned prior to his words to Israel. Josephus appends a reason for the use of the horn by him. See 2 Sam 20:2-3aα. See 2 Sam 20:3aβ, where the reference is to David’s having left the concubines “to care for the house” (see 2 Sam 15:16// 7.199). Josephus’ alternative allusion to Absalom’s intercourse with them as the ground for David’s treating them as he now does recalls 7.214// 2 Sam 16:22. See 2 Sam 20:3bα. Josephus omits the concluding source remark about the women being “shut up until the day of their death, living as if in widowhood.”

This transfer of the high command from Joab to Amasa is not explicitly mentioned in 2 Samuel 20. It represents the fulfillment of David’s promise to the latter as reported in 7.261// 2 Sam 19:14 (Eng. 19:13). See 2 Sam 20:4. Josephus appends the notice on the purpose of the muster that David enjoins Amasa to undertake.

See 2 Sam 20:5. Josephus supplies this transitional phrase. In MT and LXX 2 Sam 20:6 David addresses rather Abishai. Josephus’ mention of Joab as the addressee has a counterpart in the Syriac, and reflects the clearly dominant role assumed by Joab in what follows. Josephus prefaces David’s opening word in 2 Sam 20:6 about Sheba’s potential to cause more harm than Absalom with the remark about the need to deal with him immediately, which the king’s biblical statement then serves to motivate.

In 2 Sam 20:6 David refers more generally to “your servants,” whom Abishai (the addressee of the king’s words according to MT and LXX; see note to “Joab” at 7.281) is to take with him in pursuit of Sheba. The “600” have last been mentioned by Josephus in 7.199 (// 2 Sam 15:18), where they accompany David on his flight from Jerusalem. Josephus expands David’s concluding reference in 2 Sam 20:6 to the difficulties that Sheba’s occupation of fortified sites will pose with the positive exhortation to Joab to engage him before he has the opportunity of doing this. In referring to the “exertion” that would be required to dislodge Sheba, once ensconced in a fortified location, Josephus clarifies the imagery used by David at the end of 20:6, where the MT has him speaking of Sheba’s “snatching away our eyes” and LXX BL of his “casting a shadow over our eyes.” The Targum (“cause us trouble”) offers a similar elucidation of the MT reading.

Compare 2 Sam 20:7, where Joab follows Abishai, and 3 distinct groups of pursuing forces are mentioned, i.e. the Cherethites, the Pelethites, and the “mighty men.” Josephus’ mention of the 600 corresponds to his version of David’s order to Joab in 7.282. MT (2 Sam 20:8) ‮גבעון‬‎ (Eng.: “Gibeon”); LXX B and Josephus Γαβαών (LXX L translates: “on the hill”). Josephus omits the specification about the following episode transpiring “at the great stone which is in Gibeon.” Josephus supplies this distance (= ca. 5 miles); in War 5.216 he fixes the distance as 50 stadia. 2 Sam 20:8a does not mention Amasa’s retinue. 2 Sam 20:8bα speaks of Joab’s “soldier’s garment” (RSV) and a “girdle” containing his sword.

Josephus supplies this transitional phrase. Josephus clarifies what happens with Joab’s sword. Compare the concluding words of 2 Sam 20:8, where the sword simply “falls out” as Joab advances. The source presentation thus leaves unspecified whether Joab himself deliberately caused the sword’s “fall,” and where it actually fell (on the ground? into the folds of his tunic?), just as it does not mention Joab’s retrieval of the fallen sword. Conversely, Josephus omits Joab’s inquiry about Amasa’s welfare in 20:9a. 2 Sam 20:9b speaks of Joab taking Amasa “by the beard with his right hand” in order to kiss him. From the account of Joab’s killing of Amasa in 2 Sam 20:10, Josephus omits the details of the latter’s bowels being shed on the ground and the former’s not striking a 2nd blow. His qualification of Amasa as “unsuspecting” picks up on the opening words of 20:10 (“but Amasa did not observe the sword that was in Joab’s hand”). On Amasa’s relationship to Joab, see Ant. 7.232 // 2 Sam 17:25b. Josephus’ (added) reminiscence of the pair’s kinship here highlights the reprehensibility of what Joab has just done.

The above sequence with its evaluation of Joab’s deed and exposure of the motives behind it has no counterpart in the “neutral” account of Amasa’s murder in 2 Sam 20:10a. The addition recalls Josephus’—likewise added—comments on Joab’s killing of Abner in 7.35-36.

Continuing to minimalize the role of Abishai in the episode, Josephus leaves aside the mention of his accompanying Joab in his pursuit of Sheba from 2 Sam 20:10bβ. In 2 Sam 20:11 one of Joab’s men, on his own, positions himself by the body of Amasa and urges those coming behind to follow Joab. Josephus portrays Joab as taking the initiative in the matter, likewise having him provide the man with the statement he is to make concerning Amasa’s death. Here too, then, Josephus accentuates Joab’s all-dominant role in the proceedings. The man’s appeal to the soldiers in 2 Sam 20:11 is simply that they follow Joab. Josephus’ (exceptional) addition of “Abishai” picks up on the mention of Joab’s taking “his brother” along with him on his pursuit of Sheba in 7.283.

Josephus omits the graphic detail about Amasa “wallowing in his blood” from 2 Sam 20:12aα; see his omission of the similar items concerning Amasa’s slaying of 20:10 in 7.284, cf. note on “killed him” at 7.284. Josephus embellishes the “objective” reference to anyone who saw Amasa’s body stopping (2 Sam 20:12bβ) with his remarks on “crowd psychology,” these reflective of his characteristic disdain for crowds. At the same time he positions his rendition of this source notice—which in 20:12 appears only after the removal of the corpse—at a more logical point in the sequence of events. These initiatives by the man each have their parallel in 2 Sam 20:12. Reversing the biblical sequence, Josephus cites them after his mention of the event that provokes them, i.e. the crowd’s stopping; see previous note. See 2 Sam 20:13.

MT (2 Sam 20:14) ‮אבלה ובית מעכה‬‎ (Eng.: “Abel of Beth-maacah”); LXX B Ἀβὲλ τὴν Βαιθμαχά; LXX L Ἀβηλὰ καὶ Βαιθμακκώ; Josephus Ἀβελωχέα (this is the reading adopted by Niese and Marcus; Schalit s.v. reads Ἀβελμαχέα with MSP Lat). In contrast to 2 Sam 20:14a, which focusses on Sheba’s own movements, Josephus directs attention to those of his pursuer, Joab. In the same line, he inserts the reference to Joab’s being informed of Sheba’s whereabouts as the presupposition for his subsequent siege of the site. Conversely, he omits the (extraneous) notice of 20:14b that all the “Bichrites” (so LXX B; Berites, MT) followed Sheba into his place of refuge. In 2 Sam 20:15 the various initiatives against the city are attributed to Joab’s forces as a whole. Josephus highlights the general’s role as the initiator of these measures. Josephus appends this reference to Joab’s motivation for his measures against the city.

As he does with the “wise woman of Tekoa” (2 Sam 14:2) in 7.182, Josephus inserts the reference to the age of the wise woman introduced in 2 Sam 20:16. Josephus supplies the reference to the city’s desperate situation, which prompts the woman’s initiative, as well as the mention of the “soldiers” as her intermediaries in his version of 2 Sam 20:16. From the exchange between the woman and Joab in 2 Sam 20:17, Josephus omits the preliminaries of her initial question about his identity, his confirmatory response, her request that he listen to her, and his agreeing to do so. He likewise passes over the woman’s invocation of her city’s long-standing reputation as a place of wise counsel in 20:18. The contrast drawn by the woman in 2 Sam 20:19 is between herself as a peace-loving person and Joab’s aggressive action against an Israelite “mother city.” Josephus substitutes a contrast between the God-given task of Israel’s commanders and Joab’s current initiative, which, as a general himself, Joab would likely find more compelling.

Josephus prefaces Joab’s response to the woman (2 Sam 20:20-21) with reference to his first praying for God’s continued support. Compare 2 Sam 20:20, where Joab emphatically denies that he is looking to “swallow up or destroy.” The former term echoes the woman’s question in 20:19 as to why he wants to “swallow up the heritage of the Lord.” In both instances Josephus’ rendition eliminates the Bible’s metaphorical language. See 2 Sam 20:21, from which Josephus omits Joab’s reference to Sheba as a “man from the hill country of Ephraim.” This omission may be inspired by the fact that in 7.278 Josephus has called Sheba a “Benjamite”; see note to “Benjamin” at 7.278.

Josephus inserts these preliminaries to the woman’s approach to the townsfolk in 2 Sam 20:22. He thereby smooths the transition between this act of hers and her preceding exchange with Joab, which, in the biblical sequence, ends with her simply going off, having made no explicit reply to Joab’s proposition to her in 20:21. Josephus markedly accentuates the woman’s role in the affair by attributing this extended speech to her. 2 Sam 20:22aα simply refers to her going to the people “in her wisdom,” without citing any words by her to them. By means of the woman’s speech Josephus highlights both the status of David as a beneficent king and the wrongfulness of Sheba’s revolt against him. Rabbinic tradition as well provides the woman with a speech to the inhabitants; see, e.g., Gen. Rab. 94.9 and cf. Begg 1998i: 19, n. 129.

Josephus makes explicit that it was under the woman’s influence that the inhabitants did as they did with Sheba; compare 2 Sam 20:22aβ. See 2 Sam 20:22b. Josephus’ appended notice on the returned Joab’s reappointment anticipates the mention of him as commander in 20:23a; its wording recalls 7.110, where his initial appointment by David is cited, and 7.280, where Joab loses his position to Amasa.

Compare 2 Sam 20:23b, where “Benaiah” appears as “commander of the Cherethites and the Pelethites.” David’s confiding the command of his “bodyguards” to Banai was mentioned in 7.110, while “the 600” figure among those pursuing Sheba in 7.282-283. MT (2 Sam 20:24) ‮אדרם‬‎ (Eng.: “Adoram”); LXX B Ἀδωνειράμ; LXX L Ἰεζεδράν; Josephus Ἀδώραμος, a form reflecting the Hebrew name. MT (2 Sam 20:24) ‮יהושׁפט‬‎ (Eng.: “Jehoshaphat”); LXX B Ἰωσαφάθ; LXX L Σαφάν; Josephus Ἰωσάφατος. This figure was previously mentioned in 7.110. MT (2 Sam 20:24) ‮אחילוד‬‎ (Eng.: “Ahilud”); LXX B Ἀχειλούθ; LXX L Ἀχιθαλαά; Josephus Ἄχιλος. See 7.110, where this same name for Jehoshaphat’s father occurs. MT (2 Sam 20:25a) ‮שׁיא‬‎ (Eng.: “Sheva”); LXX Ἰησοῦς; LXX L Σουσά; Josephus Σουσάς (this is the reading adopted by Niese and Marcus; Schalit s.v. proposes Σισάς, i.e. the form of the name read by Niese in 7.110, where Marcus has Σεισάς). See 2 Sam 20:25b. Josephus omits the name of David’s 3rd priest as mentioned in 20:26, i.e. “Ira the Jairite.”

Josephus’ explicit mention of “the country” being afflicted by the famine corresponds to the LXX L plus in 2 Sam 21:1aα. He leaves aside the specification that the famine prevailed for 3 years. On Josephus’ (highly abridged) version of the story of the execution of the Saulides (2 Sam 21:1-14) in 7.294-297, see Begg 1996h. Josephus’ account of David’s initiative reads like an elaboration of the LXX L text of 2 Sam 21:1aβ, where David “seeks a word from the Lord” as opposed to MT LXX B, which speak of his “seeking the face of the Lord.” Josephus’ mention of David’s appeal for divine “mercy” has a counterpart in Tg.’s rendering of the MT phrase. In 2 Sam 21:1b the Lord appears to communicate directly with David; Josephus’ inserted reference to the prophets’ role accords with his general tendency to highlight their involvement throughout Israel’s history. B. Yebam. 78b avers that the exchange between God and king took place via the Urim and Thummim. Josephus incorporates into the response he ascribes to the Deity elements both of the divine statement concerning the “blood-guilt” hanging over the house of Saul for the king’s killing of the Gibeonites (2 Sam 21:1b) and the parenthetical editorial notice (21:2) concerning the Gibeonites as the beneficiaries of Israel’s earlier oath to spare them (on this see Ant. 5.55// Josh 9:15). He leaves aside the extenuating circumstances for Saul’s deed alluded to in 21:2b, i.e. his “zeal for the people of Israel and Judah.” Neither in the Bible nor in Josephus is there previous mention of a massacre of the Gibeonites by Saul.

This conditional divine promise has no equivalent in the words of the Lord as cited in 2 Sam 21:1b.

Josephus supplies this transitional sequence between God’s word (see 2 Sam 21:1b) to David and the latter’s query to the Gibeonites of 21:3, 4b. Josephus here conflates David’s double question to the Gibeonites of 2 Sam 21:3, 4b, likewise passing over their intervening statement (21:4a) about what is not at issue (i.e. monetary recompense from the house of Saul or their own taking the initiative in executing any Israelite). From the Gibeonites’ reply in 2 Sam 21:5-6a Josephus omits their charges against their would-be exterminator Saul as well as their specification of the site (“at Gibeon on the mountain of the Lord”) on which they propose to carry out the execution of those given them. This narrative notice about what David did combines the king’s statement of intent to the Gibeonites in 2 Sam 21:6b: (“I will give them”) and the statement of 21:9aα that he indeed “gave them [the Saulides] into the hands of the Gibeonites.” This reading of the Greek codices is obviously a mistake for the “Memphibosheth” cited in 2 Sam 21:7 (MT LXX B), given that “Ishbosheth” is already long dead by this point (see 7.48// 2 Sam 4:7). Compare “Memphiuos” in Lat and the emended form Μεμφιβόσθου in the Ed. pr. Josephus passes over David’s motivation for sparing Jonathan’s son, namely, the oath between himself and Jonathan cited in 2 Sam 21:7b. He also leaves aside the indications concerning the identity of the 7 Saulide victims furnished by David in 21:8-9, which involve discrepancies with what one reads elsewhere in the Bible regarding Saul’s family members and their relationships; see Begg 1996h: 10, n. 39.

The verb used in MT 2 Sam 21:9aβ (‮הוקיע‬‎) leaves it unclear just what the Gibeonites did to their victims—did they hang them, dismember them, or push them down? Josephus here and in his formulation of the Gibeonites’ request in 7.296 // 21:6 (where the same term occurs), substitutes generic punishment terminology. He further omits the precisions concerning the where and when of the execution given in 21:9b. Josephus draws his reference to the “rain” that comes following the execution of the Saulides from 2 Sam 21:10aβ, expanding this with mention of the accompanying restoration of the earth’s fertility. On the other hand, he omits the whole surrounding context of the source “rain notice,” i.e. 21:10aαb, 11-14, which relates the watch over the bodies of the dead mounted by Rizpah, Saul’s concubine, and their eventual burial by David. This large-scale omission might have to do with the unflattering portrait of David conveyed by the biblical sequence, where he initially appears callous to the fate of the dead and only finally concerns himself with their burial under the influence of Rizpah’s devotion. Josephus’ appended notice concerning the effect of the God-sent rain (see 2 Sam 21:10aβ) underscores that God did indeed fulfill the promise made by him in 7.295 about “delivering the mob from its calamities.”

See 2 Sam 21:15a, which Josephus prefaces with a transitional chronological indication. On Josephus’ version of the sequence concerning the exploits of David’s heroes (2 Sam 21:15-22) in 7.298-304, see Begg 1997m: 140-51. 2 Sam 21:15b speaks of David and his servants fighting against the Philistines and of the king’s “growing weary.” Josephus’ added mention of David’s isolation from his men during the pursuit better prepares for his subsequent endangerment. MT (2 Sam 21:16) ‮בנב‬‎ [the qere reads ‮ישׁבי‬‎] ‮ישׁבו‬‎ (Eng.: “Ishbibenob”); LXX B Ἰεσβί; LXX L Δαδού (cf. OL Dan); Josephus Ἄκμων. For more on Josephus’ form of the name in relation to those of the biblical references, see Begg 1997m: 142, n. 22. Rabbinic tradition (see, e.g., b. Sanh. 95a; Midr. Pss. 18.30) identifies David’s assailant, “Ishbibenob/Ishbi”, as the brother of Goliath and son of a woman named “Orpah” (cf. ‮הרפה‬‎ [RSV: “... of the giants”] in MT 2 Sam 21:16), whom Abishai also kills on his way to rescue David. For this name of the father of David’s assailant, Josephus draws on the indication concerning the assailant’s ancestry in MT and LXX B 2 Sam 21:16, where he is qualified, respectively, as “one of the descendants of ‮הרפה‬‎” and “of the Rapha” (τοῦ Ῥαφά), taking this as a proper name. LXX L, Tg. and OL, as also RSV, “translate” the MT phrase with a common noun, i.e. “of the giants.” See next note. With this specification concerning the ancestry of David’s assailant, Josephus draws on the designation used of that figure in LXX L (and Tg. OL) 2 Sam 21:16, having previously cited his “proper name” under the influence of the MT and LXX B readings; see previous note.

Josephus omits the specification of 2 Sam 21:16b that the 300 shekels were “of bronze.” This item lacks an equivalent in the various witnesses for 2 Sam 21:16b, all of which mention only 2 pieces of equipment carried/worn by David’s assailant, as compared with Josephus’ 3. Josephus’ explicit mention of the assailant’s “sword” has a parallel in the renderings of OL, Vulg., and Syriac 2 Sam 21:16. Compare “a new” (MT; RSV supplies “sword”), “club” (LXX B), “belt” (LXX L), “belt/sword” (Tg.). The 3 items that Josephus attributes to David’s assailant each has an equivalent in his description of Goliath’s accessories in Ant. 6.187, such that his “Akmon” appears as a 2nd Goliath. These added indications highlight the danger facing David, due both to the determination of his assailant and his own weakness. 2 Sam 21:17 calls him “son of Zeruiah.” Josephus embellishes and dramatizes the description of Abishai’s intervention in 2 Sam 21:17a, where he simply attacks and kills David’s assailant.

This reference to the emotional response of David’s subjects to the danger he had run is supplied by Josephus. Josephus inserts this mention of the (per se noble) motives that would prompt David’s entering battle into the words he is made to swear in 2 Sam 21:17b. Josephus elucidates the meaning of the figurative phrase “lest you quench the lamp of Israel,” i.e. by being killed in battle, used by David’s men in the oath they impose on him in 2 Sam 21:17b. Compare the Tg.’s rendition, where the image of the “lamp” is replaced by the non-figurative term “kingdom.” Josephus’ reformulation accentuates David’s benefits for Israel over time.

MT (2 Sam 21:18) ‮גוב‬‎ (Eng.: “Gob”; some Hebrew MSS read ‮נוב‬‎ [“Nob”]); LXX B Γέθ; LXX L Γαζέθ; MT (1 Chr 20:4) ‮גזר‬‎ (Eng.: “Gezer”); LXX BL Γάζερ; Josephus Γάζαρα. 2 Sam 21:18-22 has its content parallel in 1 Chr 20:4-8. In his placement of his version of the segment in 7.301-304, Josephus aligns himself with the sequence of 2 Samuel, where 21:18-22 follows directly on the story of Abishai’s rescue of David (21:15-17; no parallel in Chronicles) as opposed to 1 Chronicles, in which 20:4-8 represents the immediate sequel to Israel’s subjugation of the Ammonites, 20:1-3 (// 2 Sam 11:1;12:26, 30-31). 2 Sam 21:18a// 1 Chr 20:4a speak simply of a war with the Philistines without mentioning the movements of the 2 forces. MT (2 Sam 21:18// 1 Chr 20:4) ‮סבכי‬‎ (Eng.: “Sibbecai”); LXX B 2 Sam 21:18 Ὀεβοχά; LXX L 2 Sam 21:18 Σοβοχαί; LXX B 1 Chr 20:4 Σοβοκχί; LXX L 1 Chr 20:4 Σοβακχεί; Josephus Σαβρήχης (Schlatter 1913 s.v. and Schalit s.v. propose reading Σαββήχης). This same gentilic (Greek: ὁ Χετταῖος) appears in LXX L 2 Sam 21:18. Compare ‮החשׁתי‬‎ (MT 2 Sam 21:18// 1 Chr 20:4; Eng.: “the Hushathite”); ὁ Ἀστατωθεί (LXX B 2 Sam 21:18); Θωσασθεί (LXX B 1 Chr 20:4); Ἐσσαθεί (LXX L 1 Chr 20:4). Josephus embellishes the source references to “Sabrech,” who in 2 Sam 21:18// 1 Chr 20:4 is mentioned only by name and gentilic. In attributing the slaying of multiple Philistines to “Sabrech,” Josephus agrees with LXX L 2 Sam 21:18 (where the hero kills “those assembled of the descendants of the giants”). In the other textual witnesses to 2 Sam 21:18// 1 Chr 20:4 the Israelite’s victim is a single individual named “Saph” (MT 21:18)/ “Sippai” (MT 20:4), etc. Josephus’ Greek term (Γίγαντες) for the ancestors of those killed by “Sabrech” is the same as that used in LXX L 2 Sam 21:18 and LXX 1 Chr 20:4; cf. ‮הרפאים‬‎ (RSV: “the giants”) in MT 1 Chr 20:4. MT 2 Sam 21:18 has ‮הרפה‬‎ (RSV: “the giants”) and LXX B τοῦ Ῥαφά, as in 2 Sam 21:16; see 7.298. Josephus goes beyond his sources in magnifying “Sabrech’s” exploit: this was accomplished against a group of enemies, who thought of themselves as very courageous, and it gave rise to a general Israelite victory.

Like 1 Chr 20:5, Josephus does not mention the site of the renewed hostilities. MT 2 Sam 21:19 places the conflict at “Gob” (many Hebrew MSS read “Nob,” as they do in 21:18), LXX B at Ῥόμ, and LXX L at Ῥοβ. Neither 2 Sam 21:19 nor 1 Chr 20:5 mentions this initiative by David. The insertion serves to make clear that, whereas David has ceased to accompany his armies (see 7.300), he continues to exercise military leadership. Josephus’ form of the hero’s name (Ἐφάν) does not correspond to those used by any of the biblical witnesses—which differ markedly among themselves— compare: ‮אלחנן‬‎ (MT 2 Sam 21:19// 1 Chr 20:5 [Eng.: “Elhanan”); Ἐλεανάν (LXX BL 21:19 and LXX L 20:5); Ἐλλάν (LXX B 20:5); “Taman” (OL 21:19); “Adeodatus” (Vulg. 21:19 and 20:5); and “David” (Tg. 21:19 and 20:5). Schalit s.v. sees the above Josephan form as a corruption of an original Ἐλεχανάν. This qualification of “Ephan” takes the place of the various names for the hero’s father cited in the witnesses of 2 Sam 21:19// 1 Chr 20:5; see Begg 1997m: 147. Josephus was perhaps inspired to identify “Ephan” as David’s kinsman, given the designation of “Elhanan” as “the Bethlehemite” in 2 Sam 21:19, Bethlehem being the hometown of David as well. Josephus’ leaving “Ephan’s” victim(s) unnamed is his way of dealing with the problem posed by MT LXX OL and Vulg. 2 Sam 21:19, which identify the one killed by “Elhanan” (etc.) as “Goliath,” whereas according to 1 Sam 17:50 (and Ant. 6.190) Goliath was slain earlier by David himself. Other biblical texts resolve the problem in different ways: Tg. 2 Sam 21:19 makes David rather than “Elhanan” the killer of Goliath; MT and LXX 1 Chr 20:5 designate the one slain by “Elhanan” (etc.) as Goliath’s brother (called “Lahmi” in MT), while Tg. 1 Chr 20:5 states that David slew Goliath’s brother Lahmi. As he did in the case of “Sabrech” in 7.301 (see note to “Hebrews” at 7.301), Josephus magnifies “Ephan’s” achievement: he kills the bravest of the Philistines and causes the others to flee, many of these in turn being killed. These indications take the place of the notice of 2 Sam 21:19// 1 Chr 20:5 that the slain Philistine had a spear shaft “like a weaver’s beam.”

This reading follows the conjecture (Γίττῃ) of Niese, which Marcus adopts for the articular form (τῇ) read by the codices. The conjecture is inspired by the mention of “Gath” (LXX: Γέθ) in 2 Sam 21:20// 1 Chr 20:6. The reading/interpretation of the qualification used of the Philistine champion in Josephus’ biblical sources is a matter of uncertainty. Josephus aligns himself with the designation of him as a “man of great size” (ὑπερμεγέθες) in LXX 1 Chr 20:6 (and possibly also in the qere of MT 2 Sam 21:20 [‮אישׁ מדון‬‎] and the reading of MT 1 Chr 20:6 [‮אישׁ מדה‬‎], both of which are rendered as “man of stature” by RSV); compare ἀνὴρ Μαδών (LXX B 2 Sam 21:20), ἀνὴρ ἐκ Ῥααζής (LXX L 2 Sam 21:20). Josephus goes beyond the sources in his specification that the Philistine’s height was “6 cubits”; this particular figure was perhaps suggested to him by the reference to the champion’s having 6 fingers and 6 toes in the source verses, see next note. 2 Sam 21:20a// 1 Chr 20:6a specify that he had 6 fingers and 6 toes for a total of 24 extremities. Josephus leaves out the concluding notice of the source verses according to which also this Philistine was a descendant of ‮הרפה‬‎ (MT)/ “the giants” (LXX), as well as the opening reference to his “taunting Israel” in 2 Sam 21:21// 1 Chr 20:7.

As in 7.302 (see note on “against them” at 7.302), Josephus adds the reference to David’s initiative in the face of a new military emergency. MT (2 Sam 21:21// 1 Chr 20:7) ‮יהונתן‬‎ (Eng.: “Jonathan”); LXX (2 Sam 21:21// 1 Chr 20:7) Ἰωναθάν; Josephus Ἰωνάθης. This is the reading of the codices; cf. Lat “Sumae.” Marcus follows the Ed. prin., which reads Σαμᾶ. Compare ‮שׁמעי‬‎ (Eng.: “Shimei,” MT 2 Sam 21:21, ketiv); ‮שׁמעה‬‎ (Eng.: “Shimah,” MT 21:21, qere); ‮שׁמעא‬‎ (Eng.: “Shimea,” MT 1 Chr 20:7); Σεμεεί (LXX B 21:21); Σαμαᾶ (LXX L 21:21; LXX BL 20:7). Josephus leaves aside the indication, common to both sources, that the father of “Jonathan” was David’s “brother.” This indication concerning the ancestry of the final Philistine champion reflects the wording of LXX 1 Chr 20:7 (and Tg. 2 Sam 21:20// 1 Chr 20:7). In MT 2 Sam 21:20 and 1 Chr 20:7 he is called a descendant of ‮הרפה‬‎, in LXX B 2 Sam 21:20 of “Rapha,” and in LXX L 2 Sam 21:20 of “Titan.” This concluding notice for the sequence concerning David’s heroes in 7.298-304 takes the place of the summary formula, rounding off the source parallels in 2 Sam 21:22// 1 Chr 20:7, which speaks of the 4 (21:22; 20:7 lacks this specification) Philistine champions brought down by David and his men.

This transition, leading into Josephus’ account of David’s musical initiatives, picks up on the introduction to the “Psalm of David” in 2 Samuel 22, which, according to its v. 1, was voiced by him “on the day when the Lord delivered him from the hand of all his enemies....” With this phrase Josephus makes general reference to the 2 source poetic texts, i.e. the “Psalm of David” (2 Samuel 22) and the so-called “Last Words of David” (2 Sam 23:1-7). In accord with his standard practice, he does not reproduce the actual wording of these poetical compositions (to which Chronicles has no parallel either). This reference to the “meters” used by David for his songs represents an obvious “Hellenization” of the biblical account, given that such meters are not a feature of Hebrew poetry. Similarly, in Ant. 2.346 and 4.303 Josephus states that Moses composed the “Song of the Sea” (Exod 15:1-18) and the “Song of Moses” (Deut 32:1-43), respectively, in hexameters. This reference to David as maker of musical instruments has a biblical basis in the king’s directive cited in 1 Chr 23:4 that the 4,000 Levitical musicians are to praise God “with the instruments which I have made for praise.” For this reference to David’s instructing the Levites in their duties as liturgical musicians, Josephus draws on such passages as 1 Chr 16:7-42; 23:4; and 25:1-8.

The 3 instruments listed by Josephus appear together in 1 Chr 25:1, where David directs the Levites to use them in their “prophesying.” Of the 3 Hebrew terms cited there, Josephus follows LXX in his rendering of the first 2, i.e. ‮כנרות‬‎ (RSV: “lyres”) and ‮נבלים‬‎ (RSV: “harps”), via transcription, likewise using LXX’s “translation” (“cymbals”) for the 3rd term. He elaborates the source’s mention of the 3 instruments with indications concerning their appearance and use, likely on the basis of his personal familiarity with music in the temple. With this formula Josephus provides a clear closure for the “musical interlude” of 7.305-306, prior to returning to his review of David’s heroes in 7.307.

Josephus derives his overall figure for David’s heroes from 2 Sam 23:39b, where, however, the number given is 37 (in fact, the preceding list of 23:8-39a mentions only 36 figures). Josephus’ biblical text may have contained additional names or, alternatively, he might have miscounted the names before him. Josephus’ statement of the procedure he intends to use regarding the Davidic heroes and his rationale for following this is his own creation. On Josephus’ treatment of the segment 2 Sam 23:8-39 with its presentation of additional Davidic heroes, see Begg 1997m: 151-65. In his placement of this sequence Josephus follows 2 Samuel, rather than the Chronicler’s parallel (1 Chr 11:10-47), which is appended to the account of David’s capture of Jerusalem (11:4-9// 2 Sam 5:6-10// 7.61-65).

MT 2 Sam 23:8 ‮ישׁב בשׁבת‬‎ (Eng.: “Joshebbasshebeth”); LXX B 2 Sam 23:8 Ἰεβόσε; LXX L 2 Sam 23:8 Ἰεσβαόλ; MT 1 Chr 11:11 ‮ישׁבעם‬‎ (Eng.: “Jashobeam”); LXX B 1 Chr 11:11 Ἰεσεβαδά; LXX L 1 Chr 11:11 Ἰεσσεβαάμ; Josephus Ἴσεβος. Josephus’ proper name form for the hero’s father ( Ἀχεμαίος) stands closest to the reading of LXX 1 Chr 11:11, i.e. Ἀχαμανεί. Compare ‮תחכמני‬‎ (Eng.: “a Tahchemonite,” MT 2 Sam 23:8); ὁ Χαναναῖος (LXX B 2 Sam 23:8); (υἱὸς) Θεκεμανεί (LXX L 2 Sam 23:8); ‮בן־חכמני‬‎ (Eng: “a Hachmonite,” MT 1 Chr 11:11). Josephus’ qualification of “Iseb” as “the first” replaces the sources’ designation of him as the “chief of the three/ captains.” Josephus’ figure for the enemy casualties agrees with LXX L 2 Sam 23:8 and 1 Chr 11:11 (as well as OL 23:8). MT and LXX B 2 Sam 23:8 have 800, MT and LXX B 1 Chr 11:11 300. MT (2 Sam 23:9// 1 Chr 11:12) ‮אלעזר‬‎ (Eng: “Eleazar”); LXX B 2 Sam 23:9 Ἐλεανάν; LXX L 2 Sam 23:9// LXX BL 1 Chr 11:12 Ἐλεαζαρ; Josephus Ἐλεαζαρος. MT (2 Sam 23:9) ‮דדי‬‎ (Eng.: “Dodo”); LXX B υἱὸς πατραδελφοῦ (taking the Hebrew form, not as a proper name, but rather as a common noun, i.e. “his paternal uncle”); LXX L Δουδί; MT (1 Chr 11:12) ‮דודי‬‎ (Eng.: “Dodo”); LXX BL 1 Chr 11:12 Δωδαί; Josephus Δώδειος. Josephus’ mention of this site, unparalleled in 2 Sam 23:9, seems inspired by the place name of 1 Chr 11:13: ‮בפס דמים‬‎ (MT; Eng.: “at Pasdammim”); LXX B Φασαδομή; LXX L Σεφφάν. Marcus (ad loc.) opines that Josephus’ form (Greek: Erasamoj& ) is a corruption of L’s reading, whereas Mez (1895: 51) maintains the reverse.

This sequence corresponds to the notice on the Israelites’ flight and Eleazar’s successful resistance in LXX BL 1 Chr 11:13b-14aα (MT 11:14aα speaks of a collectivity [“they”] who resist and slay the Philistines). It also has a counterpart in 2 Sam 23:11bβ-12a, where, however, the victorious champion is not Eleazar (as in Chronicles and Josephus), but rather a new figure, i.e. “Shammah” (see 2 Sam 23:11aα). With this sequence Josephus makes delayed use of 2 Sam 23:10 (cf. 1 Chr 11:14), which relates Eleazar’s hand sticking to his sword, the Lord’s victory, the return of the fugitive Israelites to Eleazar, and their stripping of the dead. Josephus eliminates the source reference to God as the source of the victory.

MT (2 Sam 23:11) ‮שׁמא‬‎ (Eng.: “Shammah”); LXX B Σαμαιά; LXX L Σαμαίας; Josephus Σαβαίας. This figure is not mentioned by the Chronicler, who appears to conflate the accounts of Eleazar and Shammah in 2 Sam 23:9-10 and 11-12, respectively. MT (2 Sam 23:11) ‮אגא‬‎ (Eng.: “Agee”); LXX B Ἀσά; LXX L Ἠλά; Josephus Ἠλός. Josephus has no equivalent to the gentilic (MT “the Hararite”) used of the hero in 23:11. Josephus’ designation of the battle site with the Greek term Σιαγών (“jawbone”) corresponds to the reading of LXX L 2 Sam 23:11 (as well as to those of OL and Tg.). MT and LXX B read “to the wild beast,” while Vulg. offers in statione. Josephus omits the appended biblical qualification of the site as containing a “plot of ground full of lentils.” See 2 Sam 23:11b-12. Josephus accentuates Sabai’s exploit both positively (e.g, with his designation of him as the equivalent of an army and a battle line on his own), and negatively (by omitting the concluding reference to the Lord as the source of his victory of 23:12).

Josephus anticipates this concluding formula for his individual presentations of the first 3 heroes in 7.308-310 from 2 Sam 23:17bβ// 1 Chr 11:19bβ (“these things did the three mighty men”). Compare 2 Sam 23:13// 1 Chr 11:15, which place David at “the cave of Adullam” and the Philistines “in the valley of Rephaim” at the start of the following episode (23:13-17// 11:15-19) featuring a joint exploit by “The Three.” David’s presence in the “citadel” is cited in 2 Sam 23:14a// 1 Chr 11:16a. Josephus’ appended cross reference reminds readers of his account of David’s capture of the Jerusalem “citadel” in 7.63-64. Neither source mentions such a “consultation”; Josephus’ reference to it accentuates David’s piety and reminds readers of the king’s previous inquiries of God in the face of Philistine assaults; see 7.71, 76.

Josephus elaborates on the source reference (2 Sam 23:14b// 1 Chr 11:16b) to the Philistine garrison being “in Bethlehem” with his characteristic specification of the distance between Bethlehem and Jerusalem. Marcus (ad loc.) points out that Josephus’ distance indication (= ca. 2.5 miles) is inaccurate; the actual distance is ca. 5 miles. Josephus’ version of David’s words as cited in 2 Sam 23:15// 1 Chr 11:17 accentuates both the quality of the Bethlehem water and the king’s desire for this.

This phrase, bracketed by Niese, but not by Marcus, is absent from the codices RO. Josephus appends this explanation as to why the Philistines did not attempt to block the movements of “The Three” as described in 2 Sam 23:16abα// 1 Chr 11:18abα.

See 2 Sam 23:16bβ-17abα// 1 Chr 11:18bβ-19abα. Josephus’ omits the self-curse with which David begins his words in 23:17// 11:19. See 2 Sam 23:16bβ// 1 Chr 11:18bβ. Josephus appends mention of David’s accompanying “thanks.”

Josephus’ figure for Abishai’s victims agrees with that cited in LXX L (and OL) 2 Sam 23:18 against the 300 of the other witnesses. Josephus omits the source indications (2 Sam 23:18-19// Chr 11:20-21) concerning Abishai’s status vis-à-vis “The Three.” This is reading (Greek: Ναβαῖος) adopted by Niese; Marcus ad loc. prefers the Βαναίας of codex M, which accords with the hero’s name given in LXX BL 2 Sam 23:20 and LXX L 1 Chr 11:22. Compare ‮בניהו‬‎ (Eng.: “Benaiah,” MT 2 Sam 23:20); ‮בניה‬‎ (Eng.: “Benaiah,” MT 1 Chr 11:22); Βαναιά (LXX B 1 Chr 11:22). This phrase takes the place of the various data concerning “Benaiah” found in 2 Sam 23:20// 1 Chr 11:22: his father (“Ishbai,” MT 23:20/ “Jehoiada,” MT 11:22), his hometown (“Kabzeel”), and his status as a doer of mighty deeds. Niese, and following him Mez (1895: 52), view Josephus’ reference to “Nabai’s” priestly ancestry as likely “corrupt.” Marcus, who reads the hero’s name rather as “Banai” (see previous note), points out that 1 Chr 27:5 mentions “Benaiah the son of Jehoiada [see the same pairing in 1 Chr 11:22] the priest.” Josephus’ reference to “Nabai’s” rout of “brothers” in Moab is in the line of the renditions by LXX 2 Sam 23:20a and LXX L 1 Chr 11:22a (“two sons of Ariel of Moab”) and Tg. 2 Sam 23:20a// 1 Chr 11:22a (“two princes of Moab”) of the mysterious entities “two ariels,” whom Benaiah slays according to MT 2 Sam 23:20a// 1 Chr 11:22a. In 2 Sam 23:20b// 1 Chr 11:22b there follows as Benaiah’s 2nd exploit his killing of a lion. Josephus makes this the 3rd, climatic deed of the hero; see 7.316-317. Josephus follows 1 Chr 11:23a in highlighting the Egyptian’s height as against the reference to his (handsome) appearance in 2 Sam 23:21a. On the other hand, he omits the Chronicler’s specification that the Egyptian was “5 cubits” tall. Josephus accentuates the disparity between the 2 parties in portraying the Israelite hero as “unarmed,” whereas according to 2 Sam 23:21// 1 Chr 11:23 he was carrying a “staff.” Like 2 Sam 23:21, Josephus has no equivalent to the qualification of the Egyptian’s spear as “like a weaver’s beam” of 1 Chr 11:23. 2 Sam 23:21bβ// 1 Chr 11:23bβ speak only of the “spear,” which Benaiah seizes from the Egyptian and uses to kill him. Josephus embellishes both the latter’s threat and the former’s triumph with his reference to the Egyptian’s having, not just one, but several weapons at his disposal.

This added transition underscores the remarkable character of the exploit that is now to be related (and which Josephus has reserved to last place in his account of “Nabai”; see note to “valor” at 7.315). It takes the place of the closing notice for Benaiah given in 2 Sam 23:23// 1 Chr 11:24-25 concerning his (non-)standing among “The Three.” Josephus embellishes the circumstances of the lion’s entrapment; compare 2 Sam 23:20b// 1 Chr 11:22b, which merely mention the beast’s presence “in the middle of a pit on a snowy day.”

Josephus dramatizes the simple mention of Benaiah’s “slaying” the lion in 2 Sam 23:20b// 1 Chr 11:22b. This statement echoes Josephus’ announcement in 7.307 that he intends to provide an account of only 5 of David’s 38 heroes. Having done this in 7.308-317, he leaves aside the list of the remaining champions given in 2 Sam 23:24-39a// 1 Chr 11:26-47 in accordance with his usual tendency to abridge or omit extended biblical name lists.

This motivation for David’s census-taking draws on the reason the king gives for commanding Joab to undertake the census in 2 Sam 24:2// 1 Chr 21:2b (“that I may know the number [of the people]”). Josephus passes over the “supernatural explanations” of the king’s initiative put forward in 2 Sam 24:1 (in his—not further motivated—anger against Israel the Lord prompts David to number the people) and 1 Chr 21:1 (Satan incites David to undertake the census; on Josephus’ non-mention of “Satan” in Antiquities, see Schlatter 1932: 36-37). In Josephus’ presentation then, the census results exclusively from David’s own wishes, no higher agency being involved. On Josephus’ version of the story of David’s census, see Begg 1994. With this added statement Josephus spells out—as his biblical sources do not—in what the wrongfulness of David’s census consisted. The reference is to the law requiring the payment of a “head tax” for those counted in a census in Exod 30:11-13; 38:25-26// Ant. 3.194-196; see Feldman 2000: 283, n. 508. Compare b. Ber. 62b, which avers that God, through the agency of Satan (see 1 Chr 21:1), caused David to “stumble over” the Mosaic ordinance of Exod 30:12. Like MT LXX B 2 Sam 24:2a, Josephus has David address his order to Joab alone, whereas in 1 Chr 21:2a (and LXX L 24:2a) he speaks to the army commanders as well. Josephus abbreviates David’s order as cited in 2 Sam 24:2b// 1 Chr 21:2b, omitting, e.g., the specification concerning the extent of the territory to be traversed by Joab (“from Dan to Beersheba”) as well as the motivation for David’s project (which he has already anticipated when introducing the census story; see note on “people” at 7.318).

Here too, Josephus compresses the biblical exchange between king and general. Compare 2 Sam 24:3// 1 Chr 21:3, where Joab first expresses a wish for the increase of David’s people and then asks why the king should want to number them, thereby bringing guilt on Israel (this final element of Joab’s reply is absent from 24:3). Josephus elaborates on the summary statement of 2 Sam 24:4a// 1 Chr 21:4a: “but the king’s word prevailed against Joab (+ and the commanders of the army, 24:4a).” Josephus’ reference to these figures reflects the plus of 2 Sam 24:4b with its mention of the “commanders of the army” accompanying Joab. In 1 Chr 21:4b Joab alone goes forth to conduct the census. Neither biblical source mentions this group as accompanying Joab. Josephus’ insertion of them reflects the obvious need for their services during a census-taking. Cf. his likewise added reference to “scribes” in Ant. 6.120. This generalized reference to Joab’s “tour” as encompassing the entire land of Israel corresponds to 1 Chr 21:4bα// 2 Sam 21:8a. Like the Chronicler, Josephus has no equivalent to the listing of the various regions and sites visited by Joab and his party in 2 Sam 24:5-7. See 2 Sam 24:8b// 1 Chr 21:4b; Josephus supplies the transitional phrase concerning the conclusion of the census. This figure for the duration of Joab’s mission corresponds to the plus of 2 Sam 24:8b. The Chronicler (see 1 Chr 21:4b) has no equivalent. Josephus here combines mention of Joab’s report (2 Sam 24:9a// 1 Chr 21:5a) with the Chronicler’s “afterthought” plus concerning the non-numbering of the Benjamites (21:6, where they are mentioned after the other non-counted tribe, i.e. the Levites).

The plus of MT 1 Chr 21:6 attributes Joab’s non-numbering of the Levites and Benjamites to his “abhorrence” of David’s command; LXX L ascribes that “failure” to the king’s “hurrying” of Joab (Marcus ad loc. suggests that Josephus’ wording reflects this reading). With this statement Josephus provides an explanation concerning Joab’s not having the time to complete the census as previously mentioned by him in apparent dependence on LXX L 1 Chr 21:6; see previous note. The statement is likewise an anticipation of the notice of 2 Sam 24:10a that “David’s heart smote him after he had numbered the people.” By having David repent of his misdeed even while the census is being conducted, Josephus accentuates the king’s piety/ sensitivity of conscience. Josephus’ figure for the Israelites agrees with that given in LXX L 2 Sam 24:9// 1 Chr 21:5. MT and LXX B 2 Sam 24:9 have 800,000, MT and LXX B 1 Chr 21:5 1,100,000. On Rabbinic attempts to resolve the discrepancy between (MT) 24:9 and 21:5, see Begg 1994: 206, n. 19. This figure for the Judeans agrees with that given in LXX L 2 Sam 24:9. MT and LXX B 24:9 speak of 500,000, MT LXX L 1 Chr 21:5 of 470,000 (LXX B does not provide a total for the Judeans counted).

In both sources (see 2 Sam 24:13// 1 Chr 21:11) a single prophet, Gad, addresses David only after the latter has expressed repentance for his deed (see 24:10 // 21:8). Josephus’ added reference to a nameless group of prophets who speak for God to the king is reminiscent of 7.294 where—without biblical basis (compare 2 Sam 21:1b)—he has “prophets” inform David of the divine will concerning the famine. Here in 7.321 the prophets’ announcement of God’s anger likewise provides a rationale for David’s addressing God with his words of appeal/confession, which in the sources are left without explicit motivation. See 2 Sam 24:10// 1 Chr 21:8. Josephus leaves aside the other designation used of Gad in 2 Sam 24:11// 1 Chr 21:9, i.e. “David’s seer.” He draws his identification of Gad as “the prophet” from 24:11 (MT LXX L, > LXX B). MT (2 Sam 24:11// 1 Chr 21:9) ‮גד‬‎ (Eng.: “Gad”); LXX Γάδ; Josephus Γάδος. Josephus, like Chronicles, has no counterpart to the mention of David’s “arising in the morning,” which precedes God’s commissioning of Gad in 2 Sam 24:11. See the divine word to Gad cited in 2 Sam 24:12// 1 Chr 21:10. Josephus conflates the presentation of his sources where, between God’s commissioning Gad to inform the king of his 3 choices (24:12// 21:10) and the prophet’s spelling out those choices to the king (24:13b// 21:12), there intervenes mention of Gad’s approach to David (24:13a// 21:11). Passing over this last element, Josephus combines the 2 preceding ones into a continuous sequence, in which God instructs Gad about both the number and content of the choices he is to offer David. Josephus’ figure for the duration of the famine agrees with that given in MT 2 Sam 24:13 as against the “3 years” of LXX 24:13 and 1 Chr 21:12. Like 2 Sam 24:13, Josephus speaks of the 3rd proposed punishment simply as a “pestilent illness.” In 1 Chr 21:12 the reference is amplified with mentions of the “sword of the Lord” and “the angel of the Lord destroying throughout all the territory of Israel.”

This added phrase highlights the magnitude of David’s dilemma. Josephus transposes David’s opening word to Gad in 2 Sam 24:14a// 1 Chr 21:13a: “I am in great distress” into this editorial remark about the king’s emotional state. Gad’s demand for an answer here might be seen as Josephus’ delayed utilization of the injunction with which the prophet concludes his earlier address to the king in 2 Sam 24:13// 1 Chr 21:12: “Now decide what answer I shall bring to him who sent me.”

This conjectured reading (Greek: ἐροῦσιν) fills in an apparent lacuna in the text; see Marcus ad loc. The sources have no equivalent to the above “process of elimination” whereby David reached his decision among the choices offered him. The insertion depicts David as a prudent man who, even in a moment of intense pressure, thinks through the ramifications of his choices for the public perception of himself. It also has noteworthy similarities with the Tg.’s amplified version of 1 Chr 21:13 and a range of rabbinic texts; see Begg 1994: 209, n. 26. From David’s response to Gad in 2 Sam 24:14b // 1 Chr 21:13b Josephus leaves aside the king’s appended explanation of his choice of falling into the hand of the Lord rather than into those of men, i.e. the fact that the Lord’s mercy is “very great.”

Josephus prefaces the notice of God’s unleashing the pestilence (2 Sam 24:15a// 1 Chr 24:14a) with mention of Gad’s reporting David’s answer. Conversely, he has no parallel to the LXX plus at the opening of 2 Sam 24:15: “So David chose the plague. And in the days of the wheat harvest...” (trans. McCarter 1984 ad loc.).

The entire above sequence of 2.5 paragraphs is Josephus’ dramatic embellishment of the summary source notices on the plague’s casualty figures (2 Sam 24:15b// 1 Chr 21:14b). Marcus (ad loc.) calls attention to the segment’s similarities with Thucydides’ account (2, 47-54) of the plague that devastated Athens, while Mach (1992: 328) alludes to its reminiscence of Josephus’ own narrative of the afflictions of besieged Jerusalem in War 5.512-518 (in both passages, e.g., persons die even while burying others; see Ant. 7.326; War 5.514). Josephus’ indication concerning the duration of the plague parallels that found in LXX 2 Sam 24:15b (MT: “from morning until the appointed time”). Like Chronicles, Josephus has no equivalent to the specification of 2 Sam 24:15b that the pestilence raged from “Dan to Beersheba.” Josephus’ figure for the plague’s victims agrees with that given in all witnesses of 2 Sam 24:15b// 1 Chr 21:14b.

This notice corresponds to the opening words of 2 Sam 24:16; 1 Chr 21:15 does not mention the angel’s “hand.” Josephus leaves aside the remainder of 24:16// 21:15, in which the Lord “repents of the evil,” and commands the angel—who is himself present at the threshing floor of Araunah/Ornan—to desist. Josephus’ omission of this source sequence is understandable given that the Lord’s “repentance,” already at this juncture, would seem to render pointless David’s following urgent appeal, just as the reference to the angel’s presence on earth would be at odds with Josephus’ subsequent mention of the angel’s being carried along on the air current. This is Josephus’ anticipated version of the plus of 1 Chr 21:16b, where David and the elders respond to the vision of the angel and his drawn sword (21:16a) by donning sackcloth and prostrating themselves (this plus also appears in the 4QSama text of 2 Sam 24:16, where the initiatives of David and the elders are cited in reverse order). Josephus has the king alone undertake these penitential practices. This initial appeal by the king—already before his vision of the destroying angel—is Josephus’ own creation. By having David address God at this point, prior to the angelic apparition, Josephus accentuates the king’s piety/penitence. Subsequently, he will have David also use the words attributed to him in response to his angelic vision in 2 Sam 24:17// 1 Chr 21:17. See 7.328. Josephus reverses the sequence of his sources, where David’s seeing of the destroying angel (2 Sam 24:17a// 1 Chr 21:16) precedes his appeal to the Lord (24:17b// 21:17). His specifications concerning the airborne angel and his “drawn sword” correspond to the wording of 1 Chr 21:16, whereas in 2 Sam 24:17a the king simply sees the angel, “who was smiting the people.”

David’s designation of himself as a “shepherd” corresponds to the 4QSama LXX L and OL plus in 2 Sam 24:17, lacking in MT LXX B and 1 Chr 21:17. See 2 Sam 24:17b// 1 Chr 21:17, whose content Josephus utilizes at this point, having earlier cited an initial “pre-vision” entreaty by David of his own creation in 7.327. The concluding appeal that God “spare the people” is Josephus’ positive rendering of David’s closing words in 1 Chr 21:17: “... let not the plague be upon thy [God’s] people.”

This notice on the effect of David’s appeal has no counterpart in the sources, where God’s “repenting of the evil” is mentioned already prior to the king’s prayer; see 2 Sam 24:16// 1 Chr 21:15 and cf. note to “there” at 7.327. In making God himself dispatch Gad to David, Josephus differs from both 2 Sam 24:18 (where the prophet appears to approach David on his own initiative) and 1 Chr 21:18 (where it is “the angel of the Lord” who instructs him to go to the king). MT 2 Sam 24:18 ‮ארניה‬‎ (Eng.: “Araunah”); MT 1 Chr 21:18 ‮ארנן‬‎ (Eng.: “Ornan”); LXX Ὀρνά; Josephus Ὀροννᾶς. Josephus amplifies God’s command that David build an altar in 2 Sam 24:18// 1 Chr 21:18 with the additional directive about offering sacrifices. He thereby makes David’s subsequent sacrificing (24:25// 21:26) a matter of obedience to a divine injunction, rather than something that he (apparently) undertakes on his own initiative. See 2 Sam 24:19// 1 Chr 21:19, whose reference to the (prophetic) “word” Josephus, in line with his usual practice, eliminates.

This reference to what Oronnas is doing at the moment of David’s approach corresponds to the plus of 1 Chr 21:19 and 4QSama 2 Sam 24:20. Josephus has no equivalent to the (variable) additional material of these witnesses, which reads in the version of MT 1 Chr 21:19: “... he (Ornan) turned and saw the angel [so also 4QSama; LXX 1 Chr 21:19: the king], and his four sons hid themselves [4QSama: and his servants coming towards him clothed in sackcloth—cf. note on “servants” at 7.330].” See 2 Sam 24:21a (no equivalent in 1 Chronicles 21). The term rendered “servants” above (Greek: παῖδες) is the same used in LXX 24:21. It might also be translated “sons,” as it is by Weill ad loc.; see Begg 1994: 215, n. 47. 4QSama 24:21a specifies that the servants were “clad in sackcloth”; see note to “there” at 7.330. See 2 Sam 24:20b// 1 Chr 21:21b. This appended notice concerning “Oronnas” recalls Josephus’ (also added) introduction of him in connection with David’s seizure of Jerusalem in 7.69.

In having Oronnas initiate the exchange with his question about David’s coming to him, Josephus follows 2 Sam 24:21a; in 1 Chr 21:22a, by contrast, David immediately calls on Ornan to hand over his threshing floor to him. See 2 Sam 24:21b// 1 Chr 21:22. The Josephan David’s mention of his intended sacrifice picks up on Gad’s command that he sacrifice on the altar he is to build (7.329). It takes the place of the sources’ own indication concerning the purpose of David’s altar-building, i.e. “that the plague may be averted from the people.” Josephus likewise leaves aside the plus of 21:22, in which David asks Ornan to give him the threshing floor “at its full price.” See 2 Sam 24:22// 1 Chr 21:23. Josephus’ mention of the “ploughs” as one of the objects offered by Oronnas has a counterpart in LXX L 24:22 and LXX B 1 Chr 21:23. He omits the various additional/alternative items that Aranuah/Ornan offers to David in several of the biblical textual witnesses (e.g. “the wheat for a cereal offering,” MT 21:23); see Marcus ad loc. and Begg 1994: 217. This allusion to Oronnas’ “prayer” draws on the plus of 2 Sam 24:23b, where he expresses the wish that “the Lord your God accept you [David].”

Josephus prefaces David’s brusque rejection of Ornan’s offer (2 Sam 24:24a// 1 Chr 21:24) with this polite acknowledgment of the spirit in which the offer is made. See 2 Sam 24:24a// 1 Chr 21:24. Josephus omits the plus of 21:24, in which, speaking to Ornan, David refers to “taking for the Lord what is yours.” Josephus interjects this response by Oronnas to David’s proposal. 2 Sam 24:24b mentions also David’s purchase of the oxen. Josephus’ figure for the price paid by David corresponds to that cited in 2 Sam 24:24b (which further specifies that the 50 shekels were “of silver”). 1 Chr 21:25 reads a much higher figure: 600 shekels of gold.

See 2 Sam 24:25a// 1 Chr 21:26a. Josephus’ notice on the outcome of David’s sacrifice follows 2 Sam 24:25b (“so the Lord heeded supplications for the land, and the plague was averted from the land”) as against the more elaborate account of 1 Chr 21:26b-27, where David calls upon the Lord, who answers him with fire from heaven upon the altar, and who further commands the angel to sheath his sword, as he does. Josephus appends this cross reference to his account of the Aqedah in Ant. 1.222-236. His connecting of David’s sacrifice with that of Abraham is likely inspired by 2 Chr 3:1 (Solomon builds the temple “on Mount Moriah... on the threshing floor of Ornan”) taken in conjunction with Gen 22:1-2 (Abraham is told to go to “the land of Moriah,” where he will be shown a “mountain” on which he is to sacrifice Isaac). The Targum’s rendering of 1 Chr 21:15 likewise makes an explicit connection between the account of David’s census and Genesis 22 with its reference to the angel who is about to destroy Jerusalem seeing the “ashes of the binding of Isaac which were at the base of the altar” and “remembering his covenant with Abraham which he had set up with him on the mountain of worship.”

Niese ad loc. conjectures ἅλων (“threshing floor”) on the basis of Lat for the βωμόν (“altar”) of the Greek witnesses followed in the above translation. On Niese’s conjecture, see the critique of Marcus ad loc. Josephus derives the content of this notice from 1 Chr 21:28 (David’s seeing that the Lord had answered him at Ornan’s threshing floor) and 22:1 (David declares “here shall be the house of the Lord God and here the altar of burnt offering for Israel”). He leaves aside the intervening parenthesis of 21:29-30, which states that David was unable to go to Gibeon to inquire there of the Lord at the Mosaic tabernacle and altar of burnt offering on account of his fear of the sword of the Lord’s angel. Such “fear” on David’s part would seem out of place at this point, given the reference to God’s being “appeased” and “benevolent once again” in 7.333. Neither source speaks of a further prophetic intervention at this point. Marcus ad loc. suggests that the content of the prophet’s message according to Josephus with its allusion to Solomon was inspired by the LXX plus at the end of 2 Sam 24:25: “And Solomon added to the altar later, for it was small at first” (trans. McCarter 1984 ad loc.). In any case, the anonymous prophet’s announcement here is also reminiscent of Josephus’ version of Nathan’s word to David (2 Sam 7:13// 1 Chr 17:12) in 7.93: “...the sanctuary would be built by his son, who would receive the kingship after him and who would be called Solomon.”

See 1 Chr 22:2a, which does not a mention a total for the “aliens” assembled by David. Having followed the sequence of 2 Samuel through its chap. 24, Josephus now switches over to the special material of 1 Chronicles 22 in 7.335-342. 1 Chr 22:2b mentions David’s appointment of stone-cutters, but gives no figure for these. Josephus also supplies the notice on the task assigned the remaining 100,000 foreigners. 1 Chronicles 22 does not mention David’s overseers. Josephus derives his reference to them from 1 Kgs 5:30 (RSV 5:16), where LXX A has the same figure as his, i.e. 3,500 (MT 3,300; LXX B 3,600; LXX L 3,700). See 1 Chr 22:3. Josephus omits the source indications concerning the intended uses of the collected iron. See 1 Chr 22:4. Josephus appends the reference to David’s “order,” this explaining why the Phoenicians should have brought him the timber.

1 Chr 22:5a does not specify to whom David addresses his words concerning the measures undertaken by him. MSP, followed by Marcus ad loc., adds the specification τοῦ ναοῦ (“of the sanctuary”), which Niese omits with RO Lat. See 1 Chr 22:5a. From David’s speech concerning his project Josephus leaves aside the reference to the requisite magnificence of the house that is to be built for the Lord. He likewise omits the parenthetical narrative remark of 22:5b about David’s accumulating large quantities of material before his death.

See 1 Chr 22:6. Josephus compresses David’s address to Solomon about his plan and God’s veto of this (1 Chr 22:7-8), eliminating, e.g., the phrase “the word of the Lord came to me” of v. 8a. The wording of David’s speech here recalls Nathan’s message to him as cited in 7.92. Josephus combines elements of David’s discourse from 1 Chr 22:9bα (the name of David’s son) and 10aα (Solomon’s building of the temple). He reserves until the end of the paragraph his version of the source’s wordplay (see v. 9) on the name “Solomon” and the term ‮שׁלום‬‎ (“peace”), while adding the reference to Solomon’s being David’s “youngest son.” David now begins recapitulating Nathan’s word of promise to him as cited in 7.93. Compare 1 Chr 22:10bα: “He shall be my son, and I [God] will be his father,” and cf. 7.93, where Nathan assures David that God “would protect and take care of him [Solomon] as a father does his son.” Josephus omits the further divine promise of 22:10bβ: “I will establish his royal throne in Israel for ever” with its Messianic connotations. Josephus elaborates on David’s earlier (see 1 Chr 22:9; cf. note to “him” at 7.337) double mention of the “peace” God promises to give in Solomon’s day with, e.g., a characteristic allusion to intra-Jewish conflict as something especially undesirable.

Compare 1 Chr 22:13b, where Solomon is called on to “be strong and of good courage.” Josephus has David exhorting his successor to the practice of 3 cardinal virtues. See 1 Chr 22:12bβ-13a. The injunction that Solomon is to prevent others from violating the Mosaic code is without source parallel. Conversely, Josephus omits the opening conditional assurance of 22:13a, i.e. “then you will prosper if....”

Compare 1 Chr 22:11, where David prays “... may the Lord be with you [Solomon], so that you may succeed in building the house of the Lord your God, as he has spoken concerning you.” Josephus turns David’s expression of hope for Solomon into a directive by him to his son. This exhortation that Solomon begin work on the temple immediately and without hesitation replaces David’s more general call to strength, courage, and fearlessness on his part in 1 Chr 22:13b—anticipated by Josephus in 7.338 (see note to “courageous” at 7.338)—, which does not explicitly relate these qualities to the temple-building task. Josephus inserts this general assurance by David as a motivation for his preceding exhortation that Solomon not be intimidated by his temple-building task—he need not be, given that David will have made the necessary preparations—and as an introduction to the list of items David has previously assembled, as cited in 1 Chr 22:14abα.

The figure given in 1 Chr 22:14 is 100,000. In his later allusion (see 7.371) to his statement here, David will speak simply of the “large amount” of gold collected by him. The total cited in 1 Chr 22:14 is 1,000,000. Josephus’ David will repeat the same figure for the silver collected by him in 7.371. The above 4 items appear in David’s catalogue of the objects collected by him in 1 Chr 22:14bα. Josephus reduces the 4 categories of available workers cited by David in 1 Chr 22:15-16a to 2. Compare 1 Chr 22:15bβ, where David calls Solomon to “add to” what he himself has already collected. Compare 1 Chr 22:16b: “arise and be doing! The Lord is with you.”

Josephus combines elements of David’s address to the leaders (1 Chr 22:17-19): the call to assist Solomon (22:17) and the positive exhortation to wholehearted seeking of the Lord (22:19aα). The negative command that the leaders “fear no misfortune” has no equivalent in the biblical David’s words to the leaders. This statement turns David’s reference to Israel’s current divinely blessed situation of 1 Chr 22:18 into a conditional promise for the leaders’ future.

See David’s concluding directive to the leaders in 1 Chr 22:19b. This reminder of the long-standing, but as yet unrealized divine command about building a temple has no counterpart in David’s words to the leaders in 1 Chr 22:17-19. It harks back to the Mosaic ordinance about the building of a temple in the land cited by Josephus in Ant. 4.199-200, which, in turn, has no precise biblical parallel. Josephus appends this concluding formula to his rendition (7.337-342) of David’s double speech in 1 Chr 22:6-19, first to Solomon personally (22:6-16) and then to the leaders (22:17-19).

In 1 Chr 23:1 mention of David’s advanced age is followed by a summary reference to his making Solomon king. Josephus at this point turns to the much more elaborate account of 1 Kings 1 in relating the difficult circumstances surrounding David’s designation of Solomon. See 1 Kgs 1:1. In 1 Kgs 1:2 it is David’s “servants” who advise him. See the similar substitution of “physicians” for the source’s “servants” in Josephus’ account of Saul’s mental illness in Ant. 6.166 (// 1 Sam 16:15). See 1 Kgs 1:2, from which Josephus omits the mention of the woman’s waiting upon the king and functioning as his nurse. He makes part of the physicians’ own proposal the narrative notice of 1 Kgs 1:3a that the search was conducted “throughout all the territory of Israel.”

1 Kgs 1:3 calls Abishag a “Shunamite.” Niese and Marcus posit that the name of the woman’s home-town has fallen out of the text of Josephus. MT (1 Kgs 1:3) ‮אבישׁג‬‎ (Eng.: “Abishag”); LXX B Ἀβεισά; LXX L Ἀβισάκ; Josephus Ἀβισάκη. Josephus provides an explanation for the concluding statement of 1 Kgs 1:4 (“but the king knew her not”). See Ant. 8.5 (// 1 Kgs 2:17), where Adonijah asks Bathsheba’s help in obtaining her as his wife.

1 Kgs 1:6bβ speaks more generally about Adonijah’s being born “next after Absalom.” Josephus recapitulates the specification about his being the 4th-born son from 7.21// 2 Sam 3:4. Josephus anticipates this reference to Adonijah’s appearance from 1 Kgs 1:6bα. See 1 Kgs 1:5 (MT LXX B; LXX L calls him “son of David”). Josephus has mentioned the mother of Adonijah previously in 7.21. MT (1 Kgs 1:5) ‮אדניה‬‎ (Eng.: “Adonijah”); LXX B Ἀδωνείας; LXX L Ὀρνιά; Josephus Ἀδωνίας. Josephus appends this remark about Adonijah’s similarity to Absalom; it serves to prepare for the former’s recapitulation of the latter’s revolt against his father and his ultimate bad end in what follows. See 1 Kgs 1:5a, which does not specify to whom Adonijah makes his statement “I will be king.” Josephus embellishes the notice of 1 Kgs 1:5b on Adonijah’s retinue with his specification that the prince had “many” chariots and horsemen. Compare 7.194, where Absalom—with whom Josephus has just compared Adonijah here in 7.345—is described as having “many horses and chariots,” as well “50 armed men” around himself.

See 1 Kgs 1:6a; Josephus’ opening reference to David’s “seeing this” makes clear that the king’s failure to rebuke his son was not due to ignorance of his doings. Josephus has anticipated the notice of 1:6bα on Adonijah’s good looks in 7.345. See 1 Kgs 1:7. In 1 Kgs 1:8 “Benaiah” is identified rather as “son of Jehoiada.” Josephus has previously mentioned this figure and his office in 7.110, 293. MT (1 Kgs 1:8) ‮שׁמעי‬‎ (Eng.: “Shimei”); LXX B Σεμεεί; LXX L Σαμαίας; Josephus Σιμούεις. MT 1 Kgs 1:9 mentions ‮רעי‬‎ (Eng.: “Rei”; see LXX B Ῥησεί) as another of David’s “mighty men,” alongside the previously cited “Shimei.” Josephus apparently (mis-) read this form as the common noun ‮רע‬‎ (“friend”); cf. LXX L’s οἱ ἐταῖροι αὐτοῦ. See Rappaport 1930: #229.

Compare 1 Kgs 1:9a: “Adonijah sacrificed sheep, oxen, and fatlings [LXX L lacks this last term].” This general localization takes the place of the specification “by the Serpent Stone” (RSV) in 1 Kgs 1:9a. Josephus’ Greek term (πηγή) corresponds to that used by LXX L to render the first part (omitted by LXX B) of the composite expression of MT 1 Kgs 1:9a, i.e. “En-rogel.” Conversely, he has no equivalent to the 2nd part of the MT place name. This localization of the “spring” has no equivalent in 1 Kgs 1:9a. Josephus designates the site with a Greek word, i.e. παράδεισος that is ultimately of Persian origin and that eventually came to denote “Paradise,” the place of protological and/or eschatological bliss. Josephus combines the statements of 1 Kgs 1:9b and 10 concerning which of his brothers Adonijah did (not) invite. Like LXX B 1 Kgs 1:9a, he has no equivalent to the MT and LXX L specification that the brothers were “the king’s sons.” 1 Kgs 1:9b mentions Adonijah’s inviting “all the royal officials of Judah,” but not specifically Joab and Abiathar. Josephus expands the list of those not invited of 1 Kgs 1:10 with the name of Zadok, having already anticipated its mention of “Solomon” to an earlier point in 7.347. His expression “those belonging to the opposing party” takes the place of “the mighty men” cited in the list of 1:10 (cf. 1:5).

In 1 Kgs 1:11 Nathan asks Bathsheba: “have you not heard that Adonijah... has become king and David does not know it?” This translation follows the text of Niese; Marcus (ad loc.), basing himself on a somewhat different text, renders “... Adonias was king and David does not know this.” See 1 Kgs 1:12-13. From Nathan’s proposal as to what Bathsheba is to say to the king in 1:13 Josephus leaves aside—in the above rendering (but see note on “words” at 7.349)—the invocation of David’s (purported) previous “oath” that Solomon would succeed him. His omission of this element likely reflects the concern that the prophet Nathan not appear to be fabricating the oath in question, given that there has been no previous mention of such an oath in the biblical (or Josephus’ own) account.

See 1 Kgs 1:14. Marcus (ad loc.) follows a longer, variant Greek text: “(he advised her)... to go alone to David and tell him, although he had sworn that Solomon should be king after his death, Adonias had meanwhile taken over the royal power.” On the problem of David’s (alleged) oath, see previous note. Josephus modifies the sequence 1 Kgs 1:15-16 in several respects: He adds the opening reference to the persuasive effect of Nathan’s words, omits the parenthetical allusion to David’s age and Abishag’s waiting on him (1:15b), and has Bathsheba, rather than David (so 1:16), open the exchange between them with her request to speak to him.

This generalized formulation takes the place of Bathsheba’s initial invocation of David’s (purported) oath to her in 1 Kgs 1:17, made in accordance with Nathan’s instructions in 1:13, which Josephus previously left aside; see note to “this” at 7.348 and to “words” at 7.349. As in the case of 1 Kgs 1:9 (see 7.347), Josephus uses this term in place of the reference to Adonijah’s sacrifice of “oxen, fatlings (> LXX L) and sheep” of 1:19. In having Bathsheba mention Adonijah’s non-inviting Solomon, Josephus goes together with MT LXX B 1 Kgs 1:19 against LXX L. The reference to Solomon’s “closest friends” also not being invited is his own. See 1 Kgs 1:20. Josephus has Bathsheba make more explicit the nature of the threat facing herself and her son. In 1 Kgs 1:21 she simply avers that after David’s death the 2 of them will be “counted as offenders.”

In 1 Kgs 1:22-23a Nathan first “comes in,” at which an unspecified “they” informs David that the prophet is on hand, and finally Nathan, without being given explicit permission to do so, “comes in before the king.” Josephus reworks this sequence to bring it more into conformity with the requirements of royal protocol. See 1 Kgs 1:24. Josephus omits the notice on Nathan’s prostration before the king of 1:23b.

From Nathan’s list of those invited (1 Kgs 1:25a) Josephus omits “Abiathar the priest” (earlier cited by him as among the guests in 7.347). His reference to “the general Joab” corresponds to the LXX L reading in 1:25a, whereas MT and LXX B have Nathan allude to “the commanders of the army.” He anticipates the non-invitation of Solomon from 1:26. In 1 Kgs 1:25b Nathan “quotes” the assembly’s acclamation “Long live King Adonijah.” Josephus adds the reference to the “clapping and joyful noise.” See the list in 1 Kgs 1:26, whose mention of Solomon Josephus has anticipated earlier in 7.352. Josephus transposes into a pointed statement Nathan’s question (1 Kgs 1:27) as to whether the king had prompted Adonijah’s current initiative, without bothering to inform his own entourage.

See 1 Kgs 1:28a. Josephus appends the clarification concerning Bathsheba’s whereabouts during Nathan’s address to the king (1:24-27). Josephus omits the reference to Bethsheba’s “standing before the king” after her entry of 1 Kgs 1:28b. Compare 1 Kgs 1:29, where David swears “as the Lord lives, who has redeemed my soul out of every adversity.” See 1 Kgs 1:30. In Josephus’ presentation David alone cites his previous oath to Bathsheba (compare 1 Kgs 1:13, 17). Thereby, any suspicion that this was something fabricated and “put over on” the senile king by Nathan and Bathsheba is eliminated; see note to “this” at 7.348.

See 1 Kgs 1:31. David’s directive about who is to be summoned in 1 Kgs 1:32a includes mention also of Nathan who— one might suppose—is still present before him, nothing having been said about his exiting prior to Bathsheba’s 2nd interview with the king. Accordingly, Josephus has David summon Zadok and Benaiah alone.

In 1 Kgs 1:33 David commands the trio Zadok, Nathan and Benaiah (see v. 32) to take “the servants of your lord (LXX BL, MT lords).” MT (1 Kgs 1:33) ‮גחון‬‎ (Eng.: “Gihon”); LXX and Josephus Γειών. Josephus adds the specification about the localization of the spring. Greek: περιχρίω. This compound form occurs only here in Josephus. See 1 Kgs 1:34a (where LXX L has the sg. imperative “anoint” together with a pl. subject, i.e. Zadok and Nathan). Josephus adds the reference to the “holy oil” as the “matter” of the anointing, anticipating mention of the oil from the “anointing scene” of 1 Kgs 1:39.

See 1 Kgs 1:34b. Josephus appends David’s remark concerning the purpose of the initiatives in question. This admonition addressed to Solomon takes the place of 1 Kgs 1:35, where David speaks about Solomon as his successor whom he has appointed ruler “over Israel and over Judah.” Josephus’ rewording highlights Solomon’s own role in the proceedings.

Josephus compresses the more extended hope expressed by Benaiah in 1 Kgs 1:36-37, omitting, e.g., its (potentially offensive) wish that God might make Solomon’s throne “greater” than David’s own. See 1 Kgs 1:38. Josephus passes over the source catalogue of those accompanying Solomon, including “the Cherethites and the Pelethites,” who were not specifically cited in David’s preceding order (see 1:32-33) concerning the makeup of Solomon’s entourage. Josephus’ participle, attributing Solomon’s “anointing” (Greek: χρίσαντες; compare the compound περιχρίω used in David’s order in 7.355) to a plural “they,” corresponds to his rendering of David’s order in 7.355 (// 1 Kgs 1:34), where Nathan and Zadok are instructed to do this. In 1 Kgs 1:39a, by contrast, Zadok alone anoints David. Josephus does not reproduce the source specification that the (horn of) oil was brought “from the Tent” by Zadok for the anointing. This “entry” is not explicitly mentioned in 1 Kgs 1:39bα, which speaks rather of the blowing of the trumpet (cf. David’s order to this effect in 1:34b) following Solomon’s anointing. Josephus will make use of the source reference to trumpet-blowing in the word he attributes to Joab in 7.359 (// 1 Kgs 1:41). See 1 Kgs 1:39b. Josephus adds the reference to the “applause” of Solomon’s entourage.

1 Kings 1 makes no explicit mention of such a post-anointing “enthronement” of Solomon (although cf. 1:35a, where David states that Solomon is to “sit upon my throne”). In 1 Kgs 1:40a the people are said rather to “go up after” Solomon. See 1 Kgs 1:40bα. In speaking of both “dancing” and “flute-playing,” Josephus conflates the readings of LXX B (which has the former) and MT LXX L (which mention the latter). Josephus wording here reflects LXX L 1 Kgs 1:40bβ, which speaks of the earth’s “resounding,” as opposed to its being “split” (so MT LXX B). Josephus goes beyond the former reading in having also “the air” affected by the noise.

1 Kgs 1:41a does not mention the party’s emotional response to what they hear. Josephus turns Joab’s question of 1 Kgs 1:41b (“what does this uproar in the city mean?”) into a ominous statement of foreboding on his part. His mention of the “trumpet” picks up on the notice, previously passed over by him, about the trumpet being blown following Solomon’s anointing in 1:39b; see note to “city” at 7.357. Compare 1 Kgs 1:42a, where Jonathan’s arrival coincides with Joab’s query (1:41b) that he makes as the supper is ending (1:41a). See 1 Kgs 1:42a (where “Jonathan” simply “comes” [MT LXX B; > LXX L]). Josephus last mentioned “Ionathes” by name in 7.201.

See 1 Kgs 1:42b. Josephus adds the reference to Adonijah’s emotional response to Jonathan’s arrival. From the former’s words to the latter, he omits Adonijah’s calling Jonathan a “worthy/strong man.” Josephus drastically compresses Jonathan’s elaborate and repetitious recapitulation (1 Kgs 1:43-48) of what has already been reported in detail earlier in the chapter. See 1 Kgs 1:49. Josephus leaves aside the source mention of the guests’ “trembling,” while introducing a reference to Adonijah’s personal response to Jonathan’s report.

See 1 Kgs 1:50; Josephus’ reference to Adonijah’s becoming a “suppliant” spells out the sense of his altar gesture. Like MT and LXX B, Josephus lacks an equivalent to LXX L’s mention of Adonijah’s going “to the tent of the Lord.” Compare 1 Kgs 1:51, where Adonijah asks that Solomon swear “not to slay his servant with the sword.”

Josephus renders more definite the pardon of Adonijah that is expressed hypothetically by Solomon in 1 Kgs 1:52a: “If he prove to be a worthy man, not one of his hairs will fall to the earth.” He likewise introduces the initial (positive) evaluation of the king’s response as “humane and prudent.” Compare Solomon’s (alternative) hypothetical statement concerning Adonijah’s case in 1 Kgs 1:52b: “If wickedness is found in him, he shall die.” See 1 Kgs 1:53a. See 1 Kgs 1:53b. Josephus expands considerably on Solomon’s curt source directive to the prostrate Adonijah: “go to your house.” He thereby, once again (see note to “time” at 7.362), underscores the “humaneness” of the king’s dealings with his brother.

At this point, Josephus returns to the presentation of the Chronicler (see 1 Chr 23:1-2) that he interrupted after 7.342 in order to incorporate the material peculiar to 1 Kings 1 in 7.343-362. In 1 Chr 23:3 the 38,000 Levites counted are “thirty years old and upward.” Josephus derives his more precise 2nd figure (i.e. 50) from Num 4:3 (cf. Num 8:24-25), where this is specified as the age of retirement for the Levites.

According to 1 Chr 23:4a the task of the 24,000 was “to have charge of the work in the house of the Lord.” In assigning the 6,000 the roles of “judges” and “scribes,” Josephus agrees with LXX BL 1 Chr 23:4b against MT, which mentions “officers” (Hebrew: ‮שׁטרים‬‎) alongside the “judges.” See 1 Chr 23:5. The appended cross reference to David’s making of musical instruments points back to 7.305.

With this formula Josephus’ introduces the topic of the Levitical divisions treated at length in 1 Chr 23:6-24(25-32). Immediately thereafter, however, reversing the sequence of 1 Chronicles 23-24, he speaks in the remainder of 7.365 and 366 about the priestly divisions and the lot-assigned sequence in which they are to undertake their liturgical service (// 1 Chr 24:1-19), before returning to the divisions of the (non-priestly) Levites in 7.367. Josephus bases this figure on the list in 1 Chr 24:7-18, where 24 ancestral priestly houses and their assignment by lot are enumerated. See 1 Chr 24:4. Cf. 1 Chr 24:19, which refers to the priestly houses having as their “appointed duty to come into the house of the Lord.” Josephus appends the specification concerning the duration of their “shifts.”

See 1 Chr 24:5-6, where the selection of the priestly houses by lot is also witnessed by the Levite “Shemaiah,” who records the outcome of the process. Cf. the listing of the 24 priestly houses by name in 1 Chr 24:7-18; Josephus typically refrains from reproducing this catalogue of obscure names. In place of this he appends a notice on the duration of the arrangement. In Life 1-3 Josephus situates his own priestly lineage in the first of the 24 courses.

After the interlude concerning the priests of 7.365-366 (// 1 Chr 24:1-19) Josephus now returns to the subject of the non-priestly Levites, their divisions and the sequence in which these perform their liturgical duties (// 1 Chr 23:6-32; 24:20-31), introduced by him at the start of 7.365; see note on “houses” at 7.365. He derives his figure for the divisions of the latter group from the listing given in 1 Chr 25:1-4, which cites the 4 sons of Asaph, 6 sons of Jeduthun, and 14 sons of Heman for a total of 24 Levitical families. Here, as with the priests (see 7.366), he avoids reproducing the source’s lengthy catalogues of Levitical names. See 1 Chr 25:8, which mentions the casting of lots for the duties of the Levitical divisions. Josephus appends the cross reference, assimilating the procedure used for determining the order in which the Levitical “courses” perform their service and the duration of that service, to his notice on the arrangements for the priestly houses in 7.366. Josephus anticipates this item from 1 Chr 26:24-28, which mentions various descendants of Moses as overseers of the temple treasuries and their contents. This concluding remark rounds off Josephus’ summary reproduction of the extended account given in 1 Chronicles 23-26 concerning David’s organization of the 2 categories of the clergy. Josephus highlights the status of these arrangements by citing Moses as the ultimate authority behind them.

Josephus derives his figures for the number of the military divisions and their complements from the listing in 1 Chr 27:1-15. Cf. 1 Chr 27:1, where there is reference to the “divisions that came and went, month after month throughout the year.” Josephus inserts the mention of Solomon as the one whom the military divisions are to watch over.

The names of the division commanders are given in 1 Chr 27:2-15. Josephus adds the remark about the requisite moral qualities of these figures. Josephus here alludes to the names of these various officials given in 1 Chr 27:25-31. He leaves aside the enumeration of the tribal heads of 27:16-24 and of David’s “cabinet”—already cited by him in 7.110 and 293—of 27:32-34.

Josephus compresses the more detailed listing of those convened by David found in 1 Chr 28:1. In 1 Chr 28:2aα David “rises to his feet” for his following speech.

David’s opening words in 1 Chr 28:2 refer more generally to his having “made preparations for building.” With his mention of the precious metals amassed by him, the Josephan David harks back to his statement on the matter in 7.340 (// 1 Chr 22:14), which gives the same figure for the amount of silver collected by him, while specifying that the golden talents assembled amounted to 10,000. David’s reference to the divine prohibition of his temple-building in 1 Chr 28:3 does not mention Nathan’s role as conveyer of God’s message to him, which Josephus has already cited twice previously now; see 7.92, 337. See 1 Chr 28:6a, where the divine word quoted by David mentions Solomon by name.

Cf. 1 Chr 28:4aβ, where David recalls God’s choice of “Judah as leader” without mention of Jacob and his 12 sons. Josephus expatiates on David’s allusion to God’s choice of himself from among his father’s house in 1 Chr 28:4aαb with mention of his brothers’ non-resentment of that choice. He likewise specifies the number of those brothers, recalling the figure given by him in Ant. 6.161. This appeal by David that his sons follow the example of his brothers towards himself in accepting Solomon’s God-given kingship has no counterpart in David’s address to the assembly in 1 Chr 28:2-8. The addition reflects the historian’s recurrent concern with intra-Jewish harmony.

This continuation of and motivation for David’s appeal to his (other) sons to accept Solomon’s rule (see previous note) has no biblical parallel. Its reference to foreign rulership as tolerable when this is something willed by God clearly has in view the contemporary situation of Josephus’ compatriots whom, through the mouth of David, he is calling to adopt a like outlook on Roman domination. The reference recalls the sentiments voiced by Agrippa in his speech to the Jews at the outbreak of the revolt in War 2.350-391, as well as Josephus’ own words to the insurgents as cited by him in Life 17-22. I owe this observation to Prof. Steve Mason. This “prayer” with its reference to God’s earlier promises for Solomon’s reign has no counterpart in David’s address to the assembly in 1 Chr 28:2-8.

See David’s words to Solomon personally in 1 Chr 28:7, 9; cf. the intervening v. 8, whose similar exhortation to observance of the Law is directed to the people as a whole. Josephus passes over David’s concluding admonition of 28:10, in which Solomon is called on to undertake the building of the temple, given its duplication of 28:20 (which he will reproduce in 7.376).

Josephus compresses the lengthy enumeration of the various items featured in the “plan” given Solomon by David in 1 Chr 28:11-19.

Josephus abridges David’s extended final admonition to Solomon about his temple-building task cited in 1 Chr 28:20, leaving aside, e.g., its assurance about God’s supporting him in the enterprise; see note to “things” at 7.374. Josephus modifies David’s words in 1 Chr 28:21, where, speaking to Solomon, David calls his attention to the availability of the priestly and Levitical groupings, as well of “the officers and all the people.” Josephus highlights the status of the leadership groups he mentions by having David speak not of them, but to them. For this motivation of David’s appeal to the leaders, Josephus draws on the king’s word to the assembly in 1 Chr 29:1a, where he calls attention to Solomon’s being “young and inexperienced.”

Contrast David’s statement in 1 Chr 29:1b: “the work is great; for the palace will not be for man but for the Lord God.” The Josephan David aims to encourage, not intimidate, his hearers regarding their task. See David’s listing of the temple-building supplies amassed by him in 1 Chr 29:2, which Josephus generally abridges but into which he inserts mention of the 2 groups of workers in reminiscence of David’s earlier reference to them in 7.340 (// 1 Chr 22:15).

To the mention of David’s personal donation of gold in 1 Chr 29:4a Josephus appends the specification concerning the use to which this will be put. His apposition of the “Cherubim” with the “chariot of God” has an approximate biblical counterpart in Ps 18:10, which speaks of the Lord “riding on a cherub.” Josephus leaves aside David’s subsequent words about his further personal gifts (29:4b-5a) and his appeal that others “consecrate themselves” as well (29:5b). The list of donors in 1 Chr 29:6 does not mention the priests and Levites. Josephus highlights the generosity displayed by the various leadership groups.

MT 1 Chr 29:7 uses the Persian loan word “darics.” Josephus’ term reflects the standard Greek rendering of this term, i.e. στατὴρ δαρφεικός; see Marcus ad loc. 1 Chr 29:7 specifies 100,000 talents of iron; it also mentions 18,000 talents of bronze. MT (1 Chr 29:8) ‮יחיאל‬‎ (Eng.: “Jehiel”); LXX B Βεσιήλ; LXX L Ἰειήλ; Josephus Ἴαλος. The source verse calls him “the Gershonite.” Josephus’ linking of him with Moses seems inspired by this identification taken in combination with 1 Chr 26:24, where there is reference to “Gershom, son of Moses.” On Moses’ descendants as treasurers, see 7.367.

In 1 Chr 29:9 there is separate mention of people and king “rejoicing.” Josephus makes what David “sees” the occasion for his following benediction (cf. 29:10). In his “eulogy” of God in 1 Chr 29:10 David calls him “the Lord, the God of Israel our father.” Josephus’ formulation highlights God’s own paternity, while also underscoring the Deity’s universal solicitude. Josephus here uses the term “Demiurge” (Greek: δημιουργός) of Platonic philosophy. As a designation for God the word is used by him also in Ant. 1.155, 172; on the term, see Feldman 2000: 45, n. 500. On this merism, see Ant. 6.264. In Ant. 3.98 this same combination of terms (Greek: προστάτης καὶ κηδεμών) is applied to Moses by the people. Josephus compresses David’s extended praise of God’s universal power cited in 1 Chr 29:11-13.

This transitional phrase is Josephus’ drastically reduced version of David’s extended appeal for his people in 1 Chr 29:14-18. Compare 1 Chr 29:19, where David prays that Solomon be given “a whole heart,” which will enable him to keep the Law and build the temple. See 1 Chr 29:20a for this command by David. See 1 Chr 29:20b; Josephus expands the source reference to the assembly’s (wordless) “obeisance” to the king with a verbal expression of their thanks for his services.

See 1 Chr 29:21a; Josephus omits the accompanying “drink offerings.” 1 Chr 29:21b speaks of “sacrifices in abundance for all Israel.” 1 Chr 29:22a does not mention the king’s own participation in the people’s “eating and drinking before the Lord on that day with great gladness.” See 1 Chr 29:22bα, which Josephus follows in having Solomon anointed by an indeterminate “they.” Like LXX, he speaks of Solomon being anointed “king” rather than as “prince (Hebrew: ‮נגיד‬‎) for the Lord,” as in MT. He inserts an explicit mention of the “oil” used in reminiscence of his mention of Solomon’s initial anointing in 7.357 (cf. 7.355). See 1 Chr 29:22bβ, which has the same “they” who anoint Solomon as prince in 29:22bα likewise anoint Zadok “as priest.” Josephus will return to the subject of Zadok’s high priesthood and the removal of his earlier colleague Abiathar from this position in Ant. 8.10-12 (// 1 Kgs 2:26-27, 35b). See 1 Chr 29:23, where Solomon “sits himself” upon the throne. As in 7.358, Josephus has an indeterminate “they” seat him on the throne. His reference to the general “obedience” given to Solomon following his enthronement compresses the more detailed indications on the matter found in 29:24-25.

With this phrase, corresponding to 1 Kgs 2:1, Josephus makes the transition back to the presentation of his other biblical source, i.e. 1 Kgs 2:1-9 (David’s final words to Solomon) after the sequence of 7.363-382 drawn, in highly abbreviated fashion, from 1 Chronicles 23-29. Greek: χρεών. On Josephus’ use of this and other terms for “fate,” see Schlatter 1932: 32; Stählin 1974; Feldman 1998: 194-97. Josephus embellishes David’s opening declaration to Solomon (“I am about to go the way of all the earth”) of 1 Kgs 2:2a.

Compare 1 Kgs 2:2b, where David’s initial exhortation to Solomon is “be strong and show yourself a man.” The (added) cross reference to David’s earlier admonitions to his son has in view 7.338, 356, 374, where, each time (as here in 7.384), Solomon is urged to be “just” and “pious.” See 1 Kgs 2:3, whose conclusion Josephus modifies, substituting reference to what might divert Solomon from obeying the Law for the source’s allusion to the (positive) outcome of such obedience.

This warning (which Marcus ad loc. renders “and you will turn His kind watchfulness into a hostile attitude”) has no explicit equivalent in David’s opening admonition in 1 Kgs 2:2-4. It serves to prepare for Solomon’s eventual defection and the consequences this will have for his kingdom. This is Josephus’ rendering of David’s (modified) quotation (1 Kgs 2:3-4) of the divine promise of 2 Sam 7:13-16, in which that promise is recast in conditional terms.

On Joab’s killing of Abner, see 7.31-38. On Joab’s murder of Amasa, see 7.284-285. From the source verse, 1 Kgs 2:5, Josephus leaves aside the obscure reference to Joab’s “putting innocent blood on the girdle of his loins and the sandals of his feet.” Compare 1 Kgs 2:6, where David urges Solomon to use his wisdom to insure that Joab’s “grey head not go down to Sheol in peace.” This “confession” on David’s part has no counterpart in his words concerning Joab in 1 Kgs 2:5-6. On the other hand, it echoes the king’s admission about his powerlessness to requite Joab (and Abishai) in 7.45// 2 Sam 3:39.

Josephus expatiates on David’s instructions concerning the good treatment Solomon is to give the sons of Barzillai in 1 Kgs 2:7. On “Berzel,” see 7.230, 272-275 (where there is reference, as in 2 Sam 19:37-38, to a single son of his, i.e. the biblical “Chimham”).

Compare 1 Kgs 2:8-9. Josephus compresses David’s directives concerning how Solomon is to deal with “Shimei” of v. 9. On the interactions between this figure and David, to which the king alludes here, see 7.207-210, 264-266 (where Josephus, in 7.266, avoids reproducing the reference to David’s “swearing” to Shimei of 2 Sam 19:23b; here in 7.388, however, following 1 Kgs 2:8, he does have the king allude to that earlier oath of his, see note to “him” at 7.266).

See 1 Kgs 2:10a// 1 Chr 29:28a. Josephus prefaces the source notices on David’s demise with a long transitional phrase linking this with his preceding farewell discourse to Solomon (// 1 Kgs 2:2-9). The biblical sources do not specify David’s total life-span; 1 Chr 29:28a has him dying “in a good old age.” Both 1 Kgs 2:11 and 1 Chr 29:27 give the round figure of 7 years for David’s reign in Hebron. Josephus’ mention of an additional 6 months corresponds to the more precise figure given by him in 7.65 (// 2 Sam 2:11; 5:4). Josephus does not reproduce the sources’ figure of 40 years for David’s entire reign.

Josephus’ eulogy of David in 7.390-391 elaborates on the reference to his dying “full of honor” in 1 Chr 29:28a. The terms of the eulogy echo those used in his own earlier evaluations of the king; see Ant. 6.160; 7.110, 130. The above translation is based on the text of Niese, which itself follows RO. Marcus, calling the RO text “undoubtedly corrupt,” offers an emendation, which he translates as follows: “He [David] was a most excellent man and possessed of every virtue which should be found in a king entrusted with the safety of so many nations.”

On Josephus’ version of the Bathsheba episode (2 Sam 11:2-12:25), see 7.130-158. The qualification concerning David’s overall rectitude echoes that made by Josephus in 7.153 (cf. 1 Kgs 15:5). Josephus embellishes the summary reference to David’s dying “full of wealth” in 1 Chr 29:28a, thereby preparing his subsequent remarks on the rich plunder subsequently yielded by his grave; see 7.393-394.

In 1 Kgs 2:10b David “is buried in Jerusalem” (MT; LXX: in the city of David), the subject being left unspecified; 1 Chronicles 29 does not mention David’s burial. Josephus’ notice on the opulence of David’s burial has no biblical counterpart. It serves to counteract charges that the Jews were an impecunious people, on which see Feldman 1998: 93.

Josephus’ figure for the period between the death of David and the reign of John Hyrcanus is considerably higher than that of modern chronological estimates, where David’s death is placed ca. 960 BCE and Hyrcanus’ rule dated 134-104, this yielding a total interval of ca. 825 years. The reference is to the Seleucid king Antiochus VII, who ruled 139(138)-129(128) BCE. The title “Pious” (Greek: εὐσεβής) used for him by Josephus here (and in Ant. 13.244) is not attested in other sources, where he is called rather “Soter” (as in Ant. 13.222) and “Sidetes” (from the city of Side, where he was raised). See Marcus 1933: 338-39, n. b. Josephus here alludes to his account in War 1.61, where he specifies that Hyrcanus gave Antiochus 300 of the 3,000 talents taken by him from David’s tomb and used the remainder to pay his own mercenary forces. His retelling of the same event in Ant. 13.249 states that Hyrcanus, in his use of the 3,000 talents, became the first Jewish king to make payments to foreign troops.

Josephus relates this incident in Ant. 16.179-183(188), where he refers to Nicolas of Damascus as his authority. Josephus’ lengthy appendix concerning David’s tomb takes the place of the reference to the “Chronicles” of Samuel, Nathan, and Gad as a source for David’s reign of 1 Chr 29:29-30. Josephus invariably leaves aside such biblical source references in his account of the kings, presumably because he is basing himself directly on the Bible rather than its (no longer extant) sources.

With this transitional phrase Josephus sums up the content of Antiquities Book 7, which is focussed on the career of David from the death of Saul to his own demise.

On David’s appointment of Solomon, see Ant. 7.357-358.

This cross reference to Adonijah’s attempted seizure of power as recounted in Ant. 7.345-346 takes the place of the qualification of him as “son of Haggith” in 1 Kgs 2:13. Josephus’ reference to Adonijah’s “greeting” the queen mother seems to reflect the plus of LXX BL 1 Kgs 2:13a, where he not only comes to her as in MT, but also “does her homage.” This is Josephus’ compressed version of the double opening exchange between Adonijah and Bathsheba of 1 Kgs 2:13b-14, in which the latter asks the former whether he has come “peaceably” and is told that he has. Adonijah then states that he has something to say to Bathsheba, who enjoins him to speak. Josephus’ rendition highlights Bathsheba’s control of the proceedings—she alone speaks as the conversation begins.

See 1 Kgs 2:15. Josephus supplies the reference to Adonijah’s age as a further reason why the kingship should have been his. Adonijah’s acknowledgement about the kingship’s transfer to Solomon “according to the plan of God” recalls Josephus’ editorial statement that David appointed Solomon his successor “according to will of God” in 8.2. Josephus appends this statement by Adonijah concerning his own (purported) stance towards Solomon’s rule. The statement functions as an (ironic-sounding) captatio benevolentiae on Adonijah’s part.

See 1 Kgs 2:16-17. Josephus omits mention of Bathsheba’s granting (v. 16b) Adonijah’ petition (v. 16a) to make a request of her. Conversely, he expands on the latter’s reference to “Abishag” with details about her relationship with David derived from Ant. 7.344 (= 1 Kgs 1:3-4).

Josephus elaborates on Bathsheba’s promise to “speak to” David (1 Kgs 2:18) with a double assertion as to why she is confident that her mission will be successful. He thereby intensifies readers’ surprise at Solomon’s subsequent, negative reaction. This added notice, like Bathsheba’s preceding assurances (see previous note), serves to make Solomon’s ultimate refusal all the more a surprise. In this rendering of 1 Kgs 2:19aα Josephus underscores the alacrity of Bathsheba’s approach to her son.

In MT 1 Kgs 2:19aβ Solomon “pays homage to” his mother, while in LXX BL he “kisses” her. Josephus adds the reference to the site of the upcoming exchange between mother and son. The notice presupposes the existence of a royal throne (and of a structure housing this), which, however, will only be constructed subsequently; see 8.140. See 1 Kgs 2:19b. Greek: δύσκολος (καὶ) σκυθρωπός. This collocation occurs only here in Josephus. Josephus elaborates on Bathsheba’s opening announcement that she has a request to make (1 Kgs 2:20a) with mention of the negative light in which Solomon would put himself by rejecting it.

See 1 Kgs 2:20b. Josephus underscores Solomon’s submissiveness—for the moment—by having him refer to Bathsheba’s request as an “order.” With this appended statement by the king, Josephus continues to “set up” both the story’s other characters and its readers for the surprise of Solomon’s eventual, vehement rejection of Bathsheba’s request.

Josephus prefaces his version of Solomon’s verbal response (// 1 Kgs 2:22) to his mother’s request (2:21) with mention of the king’s emotional response to her words and of his dismissal of Bathsheba. He thereby highlights the vehemence of the royal refusal and the reversal of the expectations he has created about how Solomon would react to Bathsheba’s petition. This initial affirmation takes the place of Solomon’s opening question to Bathsheba in 1 Kgs 2:22a: “why do you ask Abishag… for Adonijah?” Compare the characterization of Cataline as one who nimis alta semper cupiebat (“he always desired things that were too lofty”) in Sallust, Bel. Cat. 5. See 1 Kgs 2:22b. In having Solomon call Joab by his title (“general”), Josephus follows the plus of LXX BL, where he is designated as “commander in chief and friend.” In contrast to both MT and LXX, Josephus leaves aside the qualification of Joab as “son of Zeruiah.” On Adonijah’s 2 main supporters as mentioned by Solomon here, see Ant. 7.346. Josephus transposes into a command by the king the notice of 1 Kgs 2:25 that Benaiah, having been “sent” by Solomon, “struck” Adonijah so that he died. He leaves aside the double oath concerning his intention of executing Adonijah pronounced by Solomon in 2:23-24. He thereby “keeps God out of” the king’s bloody initiative.

See 1 Kgs 2:26aβb. Josephus adds Solomon’s assurance of safety also for Abiathar’s household, while holding over to a later point his initial directive (2:26aα) that the priest retire to his estate. Josephus appends this sequence to the biblical Solomon’s word to Abiathar (1 Kgs 2:26). By means of it he provides a rationale for the king’s opening assertion that the priest is indeed “worthy of death,” just as he spells out the negative implications of Abiathar’s dismissal that the king is about to impose. This is Josephus’ delayed use of Solomon’s initial word to Abiathar in 1 Kgs 2:26aα (“go to Anathoth, to your estate”), from which he omits the site’s name. This conclusion to Solomon’s word to Abiathar is an expansion of the king’s discourse in 1 Kgs 2:26, offering an additional motivation for the priest’s dismissal and a further clarification of its negative implications for Abiathar.

Josephus elaborates on the narrative remark of 1 Kgs 2:27a concerning the dismissal of Abiathar from his priestly position with an allusion to his link with Ithamar (whose line according to Ant. 5.361-362 held the high priesthood from Eli down to the time of Solomon) and to the reason for his dismissal (a point already highlighted in Solomon’s preceding word to Abiathar). See 1 Kgs 2:27b, where there is a cross-reference to the divine judgments pronounced against Eli’s line in 1 Sam 2:35-36 and 3:12-14 (// Ant. 5.350). In making Eli Abiathar’s “ancestor” Josephus bases himself on the genealogical data of 1 Sam 14:3 and 22:20. On Zadok’s appurtenance to the line of Phineas, see Ant. 7.110, which itself draws on the genealogy given in 1 Chr 5:30-34 (MT; Eng. 6:4-8).

This notice recapitulates Josephus’ statement concerning the accession of Eli to the high priesthood in Ant. 5.361-362. Compare Ant. 5.362, where “Bokki” (= “Bukki,” 1 Chr 5:31 [MT; Eng. 6:5]) is called the son of “Abiezer” (= “Abishua,” 1 Chr 5:30 [MT; Eng. 6:4]). Overall, the names of Zadok’s ancestors from Phineas on down given by Josephus in 8.12 differ markedly from those listed both in 1 Chr 5:30-34 (MT; Eng. 6:4-8) and his own Ant. 5.362. Compare Ant. 5.362, where the son of “Bokki” is named “Ozis” (= “Uzzi,” 1 Chr 5:31 [MT; Eng. 6:5]). This name reflects the “Meraioth” of 1 Chr 5:32 (MT; Eng. 6:6). Josephus has no equivalent to the name that intervenes between “Uzzi” and “Meraioth” in 5:32 (MT; Eng. 6:6), i.e. “Zerahiah.” The son of “Meraioth” is called “Amariah” in 1 Chr 5:33 (MT; Eng. 6:7). This name corresponds to that of Zadok’s father, i.e. “Ahitub” in 1 Chr 5:34 (MT; Eng. 6:8). On David’s designation of Zadok as high priest along with Abiathar, see Ant. 7.110.

See 1 Kgs 2:28a, to which Josephus adds explicit mention of Joab’s “anxiety.” In speaking of Joab’s not having been a (close) friend of Solomon, he follows the reading of LXX L as against MT and LXX B, which mention Joab’s non-support for Absalom. See 1 Kgs 2:28b. Josephus adds the reference to Joab’s “suspicion,” while omitting the biblical references to the “tent of the Lord” as the site of the altar to which he flees and to the “horns of the altar” that he grasps. This reference to Joab’s state of mind is a Josephan addition, one reflecting favorably on Solomon, who, already at the outset of his reign, enjoys a reputation for piety.

In 1 Kgs 2:29 Solomon simply instructs Benaiah to go and strike Joab down. Josephus’ version presents a less arbitrary king who, first of all, thinks of giving Joab a trial. Compare Ant. 6.215, where Josephus, in his reworking of 1 Sam 19:11, adds a reference to Saul’s intention of having David appear before “the law court” and there be condemned to death. In 1 Kgs 2:30abα Joab’s refusal is preceded by Benaiah’s arrival at the “tent of the Lord” and his summons to the fugitive in the king’s name that he “come forth.”

See 1 Kgs 2:30bβ-31a. In having the king direct his henchman to “behead” Joab, Josephus makes more specific the biblical Solomon’s injunction that Benaiah “strike him down.” 1 Kgs 2:32b supplies the names of the 2 figures, i.e. Abner and Amasa (who are named by the dying David in his address to Solomon calling on him to avenge their murders in Ant. 7.386// 1 Kgs 2:5). For Josephus’ previous condemnations of Joab’s murder of the 2 rival commanders, see Ant. 7.31-38 (Abner) and 7.284-285 (Amasa). Josephus omits Solomon’s preceding declaration (2:32a) that the Lord will bring Joab’s “bloody deeds upon his own head” as well as his affirmation that it was without David’s knowledge that Joab killed his military rivals. Having utilized the content of 1 Kgs 2:32 in what precedes (see previous note), Josephus here combines and rearranges elements of Solomon’s additional words to Benaiah in 1 Kgs 2:31 and 33, citing these in the following order: vv. 31bα (Joab’s burial), 33a (the everlasting guilt of Joab’s house), and 31bβ (cf. 33b) (the definitive exculpation of David’s line).

This phrase summarizes the notices on the killing of Joab by Benaiah and the former’s burial in 1 Kgs 2:34. Josephus leaves aside the biblical detail about Joab’s being “buried in his own house in the wilderness.” See 1 Kgs 2:35. Josephus has no equivalent to the long plus (2:35a-o), consisting of notices drawn from different portions of the Solomon story of 1 Kings, which follows 2:35 in LXX BL. On Josephus’ predominant use of a form of 1 Kings 1-11 more similar to MT than to LXX for his Solomon story in 8.1-211, see Rahlfs 1911: 92-97.

MT 1 Kgs 2:36 ‮שמעי‬‎ (Eng.: “Shimei”); LXX Σεμεεί; Josephus Σουμούις. In Ant. 7.207 David’s curser is called “Samouis,” in 7.388 “Soumouis” (as here in 8.17). With his admonition to Shimei at this juncture Solomon begins acting on David’s directive to him in 7.388 that he find a way of punishing the former for the abuse he had heaped on the king during his flight from Absalom (see 7.207-210). See 1 Kgs 2:36b-37. Josephus leaves aside the figurative language with which Solomon’s speech to Shimei concludes in v. 37: “your blood shall be upon your own head.” Josephus’ reference to Solomon’s “adjuring” Shimei reflects the plus at the end of LXX BL 1 Kgs 2:37. In MT, Shimei’s “swearing” is mentioned for the first time in 2:42, where Solomon, confronting the culprit, reminds him that he had made him “swear by the Lord.”

See 1 Kgs 2:38a. Josephus adds the reference to Shimei’s “swearing” to do as Solomon had directed him, this corresponding to the latter’s compelling him “to take oaths” in what precedes. The reference to Shimei’s move is Josephus’ addition to the notice on his extended residence in Jerusalem of 1 Kgs 2:38b. Compare 1 Kgs 2:39aβ, where Shimei’s 2 slaves flee to Achish (MT LXX L; Amesa, LXX B), son of Maacah, king of Gath (LXX BL: Geth).

Josephus compresses the circumstantial sequence concerning Shimei’s initiatives regarding his runaway slaves of 1 Kgs 2:39b-40. Josephus elaborates on the reference to Solomon’s hearing of Shimei’s deed in 1 Kgs 2:41 with mention of the king’s inner reaction to what he learns. The added reference to Shimei’s violation of his “oaths” picks up on the (also added) mention of his being made to swear in 8.17-18. Josephus compresses Solomon’s opening words to Shimei in 1 Kgs 2:42-43, where he 1st (v. 42) reminds the latter of his having been adjured and warned about the consequences of his leaving Jerusalem and of Shimei’s assent, and then (v. 43) asks why he has violated his oath to the Lord and the king’s commandment. This statement, underscoring the wrongfulness of Shimei’s oath-breaking, lacks an explicit equivalent in Solomon’s words to him in 1 Kgs 2:42-45.

Compare 1 Kgs 2:44, where Solomon avers that Shimei knows in his heart all the evil he did to David and states that the Lord will bring this evil upon the miscreant’s head. In Josephus’ rendering, it is Solomon himself, rather than the Lord, who will effect Shimei’s punishment. Josephus describes Shimei’s verbal abusing of David in Ant. 7.207-210. This extended reflection on evildoers’ not benefitting from the postponement of their punishment has no equivalent in Solomon’s words to Shimei of 1 Kgs 2:42-45. It takes the place of Solomon’s closing affirmation (1 Kgs 2:45) that he—in contrast to Shimei— will be “blessed,” while David’s throne will be established forever. Josephus’ omission of this statement might reflect the fact that its claims for Solomon personally and for the house of David overall did not prove true in the long run: Solomon ended up being condemned by God, while David’s dynasty was eventually deposed. Josephus compresses 1 Kgs 2:46a, which mentions not only Solomon’s order to Benaiah, but also the latter’s actual “striking” of Shimei so that he dies.

See MT 1 Kgs 2:46b-3:1aα. This sequence is lacking in LXX BL, which instead present a long plus (2:46a-l), made up of items found elsewhere in the Solomon story of 1 Kings, to which Josephus has no equivalent. Josephus adds the reference to the punishment of Solomon’s enemies, which sums up his foregoing account of the king’s moves against Adonijah, Abiathar, Joab, and Shimei in 8.9-20. Cf. the reference to Solomon’s (later) building of the “wall around Jerusalem” in MT 1 Kgs 3:1bβ. Josephus leaves aside the content of 3:1aβbα, i.e. Solomon’s placing his Egyptian wife in “the city of David” until he finished building his palace and the temple—constructions that he will relate only subsequently. In speaking of Solomon’s enhancing the strength of Jerusalem’s already existing wall—rather than simply “building” that wall as in 1 Kgs 3:1bβ— Josephus takes into account his earlier mention (see Ant. 7.66) of David’s encircling the combined citadel and lower city of Jerusalem with a wall. David’s deathbed instructions to Solomon are recorded by Josephus in Ant. 7.383-388 on the basis of 1 Kgs 2:1-9. This encomium for the youthful Solomon and his precocious maturity elaborates on the mention of the king’s “walking in the statutes of David his father” in 1 Kgs 3:3aβ. As Feldman (1998: 577) points out, Josephus’ stress on Solomon’s precociousness has a counterpart in his characterization of both Moses and Josiah. Josephus lacks an equivalent to the notices about the people and Solomon himself worshipping on the “high places” of 1 Kgs 3:2 and 3b, respectively. He likewise leaves aside the statement of 1 Kgs 3:3aα (“Solomon loved the Lord”).

MT (1 Kgs 3:4) ‮נכעון‬‎ (Eng.: “Gibeon”); LXX BL Γαβαών; Josephus Γιβρών (Schalit s.v. reads Γαβαών here; the codices SP and Lat have “Hebron”). Like 1 Kgs 3:4, Josephus depicts Solomon’s going to the site as a private pilgrimage, whereas in 2 Chr 1:2-3a he is accompanied by the entire Israelite leadership. On Josephus’ account of Solomon’s dream at the site in relation to its biblical parallels, 1 Kgs 3:4-15// 2 Chr 1:2-13, see Begg 1996a: 688-95 and Gnuse 1996: 174-6. Josephus lacks an equivalent to either of the alternative “motivations” given in the biblical accounts for Solomon’s going precisely to “Gibeon” to offer his sacrifice, i.e. “for that was the great high place” (1 Kgs 3:4aβ, MT; compare LXX BL: “for it was high and great”) versus “for the tent of meeting which Moses. had made was there” (2 Chr 1:3b). Josephus draws his mention of the Mosaic bronze altar from 2 Chr 1:5 (no parallel in 1 Kgs 3:4-15), while leaving aside the Chronicler’s further details concerning the object (its construction by Bezalel and its having been placed before the “tabernacle”). He does reproduce the specifications for this altar from Exod 27:1-8; 38:1-7 in Ant. 3.149. This figure for Solomon’s victims agrees with that given in 1 Kgs 3:4b// 2 Chr 1:6b. Josephus agrees with 1 Kgs 3:5a in specifying that God manifested himself to Solomon in a “dream by night,” as against 2 Chr 1:7a, which lacks this double specification. The explicit, prefatory statement that the theophany came in response to and as a reward for the king’s “honoring” God is Josephus’ own. See 1 Kgs 3:5b// 2 Chr 1:7b. The reference to the king’s “piety” as that which prompts the divine offer is Josephus’ addition; see previous note on his earlier accentuation of the point.

Josephus adds an evaluation of Solomon’s choice to the biblical notices on that choice (see 1 Kgs 3:6-9// 2 Chr 1:8-10). The evaluation takes the place of the king’s opening words to the Lord, acknowledging the divine benefits to his father and himself, of 3:6-8// 1:8-9. This remark about what Solomon did not ask of God anticipates the Deity’s reply to Solomon in 1 Kgs 3:11// 2 Chr 1:11, in which the Lord enumerates a variety of items (including “wealth”) that the king had not requested of him. Josephus supplies the reference to what a “youth” (cf. 8.21) or the majority would likely have chosen. Compare 1 Kgs 3:9a (where Solomon asks for an “understanding heart to govern thy [God’s] people”) and 2 Chr 1:10a (where his request is for “wisdom and knowledge to go out and come in before the people”). The wording of Solomon’s request in Josephus recalls the historian’s earlier statement about David in Ant. 7.110: “he was just by nature and looked only to the truth when he made his judgments.”

This mention of God’s inner reaction to Solomon’s request reflects 1 Kgs 3:10 (no parallel in 2 Chr 1:2-13): “it pleased the Lord that Solomon had asked this.” Greek: σύνεσις καὶ σοφία. This same collocation is applied by Josephus to Solomon in 8.49. (These are the only 2 occurrences of the binomial in Josephus’ corpus.) Josephus rearranges the sequence of 1 Kgs 3:12-13// 2 Chr 1:12, mentioning the divine promise to give Solomon what he had not requested before God’s conferral on him of what he had asked for. Having anticipated God’s opening statement about what Solomon had (not) requested of 1 Kgs 3:11// 2 Chr 1:11 in 8.23, Josephus omits the content of that statement from his version of the Deity’s reply. Josephus recasts the concluding divine promise of 1 Kgs 3:14 (no parallel in 2 Chr 1:2-13), i.e. of a long life for Solomon personally should he follow the law-abiding ways of David, as a pledge concerning the duration of the Davidic dynasty. He likewise appends the qualification regarding David’s excellence in line with his encomium on that king in Ant. 7.391, with its allusion to David’s transgression with Uriah’s wife.

This reference to Solomon’s immediate reaction to God’s promises is Josephus’ creation; it accentuates the alacrity of the king’s response. Both 1 Kgs 3:15 and 2 Chr 1:13 mention Solomon’s going back to Jerusalem, though only the former text adds a reference to his sacrifices and the feast provided by him there. In his reworking of 1 Kgs 3:15 Josephus has Solomon sacrifice “before the tent” (i.e. the one erected by David for the ark, see Ant. 7.86; compare “before the ark” [MT 3:15]/ “facing the altar which stood before the ark” [LXX BL 3:15]). He likewise depicts him feasting a much larger group (“the Judeans” in general; compare “all his [Solomon’s] servants,” 3:15) than does his biblical counterpart (this last point presupposes the correctness of the reading “the Judeans” [Greek: τοὺς Ἰουδαίους] of RO adopted by Niese; compare, however, the alternative reading, more in line with the biblical one, namely τοὺς ἰδίους [“his [Solomon’s] own [household]”) of the other codices, which Marcus follows, and Lat, which leaves unspecified whom Solomon feasted).

Josephus supplies this heading-transition to the famous story of the “judgment of Solomon” (1 Kgs 3:16-28). In the segment (8.26-49) that now follows, Josephus employs the material of 1 Kgs 3:16-5:14 (MT; Eng. 3:16-4:34), to which the Solomon story of 2 Chronicles 1-9 has no equivalent, as his source. This prefatory statement concerning Josephus’ intent in reproducing the story of Solomon’s judgment is the historian’s addition. It underscores the significance of the following story and highlights Solomon’s wisdom as its dominant theme.

Greek: ἑταῖραι. Elsewhere in Josephus’ writings this noun occurs only as a variant reading in War 7.399, 404. See 1 Kgs 3:16. Josephus omits the biblical detail about the pair’s “standing before” the king. This characterization of the 1st speaker lacks a counterpart in 1 Kgs 3:17, where she is simply called “the one woman.” By means of it Josephus intimates from the start that the 1st speaker is the one who is to be believed. In 1 Kgs 3:17 the 1st speaker refers to her living “in the same house” as the other. Josephus’ notice that the 2 sons were born “at the same hour” replaces the 1st speaker’s statement in 1 Kgs 3:18a according to which their births took place 3 days apart. Josephus, at this point, leaves aside the 1st speaker’s emphatic affirmation that she and the other woman were the only ones living in the house (3:18b); see, however, next note.

See 1 Kgs 3:19. Josephus reapplies the 3-day period cited in 1 Kgs 3:18a as the interlude between the boys’ births (see previous note) to the interval between the other woman’s delivery and her accidental killing of her child. In 1 Kgs 3:19 the child’s death is said to have occurred “in the night.” See 1 Kgs 3:20, where the speaker avers that both babies were laid in the mothers’ “bosoms.” In having the speaker state that she was “asleep” during the other woman’s “exchange,” Josephus follows the plus of MT, lacking in LXX BL. He has no equivalent to the detail, common to both MT and LXX, that the other woman took her initiative “at midnight.”

See 1 Kgs 3:21, where the 1st speaker refers to the child she found beside her as “not the one I had borne.” Her statement about her not “finding” her own child is Josephus’ addition. Josephus supplies this conclusion to the 1st woman’s discourse, which, e.g., explains her reason for bringing the matter before the king, while also highlighting the other woman’s intransigence. The reference to the pair’s being “alone” is a delayed reminiscence of the 1st woman’s words to that effect in 1 Kgs 3:18b.

In having the king ask the 2nd woman for her response, Josephus evidences a concern with proper protocol. Compare 1 Kgs 3:22a, where she takes the initiative in responding. See 1 Kgs 3:22a. Josephus omits 3:22b, where, after the 1st woman speaks once again and asserts the opposite of what the 2nd has alleged, their exchange terminates with the summary notice “thus they spoke before the king.” This editorial notice, contrasting the king’s insight with the befuddlement of everyone else, replaces the king’s (rather obvious) summation of what the 2 women have just said in 1 Kgs 3:23.

This directive has no counterpart in the biblical account where, following the women’s dispute (1 Kgs 3:16-22) Solomon simply reiterates what has already been said by them (3:23). Josephus’ addition of the directive prepares the king’s subsequent order concerning the bodies of the 2 infants. Compare 1 Kgs 3:24, where Solomon commands that a sword be brought and this is done. With his mention of the “bodyguard” Josephus supplies a subject for the king’s subsequent order (// 3:25 LXX BL) about the cutting up of the infants’ bodies. Josephus’ version of the king’s order here agrees with LXX BL 1 Kgs 3:25, where the bodies of both infants are to be divided and distributed to the mothers. MT mentions only a division of the living infant.

This reaction on the part of the crowd lacks a biblical counterpart. It picks up on the reference to Solomon’s precocity in 8.21, just as it serves to highlight the surprising vindication of the king’s wisdom in what follows. See 1 Kgs 3:26a. Josephus omits the biblical notice on the woman’s “yearning for her son,” while elaborating on her words to the king there, i.e. “... give her [the other woman] the living child, and by no means slay it.” See 1 Kgs 3:26b. Josephus adds the remark about the other woman’s readiness to undergo torture, thereby underscoring her brazen confidence in her ability to sustain her deception—see the appended characterization of her that he places in the mouth of the 1st woman at the end of her initial speech in 8.29.

Josephus adds this remark on Solomon’s reasoning process. Josephus’ qualification of the mother as “the one who had cried out” corresponds to the plus of LXX BL 1 Kgs 3:27 (“to the one who said ‘give it to her’”) that it appends to Solomon’s mention of her as “the first woman” in MT. The terminology used of the woman to whom Solomon awards the child here is reminiscent of that used of her in 8.32, where she, as “the true mother,” “cries out” at the prospect of having her living son cut in half. This “condemnation” has no parallel in the biblical account, where Solomon only issues a judgment (1 Kgs 3:27) in favor of “the 1st woman.” Josephus’ reference to the condemned woman’s being a “friend” of the actual mother has no biblical basis; the addition highlights the reprehensibility of the former’s dealings with the latter.

Greek: δεῖγμα καὶ τεκμήριον. This collocation occurs only here in Josephus. Greek: φρόνησις καὶ σοφία. Josephus applies this same collocation twice subsequently to Solomon; see 8.42 and 8.171 (reverse order). He also uses it of Joseph in Ant. 2.87. See 1 Kgs 3:28, where the reference is to all Israel’s recognition that the “wisdom of God” was in Solomon. Josephus’ equivalent phrase, “divine understanding” (Greek: θεία διανοία), occurs only here in his writings.

1 Kgs 4:7 specifies the number of these figures as 12 and assigns them the duty of provisioning Solomon’s court. In following his account of Solomon’s judgment (8.26-34// 1 Kgs 3:16-28) directly with his enumeration of the king’s provincial governors (8.35-37// 1 Kgs 4:7-19), Josephus passes over the intervening list (4:1-6) of the chief royal officials stationed in Jerusalem itself. As Rahlfs (1911: 93, 95) points out, the Josephan names of the provincial governors and the sequence of those names stands closer to the MT than to the LXX listing. At the same time, Josephus also differs from the MT listing in several respects: he has no equivalent to the form ‮בן‬‎ (“son of”) prefaced in MT to 4 of the names he does cite, just as he has only 10 names, as compared to MT’s 12. MT (1 Kgs 4:8) ‮בן־חור‬‎ (Eng.: “Ben-hur”); LXX Βαιώρ; Josephus Οὔρης (this form corresponds to the MT name, minus its opening element ‮בן‬‎). 1 Kgs 4:8 speaks of the “hill country of Ephraim” as Ben-hur’s area of jurisdiction. MT (1 Kgs 4:9) ‮בן־דקר‬‎ (Eng.: “Ben-deker”); LXX B υἱὸς Ρῆχας; LXX L υἱὸς Ρήχαβ; Josephus Διόκληρος. This is Josephus’ equivalent to the 3rd (MT: Beth-shemesh) of the 4 sites under Ben-deker’s jurisdiction according to 1 Kgs 4:9. MT (1 Kgs 4:11) ‮בן־אבינדב‬‎ (Eng.: “Ben-abinadab”); LXX B ἀνὰ Δὰν καὶ ἀνὰ Βαθεί; LXX L Ἀναδὰβ καὶ Βαθνάη; Josephus Ἀβινάδαβος. Josephus has no equivalent to the 3rd of MT’s 12 provincial governors as cited in 4:10, i.e. “Ben-hesed in Arubboth.” Josephus omits her name, cited as “Taphath” in MT 1 Kgs 4:11b. According to MT 1 Kgs 4:11a, Ben-abinadab’s domain was “all Naphath-dor.”

MT (1 Kgs 4:12) ‮בענא‬‎ (Eng.: “Baana”); LXX B Βακχά; LXX L Εἰσβαχά; Josephus Βαναίας. The “great plain” is the “Valley of Megiddo”/ “Plain of Jezreel.” MT (1 Kgs 4:12) ‮אחילוד‬‎ (Eng.: “Ahilud”); LXX B Ἀχειμάχ; LXX L Ἀχιάβ; Josephus Ἄχιλος. 1 Kgs 4:12 states that Baana’s district encompassed “Tanaach, Megiddo, and all Beth-shean....” MT (1 Kgs 4:13) ‮בן־גבר‬‎ (Eng.: “Ben-geber”); LXX BL υἱὸς Γάβερ; Josephus Γαβάρης. Josephus simplifies the indications of 1 Kgs 4:13 concerning the territory of “Ben-geber.” MT (1 Kgs 4:14) ‮אחינדב‬‎ (Eng.: “Ahinadab”); LXX B Ἀχειναάβ; LXX L Ἀχιναδάβ; Josephus Ἀχιναδάβος. Josephus omits the name of his father, i.e. “Iddo” (MT). 1 Kgs 4:14 places “Ahinadab” in “Mahanaim.” MT (1 Kgs 4:15) ‮בתמת‬‎ (Eng.: “Basemath”); LXX BL Βασσεμάθ; Josephus Βασίμα. According to 1 Kgs 4:15, “Basemath” was the wife, not of “Ahinadab” (4:14), but of his colleague “Ahimaaz” in Naphtali; Josephus conflates the 2 governors.

MT (1 Kgs 4:16) ‮בענא‬‎ (Eng.: “Baana”); LXX B Βαανά; LXX L Βαναίας; Josephus Βανακάτες. Josephus omits the name of his father, i.e. “Hushai” (MT). 1 Kgs 4:16 assigns “Baana” the region of “Asher and Bealoth.” MT (1 Kgs 4:17) ‮יהושפט‬‎ (Eng.: “Jehoshaphat”); LXX BL Ἰωσαφάτ; Josephus Σαφάτης. In mentioning this figure 3rd from last in his list of provincial governors, Josephus assigns him the same position he has in the MT enumeration. By contrast, in LXX BL he appears as the last of the 12 governors. Josephus omits the name of his father (“Paruah,” MT). On this site (= Mount Tabor), see the note to “Mount Itabyrion” at Ant. 5.84. In 1 Kgs 4:17 Jehoshaphat’s area of jurisdiction is “Issachar.” MT (1 Kgs 4:18) ‮שמעי‬‎ (Eng.: “Shimei”); LXX Βυἱὸς Ἠλα; LXX L Σαμαά; Josephus Σουμούις. Josephus omits the name of the governor’s father, i.e. “Ela” (MT; compare LXX B, which does not name the governor in question, referring to him only as “son of Ela”). This is the area assigned to Shimei in 1 Kgs 4:18. MT (1 Kgs 4:19a) ‮גבר‬‎ (Eng.: “Geber”); LXX B υἱὸς Ἀδαί; LXX L υἱὸς Ἀδδαί; Josephus Γαβαρής. Josephus leaves aside the name of his father, “Uri” (MT), whereas LXX BL omit the governor’s own name, calling him simply “son of Ad(d)αι.” 1 Kgs 4:19a assigns “Geber” to “Gilead,” identifying this with the former territories of Kings Sihon and Og. With this term (Greek: ἄρχων) Josephus “translates” the Hebrew word ‮נציב‬‎ (RSV: “officer”) of MT 1 Kgs 4:19b, which LXX B (νασέφ) and LXX L (Νασείβ) transliterate, apparently taking it as a proper name. Josephus leaves aside the biblical specification that this figure was “in the land of Judah.”

This reference to the agricultural pursuits of Solomon’s subjects seems inspired by the mention of their “sitting under their vines and fig trees” in 1 Kgs 5:5 (MT; RSV 4:25). It also recalls Josephus’ (pejorative) allusions to the people’s focus on agricultural activity in the time of the Judges in Ant. 5.129, 132, 173. The passage has further parallels in Josephus’ description of the Essenes in Ant. 18.19 and of the Judeans as a whole in Apion 2.294, descriptions which are perhaps intended to play on Roman nostalgia for the bucolic life. I owe this suggestion to Prof. Steve Mason. Cf. the references to the all-sided “peace” and “safety” of Solomon’s time in 1 Kgs 5:4b-5a (MT; RSV 4:24b-25a). This sequence, highlighting the “home improvements” undertaken by Solomon’s subjects in their state of peace and freedom, has no counterpart in the biblical record. In fact, it stands in some contrast to the Bible’s emphasis on the people’s leisure and self-indulgence in 1 Kgs 4:20; 5:5b (MT; RSV 4:25b).

See 1 Kgs 5:1 (MT; RSV 4:21), where there is reference to the borders of Solomon’s empire and the tribute brought him by its component kingdoms. Here in 8.39 Josephus introduces a further, distinct category of royal officials, i.e. in addition to the provincial governors cited by him in 8.35-37, who have jurisdiction over these outlying territories.

According to 1 Kgs 4:7 and 5:7 (MT; RSV 4:27), it was the 12 provincial governors of 4:8-19a who were responsible for provisioning Solomon’s court. Josephus assigns the task rather to the governors of the outlying territories introduced by him just previously in 8.39. These figures correspond to those given for the agricultural commodities delivered to Solomon in 1 Kgs 5:2-3a (MT; RSV 4:22-23a). The list of wild game supplied to Solomon in 1 Kgs 5:3b (MT; RSV 4:23b) does not mention “fish,” nor does it specify that “aliens” were the source of this game.

Josephus’ figure for the “facilities” provided for his chariot horses accords with that cited in MT 1 Kgs 5:6a (MT; RSV 4:26a). LXX BL (and 2 Chr 9:25) mention 4,000 stalls, while 2 Chr 1:14 speaks of 1,400 chariots. This figure agrees with that given in both 1 Kgs 5:6b (MT; RSV 4:26b) and 2 Chr 1:14= 9:25. Josephus derives this specification—lacking in 1 Kgs 5:6 (MT; RSV 4:26)—concerning the distribution of Solomon’s horsemen from 2 Chr 1:14= 9:25. See 1 Kgs 5:8 (MT; RSV 4:28), where it is the provincial governors collectively (see 5:7// 4:27) who supply “barley and straw for the horses.”

See 1 Kgs 5:9 (MT; RSV 4:29), where the image “like the sand on the shore” is used of Solomon’s God-given “largeness of mind.” Josephus typically avoids or recasts such figurative language. In 1 Kgs 5:10 (RSV 4:30) MT uses a Hebrew expression (‮בני־קדם‬‎), which could be rendered either “the people of the east” (so RSV) or “the people of old” (so the LXX). Josephus’ rendition follows the line of the LXX. Josephus embellishes the allusion of 1 Kgs 5:10 (MT; RSV 4:30) to Solomon’s surpassing “all the wisdom of Egypt.” Given the Egyptians’ reputation for pre-eminent wisdom, Solomon’s superiority to them appears all the more remarkable. Josephus’ acknowledgement of the Egyptians’ wise reputation here contrasts with the negative remarks about them one finds elsewhere in his writings (see Ant. 2.201; Apion 2.70) and in Greco-Roman literature generally; see BJP 3 (Feldman) 187-8, n. 563. On the other hand, it does have a counterpart in Apion 1.14, where Josephus refers to the general agreement that the first Greek cosmologists learned from the Egyptians (and Chaldeans), who in turn, according to Ant. 1.167-168, gained their knowledge of arithmetic and astronomy from Abraham.

In 1 Kgs 5:11 (MT; RSV 4:31) the figures in question are not qualified as Solomon’s contemporaries; nor are they said to have enjoyed their intellectual reputation “among the Hebrews” in particular. MT (1 Kgs 5:11 [RSV 4:31]) ‮איתן‬‎ (Eng.: “Ethan”); LXX B Γαιθάν; LXX L Αἰθάμ; Josephus Ἄθανος. Josephus omits his biblical gentilic, i.e. “the Ezrahite.” MT (1 Kgs 5:11 [RSV 4:31]) ‮הימן‬‎ (Eng.: “Heman”); LXX B Αἰνάν; LXX L Αἰμάν; Josephus Αἱμανός. MT (1 Kgs 5:11 [RSV 4:31]) ‮כלכל‬‎ (Eng.: “Calcol”); LXX B Χαλκάδ; LXX L Χαλκάχ; Josephus Χαλκεος. MT (1 Kgs 5:11 [RSV 4:31]) ‮דרדע‬‎ (Eng.: “Darda”); LXX B Δαραλά; LXX L Δαρδαέ; Josephus Δάρδανας. Josephus may have modified the name of this biblical figure so as to assimilate him to the famous Hellenistic magician “Dardanos,” on whom see Torijano 2002: 98, n. 31. MT (1 Kgs 5:11 [RSV 4:31]) ‮מחול‬‎ (Eng.: “Mahol”); LXX B Μάλ; LXX L Μααλά; Josephus Ἡμάων (Schalit s.v. sees this form as due to a corruption under the influence of the 2nd name on Josephus’ list, i.e. Αἱμανός).

1 Kgs 5:12b (MT; RSV 4:32b) attributes 1,005 “songs” to Solomon, whereas Josephus makes him the author of that number of song “books.” 1 Kgs 5:12a (MT; RSV 4:32a) refers to 3,000 “proverbs”; once again (see previous note), Josephus uses the biblical figure to refer, not to individual compositions, but to entire “books.” Josephus reverses the order of the 2 plants according to 1 Kgs 5:13a (MT; RSV 4:33a), where the “cedar” is further qualified as “in Lebanon” and the “hyssop” as “growing out of the wall.” 1 Kgs 5:13b (MT; RSV 4:33b) enumerates “beasts, birds, reptiles, and fish.” This summarizing comment concerning the extent of Solomon’s knowledge of nature takes the place of the notice of 1 Kgs 5:14 (MT; RSV 4:34) about representatives of “all peoples” and all the earth’s “kings” coming to hear Solomon’s wisdom. Josephus will deal with a special case of such a visit, i.e. that of the “queen of Sheba” subsequently; see 8.165-175.

With this statement Josephus begins a segment (8.45-49) concerning Solomon’s medical, in particular exorcistic, abilities that has no parallel in either Kings or Chronicles, but which does pick up on a widespread tradition associating Solomon with magical practices. On the segment, see Deines 2003: 372-92. According to Torijano (2002: 93-105), that tradition was so well-known in Josephus’ time that he felt compelled to make reference to it, notwithstanding his general tendency to diminish the miraculous and the mysterious in his retelling of the biblical account. In any case, here at the outset, Josephus makes clear that also Solomon’s medical/magical prowess was given him by God. The noun ἐξόρκωσις (literally: “exorcism”) occurs only here in Josephus. Compare Luke 11:24-26// Matt 12:43-45, where Jesus refers to an unclean spirit “returning” to the person from whom it had earlier departed.

With this transitional notice Josephus begins connecting the story of the ancient King Solomon with his own present; thereby, he gets the opportunity of interjecting himself into the narrative. For a detailed analysis of the following episode, see Torijano 2002: 101-5; Deines 2003: 385-90. With this reference Josephus gives his Flavian patrons, i.e. Vespasian and his sons Titus and Domitian, a place in his biblical history. This reference is of particular interest because, as Josephus and his Roman audience knew, Vespasian himself had been credited with the gift of healing and exorcism (see Tacitus, Hist. 4.81; Suetonius, Vesp. 7). I owe these references to Prof. Steve Mason. With his mention of these figures alongside the Flavians as witnesses to Eleazar’s exorcism, Josephus highlights the credibility of his report: Eleazar’s deed was done very publicly, in the presence of many non-Jews.

Compare Mark 9:25, where Jesus “commands” the evil spirit to come out of the boy and “never enter him again.” In contrast to Eleazar, Jesus in the NT effects his exorcisms without use of incantations or mention of Solomon.

In the Gospels Jesus does not offer such proofs of the reality of his exorcisms. Compare, however, Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 4.20, where, having ejected a demon from a young man, Apollonius of Tyana provides a “visible sign” that the demon has indeed left the young man by commanding the ejected demon to overturn a nearby statue and the demon does so.

Josephus applies this same expression (Greek: τὸ θεοφιλές) to David in Ant. 6.280. With this formula Josephus marks the end of his extended extra-biblical excursus concerning Solomon the exorcist, 8.45-49. The phrase “beneath the sun” is prominent in the Book of Qoheleth; see, e.g., 1:9, 14; 2:11, 17.

MT (1 Kgs 5:15 [RSV 5:1]) ‮חירם‬‎ (Eng.: “Hiram”); LXX BL Χειράμ; MT (2 Chr 2:3 [RSV 2:2]) ‮חורם‬‎ (Eng.: “Huram”); LXX BL Χειράμ; Josephus Εἴρωμος. This king was earlier mentioned by Josephus in Ant. 7.66 (// 2 Sam 5:11-12// 1 Chr 14:1-2) in connection with the assistance he gave David with his building projects. Josephus’ account of the exchange between Solomon and Hiram stands much closer to the version found in 1 Kgs 5:15-27 (MT; RSV 5:1-12) than to its counterpart in 2 Chr 2:2-15 (MT; RSV 2:3-16). See 1 Kgs 5:15 (MT; RSV 5:1), which speaks of Hiram’s hearing of Solomon’s “anointing” and of his having “always loved David.” Josephus adds the reference to the Tyrian king’s “rejoicing exceedingly,” anticipating the notice of 5:21 (5:7), where Hiram responds in this way upon hearing Solomon’s message to him. Josephus elaborates on the mention of Hiram’s “sending his servants” to Solomon in 1 Kgs 5:15a (MT; RSV 5:1a), spelling out the content of the former’s message to the latter. In 1 Kgs 5:16 (MT; RSV 5:2)// 2 Chr 2:2 (MT; RSV 2:3) Solomon “sends to Hiram saying.” Josephus’ explicit reference to the dispatch of a “letter” has in view his subsequent statement (see 8.55) that copies of the Solomon-Hiram correspondence may still be seen in the Tyrian archives.

His use of this standard ancient epistolary salutation, unparalleled in either of the biblical accounts, reflects Josephus’ previous added reference to Solomon’s “letter” to Hiram. See 1 Kgs 5:17a (MT; RSV 5:3a); Josephus adds the mention of David’s desiring to build the temple. His wording here recalls that used by him in his account of David’s temple project in Ant. 7.90-95; see 7.90 (his wish to build a temple for God) and 7.92 (the king’s wars that God cites in forbidding him to carry out his plan personally). MT and LXX L 1 Kgs 5:17b (RSV 5:3b) have Solomon refer to the Lord’s putting David’s enemies “under the soles of his feet.” Josephus agrees with the original text of LXX B 1 Kgs 5:17 in not mentioning the Deity’s role in the subjugation of the enemies. At the same time, he also spells out what that subjugation involved, i.e. the paying of tribute.

See 1 Kgs 5:18-19a (MT; RSV 5:4-5a), where Solomon states that, given the all-sided “rest” God has awarded him, he now has in mind to build the temple. See 1 Kgs 5:19b (MT; RSV 5:5b). The reference is to Nathan’s announcement to David in Ant. 7.93 (where Josephus goes beyond 2 Sam 7:13a// 1 Chr 17:12a in having Nathan mention Solomon by name as the future temple-builder). See 1 Kgs 5:20 (MT; RSV 5:6), where Solomon attributes to Hiram himself the “knowledge” that the Sidonians are more skilled in cutting timber than the Israelites.

1 Kgs 5:21a (MT; RSV 5:7a) speaks of Hiram’s “rejoicing greatly” over Solomon’s words. Josephus incorporates into Hiram’s message itself (a version of) his “blessing” God for having given David a worthy successor that in 5:21b (MT; RSV 5:7b) precedes the king’s sending to Solomon. He likewise delays his rendering of this blessing until after the formalized greeting (see 8.53) with which Hiram’s letter begins. Compare the similar salutation supplied by Josephus in 8.51. Here, as there, Josephus turns what in the Bible appears to be a verbal message between the 2 kings into an explicitly written one. This is Josephus’ “delayed” (see note to “Heirom was pleased with its requests” at 8.53) version of Hiram’s “blessing of the Lord” for having given David so wise a son as his successor that Hiram pronounces prior to sending his message to Solomon in 1 Kgs 5:21b (MT; RSV 5:7b). See 1 Kgs 5:22 (MT; RSV 5:8), where Hiram states more specifically that it is Solomon’s desires regarding “cedar and cypress timber” that he is ready to satisfy. Josephus supplies a motivation for Hiram’s willingness, i.e. Solomon’s status as David’s God-designated, wise successor as affirmed by him in what precedes.

See 1 Kgs 5:23a (MT; RSV 5:9a). Josephus adds the reference to the “cutting” of the trees as a preliminary to the following measures mentioned by Hiram. 1 Kgs 5:23bα (MT; RSV 5:9bα) speaks of the breaking up of the log rafts by Hiram’s men and Solomon’s “reception” of the delivery without mention of Jerusalem as its ultimate destination. Cf., however, 2 Chr 2:15 (MT; RSV 2:16), where Hiram refers to Solomon’s taking to Jerusalem the timber that he (Hiram) will deliver to Joppa. Compare 1 Kgs 5:23bβ (MT; RSV 5:9bβ), where Hiram speaks more generally of Solomon’s supplying “food for his household.” Josephus appends the reference to Tyre’s island location, which explains its need for imported foodstuffs. His statement that Hiram asked for “wheat” in particular anticipates 1 Kgs 5:26 (MT; RSV 5:11), where this is mentioned first among the items that Solomon supplies to Hiram.

Josephus incorporates this reference (8.55-56) to the “Tyrian archives” into his reproduction of the biblical accounts concerning the Hiram-Solomon exchange. By means of the addition he calls readers’ attention to the existence and public availability of ancient, external confirmation of his Bible-based narrative. He mentions the Tyrian “archives” again in Ant. 8.144; 9.283, 287; cf. Apion 1.111, which asserts that many of the letters Hiram and Solomon exchanged are “preserved in Tyre” until this day. On these (purported) documents, see Garbini 1980. Eupolemus (“Fragment 2,” in the citation of Alexander Polyhistor preserved by Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.32-34.1) cites (alleged) correspondence between Solomon and “Souron” king of Tyre, Sidon, and Phoenicia, while in 9.31 he quotes a letter by Solomon to King Vaphres of Egypt.

To his mention of the Tyrian archives in 8.55, Josephus appends this apologia for his own credibility as a historian, exemplified in the fact that he can point to extant non-biblical support for what he relates concerning the Solomon-Hiram exchange.

Josephus’ reference to Solomon’s “commendation” of Hiram takes the place of the notice of 1 Kgs 5:24 (MT; RSV 5:10) that the latter did in fact supply the former with all the timber desired by him. The combination “eagerness and loyalty” (Greek: προθυμία καὶ εὐνοία) occurs, in reverse order, also in Ant. 6.82; 15.201; 17.195. This figure corresponds to that found in LXX BL 1 Kgs 5:25 (RSV 5:11) as well as in 2 Chr 2:9 (MT; RSV 2:10); MT 1 Kgs 5:25 reads “20 cors.” Josephus has no equivalent to the additional reference to 20,000 cors of barley found in 2 Chr 2:9. The biblical “cor” is equivalent to ca. 360 liters; see Powell (1992: 6: 907). Josephus’ figure for the oil given Hiram by Solomon has a counterpart in both 1 Kgs 5:25 (MT; RSV 5:11) and 2 Chr 2:9 (MT; RSV 2:10). Having transliterated the Hebrew liquid measurement term “bath” of the biblical accounts, he appends a notice on its Greek equivalent, i.e. the ξέστης (which itself corresponds to the Latin sextarius). The “bath” equals ca. 24 liters; see Powell (1992: 6: 905). For this item Josephus draws on the plus of 2 Chr 2:9 (MT; RSV 2:10), lacking in the parallel text 1 Kgs 5:25 (MT; RSV 5:11), according to which Solomon supplied Hiram with 20,000 baths of wine. Eupolemus (“Fragment 2,” in the citation of Alexander Polyhistor cited by Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.33) states that Solomon promised to supply the Tyrian king with 10,000 cors of both grain and wine each month (rather than annually as in Josephus and the Bible), as well as unspecified amounts of oil and beef.

Compare 1 Kgs 5:26b (MT; RSV 5:12b), which refers to the “peace” existing between the 2 kings and their making a “covenant”; as usual, Josephus employs a substitute for the latter term. He leaves aside the seemingly extraneous reference (1 Kgs 5:26a [MT; RSV 5:12a]) to God’s giving Solomon wisdom, as he had promised. See 1 Kgs 5:27 (MT; RSV 5:13). This remark about Solomon’s concern not to overburden his Israelite work force and the intellectual acumen evidenced by his provisions is a Josephan addition. See 1 Kgs 5:28a (MT; RSV 5:14a). Josephus appends the reference to the activity of the other 2 divisions and supplies the detail about the workers’ “chopping wood” on Mount Lebanon.

Josephus deduces this datum about the date on which the original 10,000 return to work from the procedure as described in 1 Kgs 5:28a (MT; RSV 5:14a). MT (1 Kgs 5:28b [RSV 5:14b]) ‮אדנירם‬‎ (Eng.: “Adoniram”); LXX BL Ἀδωνειράμ; Josephus Ἀδώραμος. This figure has already been mentioned as the overseer of the levy in the time of David in Ant. 7.293. See 1 Kgs 5:29a (MT; RSV 5:15a), which speaks of 70,000 “burden bearers,” whose ethnic origins it leaves unspecified. Josephus derives his indication concerning their non-Israelite status from 2 Chr 2:16-17a (MT; RSV 2:17-18a). Via his appended reference to David’s “leaving them alive” he alludes back to his notice in Ant. 7.335 (// 1 Chr 22:7) about the king’s assigning burden-bearing responsibilities to those of the 180,000 aliens counted by him, apart from the 80,000 stone-cutters and the 3,500 overseers. This figure for Solomon’s stone-masons agrees with that cited in 1 Kgs 5:29b (MT; RSV 5:15b) and 2 Chr 2:17 (MT; RSV 2:18). Josephus’ total for Solomon’s foremen agrees with that of MT/1 Kgs 5:30 (RSV 5:16); LXX B (and 2 Chr 2:17 [MT; RSV 2:18]) read 3,600, LXX L 3,700.

See 1 Kgs 5:31 (MT; RSV 5:17). Like LXX B, Josephus does not qualify the foundation stones as “costly,” as do MT and LXX L. This further directive by Solomon concerning the stones is Josephus’ addition to 1 Kgs 5:31 (MT; RSV 5:17). The “mountain” in question is the “Mount Liban” mentioned in 8.58. See 1 Kgs 5:32 (MT; RSV 5:18). Josephus does not mention the 3rd group involved in the stone-work according to MT, i.e. “the men of Gebal” (compare LXX BL: “and they threw this”).

Josephus’ dating the beginning of the temple’s construction to the 2nd month of Solomon’s 4th regnal year agrees with 1 Kgs 6:1a and 2 Chr 3:1. Eupolemus (“Fragment 2,” preserved in Alexander Polyhistor’s On the Jews as cited by Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.34.2) dates it rather to Solomon’s 13th year. See 1 Kgs 6:1b, where MT calls the 2nd month (i.e. of a year beginning in the spring) in which the temple construction began by its earlier Hebrew name, i.e. “Ziv” (LXX BL lack this identification). Josephus adds the Macedonian equivalent. The month in question corresponds to April-May. MT and LXX L 1 Kgs 6:1 date the beginning of the temple’s construction 480 years after the Exodus, LXX BA rather 440 years. Josephus’ date here in 8.61 differs from that given by him in Apion 2.19 and Ant. 20.230, i.e. 612 years. According to Ant. 2.318, the Exodus occurred 430 years after Abram’s coming to Canaan. If one combines this figure with that for the interval between the Exodus and the start of the temple’s construction given in 8.61, one arrives at a total of 1,022 years for the period between Abram’s coming to Canaan and Solomon’s initiative, i.e. 2 years more than the time cited by Josephus here in 8.61. As Marcus (ad loc.) points out, Josephus’ figures here indicate a total of 420 years between the Flood (1440 years before the start of Solomon’s temple) and Abram’s coming to Canaan (1020 years prior to the temple’s initiation). However, the figures given by him in Ant. 1.148 (Abram is born 992 years after the flood) and 1.154 (Abram goes to Canaan at age 75) add up to a notably lower total for the interval between the flood and Abram’s arrival in Canaan, i.e. 1,067 years.

As Marcus (ad loc.) notes, this total for the span between Adam and the start of work on the temple diverges notably from that which results from combining the figure given for the period between Adam and the Flood in Ant. 1.82 (2,262 years) and the interval between the latter event and the temple’s beginning according to 8.61 (1,400 years), namely 3,792 years. In Apion 1.126 the start of the temple is dated to Hiram’s 12th regnal year. Josephus cites no source for his double synchronism of the start of Solomon’s temple with events of Tyrian history. He may have drawn the datings from his authorities for the history of Phoenicia, e.g., Dios and Menander of Ephesus, whom he quotes at length in Apion 1.113-115 and 1.117-125, respectively concerning the succession of Tyrian kings.

These remarks on the temple’s foundation stones have no biblical parallel. They pick up on Solomon’s directives about the preparation of these stones in 1 Kgs 5:31 (MT; RSV 5:17)// 8.60.

Josephus adds the specification about the color of the temple stones to the mention of them in 1 Kgs 5:31 (MT; RSV 5:17). MT 1 Kgs 6:2 gives the temple’s height as 30 cubits, LXX BL rather as 25. Neither 2 Chr 3:3 nor Eupolemus provides a height indication. Josephus’ figure for the temple’s length agrees with that given in MT 1 Kgs 6:2// 2 Chr 3:3 (and Eupolemus [“Fragment 2,” the citation of which by Alexander Polyhistor is preserved in Eusebius, Praep. ev. 34.2]); LXX BL 1 Kgs 6:2 read 40. Josephus’ figure for the temple’s width agrees with that cited in 1 Kgs 6:2// 2 Chr 3:3, while Eupolemus (“Fragment 2,” in a quotation from Alexander Polyhistor preserved by Eusebius, Praep. ev. 34.2) gives the figure as 60 cubits. Marcus (ad loc.) sees Josephus’ notice on this structure superimposed on the sanctuary itself as reflecting “a confused understanding” of the references in 1 Kgs 6:3// 2 Chr 3:4a to the “vestibule in front of the nave of the house,” which stood 120 cubits high according to 3:4a. The confusion is compounded by the fact that in what follows (see 8.65) Josephus will make separate mention of the “vestibule.” His allusion to the sanctuary’s eastward orientation lacks a counterpart in Kings and Chronicles, but does have a parallel in visionary blueprint for the new temple in Ezek 47:1.

Josephus’ notice on the length of the temple’s “vestibule/porch” and its running the width of the sanctuary itself (see 8.64) agrees with the data given in 1 Kgs 6:3// 2 Chr 3:4a. 1 Kgs 6:3// 2 Chr 3:4a state that the “vestibule” was “equal to the width” (i.e. 20 cubits, see 6:2// 3:3) of the temple itself. Josephus’ figure for the height of the vestibule agrees with that given in 2 Chr 3:4a. 1 Kgs 6:3 does not mention the height of this structure, but rather its depth, i.e. 10 cubits. The word translated “buildings” above is literally “houses” (Greek: οἶκοι). Josephus here alludes to the 3 tiers/ stories of the “side chambers,” built around the temple edifice according to 1 Kgs 6:5b. The Book of Kings does not specify how many of these chambers there were; Josephus likely derived his figure (30) for them from Ezekiel’s plan of the new temple in Ezek 40:17 (cf. also the phrase “to the 30” read by MT and LXX at the end of 1 Kgs 6:8, which is generally emended, in line with the reading of a few Hebrew MSS, “to the 3rd”). Josephus adds this remark about the intended purpose of the structures surrounding the temple itself. Cf. the reference to the “entrance” of the lowest story of the temple’s side chambers in 1 Kgs 6:8.

According to 1 Kgs 6:6, the 3 “stories” making up the side chambers were of unequal width, the lowest being 5 cubits, the middle one 6 cubits, and the topmost one 7 cubits. 1 Kgs 6:10 states that each story was 5 cubits high, as opposed to Josephus’ 20. Kings does not provide a figure for the length of the stories. With each “story” being 20 cubits high according to Josephus, their combined height would come to 60 cubits, i.e. the height of the sanctuary itself as given in 8.64. By contrast, the indication of 1 Kgs 6:10 that each of the 3 surrounding stories was 5 cubits high gives them a total height of 15 cubits. This indication concerning the topmost story lacks a biblical equivalent.

Josephus expatiates on the summary notice of 1 Kgs 6:9b: Solomon “made the ceiling of the house of beams and planks of cedar.”

Josephus here seems to combine 1 Kgs 6:15 (the cedar boards extending from the floor of the house to the rafters of the ceiling) and 2 Chr 3:9 (the upper chambers are overlaid with gold). Josephus draws this notice from 2 Chr 3:5a, where Solomon lines the nave of the temple with cypress [planks] that he then covers with “fine gold.” Josephus spells out the effect on visitors of the gold with which Solomon overlaid the inside of the temple as reported in 1 Kgs 6:21a (MT; LXX BL lack the indication)// 2 Chr 3:7.

Josephus embellishes the reference in 1 Kgs 6:7b (MT; LXX BL lack the indication) to “neither hammer, nor axe, nor any tool of iron” being used in the construction of the temple, emphasizing the stones’ perfect fit. This remark, further expatiating on Josephus’ preceding statement concerning the stones’ perfect fit, has no biblical counterpart.

Josephus elaborates on the summary reference to the type of access for each of the 3 “stories” given in 1 Kgs 6:8. His allusion to the eastward-facing door of the lower sanctuary picks up on the statement that the sanctuary was “oriented towards the east” in 8.64. 1 Kgs 6:15 speaks of the use of cedar boards to line the walls of the house and to cover its floor, while 6:16 mentions Solomon’s “building 20 cubits of the rear of the house with boards of cedar from the floor to the rafters.” Finally, 1 Kgs 6:21b refers to the gilded “chains” that were extended in front of the inner sanctuary.

This Greek term is Josephus’ rendering of the reference to “the inner sanctuary (Hebrew: ‮דביר‬‎), the most holy place (Hebrew: ‮קדש־הקדשים‬‎)” in 1 Kgs 6:16b. See 1 Kgs 6:16a. 1 Kgs 6:20a// 2 Chr 3:8a specify that all 3 dimensions of the Holy of Holies measured 20 cubits. This figure agrees with given for the length of the temple’s “nave” (Hebrew: ‮היכל‬‎; LXX: ὁ ναός) in 1 Kgs 6:17. According to 1 Kgs 6:31a, the doors separating the nave from the Holy of Holies were made of “olivewood.” 1 Kgs 6:32a (MT LXX L, > LXX B) specifies that the doors to the inner sanctuary had carvings of “cherubim, palm trees, and open flowers.”

Josephus derives his mention of the “curtain(s)” before the Holy of Holies and the materials used for this from 2 Chr 3:14, while omitting the biblical reference to the “cherubim” portrayed on this curtain. In speaking of both doors and curtains at the entrance to the adytum in 8.71-72, Josephus combines the indications of 1 Kgs 6:31a and 2 Chr 3:14, the former verse mentioning doors, the latter a curtain. According to 1 Kgs 6:23, 28// 2 Chr 3:10, the cherubim were of (olive-) wood and overlaid with gold. Josephus accentuates the value of these objects by having them made of “pure gold.” The biblical accounts do not specify either the length or width of the cherubim. 1 Kgs 6:23 and 26 (MT LXX L; LXX B and 2 Chr 3:10 lack the indication) state that the cherubim were 10 cubits high. According to 1 Kgs 6:24-25a// 2 Chr 3:11-13, each cherub had a wingspan of 10 cubits, for a total extension of 20 cubits. Here again (see previous note), Josephus reduces the size of the biblical cherubim.

Josephus derives these indications about the outstretched wings of the cherubim from 1 Kgs 6:27// 2 Chr 3:11-12. Josephus anticipates this remark on the wings of the cherubim covering the ark from 1 Kgs 8:7// 2 Chr 5:8. This (extra-biblical) remark concerning the cherubim as beings sui generis is Josephus’ way of countering the impression that Solomon’s construction of them violated the scriptural prohibition of making images of any creature; see Feldman 1998: 601 and n. 39. Feldman further notes that Josephus’ formulation here recalls that used by him regarding the cherubim of the Mosaic sanctuary in Ant. 3.137: “they are winged creatures, quite similar in form to nothing of those seen by men.”

See 1 Kgs 6:30, where Solomon “overlays the floor of the house with gold.” On the doors leading into the nave of the temple, see 1 Kgs 6:33-35, which does not mention their dimensions, but does describe them as double folding doors carved with “cherubim, palm trees, and open flowers.”

See 1 Kgs 6:22a // 2 Chr 3:7a. This notice recalls Josephus’ earlier statement about the gilding of the sanctuary in 8.68. The description of the outer temple doors leading into the nave in 1 Kgs 6:33-35 does not mention such curtains. Josephus’ wording here alludes to his account of the curtains placed in front of the doors before the Holy of Holies in 8.68. This remark concerning the gate leading into the temple’s outermost component, the “vestibule” (see 8.65) has no biblical counterpart.

Josephus agrees with 1 Kgs 7:13, where Solomon himself calls “Hiram” from Tyre, as opposed to 2 Chr 2:12 (MT; RSV 2:13), where King “Huram” speaks of his having sent “Huram-abi” to Solomon. MT (1 Kgs 7:13) ‮חירם‬‎ (Eng.: “Hiram”); LXX BL Χειράμ; MT (2 Chr 2:12 [RSV 2:13]) ‮חורם־אבי‬‎ (Eng.: “Huram-abi”); LXX BL Χειράμ; Josephus Χείρωμος. 1 Kgs 7:13 calls her “a widow of Naphtali,” while 2 Chr 2:13 (MT; RSV 2:14) designates her “a woman of the daughters of Dan.” Neither 1 Kgs 7:13 nor 2 Chr 2:13 (MT; RSV 2:14) names the father of Hiram/Huram-abi. Marcus ad loc.) mentions 2 possible sources of inspiration for Josephus’ form of this figure’s name (Greek: Οὐρίας): it might represent either a corruption of the LXX form Τύριος (“Tyrian”) of 7:13 or reflect a confusion with the father (called Οὐρείας in LXX) of the maker, Bezalel, of the Mosaic bronze altar according to Exod 31:1. According to both 1 Kgs 7:13 and 2 Chr 2:13 (MT; RSV 2:14), the (nameless; see previous note) father of Hiram/Huram-abi was “a man of Tyre.” Josephus may have felt it inappropriate to have a “half-Gentile”—as Hiram/Huram-abi is in the biblical accounts— be the maker of the temple furnishings, and so assigned the craftsman’s father Israelite status. Josephus derives his listing of the 3 metals used by “Cheirom” from 2 Chr 2:13b (MT; RSV 2:14b), while leaving aside the additional materials mentioned there. 1 Kgs 7:14 presents Hiram simply as a “worker in bronze.” Cf. 1 Kgs 7:14bβ, which states that Hiram “came to Solomon and did all his work.”

On these objects, see 1 Kgs 7:15-22// 2 Chr 3:15-17. Josephus derives this figure from 1 Kgs 7:15. In making Hiram, rather than Solomon, the subject of the pillar-making, Josephus agrees with 1 Kgs 7:15 against 2 Chr 3:15. By contrast, in attaching his account of the making of the pillars, etc. directly to his narrative of the construction of the temple itself, Josephus follows the sequence of 2 Chronicles 3-4, whereas Kings’ treatment of the construction of the temple edifice (1 Kings 6) and of its pillars, etc. (7:13ff.) is separated by a segment dealing with Solomon’s secular edifices (7:1-12). Like the Chronicler, Josephus portrays a more pious Solomon, who completes all building projects relating to the temple before embarking on constructions meant for his own use. Josephus’ figures for the pillars’ height and width agree with those of MT 1 Kgs 7:15. LXX BL lists their circumference as 14 cubits, while 2 Chr 3:15 makes them 35 cubits high and does not mention their circumference. Josephus here combines data from 1 Kgs 7:20 (the “lily work” of the capitals surmounting the pillars) and 7:16 (// 2 Chr 3:15: the height, i.e. 5 cubits, of the capitals). Compare 1 Kgs 7:17// 2 Chr 3:16, which speak of “chains” suspended from the capitals.

Josephus’ figure for the pomegranates agrees with given in 1 Kgs 7:20, whereas 2 Chr 3:16 speaks of 100. He draws the specification concerning the pomegranates being “in 2 rows” from LXX BL 1 Kgs 7:18. MT (1 Kgs 7:21// 2 Chr 3:17) ‮יכין‬‎ (Eng.: “Jachin”); LXX BL Ἰαχούμ; LXX BL 2 Chr 3:17, translating the Hebrew designation, Κατόφθωσισς; Josephus Ἰαχείν. Both biblical accounts specify that this pillar was “on the south side” of the temple. MT (1 Kgs 7:21// 2 Chr 3:17) ‮בעז‬‎ (Eng: “Boaz”); LXX B 1 Kgs 7:21 Βάλαζ; LXX L 1 Kgs 7:21 Βάαζ; LXX BL 2 Chr 3:17, translating the Hebrew designation, Ἰσχύς; Josephus Ἀβαίζ. Both biblical accounts specify that the 2nd pillar was “on the north side” of the temple.

On this object, see 1 Kgs 7:23-26// 2 Chr 4:2-5. Josephus adds this explanation of the odd name, i.e. “sea,” for the large washbasin of the temple court. This figure corresponds to that given in 1 Kgs 7:23// 2 Chr 4:2. See 1 Kgs 7:26// 2 Chr 4:5. 1 Kgs 7:24// 2 Chr 4:3 speak of 2 “gourds” beneath the brim of the sea that were “cast when it was cast.”

According to 1 Kgs 7:24// Chr 4:3, the “gourds” beneath the brim of the “sea” extended for 10 cubits. Josephus’ designation for these objects (Greek: μόσχοι) corresponds to that used in LXX BL 2 Chr 4:4, whereas MT LXX BL 1 Kgs 7:25 and MT 2 Chr 4:4 call them “oxen.” Josephus will, however, employ the word “oxen” in his subsequent mention of these objects (see 8.195), where he criticizes Solomon’s making of them as a violation of Mosaic law. On the 12 bovine figures beneath the sea, see 1 Kgs 7:25// 2 Chr 4:4 (which enumerate each of the 4 compass points). This datum corresponds to 2 Chr 4:5b, whereas MT and LXX L* 1 Kgs 7:26b specify 2,000 baths, and LXX B does not supply a figure. On the “bath,” see the note to the word bathos at 8.57.

On the 10 lavers and their stands, see 1 Kgs 7:27-39 and the much abridged account concerning these in 2 Chr 4:6. Josephus’ version in 8.81-86 reflects the more expansive treatment of Kings, even while also reducing this. Josephus’ dimensions for the “bases” of the lavers agree with those cited in LXX BL 1 Kgs 7:27, whereas MT gives their length and width as both 4 cubits, and their height as 3 cubits. Josephus derives this detail from 1 Kgs 7:34, which refers to the 4 “supports” at the 4 corners of each stand, “which were of one piece with the stands.”

The account of the “stands” in 1 Kgs 7:27-37 does not clearly distinguish their 3 component segments, nor mention a lower base. 1 Kgs 7:29 mentions carved “lions, oxen, and cherubim” on the frames of the laver stands. Josephus’ substitution of an “eagle” for the biblical “cherubim,” perhaps stands under the influence of Ezekiel’s description of the living creatures in Ezek 1:10, whose 4 faces are those of a lion, ox, and eagle (plus a man) respectively; see Feldman 1998: 601. Cf. 1 Kgs 7:36, which mentions the “cherubim, lions, and palm trees” carved on the surfaces of the stands’ “stays” as well as on their panels.

See 1 Kgs 7:30a, which also mentions the wheels’ “axles.” According to 1 Kgs 7:32, it is the height of the wheels that measured 1.5 cubits. Cf. 1 Kgs 7:32, which states that the axles of the wheels “were of one piece with the stands.” Josephus underscores the remarkable smoothness of the fit, just as he did that of the temple’s foundation stones in 8.69. On the word translated “fellies” (Greek: ἀψίς) above, see Marcus (ad loc), who renders it rather as “drums.”

Josephus here alludes to the “stays [RSV; literally: hands] on the top of the stands” cited in 1 Kgs 7:35. The biblical account does not identify the “hands” in question as those of the “cherubim” (here replaced by Josephus with an “eagle,” as in 8.82) and “lions” that were engraved on the “stays/hands” along with “palm trees” according to 1 Kgs 7:36. Here again (see 8.83), Josephus highlights the smooth fit of the component parts. This summary remark, concluding Josephus’ description of the bases/stands for the lavers (8.81-84// 1 Kgs 7:27-37), has a counterpart in 7:37.

See 1 Kgs 7:38aβ, where the lavers are said to hold 40 baths each. The chous is a Greek liquid measure equivalent to 3/4 of a gallon, whereas the Hebrew bath equals ca. 9 gallons; see Marcus ad loc. This figure corresponds to that given in MT 1 Kgs 7:38bα, but absent in LXX BL. This specification has no equivalent in the description of the lavers in 1 Kgs 7:38. See 1 Kgs 7:38bβ. Like LXX BL, Josephus here transliterates the Hebrew word (‮מכנות‬‎) for the “stands/ bases,” on which the lavers are placed.

See 1 Kgs 7:39a// 2 Chr 4:6a, which speak first of the lavers set on the South side, then of those on the North. Josephus’ mention of a “south-east” orientation for half the lavers might be inspired by the wording of 1 Kgs 7:39b// 2 Chr 4:10, where the sea is situated on “the southeast corner of the house.” See 1 Kgs 7:39b// 2 Chr 4:10, which specify that the sea was placed “on the southeast corner of the house.”

For this item, Josephus draws on, while also elaborating the notice, unparalleled in 1 Kings 7, of 2 Chr 4:6bβ concerning the function of the sea, i.e. “for the priests to wash in.” For this notice Josephus draws on 2 Chr 4:6bα (no parallel in 1 Kings 7), which states that the lavers were “to rinse off what was used for the burnt offering,” rendering its formulation more precise.

The account of the temple furnishings in 1 Kings 7 does not mention this altar. Josephus derives his notice on it from 2 Chr 4:1. At the same time he reverses the sequence of 2 Chronicles 4, where the bronze altar is dealt with (v. 1), prior to the sea and the lavers (vv. 2-6). These dimensions for the bronze altar correspond to those cited in 2 Chr 4:1. Josephus adds this specification concerning the function of the bronze altar to the brief mention of it in 2 Chr 4:1. For this notice, see 1 Kgs 7:40a, 45// 2 Chr 4:11a, 16. Josephus expands the biblical lists with mention of “tripods” and “hooks,” as also with the indication concerning the luster of the bronze used for these objects. His reference to the exceptional quality of the bronze used regards recalls his notice in Ant. 7.160 about Solomon’s future use of the extraordinary bronze captured by David to make the “sea” and the lavers. He leaves aside the details about the place where the bronze vessels were cast and the countless quantity of bronze used cited in 1 Kgs 7:46-47// 2 Chr 4:17-18.

2 Chr 4:8a specifies 10 such tables and mentions their placement within the temple, 5 on the south side and 5 on the north. See 1 Kgs 7:48// 2 Chr 4:19, which speak of the “bread of the [divine] Presence” (literally: face). Josephus describes both the table and its bread in more detail in his account of the Mosaic sanctuary in Ant. 3.139-142. Josephus appends this remark about the other tables as compared with the golden one. See 2 Chr 4:8b, which mentions the making of 100 “basins of gold”; cf. 1 Kgs 7:50a// 2 Chr 4:22a, which enumerate a series of objects crafted for use in the cult out of “pure gold,” but without providing figures for these. Josephus supplies (very high) numbers for the vessels made, likewise introducing the distinction between those of silver and gold, and specifying that these were placed on the (other) tables. On Solomon’s precious-metal cultic vessels, see further 8.91.

1 Kgs 7:49// 2 Chr 4:7 mentions a total of 10 golden lampstands; once again, Josephus embellishes the biblical figures. The Mosaic directive concerning the lampstands alluded to here does not have an explicit counterpart in Josephus’ account of the desert sanctuary, where (see Ant. 4.144-148// Exod 25:31-40) there is mention only of a single, 7-branched candelabrum that God instructs Moses to have made. The reference is to the 7-branched candelabrum described by Josephus in Ant. 4.144-148 (// Exod 25:31-40). This indication—unparalleled in either 1 Kings 7 or 2 Chronicles 4—corresponds to Josephus’ statement in Ant. 4.144 that the candelabrum “stood in front of the table near the wall towards the south.” The golden (incense) altar has not previously been mentioned by Josephus in his account of Solomon’s temple; he draws his mention of it here from 1 Kgs 7:48// 2 Chr 4:19. Compare Ant. 3.147, where Josephus mentions the “wooden incense-altar,” encircled by “a solid plate of metal” of the Mosaic sanctuary. Josephus’ statement concerning the placement of the 3 cultic objects just outside the Holy of Holies here is proleptic, referring to their intended location, since it is only in 8.96 that these objects will actually be installed in the temple. Josephus here refers to the 40-cubit “holy sanctuary” (the biblical “nave”) of the temple mentioned by him in 8.71. The various objects cited in 8.90 were located at the back of this chamber, just outside the adytum. This summarizing notice on the 3 objects situated before the curtain of the inner sanctuary is Josephus’ addition to the biblical accounts. On the ark’s designated place within the Holy of Holies, see 8.73.

Josephus here returns to the subject of Solomon’s precious-metal cultic vessels, mentioned initially in 8.89. As in his similar catalogue of the Mosaic liturgical vessels in Ant. 3.150, so also here, he supplies very large, “un-biblical” figures for these vessels, likewise distinguishing between those of gold and those of silver. The effect is to accentuate the piety of Solomon, who provides the temple with such an abundance of costly vessels.

The lists of Solomon’s cultic equipment in 1 Kings 7// 2 Chronicles 4 do not mention such “scales.” Josephus may have been familiar with them as part of the fabric of the temple of his own time. In Ant. 3.197, 234 Josephus states that the hin is the Hebrew equivalent of two Attic chous (on which see 8.85). He mentions the assaron (= Hebrew ‮עשרנים‬‎, “a tenth [part],” see Lev 24:5) as a unit of measure for the manna in Ant. 3.29 and for the “showbread” in 3.142. Here again (see 8.91), Josephus accentuates Solomon’s piety by crediting him with the making of such huge numbers of cultic scales. Golden “dishes for incense” are mentioned in 1 Kgs 7:50a// 2 Chr 4:22a, but no figures for these are given. The references to the incense dishes in 1 Kgs 7:50a// 2 Chr 4:22a do not distinguish 2 different uses for these items, as does Josephus here. The “great altar” is the (bronze) altar of sacrifice situated outside the temple building proper (see 8.88), while the “small altar” is the golden one used for burning incense and located before the Holy of Holies (see 8.90).

The accounts of 1 Kings 7// 2 Chronicles 4 do not mention the making of high priestly garments. Cf. Josephus’ more detailed description of Moses’ making these items in Ant. 3.159-170. Josephus mentions Moses’ inscribing the “name of God” on the high priest’s crown in Ant. 3.176 (// Exod 28:36; 39:30). Here in 8.93, he adds, likely from his personal knowledge as a priest, that such a crown had survived down to his own time. Josephus now briefly touches on the garments of the other priests; these are described in more detail in Ant. 3.151-158 in his account of the Mosaic cultic system. His added reference to the (high) priestly garments made by Solomon here in 8.93 accentuates the parallelism between Moses’ cultic arrangements and those of the king.

This item no has parallel in 1 Kings 7// 2 Chronicles 4. In Ant. 3.291 (cf. Num 10:1-2), Josephus credits Moses with inventing “a kind of trumpet.” With this (neutral) mention of Solomon’s making the Levitical singers “fine linen robes,” compare Josephus’ denunciation of these same singers for getting themselves permission to wear “linen robes just like the priests” shortly before the Jewish revolt in Ant. 20.116. Josephus’ added notice on Solomon’s making of various kinds of musical instruments recalls his mention of David’s doing the same thing in Ant. 7.305b-306 (where a 3rd instrument, i.e. the kymbala, is cited as well).

Josephus embellishes the notices on the completion of Solomon’s temple works of 1 Kgs 7:51a// 2 Chr 5:1a, underscoring the king’s enthusiasm for the project. Josephus omits the specification of 1 Kgs 7:51b // 2 Chr 5:1b that what Solomon deposited in the treasuries were “the things which David his father had dedicated.” He thereby keeps the focus on Solomon’s own contributions; see Feldman 1998: 596. The biblical accounts (1 Kings 6-7// 2 Chronicles 3-4) do not speak of such a “parapet” in connection with Solomon’s temple. As Marcus (ad loc.) suggests, Josephus’ description of the constructions surrounding the temple building in 8.95-98 reflects his familiarity with the Herodian temple complex. Thus, in War 5.193 (cf. Ant. 15.417) he refers to the stone “balustrade,” three cubits in height, which surrounded the 2nd court of Herod’s temple, while in War 5.226 he mentions a “parapet” (Greek: γείσιον), approximately a cubit in height, which encompassed both the sanctuary and the altar and served to separate the people from the priests. Cf. the reference to the “parapet” of Herod’s temple, separating the people from the priests, in War 5.226 mentioned in the previous note. This (innermost) sacred precinct, immediately surrounding the temple edifice, corresponds to the “Court of the Priests” of the Herodian temple-complex.

This 2nd “sacred precinct” of the Solomonic temple situated beyond the one immediately surrounding the temple edifice in Josephus’ account corresponds to the “Court of the Israelites” of Herod’s temple-complex, as mentioned in War 5.193 and Ant. 15.417. Compare Josephus’ more expansive descriptions of the 2nd court (the “Court of the Israelites”) and its multiple gateways in War 5.193-206 and Ant. 15.417-420.

Compare Ant. 15.418, where Josephus speaks of the “great gateway” leading into the 2nd court through which “those of us who were ritually clean used to pass with our wives.” In his description of the Solomonic temple complex here in 8.96-97 Josephus does not distinguish between the “Court of the Israelites” (reserved to males) and a “Court of Women” (into which both sexes could enter) as he does in his account of the Herodian temple; see Ant. 15.419; War 5.198-199. Compare Ant. 15.414, where Josephus mentions the “ravine” surrounding the Herodian temple complex and the more detailed account in War 5.184-189 of the gradual filling in the area surrounding the temple hill, a process initiated by Solomon according to 5.184.

Compare Josephus’ more detailed description of the portico and its columns of the Herodian temple complex in War 5.190-192 and Ant. 15.413-416. On Solomon as the builder of the 1st temple’s exterior portico, see Ant. 20.221. Josephus’ other descriptions of the temple do not mention such silver gates of the outermost court.

This figure for the duration of Solomon’s temple-building project corresponds to that of MT 1 Kgs 7:38b (LXX BL and 2 Chronicles lack the indication). Josephus has no counterpart to the notice of 7:38a that the construction of the temple commenced in Solomon’s 4th year and concluded in his 11th. This remark picks up on the notice about work on the temple being completed in 7 years at the opening of 8.99. Josephus makes a similar observation concerning the work done on Herod’s temple-complex in War 5.189. See 1 Kgs 8:1 // 2 Chr 5:2, where it is only the leaders of the people who are summoned to Jerusalem; Josephus’ modification in this regard has in view the notice in 8:2a (MT, > LXX BL)// 5:3a), where it is “all the men of Israel” who assemble before Solomon. Josephus adds the reference to their “seeing the sanctuary” as a motivation for Solomon’s summoning the people.

Greek: Ἀθύρει; this is the reading of RO, which Niese follows. Marcus adopts the conjecture of J. Hudson, itself inspired by Lat’s thes(e)ri, namely Θισρί. 1 Kgs 8:2// 2 Chr 5:3 date the assembly of all Israel to “the feast in the seventh month”; 1 Kgs 8:2 further names the month as “Ethanim” (MT; LXX BL Ἀθανείν). Josephus supplies his own version of the Hebrew month name, along with its “Macedonian” equivalent (cf. the 2 equivalent month names cited in 8.61). Josephus here identifies the “feast in the 7th month” that is left unnamed in 1 Kgs 8:2// 2 Chr 5:3. On the celebration of Tabernacles in the 7th month, see Lev 23:34. On Josephus’ treatment of this feast generally, see Colautti 2002.

See 1 Kgs 8:3-4// 2 Chr 5:4-5. Josephus leaves the identity of the ark’s “carriers” unspecified; compare 1 Kgs 8:3 (the priests)// 2 Chr 5:4 (the Levites); 1 Kgs 8:4 (MT, > LXX BL)// 2 Chr 5:5 (the priests and Levites); see, however, 8.103. Eupolemus (“Fragment Two,” preserved in Eusebius’ quotation [Praep. ev. 34.9] of Alexander Polyhistor) mentions the Mosaic “altar of sacrifice” being brought into the temple on this occasion as well. See 1 Kgs 8:5// 2 Chr 5:6, which speak of the innumerable sheep and oxen sacrificed during the procession to the temple. This is Josephus’ embellishment of the biblical notices on the accompanying sacrifices (see previous note). His mention of the Levites alone and not (also) the priests here is noteworthy, given his tendency to downplay the role of the former in favor of the latter, as well as the consistent scriptural stipulation (see Lev 3:5, 8, 13) that it is only the priests who are to handle the sacrificial blood. On Josephus’ overall treatment of the Levites, see Glessmer 1994.

Neither 1 Kings 8 nor 2 Chronicles 5 speaks of a use of incense during the ark’s procession to the temple. Josephus’ addition of the item heightens the solemnity and opulence of the occasion. With this editorial remark Josephus anticipates Solomon’s acknowledgement, as voiced by him in 1 Kgs 8:27// 2 Chr 6:18, that God cannot actually be contained by any human-made house. He will return to the question of God’s “location” several times in his account of the temple’s dedication; see 8.106. Josephus’ reference to the singing and dancing by the participants in the procession to the temple lacks a counterpart in 1 Kings 8// 2 Chronicles 5. His addition of the reference serves to associate the procession of the ark under Solomon with its transport to Jerusalem in David’s time; see Ant. 7.81, 85, 87 (cf. 2 Sam 6:5, 14-16// 1 Chr 13:8; 15:27-29).

Josephus’ mention of the people’s “departure” at this point in the proceedings has no biblical counterpart. Here, in contrast to 8.101, Josephus follows 1 Kgs 8:6// 2 Chr 5:7 in specifying that it was the priests who bore the ark to its final destination. Josephus expatiates on the notice of 1 Kgs 8:7 // 2 Chr 5:8 concerning the wings of the cherubim, alluding, e.g., to his account of the placement of these figures in 8.72b-73. The “craftsman” referred to here in 8.104 would seem to be the Tyrian “Cheirom” (who, however, is only introduced by Josephus in 8.76, subsequent to his account of the erection of the cherubim in 8.72b-73).

See 1 Kgs 8:8// 2 Chr 5:9 (whose reference to Mount Horeb Josephus, in accord with his regular practice, replaces with mention of Mount Sinai). Josephus’ language concerning the content of the ark here in 8.104 recalls that used by him in Ant. 3.138. Cf. Josephus’ earlier (proleptic) notice on Solomon’s placement of these 3 objects in 8.90. The “tent” here is the Mosaic tabernacle that has just been brought to the new temple; see 8.101. On the 3, just-mentioned cultic objects and their placement within the Mosaic tabernacle, see Ant. 3.139-148. Neither 1 Kings 8 nor 2 Chronicles 5 mentions such a placement of the 3 cultic objects by the priests or their offering the prescribed daily sacrifices subsequent to bringing the ark into the Holy of Holies.

This notice on the setting up of the altar of sacrifice (on which see 8.88) and the reason for its being placed where it is has no direct counterpart in the biblical accounts. Cf., however, the allusion to the bronze altar’s being insufficient for the number of Solomon’s sacrifices in 1 Kgs 8:64// 2 Chr 7:7, which does presuppose the previous erection of that altar. This notice, in which the singular verb forms have Solomon as their apparent subject, lacks a biblical basis. On the cultic vessels, see 8.88, 91-92.

See 1 Kgs 8:10// 2 Chr 5:11, 13b; like Kings, Josephus has no equivalent to the Chronicler’s intervening reference (5:12-13a) to the activities of the Levitical musicians. He supplies the allusions to the suddenness of the cloud’s arrival and its appearance. His description here recalls that given by him of the cloud that manifested itself at the Mosaic sanctuary in Ant. 3.203; compare Exod 40:34-35. Compare 1 Kgs 8:11// 2 Chr 5:14, which state that the priests were unable to “stand to minister because of the cloud; for the glory of the Lord filled the house of the Lord” (1 Kgs 8:11; 2 Chr 5:14 has “of God”). Greek: φαντασία καὶ δόξα. This collocation occurs only here in Josephus. This appended notice recalls the wording used by Josephus in 8.102, where he speaks of the “human opinion” that God was taking up residence in the temple complex.

Cf. the reference to Solomon’s “standing” before the altar of the Lord in 1 Kgs 8:22// 2 Chr 6:12 as he begins his address to the Deity. Josephus appends the allusion to the king’s previous “sitting.” Like Kings, he has no equivalent to the mention of the “bronze platform” on which Solomon first stands and then kneels in 2 Chr 6:13. Greek: θεία φύσις. This phrase occurs only here in Josephus’ writings. It appears also in 2 Pet 1:4, which speaks of Christians becoming “partakers of the divine nature.” Josephus supplies this characterization of the words Solomon is about to pronounce. This statement about God’s self-made cosmic residence takes the place of Solomon’s citation of the Lord’s own affirmation in 1 Kgs 8:12a// 2 Chr 6:1: “The Lord has set the sun in the heavens, but [the words “has set the sun in the heavens, but” are found in LXX BL 1 Kgs 8:12, but are absent in MT 1 Kgs 8:12 and 2 Chr 6:1] has said that he would dwell in thick darkness.” Josephus has no equivalent to the “source notice” found at the end of LXX BL 8:12 (“is it [the preceding divine saying] not written in the Book of the Upright One?”). On the Stoic coloration of this characterization of God by the Josephan Solomon, see Feldman 1998: 619-20.

Josephus conflates Solomon’s separate affirmations about his having built the Lord a house in 1 Kgs 8:13// 2 Chr 6:2 (here the “house” is called a “place for thee [God] to dwell in forever”) and 8:20b// 6:10b (Solomon has built the house “for the name of the Lord”). This component of Solomon’s prayer, with its universalistic thrust, seems inspired by the king’s petition that God hear the prayers of foreigners who come to the temple from afar in 1 Kgs 8:41-43// 2 Chr 6:32-33. Josephus’ Solomon will return to this topic in 8.116.

Greek: δύναμις καὶ πρόνοια. This collocation occurs only here in Josephus. Compare 1 Kgs 8:14// 2 Chr 6:3, where Solomon’s address to the people is introduced with a mention of his “blessing” them. Josephus avoids attributing such a blessing to the king, who is not a priest, Israel’s designated “blesser” according to Num 6:22-27. Josephus summarizes Solomon’s expansive reference to the Lord’s fulfillment of his promises to David in 1 Kgs 8:15, 20// 2 Chr 6:4, 10, which mention in particular the realization of 2 such promises, i.e. Solomon’s succession and his building of the temple. Josephus appends the reference to additional divine promises that still await their (assured) fulfillment.

Cf. Ant. 7.93, where in his version of Nathan’s oracle to David of 2 Sam 7:13// 1 Chr 17:12, Josephus has the prophet mention the name, i.e. Solomon, of the son of David who will build the temple long prior to the former’s birth. Josephus compresses the biblical Solomon’s citation of God’s words to David in 1 Kgs 8:16-19// 2 Chr 6:5-9, confining himself to the key point, i.e. the divine announcement that David’s son would build a house for “my name” (8:19// 6:9). Neither 1 Kings 8 nor 2 Chronicles 6 mentions such a call to “praise God” addressed by Solomon to the assembly; in 1 Kgs 8:15// 2 Chr 6:4 the king himself “blesses” God for the fulfillment of his promises to David. This (added) reference to the divine promises still awaiting their assured fulfillment recalls Solomon’s affirmation about the “rest [of God’s promises] coming about” in 8.109.

Compare 1 Kgs 8:21// 2 Chr 6:12, where, Solomon, after his address to the people (8:14-20// 6:3-11), “stands before the altar of the Lord” in the presence of the assembly. Josephus’ addition of the term “again” refers back to 8.107, where Solomon “stands” when speaking to God. Greek: εἰς τὸν ὄχλον; this is the reading of the codices, followed by Niese. In light of 1 Kgs 8:22, Marcus (ad loc.) suggests the emendation εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν (“towards heaven”). The parallel text, 2 Chr 6:12, simply has Solomon “spreading forth his hands.” Greek: ἀπροδεής. Josephus’ one other use of this term is in Ant. 3.45, where it is applied to the Hebrew army. On the term as a Stoic designation for God see Feldman 1998: 620-1 and n. 71. Compare also Paul’s characterization of God in his address to the Athenians in Acts 17:25 as one who is “not served by human hands, as though he needed [προσδεόμονος] anything....” In 1 Kgs 8:23a// 2 Chr 6:14a Solomon affirms “there is no God like thee, in heaven above or on earth beneath....” As Marcus’ elucidatory, context-based addition to his translation (“with that gift of speech”) indicates, Josephus here alludes to the human capacity of speech that differentiates humans from animals and that is to be used in praise of God. Compare Solomon’s acknowledgement of what God has done for his faithful servants in general and for David in particular in 1 Kgs 8:23b-24// 2 Chr 6:14b-15. The term “praise” (Greek: εὐλογέω) picks up on the same term used in Solomon’s call to the assembly to “praise God” in 8.110.

Greek: μηνίω. Josephus uses this verb with God as subject also in Ant. 15.299 and with a human subject in War 2.69. Josephus supplies this mention of the “human voice” as the means by which people may propitiate God. Its wording recalls 8.108, where Solomon alludes to prayers’ being sent up “into the air.” Solomon’s allusion to God’s “advancement” of David here recalls David’s own acknowledgement of the Deity’s “having already promoted him from the lowly state of being a shepherd and advanced him to so great a position of leadership and glory” in Ant. 7.95.

See 1 Kgs 8:24// 2 Chr 6:15, where Solomon— in terms recalling those used in 8:15// 6:4—acknowledges God’s fulfillment of his promises to David on “this day.” The king’s words of thanks to God here in 8.113 likewise recall his statements to the people about God’s having fulfilled the promises made by him to David regarding Solomon himself in 8.109-111. Compare 1 Kgs 8:25a// 2 Chr 6:16a, where Solomon asks God to “keep” for David what he had spoken to him. The reference to “the power of God” here recalls the phrase in 8.109, where Solomon undertakes to make clear to the people “the power and providence of God.” 1 Kgs See 8:25b// 2 Chr 6:16, where Solomon quotes the (opening of) God’s promise to David (see 2 Sam 7:12-13// 1 Chr 17:12b-14; cf. Ant. 7.93) that his posterity will never be cut off from sitting on the throne of Israel. Josephus leaves aside the continuation of the biblical Solomon’s citation of the divine announcement to his father in which the foregoing promise is made contingent on the Davidic dynasty’s ongoing commitment to the Law. He thereby brings Solomon’s quotation of the promise into line with the unconditional formulation of the original promise itself. This double appeal (both for himself personally and for the members of his family) takes the place of Solomon’s (reiteration of his) request that God “confirm” his word to David of 1 Kgs 8:26// 2 Chr 6:17; cf. 8:25a// 6:16a.

Greek: μοῖρα. . . τοῦ σοῦ πνεύματος. With this expression compare that used by Josephus in his address to the defenders of Jotapata in War 3.372, where he qualifies the “soul” (Greek: ψηχή) as a θεοῦ μοῖρα (“portion of God”). This petition spells out the content of Solomon’s request in 1 Kgs 8:28// 2 Chr 6:19 that God heed the prayer he is now making. Its mention of God’s “spirit” (Greek: πνεῦμα) is exceptional in Josephus, who tends to avoid biblical mentions of the divine “spirit,” whereas the reference to God’s “appearing” to be “with us on earth” recalls 8.102 with its reference to “human opinion” about God’s dwelling in the temple. Josephus now has Solomon return to his acknowledgement of the inadequacy of the temple for God that was already articulated by him in 8.107 on the basis of 1 Kgs 8:27// 2 Chr 6:18. Greek: προνοέω. This verb recalls Solomon’s statement of his intention to make clear “the power and providence (Greek: πρόνοια) of God” for the people in 8.109. Cf. 1 Kgs 8:29a// 2 Chr 6:20a, where Solomon prays that God’s “eyes” will be open towards the house about which he [God] has stated “my name shall be there.” Josephus avoids the biblical anthropomorphism (and “name theology”).

Greek: κακῷ, the reading of the codices, which Niese follows. Marcus (ad loc.) adopts the conjecture of Thackeray, i.e. κακῶται (“is smitten”). Solomon’s mention of first 2 potential divine “blows” recalls Ant. 7.93, where God, via Nathan, threatens the offending descendant of David with “disease and infertility of the soil.” Solomon’s “as-if” formulation here recall the previous references (see 8.102, 114) to God’s (only) “appearing” to be in the temple. Josephus compresses the long biblical segment (1 Kgs 8:33-40// 2 Chr 6:24-41) in which Solomon evokes a range of calamities (defeat by enemies, drought, plague, other agricultural disasters) that might befall the people because of their sins and asks that God hear the prayers they make him on such occasions. He likewise leaves aside the case cited by Solomon in 1 Kgs 8:31-32// 2 Chr 6:22-23 of a person in legal difficulties, who comes to the temple seeking vindication from the Lord.

See 1 Kgs 8:41-43a// 2 Chr 6:32-33a, where Solomon asks that the Lord answer the petition of “the foreigner” who, having heard of the Lord’s “great name,” prays “towards this house.” Josephus’ Solomon has already broached the topic of God’s universal solicitude in 8.108.

Greek: ἀπάνθωποι. Josephus’ 2 remaining uses of this adjective are in Ant. 6.298 and 16.42. Greek: οὐχ ὁμοφύλους. This is the conjecture of J. Cocceius, which Niese and Marcus follow. Among the extant witnesses to 8.117, only M and Lat have a negative particle here; the remainder read “who are compatriots.” Greek: ἡ τῶν ἀγαθῶν ὄνησις. Josephus’ one other use of this phrase is in Ant. 2.48. In 1 Kgs 8:43b// 2 Chr 6:33 Solomon asks God to hear the foreigner’s prayer in order that the nations might learn “to fear you [the Lord].” The Josephan Solomon’s alternative motivation serves, on the one hand, to dispose of Roman sensitivities about Jewish prosletyzing—Jews are not looking to make converts out of gentiles—and, on the other, to counter charges about Jewish hostility/indifference towards other peoples; see Feldman 1998: 614-5.

In Josephus Solomon’s prayer on behalf of foreigners (8.116-117) stands as the final, climactic petition made by him. In order to give it this status, he leaves aside the series of further prayers—focussed once again on Israel—that follow the king’s appeal for foreigners (1 Kgs 8:41-43// 2 Chr 6:32-33) in 8:44-53 // 6:34-42. Josephus offers a more dramatic, intense depiction of Solomon’s piety here than does 1 Kgs 8:54, which simply has him, once his prayer is finished, rising from his kneeling position before the Lord’s altar. Compare 2 Chr 7:1a, which does not mention a change of posture by Solomon following his prayer. In 1 Kgs 8:62// 2 Chr 7:4 the people join the king in offering sacrifices. Josephus keeps attention focussed on Solomon himself and his piety. By mentioning the offering of sacrifices at this point, he obviates the problematic sequence of 2 Chr 7:1-4, in which the consumption of the sacrifices on the altar by fire from heaven (v. 1) is referred to prior to Solomon’s offering of sacrifice (v. 4). This notice, spelling out the significance of the consumption of the victims by fire from heaven spoken of in 2 Chr 7:1aβbα, takes the place of the reference to the “glory of the Lord filling the house” in 7:1bβ. Greek: καταδαίνυμαι. This verb is hapax in Josephus. See 2 Chr 7:1aβbα, 2a (no parallel in 1 Kings 8).

Greek: ἐπιφάνεια. On this noun and its cognates, see Spicq 1978 (1): 284-7. Josephus adds this remark, paralleling his previous insertion (see 8.118) on Solomon’s personal realization about the fire from heaven, concerning the inference drawn by the people as a whole from the fiery “manifestation.” The reference to God’s “residence” in the temple recalls the language of 8.102. See 2 Chr 7:3aβbα (no parallel in 1 Kings 8). The people’s prostration here recalls that of the king himself in 8.118. Josephus omits the quotation of Ps 136:1 attributed to the worshipping people in 7:3bβ. See 8.110, where earlier in the proceedings, Solomon “requests” the assembled people “to praise God.” Greek: δείγματα… τῆς... εὐμείνας. This phrase is comparable to the expression δεἰγματα τῆς εὐνοίας (“proofs of loyalty”) of Ant. 6.317 (where Saul uses it of David’s fidelity towards himself). Having utilized the Chronicler’s special material (2 Chr 7:1-3) in 8.118-119, Josephus now switches to the presentation of the other biblical account, i.e. 1 Kgs 8:55-61, where Solomon utters a final prayer. This begins (v. 56) “blessed be the Lord....” and continues with mention of God’s having fulfilled all his promises as announced by Moses.

In 1 Kgs 8:55-61 Solomon prays on behalf of the people, rather than urging them to join in his own prayer. This petition has no direct counterpart in Solomon’s prayer in 1 Kgs 8:55-61. It takes the place of the king’s appeal that the Lord “not leave or forsake us” of 8:57. Josephus’ one other use of the collocation “justice and devotion” (Greek: διακαιωσύνη καὶ θρησκεία) is in Ant. 6.18, where it is applied to “Aminadab,” the keeper of the ark. This petition corresponds to Solomon’s request that God cause the people to “keep his commandments. which he commanded our fathers” in 1 Kgs 8:58. In place of the appeal that all peoples of the earth might recognize the sole deity of the Lord (1 Kgs 8:60) with its prosletyzing overtones, Josephus has Solomon pray—in language recalling that used by him in 8.110—for the preeminent welfare of the Hebrews themselves.

Greek: εὐσέβεια καὶ δικαιοωσύνη. This collocation recalls the binomial δικαιοωσύνη καὶ θρησκεία (“justice and devotion”) of 8.120. Compare Solomon’s concluding, direct-address exhortation in 1 Kgs 8:61: “Let your [the people’s] heart therefore be wholly true to the Lord our God, walking in his statutes and keeping his commandments, as at this day.”

Josephus anticipates this notice on Solomon’s dismissal of the people from 1 Kgs 8:66// 2 Chr 7:10. 1 Kgs 8:63// 2 Chr 7:5 read 22,000 as the number of bovine sacrifices. Uncharacteristically, Josephus has a lower figure than the biblical one. This figure agrees with that given in MT and LXX L 1 Kgs 8:63 and MT 2 Chr 7:5. LXX B 1 Kgs 8:63 and LXX BL 2 Chr 7:5 do not mention a sacrifice of sheep by Solomon on this occasion.

This notice takes the place of 1 Kgs 8:64 // 2 Chr 7:7, which speak of Solomon’s consecrating the “middle court” by means of sacrifices he offered there, rather than on the bronze altar since this was too small to receive the abundance of sacrifices. Like 1 Kings 8, Josephus lacks mention of the musical accompaniment of the sacrifices cited in 2 Chr 7:6. The biblical accounts do not mention such a “feasting” of the people. Josephus’ addition on the point serves to answer the question of how the enormous number of sacrificial remains were disposed of; see Feldman 1998: 601-2. The addition likewise highlights the parallelism between Solomon’s initiative with the ark and that of David who, Ant. 7.86 (// 2 Sam 6:19// 1 Chr 16:3) reports, “feasted” the Israelite men, women and children on the occasion of his bringing the ark to Jerusalem. The references to Solomon’s 7-day feast in 1 Kgs 8:65// 2 Chr 7:8 do not identify it with “Tabernacles.” Josephus has already associated the dedication of the temple with this feast in 8.100. Greek: λαμπρῶς καὶ μεγαλοπρεῶς. The adjectival equivalent of this adverbial collocation occurs in Ant. 7.378, where the civil and religious leaders, following David’s example, make “splendid and magnificent” contributions to the temple-building fund. This figure for the duration of the festivities surrounding the dedication of the temple appears explicitly in MT 1 Kgs 8:66 (LXX BL read 7 days) and is implicit in 2 Chr 7:9.

This notice on the people’s satiation takes the place of the divergent indications concerning the day on which Solomon dismissed the people in 1 Kgs 8:66 (the 8th day)/ 2 Chr 7:10 (the 23rd day), neither of which agrees with Josephus’ previous reference to a 14-day festival in 8.123. See 1 Kgs 8:66// 2 Chr 7:10. Josephus made proleptic reference to the people’s dismissal by the king in 8.122. Greek: πρόνοια. This same term is used by Solomon of God’s “providence” for the people in his address to them in 8.109. Divine “providence” is mediated to the Israelites through the king’s “care” for them. Josephus expatiates on, while also modifying, the mention of the departing people’s “blessing” the king in 1 Kgs 8:66 (no equivalent in 2 Chr 7:10). Josephus modifies (and embellishes) the concluding words of 1 Kgs 8:66// 2 Chr 7:10, which speak of the people’s going home “joyful and glad of heart,” given the Lord’s goodness to both David and Israel.

This separate mention of the activities of the priests, the bearers of the ark into the Holy of Holies (see 8.103), has no biblical parallel. It reflects the priest Josephus’ interest in highlighting the role of his fellow-priests on this momentous occasion. Neither 1 Kgs 9:2 nor 2 Chr 7:12a mentions a “dream” explicitly. The former text speaks of the Lord’s appearing to Solomon “a 2nd time, as he had appeared to him at Gibeon,” while the latter refers to the Lord’s manifesting himself to the king “in the night.” Josephus’ identification of the happening as a “dream” recalls his use of the same term in connection with Solomon’s Gibeon experience in 8.22 (// 1 Kgs 3:5). On Josephus’ version of Solomon’s 2nd exchange with God (= 1 Kgs 9:1-9// 2 Chr 7:11-21) in 8.125b-129, see Begg 1996a: 695-700 and Gnuse 1996: 176-7. This initial divine announcement to Solomon parallels those with which the Deity’s message to the king begin in 1 Kgs 9:3a// 2 Chr 7:12b.

This is Josephus’ compressed version of the Deity’s promised commitment to the temple in 1 Kgs 9:3// 2 Chr 7:15-16, from which he eliminates the anthropomorphic references to God’s “eyes and heart” (9:3// 7:16) and “eyes and ears” (7:15). Like 1 Kings 9, he has no equivalent to God’s preceding promise of forgiveness for the penitent people of 2 Chr 7:13-14. Greek: καὶ αὐτοῦ. This reference to Solomon himself is found only in E; it is read by Niese, but not by Marcus. See 1 Kgs 9:4-5// 2 Chr 7:17-18, which speak only of Solomon’s own abiding by the law as the condition for God’s maintaining the Davidic dynasty, and which also cite the earlier divine word to David, i.e. “there shall not fail you a man upon the throne of Israel” (cf. 2 Sam 7:12-13// 1 Chr 17:12, 14).

In 1 Kgs 9:6// 2 Chr 7:19, the subject of the divine warning is a plural “you” (9:6 MT; LXX BL add “or your children”), i.e. the entire people. Josephus focusses attention on the apostasy of Solomon himself that will subsequently occur. Having made Solomon personally the potential subject of the defection from God’s ways (see previous note), Josephus prefaces the divine warnings, drawn from 1 Kgs 9:7-9// 2 Chr 7:20-22, about the future fate of people and land, with this reference to the implications of Solomon’s apostasy for his dynasty. To the biblical Deity’s warning about the Israelites being removed from their land (1 Kgs 9:7a// 2 Chr 7:20a), Josephus, with the later history of both Israel and Judah in view, appends a mention of the people’s resettlement in a foreign land.

Compare the metaphorical, anthropomorphic language of 1 Kgs 9:7bα// 2 Chr 7:20bα, which speak of the Lord’s “casting” the temple “out of his sight.” Josephus’ formulation reflects the actual fate of the temple as he will describe this in Ant. 10.145-146, where the edifice is plundered and burnt. Cf. also the references to the burning of the Herodian temple and of Jerusalem as a whole in War 6.281 and 6.407, respectively. This threat has no counterpart in the divine warnings of 1 Kgs 9:7// 2 Chr 7:20 concerning the fate of people and temple. It has in view Josephus’ description of the Babylonian measures subsequent to the fall of Jerusalem; see Ant. 10.146 (Nebuzaradan “demolished the city”), making these as well something that God had predicted long previously. In 1 Kgs 9:7bβ// 2 Chr 7:20bβ God threatens to make Israel “a proverb and byword among all peoples.” Josephus underscores the magnitude of the threatened disaster.

1 Kgs 9:8b// 2 Chr 7:21 have “every passerby” raise the question about the temple’s destruction. Josephus adds this reference to God’s earlier prospering of the people; he thereby underscores the reversal involved in their (threatened) divine overthrow. 1 Kgs 9:8b// 2 Chr 7:21 have the passersby ask why the Lord “has done thus to this land and to this house.” On Josephus’ references to God’s “hating” (Greek: μισέω) persons and things, see the note to “hated” at Ant. 6.138. Compare 1 Kgs 9:9// 2 Chr 7:22, where an unspecified “they” (the passersby? the surviving Israelites?) attribute the Lord’s having brought evil upon the Israelites to their forsaking him and worshipping other gods. This concluding notice has no biblical counterpart. Its use of the term “dream” forms an inclusion with the occurrence of the same term in 8.125.

This transitional phrase recalls Josephus’ notice on the duration of Solomon’s temple-building project in 8.99. Josephus draws this figure from 1 Kgs 7:1 (which does not explicitly mention the laying of the palace foundation). Whereas the account of Solomon’s secular buildings in 1 Kgs 7:1-12 (no parallel in Chronicles) “disrupts” the presentation of his temple building project (1 Kgs 6:1-38; 7:13-8:66), Josephus reserves his version of the former passage until after he has related the completion and dedication of the temple. He thereby accentuates the piety of the king who, first of all, devotes all his energy to the temple project. With this appended statement Josephus continues to highlight the piety of Solomon, who invests more energy in building the temple than his own residence. The statement also provides an explanation—acknowledging both the human and divine factors involved—as to how so grand an edifice as the temple could have been completed in so short a time. Its wording recalls that used in Josephus’ notice on the (relative) speed with which the temple complex was built in 8.99.

This notice rounds off Josephus’ appended segment (8.130b-131) comparing the building of the temple and the palace and highlighting the greater attention given the former. The addition serves to explain—as the Bible itself does not—why Solomon’s palace should have taken almost twice as long to build as the temple.

Greek: εὐδαιμονία. This term echoes the Deity’s promise of an “limitless summit and greatness of well-being [εὐδαιμονία]” for Solomon in 8.126. The king’s ability to construct his palace-complex evidences the fulfillment of that promise. By way of this added comment Josephus qualifies his preceding down-playing of the palace vis-à-vis the temple, in order that the former edifice not appear altogether unworthy of a great, wealthy king like Solomon and so reflect negatively on its builder. This statement of the purpose behind the following description of the palace structure is, like the entire segment 8.130b-132, Josephus’ addition.

1 Kgs 7:2 calls the structure in question “the house of the forest of Lebanon.” According to 1 Kgs 7:2 the “house of the forest of Lebanon” was built upon “4 [MT; LXX BL: 3] rows of cedar pillars.” 1 Kgs 7:2-5 provides no indication as to the intended use of the “house of the forest of Lebanon.” Josephus appears to derive his statements on the matter from what is said concerning the function of another, biblically distinct structure, i.e. the “hall of the throne/ hall of judgment” in 7:7. These figures for the biblical “house of the forest of Lebanon” agree with those cited in MT 1 Kgs 7:2. LXX BL do not mention the height of the structure. 1 Kgs 7:2 specifies that there were 4 (MT; LXX BL: 3) rows of cedar pillars, while 7:3 mentions a total of 45 pillars, 15 (MT, > LXX BL) in each row. The use of this term (Greek: Κορίνθιος) in reference to Solomon’s construction is an obvious anachronism; the term also figures in Josephus’ accounts of the Herodian temple-complex; see War 5.201, 205; Ant. 15.414. MT 1 Kgs 7:3 speaks of the cedar above the chambers resting upon 45 pillars, 15 per row. 1 Kgs 7:4-5 speaks of 3 tiers of facing windows and window frames, while 7:5 also mentions “doorways.”

Josephus’ account of this edifice in 8.134a seems to conflate the structures (which some exegetes, in fact, do regard as one and the same) cited in 1 Kgs 7:6 (the “hall of pillars”) and 7:7 (the “hall of the throne/ hall of judgment”). Josephus adds this indication concerning the location of the 2nd palace structure, placing it between the temple and the 1st royal edifice described in 8.133. This indication lacks a counterpart in 1 Kings 7. This figure agrees with that given in MT and LXX L 1 Kgs 7:6, whereas LXX B specifies 50. Josephus has no equivalent to the biblical indication concerning the structure’s length, i.e. 50 cubits. 1 Kgs 7:6 does not localize the “house of pillars” in relation to the temple. Josephus’ reference to the “pillars” supporting the (unnamed) structure reflects the biblical designation for it. 1 Kgs 7:6b mentions a pillared “porch” (MT ‮אולם‬‎; LXX BL αἰλάμ; compare Josephus ἐξέδρα) at the front of the “house of pillars” (as well as a “canopy” [RSV] situated before the pillars of the porch). Josephus’ reference to the function of the “hall” draws on the mention of Solomon’s constructing the “hall of the throne” as the place where he was “to pronounce judgment” in 7:7 and presupposes his conflation of the “hall of pillars” (7:6) and the “hall of the throne/ hall of judgment” (7:7); see the note to “a second building” at 8.134. See 1 Kgs 7:8b, which mentions the house made by Solomon for “Pharaoh’s daughter whom he [Solomon] had taken in marriage.” The pair’s marriage is recorded in 1 Kgs 3:1 (// 8.21). See 1 Kgs 7:8a, which mentions Solomon’s “own house” and locates this “in the other court back of the hall” (i.e. the “hall of the throne/ hall of judgment” of 7:7). For this item Josephus combines the notices of 7:7 (the “hall of the throne/hall of judgment” was finished with cedar “from floor to floor” [MT; LXX BL: to the rafters]) and 7:8 (both Solomon’s “own house” and that of Pharaoh’s daughter were “like the hall”).

According to 1 Kgs 7:10 the “foundation stones” of the various palace structures were “of 8 and 10 cubits.” Josephus here alludes to the description of the stones used in constructing the various edifices in 1 Kgs 7:9. Josephus appends this remark about the (unnamed) “source” of the stone used. The reference is apparently to “Mount Liban,” the source of the stones used in the construction of the temple according to 8.58-59.

See 1 Kgs 7:12, which speaks of the “3 courses of hewn stone” surrounding the “great court.” Josephus embellishes the mention of the cedar beams surmounting the 3 courses of stone in 1 Kgs 7:12, with his reference to the life-like carved wood-work that covered them.

Josephus’ reference to this Greek institution in Solomon’s time is another anachronism; compare his mention of roofing in the “Corinthian fashion” in 8.133. Josephus derives his notice concerning these palace vessels from 1 Kgs 10:21a// 2 Chr 9:20a (where the “vessels of the “house of the forest of Lebanon” are singled out). He reserves the notice of 10:21b// 9:20b on the non-use and disregard of silver in Solomon’s time for a later point in his presentation; see 8.181.

The bulk of the above 3-paragraph sequence (8.137-139) concerning the palace-complex has no counterpart in the account of 1 Kgs 7:1-12. The whole segment underscores the opulence of Solomon’s reign, even while it strongly relativizes Josephus’ earlier remarks about the modesty of the palace-complex in comparison with the temple (see 8.130-132).

In 1 Kgs 10:18-20 (// 2 Chr 9:17-19) the account of Solomon’s throne occurs separately from the description of the structure in which that throne stood, i.e. “the hall of the throne” (see 7:7). Josephus brings the 2 related items together in a continuous sequence. 1 Kgs 10:18// 2 Chr 9:18 mention the throne’s 6 steps, but not its platform-like shape. See 1 Kgs 10:19bβ-20a// 2 Chr 9:18b-19a. Reversing the biblical order, Josephus first mentions the lions placed on the throne’s 6 steps and then the pair immediately adjacent to the throne. Whereas here in 8.140 he speaks of these objects without criticism, in 8.195 he will refer to their construction as a violation of Mosaic law. He has no equivalent to the appended statement of 10:20b// 9:19b about Solomon’s throne being unparalleled elsewhere. See 1 Kgs 10:19bα// 2 Chr 9:18bα. Josephus’ reference to a “calf’s head” corresponds to the (more original) LXX reading in 1 Kgs 10:19aβ (the MT pointing of the equivalent Hebrew phrase,‮ראש־עגל‬‎, turns this into a “rounded top” so as to disassociate Solomon from the sin of calf-making). 2 Chr 9:18aβ (MT, > LXX BL) substitutes a reference to the “footstool” of the throne. In 1 Kgs 10:18b// 2 Chr 9:17b Solomon “covers” the throne “with pure gold.”

Josephus draws this figure for the total duration of Solomon’s building projects from 1 Kgs 9:10// 2 Chr 8:1; cf. the separate figures for the building of the temple (7 years) and the palace-complex (13 years) he gives in 8.130. The list of Hiram’s contributions in 1 Kgs 9:11a cites “cypress” rather than “pine” and does not mention “silver.” Josephus’ notice on Solomon’s own contributions, corresponding to those of Hiram to him (see 1 Kgs 9:11a), has no parallel in the context of the account of their dealings in 9:11-14; he derives the indication from 5:25 (MT; RSV 5:10). The appended cross reference is to 8.54, where Hiram himself alludes to Tyre’s island location and its resultant need for grain.

See 1 Kgs 9:11b; Josephus supplies the specification about the location of the Galilean cities. In 2 Chr 8:2 it is Hiram who cedes cities to Solomon that the latter then rebuilds and populates with Israelites. See 1 Kgs 9:12. Neither Josephus nor the Bible specifies what it was that Hiram found unsatisfactory about the cities. Josephus turns into a straightforward statement Hiram’s oblique question to Solomon in 1 Kgs 9:13a: “what kind of cities are these that you have given me, my brother?” MT (1 Kgs 9:13b) ‮כבול‬‎ (Eng.: “Cabul”); LXX BL, rendering a Hebrew ‮גבול‬‎ (“border”), has ὅριον; Josephus Χαβαλών. In Apion 1.110 Josephus mentions Solomon’s giving Hiram “a present of land in Galilee in the district called Chabulon (Χαβουλών).” There, however, he does not cite the latter’s negative reaction to the gift, which, in turn, gives rise to the site’s pejorative name, as he does here in 8.142// 1 Kgs 9:13b. Josephus supplies both the (purported) language and the meaning of the name given the site; commentators identify the term ‮כבול‬‎ used in MT 1 Kgs 9:13b rather as a Hebrew word meaning “like nothing.” Josephus here in 8.142 omits the attached statement of 9:14 about Hiram’s having given Solomon 120 talents of gold; he does, however, reproduce that notice in Apion 1.110.

Josephus here begins an extended segment (8.143-149) without biblical counterpart whose purpose is to underscore both Solomon’s intelligence and his friendly (intellectual) relations with a foreign king, as also to highlight the existence of extra-biblical evidence for the person and attainments of Solomon. Compare his related addition in 8.55-56 on the contemporary availability of copies of the Hiram-Solomon correspondence in the Tyrian archives, as well as the parallel passage in Apion 1.111-120. Greek: δεινός καὶ συνετός. This collocation occurs only here in Josephus. Josephus’ subsequent citation of non-biblical authors will serve to qualify this general assertion about Solomon’s prowess.

In Apion 1.116 Josephus calls him “Menander of Ephesus” and mentions the account of both Hellenic and non-Hellenic kingships that he drew from “the national records.” In Ant. 8.324 he cites Menander’s notice on the drought that occurred during the time of Ahab’s contemporary, King Ithobal of Tyre. Josephus reproduces the following citation from Menander in largely identical terms in Apion 1.117b-120.

Greek: Εὐρύχωρον. The word, meaning “broad place,” designated a part of the city of Tyre.

This is the understanding of Menander’s phrase (Greek: τοῦ Ἡρακλέους ἔγερσιν ἐποιήσατο) adopted by Thackeray in his translation of Apion 1.119. Marcus (ad loc.) proposes an alternative understanding of the same phrase here in 8.146, i.e. “(he [Heirom] was the first) to celebrate the awakening of Heracles...,” seeing it as an allusion to a fertility cult initiated by the Tyrian king. This is the Macedonian name for the 4th month of the year, roughly equivalent to January; see Thackeray 1926: 211, n. c. The term denotes the inhabitants of the city of Utica, a Phoenician colony in North Africa.

In Apion 1.112 Josephus mentions that “Dios” is “regarded as an accurate historian of Phoenicia.” The following quotation (8.147-149) from Dios reappears, virtually verbatim, in Apion 1.113-115. Josephus’ quotation of Dios in Apion 1.113 further notes that the temple of Zeus had previously been “isolated on an island.”

Josephus’ quotation from Menander in 8.146 gives Solomon his biblical title of “king” of Jerusalem.

This is the same form of the name given in Josephus’ citation of Menander in 8.146. Compare Apion 1.115, where, quoting Dios, Josephus gives his name as “Abdemoun.” There is no mention of this figure in the biblical accounts of Solomon and his interactions with Hiram. In quoting this (and the related statement of Menander in 8.146), Josephus seems to allow his desire to provide extra-biblical attestation for Solomon to outweigh his concern to portray the king as far superior to all his contemporaries in wisdom (compare 8.42).

Josephus embellishes the passing mention of Solomon’s “building the wall of Jerusalem” in 1 Kgs 9:15. His reference to Solomon’s “renovating” the city’s walls has in view his statement in Ant. 7.66 (// 2 Sam 5:9) that David had already enclosed Jerusalem with a wall; cf. also his notice that Solomon “constructed the walls of Hierosolyma [to be] larger and more solid than they were before” in 8.21. From 9:15 Josephus omits the allusion to Solomon’s building “the Millo,” just as he leaves aside the mention of that site in his version of 2 Sam 5:9 in 7.66.

These names are Josephus’ versions of the first 2 extra-Jerusalemite cities cited in 1 Kgs 9:15, i.e. “Hazor” and “Megiddo.” 1 Kgs 9:16 speaks of the “Canaanites” who lived in “Gaza.” Josephus’ designation of the site as a “Philistine” town reflects other biblical texts (e.g., 1 Sam 6:17) that make it one of the 5 Philistine cities. See 1 Kgs 9:16, where Pharaoh “destroys Gaza with fire.” On the marriage of Pharaoh’s daughter to Solomon, see 8.21.

See 1 Kgs 9:17a. Josephus supplies the motivation for Solomon’s rebuilding of the demolished city. MT 1 Kgs 9:17b “Lower Beth-horon”; LXX BL “Beth-horon the Upper”; MT LXX L 2 Chr 8:5 “Beth-horon the Upper [> LXX B] and Beth-horon the Lower”; Josephus Βητχώρα (Schalit s.v. reads Βαιθώρων). MT (1 Kgs 9:18// 2 Chr 8:5) ‮בעלת‬‎ (Eng.: “Balath,” > LXX BL 9:18); LXX B 2 Chr 8:5 Βαλάα; LXX L 2 Chr 8:5 Βαλάαθ; Josephus Βελέθ (this is the reading of RO that Niese follows; Marcus reads Βαλέθ with the remaining codices).

This transitional notice on Solomon’s “pleasure cities,” leading into Josephus’ account of the building of one such city, i.e. “Tadmor,” has no equivalent in the biblical Solomon accounts. These indications concerning the localization of “Tadmor” (1 Kgs 9:18b// 2 Chr 8:4a) are Josephus’ own.

Josephus supplies this motivation for Solomon’s establishing Tadmor at the particular place where he does in the Syrian desert. The biblical accounts (1 Kgs 9:18b// 2 Chr 8:4a) do not mention Solomon’s building walls for Tadmor. Josephus’ name for the city (Greek: Θαδάμορα) agrees with that found in some MSS of MT 1 Kgs 9:18b, the qere, LXX L, Vulg., and 2 Chr 8:4a. Other MSS of MT 1 Kgs 9:18b read ‮תמר‬‎ (Eng.: “Tamar”), LXX B Ἰεθερμάθ. Josephus appends this notice on the contemporary names of Solomon’s foundation.

With this phrase Josephus introduces an extended excursus (8.155-159) very loosely appended to his reference to the “Pharaoh” in 8.151 and inspired by a notice of Herodotus to which he will allude in 8.157-158. The excursus gives him the opportunity of displaying his knowledge of Egyptian, Greek, and Roman history. Josephus draws the name of the Egyptian king and his status as builder of Memphis from Herodotus, whom he will cite in 8.157-158.

I.e. the name “Pharaoh” that eventually came to mean “king” in Egyptian (see 8.155), the original meaning being something like “great house, palace.” A series of 11 kings, all named “Ptolemy,” ruled Egypt in the period 323-80 BCE.

Greek: αὐτοκράτωρ. Here, as, e.g., in Life 363, 416 Josephus uses the term as an equivalent for Latin imperator, “emperor.” Josephus here alludes to Herodotus’ overview of Egyptian history in 2.99ff.; see Marcus ad loc. On Josephus’ (critical) use of Herodotus, see Bowley 1994: 211-2.

Marcus (ad loc.) notes that in the extant text of Herodotus (see 2.100) the queen’s name is rather “Nitocris.” Twice in 8.157-158 Josephus offers a personal surmise concerning Herodotus’ treatment of the Egyptian rulers, i.e. his not citing the name (“Pharaoh”) of the male kings, given that this was common to all of them following their accession, while naming the one reigning queen, since she did not assume that (male) title.

Here, after the excursus of 8.155-158, based, inter alia, on the non-biblical testimony of Herodotus, Josephus returns to his biblical source (1 Kgs 9:16) and its mention of Pharaoh’s giving of captured Gaza as a dowry to his daughter, the wife of Solomon, to which he previously alluded in 8.151. Josephus alludes here to the use of proper names for post-Solomonic kings of Egypt in the biblical record, see, e.g., “Shishak” who seized Jerusalem in the reign of Solomon’s son Rehoboam (1 Kgs 14:25// 2 Chr 12:6), in contrast to the Bible’s preceding use of the generic title “Pharaoh” for earlier Egyptian kings (see, e.g., Exod 1:11; 2:15; 5:1). In fact, however, the Bible does employ the title of some Egyptian kings after Solomon; see, e.g., 2 Kgs 18:19, where the Rabshakeh alludes to the (nameless) “Pharaoh” of the time of Hezekiah. The reference is to the Egyptian queen “Nikaule” whose name Josephus draws from Herodotus in 8.158, and whom he now proceeds to identify with the anonymous “Queen of Sheba” of 1 Kgs 10:1-13// 2 Chr 9:1-12. Josephus resumes his presentation of this figure in 8.165-175. Having earlier called attention to “Phoenician” evidence corroborating the Bible’s account of Solomon (see 8.55-56, 143-149), Josephus in 8.155-159 adduces comparable Egyptian evidence (or more exactly that of the Greek historian Herodotus concerning Egypt). The reader is thereby left with an impression of a wide-ranging extra-biblical support for the biblical Solomon-story (as also of Josephus’ impressive knowledge of the former material).

The 2 localities cited by Josephus as marking the limits of the territories upon whose subjected inhabitants Solomon imposed tribute take the place of the list of 5 pre-Israelite peoples—among whom the “Canaanites” do not appear—who are mentioned as subject to the royal corvée in 1 Kgs 9:20// 2 Chr 8:7. “Amatheh” is Josephus’ equivalent for the biblical “Hamath.” Josephus goes beyond 1 Kgs 9:15-21// 2 Chr 8:5-8, which speak only of the subjugated peoples’ working on the king’s building projects, in mentioning also the agricultural tasks assigned to them.

See 1 Kgs 9:22a// 2 Chr 8:9a, which call Solomon’s own people “the Israelites.” Apparently, Josephus perceived no contradiction between the above, unqualified statement and his earlier account (8.58-60), based on 1 Kgs 5:12-17 (MT; RSV 5:27-31), of the forced labor that Solomon imposed on the Israelites, i.e. quarrying stones for the temple. Perhaps, he viewed the Israelites’ forced labor on the temple-project as merely a temporary imposition, in contrast to the permanent corvée imposed on the Canaanites. Josephus adds these remarks about the legitimacy of Solomon’s varying treatment of his own people and the earlier inhabitants. See 1 Kgs 9:22// 2 Chr 8:9b, which represent the exempt Israelites as Solomon’s soldiers and officers in command of his chariots and cavalry. Josephus’ remarks in 8.161 on the contrast between the Israelites and the Canaanites are perhaps intended to evoke memories of the Spartan polity, in which the upper classes (“the Spartans”) devoted themselves to military pursuits, while the helots performed menial tasks. On Spartan class structure and the relevant ancient references, see Mitchell 1952: 35-92.

This figure agrees with that given in MT 1 Kgs 9:23 for Solomon’s overseers; elsewhere, their numbers are cited as 3,600 (LXX BL 1 Kgs 2:35h); 250 (MT 2 Chr 8:10); and 520 (LXX BL 2 Chr 8:10). This reference to Solomon’s personal supervisory role is Josephus’ own. It highlights the king’s active involvement in the projects initiated by him, while taking the place of the notices on Pharaoh’s daughter going to her palace and Solomon’s sacrifices in 1 Kgs 9:24-25// 2 Chr 8:11-12(13-15).

The reference is to the Gulf of Aqaba, the eastern arm of the Red Sea. 1 Kgs 9:26 (MT) speaks of “the Sea of Reeds”; compare “the last sea” (LXX BL 1 Kgs 9:26), “on the shore of the sea” (2 Chr 8:17). Josephus has no equivalent to the biblical notices that “the land of Edom” bordered on the sea in question. MT (1 Kgs 9:26// 2 Chr 8:17) ‮עציון־גבר‬‎ (Eng.: “Ezion-geber”); LXX B 1 Kgs 9:26 Ἐμασειών Γάβερ; LXX L 1 Kgs 9:26 Γεσείων Γάβερ; LXX B 2 Chr 8:17 Γασιὼν Γάβερ; LXX L 2 Chr 8:17 Γεσιὼν Γάβερ; Josephus Γασὶων Γάβελος. MT (1 Kgs 9:26) ‮אלות‬‎ (Eng.: “Eloth”); LXX BL Αἰλάθ; MT (2 Chr 8:17) ‮אילות‬‎ (Eng.: “Eloth”); LXX B Αἰλάμ; LXX L Αἰλάθ; Josephus Ἴλανις (Marcus ad loc. reads Αἰλανή, Schalit s.v. Ἠλαθούς). Josephus appends these notices on the site’s contemporary Greek name and the Jews’ earlier possession of it. Compare his added remark on the Greek name for “Thadamor” in 8.154.

See 1 Kgs 9:27a// 2 Chr 8:18aα. Josephus adds the reference to “pilots.” Josephus highlights the stature of Solomon by having him give orders to the seamen sent him by Hiram; in 1 Kgs 9:28// 2 Chr 8:18 Solomon and Hiram’s sailors simply go to Ophir, no preceding command by Solomon being mentioned. MT (1 Kgs 9:28// 2 Chr 8:18) ‮אופירה‬‎ (Eng.: “Ophir”); LXX B 1 Kgs 9:28 Σωφηρά; LXX L 1 Kgs 9:28 // LXX BL 2 Chr 8:18 and Josephus Σωφειρά. Josephus appends these indications concerning the current name and location of “Sopheir.” Various identifications for the region “Ophir” mentioned in MT 1 Kgs 9:28// 2 Chr 8:18 are proposed by modern scholars, e.g., Arabia, Somalia, as well as Josephus’ India. Josephus’ figure agrees with that of the Syriac in 2 Chr 8:18. Compare 420 (MT 1 Kgs 9:28); 120 (LXX BL 1 Kgs 9:28); 450 (MT and LXX BL 2 Chr 8:18).

This designation for the biblical “Queen of Sheba” (LXX Σαβά) picks up on Josephus’ earlier mention of Solomon’s future royal visitor in 8.159, who in turn he identifies with the Egyptian queen “Nikaule” mentioned by Herodotus; see 8.158. This characterization of the woman is Josephus’ own. Greek: ἀρετὴ καὶ φρόνησις. This collocation occurs only here in Josephus. It recalls the triple use of the phrase “intelligence and wisdom” for Solomon in 8.34, 42, 171. The word φρόνησις (“intelligence”) is a Leitwort of Josephus’ account of the visit of the foreign queen (8.165-175), being twice further applied to the king there; see 8.169, 171. Cf. 1 Kgs 10:1a// 2 Chr 9:1, where the queen simply hears of Solomon’s “fame” (10:1a adds “concerning the name of the Lord”). Josephus spells out the nature of Solomon’s “fame” that reaches the queen. Josephus supplies this motivation for the queen’s eventual visit to Solomon.

Josephus appends this reflection about the difference between first- and secondhand knowledge. See 1 Kgs 10:1b// 2 Chr 9:1aβ, where the queen comes to “test” Solomon “with riddles.”

1 Kgs 10:2a// 2 Chr 9:1bα list “spices,” along with gold and precious stones, as the items brought by the queen. Josephus adds this notice on Solomon’s reception of his visitor, highlighting the king’s hospitality. See 1 Kgs 10:3// 2 Chr 9:2. Josephus underscores, not only Solomon’s ability to solve the problems presented to him, but also the speed with which he does so.

Josephus combines the opening words of 1 Kgs 10:4// 2 Chr 9:3 (the queen sees Solomon’s wisdom) and 10:5bβ// 9:4bβ (“there was no more spirit in her”). Josephus transposes into an editorial remark the queen’s direct address “confession” (1 Kgs 10:6-7// 2 Chr 9:5-6)—which he will cite subsequently, see 8.171-173—about her not having been told “the half” of what she now sees of Solomon’s establishment. The remark recalls Josephus’ previous observation about the superiority of personal “experience” over mere hearing about things from others in 8.166. Josephus elaborates on the summary allusion to the queen’s seeing the “house” that Solomon had built in 1 Kgs 10:4// 2 Chr 9:3.

This structure is not mentioned in the list of what the queen sees in 1 Kgs 10:4-5// 2 Chr 9:3-4. Josephus uses this name for the edifice for the first time here in 8.169; in 8.133, in his version of the account concerning the “House of the Forest of Lebanon” of 1 Kgs 7:2-5, he speaks simply of “the building.” See 1 Kgs 10:5a// 2 Chr 9:4a (the queen sees Solomon’s fare and his attendants). Josephus elaborates on the passing allusion in 1 Kgs 10:5aβ (and LXX 2 Chr 9:4aβ) to the queen’s seeing the sacrifices that Solomon brought to the temple, highlighting the clergy’s devotion to their sacrificial duties.

This notice of the effect of what she has seen upon the queen picks up on Josephus’ earlier comment about her reaction to this in 8.168 (cf. 1 Kgs 10:5bβ// 2 Chr 9:4bβ).

See 1 Kgs 10:7// 2 Chr 9:6, where the queen admits that she had “not believed” the reports brought her about Solomon. The queen’s mention of “hearsay” here recalls Josephus’ reflection on “hearsay” vs. “experience” in 8.166. Josephus reverses the order of 1 Kgs 10:6-7// 2 Chr 9:5-6, where the queen confesses her previous “unbelief” only after affirming her present realization of the truth of what she had been told. Greek: σοφία καὶ φρόνησις. Josephus has twice earlier applied this collocation—though with reversal of the component terms—to Solomon; see 8.34, 42. Compare the binomial “virtue and intelligence” in 8.165. See 1 Kgs 10:6// 2 Chr 9:5, where the queen admits that what had been told her about Solomon, his “wisdom” in particular, is indeed “true.”

Josephus’ queen expatiates on the words of her biblical counterpart in 1 Kgs 10:7// 2 Chr 9:6, where she admits that whereas she had not believed what was told her, this itself turned out to be not even the half of what she actually saw upon her arrival. Compare Josephus’ anticipation of the queen’s words here in his editorial comment of 8.168.

Greek: μακάριος. The queen’s declaration here recalls Solomon’s statement that, if they kept the laws of Moses, “the nation of the Hebrews would be happy and more blessed [Greek: μακαριώτερος] than the whole human race” in 8.120. See 1 Kgs 10:8// 2 Chr 9:7, where the queen calls Solomon’s “men [MT; LXX BL: wives] and servants” happy. Josephus adds the reference to the “Hebrew people” as a whole. In 1 Kgs 10:9a// 2 Chr 9:8a the pagan queen herself pronounces the Lord blessed; Josephus has her urge others to praise him. His exhortation to such praise by the people recalls Solomon’s own urging the people to praise God in 8.110, 119. Like 1 Kgs 10:9b// 2 Chr 9:8b, Josephus has the queen associate God’s “love” for Israel with his making Solomon its king. He leaves aside the reference to Solomon’s royal task (“to execute justice and righteousness”) with which the queen’s words end in both biblical verses.

Josephus adds this transitional phrase that underscores Solomon’s effect upon the queen. Both 1 Kgs 10:10 and 2 Chr 9:9 cite a much higher figure, read also by E in 8.174, i.e. 120 talents. Josephus’ 3-item catalogue of the queen’s gifts corresponds to the listing in 1 Kgs 10:10a// 2 Chr 9:9a, just as it recalls his own earlier listing of the gifts with which she came in 8.167 (cf. 1 Kgs 10:2// 2 Chr 9:1). For this notice, Josephus draws on his personal knowledge of contemporary Palestine and its traditions; cf. his references to the “balsam” produced at various Palestinian sites in his own time in War 1.138, 361; 4.469; Ant. 9.8; 14.54; 15.96. The notice takes the place of the indications in 1 Kgs 10:10b (so large an amount of spices/balsam as that brought by the queen never again entered Israel) and 2 Chr 9:9b (the incomparability of the spices/ balsam brought by her).

Josephus anticipates and elaborates upon the notice of 1 Kgs 10:13a// 2 Chr 9:12a about Solomon’s giving the queen whatever she asked of him. In so doing, he accentuates the king’s generosity by having him allow the queen to choose herself what she is to be given. See 8.159, 169 for this designation of the biblical “Queen of Sheba.” See 1 Kgs 10:13b// 2 Chr 9:12b, which also mention the queen’s retinue returning with her.

This is Josephus’ “delayed” use of the parenthetical notice—inserted within their respective stories concerning the queen’s visit—of 1 Kgs 10:11// 2 Chr 9:10. From the biblical lists of products brought to Solomon from “Ophir” (MT)/ “Sopheir,” etc. (LXX) (on Josephus’ notice concerning “the land of gold” as the contemporary name of biblical “Sopheir,” see 8.164), he omits mention of “gold.” In his version, the timber received by the king is “pine” rather than “almug wood,” while he agrees with MT 10:11// 9:10 in speaking of “precious stones” rather than “hewn” (LXX B 10:11)/ “unhewn” (LXX L 10:11) stone. Finally, Josephus leaves aside the biblical specifications concerning the “bringers” of the treasurers, i.e. “the fleet of Hiram” (10:11)/ “the servants of Huram and the servants of Solomon” (9:10). Like LXX, Josephus transliterates the Hebrew names for the 2 types of instruments, while also reversing the order of their occurrence in 1 Kgs 10:12// 2 Chr 9:11. Cf. 8.94, where Solomon is said to have made 4,000 nablai and kinyrai. Josephus expatiates on the reference to the “singers” in 1 Kgs 10:12a// 2 Chr 9:11a, identifying these as “Levites,” and specifying that they sang “to God.” Compare 1 Kgs 10:12b// 2 Chr 9:11b, where the “almug wood” brought to Solomon is said to be of a sort that was never seen before or since.

Josephus here begins his embellishment of the notice on the uniqueness of the (almug) wood brought to Solomon in 1 Kgs 10:12b// 2 Chr 9:11b. As in 8.176, he identifies the wood in question as “pine.”

Josephus appends this rationale for his extended excursus concerning the types of “pine.” Compare his similar formulations explaining the reason for his excursus on the title “Pharaoh” in 8.155, 159.

This figure for the gold brought to Solomon agrees with that given in 1 Kgs 10:14// 2 Chr 9:13, which specify that the amount was delivered annually. See 1 Kgs 10:15// 2 Chr 9:14. Josephus substitutes the Hellenistic title toparch (literally, “ruler of a place”) for the biblical mention of “the governors of the lands.” Josephus’ figure for the number of these shields matches that given in MT 1 Kgs 10:16 and MT LXX BL 2 Chr 9:15. LXX BL 10:16 read 300 spears. Josephus’ figure for the weight of the shields agrees with that cited in MT 1 Kgs 10:16 and MT LXX 2 Chr 9:15. LXX BL 10:16 speak of spears (see previous note), weighing 300 shekels apiece.

Josephus’ figures for the number and weight of the 2nd type of Solomonic shield correspond to those given in 1 Kgs 10:17a// 2 Chr 9:16a. The “mina” (Hebrew: ‮מנה‬‎) corresponds to 50 shekels. See 1 Kgs 10:17b// 2 Chr 9:16b; cf. Josephus’ previous mention of the “Forest of Liban” edifice in 8.169. In the biblical accounts, mention of Solomon’s “shields” (1 Kgs 10:16-17// 2 Chr 9:15-16) is followed immediately by the account of his throne (10:18-20// 9:17-19). Josephus has already spoken of the king’s throne (see 8.140) as an appendix to his description of the palace structures (8.130-139). Accordingly, he now proceeds directly to his description of Solomon’s golden drinking vessels (= 1 Kgs 10:21// 2 Chr 9:20).

See 1 Kgs 10:21// 2 Chr 9:20, which speak of the vessels as those of “the House of the Forest of Lebanon” and state that silver “was not considered as anything in the days of Solomon.” With Josephus’ statement here, compare his reference to Solomon’s increasing the silver supply in Jerusalem in 8.188.

Greek: ἀρετή καὶ σοφία. This collocation occurs only here in Josephus. Compare the binomial ἀρετή καὶ φρόνησις (“virtue and intelligence”) used of Solomon in 8.165. Josephus substitutes mention of Solomon’s “virtue” for the “riches” as that in which, in addition to his “wisdom,” he excelled all other kings according to 1 Kgs 10:23// 2 Chr 9:22. Josephus modifies the wording of the biblical accounts, where it is “all the earth” (1 Kgs 10:24)/ “all the kings of the earth” (2 Chr 9:23) that come(s) to hear Solomon’s God-given wisdom. His formulation here in 8.182 recalls the statements he attributes to the visiting queen, who admits not “believing” the reports she had heard about Solomon due to their “quantity and magnitude” in 8.171-172.

Josephus adds this specification concerning the color of the “garments” spoken of in the list of royal gifts in 1 Kgs 10:25// 2 Chr 9:24. Compare “myrrh [or weapons, Hebrew: ‮נשק‬‎] and spices” (MT 1 Kgs 10:25// 2 Chr 9:24)/ “oil and perfume” (LXX BL 1 Kgs 10:25// 2 Chr 9:24). Neither 1 Kgs 10:25 nor 2 Chr 9:24 mentions “chariots,” coupling the horses given Solomon rather with “mules” (which Josephus will mention in what follows). Josephus here elaborates on the mention of “mules” as the last in the series of gifts given Solomon in 1 Kgs 10:25// 2 Chr 9:24. Without mentioning their (separate) origins, MT 1 Kgs 10:26 and 2 Chr 1:14 assign Solomon a total of 1,400 chariots, this matching Josephus’ combined figure. MT 2 Chr 9:25 speaks rather of 4,000 “stalls for horses and chariots,” while LXX BL 1 Kgs 10:26 and 2 Chr 9:25 mention 4,000 “female horses for chariots (+ for breeding, L 10:26).” In 8.41 Josephus cites Solomon’s 40,000 stalls for his horses and 12,000 horsemen. 1 Kgs 10:26// 2 Chr 9:25; and 2 Chr 1:14 all cite a markedly lower total figure for Solomon’s horses, i.e. 12,000.

These notices on the qualities of Solomon’s horses have no biblical basis. They recall Josephus’ (likewise added) remarks concerning the qualities of the mules given the king in 8.183.

This distance corresponds to ca. 8-10 miles; see Marcus ad loc. Marcus (ad loc.) suggests that this site is to be identified with the “Etame” mentioned in 8.246 (= “Etam” in 2 Chr 11:6) as one of the fortified cities constructed by Rehoboam. The above sequence (8.185-186) concerning Solomon’s entourage and the king’s movements is Josephus’ invention. It highlights the opulence and glamour of his reign.

Greek ἐπίνοια καὶ σπουδή. This collocation is hapax in Josephus. Greek: φιλόκαλος. Josephus’ 2 other uses of this word are in Ant. 12.12, 59 (both times of King Ptolemy II). This whole paragraph is a Josephan creation, designed to highlight those features of Solomon’s reign he is especially concerned to accentuate, i.e. the king’s wisdom, wealth, and self-display. Its mention of Solomon’s attention to the roads is a touch Roman readers would appreciate, given the Romans’ reputation as road-builders.

Josephus now finally rejoins—after the 4-paragraph interlude of 8.184-187—the sequence of the biblical accounts, i.e. 1 Kgs 10:26b// 2 Chr 9:25 (and 1:14), for his mention of the distribution of Solomon’s chariots. See 1 Kgs 10:27a// 2 Chr 9:27a (and 2 Chr 1:15a). Like MT 1 Kgs 10:27// 2 Chr 9:27, Josephus lacks an equivalent to the plus of LXX BL 10:27// 9:27 (and 2 Chr 1:15) according to which Solomon made not only “silver” but also “gold” as plentiful as stones in Jerusalem. Earlier (see 8.181), Josephus, following 1 Kgs 10:21// 2 Chr 9:20, stated that nothing made of silver was bought or sold during Solomon’s reign. MT 1 Kgs 10:27b// 2 Chr 9:27b (and 2 Chr 1:15a) all refer to “the Shephelah,” which LXX translates as “the plain.” Josephus adds the specification “of Judea” to this translation, just as he supplies the reference to the previous non-availability of cedar wood, thereby accentuating the magnitude of Solomon’s achievement.

In specifying 600 drachmas as the price for both a chariot and its team, Josephus conflates the indications of 1 Kgs 10:29// 2 Chr 1:17, which list separate prices for chariot (600 drachmas, MT; vs. 100, LXX BL 2 Chr 1:17) and horse (150 drachmas, MT vs. 50, LXX BL 2 Chr 1:17). He omits the mention of the mysterious “Kue” cited alongside Egypt in 1 Kgs 10:28// 2 Chr 1:16 as another place from which Solomon imported horses. In 1 Kgs 10:29b// 2 Chr 1:17b the horses and chariots are exported to “all the kings of the Hittites and the kings of Syria.” 2 Chr 9:28 lacks a corresponding indication.

Josephus has already used this term (Greek: θεοφιλής) of Solomon in 8.49. Greek: φρόνησις καὶ πλοῦτος. Josephus’ only other use of this collocation is in his concluding evaluation of Solomon in 8.211 (where it is combined with a 3rd term, i.e. εὐδαιμονία [“well-being”]). Josephus’ reference here to Solomon’s excelling his predecessors in wealth stands in seeming tension with his notice that David left behind more wealth than did any other king, whether of the Hebrews or the Gentiles, in Ant. 7.391. Josephus adds this statement, which both looks back to his earlier notices about Solomon’s endowments (see, e.g., 8.24, 49) and forward to the king’s coming defection. He thereby provides a smoother transition between the initial, good period of Solomon’s reign and his later, bad period than does 1 Kings (the Chronicler passes over this latter period entirely), which, after citing the king’s wealth-generating initiatives in 10:26-29, abruptly shifts (11:1) to the subject of the royal love life and its disastrous consequences.

Greek: ἐκμαίνω. Josephus’ only other use of this verb is in War 1.443. Greek: ἀφροδίσιος. Josephus’ one remaining use of this term is in Ant. 7.344, where the aged David is said to be too infirm for “sexual pleasure.” Josephus embellishes the biblical reference to Solomon’s “loving” foreign women (1 Kgs 11:1), underscoring the intensity of the king’s passion, just as he heightens the erotic element in his retelling of biblical episodes often elsewhere; see Moehring 1957; Feldman 1998: 565. On Josephus’ version of the story of Solomon’s foreign wives (1 Kgs 11:1-13) in 8.190-199a, see Begg 1997. Josephus’ 4-element list of the peoples/countries from which Solomon’s foreign wives came is shorter than the 6-member list of MT 1 Kgs 11:1 (the daughter of Pharaoh, Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians, and Hittites) and the 7-item enumeration of LXX BL (this lacks MT’s Sidonians, but adds Syrians and Amorites). On the other hand, he does introduce one group not cited by either MT or LXX, i.e. the Tyrians; elsewhere too Josephus adds a reference to Tyre/the Tyrians, where the Bible speaks only of Sidon/the Sidonians; see Begg 1997: 297, n. 21. Josephus turns into a generalized editorial comment the “quotation” of the Mosaic prohibition of intermarriage (Deut 7:3-4) given in 1 Kgs 11:2 (to which he will make more specific reference in 8.192).

Josephus here synthesizes a series of biblical notices on Solomon’s defection, i.e. his heart being turned away “after other gods” by his wives (1 Kgs 11:4a), his “going after” various foreign deities (Ashtoreth, Milcom: 11:5), and building “high places” for other such divinities (Chemosh, Molech: 11:7) that his wives used in their worship of them (11:8). Such generalizing of biblical cultic particulars is a recurrent feature of Josephus’ rewriting of the Bible; he thereby aims to spare Greco-Roman readers the details of Jewish and other, equally unfamiliar, religious systems. On this characteristic Josephan title (Greek: νομοθέτης) for Moses, see Feldman 1998: 399. Greek: ἀλλοτριόχωρος. Josephus’ one other use of this adjective is in Ant. 3.281. Josephus here alludes more specifically to the intermarriage prohibition of Deut 7:3-4 as cited in 1 Kgs 11:2a, after his generalized reference to the “laws of Moyses” that Solomon transgressed in 8.191.

Compare 1 Kgs 11:2b: Solomon “clung to these [his foreign wives] in love.” With Josephus’ qualification of Solomon’s pleasure-seeking as “irrational,” compare Exod. Rab. 6.1, where the penitent Solomon acknowledges that his earlier thinking himself wiser than the Torah has proved to be “madness and folly.” The phrase “irrational pleasure” (Greek: ἡδονῆ ἀλόγιστος) occurs only here in Josephus. In 1 Kgs 11:3a Solomon’s 700 wives are (all) “princesses.” Josephus’ indication that some of the 700 were drawn from the daughters of (mere) “nobles” might be intended to counteract reader skepticism as to whether Solomon could have found 700 actual princesses to marry. This figure corresponds to that given in 1 Kgs 11:3a. Josephus uses the same Greek word (παλλακαί) for Solomon’s “concubines” as do LXX BL 1 Kgs 11:3a. Josephus’ reference to this woman here represents his delayed utilization of the mention of her in the listing of Solomon’s foreign wives in 1 Kgs 11:1. Greek: εὐνοία καὶ φιλοστοργία. This collocation recurs in Ant. 15.68 and 16.21 (both times in reference to the attachments of King Herod). Here again (see 8.192), Josephus generalizes the more specific indications concerning the cultic initiatives undertaken by Solomon on behalf of his foreign wives cited in 1 Kgs 11:5, 7-8.

Josephus elaborates the reference to Solomon’s being “old” in 1 Kgs 11:4a with mention of the effect of the king’s advanced age upon his intellect. The term “reason” (Greek: λογισμός) here echoes the word “irrational” (Greek: ἀλόγιστος) in the phrase “irrational pleasure” of 8.193.

This transitional phrase, added by Josephus as a lead-in to the specific cultic charges he is about to make against Solomon, recalls his reference to the king’s “transgressing against the laws of Moyses” in 8.191. Earlier (see 8.80, where, however, he calls them “calves”), Josephus—following the biblical accounts— had mentioned these objects without criticism. Here, he represents them as a violation of the biblical prohibition against image-making. As in the case of the oxen (see previous note), Josephus earlier (see 8.140) spoke of the lions that were part of Solomon’s throne complex without any such criticism of them.

Greek: παράδειγμα τῆς ἀρετῆς. This expression recurs in Ant. 17.313; cf. 17.60. Josephus conflates and embellishes the double reference to Solomon’s not living up to the standard set by David in 1 Kgs 11:4b, 6. Josephus anticipates his allusion to the Lord’s 2 previous appearances to Solomon (on these, see 8.22, 125) from 1 Kgs 11:9b-10, which cites as the content of the previous divine communications the warning that Solomon not go after other gods (as he is said to do in 11:5). Josephus’ alternative wording of the Deity’s prior message(s) highlights the exemplary status of David. This appended phrase recalls Josephus’ reference to Solomon’s death being unlike his previous life in 8.190.

In 1 Kgs 11:11 the Lord speaks to Solomon directly. Josephus’ introducing the figure of a prophet between God and the transgressor king has a counterpart in S. ʿOlam Rab. 20.9, where the prophet in question is identified as Ahijah of Shiloh. Josephus will make delayed use of the reference to the Lord’s being “angry with Solomon” of 1 Kgs 11:9a in 8.203. In 1 Kgs 11:11bα the Lord accuses Solomon in more specific terms of having failed to keep “my covenant [MT; LXX BL: commandments] and my statutes.” Once again, Josephus avoids the biblical term “covenant.” The Deity’s announcement in 1 Kgs 11:11bβ is more specific, i.e. he intends to “tear the kingdom” from Solomon and give it to “his servant.” Josephus adds this reference to God’s promise to David concerning Solomon himself; see Ant. 7.93. He thereby accentuates Solomon’s ingratitude towards God who, for his part, has fulfilled his pledge to David.

See 1 Kgs 11:12b, where the Lord speaks more vividly of his intended “tearing the kingdom out of the hand of your [Solomon’s] son.” Josephus adds this reference to a “revolt” by a portion of the people against Solomon’s son. He thereby makes the prophet’s announcement a more precise prediction of the actual course of events—see the reference to the “remainder of the people revolting from the sons of David” in 8.221. In 1 Kgs 11:13a God mentions explicitly only the “one” tribe that he will leave for Solomon’s son. Josephus’ distinction between the 10 rebel tribes and the 2 that will remain faithful to the Davidids is inspired by Ahijah’s subsequent word to Jeroboam in 1 Kgs 11:31-32, 35-36, where LXX BL makes this same 10/2 distinction, while, there as well, MT leaves one tribe unaccounted for in its distinction between 10 versus one tribe(s). In 1 Kgs 11:13bα the Lord qualifies David as “my servant,” a title which Josephus does not use with nearly the same frequency as does the Bible itself; see Schlatter 1932: 49-50. On Josephus’ use of the verb “love” (Greek: ἀγαπάω) with God/divine things as object, see ibid., 154. Compare 1 Kgs 11:13bβ, where the Lord characterizes Jerusalem as (the city) “which I have chosen.”

With this notice Josephus fills a lacuna in the presentation of 1 Kings 11, where there is no mention of Solomon’s reaction to God’s ominous words to him (11:11-13). This transitional phrase, with its allusion to the “prophet” mentioned in 8.197, underscores the rapidity with which the divine judgment upon Solomon begins to be realized. 1 Kings 11 leaves the chronological relation between God’s announcement (vv. 11-13) and its fulfillment (vv. 14-40) indeterminate. Greek: πολέμιος. With this term Josephus translates the Hebrew word ‮שׂטן‬‎ (“satan”) used in MT 1 Kgs 11:14 to qualify “Hadad” as Solomon’s “adversary” (LXX BL transliterate the term). On Josephus’ account of Solomon’s 2 (foreign) opponents, i.e. Hadad (1 Kgs 11:14-22) and Rezin (1 Kgs 11:23-25), see Begg 1996. MT (1 Kgs 11:14) ‮הדד‬‎ (Eng.: “Hadad”) LXX BL Ἁδέρ; Josephus Ἄδερος.

See 1 Kgs 11:14b. Josephus agrees with LXX BL in calling “Ader” an “Idumean” rather than an “Edomite” (so MT). See 1 Kgs 11:15, which Josephus here follows in attributing the devastation of Edom/Idumea to Joab. In Ant. 7.119, by contrast, basing himself on 1 Chr 18:12, he makes Abishai, brother of Joab, the ravager of Edom (in the parallel text, 2 Sam 8:13, David himself ravages Aram [MT; LXX BL: Idumea]). See 1 Kgs 11:17, from which Josephus omits mention of the entourage that accompanied Hadad as well as the fact of his being a “little child” at the moment of his flight. He likewise leaves aside the details concerning the escape route cited in 11:18a.

1 Kgs 11:18b mentions Pharaoh’s gift of “food” as well as a house and land to Hadad. This reference to Hadad’s “growing up” in Egypt lacks a biblical counterpart; it might, however, reflect the reference to his being “a little child” at the time of his flight there (11:17), a detail previously passed over by Josephus. MT (1 Kgs 11:19) ‮תחפניס‬‎ (Eng.: “Tahpenes”); LXX B Θεκεμείνας; LXX L Θεχεμείνας; Josephus Θαφίνη. In the Bible the woman named is the queen herself, rather than her sister, the wife of Hadad. Josephus omits the biblical name of this son, i.e. MT (1 Kgs 11:20) ‮גנבת‬‎ (Eng.: “Genubath”); LXX BL Γανηβάθ. 1 Kgs 11:20 further notes that Hadad’s son was “weaned in Pharaoh’s house.”

See 1 Kgs 11:21. Josephus embellishes the exchange between Pharaoh and Hadad as related in 1 Kgs 11:22, noting both the latter’s repeated requests of the former, and Pharaoh’s on-going rebuff of those requests.

This phrase reflects the statement—previously passed over by Josephus—that the Lord “was angry with Solomon” of 1 Kgs 11:9a. For this sequence Josephus draws on, while also expanding, the LXX BL plus in 1 Kgs 11:22: “and he [Pharaoh]) sent Ader to his own country.” Subsequently too, he will make use of the alternative presentation of LXX BL in tracing the later career of “Ader”; see 8.205. These notices on Ader’s (Hadad’s) career after his leaving Egypt lack a biblical foundation. The added mention of the failure of Ader’s effort to wrest Idumea from Solomon motivates the rebel’s resultant move to Syria. The latter notice, in turn, prepares Josephus’ subsequent reference to Ader’s becoming king of Syria in 8.204.

MT (1 Kgs 11:23) ‮רזון‬‎ (Eng.: “Rezon”); Josephus Ῥάζος (this figure appears together with “Ader” in LXX BL 1 Kgs 11:14 under the name of Ἐσρών). Josephus omits Rezon’s patronymic, i.e. “Eliada” (MT). He likewise has no equivalent to the reference to the Lord’s “raising Rezon up against” Solomon of 1 Kgs 11:23, whereas he does reproduce the similar notice concerning Hadad of 1 Kgs 11:14 in 8.199. MT (1 Kgs 11:23) ‮הדדעזר‬‎ (Eng.: “Hadadezer”); LXX B (11:14) Ἁδράζαρ; LXX L (11:14) Ἀδραάζαρ; Josephus Ἀδραάζαρος. MT (1 Kgs 11:23) ‮צובה‬‎ (Eng.: “Zobah”); LXX BL (1 Kgs 11:14) Σουβά; Josephus Σωφήνη. Josephus mentions “Adrazar, king of Sophene” as one of those defeated by David in Ant. 7.98 (// 2 Sam 8:3). 1 Kings 11 does not explicitly mention such a coalition of “Hadad” and “Rezon” (note, however, the paralleling of the 2 figures’ “trouble-making” in 11:25). Josephus prepared his notice on the pair’s relationship with his reference to Ader’s going to Syria in 8.203. Cf. 1 Kgs 11:24a, which speaks of Rezon’s “becoming leader of a marauding band.” Josephus makes “Ader” (Hadad) the head of the marauders and omits the further biblical specification that this happened “after the slaughter by David,” the referent of which is unclear. Josephus’ reference to Ader’s move to Syria here picks up his earlier, initial mention of this move in 8.203. In MT 1 Kgs 11:24b it is rather Rezon who settles “in Damascus” and becomes king there; compare LXX BL, which has “Ader” ruling over “Idumea.” For the above sequence, with its focus on “Ader,” Josephus is clearly basing himself on, while also modifying, the alternative presentation of LXX BL as opposed to the Rezon-centered account in MT 1 Kgs 11:24b-25 (here it is Rezon who becomes king over Damascus/Syria and is Israel’s “enemy” throughout Solomon’s reign). This alternative LXX presentation (1 Kgs 11:25b) reads: “This was the evil which Ader did: he oppressed Israel and reigned in the land of Idumea.”

MT (1 Kgs 11:26) ‮ירבעם‬‎ (Eng.: “Jeroboam”); LXX BL Ἰεροβοάμ; Josephus Ἱεροβόμος. On Josephus’ version of the introduction of Jeroboam in 1 Kgs 11:26-40, see Begg 1996-1997 and on the Josephan Jeroboam overall, Feldman 1998a: 230-43. MT (1 Kgs 11:26) ‮נבט‬‎ (Eng.: “Nebat”); LXX B Ναβάθ; LXX L Ναβάτ; Josephus Ναβαταῖος. Josephus omits the further datum of 11:26, i.e. Jeroboam’s being an “Ephraimite of Zeredah.” Josephus here foreshadows the prediction made to Jeroboam by the prophet Ahijah in 1 Kgs 11:29-39 that he will reproduce in 8.206b-208. In so doing he provides, already at this point, a motivation for Jeroboam’s revolt against Solomon that is mentioned in 1 Kgs 11:26 without any such motivation being cited. Josephus omits the name of Jeroboam’s widowed mother (MT: “Zeruah”) from 1 Kgs 11:27. The plus of LXX BL 1 Kgs 12:24a calls her a “harlot” (Greek: πόρνη). Greek: γενναῖος καὶ τολμηρός. Josephus applies this same collocation (in reverse order) to Nimrud in Ant. 1.113. Josephus rearranges and conflates the data of 1 Kgs 11:27b (Solomon builds the Millo and “closes up the breach of the city of David”) and 11:28a (Solomon recognizes Jeroboam’s ability). In so doing, he ascribes an active role to Jeroboam in the wall-building project that the Bible itself does not mention. The reference to Solomon’s “walling” of Jerusalem recalls the notices on this initiative by the king in 8.21, 150.

See 1 Kgs 11:28b, which has Solomon appointing Jeroboam “over all the forced labor of the house of Joseph.” Josephus’ reformulation avoids a “contradiction” with his earlier statement in 8.161, according to which Solomon “enslaved none of the Hebrews.” MT (1 Kgs 11:29) ‮אחיה‬‎ (Eng.: “Ahijah”); LXX B Ἀχείας; LXX L Ἀχεία; Josephus Ἀχίας. The Bible calls him a “Shilonite.” This “greeting” is not mentioned in 1 Kings 11; it takes the place of the notice in 11:29bα on Ahijah’s having previously donned “a new garment.” Josephus’ formulation explains how it was that the 2 men came to be alone together as they are said to be in 1 Kgs 11:29bβ.

See 1 Kgs 11:30-31a. Josephus appends this legitimation of Ahijah’s order to Jeroboam as cited in 1 Kgs 11:31a. See 1 Kgs 11:35a (compare 11:32, where the kingdom is to be “torn” from the hand of Solomon himself). In opting to reproduce the announcement of 11:35a (Solomon’s son will be deprived of the kingship) rather than 11:32 (Solomon himself is to lose the kingship), Josephus takes care to harmonize Ahijah’s statement to Jeroboam here with the earlier message he has “the prophet” deliver to Solomon in 8.197-198. Josephus agrees with LXX B (cf. L) 1 Kgs 11:32, 36 (and his own 8.198) against MT in having the Davidids promised future rule over 2, rather than merely one tribe. The Josephan Ahijah’s reference to “the promise made to David,” for its part, seems inspired by the double statement concerning the purpose of the Lord’s leaving Solomon’s son one (MT; LXX: 2) tribe(s) in 11:32 (“for the sake of my servant David...”) and 11:36b (“that David... may always have a lamp before me in Jerusalem...”). In 1 Kings 11, Ahijah delivers this message twice; see vv. 31bβ and 35b. In this rendition of Ahijah’s accusation against Solomon of 1 Kgs 11:33, Josephus generalizes its catalogue of foreign deities, just as he does those of 1 Kgs 11:5, 7 in 8.192, 194. He adds the allusion to Solomon’s falling under the influence of his wives, this recalling his statements on the matter in 8.191, 193.

Josephus adds this transition to Ahijah’s following exhortation to Jeroboam (cf. 1 Kgs 11:38a). This is Josephus’ expanded version of Ahijah’s conditional promise to Jeroboam in 1 Kgs 11:38, in which the latter is informed that if he imitates David in his obedience to the Lord’s commandments, the Lord in turn will build him the same “sure house” he did for David and give Israel to him. Like LXX B, Josephus lacks an equivalent to the appended announcement of MT and LXX L 11:39 that the Lord will “afflict” David’s descendants, but “not for ever.”

Josephus supplies this transitional notice on Jeroboam’s character and the impact of Ahijah’s words upon him as a motivation for the former’s revolt—a matter to which he already made a preliminary allusion in 8.205 (cf. 1 Kgs 11:26-27a). Josephus elaborates and renders more specific the double, figurative mention of Jeroboam’s “lifting up his hand against Solomon” in 1 Kgs 11:26-27a (cf. 8.205, where he speaks of Jeroboam’s “attacking” Solomon).

Josephus adds this transitional phrase, motivating Solomon’s move against Jeroboam as cited in 1 Kgs 11:41aα. This transitional phrase is a Josephan addition. MT (1 Kgs 11:40) ‮שישק‬‎ (Eng.: “Shishak”); LXX BL Σουσακείμ; Josephus Ἴσακος (Schalit s.v. reads Σούσακος, the form of the king’s name found in Ant. 7.105, with E). To the biblical notice (1 Kgs 11:40bβ) about Jeroboam’s remaining in Egypt until Solomon’s death, Josephus appends a statement about the advantages that accrued to him from staying there.

See 1 Kgs 11:43aα// 2 Chr 9:31aα, whose figurative language (“Solomon slept with his fathers”) Josephus converts into its prosaic equivalent. In line with his standard practice, Josephus omits the “source notice” for Solomon’s reign of 1 Kgs 11:41// 2 Chr 9:29. Josephus doubles the biblical figure for Solomon’s length of reign, i.e. 40 years given in 1 Kgs 11:42// 2 Chr 9:30. He has no parallel to the long plus, (partially) equivalent to MT 1 Kgs 12:2, that follows the mention of his Solomon’s length of reign in 11:42 in LXX BL, i.e. “and Solomon slept with his fathers and they buried him in the city of David his father [= 11:43a, MT]. And when Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who was still in Egypt whither he had fled from the face of Solomon and dwelt in Egypt, heard that Solomon was dead, he straightaway came to his city to Sarira on Mount Ephraim.” The biblical accounts provide no indication concerning Solomon’s age at death. Josephus’ figure makes Solomon 14 at his accession, a datum that would accord with the portrayal of him as a precocious youth in 8.21. Eupolemus (“fragment 3,” in the extract of Alexander Polyhistor preserved in Eusebius, Praep. ev. 34.20) states that Solomon lived 52 years, of which he reigned for 40, this making him 12 at the moment of his accession. See MT 1 Kgs 11:43aβ// 2 Chr 9:31aβ, which have Solomon buried “in the city of David.” In LXX BL 1 Kings 11 reference to Solomon’s burial is incoporated into the long plus that follows 11:42 (see note to “years” at 8.211), and the king’s burial is not mentioned in BL’s version of 11:43. Josephus’ appended eulogy for Solomon recalls God’s promise to him in 8.24, while its mention of the king’s “wealth and intelligence” uses the same binomial applied to him in 8.190 (there in reverse order). This qualification to his preceding positive appreciation of Solomon recalls Josephus’ comments on the aged king in 8.191. Marcus (ad loc.) suggests that Josephus is here making an anticipatory allusion to his subsequent account of Pharaoh Shishak’s invasion of Judah under Solomon’s successor, Rehoboam in 8.253-262.

MT ‮רחבעם‬‎ (Eng.: “Rehoboam”); LXX Ῥοβόαμ; Josephus Ῥοβόαμος. On Josephus’ account of the division of the kingdom that occurred under Rehoboam in 8.212-224 (// 1 Kgs 12:1-24// 2 Chr 10:1-11:4), see Begg 1993: 7-29. On the Josephan Rehoboam in general, see Feldman 1998a: 244-62. MT (1 Kgs 14:21, 31// 2 Chr 12:13) ‮נעמה‬‎ (Eng.: “Naamah”); LXX B 1 Kgs 14:21 Μααχάμ; LXX L 1 Kgs 14:21 (and LXX L 2 Chr 12:13) Ναανά; LXX B 2 Chr 12:13 Νοομμά; Josephus Νοομά (Schlatter s.v. and Schalit s.v. read Νααμά on the basis of Lat “Naama”). Josephus anticipates his mention of her from the conclusion of the biblical accounts of Rehoboam. In so doing, he situates the naming of the royal mother at its normal position in both Kings and Chronicles. See 1 Kgs 11:43b// 2 Chr 9:31b. See 1 Kgs 12:3a (MT; LXX BL have no equivalent to MT’s 12:2-3aα)// 2 Chr 10:3a. Josephus specifies the identity of those who summon Jeroboam (in LXX B 2 Chr 10:3a an indeterminate “he” does this). Josephus has no equivalent to the notices of MT 1 Kgs 12:2// 2 Chr 10:2 on Jeroboam’s hearing of the Shechem assembly in Egypt to which he had fled from Solomon and where he now either remains (so 12:2) or returns from (so 10:2; cf. the plus of LXX BL 1 Kgs 11:42, which has Jeroboam hearing of the death of Solomon while in Egypt and returning, on his own volition, to “his city Sarira on Mount Ephraim”). In thus specifying Jeroboam’s destination, Josephus draws on 1 Kgs 12:1// 2 Chr 10:1, where “Shechem” is twice mentioned as the site of the following happening. Compare the plus of LXX BL 1 Kgs 11:42 (see previous note), where Jeroboam returns to his home town of “Sarira” upon hearing of Solomon’s death. See 1 Kgs 12:1// 2 Chr 10:1, where the reference is to “all Israel” coming to Shechem.

In citing Jeroboam by name as among those who approach Rehoboam, Josephus agrees with MT 1 Kgs 12:3b// 2 Chr 10:3b against LXX BL 1 Kgs 12:3b, where Jeroboam—who in the LXX plus of 1 Kgs 11:42 is said to have gone to “Sarira” (see the note to “Sikima” at 8.212)—is not mentioned. Josephus’ reference to “the rulers” recalls his mention of these figures as those who summon Jeroboam in 8.212. Compare “all the assembly of Israel” (MT 1 Kgs 12:3b and LXX BL 2 Chr 10:3b)/ “all Israel” (MT 2 Chr 10:3b). See 1 Kgs 12:4abα// 2 Chr 10:4abα. Josephus amplifies the speakers’ appeal with the request that Rehoboam show himself “kinder” than his father. Josephus expatiates on the speakers’ laconic assertion in 1 Kgs 12:4bβ// 2 Chr 10:4bβ: “and we will serve you [Rehoboam].” On kingship leading to “slavery,” see Samuel’s words to the people as reported in Ant. 6.40-41. The speakers’ claim about their “loving slavery” (Greek: ἀγαπᾶν τῆν δουλείαν) under Rehoboam recalls Adonijah’s assertion that he “loved slavery” to Solomon in 8.4.

See 1 Kgs 12:5a// 2 Chr 10:5a. Josephus amplifies Rehoboam’s dismissal of the speakers, having him commit himself to reply to them once they return. Greek: τὸ χρηστὸν καὶ φιλάνθρωπον. Josephus uses the noun equivalents of this pair of nominalized adjectives of Gedaliah in Ant. 10.164. Compare the phrase “the goodness and loving kindness [Greek: ἡ χρηστότης καὶ ἡ φιλανθρωπία) of God our Savior...” in Tit 3:4 and see Spicq 1958: 176, n. 1. Josephus adds this whole sequence concerning the conflicting emotions engendered by Rehoboam’s initial response to his interlocutors. It replaces the notice of 1 Kgs 12:5b// 2 Chr 10:5b that the people did “depart” following Rehoboam’s (preliminary) response to them.

See 1 Kgs 12:6// 2 Chr 10:6. In line with his frequent practice, Josephus substitutes a reference to Solomon’s “friends” for the biblical phrase “the old men who stood before Solomon.” On the Hellenistic-Roman category of royal “friends,” see Spicq 1978 (II): 940-43. Josephus adds this characterization of Solomon’s “friends.” He thereby intimates his positive evaluation of their subsequent advice. Josephus’ version of the advice given Rehoboam by Solomon’s “friends” with its call for a “popular” (Greek: δημοτικός) response seems to conflate 1 Kgs 12:7a (where the advisers begin by urging him to be a “servant to this people and serve them”) and 2 Chr 10:7a (where Rehoboam is initially advised to be “kind to this people”). The advice given to Rehoboam in Josephus has a counterpart in Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 7.54.4, where Marcius is urged to “descend... to a more democratic behavior”; see Begg 1993: 16, n. 59. See 1 Kgs 12:7b// 2 Chr 10:7b, where the elders assure Rehoboam that if he follows their advice “they [the people] will be your servants for ever.” Josephus appends this conclusion to the older advisors’ words to Rehoboam as reported in 1 Kgs 12:7 // 2 Chr 10:7. It picks up on his—likewise added—reference to their “knowing the nature of mobs” earlier in 8.215.

Josephus’ addition of this (qualifiedly) positive evaluation of the older friends’ advice picks up on his earlier favorable characterization of the friends themselves in 8.215. With the course suggested by the older advisors here in 8.215-216, compare that adopted by Archelaus in expectation of his being appointed king after Herod’s death as reported by Josephus in War 2.1-9. See 1 Kgs 12:8a// 2 Chr 10:8a. Josephus’ appended “theological” explanation of Rehoboam’s rejection of the elders’ counsel is an anticipation of the editorial comment of 1 Kgs 12:15b// 2 Chr 10:15b, concerning Rehoboam’s answering the people in accordance with the advice of his own contemporaries. See 1 Kgs 12:8b// 2 Chr 10:8b. Rehoboam’s telling his contemporaries what the elders had said is Josephus’ addition. Having already rejected the elders’ advice himself, Rehoboam now wants to provoke his fellows to offer him contrary advice by informing them of the elders’ words. See 1 Kgs 12:9// 2 Chr 10:9. Josephus avoids the largely verbatim citation of the people’s words of 12:4a// 10:4a present in the biblical Rehoboam’s address to the younger men.

Josephus prefaces the younger men’s words with this double explanation of how they came to proffer such foolish advice. The theological component of this explanation recalls that adduced for Rehoboam’s own rejection of the elders’ advice in 8.216. The “youthful hothead” is a topos of classical literature; see, e.g., the characterization of the young Cataline in Sallust, Bel. Cat. 5 and the more general remarks of Cicero, Cael. 18.42. See 1 Kgs 12:10// 2 Chr 10:10, from which Josephus omits the younger men’s “citation” of the people’s words of 12:4// 10:4. Josephus’ explicit mention of Rehoboam’s “little finger” has a parallel in LXX BL 2 Chr 10:10, whereas MT and LXX BL 12:10 and MT 10:10 read “my littleness.” This is Josephus’ only use of the word ὀσφύς (“loin”), a term found mainly in Greek biological and medical writings. It seems an obvious euphemism for τὸ αἰδοῖον (“penis”), which Josephus reserves for vivid, quasi-medical contexts (see War 1.656; Ant. 17.169; Apion 2.143), rather different from the vulgar braggadocio of the young friends’ response (I owe these terminological observations to Prof. Steve Mason). See further Begg 1993: 18, n. 77. Josephus transposes into a prosaic statement the “yoke-imagery” language used by the younger men in 1 Kgs 12:11a// 2 Chr 10:11a, which itself echoes that of 12:4, 10a// 10:4, 10a. See 1 Kgs 12:11b// 2 Chr 10:11b, whose figurative reference to “scorpions” Josephus, rather exceptionally, retains.

Josephus adds this notice on the emotional effect of the younger men’s advice upon Rehoboam. Note the contrast with 8.215, where the older friends (unavailingly) urge Rehoboam to “speak in a friendly and more popular vein rather than one in keeping with the royal dignity.” See 1 Kgs 12:12// 2 Chr 10:12. Like LXX BL in both biblical verses, Josephus does not mention Jeroboam by name as among those returning to Rehoboam at this point. Compare 8.213, where—unlike LXX BL 1 Kgs 12:3—he does cite Jeroboam approaching Rehoboam along with “the rulers of the people.” Josephus appends this notice on the people’s mindset that recalls his mention of their reaction to Rehoboam’s putting them off in 8.214. The addition here in 8.218 underscores the irony of the situation, since the reader—unlike the suspense-filled people— already knows how Rehoboam intends to answer them. The adjective “humane” (Greek: φιλάνθρωπον) here echoes the use of the same term in 8.214 [where it is rendered “humanity”] and combined with the word “kindness”. See 1 Kgs 12:13-14// 2 Chr 10:13-14. Josephus leaves aside Rehoboam’s “quotation” (12:14b// 10:14b) of the younger men’s words to him about the use of “scorpions” in place of his father’s “whips” from 12:11b// 10:11b// 8.217. See 1 Kgs 12:15// 2 Chr 10:15. Josephus has already alluded to the fulfillment of Ahijah’s prophecy (on this, see 8.207-208) in his appended remark concerning Rehoboam’s rejection of the older friends’ advice in 8.216.

Here again (see 8.214, 218) Josephus adds a reference to the people’s emotional state. See 1 Kgs 12:16a// 2 Chr 10:16a, where the people assert that they “have no portion or inheritance in David/the son of Jesse.” Compare 1 Kgs 12:16bα// 2 Chr 10:16bα, where “David” (i.e., his grandson Rehoboam) is called on to “look to his own house [dynasty].” Josephus takes the biblical term “house” in the sense of “sanctuary.” That sanctuary had of course actually been built by Solomon, but the plan and the gathering of the materials were due to David, such that its construction might be attributed to him, as Josephus has the Israelites doing here. Compare Ant. 1.227, where Josephus refers to the site of Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac as the mountain upon which “David later built the temple.” He leaves aside the people’s cry, “to your tents, O Israel,” that precedes their reference to David’s house in the above biblical texts. In 1 Kgs 12:16bβ// 2 Chr 10:16bβ the Israelites actually do “disperse to their tents,” following their preceding verbal response to Rehoboam. Josephus omits the appended notice of 1 Kgs 12:17// 2 Chr 10:17 about those Israelites who dwelt in the cities of Judah remaining faithful to Rehoboam, which appears extraneous in its context.

Josephus supplies this allusion to the people’s emotional state as an explanation of the treatment they will subsequently mete out to Rehoboam’s envoy in 1 Kgs 12:18a// 2 Chr 10:18a. Josephus has mentioned this figure and his office previously in Ant. 7.259; 8.59. Greek: προπετὲς καὶ δύσκολον. This is Josephus’ only use of this collocation. Josephus goes beyond 1 Kgs 12:18aα// 2 Chr 10:18aα in spelling out the purpose of Adoram’s mission. In so doing, he gives a more favorable depiction of Rehoboam, who immediately acknowledges the mistake he has made and seeks to make amends for this; see Feldman 1998a: 258. See 1 Kgs 12:18aβ// 2 Chr 10:18aβ.

See 1 Kgs 12:18b// 2 Chr 10:18b. Josephus prefaces his mention of Rehoboam’s flight with an allusion to the king’s emotional state that prompts this. Josephus derives the identity of the 2 tribes that acknowledge Rehoboam’s rule from 1 Kgs 12:21// 2 Chr 11:1, where he musters these against the Israelites. In having these 2 tribes actually confer the kingship on Rehoboam, he establishes a parallelism between him and Jeroboam, whose appointment by the Israelites is cited in 1 Kgs 12:20a. Josephus leaves aside the statement of 12:20b that only Judah followed the house of David, which stands in tension with the following reference (12:21) to Benjamin’s being under Rehoboam’s command as well. According to 1 Kgs 12:19// 2 Chr 10:19 the Israelites’ rebellion has persisted “to this day.” Josephus’ modification reflects the fact that both the Israelite and Davidic kingdoms had long since ceased to exist. See 1 Kgs 12:20a (no equivalent in the Judah-centered presentation of Chronicles).

See 1 Kgs 12:21// 2 Chr 11:1.

Compare 1 Kgs 12:22// 2 Chr 11:2, where the figure is named “Shemaiah” (Weill ad loc., on the basis of its appearance in Zon and Lat, holds that the name originally stood in Josephus’ text as well) and called “the man of God” (Josephus’ substitution of “prophet” for this title is paralleled in the targumic renderings of both biblical passages). Josephus leaves aside the “commissioning formula” (“say to Rehoboam....”) which introduces Shemaiah’s discourse of 1 Kgs 12:24// 2 Chr 11:4 in 12:23// 11:3. In 1 Kgs 12:24aα// 2 Chr 11:4aα Rehoboam and his forces are told by Shemaiah not to proceed against the Israelites, but rather to return to their homes. Josephus’ version recasts the prophet’s commands as a statement about the wrongfulness of the proposed attack, this reflecting the historian’s preoccupation with the horrors of intra-Jewish conflict; see Feldman 1998a: 253-4. Compare Shemaiah’s closing word in 1 Kgs 12:24a// 2 Chr 11:4a, i.e. “this thing is from me [God].” In 1 Kgs 12:24b// 2 Chr 11:4b it is Rehoboam’s whole force that, in obedience to the divine word, “turns back.” Josephus’ formulation highlights Rehoboam personally and his readiness to comply with God’s directive. In this connection, Feldman (1998a: 259) points out the contrast between the Kings Rehoboam and Archelaus, son of Herod (see War 2.4-13// Ant. 17.204-218) in Josephus’ presentation. Like the former, Archelaus is asked at the start of his reign to lighten the burdens imposed by his father. Later his envoy to the people is stoned by them as well. In contrast to Rehoboam, however, Archelaus ends up leading his army against the recalcitrant people and massacring them. The contrast serves to highlight the stature of Rehoboam, who acknowledges the wrongfulness of shedding Jewish blood.

With this added remark Josephus gives readers advance notice of the sequence in which he intends to treat the 2 rulers, rather than leaving them to discover this for themselves, as does the author of Kings. Such “hints to the reader” are a recurrent feature of Josephus’ rewriting of the Bible. Josephus has no equivalent to the long “miscellany” of items drawn from other contexts in Kings that follows MT 1 Kgs 12:24 as 12:24a-z in LXX BL.

On Josephus’ version of 1 Kgs 12:25-31 (no equivalent in 2 Chronicles), the account of Jeroboam’s initial religio-political measures in 8.225-229, see Begg 1993: 30-40. See 1 Kgs 12:25a, which speaks of Jeroboam’s “building Shechem.” Josephus’ rewording of this notice reflects the fact that Shechem was an already existing city at this point (see 12:1). MT (1 Kgs 12:25b) ‮פנואל‬‎ (Eng.: “Penuel”); LXX and Josephus Φανουήλ. Josephus derives this dating indication from 1 Kgs 12:32, which refers to Jeroboam’s instituting “a feast on the 15th day of the 8th month like the feast that was in Judah.” This feast was intended both to parallel and rival the existing autumn feast of Tabernacles that began on the 15th day of the 7th month (see, e.g., Lev 23:34). See further 8.230. See Jeroboam’s self-reflection as cited in 1 Kgs 12:26-27, to which Josephus adds the reference to the Israelite pilgrims’ being “captivated” by the Jerusalem sanctuary and its cult. In 1 Kgs 12:28aα Jeroboam “takes counsel” before proceeding with his deviant initiatives. Josephus attributes the following reprobate measures to the king alone.

Like LXX BL 1 Kgs 12:28aβ, Josephus uses a feminine form (δαμάλ(ε)ις, “heifers”) for Jeroboam’s creations, whereas MT refers to them as “(male) calves.” 1 Kings 12 does not mention these new constructions at sites, i.e. Bethel and Dan, that were already established cultic centers. This added reference to the localization of Dan has a counterpart in Ant. 5.178 and War 4.3. See Begg 1993: 33, n. 172. See 1 Kgs 12:29, where Jeroboam’s placement of the calves follows his address to the people (12:28b) concerning them. Josephus has the king set the heifers in place before beginning his discourse. See 1 Kgs 12:28bα; Josephus adds mention of Jeroboam’s prior act of assembling the people. The royal discourse that follows in 8.227-228 represents a large-scale embellishment of the king’s compressed statement in 1 Kgs 12:28bβγ.

Jeroboam’s opening word here recalls the affirmation concerning God’s “ubiquity” as formulated by Solomon at the dedication of the temple; see 8.107-108. Jeroboam thus makes ironic use of the words of Solomon, the founder of the Jerusalem temple, to support his contention that Solomon’s temple is not the only legitimate place of worship. For similar statements about God’s omnipresence in Josephus’ writings, see War 1.630; Ant. 2.24; 6.263, and cf. Begg 1993: 35, n. 180. Compare Jeroboam’s opening word to the people in 1 Kgs 12:28bβ: “you have gone up to Jerusalem long enough.” Josephus’ added references to the length of the journey and Jerusalem’s status as an “enemy city” provide an implicit motivation as to why the Israelites should not be “allowed” by him to go there.

As in 8.227, the Josephan Jeroboam echoes Solomon’s words at the dedication of the temple (see 8.108, where the latter avers “I have built this sanctuary to your [God’s] name...)” in support of his assertion that he (Jeroboam) has done something quite analogous (and equally legitimate) in constructing shrines for the heifers. In 1 Kgs 12:28bγ Jeroboam identifies the calves themselves as “god(s).” Josephus’ king takes care to make them rather objects “dedicated to God.” Having informed the audience of his initiative as cited in 8.226, Jeroboam now provides a motivation for his action, i.e. to provide a convenient place of worship for all his subjects as compared with the distant (see 8.227) Jerusalem. Josephus makes a part of Jeroboam’s speech to the people the additional reprobate action attributed to him in 1 Kgs 12:31b, i.e. “appointing priests from among the people who were not Levites.” At the same time, he also introduces the distinction—drawn from the Priestly and Chronistic strata of the Bible—between 2 groups of cultic officers, i.e. priests and Levites, both of whom Jeroboam intends to dispossess. Josephus leaves aside the further charge made against Jeroboam in 12:31a, i.e. he “made houses on the high places.” This exhortation by Jeroboam has no counterpart in the account of 1 Kgs 12:25-31. Marcus (ad loc.) points out that the pair of victims prescribed by Jeroboam as an “induction sacrifice” for his cultic officials corresponds to that enjoined for the high priest’s entry into the inner sanctuary on the Day of Atonement; see Lev 16:3. See Begg (1993: 37, n. 193) on further possible biblical inspirations for Josephus’ formulation here.

This is Josephus’ elaboration of the summary evaluative remark concerning Jeroboam’s initiatives in 1 Kgs 12:30 (“this thing became a sin, for the people went to the one [calf image] in Bethel and to the other as far as Dan”), highlighting Jeroboam’s responsibility for the people’s cultic deviations. With this notice on the consequences of Jeroboam’s misleading the people Josephus looks ahead to the ultimate demise of the northern kingdom that he will relate in Ant. 9.277-291. Compare the similar foreshadowing remark with which Josephus concludes his account of Solomon at the end of 8.211.

This is the Feast of Tabernacles mentioned in 8.225. Compare 1 Kgs 12:32 (and cf. 12:33), where Jeroboam institutes a feast on the 15th day of the 8th month “like the feast that was in Jerusalem.” In Josephus Jeroboam more closely mimics the Jerusalem Feast of Tabernacles by celebrating his own festival in the same 7th month as this. Josephus supplies these 2 preliminaries (building the altar, assuming [high] priestly rank) to Jeroboam’s initiative of “mounting” the Bethel altar that is mentioned in 1 Kgs 12:33aα. 1 Kgs 12:32-33 does not explicitly refer to Jeroboam’s being accompanied by “other priests” as he ascends the Bethel altar and offers sacrifice. Josephus may, however, have found inspiration for his mention of such accompanying priests in the notice of 1 Kgs 12:32b that Jeroboam “placed in Bethel the priests of the high places he had made.”

Compare 1 Kgs 13:1, where Jeroboam is “standing by the altar to burn incense” as the confrontation between him and the man of God from Judah begins. On Josephus’ version of that confrontation (1 Kgs 12:32-13:34) in 8.231-245, see Begg 1993: 41-63. 1 Kgs 13:1 calls Jeroboam’s antagonist “a man of God out of Judah.” Josephus substitutes an alternative title in line with his usual practice, just as he makes the figure arrive specifically “from Hierosolyma,” i.e. Bethel’s Judean equivalent and rival. The Judean “man of God” in 1 Kgs 13:1 is nameless. Josephus’ name for him has a counterpart in y. Sanh. 89; t. Sanh. 14.10. Both he and rabbinic tradition likely drew the name from 2 Chr 9:29, which refers to the “visions of Iddo (MT; LXX Ἰωήλ) the seer” against Jeroboam. See further Begg (1993: 44, n. 214) for alternative proposals concerning the origin of Josephus’ name for the figure. See 1 Kgs 13:2a. Josephus adds the explicit mention of the “crowd” and to Jeroboam himself as witnesses to the proceedings.

MT (1 Kgs 13:2) ‮יאשיהו‬‎ (Eng.: “Josiah”); LXX BL Ἰωσείας; Josephus Ἰωσίας. Greek: ψευδιερεῖς. Josephus’ only other use of this term is in Ant. 9.133, where it denotes the Baal clergy exterminated by Jehu. The language of “truth” and “falsity” permeates—often with an ironic twist— Josephus’ version of the Bethel incident. Compare 1 Kgs 13:2bα: “the priests of the high places who burn incense upon you [i.e. the altar, which the Judean is addressing].” Greek: λαοπλάνος. This word is hapax in Josephus. Josephus pejoratively embellishes the Judean’s concluding announcement to the altar in 1 Kgs 13:2, i.e. “men’s bones shall be burned upon you.” Josephus adds this rationale for the “sign” the Judean will announce in 1 Kgs 13:3. See 1 Kgs 13:3a, where the Judean “gives” the sign. On Josephus’ use of “sign terminology,” see Remus 1982: 543-4. Compare 1 Kgs 13:3b, where the Judean predicts that the altar’s “ashes” will be “poured out.”

Josephus supplies this reference to the emotional effect of the Judean’s words upon the king. See 1 Kgs 13:4a. Josephus embellishes the notice on the incapacitating of Jeroboam’s hand of 1 Kgs 13:4b. See 1 Kgs 13:5 (which, like 13:3, refers to the “pouring out” of the altar’s “ashes”).

Greek: θεία πρόγνωσις; Josephus supplies this allusion to the effect of the paralyzing of his hand upon Jeroboam (compare his “becoming enraged” at the Judean’s words in 8.233). He uses a similar phrase of the Essene Manaemus in Ant. 15.373, i.e. “having foreknowledge from God.” See 1 Kgs 13:6a. Josephus specifies that it was Jeroboam’s “right” hand that was in need of healing. Like Tg., Josephus reformulates the anthropomorphic phrase “entreat now the face of the Lord your God” found in MT and LXX L 1 Kgs 13:6a (but absent in LXX B). See 1 Kgs 13:6b. Josephus supplies this reference to the king’s emotional state; compare his (also interjected) reference to Jeroboam’s being “enraged” in 8.233. This single royal invitation takes the place of the king’s triple proposition to the man of God as cited in 1 Kgs 13:7, i.e. “Come home with me, and refresh yourself, and I will give you a reward.”

Josephus omits the Judean’s opening asseveration in 1 Kgs 13:8, i.e. “if you [Jeroboam] give me half your house...,” which alludes to the king’s previous promise—also omitted by him—of a “reward” in 13:7. See 1 Kgs 13:8-9. In accordance with his standard practice, Josephus reformulates the biblical reference to “the word of the Lord” of v.9. He likewise appends, under the influence of 13:10a (“so he went another way”), mention of God’s positive directive for the Judean. Greek: ἐγκράτεια. On this term, see Spicq 1978 (I): 61-63 and Begg 1993: 49, n. 266. Josephus adds this sequence concerning the inner effect of the Judean’s words upon the king. Its reference to Jeroboam’s “suspicion” given what he has just heard has a close equivalent in Ant. 17.346, where the Essene Simon’s elucidation of the dream of King Archelaus is formulated in quite similar terms.

Josephus pejoratively embellishes the “neutral” introduction of the story’s new character in 1 Kgs 13:11a, i.e. “now there dwelt an old prophet in Bethel.” Josephus’ explicit qualification of him as a “false prophet” (Greek: ψευδοπροφήτης)—a term used by him a total of 16 times—has a counterpart in the Tg. and various Latin witnesses to 13:11, as well as in the Qumran document 4Q339, where he appears in a list of 8 “false prophets [Aramaic: ‮נביאי שקרא‬‎] who arose in Israel.” See further Reiling 1971 and Begg 1993: 50, n. 270. With this addition, Josephus suggests an explanation as to why the Bethel prophet was not on hand to witness the confrontation between Jeroboam and the Judean for himself and has to be informed of this by his son(s) (see 1 Kgs 13:11b). Josephus’ use of the plural “sons” corresponds to the reading of LXX BL 1 Kgs 13:11b as against the singular “son” of MT (which, however, switches to the plural in the continuation of its account).

Josephus expatiates on the sons’ report (1 Kgs 13:11b), having them make explicit mention of the disabling and restoration of Jeroboam’s hand (see 8.233-234). Josephus adds this reference—which picks up on his earlier (see 8.236) allusion to the “honor” in which Jeroboam held him—to the Bethel prophet’s state of mind that prompts his subsequent initiatives. The notice takes the place of the exchange between father and son(s) concerning the Judean’s return route in 1 Kgs 13:12.

See 1 Kgs 13:13. Josephus embellishes the simple mention of the “oak” under which the Judean is “sitting” according to 1 Kgs 13:14a. Compare 1 Kgs 13:14b, where the Bethel prophet first asks his counterpart whether he is the “man of God from Judah” and receives a positive answer. In 1 Kgs 13:15 there is no such “reproach,” but simply an invitation to the Judean by the Bethel prophet to accompany him to his home and eat there.

Josephus compresses the Judean’s lengthy, almost verbatim reiteration (1 Kgs 13:16-17) of the directives given him by God as cited in his earlier reply to Jeroboam in 13:8-9. This initial assertion by the Bethelite about his being the exception to the apparently absolute divine prohibition just invoked by the Judean has no counterpart in the former’s reply as cited in 1 Kgs 13:18a. In 1 Kgs 13:18aβ the Bethelite ascribes the command he purports to have received rather to “an angel” who spoke to him “by the word of the Lord.” Elsewhere too, Josephus replaces biblical mentions of angels with alternative formulations; see the note to “phantasm” at Ant. 5.213.

1 Kgs 13:18bβ simply states “but he [the Bethelite] lied to him [the Judean].” Josephus’ version notes also the (efficacious) effect of the former’s deception upon the latter. See 1 Kgs 13:19-20a. Josephus adds the reference to the cordial interaction between the 2 figures. This reference to a theophany to the Judean takes the place of the notice on “the word of the Lord coming” to “the prophet who had brought him back.” Josephus’ formulation thus denies a divine communication to the Bethelite, whom he has characterized so negatively in 8.236. Contrast b. Sanh. 104b, which affirms that, in recognition of his having shown hospitality to the Judean, the Shekinah rested upon the Bethelite even though he was a “prophet of Baal.” On Josephus’ tendency to introduce, as he does here, mention of divine “appearances,” where the Bible lacks this, see Begg 1993: 53-54, n. 300. Josephus drastically shortens the accusation against the Judean of 1 Kgs 13:21-22bα (where it is placed on the lips of the Bethelite prophet) with its repetition of the wording of the divine prohibitions twice earlier cited by the former, i.e. in 13:8-9 and 16-17. Josephus expands on the summary announcement of punishment for the Judean voiced by his Bethel colleague in 1 Kgs 13:22bβ, i.e. “your body shall not come to the tomb of your fathers.” In particular, drawing on the subsequent biblical account (see 13:24), he has the Deity also announce the circumstances of his death.

This added editorial reflection serves to prepare for Josephus’—also added—account of the subsequent exchange (8.243-245a) between Jeroboam and the Bethelite, in which the latter successfully discredits the Judean to the former. Josephus supplies this indication concerning Jadon’s destination on the basis of his earlier (see 8.231) qualification of him as “a prophet.... from Hierosolyma.” 1 Kgs 13:24 speaks simply of the Judean’s meeting his death as “he goes away.” Josephus leaves aside the preceding reference (13:23) to the Bethelite’s saddling the Judean’s donkey following their shared repast. Josephus elaborates on the account of the Judean’s end in 1 Kgs 13:24, specifying, e.g., that his donkey suffered no harm from the lion. He likewise has the lion “sit” rather than “stand” beside the Judean’s body.

See 1 Kgs 13:25. In the line of LXX BL* (which lack an equivalent to MT’s 1 Kgs 13:26bβ-27), Josephus’ account of the recovery of the prophet’s body is much more concise than is the circumstantial narrative of MT 1 Kgs 13:26-29, where the Bethelite himself retrieves the body of his colleague. Given the former’s age and physical state (see 8.236), Josephus has him act through his sons. See 1 Kgs 13:30a, which specifies that the Bethelite buried the Judean “in his own grave.” Josephus highlights the pomp accorded Jadon’s corpse, while leaving aside the mourning cry raised by the Bethelite and his sons, i.e. “Alas, my brother,” in 13:30b. See 1 Kgs 13:31. The Bethelite’s reference to these figures echoes Jadon’s own words about those whose bones will be burned on the Bethel altar in 8.232, just as it picks up on the designation of the Bethelite himself as a “false prophet” in 8.236. The formulation is Josephus’ replacement for the biblical Bethelite’s reference (1 Kgs 13:32) to the Judean’s having spoken also “against all the houses of the high places which are in the cities which are in Samaria,” an indication that has no equivalent in the Judean’s actual words as cited in 1 Kgs 13:2 // 8.232. With this addendum to the Bethelite’s directives to his sons as cited in 1 Kgs 13:31-32, Josephus has him spell out the rationale for his command that he be buried with the Judean, i.e. to insure the future inviolability of his own remains.

Greek: πονηρὸς καὶ ἀσεβής. Josephus uses this collocation elsewhere in Ant. 8.299 (Baasha); 9.1 (Ahab, reverse order); 12.252 (apostate Jews, reverse order); 12.385 (the high priest Menelaus); and 13.34 (Jewish renegades). This (added) qualification of the Bethelite recalls Josephus’ initial presentation of him as a “vile old man” in 8.236. 1 Kings 13 does not mention any such meeting of the king and the Bethelite. The purpose of Josephus’ extended insertion on the matter (8.243-245a) is to account for the fact that, notwithstanding all that he had experienced during his encounter with the Judean, Jeroboam subsequently persisted (see 1 Kgs 13:33-34) in his earlier cultic misdeeds (see 1 Kgs 12:31-32), as though nothing had happened. The Bethelite “takes charge” of the proceedings with this provocative opening question, whose negative characterization of the Judean as “foolish” (Greek: ἀνόητος) he will subsequently substantiate. On Josephus’ other uses of the term “divine” (Greek: θεῖος) in reference to human beings and the Hellenistic background of this usage, see Begg 1993: 59, n. 334. This is Josephus’ only use of the phrase “best [Greek: ἄριστος] prophet”; compare, however, his designation of Balaam as the “best [Greek: ἄριστος] seer [Greek: μάντις]” in Ant. 4.104. Jeroboam’s characterization of Jadon here recalls Josephus’ own remark about the king’s having learned that he “was truthful and possessed divine foreknowledge” in 8.234. Greek: κακουργῶν. This word is absent in Lat and bracketed by Niese (though not by Marcus). In what follows Josephus’ Bethelite will address in turn those features of Jeroboam’s recent experience that had convinced the king of Jadon’s veracity, endeavoring to expose their lack of credibility. Josephus’ comment here reflects a recurrent theme in his writings, i.e. the use of rhetoric to disguise the truth; see e.g., War 1.16; Life 40.

With this statement, the Bethelite, contradicting Josephus’ own presentation of the facts (see 8.233-234), asserts that neither the disabling nor the revival of the king’s hand had been brought about by Jadon himself. The Bethelite here offers a “naturalistic” explanation of the altar’s collapse designed to undermine Jeroboam’s belief that this came about due to the prophetic word pronounced against it by Jadon. Once again (see previous note), the Bethelite’s claims are clearly at variance with Josephus’ own presentation of the relevant events; see 8.232, 233b. The Bethelite at this point presents Jeroboam with new information that serves to clinch his case against Jadon’s credibility, i.e. the latter’s unexpected, violent death. In so doing, he naturally makes no reference to his own role in precipating Jadon’s demise. This affirmation sums up the Bethelite’s case against Jadon in words which run directly counter to those used of Jeroboam’s own previous view of him, i.e. as one who “was truthful and possessed divine foreknowledge” (8.234) and was a “truly divine and best prophet” (8.243).

Greek: ὅσιος καὶ δίκαιος. This collocation occurs also in Ant. 6.87; 8.285 (reverse order); 9.35; 15.138; cf. 19.323. With this notice on the (successful) effect of the Bethelite’s arguments on the king, Josephus, rounding off the extended insertion of 8.243-245a, makes the transition to the source mention (1 Kgs 13:33-34) of Jeroboam’s persistence in his reprobate behavior, notwithstanding the impression the Judean had earlier made upon him. On Josephus’ uses of (variants of) this phrase (Greek: ἐξύβρισεν εἰς τὸ θεῖον) elsewhere in his work, see Begg 1993: 61, n. 355. The above formulation is Josephus’ version of 1 Kgs 13:33-34, where Jeroboam is first charged generally with not “turning from his evil way” (v. 33a), and then, more specifically, with making “priests for the high places” (v. 33b), with the result that his dynasty suffers eventual destruction (v. 34). This notice harks back to Josephus’ announcement in 8.224 that he will first treat Jeroboam and serves to frame his initial account of that king (to whom he will return in 8.265) in 8.225-245a.

In shifting from Jeroboam to Rehoboam at this point, Josephus departs from the sequence of Kings, which completes its account of the former (1 Kgs 12:25-14:20) before turning to its presentation of the latter (1 Kgs 14:21-31). In so doing, he likewise bases himself on the more expansive treatment of Rehoboam’s reign given in 2 Chr 11:5-12:16, as compared with the summary narrative of 1 Kgs 14:21-31. On Josephus’ account of Rehoboam in 8.246-264, see Begg 1993: 64-85. Josephus now, exceptionally, reproduces the full list of Rehoboam’s 15 fortress cities given in 2 Chr 11:5b-10a. MT (2 Chr 11:6) ‮בית־לחם‬‎ (Eng.: “Bethlehem”); LXX B Βαιθσέεμ; LXX L and Josephus Βηθλεέμ. MT (2 Chr 11:6) ‮עיטם‬‎ (Eng.: “Etam”); LXX B Ἀπάν; LXX L Αἰτάμ; Josephus Ἠταμέ. MT (2 Chr 11:6) ‮תקוע‬‎ (Eng.: “Tekoa”); LXX B Θεκῶε; LXX L Θεκοῦε; Josephus Θεκωέ. MT (2 Chr 11:7) ‮בית־צור‬‎ (Eng.: “Beth-zur”); LXX B Βαιθσουρά; LXX L Βαιθσούρ; Josephus Βηθσούρ. MT (2 Chr 11:7) ‮שׂוכו‬‎ (Eng.: “Soco”); LXX B Σοκχώθ; LXX L Σοκχώ; Josephus Σωχώ. MT (2 Chr 11:7) ‮עדלם‬‎ (Eng.: “Adullam”); LXX B Ὀδολάμ; LXX L and Josephus Ὀδολλάμ. MT (2 Chr 11:8) ‮גת‬‎ (Eng.: “Gath”); LXX BL Γέθ; Josephus Εἰπά. Josephus’ version of the place name, as read by Niese, differs markedly from that of the biblical witnesses. Marcus (ad loc.) and Schalit (s.v.) suggest that it is a corrupt doublet of the form Ἠταμέ, which stands 2nd in Josephus’ list. Schlatter (s.v.), by contrast, sees it as a miswriting of an original Γιττάν, while Naber (ad loc.) and Weill (ad loc.) hold that it is a scribal error for Ἰπάν (cf. Lat hippam). MT (2 Chr 11:8) ‮מרשה‬‎ (Eng.: “Mareshah”); LXX B Μαρεισά; LXX L Μαρησά; Josephus Μάρισα. MT (2 Chr 11:8) ‮זיף‬‎ (Eng.: “Ziph”); LXX B Ζείβ; LXX L Ζίφ; Josephus Ζιφά. MT (2 Chr 11:9) ‮אדורים‬‎ (Eng.: “Adoraim”); LXX B Ἀδωραί; LXX L Ἀδωράμ; Josephus Ἀδωραίμ. MT (2 Chr 11:9) ‮לכיש‬‎ (Eng.: “Lachish”); LXX BL Λαχείς; Josephus Λάχεις. MT (2 Chr 11:9) ‮עזקה‬‎ (Eng.: “Azekah”); LXX BL and Josephus Ἀζηκά. MT (2 Chr 11:10) ‮צרעה‬‎ (Eng.: “Zorah”); LXX BL Σαραά; Josephus Σαράμ. MT (2 Chr 11:10) ‮אילון‬‎ (Eng.: “Aijalon”); LXX B Ἀλδών; LXX L Αἰλώμ; Josephus Ἠλώμ. MT (2 Chr 11:10) ‮חברון‬‎ (Eng.: “Hebron”); LXX BL Χεβρών; Josephus Χεβρῶν.

Greek: καὶ κληροιχίᾳ. These words are bracketed by Niese. Whereas Josephus refers to additional Benjamite cities constructed by Rehoboam in addition to the 15 Judean ones built by him, 2 Chr 11:10b speaks rather of the 15 cities cited in 11:6-10a as situated in “Judah and Benjamin” (compare 11:5b, which seems to place them all in Judah). See 2 Chr 11:11a. Josephus specifies the biblical reference to Rehoboam’s “making the fortresses strong” with mention of his endowing the cities with walls. See 2 Chr 11:11b, which speaks of the “stores of food, oil and wine” with which Rehoboam stocked his cities. Josephus’ word for these objects (Greek: θυρεός) is the same as that used in LXX BL 2 Chr 11:12a. 2 Chr 11:12a refers to “spears,” without mention of their number. Josephus lacks an equivalent to the references to Rehoboam’s “making the cities very strong” and “holding Judah and Benjamin” with which 11:12 concludes.

Josephus adds mention of a 3rd party to the notice of 2 Chr 11:13 on the Israelite priests and Levites who joined Rehoboam, characterizing its members in highly positive terms. The addition is likely inspired by the reference to “all those who set their hearts to seek the Lord coming after them” (i.e. the priests and Levites, 11:13) in 11:16. Josephus modifies and compresses 2 Chr 11:14-15, where it is the Levites in particular who come to Jerusalem in response to Jeroboam’s deposing them from the priesthood (11:14) and replacing them with his own priests “for the high places, for the satyrs, and for the calves which he had made” (11:15). In his presentation all 3 of the previously mentioned groups leave Israel, prompted by Jeroboam’s making of the calves (see 8.226). Cf. 2 Chr 11:17, which concludes with the notice that during the 3 years “they [the Israelite arrivals] walked in the way of David and Solomon.”

2 Chr 11:18 calls her “Mahalath,” daughter of Jerimoth, son of David, and of Abihail, daughter of Eliab, son of Jesse. 2 Chr 11:19 names the 3 sons of Rehoboam and Mahalath as Jeush, Shemariah, and Zaham. Josephus has previously mentioned this figure in Ant. 7.243 (// 2 Sam 14:27). MT (2 Chr 11:20) ‮מעכה‬‎ (Eng.: “Maacah”); LXX BL Μααχά; Josephus Μαχάνη. In designating “Machane” as the grand-daughter of “Apsalmon” (Absalom) and daughter of “Thamar,” Josephus differs from both 2 Chr 11:20-21, where she is called Absalom’s “daughter” and 2 Chr 13:2, which makes her daughter of “Uriel of Gibeah” (in 1 Kgs 15:2 the father of “Maacah” is named “Abishalom”). His indication on the point likewise is at variance with his own statement in Ant. 7.190, drawn from the LXX plus in 2 Sam 14:27, according to which it was Absalom’s daughter—rather than his grand-daughter (so 8.249)—who was to become the wife of Rehoboam and mother of “Abias” (Abijah). For further discussion, see Begg 1993: 68, n. 386. MT (2 Chr 11:20) ‮אביה‬‎ (Eng.: “Abijah”); LXX BL Ἀβιά; Josephus Ἀβίας. This general notice takes the place of the names of the 3 other children of Rehoboam by Maacah, i.e. Attai, Ziza, and Shelomith (MT 2 Chr 11:20b). It has in view the statistics for Rehoboam’s wives and children that Josephus will supply in 8.250 (// 11:21b). See 2 Chr 11:21a.

Josephus’ figure for Rehoboam’s “wives” agrees with that cited in 2 Chr 11:21bα (MT and LXX BL). Josephus’ figure for this category of women corresponds to that given in LXX B (and OL) 2 Chr 11:21bα. MT (and most LXX MSS) read “60.” Josephus’ figures for Rehoboam’s children agree with those cited in 2 Chr 11:21bβ (MT and LXX BL). In 2 Chr 11:22 Rehoboam makes Abijah “chief prince among his brothers, for he intended to make him king.” Compare 2 Chr 11:23, which mentions Rehoboam’s benefactions to his other sons as well (placing them in the various fortress cities, giving them provisions, and finding them wives). Josephus underscores Rehoboam’s attachment to the son of his most loved wife by having him confer these additional benefits rather on Abijah himself.

Josephus pauses at this juncture to introduce an extended reflection (8.251-253) on what 2 Chr 12:1 simply reports as a fact, i.e. Rehoboam, once his kingdom was firmly established, forsook the Lord’s Law along with “all Israel.” On this editorial addition as an attempt to mitigate Rehoboam’s personal culpability, see Feldman 1998a: 254, 260. With this remark Josephus alludes to the starting point of a sequence in which success leads to arrogance, which in turn provokes calamity, that he highlights often in his account and which figures prominently in Greek literature as well; see, e.g., Herodotus 1.207 and cf. Feldman 1998: 180-1. With his reference to Rehoboam’s being misled into “impious practices” (Greek: ἀσεβεῖς πράξεις), Josephus assimilates the Judean king in the later part of his reign to the reprobate Jeroboam, whom the Bethelite false prophet “induced into impious practices” of his own according to 8.245. Greek: τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ θρησκείας καταφρόνεῖν; this is Josephus’ only use of this phrase. Compare “he [Rehoboam] forsook the law of the Lord” (2 Chr 12:1b). Greek: ἀνομημάτα; Josephus uses this term twice elsewhere: 8.289 and 14.309. In contrast to 2 Chr 12:1b, where “all Israel” simply joins Rehoboam in defecting from the Law, Josephus, with an eye to the continuation of his reflection in 8.252, underscores Rehoboam’s personal responsibility for the people’s following his wrongful lead. Compare 1 Kgs 14:22-24, where it is the collective sin of Judah that is highlighted and Rehoboam’s own defection is not explicitly mentioned.

To the notice of 2 Chr 12:1b about “all Israel’s” joining Rehoboam in his forsaking of the Law Josephus appends this generalizing reflection on the psychology of subjects, in particular their readiness to follow the misbehavior initiated by their rulers and the reason for this.

Josephus now applies the foregoing general reflection to the specific case of Rehoboam’s people and their response to his defection from the “worship of God” (8.251). The use of this noun (Greek: ὕβρις) generates another (see the note to “impious practices” at 8.251) verbal link between Rehoboam and Jeroboam, who in 8.245 is said to “outrage [Greek: ἐξυβρίζω] the Deity.” MT (2 Chr 12:2) ‮שישק‬‎ (Eng.: “Shishak”); LXX BL Συσακείμ; Josephus Ἴσακος (MSPE read Σούσακος here, as do Naber and Weill). Josephus made previous mention of this king in Ant. 7.105 and 8.210. In the context of his address to the defenders of Jerusalem in War 6.436, Josephus refers to the king under the name of “Asochaeus” (Greek Ἀσωχαῖος) as the 1st in a series of conquerors of the city. Josephus agrees with 2 Chr 12:2 in explicitly representing Shishak’s advance as a divinely-initiated retribution for Rehoboam’s defection, whereas in 1 Kgs 14:22-25 God’s retributive role in Shishak’s attack (14:25) is left implicit (as is the connection between this attack and Judah’s sinfulness as described in 14:22-24). The reference is to Histories 2.102ff. (to which Josephus will return in 8.260-262). Also elsewhere Josephus criticizes Herodotus’ historical inaccuracies; see Ant. 10.19; Apion 1.63, 73, and cf. Begg 1993: 71, n. 421; and Bowley 1994: 210-11 (who notes that Josephus is not alone among Greek historians in such criticism of the “Father of History”).

This dating for Shishak’s invasion agrees with that given in 1 Kgs 14:25 and 2 Chr 12:2. This initial, indeterminate figure corresponds to the reference in 2 Chr 12:3b to “the people without number,” who followed Shishak from Egypt; see following note. Josephus’ figures for Shishak’s chariots and horsemen agree with those given in 2 Chr 12:3a. In place of the Chronicler’s vague additional allusion to the “people without number” who accompanied the king from Egypt, already utilized by him in what precedes (see previous note), Josephus supplies a precise figure for the Egyptian “infantry.” 1 Kgs 14:25 offers no indication concerning the size of Shishak’s forces. 2 Chr 12:3b cites a 3rd, obscure component of Shishak’s force, i.e. the “Sukkim” (MT LXX L; LXX B: “Troglodites”).

See 2 Chr 12:4. Josephus adds the specification, inspired by the wording of Herodotus’ account of the Egyptian’s exploits (see 8.260), that the cities fell to Shishak “without a fight.” He thereby underscores the cowardice of Rehoboam and his people—a point that will be picked up in his subsequent account; see 8.258, 260, 261. This initial appeal to God by king and people has no counterpart in 2 Chronicles 12. The appeal functions to call forth the divine response brought by the prophet Shemaiah (// 2 Chr 12:5) in what follows.

This added editorial comment serves to prepare readers for the negative answer that the king and people are about to receive to their appeal. MT (2 Chr 12:5) ‮שמעיה‬‎ (Eng.: “Shemaiah”); LXX B Σαμμαίας; LXX L and Josephus Σαμαίας. The intervention of this prophet is not mentioned in the parallel text of 1 Kings 14. According to 1 Kgs 12:22 // 2 Chr 11:2 it was “Shemaiah” who earlier restrained Rehoboam from advancing against the rebel northerners; in Josephus’ version of that event the prophet is nameless; see the note to “a prophet” at 8.223. See 2 Chr 12:5. Josephus omits the “messenger formula” with which Shemaiah’s oracle begins there, as well as the specification that the prophet addressed himself to “Rehoboam and the princes of Judah.” The phrase “forsake his [God’s] worship” (Greek: τῆν θρησκείαν καταλειπεῖν) recurs in Ant. 8.270; 11.182; 12.384. The phrase recalls Josephus’s statement that Rehoboam “despised the worship of God” in 8.251. Josephus adds this notice on the effect of Shemaiah’s words upon his hearers. Greek: ὑπεροράω; Josephus uses this verb with the Deity as subject also in Ant. 6.307; 12.281. Josephus elaborates on the reference to the king’s and princes’ “humbling themselves” and confessing that “the Lord is righteous” of 2 Chr 12:6.

See 2 Chr 12:7a. Josephus substitutes the reference to God’s “telling the prophet” for the biblical phrase “the word of the Lord came to Shemaiah.” He omits the additional divine assurances of 12:7b, i.e. God will grant the people “some deliverance” and not “pour out his wrath upon Jerusalem” through the agency of Shishak. According to 2 Chr 12:8, the purpose of God’s announced subjection of the Judeans to Shishak is that they may know “my service and the service of the kingdoms of the countries.” Josephus’ formulation introduces a contrast between the 2 kinds of service.

Josephus adds this explicit mention of Shishak’s occupation of Jerusalem and the explanation of how it happened. Here too (see note on “against Hierosolyma” at 8.255), he underscores the cowardice of the city’s defenders, Rehoboam in particular. This allusion to Shishak’s perfidy is a Josephan addition. See 2 Chr 12:9a// 1 Kgs 14:26a. Josephus expands the biblical catalogues of Shishak’s depredations with mention of the mass of precious metals removed by him, thereby underscoring Jerusalem’s previous wealth.

1 Kgs 14:26b// 2 Chr 12:9b mention only a single kind of “shield.” Josephus’ distinction between the 2 types recalls 8.179, where, following 2 Chr 9:15b // 1 Kgs 10:16, he cites Solomon’s making both sorts. Josephus’ mention of this final act of despoliation by Shishak has a parallel in the plus at the end of LXX BL 1 Kgs 14:26 (no equivalent in either MT 1 Kgs 14:26 or 2 Chr 12:9) according to which the Egyptian removed the golden “spears” (Josephus: quivers) that David had earlier taken from the servants of King Adraazar of Souba. By means of the notice here, Josephus makes good on his promise, given in connection with his parallel to the LXX BL plus of 2 Sam 8:7 in Ant. 7.104-105, concerning the items (quivers and suits of armor) seized by David from the retinue of King Adad, that he intends to relate the eventual loss of these objects to the Egyptian king at a later point. See further Begg 1993: 76-78 for more on the divergences in detail between 7.104-105 and 8.259 (and their respective LXX equivalents). Shishak’s “return” is not explicitly mentioned in either 1 Kings 14 or 2 Chronicles 12.

Josephus now returns to the subject of Herodotus’ (purportedly confused) account of Shishak’s campaign, which he had introduced in 8.253. I.e. in calling him “Sesostris” (see 8.253) rather than “Isok.” Having previously (see 8.253) averred that Herodotus erred only in the name he gives the invader king, Josephus now proceeds to call attention to an additional (alleged) mistake on the historian’s part, i.e. his statement (2.102ff.) that the Egyptian’s campaign extended to “many other nations.” The phrase “without a fight,” twice earlier inserted by Josephus (8.255, 258), was drawn by him from the passage of Herodotus that he (selectively) quotes here in 8.260.

Josephus here spells out the nature of Herodotus’ additional mistake: the Egyptian’s campaign involved, not “many other nations” and all “Palestine-Syria,” but only Rehoboam’s territory. Josephus here reverts to his “quotation” of Herodotus’ text (2.102ff.), whose “mistake” regarding the extent of Shishak’s campaign he will then proceed to expose. Josephus finally “clinches”—at least to his own satisfaction—his demonstration of Herodotus’ error: the latter had affirmed that the Egyptian king expressed his contempt for the cowardice of the many nations who yielded to him “without a fight,” but, in fact, the only people for whose cowardly surrender to him any (earlier) evidence exists is precisely the Judeans of Rehoboam’s time. It should, however, be noted here that Josephus’ whole demonstration rests on a literary “sleight of hand”: he reworks the biblical accounts (which nowhere explicitly mention the Judeans’ surrendering to Shishak “without a fight”) under the influence of Herodotus’ presentation in order then to use this reworking to discredit Herodotus’ statements about whom it was that Shishak subjugated.

Josephus here summarizes the content of a further statement by Herodotus (2.104) that he will then “quote” and critique. In so doing, however, Josephus notably misrepresents Herodotus’ own affirmation at the start of 2.104: “as to the Egyptians and the Ethiopians themselves, I cannot say which nation learned it [the practice of circumcision] from the other.” Oddly, in Apion 1.170, Josephus does correctly reproduce Herodotus’ words on the matter. Josephus quotes this portion of Histories 2.104 almost verbatim (in contrast to his distorted rendering of its preceding part; see previous note). The same passage (along with its continuation) is also cited by him in Apion 1.169-170. The inspiration for Josephus’ attaching this further citation of Herodotus to that adduced by him in 8.261 is that both texts speak of “private parts” and of “Palestine-Syria” (2.102)/ “Palestine of the Syrians” (2.104). Having cited Herodotus’ claim about the general practice of circumcision among the “Syrians in Palestine,” Josephus now exposes its inexactitude: the only group that actually observes the practice in the region in question is his own people. He makes the same affirmation in Apion 1.171, further asserting that Herodotus “must therefore have known this, and his allusion is to them.” Having exposed no less than 3 historical errors of the great Herodotus in what precedes, Josephus, by means of this formula, now tolerantly leaves it to readers to decide for themselves on the points at issue between himself and Herodotus. He appends similar formulations to his accounts of biblical miracles in a whole series of instances; see Begg 1993: 82, n. 483 for references.

With this phrase, Josephus resumes his main story line at the point (see 8.259) where he paused in order to incorporate the “Herodotus digression” of 8.260-262. This is Josephus’ delayed equivalent to 1 Kgs 14:27// 2 Chr 12:10. As he did with the golden “shields” taken by Shishak (see the note to “shields ... constructed” at 8.259), Josephus introduces a distinction concerning the 2 types of bronze replacements Rehoboam makes for these. He leaves aside the notice of 14:28// 12:11 concerning the guards’ carrying the bronze shields before the king when he entered the temple and thereafter returning them to the guardroom. This characterization of Rehoboam’s latter reign might reflect the statement of 2 Chr 12:12b about “conditions being good” in Judah following Shishak’s incursion. In any case, Josephus focusses attention not on the nation as a whole, but rather on Rehoboam and the nature of his rule in this period. Josephus draws this item from 2 Chr 12:15b// 1 Kgs 14:30; cf. 1 Kgs 15:6. The biblical passages speak of “warfare” between the 2 kings. Josephus’ alternative reference to Rehoboam’s being a constant “enemy” of Jeroboam suggests that his hostility did not lead to actual conflict between them—something that would have violated the prophetic prohibition of such civil war and Rehoboam’s submission to this in 8.222-223.

Josephus obtains this figure for Rehoboam’s span of life by combining the notices on his age at accession (41) and length of reign (17) found in 1 Kgs 14:21aβbα// 2 Chr 12:13aβbα, which, however, yield a total (i.e. 58) that is higher by 1 year. This figure for Rehoboam’s length of reign corresponds to that given in 1 Kgs 14:21bα// 2 Chr 12:13bα. Josephus lacks an equivalent to the biblical verses’ specification that Rehoboam reigned “in Jerusalem, the city that the Lord had chosen out of all the tribes of Israel to put his name there.” Greek: ἀλαζών. Josephus’ 2 remaining uses of this term are in War 6.172 (the Judean Jonathan) and 6.395 (the Judean rebels). On the term, see Spicq 1978 (I): 64-66. This term (Greek: ἀνόητος) recalls the Bethelite prophet’s characterization of “Jadon” as “that foolish man” (Greek: ἀνόητος) in 8.243. This closing assessment of Rehoboam, with its allusion back to the disastrous beginning of his reign that resulted from the king’s character flaws, contrasts with the more theological evaluation of him offered in 2 Chr 12:14 (“he did evil, for he did not set his heart to seek the Lord.”). Josephus leaves aside both the “source notices” of 1 Kgs 14:29// 2 Chr 12:15 and the reference to Rehoboam’s mother of 14:31bβ// 12:14bβ, the latter item having already been anticipated by him in 8.212. 1 Kgs 14:31aβ// 2 Chr 12:16aβ have Rehoboam buried “in the city of David.” MT (1 Kgs 14:31) ‮אבים‬‎ (Eng.: “Abijam”)/ (2 Chr 12:16) ‮אביה‬‎ (Eng.: “Abijah”); LXX B 14:31 Ἀβιού; LXX L 14:31// LXX BL 12:16 Ἀβιά; Josephus Ἀβίας. This figure was introduced in 8.249-250 as Rehoboam’s favorite son. Josephus combines the notice on the accession of “Abijah” of 1 Kgs 14:31bβ// 2 Chr 12:16b and the synchronization of this with Jeroboam’s year of reign of 1 Kgs 15:1// 2 Chr 13:1a.

This added transitional notice serves to redirect attention to Jeroboam, whom Josephus temporarily put aside (see 8.245) in order to focus on Rehoboam (8.246-264). Josephus here picks up on his negative evaluation of Jeroboam as a persistent “outrager” of God from 8.245, just as his allusion to the king’s (non-Levitical) priestly appointments recalls his account of that initiative in 8.228.

With this statement, Josephus prepares the following story of the first divine initiative against Jeroboam’s house, i.e. the death of his son Abijah. In placing his version of this episode (1 Kgs 14:1-20, MT) after his account of Rehoboam’s reign (1 Kgs 14:21-31) Josephus reverses the sequence of 1 Kings 14 (MT). The LXX witnesses BL* lack a counterpart to the narrative of Abijah’s death (1 Kgs 14:1-20) in its MT position (various elements of this narrative are, however, incorporated into these witnesses’ earlier plus, 1 Kgs 12:24a-z); such a counterpart does occur in, e.g., the Hexaplaric LXX witness Codex A. On Josephus’ rendition of 1 Kgs 14:1-20 in 8.265-273, see Begg 1993: 86-96. MT (1 Kgs 14:1) ‮אביה‬‎ (Eng.: “Abijah”); LXX BL* (1 Kgs 12:24c) Ἀβιά; Josephus Ὀβίμης. Compare 1 Kgs 14:2, where Jeroboam instructs the queen to “disguise herself” so as not to be recognized as his wife.

Josephus adds this characterization of Ahijah to the words about the prophet attributed to Jeroboam in 1 Kgs 14:2. In 1 Kgs 14:2bβ Jeroboam recalls that Ahijah had told him that he would be “king over this people.” In 1 Kgs 14:3b Jeroboam simply informs his wife that Ahijah “will tell you what shall happen to the child,” rather than instructing her to inquire about this. Josephus lacks an equivalent to the catalogue of items (10 loaves, some cakes, and a jar of honey), which the queen is instructed to bring to Ahijah in 14:3a of which nothing further is said in the continuation of the episode. Josephus combines Jeroboam’s command that his wife go to Shiloh, where Ahijah is currently living (1 Kgs 14:2bα), with the notice of her doing this (14:4a).

Josephus derives the detail about Ahijah’s impaired sight and its cause from 1 Kgs 14:4b. 1 Kgs 14:5a does not mention such a divine “appearance” to Ahijah; Josephus’ addition of the item recalls his (likewise added) reference to God’s appearing to Jadon in 8.240. He has no equivalent to the portion of God’s word to Ahijah in 14:5bα, informing him of Abijah’s sickness.

1 Kgs 14:5c speaks of the queen’s “pretending to be another woman.” Josephus’ reference to her as a (purported) “commoner and a stranger” recalls the wording of Jeroboam’s instructions to his wife in 8.266. See 1 Kgs 14:6, from which Josephus omits the mention of Ahijah’s hearing “the sound of [the queen’s] feet at the door.” Conversely, he adds the allusion by Ahijah to the divine communication he has just received (see 8.268). Compare the “messenger formula” (“thus says the Lord, the God of Israel”), with which Ahijah introduces his words in 1 Kgs 14:7a.

Cf. 1 Kgs 14:7b, where God mentions his “exalting” Jeroboam “from among the people.” See 1 Kgs 14:8a. Greek: τῆν ἐμῆν θρησκείαν καταλιπεῖν. This is the same phrase applied by Shemaiah to Rehoboam and the Judeans in 8.256. Of the list of charges made against Jeroboam by Ahijah in 1 Kgs 14:8b-9, Josephus lacks an equivalent to the graphic image with which v. 9 ends, i.e. “you have cast me [God] behind your back.” Similarly, Tg. tones down this formulation in its rendition: “you [Jeroboam] have put my service far from opposite your eyes.” Josephus likewise has no counterpart to Ahijah’s statement about Jeroboam’s not being like the righteous David of 14:8b. Josephus compresses Ahijah’s announcement of punishment for Jeroboam’s house of 1 Kgs 14:10-11, eliminating, e.g., its vulgar allusions to “every one pissing against the wall” and the house of Jeroboam being consumed the way “a man burns up dung until it is all gone” of 14:10. He likewise leaves aside the distinction between the dogs eating “those in the city,” the birds “those who die in the open country” of 14:11 (subsequently, however, he will make use of this distinction; see 8.289). Conversely, he adds an announcement concerning God’s coming punishment of Jeroboam himself, i.e. his reducing him to his original, lowly state.

See 1 Kgs 14:14. Josephus makes this announcement precede that of the death of prince Abijah (14:12-13), whereas in 1 Kings 14 it follows this. This prosaic formulation replaces the vivid image of 1 Kgs 14:15aα: “the Lord will smite Israel as a reed is shaken in the water.” From Ahijah’s word in 1 Kgs 14:15aβ Josephus omits the characterization of the “good land” as one “which he [God] gave to their fathers.” Ahijah’s words against Israel in 1 Kgs 14:15-16 do not mention the nation’s imitating the impious Jeroboam. Josephus’ addition of the reference recalls his previous emphasis (see 8.251-253) on the Judeans’ imitation of Rehoboam’s offenses and the consequences of this for them. Ahijah’s word in 1 Kgs 14:15bβ refers rather to “the Asherim which they [the people] made, provoking the Lord to anger.” Josephus’ rendering recalls Ahijah’s charge about Jeroboam’s “constructing gods of cast metal” in 8.270.

Josephus makes Ahijah’s instructions to the queen regarding her son and husband (// 1 Kgs 14:12-13) the climax of the prophet’s word to her, whereas in the Bible these are followed by additional announcements concerning Jeroboam’s replacement (14:14) and the punishment of the entire people (14:15-16). See 1 Kgs 14:12. See 1 Kgs 14:13a. Josephus reverses the biblical order, where the “mourning” for the prince is mentioned prior to the announcement of his burial. Neither Josephus nor the Bible (1 Kgs 14:13b) identifies the “something good” that Abijah possessed. B. Moʾed Qaṭ. 28b offers divergent Rabbinic views on the point: Abijah went on pilgrimage himself to Jerusalem or, alternatively, removed the guards blocking the Israelites’ route to the city so that they might make such pilgrimages.

Josephus greatly embellishes the summary notice of 1 Kgs 14:17a on the woman’s response to Ahijah’s word to her (“then Jeroboam’s wife arose, and departed”), highlighting the pathos of her situation and her emotional reaction to this. 1 Kgs 14:17aβb specifies that she arrived in “Tirzah” and that her son died “as she came to the threshold of the house.” Josephus appends these indications to the death notice of 1 Kgs 14:17, noting both the fulfillment of Ahijah’s prediction of Abijah’s demise and the queen’s carrying out of her commission to inform her husband of the prophet’s message (see 8.272).

This notice on Jeroboam’s disregard of his wife’s report replaces the account of the mourning for Abijah in fulfillment of Ahijah’s announcement in 14:13a (// 8.272) of 1 Kgs 14:18. At this point, Josephus reverts to Chronicles as his source, reproducing its story—unparalleled in Kings—of the combat between Jeroboam and Abijah of Judah (2 Chronicles 13) in 8.274-286; on this segment see Begg 1993: 97-112. In so doing, he delays his version of the closing notices for Jeroboam of 1 Kgs 14:19-20 (// 8.287) until after he has related this additional episode concerning him. See 8.264. In 2 Chr 13:3 it is the Judean Abijah, who initiates the hostilities, thereby violating the prophetic prohibition of such a move delivered to his father Rehoboam according to 1 Kgs 12:24a// 2 Chr 11:4// Ant. 8.223. Josephus makes the reprobate Jeroboam the aggressor, who, having just lost his son, can think of nothing else but to commence a civil war with Judah. He further supplies a motivation for his venturing to attack Judah precisely at this point, i.e. his contempt for Abijah’s youth. Josephus supplies this notice on the state of mind with which Abijah meets Jeroboam’s advance and the intellectual endowment that underlies his unperturbed response. Abijah’s precocity recalls that of the Josephan Solomon; see 8.21. MT (2 Chr 13:4) ‮צמרים‬‎ (Eng.: “Zemaraim”); LXX BL Σομορών; Josephus Σαμαρῶν. 2 Chr 13:4a adds that the mountain was situated “in the hill country of Ephraim.” 2 Chronicles 13 does not mention either Abijah’s “camping” or his preparations for battle.

Josephus’ figures for the 2 armies correspond to those cited in 2 Chr 13:3 (which specifies that Jeroboam’s force numbered 800,000). Cf. 2 Chr 13:3b, which mentions Jeroboam’s drawing up his line of battle, consisting of 800,000 men, against Abijah. 2 Chr 13:4a states that this was on Mt. Zemaraim (see 8.274) itself. See 2 Chr 13:4b (where Abijah appeals for a hearing to “Jeroboam and all Israel”). Josephus adds the detail about the Judean king’s accompanying hand motion.

Josephus supplies this transitional notice on the success of Abijah’s appeal for a hearing by the enemy. In what follows Josephus treats Abijah’s biblical discourse (2 Chr 13:5-12) with considerable freedom, rearranging, omitting, and above all amplifying its components. Josephus turns Abijah’s rhetorical question as to whether Israel “ought not to know” of God’s abiding grant of kingship over Israel to the Davidids of 2 Chr 13:5 into an affirmation that his hearers are indeed not “unaware” of this. In line with his standard practice, he omits Abijah’s further assertion that the grant was made “by a covenant of salt.” Cf. 2 Chr 13:6-7, whose wording Josephus modifies in several ways: the people as a whole—rather than Jeroboam alone—are accused of “revolting” against Rehoboam, while the pejorative qualification of Jeroboam’s supporters as “worthless scoundrels” is held over for a later point in Abijah’s discourse (see 8.277). Compare 2 Chr 13:8a, where Abijah says to the Israelites: “now you think to withstand the kingdom of the Lord in the hand of the sons of David....”

This statement concerning the fate awaiting Jeroboam for his crimes has no explicit counterpart in the biblical Abijah’s speech. It does, however, recall Josephus’ earlier remarks concerning the king in 8.228, 245, 265-266. After the preceding digression (8.277a) focussed on the person of Jeroboam, Abijah now redirects himself to the Israelites as a whole. Josephus, expatiating on 2 Chr 13:7, now has Abijah recall the confrontation between Rehoboam and the Israelites at Shechem as described in 8.212-224. Abijah’s claim that the people were “never done an injustice” by Rehoboam seems an exaggeration/distortion of his father’s actual dealings with the Israelites on that occasion. This affirmation corresponds to Abijah’s charge against the Israelites at the end of 2 Chr 13:11: “... but you have forsaken him [God].”

Greek: δημαγωγία. This is Josephus’ only use of the term. Josephus elaborates on the biblical Abijah’s reference (see 2 Chr 13:7b) to Rehoboam as “young and irresolute and unable to withstand them [Jeroboam and his supporters],” drawing from this characterization the conclusion that the Israelites ought to have dealt indulgently with his father. At the same time, Abijah here implicitly qualifies his earlier claim (8.277) that Rehoboam had done the Israelites “no injustice.” Josephus’ Abijah supplies an additional reason why the Israelites ought to have overlooked Rehoboam’s irascibility, i.e. the good things Solomon had conferred upon them. This expression (Greek: αἵ τῶν πατέρων εὐποιίαι) occurs only here in Josephus, although it does have a counterpart in Nehemiah’s invocation of the “memory of our fathers” and their justice that prompts God not to cease his care for the Jews in Ant. 11.169. On the concept of “the merits of the fathers” in Jewish tradition, see Marmorstein 1968: 147-71. This is the general truth that ought, according to the Josephan Abijah, to have prevailed in the case of Solomon’s son Rehoboam and the Israelites’ stance towards him.

Josephus has Abijah again allude to the presence of the hostile Israelite force to which he had already referred in 8.276 (// 2 Chr 13:8a). Josephus turns Abijah’s statement (2 Chr 13:8b) about those things which the Israelites (wrongfully) suppose to be their assurance of victory (their large numbers and the presence of the golden calves) into this pointed question. Greek: δείγματα τῆς ἀσεβείας. This phrase occurs only here in Josephus. Josephus appends to Abijah’s mention of the golden calves from 2 Chr 13:8b a reference to another cultic item, i.e. the mountain-top altars (on these see 8.265), likewise adding the derogatory qualification of both objects. Conversely, he leaves aside Abijah’s further charge (13:9) about the Israelites’ having expelled their legitimate clergy and replaced these with priests of their own making. Josephus’ king elaborates on the initial (false) “ground” for the Israelites’ confidence adduced by Abijah in 2 Chr 13:8b: “... because you are a great multitude.”

Greek: τὸ δίκαιον καὶ τὸ εὐσεβές. On the key wordpair “justice and piety” in Josephus see Mason 1991: 85-89, 142-52. These reflections on the only true ground for an army’s confidence lack a biblical counterpart. They serve to set up the contrast that Josephus’ Abijah will, on the basis of 2 Chr 13:10-11, make between the Israelite and Judean forces in this regard. With this general affirmation Josephus encompasses the more particular claims about the legitimacy of Judah’s worship in all its dimensions that Abijah makes in 2 Chr 13:10-11. Greek: ἔξ ὕλης φθαρτῆς. This phrase (with its nominal and adjectival elements transposed) occurs in reference to the human body in the context of Josephus’ discourse on suicide in War 3.372. This statement about the kind of God whom Judah does not worship lacks a biblical counterpart. Its allusion to the king’s “deception of the mobs” recalls Josephus’ denunciation of Jeroboam in 8.229 as one who “misled the people.” Greek: ὅς ἔργον... αὑτοῦ. Montgomery (1920-1921: 285) calls this formulation “a step in theosophy.” See further Schlatter 1913: 17; 1932: 5, 6, n. 1. Contrast Ant. 6.61, where Samuel avers that the human race is οὐχ... ἴδιον [the human king’s] ἔργον. Greek: ἀρχῆ καὶ τέλος τῶν ἁπάντων. This double qualification of God has a counterpart in Apion 2.190, as also in Rev 21:6; 22:13; see van Unnik 1976. The foregoing negative and positive statements concerning the nature of Judah’s God take the place of Abijah’s affirmation (2 Chr 13:12a) about God and the trumpeter priests being with the Judean army.

This conclusion to Abijah’s discourse represents Josephus’ version of the king’s final appeal in 2 Chr 13:12b: “O sons of Israel, do not fight against the Lord... for you cannot succeed.” His rendition adds a positive alternative to the prohibition enunciated by the biblical Abijah. The phrase “greatness of well-being” (Greek: μέγεθος εὐδαιμονίας) recalls God’s promise to Solomon in 8.126, where the same expression occurs.

Josephus supplies this closing formula for Abijah’s discourse (8.276-281). Cf. 2 Chr 13:13a, where Jeroboam positions the ambush to attack Abijah “from behind.” Josephus underscores the former’s utter heedlessness—compare his similar reaction to his wife’s earlier report to him in 8.274—, noting that he prepared his ambush even as Abijah is making his urgent appeal to the Israelites. Josephus interprets the biblical reference to the Judeans’ “crying to the Lord” upon discovering themselves surrounded (2 Chr 13:14a) in a negative sense, i.e. of their losing courage. He delays the associated notice on the priests’ blowing the trumpets (13:14b) to a later point; see 8.283. Josephus supplies this notice on Abijah’s intervention, which allays the fears of his men. In 2 Chr 13:14-15 the Judeans appear to rally from their fears on their own.

This appeal to God’s “alliance” (Greek: συμμαχία) with them as the king’s and people’s first act has no counterpart in 2 Chronicles 13. On Josephus’ use terms of the συμμαχ-stem in relation to God, see the note to “loyal and an ally” at Ant. 5.98. This is Josephus’ delayed used of the notice of 2 Chr 13:14b, where the priests’ blowing of trumpets is associated with the Judean army’s initial response to finding itself surrounded, i.e. their “crying to the Lord.” 2 Chr 13:15a mentions the raising of the battle cry by the Judeans, but not their advance against the Israelites. Josephus combines the separate notices on God’s role in Judah’s triumph of 2 Chr 13:15b (God “defeated Jeroboam and all Israel”) and 16b (“God gave them [the Israelites] into their [the Judeans’] hand”).

Josephus uses similar formulas, citing both “Greeks” and “barbarians,” to highlight the unprecedented character of events related by him also elsewhere (see, e.g., War 1.1-2; 6.199; Ant. 4.12; 11.299), as does Dionysius of Halicarnassus (see, e.g., Ant. rom. 2.63.2; 5.79.2; 7.3.2, 12.4). Cf. Begg 1993: 107, n. 673. This same adjectival combination (Greek: θαυμαστῆς καὶ διαβόητος) is used of the victory won by David’s hero Eleazar over the Philistines in Ant. 7.309. See 2 Chr 13:17. Josephus lacks an equivalent to the appended note of 13:18 that the Judeans’ triumph was due to their trust in the Lord. 2 Chr 13:19 cites Abijah’s capture of “Bethel and its villages [literally: daughters].” MT (2 Chr 13:19) ‮ישנה‬‎ (Eng.: “Jeshanah”); LXX B Κανά; LXX L Ἰεσσνηά (etc.); Josephus Ἰσανά (the site is mentioned by him also in War 1.334 and its parallel Ant. 14.458). 2 Chr 13:19 lists a 3rd site seized by Abijah, i.e. “Ephron/Ephrain” that Josephus leaves unmentioned.

See 2 Chr 13:20-21a. Josephus derives his figure for the duration of Abijah’s reign from 1 Kgs 15:2a// 2 Chr 13:2a. He goes beyond 2 Chronicles 13 itself in specifying that Abijah’s demise came shortly after his victory over Jeroboam. 2 Kgs 15:8a// 2 Chr 13:23aβ (Eng. 14:1aβ) have Abijah buried “in the city of David.” Josephus draws these statistics from 2 Chr 13:21b. In line with his regular practice, he omits the “source notice” for Abijah of 2 Chr 13:22// 1 Kgs 15:7.

MT (1 Kgs 15:8b// 2 Chr 13:23bα [Eng. 14:1bα]) ‮אסא‬‎ (Eng.: “Asa”); LXX BL Ἀσά; Josephus Ἀσανος. 1 Kgs 15:9 specifies that Asa acceded in Jeroboam’s 20th (MT; LXX BL*: 24th; LXX L MS 127: 21st) year. On the Josephan Asa, see Feldman 1998a: 263-72. MT (1 Kgs 15:10b) ‮מעכה‬‎ (Eng.: “Maacah”); LXX BL Ἀνά; Josephus Μαχαία. 1 Kgs 15:10 adds that she was “the daughter of Abishalom.” On the confusion—eliminated in Josephus’ own presentation—concerning the mothers of Abijah and Asa in the biblical documentation, see Begg 1993: 109-10, n. 689. See 2 Chr 13:23bβ (Eng. 14:1bβ). As Marcus (ad loc.) points out, Josephus’ reference to “the land of the Israelites” having peace under Asa—who was king rather of Judah—seems a “slip” on his part. In MT (and some LXX L manuscripts) the reference is simply to “the land,” while LXX BL* correctly qualify the land in question as that “of Judah.”

Josephus supplies this closing formula for his presentation of Abijah and his victory over Jeroboam (8.274-286).

MT (1 Kgs 15:27) ‮גבתון‬‎ (Eng.: “Gibbethon”); LXX BL Γαβαθών; Josephus Γαβαθῶν. See 1 Kgs 15:27b. MT (1 Kgs 15:27) ‮בעשא‬‎ (Eng.: “Baasha”); LXX BL Βαασά; Josephus Βασάνης. Josephus heightens the pathos of Nadab’s death by making his killer a “friend” of the king. Josephus anticipates the name of Baasha’s father from 1 Kgs 15:33, where MT calls him ‮אחיה‬‎ (Eng.: “Ahijah”), LXX BL Ἀχειά. The form Σειδοῦ read by Niese (and Marcus) is that of RO. Schlatter (s.v.) sees this form as a corruption of that found in the Ed. pr., i.e. Μαχείλου, while Schalit (s.v.) maintains that Josephus himself wrote ὄνομα Ἀχειάς (see LXX). 1 Kgs 15:28 (and 15:33a) specifies that Baasha acceded in the 3rd year of Asa (the L MSS 19 108 127 read “4th” in 15:28 and “5th” in 15:33a). See 1 Kgs 15:29a.

See 1 Kgs 15:29b, which states that Baasha acted “according to the word of the Lord which he spoke by his servant Ahijah the Shilonite,” i.e. the one recorded in 14:10-11 (// 8.271). Josephus uses the phrase “according to the prophecy of God” (Greek: κατὰ τῆν τοῦ θεοῦ προφητείαν) also in Ant. 6.136; 9.129. Josephus adds this reminiscence of his version of Ahijah’s announcement to the wife of Jeroboam concerning the fate of Jeroboam’s line in 8.270 (// 1 Kgs 14:11). In so doing, he now introduces the distinction between the respective ends of the city and country dwellers among Jeroboam’s progeny from 1 Kgs 14:11, which he did not utilize in formulating 8.270 itself; see note on “food for dogs and birds” there. Cf. 1 Kgs 15:30, which motivates the annihilation of Jeroboam’s house (15:29) in terms of the king’s sins and his provocation of the Lord’s anger. The mention of Jeroboam’s “impiety” (Greek: ἀσέβεια) recalls 8.288, where Nadab is said to be like his father in his “impiety,” while the reference to the king’s “lawless deeds” (Greek: ἀνομημάτα) echoes the ascription of these to Rehoboam in 8.251.

Compare the reference to “the country of the Israelites” as Asa’s kingdom in 8.286. Compare the general positive evaluation of Asa in 1 Kgs 15:11// 2 Chr 14:1 (MT; Eng. 14:2) as one who “did what was right in the eyes of the Lord” (15:11 adds “as David his father had done”). The wording of Josephus’ evaluation seems inspired by the subsequent notice of 2 Chr 14:3(4): “he [Asa] commanded Judah to seek the Lord... and to keep the law and the commandment.” Josephus generalizes the catalogue of specific cultic deviations eliminated by Asa according to 1 Kgs 15:12 (male cult prostitutes and idols) and 2 Chr 14:2, 4 (MT; Eng. 14:3, 5) (altars, high places, pillars, Asherim, incense altars). Such generalizations of biblical “cultic particulars” are frequent in Josephus’ rewriting of the Bible and seem designed to keep gentile readers from feeling overwhelmed by the details of an alien religious system.

Josephus’ figure for the Judeans and the equipment he assigns them agrees with 2 Chr 14:7(8)a. He passes over the king’s military preparedness measures cited in 14:5, 6aαb(6, 7αab), i.e. building fortified cities and providing these with walls, towers, gates, and bars. He likewise omits Asa’s intervening statement of confidence in the Lord of 14:6(7)aβ. This same figure for the Benjamite forces is cited in LXX B 2 Chr 14:7(8)bα, whereas MT and LXX L have 280,000.

With this dating indication, Josephus alludes to his earlier mention (8.286// 2 Chr 13:23bβ [MT; Eng. 14:1bβ] of the peace the land enjoyed for 10 years under Asa. On Josephus’ version of Asa’s Ethiopian triumph and its sequel (MT 2 Chr 14:9-15:19), to which Kings has no equivalent, see Begg 1993: 117-28. MT (2 Chr 14:8[9]) ‮זרח‬‎ (Eng.: Zerah); LXX BL Ζαρέ; Josephus Ζαραῖος. 2 Chr 14:8(9)a simply assigns Zerah 1,000,000 men; Josephus divides these up among infantry and cavalry. Josephus’ figure for Zerah’s chariots agrees with that given in 2 Chr 14:8(9)a.

MT (2 Chr 14:8[9]b) ‮מרשה‬‎ (Eng.: “Mareshah”); LXX B Μαρισήλ; LXX L Μαρησά; Josephus Μάρησα. Josephus adds this localization of the site (which he had mentioned, under the name of “Marisa,” as one of the 15 cities of Judah fortified by Rehoboam in 8.246// 2 Chr 11:8). MT (2 Chr 14:9[10]) ‮צפתה‬‎ (Eng: “Zephathah”); LXX BL, seemingly reading Hebrew ‮צפנה‬‎, translate with κατὰ βορρᾶν (“towards the north”); Josephus Σαβαθά (this is the reading of RO adopted by Niese; Marcus reads Σαφαθά with MLat). Josephus prefaces Asa’s “cry to the Lord” (2 Chr 14:10[11a]) with mention of his contempt for the Ethiopians’ numerical superiority. Josephus renders the content of Asa’s appeal (“help us... let not man prevail against thee [God]”) of 2 Chr 14:10[11]b more definite. This is Josephus’ rendering of the biblical Asa’s statement of confidence that serves to motivate his appeals to the Lord in 2 Chr 14:10(11)b.

Josephus transposes into a divine assurance the statement of 2 Chr 14:11(12)a: “so the Lord defeated the Ethiopians before Asa and before Judah.” The wording of the assurance picks up on the king’s request for “victory” in 8.293. In 2 Chr 14:12(13)aβ the Ethiopians are slain to a man; Josephus’ version recalls his added reference to God’s response to Asa’s appeal at the start of 8.294. See MT LXX L 2 Chr 14:12(13)aα, where the pursuit of the fleeing Ethiopians (14:11[12]b) extends “as far as Gerar” (LXX B: “until Gedor”). In MT LXX L 2 Chr 14:12b-13(13b-14) the Judeans smite and plunder “all the cities around Gerar (LXX B: Gedor).” This reference to the Ethiopians’ “camp” seems to have in view the notice on the Judeans’ plundering “the tents” of the enemy livestock owners in 2 Chr 14:14(15)a. Josephus adds these precious metals to the list of livestock seized by the Judeans of 2 Chr 14:14(15)a. These are an addition to the list of captured livestock, i.e. sheep and camels, cited in 2 Chr 14:14(15)a.

Greek: νίκη καὶ ὠφέλεια. This collocation occurs only here in Josephus. Josephus prefaces the mention of Asa’s return of 2 Chr 14:14(15)b with this transitional notice, echoing the “victory language” of 8.293, 294. The formulation likewise recalls that used of Abijah’s defeat of Jeroboam in 8.284, where the Judean army is “allowed by God to obtain a marvelous and outstanding victory.” MT (2 Chr 15:1) ‮עזריהו‬‎ (Eng.: “Azariah”); LXX BL and Josephus Ἀζαρίας. See 2 Chr 15:2aα. Josephus, in line with his frequent practice, omits the preceding notice of 15:1 about the “Spirit of God” coming upon Asa’s interlocutor. Compare Azariah’s opening, direct discourse words in 2 Chr 15:2aβ: “Hear me, Asa, and all Judah and Benjamin.” Greek: δίκαιοι καὶ ὁσίοι. This collocation recurs in reverse order in 8.245, where the Bethel prophet turns Jeroboam away from “holy and just deeds.” This statement, with its explicit allusion to the preceding battle episode and the moral to be drawn from it, has no counterpart in the words of Azariah as cited in 2 Chr 15:2-7.

This general affirmation corresponds to Azariah’s conditional promise in 2 Chr 15:2bα, i.e. the Lord will be with the Judeans and be found by them if they themselves are with him and seek him. Compare Azariah’s warning in 2 Chr 15:2bβ: “… but if you forsake him [God], he will forsake you.” Josephus understands the middle portion of Azariah’s discourse (2 Chr 15:3-6) as speaking of future developments, whereas the words of his biblical counterpart are generally taken (see, e.g., the RSV rendering) to refer to Israel’s past. This warning concerning the future lack of a “truthful prophet” substitutes for Azariah’s statement that Israel had for a long time been “without the true God” of 2 Chr 15:3a. Josephus uses the same expression “truthful prophet” (Greek: ἀληθῆς προφήτης) of Elijah in Ant. 9.23; cf. 8.234, where Jeroboam recognizes that “the man [Jadon] is truthful [Greek: ἀληθής].” Josephus conflates Azariah’s reference to Israel’s (past) lack of both “a teaching priest” and “law” in 2 Chr 15:3b. He has no equivalent to the prophet’s statement of 15:4 that when Israel sought the Lord in its distress he was found by them.

With this warning Josephus’ Azariah turns into threats for the future the God-sent afflictions that had already befallen the inhabitants of the land(s) according to the prophet’s words in 2 Chr 15:5-6. Greek: ἀλήτης. Josephus’ one other use of this term is in Ant. 3.87. This announcement of a coming exile has no direct counterpart in Azariah’s catalogue of Israel’s (past) afflictions in 2 Chr 15:5-6. It does, however, recall Ahijah’s prediction of Israel’s coming dispersion in 8.271 (// 1 Kgs 14:15). In 2 Chr 15:7 Azariah concludes his discourse to the Judean army with the exhortation “but you, take courage! Do not let your hands be weak, for your work shall be rewarded.”

Josephus supplies this closing notice for his (markedly abridged) account of Asa’s early reign in 8.290-297 (// 2 Chr 14:1[2]-15:19). He will refocus on Asa in 8.304, after the northern-centered interlude in 8.298-303. This notice resumes Josephus’ initial mention of Baasha from 8.288-289, after the “Asa interlude” of 8.290-297. On Josephus’ account of Baasha (8.298-302// 1 Kgs 15:33-16:4) and his conflict with Asa (8.303-306// 1 Kgs 15:16-22// 2 Chr 16:1-6), see Begg 1993: 129-39.

MT (1 Kg 15:33) ‮תרצה‬‎ (Eng.: “Tirzah”); LXX BL Θερσά; Josephus Θαρσάλη (This is the reading of the codices that Niese adopts; Marcus ad loc., Schlatter s.v., and Schalit s.v., following the emendation of J. Hudson, read Θάρση). This figure for Baasha’s length of reign corresponds to that cited in 1 Kgs 15:33. Greek: πονηρὸς καὶ ἀσεβής. Josephus applies this same collocation to the Bethel prophet in 8.243. Josephus embellishes the judgment notice of 1 Kgs 15:34 on Baasha that simply makes him an imitator—rather than a “surpasser”—of Jeroboam. MT (1 Kgs 16:1) ‮יהוא‬‎ (Eng.: “Jehu”); LXX B Εἰού; LXX L Ἰού; Josephus Ἰηοῦς. Josephus omits the name of his father (“Hanani,” MT 16:1), while adding the title “prophet” to his name, perhaps under the influence of its occurrence in 16:7. Josephus compresses and generalizes the wording of Jehu’s announcement of punishment for Baasha’s line of 1 Kgs 16:3-4 with its verbatim re-application (16:4) of “the dogs and birds prediction” used for the house of Jeroboam in 1 Kgs 15:11; cf. 8.289.

Jehu’s word in 1 Kgs 16:2a has God recall his “exalting Baasha out of the dust” in order to make him Israel’s “leader.” Greek: δικαίως καὶ εὐσεβῶς. The (nominalized) adjectival form of this collocation is used by King Abijah in his address to the Israelites in 8.280. This initial charge about Baasha’s failing to repay God’s initiatives on his behalf, notwithstanding the benefits this would have brought him, lacks a counterpart in the biblical Jehu’s word of 1 Kgs 16:2-4. Greek: κάκιστος. Josephus applies this superlative adjectival form to Joseph’s brothers in Ant. 2.128, 136, to the Transjordanian tribes in Ant. 4.167, to the murderers of Ishbosheth in Ant. 7.50, to Haman in Ant. 11.257, 265, and to Pheroras in Ant. 16.209, 212. See 1 Kgs 16:2b, where Baasha is accused, in stereotyped terms, of walking in the way of Jeroboam and leading Israel into the sin that provokes the Lord’s anger. The formulation of the charge he ascribes to Jehu here echoes Josephus’ earlier editorial comment concerning Baasha in 8.299. This closing formula for Jehu’s address picks up on its initial announcement of punishment for Baasha’s line in 8.299, the double announcement on the matter framing the intervening accusations against the king in 8.300a.

Greek: συγγνώμη. On this term and its word-field in Greek literature generally, see Metzler 1991. Greek: παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ. These words are absent in RO and omitted by Niese. Marcus reads them with MSPLat.

Greek: ἀθλητῆς κακίας. Philo (Somn. 1.126) uses a similar—though positive—expression for Jacob, whom he calls “the athlete of noble pursuits” (Greek: ὁ ἀθλητῆς τῶν καλῶν). This whole sequence (8.301-302) concerning Baasha’s response to Jehu’s words has no biblical counterpart. It does, however, have a certain parallel in Josephus’ (also added) mention of Jeroboam’s heedlessness in the face of the warning words of Jadon (8.245) and Ahijah (8.274). Also in this respect, then, Baasha appears as an imitator/surpasser of Jeroboam, as affirmed in 8.299-300.

This preliminary detail lacks a counterpart in 1 Kgs 15:17// 2 Chr 16:1. Its addition by Josephus serves to reinforce the parallelism between his portrayals of Jeroboam and Baasha: both men express their disregard for a prophetic warning by launching an attack on their respective Judean counterparts, i.e. Abijah (see 8.274) and Asa (see 8.303). Like 1 Kgs 15:17, Josephus has no equivalent to the specification of 2 Chr 16:1 that Baasha’s move took place in Asa’s 36th (MT; LXX BL 38th) regnal year. MT (1 Kgs 15:17// 2 Chr 16:1) ‮הרמה‬‎ (Eng.: “Ramah”); LXX B (1 Kgs 15:17) Ῥααμά; LXX L (1 Kgs 15:17) and LXX BL (2 Chr 16:1) Ῥαμά; Josephus Ἀραμαθών. Josephus supplies the indications concerning the city’s status and distance from Jerusalem. Josephus modifies and embellishes the notice of 1 Kgs 15:17// 2 Chr 16:1, in which Baasha simply “builds” Ramah with a view to blocking access to Asa.

Josephus supplies this statement concerning Asa’s state of mind in the face of Baasha’s assault that prompts his subsequent turning to the king of Syria. From 1 Kgs 15:18// 2 Chr 16:2 Josephus omits the source of Asa’s tribute (the temple and palace treasuries) as well as the name of the recipient, i.e. King Ben-hadad. He likewise provides an alternative title for this figure, whom the Bible calls “the king of Aram [Syria], who dwelt in Damascus.” Greek: συμμαχεῖν. This is the conjecture of Niese, followed by Marcus, for the nominal form συμμαχίαν of the codices. Josephus reproduces only the opening portion of Asa’s message to Ben-hadad as recorded in 1 Kgs 15:19// 2 Chr 16:3, i.e. his appeal for a “covenant” (LXX διαθήκη, which Josephus replaces with the verbal form συμμαχεῖν; see previous note), such as their fathers had maintained. He leaves aside Asa’s (self-evident) reference to the gold and silver he has sent, as well as his request that the Syrian king dissolve his covenant with Baasha so that Baasha would withdraw from him (he will, however, make use of this request when recounting the Syrian king’s response; see 8.305).

Josephus elaborates on the reference to Ben-hadad’s “listening” to Asa at the start of 1 Kgs 15:20// 2 Chr 16:4, spelling out what this entailed on the basis of Asa’s appeal, previously passed over by him, of 1 Kgs 15:19// 2 Chr 16:3 that the Syrian “break” his covenant with Baasha. See 1 Kgs 15:20aβ// 2 Chr 16:4aβ. Josephus appends the indication concerning the purpose of the Syrian king’s dispatching his officers against the Israelite cities. The term “devastate” (Greek: κακόω) here picks up on the same term as used of Baasha’s own intentions regarding Asa’s kingdom in 8.303. MT (1 Kgs 15:20// 2 Chr 16:4) ‮עיון‬‎ (Eng.: “Ijon”); LXX BL 1 Kgs 15:20 Ἀίν; LXX B (2 Chr 16:4) Ἰώ; LXX L (2 Chr 16:4) Αἰδών; Josephus Ἰωάνου (this is the genitival form read by Niese; Naber and Marcus follow the conjecture of J. Hudson, i.e. Ἀϊών, while Schlatter [s.v.] and Schalit [s.v.] hold for an original Ἰώνη). MT (1 Kgs 15:20// 2 Chr 16:4) ‮דן‬‎ (Eng.: “Dan”); LXX BL 1 Kgs 15:20// LXX L 2 Chr 16:4 (and Josephus) Δάν; LXX B 2 Chr 16:4 Δανώ. MT (1 Kgs 15:20) ‮אבל בית־מעכה‬‎ (Eng.: “Abel-bethmaacah”) / (2 Chr 16:4) ‮אבל מים‬‎ (Eng.: “Abel-maim”); LXX B 1 Kgs 15:20 Ἀδελμάθ; LXX L 1 Kgs 15:20 Ἀβελμαά; LXX B 2 Chr 16:4 Ἀβελμάν; LXX L 2 Chr 16:4 Ἀβελαίμ; Josephus Ἀβελάνη. With this phrase Josephus alludes to the remaining, varying place names of 1 Kgs 15:20 (all Chinneroth, with all the land of Naphtali) and 2 Chr 16:4 (all the store-cities of Naphtali).

See 1 Kgs 15:21a// 2 Chr 16:5. Compare 1 Kgs 15:21b (no parallel in 2 Chr 16:5): “he [Baasha] dwelt in [MT; LXX BL returned to] Tirzah.” Josephus supplies the motivation for Baasha’s return; its reference to his “devastated” countrymen recalls Ben-hadad’s directive to his generals to “devastate” the Israelite cities in 8.305. MT (1 Kgs 15:22// 2 Chr 16:6) (‮גבצ‬‎ (Eng.: “Geba”); LXX B 2 Chr 16:6 Γάβαε; LXX L 2 Chr 16:6 (and Josephus) Γαβαά; LXX BL 1 Kgs 15:22 (πᾶν βουνόν) “translate” the Hebrew place name. Like 2 Chr 16:6, Josephus has no equivalent to the specification of 1 Kgs 15:21 that the site pertained to Benjamin. MT (1 Kgs 15:22// 2 Chr 16:6) ‮המצפה‬‎ (Eng.: “Mizpah”); LXX BL 2 Chr 16:6 Μασφά; Josephus Μασταφάς (so Niese; Naber and Marcus follow the conjecture of J. Hudson, based on Lat’s Masphas, i.e. Μασφά, while Schalit s.v. proposes Μασφαθή). LXX BL 1 Kgs 15:22 translate the Hebrew place name with ἡ σκοπία (“the lookout”).Like 1 Kings, Josephus has no equivalent to the appended sequence of 2 Chr 16:7-10 on Asa’s mistreatment of the seer Hanani for the latter’s denunciation of his reliance on the king of Syria rather than the Lord as related in 16:1-6. His non-use of the Chronicles passage furthers his overall portrayal of Asa as an unblemished king.

Josephus supplies this transitional phrase connecting Baasha’s ill-fated venture (// 1 Kgs 15:17-22// 2 Chr 16:1-6) with his demise (// 1 Kgs 16:6a). The addition sets up a final parallel between Jeroboam and Baasha, both of whom are reduced to military impotence for the remainder of their reigns after having unsuccessfully attacked their Judean counterparts; see 8.285 (Jeroboam) and 8.307 (Baasha). In accord with his regular practice, Josephus passes over the source notice for Baasha of 1 Kgs 16:5. Greek: ἐφθάσθη ὑπὸ τοῦ χρεῶν. This circumlocution for “die” occurs only here in Josephus’ writings. Greek: Θαρσῇ; this is the emendation of J. Hudson, which is adopted by Niese, etc.; compare Ἀρσῇ (RO); Ἀρσάνῃ (MSP); Thersa (Lat). 1 Kgs 16:6a has Baasha “sleeping with his fathers” and being “buried in Tirzah.” MT (1 Kgs 16:6b) ‮אלה‬‎ (Eng.: “Elah”); LXX B Ἠλαάν; LXX L Ἠλα; Josephus Ἤλανος. See 1 Kgs 16:6b. Josephus has no equivalent as this point (but see 8.309) to the appended allusion to Jehu’s prophecy against Baasha and his house of 16:7, which itself duplicates Jehu’s earlier word as cited in 16:1-4 (// 8.299-300). Josephus leaves aside the synchronism for Elah’s accession found at the opening of MT 1 Kgs 16:8, i.e. Asa’s 26th regnal year (in LXX BL the corresponding notice occurs in 1 Kgs 16:6b, where the date given is Asa’s 20th [the LXX L manuscript 127 has 29th] year of reign). Josephus also omits the specification of 1 Kgs 16:8b that Elah’s 2-year reign took place “in Tirzah.” On the contrast between Israel’s political anarchy and Judah’s internal stability developed by Josephus in 8.307-315, see Begg 1993: 140-50. MT (1 Kgs 16:9) ‮זמרי‬‎ (Eng.: “Zimri”); LXX BL Ζαμβρεί; Josephus Ζαμβρίας. Josephus’ title for Zimri corresponds to that of LXX B 1 Kgs 16:9a, whereas according to MT and LXX L the general commanded half the royal “chariots.”

Josephus uses the same title (Greek: οἰκονόμος) for Elah’s host as do LXX BL 1 Kgs 16:9b; the corresponding MT phrase translates literally as “he who was over the house.” Josephus leaves aside the source specification that the official’s house was “in Tirzah.” MT (1 Kgs 16:9b) ‮ארצא‬‎ (Eng.: “Arsa”); LXX BL Ὠσά; Josephus Ὠσά (so Niese and Marcus; Naber and Weill read Ὀλσᾶ with SPE; Hudson conjectures Ὀρσᾶ, while Schlatter [s.v] and Schalit [s.v.] propose Ὀρσά). In 1 Kgs 16:10a Zimri appears to act alone in murdering Elah, no confederates being mentioned. Josephus, more realistically, represents him having the cooperation of others. Like LXX B 1 Kgs 16:10, 15, Josephus lacks an equivalent to the MT synchronic notice in these 2 verses, dating Elah’s assassination to Asa’s 27th year (LXX L has no counterpart to this indication in 16:10, while in 16:15 its manuscripts 19, 109, 93 read the 22nd, manuscript 127 the 21st year). Josephus anticipates this indication concerning the whereabouts of Elah’s forces—whose absence serves to explain the ease with which the king could be assassinated—from 1 Kgs 16:15b where, appended to the notice on Zimri’s accession (16:15a), one finds the notice “now the troops were encamped against Gibbethon, which belonged to the Philistines.” Josephus has made previous reference to this site and an earlier Israelite siege of it under Nadab in 8.288.

Greek: πρόρριζον ἀπολέσθαι. This same construction recurs in 8.314 (subject: the Deity) and 11.213. The adjective πρόρριζος occurs in other constructions also in Ant. 7.376; 8.127; 9.109. See 1 Kgs 16:11-13, whose wording Josephus compresses. On his account of the extermination of Jeroboam’s line, see 8.288-289 (// 1 Kgs 15:29-30). Josephus leaves aside the source notice for Elah of 1 Kgs 16:14.

MT (1 Kgs 16:16b) ‮עמרי‬‎ (Eng.: “Omri”); LXX B Ζαμβρεί; LXX L Ἀμβρεί; Josephus Ἀμαρῖνος. See 1 Kgs 16:15b-16. Josephus has no equivalent at this point to the notice of 1 Kgs 16:15a about Zimri’s reigning 7 days in Tirzah during the 27th year of Asa (so MT; LXX B lacks the synchronization with Asa’s reign and its original version gives Zimri a 7-year rule, while LXX L* dates Zimri’s accession to the Judean’s 22nd [MS 127 33rd] year). Josephus will reproduce the datum about Zimri’s length of reign in 8.311. 1 Kgs 16:17 only mentions Omri’s “besieging” Tirzah. Josephus bases his further statement about his “capturing it by storm” on the allusion in 16:18 to Zimri’s “seeing that the city was taken.”

See 1 Kgs 16:18a, which refers to “the citadel (MT; LXX BL: cave) of the king’s house.” Josephus’ allusion to the “innermost part” of the palace corresponds to Tg.’s rendering. See 1 Kgs 16:18b. Josephus derives this figure from 1 Kgs 16:15a (MT LXX L), earlier passed over by him, while omitting the preceding synchronic notice that places Zimri’s reign in the 27th (so MT) year of Asa. Likely in view of the extreme brevity of Zimri’s reign, Josephus passes over the (negative) judgment notice concerning him of 16:19, just as he does the source notice of 16:20. MT (1 Kgs 16:21) ‮תבני‬‎ (Eng.: “Tibni”); LXX B Θαμνεί; LXX L Θαβεννεί; Josephus Θαμαναῖος. Josephus omits the name of the pretender’s father, i.e. “Ginath” (MT). See 1 Kgs 16:21, where (as in 16:16) the MT name for the other, ultimately victorious claimant is “Omri.” Compare 1 Kgs 16:22, which states that “Tibni died,” without specifying whether this happened violently or not. Like MT, Josephus has no equivalent to the phrase “and Jotam [B; L Joram] his brother after him” that LXX BL 1 Kgs 16:22 append to their mention of Tibni’s death. He likewise lacks a counterpart to these witnesses’ odd concluding indication that Omri ruled “with [the already dead] Thameni/Thabennei.”

1 Kgs 16:23 dates Omri’s accession to Asa’s 31st year. 1 Kgs 16:23 does not specify where Omri spent the 2nd half of his reign. Josephus’ indication on the point is based on the mention of Omri’s purchase of the “hill of Samaria” in 16:24. MT (1 Kgs 16:24) ‮שמרון‬‎ (Eng.: “Samaria”); LXX B Σεμερών; LXX L Σομορῶν; Josephus Σωμαρεών. Josephus appends this contemporary Greek equivalent to the city’s biblical Hebrew name. The above rendition presupposes the emendation of Marcus ad loc., followed by Schalit s.v., i.e. οὕτως Ἀμαρῖνος. MT (1 Kgs 16:24) ‮שמר‬‎ (Eng.: “Shemer”); LXX B Σέμηρ; LXX L Σέμμηρ; Josephus Σώμαρος. Josephus omits the biblical purchase price, i.e. “2 talents of silver” (1 Kgs 16:24). 1 Kgs 16:24 has Omri “fortifying the hill.”

1 Kgs 16:25b accuses Omri of “doing more evil than all who were before him.” Josephus omits the stereotyped reference to Omri’s persisting in the “way of Jeroboam” of 16:26, just as he does the source notice for Omri of 16:27. With this appended notice Josephus sums up his history of the northern kingdom thus far, highlighting its violent instability as a divinely-initiated punishment for the impiety of its kings. Josephus omits the biblical mention of Omri’s being buried “in Samaria” (1 Kgs 16:28aβ), having him rather die there (cf. 16:28aα). MT (1 Kgs 16:28b) ‮אחאב‬‎ (Eng.: “Ahab”); LXX BL Ἀχαάβ; Josephus Ἄχαβος. On Josephus’ portrayal of Ahab and its many positive retouchings of the biblical presentation of him, see Feldman 1998a: 273-90.

Compare 8.173, where the Queen of Sheba praises God, who “loves” the country and people of Israel. This formulation recalls 8.129, where God predicts that other peoples will marvel over his “hating” the unfaithful Israelites. Greek: προρρίζους ἀπολέσθαι. This is the same construction used in 8.309 in connection with the annihilation of Baasha’s family. Greek: παρανομία καὶ ἀδικία. This collocation occurs only here in Josephus. The reflection on the history of the Northern Kingdom presented by him in 8.314 draws a moral from Josephus’ previous remarks on the subject in 8.313. Its wording recalls that used in such other reflective passages as Ant. 1.14 and 10.277-281. In the interest of maintaining a sharp contrast between the fates of the impious northern kings and that of the pious Judean Asa, Josephus conveniently passes over both the summary reference of 1 Kgs 15:23b to the foot disease that befell the latter, as well as the elaboration of this item in 2 Chr 16:12, with its allusion to the afflicted Asa’s “seeking” not the Lord, but his physicians. Compare Josephus’ earlier omission of the equally unedifying episode of Asa’s confrontation with the seer Hanani of 2 Chr 16:7-10 concerning his recourse to Syrian help; see the note on “Mastapha” at 8.306. Greek: εὐμοίρως. This adverb is hapax in Josephus. Josephus’ figure for the length of Asa’s reign corresponds to that given in 1 Kgs 15:10a and 2 Chr 16:13. He leaves aside both the mention of Asa’s burial (15:24aβ// 16:14 [which adds a reference to the “great fire” made in Asa’s honor]) and the source notice for the king of 15:23a// 16:11.

MT (1 Kgs 15:24b// 2 Chr 17:1) ‮יהושפט‬‎ (Eng.: “Jehoshaphat”); LXX B 1 Kgs 15:24b Ἰωσαφάθ; LXX L 1 Kgs 15:24b// LXX BL 2 Chr 17:1a Ἰωσαφάτ; Josephus Ἰωσαφάτης. MT (1 Kgs 22:42b) ‮עזובה‬‎ (Eng.: “Azubah”); LXX B 1 Kgs 22:42b// 2 Chr 20:31 Ἀζουβά; LXX L (1 Kgs 16:28a) Γαζουβά; Josephus Ἀβιδᾶς. Josephus leaves aside the name of her father, i.e. “Shilhi” (MT). Like Weill ad loc., I take the reference here to be to Jehoshaphat, who has just been introduced by Josephus; so understood, the notice corresponds to the (qualifiedly) positive evaluation of him in 1 Kgs 22:43 // 2 Chr 20:32-33. Marcus (ad loc.), on the contrary, sees it as a final allusion to Asa. Josephus supplies this (provisional) closing notice for Jehoshaphat (see previous note), to whom he will return in 8.393, following a long segment (8.316-392) dealing with events in the Northern Kingdom.

See 1 Kgs 16:29. Josephus omits the synchronic notice of MT 16:29 dating Ahab’s accession to Asa’s 38th year (LXX BL: the 2nd year of Jehoshaphat). On Josephus’ initial presentation of Ahab in 8.316-318 (// 1 Kgs 16:29-34), see Begg 1993: 151-5. Compare 1 Kgs 16:30, where Ahab is accused of “doing evil in the sight of the Lord more than all that were before him.” Greek: ζηλόω. Josephus uses this verb 4 times elsewhere, i.e. Ant. 6.343; 14.116, 154; 20.41 (the 2 uses in Antiquities 14 are citations from Greek sources). His relatively infrequent use of the term likely has to do with its being a cognate of the noun ζηλῶτης, the self-designation of the “Zealots,” of whom he so vehemently disapproved. 1 Kgs 16:31a speaks in stereotyped terms of Ahab’s “walking in the sins of Jeroboam....”

Josephus adds this reference to the sin of Jeroboam, this recalling his account of that king’s idolatrous initiative in 8.226. This notice seems to allude to the 2 specific idolatrous items whose construction is attributed to Ahab in 1 Kgs 16:32b-33a, i.e. “an altar for Baal in the house of Baal in Samaria” and an “Asherah.” In 8.318 Josephus will ascribe the making of these objects rather to Ahab’s wife Jezebel. MT (1 Kgs 16:31a) ‮אתבעל‬‎ (Eng.: “Ethbaal”); LXX B Ἰεθεβάαλ; LXX L Ἰεθβάαλ; Josephus Εἰθώβαλος (thus Niese; Marcus ad loc. and Schalit s.v. read Ἰθώβαλος with MSP). 1 Kgs 16:31b calls Ethbaal simply “king of the Sidonians.” Josephus’ addition of the “Tyrians” has in view his subsequent quotation (see 8.324) of Menander, who calls Ethbaal “king of the Tyrians.” MT (1 Kgs 16:31) ‮איזבל‬‎ (Eng.: “Jezebel”); LXX BL Ἰεζάβελ; Josephus Ἰεζαβέλη. 1 Kgs 16:31b, after mentioning Ahab’s marrying of Jezebel, goes on to state “he went and served Baal, and worshiped him.” Josephus spells out the connection between Ahab’s 2 initiatives, while also generalizing the biblical reference to a single, named foreign deity, i.e. Baal.

Josephus employs this adjective (Greek: δραστήριος) with negative connotations as here also in War 2.590 (John of Gischala); 4.312 (John of Gischala); and Ant. 9.27 (King Joram of Israel). See Begg 1993: 153, n. 991. Josephus uses this adjective (Greek: τολμηρός) with clearly negative connotations as here also in War 1.529 (Diophantus); 2.116 (Glaphyra); 4.343 (2 Zealots); Ant. 1.113 (Nimrud); 4.248 (the false accuser of a virgin); 6.178 (David, in Eliab’s reproach to him); 8.358 (Naboth’s [false] accusers); and 17.32 (Antipater). See Begg 1993: 153, n. 992. Greek: γύναιον. This diminutive occurs 36 times in Josephus. As Schlatter notes (1932: 148), its frequent use does not speak for Josephus’ high appreciation of women. This term (Greek: ἀσέλγεια) recalls 8.252, where it appears in Josephus’ reflection concerning subjects who do not allow their own self-control to stand as a “reproach to the licentiousness” of their rulers. This is Josephus’ only collocation of the terms “licentiousness” (Greek: ἀσέλγεια) and “madness” (Greek: μανία). Josephus supplies this specification concerning “Belias” (biblical Baal); compare his added qualification of Ethbaal as king “of the Tyrians” in 8.317. MT (1 Kgs 16:32) ‮בעל‬‎ (Eng.: “Baal”); LXX BL Βάαλ; Josephus Βελίας (Niese; Schalit s.v. reads Βάαλ, the LXX form). 1 Kgs 16:32 attributes the erection of the Baal altar “in the house of Baal in Samaria” to Ahab himself. MT 1 Kgs 16:33a speaks of Ahab himself making an “Asherah.” In agreement with LXX BL, Josephus renders this term with the word “grove” (Greek: ἄλσος); see Begg 1993: 153, n. 998. In contrast to both MT and LXX, he attributes the initiative to Jezebel rather than to Ahab. The catalogue of Ahab and Jezebel’s misdeeds in 1 Kgs 16:30-34 does not refer to these figures. Josephus’ mention of the couple’s patronage of such groups here is inspired by (and serves to prepare for) subsequent biblical references to them; see 1 Kgs 18:19; 2 Kgs 10:19. This collocation (Greek: ἄνοια καὶ πονηρία) occurs only here in Josephus. The reference to Ahab’s “exceeding in vileness” recalls the phrase “excessive vileness” used of him in 8.316. Compare 1 Kgs 16:33b, which avers that Ahab “did more to provoke the Lord to anger than all the kings of Israel who were before him.”Josephus has no equivalent to the notice of 1 Kgs 16:34 (MT LXX B; LXX L lacks the verse) about the Bethelite Hiel rebuilding Jericho in Ahab’s time, paying for his doing so with the lives of his eldest and youngest sons, in accordance with the curse pronounced by Joshua in Josh 6:26 against anyone who would rebuild Jericho. The absence of such an equivalent is all the more remarkable given the fact that, in his version of Josh 6:26 in Ant. 5.31, Josephus explicitly states that he will subsequently relate the fulfillment of Joshua’s curse. Various (complementary) explanations of this phenomenon can be suggested. It might, e.g., reflect Josephus’ dependence on a text like that of LXX L, which lacks 1 Kgs 16:34. Alternatively, it might be due to Josephus’ (belated) realization that the text of 1 Kgs 16:34, with its seeming suggestion of human sacrifice, could well prove off-putting to gentile readers. Still another possibility is that, given the extended length of time it took him to compose Antiquities, Josephus simply forgot his announcement back in 5.31 when he came to write 8.318. See Begg 1993: 154.

Josephus uses this title in place of the proper name “Elijah” (which he will cite for the first time only in 8.329) of MT LXX L 1 Kgs 17:1 (LXX B has both the title and the name). On Josephus’ presentation of Elijah’s initial activities in 8.317-327 (// 1 Kings 17), see Begg 1993: 156-65 and on his overall treatment of Elijah, see Feldman 1998a: 291-306. Greek: προφήτης τοῦ μεγιστοῦ (thus Marcus; Niese reads μεγάλου with RO) Θεοῦ. Josephus uses this same designation for Jonah in Ant. 9.211. MT (1 Kgs 17:1) ‮מתשבי‬‎ (RSV: “from Tishbe” [this rendering is based on the LXX readings, whereas the vocalized Hebrew form has the meaning “from the settlers”]); LXX B Θεσβών; LXX L Θεσσεβών; Josephus Θεσσεβώνη (this is the reading of RO, which Niese follows; Schalit [s.v.] reads Θεσβώνης with MSPE). Josephus omits the related epithet “the Tishbite” used of Elijah in 17:1. MT 1 Kgs 17:1 calls the region “Gilead,” LXX BL “Galaad.” Josephus characteristically substitutes this closing “condition” for the conclusion of Elijah’s announcement in 1 Kgs 17:1b, i.e. “except by my word.” The formulation looks ahead to Elijah’s subsequent appearance before Ahab and the resultant rain; see 8.328, 346. Compare Elijah’s opening “oath formula” in 1 Kgs 17:1b: “as the Lord… lives, before whom I stand.” Josephus compresses the account of 1 Kgs 17:2-5, where Elijah’s “withdrawal” (17:5) comes in response to a divine command/assurance (17:2-4). In his presentation—which eliminates the biblical reference to the Lord’s “word” (see 17:2)—Elijah acts on his own initiative in this instance. In 1 Kgs 17:2-5 Elijah, at God’s direction, heads “east” across the Jordan. Josephus’ modification may have been prompted by the consideration that the area east of the Jordan was also part of Ahab’s kingdom, and so would not have afforded Elijah as secure a refuge as he would find in the “south,” i.e. in Judah (compare 1 Kgs 19:3, where, fleeing Jezebel, Elijah heads south, to Beersheba of Judah). 1 Kgs 17:3, 5 identify the stream as “Cherith.” See 1 Kgs 17:6b. 1 Kgs 17:6a specifies that the ravens brought Elijah “bread and meat” both in the morning and the evening.

See 1 Kgs 17:7. In 8.319 Josephus called Elijah’s source of water a “stream” (in line with the consistent terminology of 1 Kgs 17:2-7); his designation of it now as an actual “river” underscores the severity of the drought—this dried up even a river. In contrast to his handling of the biblical presentation of Elijah’s initial move (see 8.319 in comparison with 1 Kgs 17:2-5), Josephus does follow 17:8-9 in ascribing Elijah’s 2nd move to a divine prompting. At the same time, he eliminates the reference to the “word of God” coming to the prophet of 17:8. MT (1 Kgs 17:8) ‮צרפתה‬‎ (Eng.: “Zarephath”); LXX BL Σαρεπτά; Josephus Σαριφθά (this is the reading of RO followed by Niese; Marcus reads Σαρεφθά with MSPLat). Josephus elaborates on the datum of 1 Kgs 17:9, which qualifies Zarephath as “belonging to Sidon.” Compare his addition (8.317) “of the Tyrians” to the mention of Ethbaal as “king of the Sidonians” in 1 Kgs 16:31. In 1 Kgs 17:9 God informs Elijah that he has already “commanded” the widow to feed him.

See 1 Kgs 17:10a. Josephus adds the characterization of her as a “day laborer” (Greek: χερνῆτις), the same term he uses for the Endor medium in Ant. 6.339. With this added phrase, Josephus accounts for Elijah’s knowing which particular woman in the foreign city he is to approach. See 1 Kgs 17:10b. Josephus adds the preliminary details about Elijah’s approaching and greeting the woman. In 1 Kgs 17:11b Elijah asks for a “morsel of bread.”

See 1 Kgs 17:12a. As usual, Josephus leaves aside the wording (“as the Lord your God lives”) of the woman’s oath. See 1 Kgs 17:12b. Josephus’ use of the singular “child” agrees with MT, whereas LXX BL read the plural “sons.” Josephus elaborates on the woman’s closing word in 1 Kgs 17:12 (“that we [she and her son] may eat it, and die”), supplying the woman with a reason (i.e. the current famine) why she is expecting imminent death. This opening word of assurance is Josephus’ version of the exhortation “fear not” with which Elijah’s reply to the woman begins in 1 Kgs 17:13. In 1 Kgs 17:13bα Elijah asks more specifically for a “little cake.” Josephus omits the prophet’s further statement (17:13bβ), i.e. once she has provided for him, the woman may prepare something for herself and her son. Compare the “messenger formula” (“for thus says the Lord the God of Israel”) with which Elijah begins his announcement/promise of 1 Kgs 17:14. See 1 Kgs 17:14.

See 1 Kgs 17:15. Josephus supplies the title “prophet” for Elijah (see 8.319). This concluding statement takes the place of the notice (1 Kgs 17:16) about matters proceeding “according to the word of the Lord” as spoken by Elijah (see 1 Kgs 17:13-14).

On Menander and Josephus’ previous citation of him in connection with the exchange between Solomon and King Hiram, see 8.144-146. Josephus’ reference to Ithobal as “king of the Tyrians” here (compare 8.317, where he is called “king of the Tyrians and Sidonians”) draws on Menander’s mention of Ithobal’s “ruling the Tyrians” in the passage Josephus is about to cite. This Greek month-name corresponds to late October; see Schalit s.v. Having cited Menander’s testimony, Josephus here correlates this with the biblical record (see 1 Kgs 16:31; 17:1). Compare his linking the witness of Herodotus and the Bible’s account of the invasion of Judah by Shishak in 8.253, 261.

In 1 Kgs 17:17-24 the woman’s son remains nameless, as he does throughout Josephus’ version (8.325-327). In, e.g., y. Sukkah 5.55a and Gen.Rab. 98.11 he is identified with the future prophet Jonah. Josephus here re-introduces Elijah’s hostess from 8.323, after the “Menander interlude” of 8.324. See 1 Kgs 17:17, where the reference is to there being “no breath in him.” Josephus adds the notice on his “seeming to be dead,” thus accentuating the gravity of the situation (and so also the stature of Elijah who proves capable of resolving it). On Josephus’ re-telling of Elijah’s resuscitation (1 Kgs 17:17-24) in 8.325-327, see Hogan 1992: 216-7. Josephus supplies this description of the woman’s distress. Compare his similar, likewise added, portrayal of the afflicted mother of the deathly sick prince Abijah in 8.273. In 1 Kgs 17:18 the woman addresses Elijah as “man of God.” Josephus’ alternative title is paralleled in Tg. See 1 Kgs 17:18, where the woman accuses Elijah of coming to “bring my sin to remembrance.” Josephus’ formulation spells out the meaning of that charge.

Josephus expatiates on Elijah’s command in 1 Kgs 17:19aα, underscoring the prophet’s assurance that he will indeed be able to resuscitate the boy. See 1 Kgs 17:19aβb, which specifies that Elijah lodged in “the upper chamber.” Josephus recasts Elijah’s urgent question about whether God has “slain” the woman’s son (1 Kgs 17:20) into a pointed statement by the prophet. See 1 Kgs 17:21b. Josephus omits the intervening notice (17:21a) on Elijah’s stretching himself upon the boy’s body 3 times, the purpose of which remains unclear.

Josephus supplies this notice on God’s double motivation for acting as he does. Cf. 1 Kgs 17:22. Josephus omits the following details (17:23) concerning Elijah’s descent to the mother, to whom he restores her son with the words “see, your son lives.” Compare 1 Kgs 17:24a, where the woman begins by declaring “now I know that you [Elijah] are a man of God.” Tg. substitutes “prophet of the Lord.” Compare the woman’s closing statement to Elijah in 1 Kgs 17:24b: “(I know) that the word of the Lord in your mouth is truth.”

Josephus’ chronological indication here differs from the double notice of 1 Kgs 18:1, i.e. “after many days... in the third year.” Perhaps, Josephus’ divergent rendering has in view the statement of Menander quoted by him in 8.324, according to which the drought in the reign of “Ithobal” (and Ahab) lasted a single year, a year, which, after the events described in 8.319-327, would certainly be drawing to a close at this point. On Josephus’ version of 1 Kings 18 in 8.328-346, see Begg 1993: 166-88. This formulation is Josephus’ replacement for the reference in 1 Kgs 18:1a to the “word of the Lord” coming to Elijah and “saying.” In 1 Kgs 18:1bβ Elijah is to tell Ahab in God’s name “I [God] will send rain upon the earth.” Josephus lacks an equivalent to the notice that Elijah actually did go to Ahab of 18:2a. Greek: αὐτῶν. This is the reading of SP, which Niese follows. Marcus (ad loc.) reads ἄρτων (“bread[s]”) with ROM. Josephus expatiates on the summary notice on the famine being “severe” in Samaria in 1 Kgs 18:2b in light of Ahab’s subsequent words about the state of the livestock in 18:5.

MT (1 Kgs 18:3) ‮עבדיהו‬‎ (Eng.: “Obadiah”); LXX BL Ἀβδειού; Josephus Ὠβεδίας. MT 1 Kgs 18:3 calls Obadiah “he who was over the house,” LXX BL “the steward.” Josephus’ alternative title may have been suggested by the directives Ahab gives Obadiah concerning the livestock in 18:5. In proceeding directly from Ahab’s summoning of Obadiah (// 1 Kgs 18:3) to the king’s directives to him (// 18:5), Josephus passes over—for the moment (but see 8.330)—the parenthetical notices concerning Obadiah’s rescue of the prophets in 18:4. MT ‮אליהו‬‎ (Eng.: “Elijah”); LXX B Ἠλειού; LXX L and Josephus Ἠλίας. This is Josephus’ first use of the prophet’s name; see note to “prophet” at 8.319. Josephus adds this statement by Ahab on the basis of 1 Kgs 18:10, where Obadiah informs Elijah that “there is no kingdom or nation whither my lord [Ahab] has not sent to seek you,” and that Ahab has required the nations to swear “that they have not found you.” This command by Ahab to Obadiah is a Josephan addition to the former’s words in 1 Kgs 18:5.

See 1 Kgs 18:6. Josephus’ reference to the pair’s dividing up “the roads” corresponds more closely to LXX BL 1 Kgs 18:6, where they divide “the road” between them; in MT it is “the land” that they divide. The parenthetical notice of 1 Kgs 18:4 speaks of a single “cave” and specifies that the 100 prophets were concealed “by 50s.” Greek: ὑπὸ Γάρις. This is the reading of R, which Niese prints. Naber, Weill, and Marcus all emend to ὑπογείοις (“underground [caves]”). 1 Kgs 18:4a speaks simply of “a cave” in which Obadiah hides the prophets. In stating that the prophets’ nourishment was “solely” bread and water Josephus goes beyond 1 Kgs 18:4b, where this restriction is absent. The indication reflects Josephus’ earlier accentuation of the severity of the famine in 8.328 (compare 1 Kgs 18:2b).

See 1 Kgs 18:7aα. Josephus recasts the sequence of 1 Kgs 18: 7aβb-8a (where, having “recognized” Elijah, Obadiah falls on his face before him; thereupon, he asks if the other man is Elijah and is told that he is) into a more logical order. See 1 Kgs 18:8b.

See 1 Kgs 18:9. See 1 Kgs 18:10a, whose opening oath formula Josephus omits. Josephus has prepared Obadiah’s statement here with his addition (8.329) to Ahab’s words to Obadiah of 18:5, in which the king informs the latter about his search initiative; see note to “found” at 8.329. This question—which spells out the purpose of Ahab’s world-wide “dispatch”—takes the place of the reference to the king’s “adjuring” (so MT; LXX BL “burning”) those localities that claimed that Elijah was not present among them in 1 Kgs 18:10b. Josephus omits Obadiah’s perplexed repetition of Elijah’s initial directive to him (18:8b) in 18:11.

Josephus supplies this reference by Obadiah to his present emotional state. This reference to a divine appearance to Elijah and the latter’s going off elsewhere is Josephus’ characteristic substitute for Obadiah’s mention (1 Kgs 18:12a) of “the Spirit of the Lord carrying Elijah whither I know not.” Josephus modifies the wording of 1 Kgs 18: 12b, where Obadiah points out that if he were to report his inability to find Elijah to Ahab, the latter would kill him, notwithstanding his (Obadiah’s) lifelong fear of the Lord.

Josephus supplies this appeal by Obadiah. Greek: ὁμότεχνος, literally “fellow craftsmen.” The term ὁμότεχνος is hapax in Josephus. Josephus rewords as a statement in indirect discourse Obadiah’s direct-address question (“has it not been told...?”) of 1 Kgs 18:13 about his maintenance of the 100 prophets. As he did in his handling of 18:11 in 8.332, he leaves aside Obadiah’s renewed repetition of Elijah’s opening directive to him in 18:14; see note to “to death” at 8.332. Josephus supplies this re-assuring command by Elijah. See 1 Kgs 18:15. Josephus omits the wording of Elijah’s “oath” to Obadiah.

See 1 Kgs 18:16. Josephus adds this reference to Ahab’s emotional state. Josephus elaborates on Ahab’s derogatory allusion to Elijah as “the troubler of Israel” in 1 Kgs 18:17. Josephus’ editorial remark on Elijah’s defiant stance towards the king takes the place of the prophet’s opening denial (1 Kgs 18:18) that he is the “troubler of Israel” Ahab has just accused him of being. The verb ὑποθωπεύω (“to flatter”) is hapax in Josephus. Josephus both elaborates and generalizes the 2nd half of Elijah’s 2-part accusation against Ahab and his house in 1 Kgs 18:18, i.e. they had “followed the Baals.” In so doing, he agrees with LXX BL’s formulation of Elijah’s preceding charge, i.e. Ahab has “forsaken the Lord” himself, whereas in MT the king is accused of having forsaken the Lord’s “commandments.”

Greek: ἀνελθόντα. This is the reading of R, which Niese follows. Marcus reads ἀπελθόντα (“going off”) with SP. MT (1 Kgs 18:19) ‮כרמל‬‎ (Eng.: “Carmel”); LXX BL and Josephus Καρμήλιον. 1 Kgs 18:19 specifies that the 1st group of prophets, i.e. those “of Baal” (MT; LXX BL: “of shame” [Greek: τῆς αἰσχύης]) numbered 450. Josephus agrees with LXX BL 1 Kgs 18:19 in their reference to the 400 “prophets of the groves,” whereas MT speaks of “prophets of Asherah”; compare the similar case cited in the note to “a grove of all kinds of trees” at 8.318. He omits the concluding biblical detail about these prophets “eating at Jezebel’s table.”

Cf. 1 Kgs 18:20. In 1 Kgs 18:21a Elijah “comes near to all the people.” Compare Josephus’ reference to the prophet Jadon’s “standing in the middle of the crowd” in 8.231. Josephus transposes Elijah’s figurative question in 1 Kgs 18:21aα (literally: “how long will you hobble on two crutches?”) into a prosaic, indirect discourse query. Josephus’ only other use of this expression (Greek: ὁ ἐγχώριος θεός) is in Ant. 18.198, where it appears in the plural. He employs a related formula in 9.99. Greek: ἀληθής καὶ μόνος. Josephus applies this same collocation to God in Ant. 8.343; 10.263; cf. War 7.323; Ant. 6.148. He already had Elijah refer to the “only [Greek: μόνος] God” in his word to Ahab in 8.335. To Elijah’s exhortation in 1 Kgs 18:21aβ (“If the Lord is God, follow him”) Josephus adds the call to adhere to God’s commandments as well. Josephus expands and generalizes the 2nd alternative Elijah puts before the people in 1 Kgs 18:21bα, i.e. “but if Baal, follow him.”

See 1 Kgs 18:21bβ. Josephus prefaces his reproduction of Elijah’s words from 1 Kgs 18:22-25a with this proposal of a “test.” The opposition between “foreign gods” and “his own God” here recalls that introduced by the Josephan Elijah in his words to Ahab in 8.335. The Josephan Elijah’s reference to the 400 prophets opposing him corresponds to the LXX BL plus in 18:22b. Josephus leaves aside the “450 prophets of Baal” cited by both MT and LXX BL there. Josephus reverses the order of Elijah’s words in 1 Kgs 18:23, where he first speaks of what the rival prophets are to do, and then of his own corresponding action. He leaves aside the opening element of Elijah’s proposal, i.e. “let two bulls be given to us....” Josephus uses a feminine demonstrative adjective (Greek: ταυτής) for the bovine that is to be used; Marcus (ad loc.) renders “ox,” Weill ad loc. rather “heifer” (génisse). See 1 Kgs 18:23b. Josephus summarizes the series of steps to be taken by the rival prophets according to Elijah’s proposal in 1 Kgs 18:23a, having just previously (// 18:23b) had Elijah enumerate the measures he himself intends to take. Josephus supplies this content for the “appeal” that the other prophets are to make according to Elijah’s proposal in 1 Kgs 18:24aα. He has no equivalent to Elijah’s corresponding statement (18:24aβ) that he himself will “call on the name of the Lord.” Compare 1 Kgs 18:24bα: “. . . the God who answers by fire, he is God.” Elsewhere, Josephus uses the phrase “nature of God” (Greek: φύσις τοῦ θεοῦ) in Ant. 1.15, 19; 2.146; 4.269; 10.42; Apion 1.224; 2.168 (bis), 180, 248, 250; cf. Ant. 8.107; Apion 1.232. Compare the expression “divine nature” (Greek: θεία φύσις) of 8.107.

1 Kgs 18:24bβ cites the words of the people’s response to Elijah’s proposal: “it is well spoken.” From Elijah’s injunctions to the prophets in 1 Kgs 18:25 Josephus omits his parenthetical reference to their being “many,” as well as his closing reminder that they are not to set fire to the wood. Like LXX L, he has Elijah refer to the “gods” of the other prophets, whereas LXX B reads a singular, and MT’s form might be understood as either plural or singular (so RSV). Josephus compresses and rearranges the sequence of 1 Kgs 18:26, which first speaks of the prophets’ initiatives (including their appeal “O Baal, answer us!”), then of the lack of response to their endeavors, and finally of the prophets’ “limping about the altar they had made.” Compare 1 Kgs 18:26bα: “there was no voice, and no one answered.” Josephus omits the reference to the prophets “limping about” their altar in 18:26bβ. Josephus reformulates Elijah’s (ironic) confession “he [Baal] is a god,” attached as a motivation (“for”) to his urging the prophets to “cry aloud” in 1 Kgs 18:27aβ. He thereby frees Elijah from any suspicion of acknowledging the existence of other gods. He reserves for a later point the chronological indication (“at noon”) with which 18:27 begins; see 8.340. Josephus omits the first 2 of the 4 possible activities in which, Elijah suggests, the prophets’ god(s) may currently be engaged, i.e. “musing” and “going aside” (this last is often understood as a euphemism for defecation) in 1 Kgs 18:27 (MT; LXX BL—in contrast to Josephus—lack the 3rd of these items, i.e. the gods’ being “on a journey”). He likewise leaves aside the phrase attached to the mention of the gods’ “sleeping,” i.e. “and must be awakened.”

Josephus here makes delayed use of the chronological indication “until noon” of 1 Kgs 18:26 (cf. “at noon,” 18:27). From the description of the prophets’ self-laceration in 1 Kgs 18:28 Josephus omits the gory detail about their doing this “until the blood gushed out upon them.” He further leaves aside the summary notice on the prophets’ unavailing activity of 18:29, with its repetition of previous narrative elements (compare 18:26b). The Josephan Elijah’s command to the prophets that they withdraw has a (more expansive) counterpart in the plus appended at the end of LXX BL* 1 Kgs 18:29. His further directive that the onlookers keep watch lest he violate the conditions of the “test” (see 8.338) serves to underscore both the prophet’s credibility and the magnitude of the following miracle as one that cannot be attributed to some secret trick on his part.

See 1 Kgs 18:30bα. Josephus lacks an equivalent to the appended reference in MT 1 Kgs 18:30bβ MT (LXX BL gives its version of this notice in 18:32a) to Elijah’s “repairing the altar that had been thrown down,” an event not previously mentioned in the Bible (or by Josephus himself). In addition, the MT notice in 1 Kgs 18:30bβ seems to duplicate the mention, which Josephus will reproduce in the continuation of 8.341, of Elijah’s building an altar—apparently “from scratch” in 18:32a. Compare 1 Kgs 18:31, where the tribes are those “of the sons of Jacob to whom the word of the Lord came, saying, ‘Israel shall be your name’.” In making explicit mention of Elijah’s using the stones to erect “an altar,” Josephus agrees with MT 1 Kgs 18:32a (although he omits MT’s qualification of this altar as one built “in the name of the Lord”). By contrast, LXX BL have Elijah simply “building the stones (in the name of the Lord)”; these witnesses then continue with their version of 18:30bβ (Elijah’s repair of “the altar that had been thrown down,” to which they lack an equivalent in its MT position (see note to “approached” at 8.341). Josephus thus differs from both MT and LXX in nowhere mentioning Elijah’s repair of a previously overthrown altar. Josephus substitutes a more general indication (“very deep”) for the specification of MT LXX L 1 Kgs 18:32b that Elijah’s “trench” (LXX B calls it a “sea”) was “as great as would contain 2 measures of seed.” From Elijah’s measures as recounted in 1 Kgs 18:33a Josephus omits the gory mention of his “cutting the bull in pieces.” In 1 Kgs 18:33b the water is to be poured on “the burnt offering and the wood.” Josephus adds the indication concerning the “source” of the water. Josephus compresses the biblical presentation (1 Kgs 18:33b-35), in which there is a 3-fold pouring of water, this resulting in the filling of the trench. He adds the reference to the ditch taking on the appearance of a “gushing spring.”

This transitional notice takes the place of the chronological indication (“and the time of the offering of the oblation”), with which MT LXX L (> LXX B) 1 Kgs 18:36 introduce Elijah’s appeal. In 1 Kgs 18:36a Elijah addresses himself to the “the Lord, God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” Josephus’ rendering of Elijah’s prayer with its single petition represents a significantly compressed version of the much longer one in MT 1 Kgs 18:36b-37. In this regard, Josephus goes still further than LXX BL, which lacks an equivalent to MT’s 18:37a. Conceivably, Josephus’ formulation, with its reference to the people’s having been “in error,” represents his (negative) interpretation of the MT phrase of 18:37b, i.e. “... thou [the Lord] hast turned their [the people’s] heart back (LXX: the heart of this people after you [the Lord]),” as referring to the people’s heart turning away from the Lord. Compare Tg., where Elijah’s prayer of 18:37 ends with the assertion “they [the people] gave you [the Lord] a divided heart.” See further Begg 1993: 181, n. 1191. This added transitional phrase underscores the immediacy with which Elijah’s prayer is answered. Compare the designations used in MT 1 Kgs 18:38aα (“fire from the Lord”) and LXX BL (“fire from the Lord from heaven”). In contrast to both witnesses, Josephus avoids explicitly associating the Deity and the fire. This added phrase underscores the public character and credibility of the fulfillment of Elijah’s previous appeal. 1 Kgs 18:38aβb mentions also the “consumption” of the wood, the stones, and the dust.—Josephus adds the reference to the site’s being made dry.

In 1 Kgs 18:39b the prostrate people twice proclaim “the Lord, he is God.” This is the same term (Greek: μέγιστος) used in 8.319, where Elijah is introduced as “prophet of the greatest God.” The reference to God as the “only true” (Greek: ἀληθῆς μόνος) here has a counterpart in the LXX BL plus in 1 Kgs 18:39b, where the Israelites declare “truly [Greek: ἀληθῶς, > MT] the Lord is God.” It likewise recalls the phrase “true and only” (Greek: ἀληθῆς καὶ μόνος) used of God by Elijah in his words to the people in 8.337. Greek: φαύλος καὶ ἀνόητος. This collocation occurs only here in Josephus. Josephus expands the people’s positive recognition of the one true God (// 1 Kgs 18:39b) with this denigration of all other deities. Its use of the term “opinion” (Greek: δόξα) recalls 8.337, where Elijah alludes to the people’s being “divided in mind and opinions.” In 1 Kgs 18:40 Elijah himself kills the prophets “at the brook Kishon.” Subsequently, however, Josephus will (see 8.347, 348, 350) attribute the massacre to Elijah personally; on the point, see Begg 1993: 183-4, n. 1209. Josephus appends the reference to the king’s having no need to give matters further thought to Elijah’s instructing Ahab to “go up and eat and drink” in 1 Kgs 18:41a. Josephus supplies an explicit mention of God’s role in his version of Elijah’s announcement about hearing “a sound of the rushing of rain” of 1 Kgs 18:41b.

Josephus substitutes this mention of Ahab’s emotional state for the notice of 1 Kgs 18:42a about the king’s “going up to eat and drink” in accordance with Elijah’s instructions in 18:41a. See 1 Kgs 18:42b. In 1 Kgs 18:43a, the servant is merely told “go up now, look toward the sea.” Josephus has Elijah issue him more precise instructions.

Compare 1 Kgs 18:43bβ, where, after carrying out his command and reporting that he has seen nothing (18:43bα), the servant is told “go again 7 times” (MT; LXX B adds “and return 7 times,” while LXX BL conclude with the plus “and the lad returned 7 times”). In 1 Kgs 18:44a the servant makes his positive report “at the 7th time.” The Greek word ἴχνος rendered “footprint” here—the same term read by LXX BL 1 Kgs 18:44a— may also denote the palm of the hand, as does its Hebrew equivalent, i.e. ‮כף‬‎. In 1 Kgs 18:44b Elijah simply instructs Ahab to “go down.” Josephus has him also indicate a destination for the king. Conversely, he has no equivalent here to the words “your [Achab’s] chariot,” which BL* append to Elijah’s MT directive that the king “prepare”; subsequently, however, he will make use of this LXX plus, see 8.346.

MT (1 Kgs 18:45b) ‮יזרעאל‬‎ (Eng.: “Jezreel”); LXX B Ἰσραήλ; LXX L Ἰεζραήλ; Josephus Ἰερέζηλα (so Niese; Marcus reads Ἰεζάρελα, a form that will appear subsequently in Josephus’ text; see 8.355). See 1 Kgs 18:45a. Josephus reverses the biblical sequence, where Ahab’s trip to Jezreel (18:45b) is mentioned after the storm’s advent (18:45a). Josephus substitutes this phrase (Greek: ἔνθεος γενόμενος) for the anthropomorphic reference to the “hand of the Lord being upon” Elijah in 1 Kgs 18:46aα; on the phrase, see note to “becoming possessed” at Ant. 6.56. He omits the reference to Elijah’s “girding up his loins” of 18:46aβ. 1 Kgs 18:46b depicts Elijah “running before Ahab.” Josephus derives his reference to the king’s “chariot” from the LXX plus in 1 Kgs 18:44b (previously passed over by him; see note on “in torrents” at 8.345), where LXX adds the specification “your chariot” to Elijah’s MT instruction that Ahab “prepare.”

1 Kgs 19:1a states that Ahab informed his wife of what Elijah had done. Here Josephus follows the biblical wording (see 19:1b) in attributing the prophets’ killing to Elijah personally, whereas in 8.343 he represents the Israelites slaying them at Elijah’s urging; see note on “and killed them” at 8.343. On Josephus’ version of 1 Kings 19 in Ant. 8.347-354, see Begg 1993: 189-98. See 1 Kgs 19:2. Josephus’ reference to Jezebel’s “messengers” corresponds to MT’s specification that she sent “a messenger” to him, whereas LXX BL have her simply “sending to” the prophet. As usual, Josephus omits the queen’s opening oath formula (“so may the gods do to me and more also, if....”).

Josephus’ reference to Elijah’s “fear” agrees with the initial verb of 1 Kgs 19:3 in its MT vocalization. Reading another possible vocalization, LXX BL have rather “he [Elijah] saw.” MT (1 Kgs 19:3) ‮באר שבע‬‎ (Eng.: “Beersheba”); LXX BL Βηρσάβεε; Josephus Βερσουβεέ. Compare the qualification of Beersheba in 1 Kgs 19:3bα: “which belongs to Judah.” See 1 Kgs 19:3bβ. Josephus omits the further details given in 1 Kgs 19:4a, i.e. Elijah journeyed for a day and “sat down under a broom tree” (this latter item is duplicated in 19:5a, which Josephus does reproduce; see 8.349). See Elijah’s prayer for death as cited in 1 Kgs 19:4b. Josephus has Elijah draw a conclusion from the biblical prophet’s affirmation about his being no better than his ancestors, i.e. given his status he ought not wish to live any longer.

1 Kgs 19:5a specifies a “broom tree.” Josephus’ vague designation for Elijah’s “waker” parallels BL 1 Kgs 19:5bα, whereas MT identifies the figure as “an angel/messenger.” Josephus omits the waker’s directive “arise and eat” of 1 Kgs 19:5bβ. Josephus compresses the wording of 1 Kgs 19:6a, which mentions Elijah finding “at his head a cake baked on hot stones and a jar of water.” In MT LXX BL* there is a double mention of Elijah’s “consuming” the provisions made available to him (1 Kgs 19:6bα and 8a) with a sequence (19:6bβ-7) concerning Elijah’s lying down again and a 2nd angelic intervention supervening. In the line of the LXX L MSS 82, 93, 127 (which lack an equivalent to MT etc. 19:6bβ-8a), Josephus directly links his single mention of Elijah’s eating (// 19:6bα) with his notice (// 19:8a) on the prophet’s resuming his journey, strengthened by the food he has eaten. He has no counterpart to the specification of 19:8b that Elijah’s journey to Horeb took him “40 days and 40 nights.” This is Josephus’ substitution for the “Horeb” of 1 Kgs 19:8b, a name never employed by him. With this qualification of the mountain— which takes the place of the phrase “the mount of God” used of it in MT (but not LXX BL) 19:8b—Josephus reminds readers of his earlier references to the site and the events that transpired there. He appends similar qualifications to his mentions of “Sinai” in Ant. 3.286; 8.104.

See 1 Kgs 19:9a. Josephus adds the specification that the cave was “hollow.” In 1 Kgs 19:9bα the “word of the Lord” addresses Elijah. Josephus’ vague designation of the prophet’s interlocutor (“an unseen voice”) recalls his equally vague designation (“someone”) for Elijah’s “waker” in 8.349. In 1 Kgs 19:9bβ Elijah is asked “what are you doing here, Elijah?” Josephus adds the reference to the prophet’s having “left the city” (Jezreel [8.346]?, Beersheba [8.348]?). This affirmation has no equivalent in Elijah’s response as cited in 1 Kgs 19:10 (where the reference is rather to the Israelites’ slaying of “thy [God’s] prophets”). It corresponds to Josephus’ notice on Jezebel’s hearing that Elijah had “killed their [her and Ahab’s] prophets” in 8.348, whereas in 8.343 the people kill the royal prophets at Elijah’s urging. Greek: ὁ ὤν. This phrase, which takes the place of the qualification of the Lord as “the God of hosts” in 1 Kgs 19:10, is absent in MSPE Lat. Marcus (ad loc.) notes that Josephus’ phrase corresponds to the LXX rendering of the words “I am who I am” of MT Exod 3:14 (in his version of this passage in Ant. 2.276 Josephus avers that he is “not to permitted to speak” of the divine name). In the NT the phrase is used, in conjunction with other designations, of God in Rev 1:4, 8; 4:8; 11:17; 16:5. Philo uses both the masculine ὁ ὤν and the neuter τὸ ὄν of the Deity with considerable frequency; for the former formula see, e.g., Abr. 121; Deus 69,109; Ebr. 107; Somn. 1.182 and for the latter, e.g., Deus 11; Post. 27, 168; Migr. 182; Plant. 86. See further Begg 1993: 192, n. 1271. Josephus’ version of Elijah’s reply supplies a content for the prophet’s opening claim in 1 Kgs 19:10aα about his being “jealous/zealous” for the Lord—a claim which, with its “Zealot” overtones, he refrains from reproducing; see Begg 1993: 192, n. 1268. He leaves aside the continuation of Elijah’s words in 19:10aβba, in which he denounces the Israelites’ wrongdoing and asserts that he is the only one of the Lord’s prophets left. The prophet’s allusion to his “convincing the people” about the uniqueness of the Deity here recalls 8.343, where the Israelites acclaim Elijah’s God as “the only true one.” In 1 Kgs 19:10bβ Elijah avers “they seek my life.” Josephus’ more specific formulation has in view Jezebel’s threat as cited in 8.347 (// 19:2).

This indication concerning when Elijah is to “come forth” has a parallel in the LXX BL plus in 1 Kgs 19:11a. Josephus appends this word of explanation to the instructions given Elijah in 1 Kgs 19:11a. Josephus supplies this notice of Elijah’s compliance with the instructions given him in 1 Kgs 19:11a. In 1 Kgs 19:11b the earthquake is mentioned in 2nd place, after the mighty wind. Josephus omits the latter phenomenon completely, while substituting a notice on Elijah’s “hearing” the earthquake for the biblical reference to the Lord’s not (so MT LXX L; the original text of LXX B lacked the negation) being in the earthquake. As he did with the earthquake (see previous note), Josephus substitutes an allusion to Elijah’s perceiving the fire for the notice of 1 Kgs 19:12a (MT LXX L) that the Lord was not “in” that fire.

Compare 1 Kgs 19:12b: “and after the fire a still small voice.” Josephus omits the appended notice of 19:13, where Elijah responds to his hearing of the voice by wrapping his face in his mantle and standing at the entrance of the cave (in his presentation Elijah’s exiting the cave has already been mentioned, prior to the onset of the various phenomena, in 8.351). Greek: φωνῆ θεία; Josephus uses this same phrase in Ant. 1.185, cf. 2.283 (“the voices of God”). In 1 Kgs 19:14bα it is simply “a voice” that comes to Elijah; Josephus’ characterization of the voice as “divine” would seem to be based on 19:15aα, where “the Lord” is introduced as the speaker of the words that follow in 19:15aβ-18. Josephus omits the question and answer sequence (19:13bβ-14) between the voice and the prophet, which largely reproduces that already cited in 19:10. This word of assurance has no equivalent in the Lord’s communication to Elijah in 1 Kgs 19:15aβ-18, which opens with the directive “go, return on your way.” In 1 Kgs 19:15aβb Elijah is instructed to go to the “wilderness of Damascus,” where he is to anoint Hazael king of Syria. Josephus’ modification of Elijah’s initial prescribed destination is due to the fact that he will mention the appointment of the Israelite “Jehu” in first place. MT (1 Kgs 19:16) ‮יהוא‬‎ (Eng.: “Jehu”); LXX B (τὸν υἱὸν) Εἰοῦ; LXX L Ἰοῦ; Josephus Ἰηοῦς. Josephus substitutes the more general term “appoint” for the word “anoint” used in 19:16 for what Elijah is do regarding Jehu. MT (1 Kgs 19:16) ‮נמשי‬‎ (Eng.: “Nimshi”); LXX B Ναμεσθεί; LXX L Ναμεσσεί; Josephus Νεμεσαῖος. 1 Kgs 19:16a specifies “king of Israel.” MT (1 Kgs 19:15b) ‮חזאל‬‎ (Eng.: “Hazael”); LXX BL Ἁζαήλ; Josephus Ἀζάηλος. Hazael is to be anointed “king over Syria” according to 1 Kgs 19:15b. Josephus may have drawn his reference to Damascus from the phrase “the wilderness of Damascus” that designates Elijah’s destination in 19:15a. MT (1 Kgs 19:16b) ‮אלישע‬‎ (Eng.: “Elisha”); LXX BL Ἐλεισσαῖε; Josephus Ἐλισσαῖος. Josephus here omits the name of Elisha’s father, i.e. “Shapat” (MT); he will, however, supply the name in 8.353. MT (1 Kgs 19:16b) ‮אבל מחולה‬‎ (Eng.: “Abel-meholah”); LXX B Ἐβελμαουλά; LXX L Ἀβελμεούλ; Josephus Ἄβελα. In 1 Kgs 19:16b the Lord instructs Elijah to “anoint” Elisha prophet is his place. Josephus’ re-formulation disposes of the difficulty that in the subsequent biblical account (see 1 Kgs 19:19-21) Elijah does not in fact “anoint” his successor. In 1 Kgs 19:17 the Lord does not specify the identity of those to be slain by the trio that Elijah will anoint. Josephus’ clarification on the point (“the impious mob”) serves to legitimate the divinely-ordered execution of these persons. According to 1 Kgs 19:17 also Elisha is to have a personal role in the prescribed killings—one which, however, unlike Hazael and Jehu, he is not shown exercising in what follows. Josephus omits the Lord’s statement of 19:18 about his intended sparing of 7,000 persons, who have not defected to Baal, nothing having been said about such a group in the preceding biblical account.

Josephus specifies Elijah’s destination in accord with the divine order given him in 8.352; 1 Kgs 19:19aα merely states “he departed from there.” MT (1 Kgs 19:19) ‮שפט‬‎ (Eng.: “Shaphat”); LXX BL Σαφάτ; Josephus Σαφάτης. Josephus varies the account of 1 Kgs 19:19aβ, where Elisha is ploughing with the last of 12 yoke of oxen. See 1 Kgs 19:19b.

Josephus’ addition of this reference parallels his (likewise added) notice on David’s “prophesying” in response to Samuel’s anointing of him in Ant. 6.166. In both instances, the addition evidences Josephus’ tendency to highlight the “prophetic factor” in his rewriting of the Bible. See 1 Kgs 19:20. In having Elisha mention his “parents,” Josephus agrees with the MT (and LXX L*) reading, where Elisha asks permission “to kiss my father and my mother,” as against LXX B (and the LXX L MS 93), where he speaks only of his father. Josephus omits Elisha’s appended declaration “and then I will follow you.” This sequence is Josephus’ replacement for Elijah’s obscure reply to Elisha’s request (1 Kgs 19:20aβ) in 1 Kgs 19:20b: “And he said to him, ‘Go back again, for what have I done to you’?” Whereas the biblical Elijah seems to take offense at Elisha’s request, the Josephan prophet readily endorses this. Josephus’ modification here perhaps reflects his concern that the prophet Elijah not appear to be denigrating the central (Jewish and gentile) value of piety towards parents. Josephus likewise omits the further details of Elisha’s preparations for joining Elijah as recounted in 19: 22abα: slaying the oxen, boiling their flesh, using the yokes for this purpose, and distributing the meat to the people, who then eat it. On Josephus’ use of this term (Greek: μαθητής), see note to “disciple” at Ant. 6.84. Greek: διάκονος. On Josephus’ use of this term, see note to “minister” at Ant. 6.52. With Josephus’ double designation (“disciple and minister”) for Elisha in relation to Elijah, compare the notice of 1 Kgs 19:22bβ “then he [Elisha] arose and went after Elijah and ministered to him.” Josephus underscores the fact that the service undertaken by Elisha at this moment lasted for the remainder of Elijah’s life. This appended formula rounds off Josephus’ version of the story of Elijah’s Sinai experience and its sequel (8.347-354// 1 Kings 19).

MT (1 Kgs 21:1) ‮נבות‬‎ (Eng.: “Naboth”); LXX BL Ναβουθαί; Josephus Νάβωθης (this is the reading of RO, which Niese follows; Marcus reads Νάβωθος). Josephus agrees with LXX BL in placing his version of the “Naboth episode” (MT 1 Kings 21) immediately after Elijah’s “mountain experience” (MT 1 Kings 19), whereas in MT the account of Ahab’s Aramean wars (MT 1 Kings 20) supervenes. On Josephus’ retelling of the Naboth episode in 8.355-362, see Begg 1993: 199-210. 1 Kgs 21:1 calls Naboth a “Jezreelite” (MT LXX L; LXX B: “Israelite”). Greek: ἀγρογείτων, a Josephan hapax. This qualification of Naboth takes the place of the reference to his “having a vineyard in Jezreel (> LXX BL) beside the palace of Ahab” in 1 Kgs 21:1. In 1 Kgs 21:2b such monetary compensation is the 2nd, rather than the 1st of the 2 alternatives offered Naboth by Ahab, whereas Josephus has the king begin by offering Naboth money for his property. 1 Kgs 21:1-2 calls Naboth’s property a “vineyard,” a term which Josephus will use for it subsequently; see 8.359-360. Compare 1 Kgs 21:2aβ, where Ahab asks Naboth to give him his vineyard so that he might turn this into a “vegetable garden,” given its proximity to his own house. Compare 1 Kgs 21:2bα, where Ahab’s 1st offer to Naboth is of “a better vineyard”; see note to “at whatever priced he wished” at 8.355. 1 Kgs 21:3 cites Naboth’s oath formula “The Lord forbid that I should give you [Ahab] the inheritance of my fathers.”

Josephus’ reference to Ahab’s not “bathing” replaces the notice of 1 Kgs 21:4bα concerning his “laying down on his bed and turning away his face.” In supplying an explicit motive for Ahab’s irritation, Josephus parallels the plus of MT 1 Kgs 21:4a (and LXX L 1 Kgs 20:4a), absent in LXX B 1 Kgs 20:4a. See 1 Kgs 21:5. Here too (see previous note), Josephus adds the allusion to Ahab’s not “bathing,” and elaborates on the biblical Jezebel’s general reference to his not “eating.” Greek: σκαιότης; the term is hapax in Josephus. Josephus’ version of Ahab’s “objective” report of the exchange between himself and Naboth from 1 Kgs 21:6 turns this into an emotionally-charged contrast between their respective behaviors.

Josephus omits the contemptuous question (“Do you now govern Israel?”) with which Jezebel begins her response to Ahab in 1 Kgs 21:7. Greek: μικροψυχέω; this verb is hapax in Josephus. Josephus reformulates, in negative terms, Jezebel’s positive exhortation to Ahab, “let your heart be cheerful,” just as he generalizes her directive that the king “eat bread” of 1 Kgs 21:7aβbα. In 1 Kgs 21:7 Jezebel concludes her response to Ahab with the promise “I will give you the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite.” Josephus’ alternative language has in view the immediate continuation of the story, which will feature the “punishment” of Naboth.

Greek: Ἰεζαρηλιτῶν; this is a conjecture, ultimately going back to J. Hudson, for the reading of the codices, i.e. Ἰσραηλιτῶν (“Israelites”). The conjecture is adopted by both Niese and Marcus. In 1 Kgs 21:8b Jezebel sends her letter(s) “to the elders and nobles who dwelt with Naboth in his city” (MT; LXX BL 20:8b lack the phrase “in his city”). See 1 Kgs 21:8. Josephus’ plural form, “letters,” corresponds to that of MT, whereas LXX BL (20:8) read the singular. Josephus omits the source detail about Jezebel’s “sealing the letter(s) with his [Ahab’s] seal.” This reference to Naboth’s social status as the reason for his being given the presiding role at the assembly lacks a basis in 1 Kgs 21:9, where Jezebel simply enjoins that he is to “be set on high among the people.” It is, however, paralleled in Rabbinic tradition; see b. Sanh. 48b; t. Sanh. 4.6. In 1 Kgs 21:10 Jezebel specifies the number of “witnesses” that are to be employed as 2. Josephus’ increasing this to 3 reflects his version of the law of Deut 19:15 (where 2 or 3 witnesses are required to prove a charge) in Ant. 4.219 (“...let there be three, or, at the very least, two...”). See further BJP 3 (Feldman) 411, n. 671 and Begg 1993: 203, n. 1344. Greek: τολμηροί. This same adjective is used of Jezebel herself in 8.318. Words of the τολμ-stem are featured in Josephus’ version of the Naboth story of 1 Kings 21(MT); see 8.361, 362. Greek: καταμαρτυρέω. Josephus’ 2 other uses of this verb are in Ant. 4.219; 8.359. In having Jezebel direct that a false accusation be made against Naboth, Josephus represents her as still more brazen than her counterpart in 1 Kgs 21:10, who does not explicitly qualify the charge she wants made as “false.” See 1 Kgs 21:10aβ. Josephus replaces the euphemism, common to both MT and LXX (Naboth is to be charged with having “blessed” God and king) with a term (“defame,” Greek: βλασφημέω) that clearly expresses the intended meaning. His substitute language is paralleled in both the Tg. and the Vulg. In Ant. 4.202 (// Lev 24:16) Josephus cites Moses’ prescribing the penalty of death by stoning—the one that Naboth will undergo (see 8.359)—for the “defamer.” Jezebel’s concluding directive in 1 Kgs 21:10b specifies that Naboth is to be “stoned to death.”

This phrase corresponds to the plus of MT 1 Kgs 21:11b (and LXX B 20:11b), absent in LXX L 20:11b. Josephus drastically abridges the extended account of the execution of Jezebel’s order (1 Kgs 21:9-10) this using much of the same wording employed in that order itself, of 21:11-13. In 21:13 an indeterminate “they” stones Naboth; Josephus specifies that “the crowd” did this. He omits the report made to Jezebel about the fulfillment of her orders by the “they” in 21:14. See 1 Kgs 21:15. Having earlier designated Naboth’s property as a “field” (see 8.355), Josephus, in reproducing Jezebel’s words to Ahab here, does employ the biblical term, i.e. “vineyard.” In his citation of the queen’s words, he leaves aside Jezebel’s closing announcement that Naboth is dead. In place thereof, he has Jezebel inform Ahab that Naboth’s plot is now his “for free.”

Josephus supplies this reference to Ahab’s emotional state. The reference stands in marked contrast to the king’s reaction to Jezebel’s words as portrayed in the LXX BL plus in 1 Kgs 20:16 (MT 21:16), i.e. “Ahab rent his garments and donned sackcloth, and it came to pass....” With this vivid phrase, Josephus highlights Ahab’s eagerness to take possession of his ill-gotten property; in 1 Kgs 21:16 he simply “arises.” Josephus’ phrase might be inspired by the notice—not previously reproduced by him—of 1 Kgs 21:4, where the rebuffed Ahab “lays down on his bed.” Josephus adds this reference to God’s emotional reaction to what has happened, which, in turn, prompts his dispatch of Elijah. In having God himself dispatch Elijah here, Josephus aligns himself with the reading of LXX BL 1 Kgs 20:17 (“and the Lord said...”) against MT 21:17’s “then the word of the Lord came to....” He substitutes the title “the prophet” for the biblical qualification of Elijah as “the Tishbite.” Josephus omits the initial (geographically problematic) indication of 1 Kgs 21:18 about Ahab’s being “in Samaria” at this juncture, whereas the preceding story appears to be set in Jezreel. In so doing he limits himself to the Bible’s subsequent mention of the king’s presence “in the vineyard of Naboth.” From the divine message confided to Elijah in 1 Kgs 21:19, Josephus omits its opening “messenger formula,” while adding reference to Ahab’s “killing” and his “unjustly” inheriting the victim’s property.

Greek: χράω. Josephus’ other uses of this verb are in Ant. 4.77; 5.182, 349. Josephus modifies Ahab’s opening, sarcastic question to Elijah in 1 Kgs 21:20a: “Have you found me, O my enemy?,” turning the question into an admission by Ahab about his “shame” and his having been “taken” by Elijah “in his offense.” In mentioning an (initial) repentance by Ahab already at this point, prior to the dire threats Elijah will make against him, Josephus aligns himself with the presentation of LXX 1 Kgs 20:16, where (see note to “Achab was pleased at what had happened” at 8.360) the king’s repentance likewise precedes Elijah’s judgment speech against him. By contrast his repentance in MT comes only after the prophet’s threats; see 1 Kgs 21:27. Josephus’ recasting of Ahab’s question about having been “found” by his enemy (21:20a), likewise causes him to dispense with Elijah’s corresponding reply in 21:20b: (“I have found you, because you have sold yourself to do what is evil in the sight of the Lord”), which picks up on this. Josephus derives the content of this announcement of punishment for Ahab personally from the message God instructs Elijah to convey to the king in 1 Kgs 21:19b (LXX BL 20:19b add mention of “swine” having consumed Naboth’s blood and the prediction that prostitutes will bath in the king’s blood [see 1 Kgs 22:38). In so doing, he places the announcement on the lips of Elijah (rather than of God speaking to Elijah, as in 21:19b) and turns it into a response made by the prophet to Ahab’s opening word to him (rather than something that precedes the whole king-prophet exchange, as it does in 1 Kings 21). Josephus combines into one the biblical announcements of doom for Ahab and Jezebel, whereas these appear separately in 1 Kgs 21:19b and 21:23, respectively. With this summary threat against Ahab’s line, Josephus compresses the more expansive wording of 1 Kgs 21:21-22a, 24, with its reminiscence of earlier biblical prophecies against the dynasties of Jeroboam and Baasha. With this accusation Josephus sums up the more specific (cultic/religious) charges, e.g., of idolatry, made against Ahab by Elijah in 1 Kgs 21:22b, 25-26. This charge recalls the message earlier entrusted to Elijah by God (8.360// 1 Kgs 21:19) with its reference to Ahab’s having “killed the true master of the small holding.” Its use of the term “citizen” (Greek: πολίτης) for Naboth is an obvious Hellenization. On the term and its cognates, see Spicq (1978) II: 710-20.

This reference to Ahab’s emotional state at this point parallels the opening plus of LXX BL 1 Kgs 20:27 (= MT 21:27): “because of the word [of Elijah] Ahab was pierced with sorrow before the Lord and went about weeping.” The reference has a later counterpart in the description of Ahab “going about dejectedly” at the end of MT 21:27 (LXX B 20:27 lacks the word “dejectedly,” while the entire phrase is absent in LXX L). Like LXX BL 1 Kings 20, but in contrast to MT 1 Kings 21, Josephus mentions a double repentance by Ahab, one before, the other after Elijah’s threatening words to him; see note to “taken in his offense by him [Elias]” at 8.361. 1 Kgs 21:27 makes double mention of Ahab’s use of sackcloth; Josephus has no equivalent to the Bible’s preceding reference to his “rending his clothes.” This element of Josephus’ description of the penitent Ahab corresponds to Tg.’s rendering of the Hebrew word ‮אט‬‎ (no equivalent in LXX BL 1 Kgs 20:27) at the end of MT 1 Kgs 21:27 (RSV: “dejectedly”). See further Begg 1993: 207, n. 1374. 1 Kgs 21:27 mentions Ahab’s “fasting,” but not a (verbal) confession by him. Josephus’ depiction of the king “confessing his offenses” recalls his portrayal of the penitent Judeans in the face of Shishak’s invasion in 8.257. Josephus appends this indication concerning the effect of Ahab’s penitential initiatives as related in 1 Kgs 21:27 upon the Deity. His other uses of the phrase “gratify God” (Greek: τὸν θεὸν ἐξευμενίζω) are in Ant. 11.115; 12.113. Josephus has God communicate directly with Elijah rather than via his “word” as in 1 Kgs 21:28. He omits the opening divine question to Elijah in 21:29aα (“have you seen how Ahab has humbled himself before me?”). This motivation for the delay of Ahab’s punishment corresponds to the MT plus in 1 Kgs 21:29aβ (“because he [Ahab] has humbled himself before me [God]...”) absent in LXX BL 1 Kgs 20:29. See 1 Kgs 21:29b. The account of 1 Kings 21 does not explicitly mention Elijah’s delivery of the divine word of v. 29 to the king.

Josephus adds this transitional phrase, linking his version of 1 Kings 20 with his rendering of 1 Kings 21 (which, like LXX BL, he gives in reverse order to the MT sequence; see note to “Naboth” at 8.355). On Josephus’ retelling of 1 Kings 20 in 8.363-392, see Begg 1993: 211-35. MT (1 Kgs 20:1) ‮בן־הדד‬‎ (Eng.: “Ben-hadad”); LXX BL υἱὸς Ἁδέρ; Josephus ὁ τοῦ Ἀδάδου. Subsequently, he will call the Syrian king both “Adad[os]” (see, e.g., 8.365) and also “Ader” (see 8.401) MT 1 Kgs 20:1 calls Ben-hadad “king of Aram,” LXX L (21:1) “king of Syria.” LXX B (21:1) lacks a corresponding title. Josephus’ reference to the origin of the 32 kings has no equivalent in 1 Kgs 20:1. Wacholder (1962: 151 and n. 40) suggests that he may have derived this (and other of his embellishments of 1 Kings 20) from the Herodian historian Nicolaus of Damascus. Conversely, Josephus omits mention of the “horses and chariots” that accompany Ben-hadad according to 1 Kgs 20:1, just as he “delays” that verse’s mention of Samaria as the Syrian’s specific target. Josephus has made an earlier, foreshadowing reference to “Adad” and his future attack on Ahab in Ant. 7.101-103a.

Josephus adds this sequence in order to explain how it came to a siege of Samaria (see 1 Kgs 20:1bβ), deep within Israelite territory, without any prior resistance being offered. His insertion further offers more a positive perspective on Ahab’s response to Ben-hadad’s assault: Ahab acted, not out of panicked cowardice, but with a clear awareness of the balance of power between the 2 armies and deliberately choosing the best possible spot to make a stand. See 1 Kgs 20:1bβ.

Josephus prefaces the biblical account of the negotiations between Ben-hadad and Ahab (1 Kgs 20:2-12) with mention of this preliminary initiative by the former. Like Ben-hadad’s initial request itself (see previous note), this mention of Ahab’s response to it is a Josephan addition. Josephus’ explicit mention of Ben-hadad’s “messengers” agrees with MT 1 Kgs 20:2 against LXX BL 1 Kgs 21:2. Conversely, like LXX BL, he lacks an equivalent to MT’s qualification of Ahab’s wives whom the messengers are claiming for their master as his “fairest” ones. Josephus appends this (conditional) promise to the messengers’ demand of 1 Kgs 20:3, thereby giving Ahab more of a reason to submit to that demand.

See 1 Kgs 20:4.

Josephus adds this transitional sequence in order to fill in gaps in the biblical account, where following Ahab’s reply (1 Kgs 20:4), the messengers immediately “come again” (20:5), without anything being said either of their reporting back to Ben-hadad or of the latter’s further instructions to them. The Josephan Ben-hadad’s new request that his envoys be “received” by Ahab takes the place of the Syrian’s largely verbatim citation of his earlier word to Ahab (see 1 Kgs 20:3) as quoted by his messengers in 20:5. Mention of these 2 groups replaces the general term used in 1 Kgs 20:6, i.e. “your [Ahab’s] servants,” for those who houses are to be plundered along with the king’s palace. This appended “promise” recalls that attached to Ben-hadad’s initial demand in 8.365.

Greek: ἄγαμαι. This is Josephus’ only use of this verb in the above meaning. Elsewhere (see War 6.187; Ant. 10.200; 12.219, 281, 307; 15.25; 19.136). This reference to the emotional effect of Ben-hadad’s new demands upon Ahab is Josephus’ addition. MT 1 Kgs 20:7aα designates Ahab’s audience as “all the elders of the land” (LXX B [21:7aα] lacks “of the land,” while LXX L [21:7aα] qualifies them as “of Israel”). Josephus’ “enlarging” of the audience serves to resolve the seeming discrepancy between 20:7 (Ahab addresses himself [only] to the elders) and 20:8 (“all the elders and all the people” respond to him). Greek: σωτερία καὶ εἰρήνη. This collocation occurs only here in Josephus. In his reproduction of Ahab’s report (1 Kgs 20:7aβb) concerning his initial interaction with the Syrians (see 20:3-4) Josephus has the king make mention of his magnanimous motivation in acceding to Ben-hadad’s demands, i.e. “for the sake of their [the people’s] safety and peace.” He holds for a later point in Ahab’s address the king’s reference (20:7aβ) to the bellicose intentions behind Ben-hadad’s diplomatic initiatives. Like MT 20:7bα (and LXX L 1 Kgs 21:7bα), he does not explicitly mention, as does the original text of LXX B 1 Kgs 21:7bα, Ahab’s “daughters” among those whom the king reports were claimed by Ben-hadad’s embassy.

Josephus prefaces his version of the biblical Ahab’s initial statement “mark, now, and see how this man [Ben-hadad] is seeking trouble” (1 Kgs 20:7aβ) with an allusion to the demands of his 2nd embassy; see 8.367. Greek: ἀηδοῦς. This is the reading adopted by Niese and Marcus. RO read αἰδοῦς (“shame”). Josephus appends this conclusion to Ahab’s discourse (// 1 Kgs 20:7). In it the king reiterates his solicitude for his subjects’ welfare (see 8.368) and his claims about Ben-hadad’s intentions (see 8.369a), while also displaying a democratic impulse in leaving the decision as to what he should do up to the people.

In 1 Kgs 20:8 “all the elders and all the people” respond to Ahab, even though in 20:7 the king addresses himself only to the former (see note to “the crowd” at 8.368). Josephus disposes of the difficulty by having Ahab both address and be answered by “the crowd.” He likewise expands the audience’s response of 20:8 about what Ahab ought not do with by having the crowd also suggest a positive course of action (“be ready for war”) to the king. See Ahab’s instructions to the Syrian messengers as cited in 1 Kgs 20:9abα, where, responding to Ben-hadad’s 2nd set of demands (20:5-6), Ahab avers “this thing I cannot do.” Once again (see 8.368-369), Josephus has Ahab affirm his solicitude for his people’s welfare. Josephus’ notice on Ahab’s “dismissal” of the messengers takes the place of the reference to their departing and bringing back word to Ben-hadad of 1 Kgs 20:9bβ.

Josephus supplies this reference to Ben-hadad’s emotional reaction to Ahab’s response. Josephus omits Ben-hadad’s opening oath formula (“the god[s] do so to me and more also, if...”) of 1 Kgs 20:10a. Josephus clarifies Ben-hadad’s obscurely laconic words in 1 Kgs 20:10: “... if the dust of Samaria will suffice for handfuls [MT and LXX L 1 Kgs 21:10b; LXX B 21:10b: for foxes] for the people who are at my feet”: the Syrian’s soldiers will use the handfuls (of earth) they pick up to construct earthworks higher than Samaria’s own walls. Josephus’ wording here recalls his notice on Ahab’s “remaining in Samareia, for it was surrounded by a very strong wall and otherwise seemed impregnable” in 8.364. Josephus appends this elucidation of Ben-hadad’s threat in 1 Kgs 20:10b (see previous note): the fact that the handfuls of earth collected by the Syrian soldiers will allow for the building of such high earthworks is meant to show Ahab just how large the enemy army is.

Josephus clarifies Ahab’s reply in 1 Kgs 20:11 (“let not him that girds on his armor boast as he that puts it off”), taking the phrase “put off armor” as a reference to the victor in battle. Compare 1 Kgs 20:12a, where Ben-hadad is informed of Ahab’s final response as he is “drinking” with his fellow kings “in booths.” Josephus repeats the number of the allied kings from 8.364// 1 Kgs 20:1. Niese and Marcus suggest that something is missing in the Greek text of the above sentence. With it Josephus elaborates on LXX BL 1 Kgs 21:12bα, where Ben-hadad commands his servants “build a defensive wall” (in MT 1 Kgs 20:12bα his order is “take up your positions”). He leaves aside the notice on the Syrians’ carrying out the king’s command of 20:12bβ.

Greek: ἀγωνία δεινή. Josephus uses this expression of Saul and his associates in Ant. 6.107 and of Sennacherib in 10.22. Josephus supplies the reference to Ahab’s emotional state and its subsequent reversal as a preface to the prophetic intervention mentioned in 1 Kgs 20:13. Josephus shortens the words of the biblical prophet cited in 1 Kgs 20:13, omitting both his opening question to Ahab (“have you seen all this great multitude?”) and his closing statement concerning the intended purpose of God’s promised handing over of the Syrians into Ahab’s power (“and you shall know that I am the Lord”).

According to the prophet’s response to Ahab in 1 Kgs 20:14aβ it is “the servants of the governors of the districts” who will serve as God’s instruments. Josephus’ appended reference to Ahab’s functioning as their leader incorporates into the prophet’s reply to Ahab’s 1st query (20:14aα) the pair’s 2nd exchange in 20:14b: “Then he [Ahab] said, ‘who shall begin the battle?’ He [the prophet] answered ‘you’.” Josephus’ figure agrees with that given in MT 20:15a and LXX L 1 Kgs 21:15a, as against the 230 of LXX B 1 Kgs 21:15a. At this point Josephus omits the appended notice of 20(21):15b, where the witnesses give widely varying numbers for “the people of Israel” whom Ahab also musters at this point, i.e. 7,000 (MT), 60 (LXX B), 60,000 (LXX L). Subsequently, however, he will draw on this notice; see 8.375. Josephus compresses and clarifies the (confusing) sequence of 1 Kgs 20:16-17a, where an indeterminate “they” goes forth at noon, even as Ben-hadad and his fellow kings are drinking in booths, whereupon the group, i.e. “the servants of the governors of the districts,” designated by the prophet in 20:14, on its own volition, goes out “first.” Josephus’ version underscores Ahab’s control of the proceedings, in accordance with the prophet’s statement about his leadership role in 8.374a.

Like LXX BL 1 Kgs 21:17b, Josephus lacks an equivalent to the mention in MT 1 Kgs 20:17b of Ben-hadad’s initial “sending out scouts,” who then report to him about the Israelite advance. Josephus reverses the sequence of Ben-hadad’s instructions in 1 Kgs 20:18, which speaks 1st of what is to be done with the Israelites should they be coming in peace and then of how they are to be dealt if their intentions are bellicose. Josephus has the king mention the latter, more likely of the 2 possibilities, in 1st place. This parenthetical notice seems based on the mention of Ahab’s mustering “all the people of Israel” in 1 Kgs 20:15b, which Josephus previously passed over; see note to “about 232” at 8.374. In 1 Kgs 20:19-20a the rout of the Syrians is effected, not only by the “servants of the governors of the districts,” but also by “the army which followed them.” Josephus ascribes the initial defeat of the Syrians solely to (his equivalent of) the former group. He further specifies the direction of the Syrians’ flight (20:20a) at this juncture, i.e. towards their camp. This is the force, which, earlier in 8.375, Ahab is said to hold in readiness inside the walls. Here too highlighting the king’s leadership role, Josephus depicts him as dispatching this group only after he has witnessed the initial success of the first contingent.

This notice on the (separate) success achieved by the “second wave” of the Israelite forces and the reason for its success has no explicit equivalent in the biblical account, where the 232 and the army that follows them cooperate in routing the Syrians; see 1 Kgs 20:19-20a. The wording of this notice is reminiscent of Josephus’ description of Abraham’s victory over the Assyrians in Ant. 1.177 and of David’s overthrow of the Amalekites in Ant. 6.362, as well as of Herodotus’ account (1.211) of a military triumph won by Cyrus the Persian. See Begg 1993: 221, n. 1448.

This added reference to the Syrians’ flight picks up on the allusion to their being driven back to “their camp” in 8.375. See 1 Kgs 20:20b, which also mentions the “horsemen” who accompany the fugitive Ben-hadad.

Josephus modifies the notice on Ahab’s activities of 1 Kgs 20:21 in several respects. He replaces its opening reference to the king’s “going out” with mention of the extent of his pursuit. He likewise reverses the sequence of 20:21a, where Ahab’s “capturing” (so LXX BL 1 Kgs 21:21aβ; MT smiting) “horses and chariots” is cited prior to his “killing” the Syrians. He thereby presents Ahab’s initiatives in a militarily more logical order: the enemy troops are first eliminated, and only then is their camp plundered. Josephus elaborates on the “capture notice” of LXX BL 1 Kgs 21:21aβ (see previous note), which mentions only the “horses and chariots” seized by Ahab. He likewise supplies the reference to the king’s return to Samaria. See 1 Kgs 20:22, where the upcoming Syrian advance is predicted by the prophet for “the spring” (literally: the turn of the year). Josephus appends this notice on the king’s compliance with the directives given him by the prophet in 1 Kgs 20:22.

This added transitional phrase picks up on the notice of Ben-hadad’s flight in 8.377. According to 1 Kgs 20:23a, it is Ben-hadad’s “servants” who take the lead in presenting their plan to him. Josephus’ rendition assigns the initiative to the king himself. Compare the opening words of Ben-hadad’s counsellors in 1 Kgs 20:23bα: “their god(s) are god(s) of the hills [LXX BL 1 Kgs 21:23bα add: and not a god of the valleys], and so they were stronger than we.” Josephus has the speakers draw a conclusion about what the Syrians should not do on the basis of this recognition, i.e. fight the Israelites in the mountains. See 1 Kgs 20:23bβ.

See 1 Kgs 20:24. Josephus adds the advisors’ proposal that the kings’ armies be retained. His word for the replacement leaders, i.e. “satraps” (Greek: σατράπαι) is the same as that used in LXX BL 1 Kgs 21:24. See 1 Kgs 20:25aα. Josephus prefaces the advisors’ final proposal with an indication concerning the purpose of the suggested muster. He leaves aside the counsellors’ concluding affirmation of certain victory should they fight this time in the plain (20:25aβ), which recapitulates their claim in 20:23bβ. See 1 Kgs 20:25bβ. Josephus adds the reference to the king’s approval of the advisors’ proposals.

See 1 Kgs 20:26a, where Ben-hadad’s new campaign occurs “in the spring” (literally: at the turn of the year), as announced by the prophet in 20:22. MT (1 Kgs 20:26) ‮אפק‬‎ (Eng.: “Aphek”); LXX BL 1 Kgs 21:26 and Josephus Ἀφέκα. Josephus adds the reference to Ben-hadad’s encamping. Compare 1 Kgs 20:27aα, which does not mention Ahab by name in its account of Israel’s counter-move. Once again, Josephus highlights the leadership role assumed by the king. Josephus’ notice on the disparity between the Israelite and Syrian forces eliminates the figurative characterization of the former as being “like 2 little flocks of goats” of 1 Kgs 20:27aβ.

This designation for Ahab’s interlocutor is paralleled in Tg. 1 Kgs 20:28, whereas MT and LXX BL 1 Kgs 21:28 designate the figure as “(a) man of God.” Josephus’ use of the term “again” here serves to identify “the prophet” in question with the one who earlier addressed Ahab (see 8.378). By contrast, MT 1 Kgs 20:28 and LXX BL 1 Kgs 21:28 leave it unclear whether the “man of God” they mention is the same figure as “the prophet” who advises Ahab in 20(21):22. Josephus reproduces the substance of 1 Kgs 20:28, where the man of God first “quotes” the Syrians’ earlier words (see 20:23) and then proceeds to announce that, in response to those words (“because”) the Lord is giving them into Ahab’s hand in order that “you [pl., MT; sg., LXX BL 1 Kgs 21:28] will know that I am the Lord.” See 1 Kgs 20:29aα.

Josephus elaborates on the summary biblical reference (1 Kgs 20:29aβ) to “battle being joined on the 7th day.” Josephus here both anticipates and elaborates upon the allusion to the surviving Syrians’ retreat into Aphek of 1 Kgs 20:30aα, with, e.g., mention of their causing one another’s death in their headlong flight.

This figure for those killed by the falling wall corresponds to that cited in 1 Kgs 20:30aβ. This is Josephus’ delayed use of the Syrian battlefield casualty figure cited in MT 1 Kgs 20:29b and LXX B 1 Kgs 21:29b (LXX L 1 Kgs 21:29b has 120,000). Josephus adds mention of the king’s servants accompanying the fugitive Ben-hadad (see 1 Kgs 20:30b) in view of their subsequent role in the narrative. Josephus’ word for “chamber” here (Greek: οἶκος, literally: “house”) is the same as that used by LXX BL 1 Kgs 21:30bβ. Also like LXX BL, Josephus lacks an equivalent to the localization of this chamber “in the city” given in MT 1 Kgs 20:30bβ.

Compare 1 Kgs 20:31, where Ben-hadad’s servants affirm “we have heard [MT; LXX BL 1 Kgs 21:31: know] that the kings of the house of Israel are merciful kings.” The adjective collocation “humane and merciful” (Greek: φιλανθροπός καὶ ἐλεήμων) recurs in Ant. 10.41 (which is Josephus’ only other use of the term ἐλεήμων). Josephus’ servants express themselves more confidently about the outcome of their proposed mission than do their biblical counterparts in 1 Kgs 20:31, who merely declare: “perhaps he [Ahab] will [LXX B 1 Kgs 21:31 adds again] spare your life.” In their word to Ben-hadad in 1 Kgs 20:31 the servants spell out which supplicatory gestures they have in mind. Josephus reserves his mention of these gestures for his notice on the servants’ subsequent approach to Ahab. Josephus appends this notice about the servants’ getting the permission they have asked for from Ben-hadad (see 1 Kgs 20:31), prior to their setting out to Ahab (20:32). He thereby highlights the Syrian king’s continuing control of the proceedings. See 1 Kgs 20:32a, which specifies that the sackcloth was placed on the servants’ “loins.” Josephus appends the reference to the antiquity of the practices in question. Compare 1 Kgs 20:32aβ, where the servants quote the words of “your servant Ben-hadad” to Ahab, i.e. “pray, let me live.” Josephus has them add mention of the Israelite’s (hoped-for) “kindness,” which, the Syrians claim, will lead to Ben-hadad’s becoming Ahab’s lifelong “slave.”

Josephus embellishes Ahab’s laconic response as cited in 1 Kgs 20:32b: “Does he [Ben-hadad] still live? He is my brother.” In so doing, he highlights Ahab’s chivalrous stance towards his suppliant foe, thereby validating the Syrian retainers’ earlier statement (8.385) about the “humane and merciful” character of Israel’s kings. This is Josephus’ clarifying rendition of the obscure 1 Kgs 20:33abα, which RSV renders: “Now the men were watching for an omen, and they quickly took it up from him, and said, ‘Yes, your brother Ben-hadad.’ Then he said, ‘Go, and bring him’.” He may have understood the “omen” the biblical Syrians are said to be looking for as a guarantee (“oath”) that Ahab would not harm their master. Josephus elaborates on the summary notice of 1 Kgs 20:33bβ about Ben-hadad’s being brought before Ahab with mention of the latter’s sitting in his chariot and the former’s act of self-humbling. The 1st of these additions has in view the reference to Ahab’s taking Ben-hadad into his chariot, with which 20:33 concludes.

The concluding words of 1 Kgs 20:33 simply have Ahab “causing Ben-hadad to come up [LXX BL 1 Kgs 21:33 add to him] into the chariot.” Josephus supplies the reference to the hand gesture by which Ahab assists Ben-hadad in his “ascent.” With this addition Josephus continues highlighting the gracious reception given Ben-hadad by Ahab, vis-à-vis 1 Kgs 20:34, where Ben-hadad initiates the exchange between them without any such prior encouragement by Ahab. This opening, generalized statement of enduring appreciation by Ben-hadad has no parallel in the Syrian king’s words as cited in 1 Kgs 20:34a. In his declaration of 1 Kgs 20:34a Ben-hadad speaks more specifically of what his “father” had done, and states that he will permit Ahab to “establish bazaars in Damascus.”

This formulation replaces the notice of 1 Kgs 20:34bβ: “so he [Ahab] made a covenant with him [Ben-hadad].” It seems to reflect Ahab’s (RSV supplies his name as subject here) preceding statement in 20:34bα: “I will let you [Ben-hadad] go on these conditions.” Josephus adds the mention of Ahab’s parting gifts to Ben-hadad to the notice on the former’s dismissal of the latter at the very end of 1 Kgs 20:34. Josephus appends this closing formula to his extended account (8.363-388) of the Syro-Israelite conflict.

In 1 Kgs 20:35 the reference is to a (nameless) “certain man of the sons of the prophets” (who in 20:38 will be called simply “the prophet”). Josephus’ identification of this figure with the prophetic protagonist of 1 Kings 22 (“Micaiah”) has Rabbinic parallels; see S. ʿOlam Rab. 20.16; b. Sanh. 89b; t. Sanh. 14.15b. Josephus goes beyond 1 Kgs 20:35a in having the prophetic figure specify where he wishes to be “struck.” See 1 Kgs 20:35b-36a, where it is “the voice of the Lord” that the other man is said not to have obeyed. See 1 Kgs 20:36b-37a, where (v.37a) the prophetic figure repeats the words of his “striking command” from v. 35a.

Josephus combines the indications of 1 Kgs 20:37b (the wounding of the “prophet,” to which Josephus adds the specification that this was “on the skull,” cf. 8.389) and 38b (the prophet “disguises himself with a bandage over his eyes”). He will make use of the intervening v. 38a in the immediate continuation of his account. According to the sequence of 1 Kgs 20:38a, 39aα, the prophet “waits for the king by the way” and then speaks to him as he passes by. In 1 Kgs 20:39aβbα the prophet identifies himself to the king as one who had “gone out in the midst of the battle,” and designates the one who entrusted the prisoner to him as a “soldier.” Josephus “delays” for the moment his (partial) “quotation” of the alternative threats the one handing over the prisoner makes as cited in 20:39bβ. Josephus omits the prophet’s opening phrase of 1 Kgs 20:40 “and as your servant was busy here and there,” which itself serves to explain (and justify) the escape of the (fictive) prisoner that he will proceed to relate. This statement, underscoring the danger facing him, has no counterpart in the prophet’s report to the king in 1 Kgs 20:39-40a. Here, Josephus makes (delayed) use of the 1st of the 2 threats (supposedly) made to the solider by his counterpart in 1 Kgs 20:39bβ: “if by any means he [the prisoner] be missing, your life shall go for his life.” On the other hand, Josephus leaves aside the alternative penalty cited by the other at the end of v. 39, i.e. “… or else you shall pay a talent of silver,” to which there is no further reference in what follows.

Compare Ahab’s response to his interlocutor in 1 Kgs 20:40b: “so shall your judgment be; you yourself have decided it.” In 1 Kgs 20:41 Ahab recognizes his interlocutor simply as “one of the prophets.” Josephus’ specification on the matter reflects his earlier naming (8.389) of the prophetic figure of 20:35 as “Michaias.”

Josephus supplies this transitional phrase. Compare 1 Kgs 20:42a, where the prophet refers to Ahab’s “letting go out of your hand the man I [God] had devoted to destruction.” The “defamation” of God to which Michaias alludes here is the claim by Ben-hadad’s servants—which the king himself endorses as “well said”—that the power of the Israelite God is limited to the mountains; see 8.379, cf. 8.382. See 1 Kgs 20:42b. Josephus supplies this reference to Ahab’s emotional state. In adding this directive by Ahab concerning “Michaias” at the conclusion of their (initial) confrontation, Josephus likely found his inspiration in 1 Kgs 22:27b, where, after a similar confrontation between them, Ahab commands that Micaiah be “put in prison.” 1 Kgs 20:43 characterizes Ahab as “resentful and sullen,” following his confrontation with the “man of God.” Josephus omits the biblical specification that the king’s “return home” took him “to Samaria.”

Of the above 2 transitional formulae—both of which are Josephan additions—one rounds off the historian’s extended (initial) presentation of Ahab (8.316-392// 1 Kgs 16:21-21:29), while the other re-directs attention to the Judean Jehoshaphat, last mentioned in 8.315. On Josephus’ account of Jehoshaphat’s early reign in 8.393-397 (// 2 Chronicles 17), see Begg 1993: 236-42; on his overall treatment of this king, see Feldman 1998a: 307-21. 2 Chr 17:2a speaks of Jehoshaphat’s “placing forces in all the fortified cities of Judah.” Josephus omits the notices of 17:1 on Jehoshaphat’s accession (already mentioned by him in 8.315) and his “strengthening himself against Israel” (in this instance, his omission likely has in view the friendly relations between Jehoshaphat and the northern kings portrayed in what follows). On the textual problems of the Greek underlying this translation, see Marcus ad loc. In 2 Chr 17:2b the reference is to Ephraimite cities occupied by Jehoshaphat’s father Asa, a happening mentioned in passing in 2 Chr 15:8. Josephus makes the allusion rather to the seizure of Northern cities by Abijah/Abias recorded in 2 Chr 13:19 (// 8.284). He adds the specification that Abijah took the cities during Jeroboam’s reign.

Greek: εὐμενὴς καὶ συνεργός. This collocation occurs only here in Josephus. He uses the term “cooperator” (Greek: συνεργός) of God’s relationship to David in Ant. 7.91. This is Josephus’ generalized rendition of the evaluative statements concerning Jehoshaphat of 2 Chr 17:3-4, 6. From the biblical sequence Josephus eliminates, e.g., the reference to Jehoshaphat’s “walking in the earlier way of his father” (17:3a) given that in his presentation Asa, Jehoshaphat’s father, remains an impeccable king throughout his reign. He likewise leaves aside the mention of particular deities (Baal [17:3b]; the Asherim [17:6]) and illegitimate cultic institutions (the high places [17:6]) that the biblical Jehoshaphat either avoids or eliminates. Compare 2 Chr 17:5b: “all Judah brought tribute to Jehoshaphat; and he had great riches and honor.”

According to MT 2 Chr 17:7-8, Jehoshaphat’s delegation consisted of 5 named “princes,” 9 named Levites, and 2 named priests. Josephus passes over the 2nd of these groups entirely, while also omitting the names of the 1st and 3rd groups. In 2 Chr 17:7 the delegation is directed simply “to teach.” Josephus supplies a content for the teaching they are to impart, drawing on the subsequent biblical reference (17:9) to the delegation’s “having the book of the law of the Lord with them.” Josephus appends this notice on the successful outcome of the teaching mission spoken of in 2 Chr 17:7-9. With the addition, he highlights the fact that, also in this regard, Jehoshaphat proved an effective king.

Josephus leaves aside the biblical reference (2 Chr 17:10) to “the fear of the Lord” as that which kept the foreign nations from making war on Judah in Jehoshaphat’s time. According to 2 Chr 17:11a, the Philistines brought Jehoshaphat “presents” and “silver for tribute.” Contrary to his usual practice, Josephus gives much lower figures for the Arabs’ tribute than does 2 Chr 17:11b (7,700 rams and 7,700 he-goats [MT LXX L; LXX B mentions only rams]). Perhaps then, Josephus had before him a variant text of 17:11b. Josephus summarizes the notices of 2 Chr 17:12-13 on Jehoshaphat’s preparation of both sites and men for military purposes.

MT (2 Chr 17:14) ‮עדנה‬‎ (Eng.: “Adnah”); LXX B Ἐδνάας; LXX L Αἰδής; Josephus Ἐδναῖος. MT (2 Chr 17:15) ‮יהוחנן‬‎ (Eng.: “Jehohanan”); LXX BL Ἰωανάν; Josephus Ἰωάννης. 2 Chr 17:15-16 cites 2 additional (i.e. beyond the “Adnah” mentioned in 17:14) Judean commanders, i.e. “Jehohanan” with 280,000 troops and “Amasiah” with 200,000. Thereafter, 17:17 refers to a 1st Benjamite commander, i.e. “Eliada” with his 200,000 men. Josephus conflates these data, making the one commander “Joannes” head of both a Judean and a Benjamite contingent, each consisting of 200,000 men. In so doing, he leaves unaccounted for the 280,000 men assigned to “Jehohanan” in 17:15. MT (2 Chr 17:17) ‮יהוזבד‬‎ (Eng.: “Jehozabad”); LXX BL Ἰωζαβάδ; Josephus Χάβαθος. 2 Chr 17:18 states that “Jehozabad” with his 180,000 (Benjamite; see 17:17) troops was next to “Eliada.” See 2 Chr 17:19, which localizes the cities in question “in Judah.”

2 Chr 18:1b speaks simply of the “marriage alliance” between Jehoshaphat and Ahab. Josephus derives the names of the couple involved, i.e. “Joram,” son of Jehoshaphat, and “Athaliah,” (grand) daughter of Ahab, from subsequent biblical contexts; see 2 Kgs 8:16 // 2 Chr 21:6 and 2 Kgs 8:25 // 2 Chr 22:2, respectively. He omits the notice of 2 Chr 18:1a on the “great riches and honor” acquired by Jehoshaphat, having already referred to these in 8.394 (cf. 2 Chr 17:5). On Josephus’ version of the story of the death of Ahab (1 Kgs 22:1-40// 2 Chr 18:1-34) in 8.398-420, see Begg 1993: 243-69 and Sievers 1999. Josephus’ vague chronological indication here corresponds to that with which 2 Chr 18:2 begins, i.e. “after some years.” 1 Kgs 22:2, by contrast, dates Jehoshaphat’s arrival in Samaria “in the 3rd year,” i.e. of the 3-year truce between Syria and Israel cited in 22:1 (to which Josephus will make subsequent reference; see 8.400). Josephus elaborates on the notice, unique to 2 Chr 18:2a, concerning the welcome given Jehoshaphat and his entourage by Ahab. In particular, he has the visitors offered, not only meat, but also “grain and wine.” In 1 Kgs 22:4// 2 Chr 18:2b Ahab’s request is simply that Jehoshaphat “accompany him” to “Ramoth-gilead.” Josephus’ formulation of the request—which stands under the influence of the plus of 1 Kgs 22:3, where Ahab declares to his servants that whereas, the city “belongs to us,” they have been making no effort to take it back from the Syrian king—specifies the objective of the projected joint campaign.

This added comment accounts for the state of affairs to which Ahab alludes in his words to his servants in 1 Kgs 22:3, i.e. Ramoth-gilead “belongs to us,” but is currently in the possession of the Syrians; see previous note. Jehoshaphat’s positive promise of support in Josephus’ version picks up on the king’s closing words to Ahab in 2 Chr 18:3bβ, i.e. “(we will be) with you in war.” His appended notice on the non-inferiority of Jehoshaphat’s army to that of Ahab seems to represent an interpretation of the former’s declaration of solidarity as cited in 1 Kgs 22:4b// 2 Chr 18:3bα: “I am as you are, my people as your people, my horses as your horses” (Chronicles lacks the reference to horses). Josephus anticipates his reference to the 2 kings sitting on their thrones from 1 Kgs 22:10// 2 Chr 18:9. He likewise amplifies this item with reference to Jehoshaphat’s bringing up (the rest of) his army and to the activity being performed by the royal pair as it awaits the arrival of those additional forces, i.e. paying their troops.

Josephus elaborates Jehoshaphat’s directive that Ahab “seek the word of the Lord” of 1 Kgs 22:5// 2 Chr 18:4. In so doing, he avoids the phrase “word of the Lord,” while also spelling out what it is Jehoshaphat hopes to learn from the consultation for which he is calling. Greek: εἰρήνη καὶ φιλία. Josephus uses this collocation also in Ant. 12.394 (reverse order) and 18.375. Josephus here makes a delayed use of the notice on the 3-year truce between Syria and Israel of 1 Kgs 22:1, turning this into an explanation (“for”) as to why Jehoshaphat feels the need for a prophetic consultation about the advisability of a war against Syria. To his preceding reference (drawn from 1 Kgs 22:1) to the 3-year Syrian-Israelite truce, Josephus appends this allusion to the starting point of that period, i.e. Ahab’s release of the defeated Ben-hadad, as related by him in 8.388 (// 1 Kgs 20:34).

This form of the name (Greek: Ἄδερ) of Ahab’s Syrian opponent as read by Niese here in 8.401 differs from that found previously in Josephus’ text, i.e. “(son of) “Adad(os)” (which Marcus and Schalit s.v. read in 8.401 as well); the form “Ader” recurs frequently in Antiquities 9, however. Ahab’s question to the prophets (see next note) as cited in 1 Kgs 22:6a// 2 Chr 18:5a makes no reference either to an inquiry of the Deity by them or to the Syrian king. Josephus expatiates considerably on the alternate question put by Ahab to the 400 prophets in 1 Kgs 22:6a// 2 Chr 18:5a, i.e. “Shall I/we go to battle against Ramoth-gilead, or shall I forbear?” In particular, the added reference to God in the question(s) he attributes to Ahab is noteworthy, given his tendency to eliminate biblical references to the Deity. The city to which Ahab alludes here is “Aramatha”; see 8.398.

Compare 1 Kgs 22:6b// 2 Chr 18:5b, where the prophets respond: “Go up; for God/the Lord will give it into the hand of the king.” Josephus adds the allusion to Israel’s earlier domination of the Syrians. Josephus adds this motivation for Jehoshaphat’s subsequent request for a “second opinion.” On Josephus’ use of the term “false prophet” (Greek: ψευδοπροφήτης), see the note to “what pleased him” at 8.236. See 1 Kgs 22:7// 2 Chr 18:6. Josephus has Jehoshaphat spell out what he hopes to learn from the additional prophet.

Josephus elaborates on Ahab’s general allusion (1 Kgs 22:8a// 2 Chr 18:7a) to the “evil” Micaiah has (purportedly) been saying about him [Ahab] with a more specific allusion to the former’s earlier announcement about the fate awaiting the king as cited in 8.392 (cf. 1 Kgs 20:42). This addition to Ahab’s reply recalls Josephus’ version of the earlier confrontation between Micaiah and Ahab; see 8.392, where Ahab commands that the prophet be kept “locked under guard.” In this way Josephus provides an explanation as to why Micaiah was not on hand for the initial prophetic “consultation.” MT (1 Kgs 22:8a// 2 Chr 18:7a) ‮מיכיהו‬‎ (Eng.: “Micaiah”); LXX B 1 Kgs 22:8a// LXX B 2 Chr 18:7a Μειχαίας; LXX L 1 Kgs 22:8a// LXX L 2 Chr 18:7a and Josephus Μιχαίας. Josephus has already introduced this figure by name in 8.389. MT (1 Kgs 22:8a) ‮ימלה‬‎ (Eng.: “Imlah”); (2 Chr 18:7a) ‮ימלא‬‎ (Eng.: “Imlah”); LXX B 1 Kgs 22:8a Ἰεμιάς; LXX L 1 Kgs 22:8a Ναμαλεί; LXX B 2 Chr 18:7a Ἰεμαάς; LXX L 2 Chr 18:7a Ναμαλί; Josephus Ὀμβλαῖος (so Niese; Marcus, Naber, and Schalit s.v. follow the reading Ἰεμβλαῖος of P2). In 1 Kgs 22:8b// 2 Chr 18:7b, Jehoshaphat reacts to Ahab’s invective against Micaiah with the soothing interjection “let not the king say so.” Josephus depicts a more imperious Judean king whose directive here recalls his earlier enjoining Ahab to summon whatever prophets might be on hand in 8.400. Josephus’ designation for Ahab’s envoy is the same term (Greek: εὐνοῦχος) used in LXX 1 Kgs 22:9 // 2 Chr 18:8. MT employs a more general term, i.e. ‮סריס‬‎, which may denote a “eunuch,” but also has the more general sense of “official.”

From the messenger’s words to Micaiah on the way in 1 Kgs 22:13// 2 Chr 18:12, Josephus omits the former’s crass appended suggestion to the prophet: “let your word be like the word of one of them, and speak favorably.” Having anticipated (see 8.399) the notice (1 Kgs 22:10// 2 Chr 18:9) on the 2 kings sitting enthroned as they await Micaiah’s arrival, Josephus—for the moment, but see 8.409—leaves aside the entire sequence (22:10-12//18:9-11) concerning Zedekiah’s prophetic performance before the royal pair during the interlude. Greek: καταψεύσασθαι τοῦ θεοῦ. This same construction recurs in War 6.288 (subject: the false prophets during the siege of Jerusalem) and Ant. 10.178 (the survivors of Jerusalem suspect Jeremiah of doing this). Compare 1 Kgs 22:14// 2 Chr 18:13, where Micaiah responds to the messenger’s proposal: “... what the Lord says to me, that will I speak.” Josephus omits the prophet’s opening oath formula (“as the Lord lives”). Josephus omits the initial exchange between Ahab and Micaiah that is appended to the notice of the latter’s arrival in 1 Kgs 22:15// 2 Chr 18:14, where, contrary to his previous affirmation (22:14// 18:13) about saying only what the Lord will tell him, Micaiah appears to lie in his (ironic) echoing of the 400 prophets’ favorable words to the king. In 1 Kgs 22:16// 2 Chr 18:15 Ahab’s “adjuring” of Micaiah follows upon the former’s realization that the latter is mocking him with his initial response to his question, in which Micaiah echoes the words of the 400 prophets (see previous note). In Josephus, Ahab’s adjuring Micaiah marks the beginning of the exchange between the 2 figures. See 1 Kgs 22:17a// 2 Chr 18:16a. Josephus adds the explicit mention of God as the source of Micaiah’s “vision.”

Josephus reverses the sequence of the divine word as cited by Micaiah in 1 Kgs 22:17b// 2 Chr 18:16b, where the Deity first states: “these [the Israelites] have no master,” and then proceeds to enjoin “let each return to his home in peace.” See 1 Kgs 22:18// 2 Chr 18:17. Josephus amplifies the biblical Ahab’s claim with the assertion that Micaiah is “ill-disposed” towards him, this recalling the king’s earlier statement (8.403// 1 Kgs 22:8// 2 Chr 18:7) that he himself “hates” Micaiah.

This affirmation replaces the call to attention, “hear [sg., 1 Kgs 22:19/ pl., 2 Chr 18:18] the word of the Lord,” with which the biblical Micaiah opens his 2nd discourse, 1 Kgs 22:19-23// 2 Chr 18:18-22. Greek: παρορμάω. Josephus uses this same verb of the false prophet of Bethel who misleads Jeroboam in 8.245. This is Josephus’ rendering of the conclusion (1 Kgs 22:23// 2 Chr 18:22) of Micaiah’s 2nd discourse, which affirms that the Lord has placed “a lying spirit” in the mouth of Ahab’s prophets. Josephus thus avoids attributing a divine origin to the message of the “false prophets.” To this same end, he omits the entire heavenly vision sequence as related by Micaiah in 22:19b-22// 18:18b-21, which serves to set up Micaiah’s theologically problematic affirmation in 22:23// 18:22. Josephus supplies this reference to Ahab’s initial reaction to Micaiah’s words. MT (1 Kgs 22:24// 2 Chr 18:23) ‮צדקיהו‬‎ (Eng.: “Zedekiah”); LXX B 1 Kgs 22:24 Σεδεκιού; LXX L 1 Kgs 22:24// LXX BL 2 Chr 18:23 and Josephus Σεδεκίας. Josephus replaces the biblical mention of his father (MT: Chenanah) with the qualification of him as one of the “false prophets,” this recalling Micaiah’s allusion to these personages in 8.406. This is Josephus’ first reference to Zedekiah, given his delayed utilization of the earlier biblical scene featuring Zedekiah’s sign with the iron horns (1 Kgs 22:10-12// 2 Chr 18:9-11); see the note to “and their soldiers” in 8.399. Josephus at this point has Zedekiah address the king directly and at length, whereas in 1 Kgs 22:24b// 2 Chr 18:23b he briefly queries Micaiah, asking how it is that the Lord’s spirit has left himself in order to speak with his rival.

This is the thesis of the Josephan Zedekiah’s speech to Ahab, which he will then proceed to prove by calling attention to the discrepancy between Micaiah’s present prediction and an earlier one made by another prophet, i.e. Elijah. Zedekiah’s initial comparison of Micaiah and Elijah regarding their respective degree of insight regarding the future already serves to brand the former as an inferior prophet, who, as such, should not be listened to by the king—as Zedekiah has just urged. Zedekiah here (loosely) recalls Elijah’s words to Ahab as cited by Josephus in 8.361 (where the prophet states that Ahab’s blood “will be shed” at the very spot where Naboth’s body had been consumed by dogs). In fact, Zedekiah’s “quotation” of Elijah here in 8.407 is closer to the wording of 1 Kgs 21:19 itself then is Josephus’ own rendering of that verse in 8.361. Josephus here has Zedekiah make summary reference to the circumstances of Naboth’s death, wherein, however, the leading role was taken, not by Ahab himself, but rather by Jezebel; see 8.357-359.

With this assertion Zedekiah reiterates his earlier claim (8.407) that Micaiah “was not speaking the truth.” Both assertions appear highly ironic, given that the speaker is himself “one of the false prophets” (8.406), as well as Micaiah’s own previous affirmation that it was “not right for him to speak lies in God’s name” (8.404). It is difficult to perceive where the “contradiction” between Micaiah and Elijah is supposed to lie here—the latter spoke of what will happen to Ahab’s corpse, while the former had, Zedekiah avers, announced the period within which the king is to die. Moreover, Zedekiah’s case against Micaiah’s credibility is made all the weaker by the fact that neither in Josephus nor in the Bible does Micaiah himself actually specify a time-frame for Ahab’s end. With this phrase Josephus seems to be making delayed use of Zedekiah’s mention of the “spirit of the Lord” in his question to Micaiah about that spirit leaving himself to speak to his opponent in 1 Kgs 22:24b // 2 Chr 18:23b. For the phrase “the divine spirit” (Greek: τὸ θεῖον πνεῦμα) in Josephus, see note to “the divine spirit” at Ant. 6.166. Greek: Ἰάδαος. Throughout 8.230-245 Josephus’ name for Jeroboam’s prophetic antagonist is “Jadon.” Schalit s.v. reads that same form here in 8.408 as well. Josephus adds this long preface to Zedekiah’s actual striking of Micaiah (1 Kgs 22:24a// 2 Chr 18:23a); by means of the addition the former spells out what that act is supposed to prove, i.e. whether or not Micaiah is a true prophet, who, as such, like Jadon, cannot be abused with impunity. On the withering of Jeroboam’s hand to which Zedekiah alludes here, see 8.233// 1 Kgs 13:4.

Josephus finally now comes to cite this biblical datum from 1 Kgs 22:24a// 2 Chr 18:23a, following the extended preceding discourse that he has Zedekiah address to the king in 8.407-408 (compare the sequence of 1 Kgs 22:24// 2 Chr 18:23, where Zedekiah speaks to Micaiah himself in conjunction with his striking him). Josephus makes explicit this point—and thus the success of the “test” proposed by Zedekiah in 8.408—which remains implicit in the biblical accounts. This reference to the impact of Zedekiah’s initiative on Ahab is Josephus’ addition. Contrast 8.407, where Ahab is said to be “reflecting” on Micaiah’s earlier words. This appended editorial reflection is a further indication of Josephus’ concern to disassociate God from Ahab’s death, which in the Bible, results from the king’s listening to the false prophets, who have themselves been led astray by a “lying spirit” commissioned for that purpose by the Deity (see 1 Kgs 22:22-23// 2 Chr 18:22, omitted by Josephus). On Josephus’ use of the concept of “fate” (Greek: τὸ χρεών), see Schlatter 1932: 43; Stählin 1974: 331-43; and Villabla i Varneda 1986: 58-62. The term appears twice subsequently in Josephus’ account of Ahab’s demise; see 8.412, 419. Josephus makes his delayed use of this biblical element—which in 1 Kgs 22:11// 2 Chr 18:10 occurs prior to Micaiah’s arrival—the climax to Zedekiah’s efforts at persuading Ahab about Micaiah’s lack of credibility. He leaves aside the notice on the remaining 400 prophets seconding Zedekiah’s claim about Ahab’s forthcoming triumph (22:12// 18:11).

Josephus elaborates on Micaiah’s response to Zedekiah in 1 Kgs 22:25// 2 Chr 18:24, highlighting the imminence of what is announced, as well as supplying a reason for Zedekiah’s coming attempt at self-concealment. With his mention of Zedekiah’s “lying speech,” Micaiah turns his opponent’s previous claims (see 8.407, 408) about his own false speaking against him. MT (1 Kgs 22:26// 2 Chr 18:25) ‮אמן‬‎ (Eng.: “Amon”); LXX B 1 Kgs 22:26 Σεμήρ; LXX L 1 Kgs 22:26 Ἐμμήρ; LXX B 2 Chr 18:25 Ἐμήρ; LXX L 2 Chr 18:25 Σεμμήρ; Josephus Ἀχάμων (Schalit s. v. suggests that this form may a corruption/conflation of the title ἄρχων [used for the figure in LXX BL 1 Kgs 22:26] and the proper name Ἀμων [cf. MT]). This is the same title (Greek: ὁ τῆς πόλεως ἄρχων) used in LXX BL 1 Kgs 22:26 and 2 Chr 18: 25. Josephus abridges Ahab’s directives as cited in 1 Kgs 22:26-27// 2 Chr 18:25-26. In particular, he passes over the name of the 2nd official to whom Micaiah is to be entrusted (Joash, son of the king, MT 22:26// 18:25), as well as the command that Micaiah be kept in prison until Ahab returns “in peace” (22:27 // 18:26). He likewise leaves aside Micaiah’s retort to the king (22:28// 18:27), in which he first avers that should Ahab actually return in peace this will show that the Lord has not spoken through him, and then appeals to “all peoples” to “hear” (this concluding appeal is absent in LXX BL 22:28).

See 1 Kgs 22:29// 2 Chr 18:28. In 8.398 the contested city is called “Aramatha in Galadene.” Cf. the form “Aramathe,” which appears in the continuation of 8.411. Josephus appends this notice on the Syrian’s counter-move to the biblical mention of the advance of the allied kings. The text of 8.411 printed by Niese reads 2 different forms for the name of the contested city (“Ramathe,” “Aramathe”), while Marcus gives the same form (“Aramathe”) in both instances.

In 1 Kgs 22:30// 2 Chr 18:29 Ahab simply tells Jehoshaphat what he is to do. Josephus’ reference to an “agreement” between the 2 kings is part of his wider enhancement of the status and active role of Jehoshaphat vis-à-vis Ahab, reflected also in his having the former twice earlier issue commands to the latter; see 8.400, 403. Josephus follows the reading of LXX BL as against MT 1 Kgs 22:30a// 2 Chr 18:29a; in the former witnesses Jehoshaphat is to don Ahab’s robes, while in the latter he will wear his own royal robes into battle. Josephus supplies this indication concerning the purpose of the kings’ change of clothes; it takes the place of the notice of 1 Kgs 22:30b// 2 Chr 18:29b that Ahab did in fact “disguise himself,” whereupon he (MT 18:29b: they) proceeded into battle. This reference to the operation of “fate” in Ahab’s imminent demise picks up on Josephus’ earlier statement (8.409), attributing Ahab’s heeding of the false prophets to the influence of “fate” upon him.

The enemy king of Syria is nameless in 1 Kgs 22:31// 2 Chr 18:30. Josephus draws the name from his account of the earlier conflict between Ahab and the Syrian king in 8.363-392 (// 1 Kings 20). Compare 8.401, where the form of the king name’s read by Niese is “Ader.” See 1 Kgs 22:31// 2 Chr 18:30, where the Syrian’s command to his chariot officers is that they “fight” solely with the king of Israel. Like Chronicles, Josephus lacks an equivalent to Kings’ specification that the officers to whom the Syrian ruler addressed himself numbered 32. Josephus amplifies 1 Kgs 22:32a// 2 Chr 18:31a with further details: the start of battle, Jehoshaphat’s position, and the “rush” made against him. Conversely, he omits Jehoshaphat’s resultant “cry” of 1 Kgs 22:32b// 2 Chr 18:31b (which adds that the Lord helped him, drawing away his assailants). Perhaps, Josephus found such a “cry” unworthy of a king whose stature he is concerned to enhance; see note to “agreed” at 8.412.

See 1 Kgs 22:33// 2 Chr 18:32. Josephus anticipates this notice on the duration and intensity of the battle from 1 Kgs 22:35// 2 Chr 18:34. The notice likewise alludes back to the Syrian king’s command as cited in 8.413. In 1 Kgs 22:34a// 2 Chr 18:33a Ahab’s wounder is a nameless “man.” Josephus’ name for him likely represents that of the Syrian general featured in 2 Kings 5, i.e. “Naaman” (who, in fact, is identified with Ahab’s killer in Tg. 2 Chr 18:33; Midr. Pss. 78, 350 (ad Ps 78: 11); and Midr. Sam. 11, 80). See further Begg 1993: 261-2, n. 1744. Josephus’ specification concerning the “place” of Ahab’s wound reflects the LXX reading in 1 Kgs 22:34a// 2 Chr 18:33a, i.e. “between the breastplate and the lung”; compare MT: “between the scale armor and the breastplate.”

Josephus supplies this notice on Ahab’s self-sacrificing concern for the morale of his troops. See 1 Kg 22:34b// 2 Chr 18:33b. Josephus both clarifies the meaning of the biblical Ahab’s command to his driver, i.e. “turn your hand(s),” and underscores the severity of the king’s wound. Greek: λιφαιμέω. The verb is hapax in Josephus. See 1 Kgs 22:35aβb// 2 Chr 18:34aβb. Josephus adds the reference to Ahab’s “pain,” thereby underscoring the king’s heroism. His reference to Ahab’s loss of blood reflects the plus of 1 Kgs 22:35bβ.

Greek: στρατοκήρυξ. This is the same term used in LXX BL 1 Kgs 22:36a (MT does not mention a “herald,” but rather of a “cry” going through the camp). It is hapax in both Josephus and the LXX. See 1 Kgs 22:36 (the Chronicler ends his account with the death of Ahab, 2 Chr 18:34// 1 Kgs 22:35aβ). Josephus supplies the reference to the Syrian withdrawal and to the Israelites’ being informed of Ahab’s demise. He likewise turns the biblical cry “every man to his city, and every man to his country” (22:36b) into the notice that the Israelites did return home. See 1 Kgs 22:37. Josephus leaves aside the verse’s opening mention of the death of Ahab, which duplicates that of 22:35aβ.

See 1 Kgs 22:38aα. Josephus appends the reference to the staining of the spring with Ahab’s blood. LXX BL 1 Kgs 22:38aβ adds “swine” in line with the plus of LXX 1 Kgs 20:19, where Elijah refers to the licking of Naboth’s blood not only by dogs (as in MT 1 Kgs 21:19) but also by “swine.” This term translates the participle of the verb ἐταίριζω, used by Josephus only once elsewhere, i.e. in relation to Delilah in Ant. 5.306. Compare 1 Kgs 22:38bβ, where the use made of Ahab’s blood by the dogs and prostitutes respectively is said to be “according to the word of the Lord which he spoke.” Josephus replaces the biblical reference to the fulfillment of the divine “word” by a statement about recognition of the truth of a “prophecy,” which is itself explicitly attributed to Elijah (see 8.407). Josephus adds this notice on the fulfillment also of Micaiah’s prediction about Ahab’s end (see 8.405, where, however, Micaiah does not explicitly mention Ahab’s dying at “Aramathe”), thereby highlighting the falsity of Zedekiah’s claim (8.407-408) that Micaiah and Elijah had delivered “contradictory” announcements concerning the king’s demise. He has no equivalent to the “source notice” for Ahab given in 1 Kgs 22:39 nor to the allusion to Ahab’s “sleeping with his fathers” (22:40a), which could suggest that, contrary to the account given by both the Bible and Josephus, the king died a peaceful death.

With this transitional notice to his following appended reflections on the moral to be drawn from the circumstances of Ahab’s end, Josephus underscores the status of both Elijah and Micaiah as true prophets, whose—seemingly divergent—predictions both found fulfillment. Greek: ἡδονὴ καὶ βούλησις. These 2 terms are collocated also in Ant. 5.179. This is the 1st of the lessons Josephus draws from the story of Ahab’s death, i.e. (true) prophetic prediction is a helpful divine gift that, as such, needs to be respected and attended to—as Ahab failed to do. Such predictions may, moreover, be recognized by their typically unpleasing and unflattering character.

The 2nd lesson to be drawn from Ahab’s death concerns the operation and efficacy of “fate” (see 8.409, 413), which, by appealing to the desires and hopes of its victims, diverts their attention from the truth of the prophetic warnings they have been given, and so leads them to destruction. In making the above points concerning “fate,” Josephus offers no explanation as to how this power relates to God’s own power and purposes as spoken of in what precedes—he simply juxtaposes the workings of the 2 powers in the human sphere.

Josephus applies his preceding general reflections to the particular case of Ahab in language reminiscent of his earlier editorial remark in 8.409: “it was fate, I suppose, that made the false prophets more convincing than the truthful one....” MT (1 Kgs 22:40b) ‮אחזיהו‬‎ (Eng.: “Ahaziah”); LXX BL Ὀχοζείας; Josephus Ὀχοζίας.

MT (2 Chr 19:2) ‮יהוא‬‎ (Eng.: “Jehu”); LXX B Ἰού; LXX L Ἰηού; Josephus Ἰηοῦς. Josephus omits the name of this figure’s father (MT: Hanani), and gives him the title “prophet” of LXX BL as opposed to MT’s “seer.” Josephus has already mentioned “Jeous” in Ant. 8.299 (// 1 Kgs 16:2, 7) as the one who confronted the Israelite king Baasha. On Josephus’ version (9.1-17) of the segment 2 Chronicles 19-20, (mostly) unparalleled in 2 Kings, focussing on “Jehoshaphat at mid-career,” see Begg 2000: 5-28. This form of the Syrian king’s name was used by Josephus in Ant. 8.401; elsewhere in Antiquities 8 one finds the alternative form “Adad(os),” which Marcus reads also here in 9.1. Josephus expands the reference to Jehoshaphat’s return to Jerusalem in 2 Chr 19:1 with a summary allusion to what preceded this return, i.e. Jehoshaphat’s involvement with Ahab’s disastrous anti-Syrian campaign (see 1 Kgs 22:1-40// 2 Chr 18:1-34// Ant. 8.398-420). Greek: ἀσεβὴς καὶ πονηρός. Josephus’ other uses of this collocation are Ant. 8.243, 299; 12.252, 385; 13.34. In 2 Chr 19:2bα Jehu refers more generally to “the wicked” and “those who hate the Lord.” Josephus’ prophet keeps attention focussed on the depravity of Ahab, Jehoshaphat’s royal partner. He likewise turns the source’s direct rhetorical question into an indirect address statement by Jehu. Josephus softens Jehu’s announcement to Jehoshaphat in 2 Chr 19:2bβ: “because of this, wrath has gone out against you from the Lord.” The Josephan prophet generalizes the 2 particulars militating in Jehoshaphat’s favor cited by Jehu in 2 Chr 19:3, i.e. his elimination of “the Asherahs” (see 2 Chr 17:6b, also omitted by Josephus) and “setting his heart to seek God.”

Josephus adds this reference to Jehoshaphat’s immediate, positive response to Jehu’s word to him. The Chronicler records no such response by Jehoshaphat, but simply follows Jehu’s discourse (2 Chr 19:2-3) with the notice (19:4a) that “Jehoshaphat dwelt in Jerusalem,” which Josephus leaves aside. Josephus leaves aside the boundary indications for Jehoshaphat’s “tour” given in 2 Chr 19:4bα, i.e. “from Beersheba to the hill country of Ephraim.” Josephus renders more specific the indication concerning the outcome of Jehoshaphat’s “tour” given in 2 Chr 19:4bβ: “he brought them [the people] back to the Lord....” The wording used by Josephus here recalls his description of Jehoshaphat’s earlier “teaching mission” in Ant. 8.395 (// 2 Chr 17:7-9).

2 Chr 19:5 specifies that the judges were installed in “all the fortified cities of Judah.” This opening appeal that the newly appointed judges concern themselves with “what is just” has no explicit equivalent in Jehoshaphat’s address to them in 2 Chr 19:6-7. Josephus turns into an exhortation to the new judges Jehoshaphat’s closing affirmation about the divine judge in 2 Chr 19:7b: “there is no perversion of justice with the Lord..., or partiality, or taking bribes.” Josephus’ wording of the initial portion of Jehoshaphat’s charge to the judges seems modelled on his version (Ant. 4.216) of Moses’ directives concerning Israel’s judges in Deut 16:19-20a; see Begg 2000: 9, n. 23. Compare Jehoshaphat’s opening words to the judges in 2 Chr 19:6: “consider what you do… he [the Lord] is with you in giving judgment.” From Jehoshaphat’s charge in 19:6-7 Josephus omits the appeal of 19:7aα: “let the fear of the Lord be upon you.” On the historian’s general avoidance of the key biblical expression “fear of God/the Lord,” see Schlatter 1932: 155. On the divine omniscience and solicitude for human affairs highlighted by Josephus here, see further Ant. 1.14, 20; 10.277-280.

Josephus adds this transitional phrase, linking the 2 phases of Jehoshaphat’s judicial initiatives: outside Jerusalem (2 Chr 19:4b-7) and in Jerusalem itself (19:8-11). See 2 Chr 19:8a. Josephus’ sequence (“priests and Levites”) agrees with that of LXX B, whereas MT and LXX L have the reverse. He leaves aside both the double task assigned the Jerusalem judges (“to give judgment for the Lord and to decide disputed cases”) and the mention of their “seat” being in Jerusalem of 19:8b. This initial exhortation to the Jerusalem judges— which recalls the charge Jehoshaphat gives the extra-Jerusalem judges in 9.3—is Josephus’ version of the king’s opening appeal to the former group in 2 Chr 19:9: “thus shall you do in fear of the Lord, in faithfulness, and with your whole heart.”

Josephus’ phrase “graver matters” summarizes the catalogue of cases that might come before the Jerusalem judges enumerated by Jehoshaphat in 2 Chr 19:10a (“concerning bloodshed, law or commandment, statutes or ordinances”). Compare 2 Chr 19:10aβ: “then you [the Jerusalem judges] shall instruct them [i.e. those submitting cases from other cities].” This motivation for Jehoshaphat’s call for just judgments by the Jerusalem judges takes the place of his appeal to those judges to decide cases in such a way that they would not bring guilt and wrath upon themselves (and their fellows) in 2 Chr 19:10b.

MT (2 Chr 19:11) ‮אמריהו‬‎ (Eng.: “Amariah”); LXX BL Ἀμαρίας; Josephus Ἀμασίας. Josephus leaves aside the biblical specification that he is to have jurisdiction “over all the matters of the Lord.” MT (2 Chr 19:11) ‮זבדיהו‬‎ (Eng.: “Zebadiah”); LXX B Ζαβδείας; LXX L and Josephus Ζαβαδίας. Josephus omits the name of his father (MT: Ishmael), his title (“governor of the house of Judah”), and area of competence, i.e. “all the king’s matters.” As Marcus (ad loc.) points out, Josephus’ formulation here appears careless, in that one would certainly suppose that the priest Amariah was rather of the tribe of Levi. This closing formula for Josephus’ account of Jehoshaphat’s didactic/judicial measures in 9.2-6 takes the place of the king’s concluding exhortation to the Jerusalem judges—with its reference to the Levites as their assistants—of 2 Chr 19:11b.

Josephus’ designation for the 3rd group coming against Jehoshaphat (“Arabs”) diverges from that cited in the various witnesses to 2 Chr 20:1, i.e. MT (the Ammonites, this duplicating its 2nd group, i.e. “Ammon”), LXX B (the Meunites), and LXX L (the sons of the Ammanites, the sons of Seeir). MT (2 Chr 20:2) ‮עין גדי‬‎ (Eng.: “En-gedi”); LXX B Ἐνγάδει; LXX L Ἐγγάδδι; Josephus Ἐγγάδη (so Niese). Josephus omits the initial biblical designation for the city, i.e. “Hazazon-tamar” (MT). In 2 Chr 20:2 the invaders are said to come “from beyond the sea.” Josephus’ more precise designation, i.e. “Lake Asphaltitis,” is his frequent equivalent for the contemporary “Dead Sea.” See Begg 2000: 12, n. 137. Josephus appends both of the above particulars— based presumably on his personal knowledge of the site—to the mention of “En-gedi” in 2 Chr 20:2.

In 2 Chr 20:2 “some men come and tell Jehoshaphat” of the enemy advance. Josephus modifies the particulars of the fearful Jehoshaphat’s initiatives according to 2 Chr 20:3, according to which “he set himself to seek the Lord and proclaimed a fast throughout all Judah.” His limiting of the king’s summons to the Jerusalemites might reflect the consideration that there would not have been enough time to gather people from outside the city (in the same line he also leaves aside the notice of 20:4 on people assembling from “all the cities of Judah”). According to 2 Chr 20:5a, Jehoshaphat stood “in the house of the Lord, before the new court.” With this opening of Jehoshaphat’s prayer, Josephus anticipates and modifies the king’s closing appeal (see 2 Chr 20:12a) that God himself “execute judgment” upon the invaders. The reference to the “force and strength” Jehoshaphat asks God to confer upon him is inspired by the king’s confession in 20:6b: “in thy [God’s] hand are power and strength....” Josephus leaves aside the king’s 2 preceding rhetorical questions of 20:6a that underscore the transcendent divine power.

Cf. 2 Chr 20:8b, where Jehoshaphat refers to the Israelites’ building a sanctuary “for thy [the Lord’s] name in the land.” This portion of the Josephan Jehoshaphat’s prayer combines elements drawn from the king’s appeal in 2 Chr 20:7-11: the temple’s function as a place of intercession (v. 9) in the face of enemy attack such as Judah is now experiencing (vv. 10-11), notwithstanding God’s previous gift of the land to the ancestors (v. 7). Josephus leaves aside the king’s closing acknowledgement of powerlessness and expression of trust in God (20:12b). See 2 Chr 20:13. Josephus adds the reference to the king’s “weeping,” and has the assembly join in his appeal, rather than simply “standing before the Lord.”

MT (2 Chr 20:14) ‮יחזיאל‬‎ (Eng.: “Jahaziel”); LXX B Ὀζειήλ; LXX L Ἰεζιήλ; Josephus Ἰαζίηλος. Josephus’ title, i.e. “a certain prophet” substitutes for the source’s “a Levite of the sons of Asaph.” He leaves aside both the Bible’s genealogy of this figure and its reference to the “Spirit of the Lord coming upon” him. Josephus reproduces, in his own words, the core content of Jahaziel’s opening address to king and people from 2 Chr 20:15, i.e. “the battle is not yours, but the Lord’s.” He leaves aside the prophet’s preceding summons: “fear not, and do not be dismayed at this great multitude.” Jahaziel’s command in 2 Chr 20:16a is addressed to the entire people, rather than to the king alone.

Greek Ἐξοχή. This common noun, meaning “prominence,” appears in the plus of LXX L 2 Chr 20:16, where it is coupled with the place name Ἀσεῖς (compare MT ‮הציץ‬‎ [Eng.: “Ziz”]; LXX B Ἀσᾶε). Josephus took L’s ἐξοχή as the actual name of the site. Josephus’ localization of the site by reference to the 2 cities mentioned by him in 9.7 takes the place of the indications given by Jahaziel in 2 Chr 20:16b: “you will find them at the end of the valley, east of the wilderness of Jeruel.” See 2 Chr 20:17a. Josephus leaves aside Jahaziel’s concluding exhortation in 20:17b, which reiterates his initial appeal “fear not, and be not dismayed” of 20:15b. See 2 Chr 20:18. 2 Chr 20:19 mentions only vocal praise by the Levites; Josephus has no equivalent to the Bible’s mention of the 2 Levitical families (“the Kohathites and the Korahites”) involved.

MT (2 Chr 20:20a) ‮תקוע‬‎ (Eng.: “Tekoa”); LXX BL and Josephus Θεκῶε. In 2 Chr 20:20b Jehoshaphat urges the people to “believe God and his prophets.” Josephus’ singular term (“prophet”) refers to Jahaziel and the words he has just spoken in 9.10-11. This negative injunction, reminiscent of that given by Jahaziel in 9.11, takes the place of the promise (“and you will succeed”), which Jehoshaphat attaches to his appeal for belief in the prophets in 2 Chr 20:20bβ. Greek: καὶ Ληουιτῶν. This is the reading of RO, which Niese follows. Marcus reads καὶ Ληουίτας μετὰ τῶν ὑμνούντων (“and the Levites with the singers”) of MSPEZon; cf. Lat. Compare 2 Chr 20:21, where, on the basis of a consultation with the people, Jehoshaphat appoints those who are to precede the army, singing praise to the Lord. Josephus specifies the identity of those appointed, while entrusting the thanksgiving to the entire people. He likewise has Jehoshaphat arrange matters without consulting the people (see, however, next note), and omits the actual words of thanks he prescribes to be said, i.e. “Give thanks to the Lord, for his steadfast love endures for ever.”

This notice on the people’s response to Jehoshaphat’s dispositions takes the place of the reference to a “they” who begin to sing and praise in 2 Chr 20:22a. The allusion to the king’s “plan” and its endorsement by the people seems to reflect the mention of Jehoshaphat’s “taking counsel with the people” of 20:21, earlier passed over by Josephus; see previous note. Greek: φόβος καὶ ταραχή. This wordpair occurs also in Ant. 9.57; 11.175; cf. 11.141. 2 Chr 20:22b mentions the Lord’s “setting an ambush against the men of Ammon, Moab, and Mount Seir....” Josephus simplifies and generalizes the presentation of 2 Chr 20:23, where the Ammonites and Moabites first fall on the “inhabitants of Mount Seir,” and then turn on each other. At the same time, he also supplies a motivation for the invading forces’ acting as they do, namely their mistaken perception that they are dealing with “enemies.”

Compare 2 Chr 20:24, where it is Judah as whole who, from the vantage point of “the watchtower of the valley,” surveys the enemy corpses. Josephus anticipates his reference to the “valley” in which the slain are lying from 2 Chr 20:26. Throughout his reappropriation of 2 Chronicles 20, he highlights the role of Jehoshaphat in comparison with that of the people. Josephus appends this reference to Jehoshaphat’s response to what he sees, once again insisting on Judah’s deliverance as solely the work of God (see 9.10, 11, 12). See 2 Chr 20:25a. Josephus supplies the reference to the “permission” given by Jehoshaphat. His mention of the enemy “corpses” seems to reflect the MT reading as against LXX BL’s “spoils.” He leaves aside the remainder of the biblical catalogue of the enemy items acquired by the Judeans.

See 2 Chr 20:25b. Josephus adds the reference to the people’s being “tired” as a result of their extended exertions. Greek: δύναμις καὶ συμμαχία. Josephus’ one other use of this precise collocation is in Ant. 7.122, where it refers to the Ammonite coalition that David confronts; cf. Ant. 10.17; and Plutarch, Comp. Lys. Sull. 5.2; Mor. 606E. See also Jehoshaphat’s prayer that God give him “force [Greek: δύναμις] and strength” in 9.8. See 2 Chr 20:26. Josephus omits the biblical specification that the gathering took place “on the 4th day,” while supplying a content for the assembly’s “blessing” of God on this occasion.

Cf. 2 Chr 20:27-28. For the biblical reference to the army’s “joy” and their advance to the temple to the accompaniment of musical instruments, Josephus substitutes mention of the king’s “feasting and sacrifices.” This formulation recalls 9.2, where Jehoshaphat “turns to thanksgiving and sacrifices” following Jehu’s rebuke in 9.1. Compare 2 Chr 20:29a: “the fear of God came on all the kingdoms of the countries.” This reference to God’s “continuing to be [Jehoshaphat’s] ally” recalls the assembly’s blessing “the force and alliance” of God in 9.15. In 2 Chr 20:29b the nations’ “fear of God” (20:29a) is prompted by their hearing that “the Lord had fought against the enemies of Israel.” Compare 2 Chr 20:30, which alludes to the God-given “quiet” and “rest” enjoyed by Jehoshaphat’s kingdom following the divine overthrow of the enemy coalition. Josephus’ formulation recalls his notice on Jehoshaphat’s earlier reign in Ant. 8.394, where the king’s possession of “greatest glory” is attributed to his being “just and pious.” Since he will, on the basis of 2 Kings 3, have more to say concerning Jehoshaphat, Josephus omits at this point the concluding notices for the king of 2 Chr 20:31-34 (// 1 Kgs 22:41-44, 46).

Josephus draws this item from 1 Kgs 22:45 (MT LXX B; LXX L’s equivalent to the complex of notices concerning Jehoshaphat, MT LXX L 1 Kgs 22:41-50, stands after its 1 Kgs 16:28)// 2 Chr 20:35a, which mention Jehoshaphat’s Israelite partner by his name, i.e. “Ahaziah”; Josephus introduced this figure in Ant. 8.420. Like Kings, Josephus lacks the qualification of the Northern king as one “who did wickedly” found in 2 Chr 20:35b. “Pontus” is in northwestern Turkey, “Thrace” in northeastern Greece. 1 Kgs 22:48a speaks of “ships of Tarshish,” constructed to “go to Ophir for gold,” while in 2 Chr 20:36a the ships are built “to go to Tarshish” (LXX: Θαρσείς). Marcus (ad loc.) suggests that with his reading “Thrace” for the biblical “Tarshish” here, Josephus “connects (or confuses)” the latter form with the name of the son of Japheth called “Tiras” in Gen 10:2. In his parallel (Ant. 1.125) to the Genesis text, Josephus designates Japheth’s son as “Theires,” and notes that the Greeks have converted the name of his subjects, i.e. the Theirians,” into “Thracians.” (In Ant. 1.127, Josephus states that the “Tarshish” of Gen 10:4 is the ancient name of “Cilicia”; see also 9.208). 1 Kgs 22:48b states that the ships were “wrecked at Ezion-geber,” but supplies no reason for their loss. The explanation adduced by Josephus (the size of the ships) differs from that given in 2 Chr 20:37, where mention of the ships’ destruction is preceded by a speech attributed to the prophet “Eliezer,” announcing that God will destroy what Jehoshaphat has made. Like Kings, and in contrast to Chronicles, Josephus thus does not express any explicit criticism of Jehoshaphat’s involvement in the Israelite ship-building enterprise. This reference to the effect of the ships’ loss upon Jehoshaphat takes the place of the notice, peculiar to 1 Kgs 22:49, that Jehoshaphat refused Ahaziah’s request that his servants be allowed to accompany Jehoshaphat’s men in the ships. Josephus’ replacement disposes of the problem that the notice of 22:49 seems out of place, given that the ships have already been wrecked in 22:48b. Josephus adds this closing notice to his account of Jehoshaphat at mid-career, 9.1-17 (// 2 Chronicles 19-20).

See 1 Kgs 22:51a. Josephus has already mentioned the accession of “Ahaziah” on the basis of 1 Kgs 22:40b in Ant. 8.420; cf. the allusion to this in 9.17. He omits the synchronization of Ahaziah’s accession with the 17th (MT LXX B; LXX L: 24th) year of Jehoshaphat found in 22:51b, while holding over its reference to Ahaziah’s 2-year reign until a later point; see 9.19. On Josephus’ account of Ahaziah, his bad end, and its sequels (// 1 Kgs 22:51-2 Kgs 3:3) in 9.18-28, see Begg 2000: 29-46. See 1 Kgs 22:52. Josephus omits the appended reference to Ahaziah’s “worshipping Baal” and “provoking the Lord” of 22:53.

In both the parallel notices of 2 Kgs 1:1 and 3:5, the Moabite revolt is dated generally to “after the death of Ahab.” For his more specific dating, Josephus draws on the mention of Ahaziah’s reigning for 2 years in 1 Kgs 22:51b. At this juncture (see, however, 9.29) he omits the name of the rebel Moabite king cited in 3:5 as “Mesha.” Josephus adds this specification concerning the form (non-payment of taxes) taken by the Moabite king’s “revolt” (see 2 Kgs 1:1// 3:5) on the basis of 2 Kgs 3:4, which speaks of his earlier delivery of 100,000 lambs and the wool of 100,000 rams to the Israelite king. He will mention “Mesha” and his sheep tribute subsequently; see 9.29. See 2 Kgs 1:2a. Josephus omits the biblical specification that the incident occurred “in Samaria.” Greek: θεὸς Μυῖα. In line with LXX BL 2 Kgs 1:2b, Josephus “translates” the 2nd part of the deity’s name (MT: [Baal]-zebal,” i.e. “[Baal] the prince”) as “the fly [= Hebrew: zebub] god,” while likewise replacing its initial element “Baal” with the more general term “god.” Josephus’ form of the city’s name corresponds to that of LXX BL 2 Kgs 1:2b. MT has “Ekron.” This appended phrase serves to underscore the odd, pejorative (LXX) name of the god to whom Ahaziah has recourse.

Greek: ὁ τῶν Ἑβραίων θεὸς. This designation for Israel’s Deity appears only here in Josephus. Compare 2 Kgs 1:3a, where it is “the angel of the Lord” who speaks to Elijah. On Josephus’ angelology overall, with its tendency, as here, to eliminate biblical references to angels, see Mach 1992: 300-322. Josephus omits the Bible’s designation of Elijah as “the Tishbite.” The reference to God’s “appearing to” Elijah here recalls Obadiah’s allusion to “God’s again appearing” to the prophet in Ant. 8.333. In 2 Kgs 1:3b the accusatory question that is to be put to Ahaziah’s messengers is formulated in direct address and the designation of the offending deity is repeated in full from 1:2. See 2 Kgs 1:4a. Josephus substitutes a directive—anticipated by him from the envoys’ own report of what Elijah has told them in 1:6—about the messengers’ returning to their sender for the biblical messenger formula (“thus says the Lord”), just as he compresses the announcement that is to be brought to Ahaziah: “you shall not come down from the bed to which you have gone, but you shall surely die.”

See 2 Kgs 1:4b-5a. See 2 Kgs 1:5b. Josephus supplies the reference to Ahaziah’s “surprise.” Greek: ὁ Ἰσραηλιτῶν θεός. This designation recurs in 9.60. Compare “the God of the Hebrews” in 9.20. See 2 Kgs 1:6. Josephus’ compressed version of the messengers’ report to the king avoids its extended verbal repetition of Elijah’s communication to them of 1:3b-4a.

In 2 Kgs 1:7 Ahaziah asks about the “kind of man” the messengers had encountered. See 2 Kgs 1:8a. MT speaks literally of “a man of hair” (RSV: “he [Elijah] wore a garment of haircloth”). Josephus uses the same Greek word for “hairy” (δασύς) as does LXX BL. In 2 Kgs 1:8b Ahaziah declares: “It is Elijah the Tishbite.” Josephus makes the king’s (interior) perception the ground for his following initiative. See 2 Kgs 1:9a. Josephus adds the royal directive about the fetching of Elijah on the basis of 1:9b, where the officer informs Elijah that the king has said that he (Elijah) is to “come down.”

Compare 2 Kgs 1:9b, where the officer speaks to Elijah in direct address, and calls him “man of God.” This threat by the officer has no parallel in his words as reported in 2 Kgs 1:9. Josephus’ addition of the threat helps provide a greater justification for Elijah’s drastic and destructive response. In 2 Kgs 1:10a, Elijah, picking up on the officer’s addressing him as “man of God” in 1:9b, begins his reply with the words “if I am a man of God...” (in both instances the Tg. reads “prophet of the Lord”). The phrase “truthful prophet” (Greek: προφήτης ἀληθής), recurs in Ant. 6.47 (Samuel); 8.296 (the future prophetic figure who will be denied the apostate people); and 9.34 (Elisha’s ironic characterization of the prophets of King Joram’s parents). 2 Kgs 1:10a has Elijah express a wish and/or command regarding the descent of the heavenly fire, which then (1:10b) immediately comes about. Josephus’ double reference to his “praying” for the heavenly fire points up God’s control of what happens. Greek: πρηστήρ. This word is hapax in Josephus. See 2 Kgs 1:10b.

Josephus supplies this transitional notice on the report made to the king and its emotional effect upon him. See 2 Kgs 1:11a. Just as he did with the 1st one (see note to “against his will” at 9.23) Josephus accentuates the threatening character of the 2nd officer’s words; compare 2 Kgs 1:11b, where the latter enjoins Elijah: “O man of God, this is the king’s order, ‘Come down quickly’!” Josephus compresses the 2-part sequence of Elijah’s utterance and its outcome in 2 Kgs 1:12 with its largely verbal repetition of the wording of 1:10b. In contrast to the Bible’s phrase “fire of God” (2 Kgs 1:12), he speaks simply of “fire.”

2 Kgs 1:13 mentions also the 50 men dispatched with this 3rd officer (who in the Liv. Pro. 9.3 is identified with the later prophet Obadiah). Greek: φρόνιμος… καὶ... ἐπικικής. This wordpair occurs only here in Josephus. Josephus supplies this characterization of the 3rd officer, which already sets him in contrast to his 2 overbearing, bullying colleagues. In 2 Kgs 1:13a the 3rd officer, like his 2 colleagues (see vv. 9b, 11b), “goes up” to Elijah. Josephus underscores his distinctiveness by having him begin, not with the peremptory orders and threats of his predecessors, but rather with a friendly greeting. Josephus prefaces the 3rd officer’s words as reported in 2 Kgs 1:13b-14 with this exculpatory declaration by him. This double request replaces the 3rd officer’s twice-made appeal (2 Kgs 1:13b, 14b) that his own life (and that of his men) be “precious” in Elijah’s eyes. Josephus omits the officer’s intervening reminiscence of the fate of his 2 colleagues in 1:14a—a matter best left unmentioned.

Greek: δεξιότης τῶν λογῶν. The translation of Marcus (ad loc.: “[approving] of his words”) fails to render the word δεξιότης of this phrase. Greek: ἀστεῖος. Josephus uses this adjective twice elsewhere: Ant. 7.147; 12.277. According to 2 Kgs 1:15a, Elijah’s “descent” was prompted by a word of “the angel of the Lord,” who tells him not to be “afraid” of the 3rd captain. Whereas in 9.20 Josephus replaces the Bible’s earlier mention of an angelic intervention (1:3) with a reference to an appearance and directive of God himself, here in 9.26 he has Elijah act on his own volition. Given the demeanor of the 3rd captain, a supernatural intervention urging Elijah not to be “afraid” of the suppliant officer hardly seems necessary. See 2 Kgs 1:15b-16aα. Josephus supplies the reference to Elijah’s “prophesying,” which picks up on his earlier allusion to himself as a “truthful prophet” in 9.23. This is Josephus’ alternative formulation of Elijah’s accusatory question to Ahaziah in 2 Kgs 1:16aβbα, whose wording is largely identical to that already used in 1:3b and 6b. As in 9.20 (compare 2 Kgs 1:4a), Josephus leaves aside the announcement about Ahaziah’s “not coming down from his bed” of 1:16bβ.

See 2 Kgs 1:17a, where Ahaziah dies “according to the word of Elijah.” MT (2 Kgs 1:17b) ‮יהורם‬‎ (Eng.: “Jehoram”); LXX BL Ἰωράμ; Josephus Ἰώραμος; in my notes I shall refer to this king by the shorter biblical (and Josephan) form of his name, i.e. “Joram,” used, e.g., in 2 Kgs 9:14. On Josephus’ treatment of Joram, see Feldman 1998a: 322-33. See 2 Kgs 1:17b. Josephus has no equivalent either to the divergent biblical synchronizations of Joram’s accession, i.e. the 2nd (MT LXX L 2 Kgs 1:17b) year of J[eh]oram of Judah vs. the 18th year of Jehoshaphat (LXX B 2 Kgs 1:17b and 2 Kgs 3:1) or to the source notice for Ahaziah of 1:18. Josephus’ specification that Joram was Ahaziah’s “brother” corresponds to the plus of LXX L in 1:17b. In continuing with the presentation of Joram at this point, Josephus aligns himself with LXX BL’s appendix to 2 Kgs 1:18 (1:18a-d) whereas in MT the material in question stands after the account of the “ascension” of Elijah and the succession of Elisha (2 Kings 2) in 2 Kgs 3:1-3 (to which LXX BL have an equivalent, repeating the content of their 1:18a-d, at this point as well). Josephus here accentuates Joram’s depravity in comparison with MT 2 Kgs 3:2 (LXX BL present this notice twice, i.e. in their 1:18c [see previous note] and in 3:2), which affirms that the evil done by Joram was “not like that of his father [MT; LXX BL: brothers] and mother,” in that he removed the pillar [MT; LXX BL: pillars] of Baal his father had made. This figure for Joram’s length of reign corresponds to that given in 2 Kgs 3:1b (MT; LXX BL supply the indication twice, i.e. in 2 Kgs 1:18a and 3:1). Greek: παρανομία καὶ ἀσέβεια. This collocation is used once elsewhere by Josephus, i.e. in Ant. 10.104 (of King Zedekiah). This accusation replaces the stereotyped allusion to Joram’s persisting in the sin of Jeroboam of 2 Kgs 3:3 (and LXX BL 2 Kgs 1:18c). Josephus has no equivalent to the LXX BL notice of 2 Kgs 1:18d: “and the anger of the Lord burnt against him [Joram; LXX B lacks this reference to Joram] and the house of Achab.” This characterization of Joram is Josephus’ addition. The term “energetic” (Greek: δραστήριος) serves to associate Joram with his mother Jezebel, of whom Josephus uses the same term in Ant. 8.318 (compare 2 Kgs 3:2 [and LXX BL 2 Kgs 1:18b], where Joram is said not to have done evil “like his mother”).

With this formulation Josephus sums up the lengthy story of Elijah’s removal from the earth as told in 2 Kgs 2:1-12; cf. 2:12b: “and he [Elisha] saw him [Elijah] no more.” The term “disappear” (Greek: ἀφανίζω) here is the same one used by Josephus of Moses’ earthly end in Ant. 4.323, 326, and is also frequent in extra-biblical accounts of heavenly ascents; see Lohfink 1971: 41, n. 57 and cf. Begg 2000: 43, n. 66. Feldman (1998a: 301) points out that a similar statement occurs in Sophocles, Oed. col. 1655-1656, where it is affirmed that no one but Theseus can relate how Oedipus came to disappear. The notice here in 9.28 is also reminiscent of Deut 34:6b, which declares that “no man knows the place of his [Moses’] burial until this day.” Greek: μαθητής; this is the same term that Josephus uses (Ant. 8.354) to designate Elisha in his relation to Elijah at the moment of the former’s call. With this formula Josephus refers back to Ant. 8.354, where he alludes to the Elisha’s following the Elijah “the entire time he lived as his disciple and minister.” The reference to Elijah’s “leaving Elisha behind” is Josephus’ summation of the account of the latter’s succession to the former in 2 Kgs 2:12b-18(19-25). On Enoch and his departure from the earth, see Ant. 1.85 (// Gen 5:24), which speaks of his “returning to the divinity.” This same phrase is used by Josephus in Ant. 4.326, where he refers to Moses’ recording the fact of his death “in the sacred books.” This phrase (Greek: ἀφανῆς γίνεσθαι), like the verb “disappear” earlier in 9.28, is part of the standard vocabulary of Greco-Roman accounts of heavenly ascents; see Lohfink 1971: 41, n. 59. This expression recalls that used of Elijah earlier in 9.28 i.e. “no one knows of his death until today.” Josephus’ markedly abbreviated version of the story of Elijah’s heavenly ascent as related in 2 Kings 2 likely reflects a concern that this great figure of Jewish history not be exposed to the ridicule that various Greco-Roman authors (e.g., Seneca, Lucian, Plutarch) heaped on the supposed heavenly ascents associated with various pagan figures (e.g., Romulus); see Begg 1990: 691-93; 2000: 44; and compare Tabor 1989.Josephus here passes over Elisha’s 1st miracle subsequent to Elijah’s ascent, i.e. his healing of the Jericho water supply (2 Kgs 2:19-22); he does, however, recount that miracle at length elsewhere, i.e. War 4.460-464; see Feldman 2001: 319-20. As for the subsequent miracle ascribed to Elisha in 2 Kgs 2:23-25, namely his using 2 she-bears to maul 42 boys who had treated him with disrespect, Josephus’ complete silence concerning this episode is readily understandable, given that the image of the prophet it conveys would undoubtedly prove offputting to gentile readers.

MT (2 Kgs 3:4) ‮מישע‬‎ (Eng.: “Mesha”); LXX BL Μωσά; Josephus Μεισᾶς. On Josephus’ rendition of the story of Joram’s Moabite campaign (// 2 Kings 3) in 9.29-43, see Begg 2000: 47-65. See 9.19. Josephus’ figure for Mesha’s tribute of 200,000 sheep seems to conflate the indications on the Moabite’s payment given in 2 Kgs 3:4, i.e. 100,000 lambs and the wool of 100,000 rams.

See 2 Kgs 3:6. In designating, here and subsequently, Joram’s Judean ally as “Jehoshaphat,” Josephus agrees with MT and LXX B 2 Kings 3, whereas LXX L identifies the Judean king in question as Ὀχοζειας, i.e. the grandson of Jehoshaphat called “Ahaziah” in MT (see 2 Kgs 8:24). On the point, see Schenker 2004: 94-97 (who holds that the LXX L reading is the original one). Josephus supplies this explanation as to why Joram turned precisely to Jehoshaphat as a potential ally as he does in 2 Kgs 3:7a; on the latter’s alliance with Ahab, see Ant. 8.398. The cross-reference points up the connection between the stories of Jehoshaphat’s 2 joint campaigns with a northern king, i.e. Ahab (8.398-420) and Joram (9.29-43), which Josephus will highlight throughout his presentation of the latter incident. Compare Joram’s direct address question to Jehoshaphat in 2 Kgs 3:7a: “Will you go with me to battle against Moab?” With this notice Josephus condenses Jehoshaphat’s declaration in 2 Kgs 3:7b: “I will go; I am as you are, my people as your people, my horses as your horses.” Josephus appends this further commitment by Jehoshaphat in order to explain how it was that the king of Edom (Idumea) also appears as a party to the campaign against Moab in what follows (see 2 Kgs 3:9). Josephus found inspiration for the addition in the notice of MT 1 Kgs 22:47, which states that in Jehoshaphat’s day “there was no king in Edom, a deputy [MT: ‮נצב‬‎; in the LXX BL equivalent of 22:47, i.e. 1 Kgs 16:28f, the Hebrew word is transliterated] was king,” interpreting this to mean that Edom’s ruler at this time was not an independent sovereign, but a vassal of his Judean overlord.

Josephus adds this account of Joram’s visit to Jerusalem and his reception there. In so doing, he depicts Jehoshaphat as reciprocating the hospitality he and his entourage had received from Ahab in Samaria, as recounted in Ant. 8.398 (// 2 Chr 18:2). Josephus makes the march route a matter of a joint decision by the 2 kings, whereas in 2 Kgs 3:8 Joram simply prescribes this in response to a question by Jehoshaphat. This accentuation of the stature of the Judean king characterizes Josephus’ version of the story of 2 Kings 3, just as it does his retelling of Jehoshaphat’s earlier involvement in Ahab’s campaign against Syria (Ant. 8.398-420), as compared with its biblical sources (1 Kings 22// 2 Chronicles 18). Josephus appends this explanation of the coalition’s choice of the desert route, despite its potential hazards that will emerge subsequently. See 2 Kgs 3:9a. Josephus appends the mention of Jerusalem as the kings’ starting point in view of his notice on Joram’s coming there earlier in 9.31.

See 2 Kgs 3:9b. Josephus appends the explanation about the expedition’s situation being due to the incompetence of the guides. With this addition Josephus highlights the effects of the lack of water on the expedition, above all on Joram, whose idea the campaign was and who, therefore, would feel especially chagrined by the turn it has now taken. Josephus amplifies Joram’s assertion about the Lord’s “handing over” the 3 kings to Moab (2 Kgs 3:10) with a question about what offense on his (Joram’s) part has prompted God to do this. That question further underlines Joram’s sense of responsibility for the expedition’s predicament; see previous note. At the same time, it appears rather disingenuous, given Josephus’ previous highlighting of the king’s depravity; see 9.28.

This characterization of Jehoshaphat (Greek: δίκαιος) recalls Josephus’ earlier mentions of his “justice” (Greek: δικαιοσύνη); see Ant. 8.394; 9.16. Josephus accentuates Jehoshaphat’s role in the proceedings with his added reference to his “encouraging” Joram and by having him “direct” that search be made for a prophet; in 2 Kgs 3:11a the Judean king simply raises the question about the availability of a prophet. Josephus spells out what Jehoshaphat has in mind when (see 2 Kgs 3:11a) he speaks of the expedition’s “inquiring of the Lord” through the prophet. The formulation recalls Jehoshaphat’s earlier asking Ahab to procure another prophet in order that “they might learn more precisely about the future” in Ant. 8.402. See 2 Kgs 3:11b. Josephus replaces the source’s figurative qualification of Elisha as the one “who poured water on the hands of Elijah” with the title “disciple” previously used by him of the former figure in Ant. 8.353; 9.28. In the same line, Tg. substitutes its own prosaic equivalent, making Elisha the one who “served Elijah.” See 2 Kgs 3:12b. The reference to Jehoshaphat’s “urging” the other kings to seek out Elisha further underscores the king’s leading role—alongside Joram—in the incident. It takes the place of the declaration about the “word of the Lord” being with Elisha attributed to Jehoshaphat in 3:12a.

Josephus adds this notice on the site of the meeting. Josephus gives Joram the opening word in the encounter—just as he is the first to speak when the water runs out in 9.32. By contrast, in 2 Kgs 3:13a it is Elisha who initiates the discussion with his address to Joram. This directive is Josephus’ elucidatory rendering of Elisha’s opening question to Joram in 2 Kgs 3:13aα, which reads literally: “what to me and to you?” See 2 Kgs 3:13aβ. Josephus appends Elisha’s ironic characterization of the parental prophets; on these figures, see Ant. 8.318, 336, 402. On the phrase “truthful prophet(s),” see note to “truthful prophet” at 9.23. Compare 2 Kgs 3:13b, where Joram responds by reiterating his claim about the Lord’s handing over the 3 kings to Moab from 3:10.

As usual, Josephus leaves aside the oath formula (“as the Lord of hosts lives, whom I serve”) used by Elisha in 2 Kgs 3:14aα. Josephus clarifies the meaning of Elisha’s response to Joram as cited in 2 Kgs 3:14bβ: “… I would neither look at you, nor see you.” Josephus expands the biblical Elisha’s declaration of esteem for Jehoshaphat (2 Kgs 3:14aβ) with mention of these 2 qualities of the king, the 2nd of which recalls the designation of him as “just” in 9.33. The collocation “holy and just” (Greek: ὅσιος καὶ δίκαιος) occurs also in Ant. 6.87; 8.245, 295 (reverse order); 15.138. See 2 Kgs 3:15a. Josephus adds the mention of the minstrel’s being, not only called for by, but actually brought to, Elisha. 2 Kgs 3:15b speaks of the “power of the Lord coming upon” Elisha as the minstrel plays. On the phrase “divinely possessed” (ἔνθεος γενόμενος) in Josephus, see the note to “he became divinely possessed” at Ant. 6.56. This directive takes the place of Elisha’s opening announcement in 2 Kgs 3:16, i.e. “I [the Lord] will make this dry stream-bed full of pools.” In Josephus’ presentation, the coming of the water requires human exertion as well.

See 2 Kgs 3:17a. Josephus adds the reference to the cloud. See 2 Kgs 3:17b. Compare 2 Kgs 3:18a, where Elisha calls the promised water “a light thing in the sight of the Lord.” Josephus has an equivalent for each of Elisha’s 5 announcements of what the Lord will enable the expedition to accomplish as cited in 2 Kgs 3:18b-19. At the same time, he reverses the sequence of the Bible’s last 2 items, i.e. the stopping of the water sources and the wasting of the land. He likewise omits the specification that the latter operation is to be effected by use of “stones.”

This chronological indication replaces the cultic allusion of 2 Kgs 3:20a, i.e. “about the time of the offering of the sacrifice.” See 2 Kgs 3:20b. Josephus supplies the explicit reference to God’s role, as well as to the distance over which the water traveled to reach the expedition. His concluding mention of the army and beasts of burden finding abundant drink draws on the wording of Elisha’s promise as cited in 9.36, thus underscoring its fulfillment.

See 2 Kgs 3:21a. Josephus appends the reference to the expedition’s march route, this picking up on his notice that the kings had decided to advance through “the desert of Idumea” in 9.31. This rendering reflects the conjecture, i.e. ὅρων of Niese (adopted also by Marcus) for the reading of the codices, i.e. ὀρῶν (“mountains”). Cf. 2 Kgs 3:21b. Josephus adds explicit mention of the Moabite king’s leadership role in the preparations and appends the rationale for his stationing his army at the frontier.

See 2 Kgs 3:22. Josephus supplies the parenthetical specification concerning the site of the water and the notice on sunrise as the time when the water took on an especially reddish hue. See 2 Kgs 3:23a. Josephus supplies the (supposed) motivation for the kings’ mutual slaughter, while making clear from the start that the Moabites were deluded in their surmise.

Josephus elaborates on the Moabites’ cry as reported in 2 Kgs 3:23b: “Now then, Moab, to the spoil.” In particular, he highlights the king’s role in the proceedings and the extent of the Moabites’ delusion. This added transitional phrase highlights the contrast between what the Moabites suppose and the reality that awaits them. See 2 Kgs 3:24a. Josephus adds mention of the killing of some of the Moabites.

See 2 Kgs 3:25aα. Josephus supplies the indication concerning the source of the stones that are used to cover the Moabite fields. Josephus reverses the order of the invaders’ operations as cited in 2 Kgs 3:25aβ. In so doing, he has the invaders follow the sequence of Elisha’s directives in 9.36. This notice seems to reflect the LXX BL reading at the opening of 2 Kgs 3:25b, i.e. “until they [the invaders] left the stones of the wall cast down....” (compare MT’s [apparent] proper name: “only at Kir-haresh did the stone walls remain”). Josephus has no equivalent to the continuation of 3:25b, i.e. “...until the slingers surrounded and conquered it [Kir-haresh].”

2 Kgs 3:26a specifies that the 700 were “swordsmen.” According to 2 Kgs 3:26a, the Moabite assault was made “opposite the king of Edom.” Josephus supplies a rationale for the Moabite king’s choosing the particular spot he does for the attempt. Josephus elaborates on the summary remark of 2 Kgs 3:26b concerning the failure of the attempt: “but they [the Moabites] could not [break through].”

Josephus dramatizes the Moabite king’s subsequent sacrifice of his son (2 Kgs 3:27a) with these portentous opening words. The phrase “terrible necessity” (Greek: δεινῆ ἀνάγκη) occurs only here in Josephus. Greek: ὁλοκαύτωσις τῷ θεῷ. See 2 Kgs 3:27a. Josephus spells out the purpose, i.e. visibility to the invaders, of the king’s sacrificing his son “on the wall.” The Bible does not state to whom (his own god? the Lord?) the king offered his son. Josephus’ specification that the sacrifice was offered “to god” (Greek: τῷ θεῷ) leaves the matter ambiguous as well. Josephus’ reference to the kings’ emotional response to their witnessing the sacrifice as that which prompts their subsequent withdrawal takes the place of the statement of 2 Kgs 3:27bα that “there came great wrath upon Israel” (which itself leaves ambiguous whether the “wrath” in question was that of the Moabite god or of the Lord). Josephus’ alternative presentation furthers his purpose of highlighting Jewish humanity—even towards a pagan rebel and enemy; see Feldman 1998a: 326. The collocation ἀνθρώπινον καὶ ἐλεεινόν (“humanity and mercy”) occurs only here in Josephus. See 2 Kgs 3:27bβ.

Josephus supplies this transitional notice—itself inspired by the reference to the invaders’ withdrawal in 2 Kgs 3:27bβ—to his following account of Jehoshaphat’s demise, which he, in contrast to the Bible, explicitly dates to shortly after the end of the Moabite campaign. Josephus obtains this figure for Jehoshaphat’s total life-span by combining the data of 1 Kgs 22:41a // 2 Chr 20:31a: acceding at age 35, Jehoshaphat ruled for 25 years. See 1 Kgs 22:50a// 2 Chr 21:1a. Josephus supplies the characterization of Jehoshaphat’s burial as “magnificent.” In 1 Kgs 22:43a// 2 Chr 20:32a Jehoshaphat’s good conduct is associated with that of his own father Asa. Josephus’ paralleling of Jehoshaphat rather with David here recalls his introduction of the former king in Ant. 8.315, where the same linkage is made.

Josephus abbreviates the content of 2 Chr 21:2-3, omitting the names of Jehoshaphat’s 6 other sons and the mention of the gifts he gave them. With this parenthetical remark Josephus highlights the noteworthy coincidence that the contemporary kings of Judah and Israel both bore the same name. The notice recalls Josephus’ account of the Israelite Joram’s accession in 9.27 and the mention of Jehoshaphat’s marrying his son Joram to Athaliah, daughter of Ahab (and thus sister of Joram of Israel) in Ant. 8.398.

This transitional reference to Joram’s return to his capital parallels Josephus’ notice on Jehoshaphat’s coming back to Jerusalem in 9.44. Both notices are Josephus’ elaboration of the general remark about the invaders’ returning home in 2 Kgs 3:27bβ. With this (biblically unparalleled) notice on Elisha’s returning with Joram to Samaria, Josephus makes the transition to his long subsequent account (9.47-94// 2 Kgs 4:1-8:15) concerning Elisha’s activities; on this, see Begg 2000: 67-112 and Feldman 1998a: 334-51. The phrase “sacred books” recalls the mention of these writings as recording the “disappearances” of Elijah and Enoch in 9.28.

2 Kgs 4:1 (MT and LXX BL) does not name the woman’s late husband, whom it simply designates as “one of the sons of the prophets.” Josephus’ identification of him with Ahab’s official “Obadiah” is paralleled in the Tg. on 2 Kgs 4:1 and elsewhere in Jewish and Christian tradition; see Begg 2000: 68, n. 7. The identification seems to have been inspired by the verbal link between the woman’s characterization of her husband as Elisha’s “servant” who “feared the Lord” (4:1bα) and Obadiah’s presentation of himself to Elijah in 1 Kgs 18:12: “I your servant have revered [feared] the Lord from my youth.” The widow’s allusion of her husband’s support for the endangered prophets here takes the place of her brief reference to his having “feared the Lord” in 2 Kgs 4:1bα. The wording of the allusion is drawn from Josephus’ account of Obadiah’s support for the prophets in Ant. 8.330 (// 1 Kgs 18:4, 13). This detail lacks a basis in either Josephus’ earlier account of Obadiah’s initiative (Ant. 8.330) or its biblical source, i.e. 1 Kgs 18:4, 13. It is, however, paralleled in the Tg. on 2 Kgs 4:1 and other Jewish writings; see Begg 2000: 69, n. 10. Such borrowing on the husband’s part explains how he incurred the debt, which the creditor(s) is now demanding be satisfied. See 2 Kgs 4:1bβ, where the woman speaks of a single “creditor,” who is above to enslave her 2 children. Josephus highlights the threatening situation by having the woman herself face enslavement, along with her children at the hands of several creditors. Josephus supplies this closing appeal by the woman, who in 2 Kgs 4:1 simply presents the facts of her situation to Elisha.

See 2 Kgs 4:2. Josephus omits Elisha’s opening question (“what shall I do for you?”) given that, in his own presentation, the woman ends her words to the prophet with an explicit plea for his assistance; see previous note. See 2 Kgs 4:3-4. Josephus expands Elisha’s instructions to the woman with the concluding promise of God’s “filling” the vessels.

With this formula Josephus summarizes the various actions performed by the woman in 2 Kgs 4:5 in accordance with Elisha’s directives to her in 4:3-4. Josephus’ plural accords with the reading of LXX BL 2 Kgs 4:6a, whereas MT has the singular, “son” in this instance (though elsewhere in the pericope it too uses the plural). Josephus expatiates on the son’s (MT; LXX: sons’; see previous note) statement to the woman in 2 Kgs 4:6aβ: “there is not another [vessel].” He leaves aside the notice of 4:6b about the cessation of the oil at this point. 2 Kgs 4:7a (MT and LXX BL) uses the title “man of God” for Elisha. Josephus’ substitution of “prophet” is paralleled in Tg.

Cf. 2 Kgs 4:7b, where Elisha tells the woman that she and her son(s) can live off the oil that remains once her debts have been paid. Josephus supplies this closing notice to the biblical story of Elisha’s “oil miracle” (2 Kgs 4:1-7), underscoring the efficacy of the prophet’s intervention.

The dots in the translation above point to the fact that the extant text of Josephus moves abruptly from Elisha’s closing word to the woman (9.50// 2 Kgs 4:7b) to the prophet’s warning King Joram about the Syrians (9.51// 2 Kgs 6:9), with no parallel to the intervening biblical segment, i.e. 2 Kgs 4:8-6:8, which relates a series of additional miracles by Elisha. It seems clear that a lacuna has to be posited, either in the text of Josephus or in that of the biblical witnesses used by him at this point. For one thing, Ant. 9.51, with its reference to “that place,” presupposes a preceding notice identifying the site and mentioning the Syrian advance towards it. In addition, Josephus’ statement in 9.46, announcing his intention of recounting Elisha’s memorable miracles, suggests that he would indeed have made use of the miracle stories of 2 Kgs 4:8-6:8, if he had these before him. It remains, unclear, however, just how much of the segment in question was absent from Josephus’ biblical text(s) or, alternatively, how extensive his own original, but now missing, parallel to this segment may have been. See further Begg 2000: 71-72 and n. 24. Josephus spells out the hostile intention behind the Syrians’ “going down” to the spot about which Elisha warns Joram in 2 Kgs 6:9. This notice on Joram’s compliance with Elisha’s directive replaces the reference in 2 Kgs 6:10a to Joram’s “sending to the place” about which the prophet had cautioned him (see 6:9). Josephus leaves aside the notice of 6:10b, which states that Elisha’s warnings ensured Joram’s safety on several occasions.

In the biblical account the Syrian king is not identified by his name (“Ben-hadad”) until 2 Kgs 6:24. The form of the king’s name here is that read by RMSPEZon and printed by Niese. Marcus adopts the conjecture of J. Hudson, i.e. Ἄδαδος. Both forms of the name appear elsewhere in Josephus’ text; for the form “Ader,” see Ant. 8.401 and 9.1. Josephus adds this transitional phrase that recalls Elisha’s warning about the Syrian “ambush” against Joram in 9.51. 2 Kgs 6:11a speaks of the king’s mind being “greatly troubled.” Josephus elucidates the vague reference to “this thing” that is said to disturb the king’s mind in 2 Kgs 6:11a. Josephus dramatizes the king’s reproach to his officials, which in 2 Kgs 6:11b is formulated more indirectly, via his question: “will you not show me who of us is for the king of Israel?”

Josephus elaborates on the courtier’s initial response in 2 Kgs 6:12: “None, my lord, O king.” The wording of his version recalls the reference to the Syrians’ being in ambush “to do away with” Joram in 9.51. In 2 Kgs 6:12b the courtier affirms that Elisha is reporting to Joram “the words that you [the Syrian king] speak in your bedchamber.” Josephus’ version of the king’s command (2 Kgs 6:13a) omits its attached statement of intention, i.e. “that I may send and seize him [Elisha].” He will, however, make use of this item in connection with the Syrian’s 2nd sending; see 9.54.

MT (2 Kgs 6:13b) ‮דתן‬‎ (Eng.: “Dothan”); LXX BL Δωθάειμ; Josephus Δωθαείν. See 2 Kgs 6:14. Josephus’ reference to the purpose of the king’s “sending” is derived from his earlier directive as cited in 6:13a; see note to “was residing” at 9.53. Greek: διάκονος. This is the same designation used of Elisha himself in his relationship to Elijah in Ant. 8.354. 2 Kgs 6:15 calls the figure “the servant (LXX BL λειτουργός) of the man of God” (MT LXX L; LXX B: of Elisha). Josephus dramatizes the distress of the servant, who in 2 Kgs 6:15b says: “Alas, my master! What shall we do?”

Greek: θεράπων. In 9.54-55 Josephus alternates between this term and the word “minister” (Greek: διάκονος) to designate Elisha’s companion. In 2 Kgs 6:16 Elisha motivates his exhorting his servant not to be afraid with the statement “for those who are with us are more than those who are with them [the Syrians].” Josephus supplies this characterization of Elisha, which places him in sharp contrast with his fear-filled servant. In 2 Kgs 6:17a Elisha prays: “O Lord, open his [the servant’s] eyes that he may see.” Josephus has the prophet spell out what he wants God to show the servant and the intended purpose of this. The expression “show his [God’s] power and presence (Greek: δύναμις καὶ παρουσία)” has a parallel in Solomon’s prayer that God “show his power and providence (Greek: δύναμις καὶ πρόνοια)” on the occasion of the dedication of the temple in Ant. 8.109. On Josephus’ use of the word παρουσία (“presence”) in connection with God’s self-manifestation, see Schlatter 1932: 30-31. Compare 2 Kgs 6:17b, where the servant is shown the “mountain full of horses” and “chariots of fire round about Elisha.” Josephus appends this notice on the effect of what he sees upon the servant, thus highlighting the fulfillment of Elisha’s request for the vision from God. Its term “alliance” (Greek: συμμαχία) recalls the reference to God’s being Elisha’s “ally” (Greek: σύμμαχος) earlier in 9.55.

Greek: ἀμαυρόω. God is the subject of this verb also in Ant. 1.202, where he “blinds” the Sodomites. Josephus’ only other use of the verb is in Ant. 8.268 (Ahijah’s eyes are “blinded” by age). Greek: ἀχλύς. Josephus’ 2 uses of this noun are here in 9.56 and in the immediately following 9.57. See 2 Kgs 6:18a. Josephus amplifies Elisha’s prayer with an indication concerning how the requested blinding of the Syrians is to be accomplished (i.e. by God’s casting of “darkness” upon them) and a reference to the purpose of their blinding. Cf. 2 Kgs 6:18b, which states that God struck the Syrians with blindness in accordance with Elisha’s prayer. Josephus prefaces Elisha’s words to the Syrians as reported in 6:19a with this sequence concerning the initial exchange between him and them. From Elisha’s words to the Syrians in 2 Kgs 6:19aα Josephus omits his opening statement: “this is not the way, and this is not the city.” He likewise reverses the sequence of prophetic command (“follow me”) and promise (“I will bring you to the man whom you seek”) to the Syrians of 6:19aβ.

Greek: ἐπισκοτέω. Josephus uses this verb with God as subject also in War 5.343 (God “darkens” counsels). Its other occurrences in his corpus are in War 5.246; Ant. 5.205; 8.106; Apion 1.214. Josephus elaborates on the summary notice of 2 Kgs 6:19b: “and he [Elisha] led them [the Syrians] to Samaria,” highlighting the fulfillment of Elisha’s prayer in 9.56. Josephus adds mention of these precautionary measures that Elisha enjoins on the king. See 2 Kgs 6:20a. Josephus’ appended phrase “remove their darkness” recalls Elisha’s earlier prayer that God “cast darkness upon” the Syrians in 9.56. Greek: ἀμαύρωσις. This noun cognate of the verb ἀμαυρόω (“to blind”) of 9.56 is hapax in Josephus. Compare 2 Kgs 6:20bβ: “...and lo, they [the Syrians] were in the midst of Samaria.” Josephus’ version, with its reference to the Syrians’ being among their “enemies,” highlights the threat facing them.

Greek: ἔκπληξις καὶ ἀμηχανία. This collocation occurs only here in Josephus. The phrase “terrible terror” (Greek: δεινῆ ἔκπληξις) occurs also in War 2.538; 6.180. Josephus supplies the reference to the Syrians’ emotional state. He uses the collocation “divine and unexpected” (Greek: θεῖος καὶ παράδοξος) of the manna in Ant. 3.30 and of God’s providence in 10.214. In 2 Kgs 6:21a Joram twice asks Elisha—whom he addresses as “my father”—“shall I slay them [the Syrians]?” Josephus has the king specify the manner in which he envisages the captives being put to death. Compare Elisha’s opening response to Joram in 2 Kgs 6:22aα: “you shall not slay them.” This statement appears to be a reversal of the thrust of Elisha’s rhetorical question in 2 Kgs 6:22aβ: “would you [Joram] slay those whom you have taken with your sword and your bow?” (RSV). Whereas the biblical prophet thus intimates that even those captured in war are not to be put to death, Josephus’ Elisha affirms that such captives may legitimately be executed (conceivably, however, Josephus read Elisha’s question as a statement, i.e. “you [do] slay those...”). Josephus here amplifies Elisha’s word to Joram of 2 Kgs 6:22a with a contrast between those who might be legitimately put to death (enemies captured in war) and those, who like Joram’s captives, may not be executed; see previous note. The phrase “divine power (Greek: θεία δύναμις) occurs also in Ant. 19.69; cf. 18.288; it recalls the expression “divine [θεῖος] and unexpected event” used earlier in 9.58, as well as Elisha’s appeal that God show his “power [Greek: δύναμις] and presence” in 9.55.

Compare 2 Kgs 6:22b, where Elisha urges Joram to set “bread and water” before the Syrians that they might “eat and drink and go to their master.” Josephus adds this transitional phrase that underscores the king’s readiness to do what Elisha tells him. This collocation (Greek: λαμπρῶς καὶ φιλοτίμος) recurs in 9.272; 15.194 (reverse order). See 2 Kgs 6:23a.

This designation for the Deity was used previously in 9.21. Josephus elaborates on the mention of the Syrians’ return to their king in 2 Kgs 6:23bα, highlighting the effect of their report upon him. The expression “manifestation and power” (Greek: ἐπιφάνεια καὶ δύναμις) recurs in Ant. 17.96; cf. the phrase “divine power” (Greek: θεία δύναμις) in 9.58. The mention of God’s being “present” (Greek: πάρειμι) with Elisha recalls the prophet’s prayer in 9.55 that God show his “power and presence (Greek: παρουσία)” to his servant. Josephus introduces this contrast between the 2 forms of warfare successively adopted by the Syrian king so as to obviate the seeming discrepancy between 2 Kgs 6:23bβ (the Syrians cease their raids on Israel) and 6:24 (Ben-hadad moves his army against Samaria).

In 2 Kgs 6:24 all attention is focussed on Ben-hadad’s initiatives, with nothing being said of Joram’s counter-moves. Josephus, by contrast, highlights the tactics adopted by the latter in countering the Syrian advance and his motivation for adopting these. The addition here is reminiscent of Josephus’ (likewise added) remarks on Ahab’s response to an earlier Syrian attack, i.e. shutting himself up behind the walls of Samaria, in Ant. 8.364. Josephus elaborates on the summary reference to Ben-hadad’s “besieging” Samaria in 2 Kgs 6:24b with mention of the various possibilities (engines, famine) available to him for subjugating the city.

Josephus’ figure agrees with that of MT 2 Kgs 6:25bα against LXX BL, which read 50. Both biblical witnesses speak more specifically of silver “shekels.” This is Josephus’ replacement for the unit of measure cited in 2 Kgs 6:25bβ, i.e. “the 4th part of a kab.” According to Ant. 8.57 there were 72 sextarii to a bath. Josephus adds the indication concerning the intended use of the “dove’s dung” cited in 2 Kgs 6:25bβ.

Josephus supplies this reference to Joram’s emotional state, which prompts the action attributed to him in 2 Kgs 6:26a, i.e. passing along on the wall. 2 Kgs 6:26a seems to refer to Joram’s one-time passing along the walls, where he is accosted by a woman in distress. Josephus makes this a daily routine of the king, thereby underscoring his solicitude for the city’s safety. He adds the reference to Joram’s oversight of the “guards.” Josephus appends this elaborate allusion to the considerations behind Joram’s inspection (cf. 2 Kgs 6:26a).

In 2 Kgs 6:26b the woman exclaims: “help, my lord, O king!” Josephus supplies the indication concerning the king’s emotional response to the woman’s appeal. This is Josephus’ version of the king’s opening words to the woman in 2 Kgs 6:27, i.e. “(if) the Lord will not help you...,” which he takes as a “curse.” In 2 Kgs 6:27 the king expresses his inability to help the woman in the form of a rhetorical question mentioning the 2 sources of commodities (the threshing floor and wine press) from which he has nothing to give her. Josephus “holds over” the king’s appended question “what is your trouble?” of 6:28a until after the woman has stated the nature of her request, both positively and negatively; see 9.65.

Josephus adds this initial assurance by the woman. Josephus supplies this initial, summary statement by the plaintiff about what she is asking of the king. This is Josephus’ (delayed) version of the king’s question to the woman (“what is your trouble?”) of 2 Kgs 6:28a. In 2 Kgs 6:28b the plaintiff refers to the one she is accusing simply as “this woman.” The added details about the latter supplied by Josephus’ speaker underscore the closeness of the relationship between them and so likewise the reprehensibility of the other woman’s deed. Josephus supplies this motivation for the appalling plan devised by the 2 women as cited by the plaintiff in 2 Kgs 6:28b. The plaintiff’s statements in 2 Kgs 6:28-29 provide no indication concerning the age of the women’s sons. In 2 Kgs 6:28b the plaintiff presents the plan as something thought up by the other woman on her own. Given the closeness of their relationship as previously described by her, Josephus depicts it rather as a matter of a joint agreement by them.

According to 2 Kgs 6:29aα, the 2 women jointly “boiled” the plaintiff’s son. See 2 Kgs 6:29aβ. In 2 Kgs 6:29b the plaintiff mentions her calling on the other woman to produce her son so that they might eat him and the latter’s hiding of the child. Josephus’ reference to the existing “agreement” between the pair reflects the plaintiff’s allusion to their joint decision in 9.65 and underscores the wrongfulness of the other woman’s deed.

2 Kgs 6:30a mentions only Joram’s tearing of his clothes; Josephus accentuates his distress in the face of the shocking case just told him. On the other hand, he leaves aside the mention (6:30b) of the people’s seeing the “sackcloth” the king is wearing beneath his clothes, given that nothing further is made of this item in what follows. Josephus adds this reference to the king’s emotional state, which recalls the mention of his “wrath” in the face of the woman’s appeal in 9.64. Josephus leaves aside Joram’s oath formula (“may God do so to me, and more also, if...”), and generalizes his threat to see to it that Elisha’s head will not remain on his shoulders by the following day of 2 Kgs 6:31. Josephus supplies this explanation as to what lies behind Joram’s vehement outburst in 2 Kgs 6:31. The phrase “ask God” (Greek: δεῖται τοῦ θεοῦ) is used of 2 other prophetic figures by Josephus, i.e. Deborah (Ant. 5.201) and Isaiah (10.12). Josephus supplies this appendix to the king’s outburst in 2 Kgs 6:31, anticipating the mention of Joram’s having “dispatched a man from his presence” and Elisha’s allusion to the king’s “sending to take off my head” in 6:32.

Josephus adds this reference to the executioner’s alacrity in carrying out his mandate. 2 Kgs 6:32aα has Elisha sitting with “the elders.” Josephus adds the reference to the prophet’s clairvoyance—with its allusion to the king’s “wrath” as mentioned in 9.67—in light of his subsequent announcement to his companions in 6:32b. In 2 Kgs 6:32bα Elisha uses the Semitic idiom “son of this murderer” to designate Joram himself as a murderer. Josephus takes the expression as referring not to Joram personally, but rather to his father Ahab, the murderer of Naboth; see Marcus ad loc.

See 2 Kgs 6:32bβ. With this announcement, Josephus clarifies Elisha’s concluding rhetorical question in 2 Kgs 6:32bγ, i.e. “is not the sound of his master’s [i.e. the king’s] feet behind him [the executioner dispatched by Joram]?” He thereby highlights the clairvoyance of the prophet, who even at a distance knows of the king’s change of plans. Josephus adds this notice on the prophet’s disciples’ carrying out the orders given them regarding the king’s agent as cited in 2 Kgs 6:32b.

Josephus supplies this sequence on Joram’s change of mind and resultant initiative, which serves to confirm the accuracy of Elisha’s clairvoyant announcement in 9.69. This notice on Joram’s words to Elisha, which recalls the reference to the king’s “wrath” at the prophet’s failure to intercede with God in 9.67, takes the place of the king’s words to Elisha in 2 Kgs 6:33b: “This trouble is from the Lord! Why should I wait for the Lord any longer?”

From Elisha’s announcement in 2 Kgs 7:1 Josephus characteristically omits its opening summons (“hear the word of the Lord”) and messenger formula, “thus says the Lord.” Josephus’ unit of measure replaces those of MT (‮סאה‬‎, RSV: “measure”) and LXX BL (μέτρον, “measure”) 2 Kgs 7:1b. He reverses the biblical sequence, in which the “fine meal” is cited before the “barley” (so MT LXX L; LXX B mentions only the former). As Marcus (ad loc.) notes, in 9.85 Josephus equates the saton with 1.5 Italian modii.

Josephus adds this sequence concerning the believing response to Elisha’s announcement on the part of Joram and those with him. The effect is to throw into relief the skepticism of the officer in what follows, who is alone in adopting such a stance.

To the data concerning Elisha’s challenger given in 2 Kgs 7:2a, Josephus adds the mention of his being Joram’s “friend.” Josephus supplies this initial assertion by the officer, which establishes an immediate verbal contrast between him and Elisha’s other hearers, who, according to 9.72, “did not hesitate to believe the prophet.” Josephus transposes into an emphatic denial the officer’s rhetorical question in 2 Kgs 7:2aβ: “if the Lord himself should make windows in heaven, could this thing be?” The Josephan officer’s claim likewise picks up on the wording of Elisha’s announcement of the coming surpluses of barley and fine wheat flour in 9.71. See 2 Kgs 7:2b.

Josephus supplies this transition to the following story of the lepers (2 Kgs 7:3-10), which will eventuate in the realization of Elisha’s prediction to the officer. Josephus supplies this reference to a (purported) Samaritan law in order to explain why, during an enemy siege, the 4 lepers should be outside the city’s walls, as reported of them in 2 Kgs 7:3a. He may have found inspiration for the idea of such a “Samaritan law” in the injunction of Lev 13:46 that a leper is to “dwell alone in a habitation outside the camp”; cf. Josephus’ own statement (Ant. 3.261, 264) that Moses excluded lepers “from the city,” and m. Kelim 1.7, which prescribes that lepers are to be sent outside the walls of a city.

These remarks, highlighting the lepers’ predicament—and thus preparing for the desperate initiative they will now take— expatiate on the summary reference to their being “at the entrance of the gate” in 2 Kgs 7:3 in light of Josephus’ preceding statement about “the law” governing their situation. See 2 Kgs 7:3b-4a. According to 2 Kgs 7:4b the lepers resolve to go to the Syrian camp, to live if they are spared and to “but die” if they are not. The verb εὐθανατέω (“to die a good death”) is hapax in Josephus.

See 2 Kgs 7:5a. Anticipating the notice on God’s dealings with the Syrians from 2 Kgs 7:6, Josephus prefaces this with mention of the effect of the divine initiative upon them. See 2 Kgs 7:6a. Josephus appends the notice on the increasing proximity of the noise.

Josephus dramatizes the scene with his added reference to the frightened Syrians abandoning their quarters and hurrying to find their king. By contrast, the account of the Syrians’ flight in 2 Kgs 7:6-7 nowhere mentions the king. Compare 2 Kgs 7:6b: “the kings of the Hittites and the kings of Egypt.” Josephus appends this explanation for the Syrians’ “knowing” the identity of the foreign mercenaries to their word in 2 Kgs 7:6b (which they there address to one another, rather than to the king as in his version).

Continuing to highlight the king’s involvement in the proceedings, Josephus adds this notice on his reaction to the report made him and the approaching noise that he hears for himself. Greek: ἀταξία καὶ θόρυβος. This wordpair occurs only here in Josephus. See 2 Kgs 7:7. Josephus adds the references to the fugitives’ emotional state and to their abandoned “wealth,” the latter with an eye to the subsequent course of the story, where (7:8) the lepers carry off “silver and gold.”

After the interlude concerning the Syrians’ flight (9.76b-78), Josephus returns to the Samaritan lepers with this added allusion to his previous mention of them in 9.76a. Greek: ἡσυχία καὶ ἀφωνία. This collocation is hapax in Josephus. Cf. 2 Kgs 7:5bβ, which states that “there was no one there” at the moment of the lepers’ arrival in the Syrian camp. See 2 Kgs 7:8a, which mentions the lepers’ carrying off gold and clothing as well.

See 2 Kgs 7:8b. Josephus appends this notice on the lepers’ plundering 2 additional tents unimpeded. He thereby makes clear that the camp was completely empty. Josephus adds this transitional notice on the lepers’ inference. Josephus’ lepers appear less mercenary in their thinking than do their biblical counterparts (see 2 Kgs 7:9), whose decision to report their discovery is motivated by fear of punishment should they delay in doing this.

Josephus generalizes the lepers’ detailed report to the city “gatekeepers” about their experiences in the Syrian camp as cited in 2 Kgs 7:10. Cf. 2 Kgs 7:11, where the gatekeepers “call out,” and the matter “is told within the king’s household.” In 2 Kgs 7:12aα the king “rises in the night” and addresses “his servants.”

Joram’s discourse in 2 Kgs 7:12aβb speaks of what the Syrians in general have devised. Josephus’ highlighting of the role of the Syrian king in particular accords with his previous focus on him in his account of the Syrian flight in 9.77-78. Josephus appends this practical conclusion to the king’s remarks about the Syrians’ (purported) stratagem as cited in 2 Kgs 7:12aβb.

Josephus prefaces the retainer’s reply (2 Kgs 7:13) with this initial flattering word, designed to win the king’s favorable attention for the proposal he is about to make. The servant’s proposal in 2 Kgs 7:13 is that 5 horses be used for reconnoitering purposes. Josephus derives his reference to “2 horsemen” from 7:14, where “2 mounted men” are dispatched by the king. He adds the specification concerning the end-point of the proposed pursuit on the basis of 7:15a, which has the scouts (cf. 7:14) going “as far as the Jordan.” Josephus amplifies the retainer’s proposal (2 Kgs 7:13) with this statement concerning the purpose of his suggestion, i.e. to sacrifice—if need be—the band of scouts, in order to keep the entire army from being ambushed and destroyed. Compare 2 Kgs 7:13, where the speaker affirms that Joram has nothing to lose in dispatching the scouts, seeing that if he does not do this all those still alive in the city will certainly die—as had so many already. The point of Josephus’ speaker is somewhat different: the death of the scouts would only be another (small) addition to all those that have already occurred.

See 2 Kgs 7:14. Josephus supplies the reference to Joram’s “approval,” while leaving aside the wording of his order to the scouts: “go and see.” See 2 Kgs 7:15a; Josephus leaves aside the reference to the scouts’ pursuit extending to the Jordan, which he made part of the retainer’s proposal in 9.83; see note to “as far as the Jordan” at 9.83. Conversely, he adds the reference to the absence of the Syrians from the pursuit route and substitutes “grain” for the “garments,” which the biblical pursuers encounter. Cf. 2 Kgs 7:15b-16a. In 7:16a the people “go out” on their own; Josephus makes them do so with the king’s permission— compare his similar insistence on the role of the Syrian king in what precedes.

Josephus supplies this notice on the range of valuable items acquired by the people in the Syrian camp. His specific mention of wheat and barley prepares for his following statement, based on 2 Kgs 7:16b, concerning the new, changed price of these items. His reference to the gold and silver discovered in the Syrian camp is inspired by 2 Kgs 7:8a, where the lepers plunder these metals from the enemy tents. See 2 Kgs 7:16b. Josephus substitutes the reference to the “prophecy of Elissai” for the biblical phrase “according to the word of the Lord.” With a view to making the details of the biblical presentation more readily understandable to a Roman audience, Josephus appends this notice on the “Italian” equivalent of the saton; see 9.71 and the note to “for a shekel” there.

Josephus supplies this heading to the story of the officer’s fate as described in 2 Kgs 7:17-20. See 2 Kgs 7:17abα. Josephus supplies a motivation for the king’s stationing the officer at the gate, i.e. to keep those exiting from trampling each other— ironically, the very thing they end up doing to him. Compare the fulfillment notice of 2 Kgs 7:17bβ: “... as the man of God had said when the king came down to him.” This allusion to the officer’s earlier stance towards Elisha’s announcement recalls 9.73. It takes the place of the extended recapitulation of the prophet-officer exchange of 2 Kgs 7:1-2 in 7:18-19 (plus the renewed notice on the officer’s death in 7:20// 7:17bα).

Greek: δέος καὶ ταραχή. This collocation recurs in War 5.91; Ant. 6.24 (both times in reverse order). The phrase is reminiscent of the wording of 9.76: “God had already begun to frighten the Syrians and throw them into consternation.” Greek: τῷ δυσμενῆ τὸν θεὸν ἔχειν. This is Josephus’ only use of this phrase with God as subject. Josephus prefaces the notice on the sickness of the Syrian king (// 2 Kgs 8:7a) with this elaborate re-introduction of the figure and his flight (see 9.78) after a segment focussed on the scene at the abandoned Syrian camp in 9.79-86. In so doing he passes over the incident (2 Kgs 8:1-6) featuring the Shunammite woman and her recovery of her property (he has no equivalent either to the previous account of this woman and her dealings with Elisha in 2 Kgs 4:8-41; see the opening note at 9.51).

See 2 Kgs 8:7aα. Neither the Bible nor Josephus provides a motivation for Elisha’s going to Damascus. Rabbinic tradition (see, e.g., b. Soṭah 47a; b. Sanh. 107b; y. Sanh. 10.29b) represents him as traveling there to try to reclaim his servant Gehazi (see 2 Kgs 8:4, etc.) from the idolatry into which he had fallen. The Christian author Theodoret (Quaestio 23; PG 80, c. 763) avers that Elisha made the trip with a view to carrying out the divine mandate given Elijah in 1 Kgs 19:15, i.e. to anoint Hazael as king of Syria. MT (2 Kgs 8:8) ‮חזהאל‬‎ (Eng.: “Hazael”); LXX B Ἁζαήλ; LXX L Ἀζαήλ; Josephus Ἀζάηλος. See 2 Kgs 8:7b-8a. Josephus supplies the reference to Hazael’s “trusted” status; thereby, he accentuates the perfidy of his subsequent assassination of his master. He uses the same plural form δῶρα (“gifts”) as does LXX L 2 Kgs 8:8a to designate what Hazael is to take with him, whereas MT employs the singular term ‮מנחה‬‎ (RSV: “present”), transliterated by LXX B as manna, for this. See 2 Kgs 8:8b.

See 2 Kgs 8:9a. Josephus accentuates both the lavishness and the cordiality of the reception given Elisha by Hazael, adding the characterization of his gifts as “the best and most costly” and the mention of his “friendly” greeting. See 2 Kgs 8:9b. Josephus’ Hazael prefaces his transmission of the king’s “inquiry” with mention of the gifts he has been sent to bring Elisha, while omitting his biblical counterpart’s designation of his master as “your [Elisha’s] son.”

In the line of the ketiv in MT 2 Kgs 8:10a, where Elisha instructs Hazael to tell the king “you will certainly not [Hebrew ‮לא‬‎] recover,” Josephus’ formulation attenuates the lie, which the prophet enjoins Hazael to bring his master in the qere (as well as LXX BL), i.e. “go, say to him [Hebrew ‮לו‬‎] ‘you shall certainly recover’.” His Elisha simply directs Hazael to refrain from giving the king a negative report. In 2 Kgs 8:10b Elisha attributes his knowledge of the king’s upcoming death to the Lord’s “showing” him this. With his mention of Hazael’s “grieving” at this point, Josephus modifies and clarifies the formulation of 2 Kgs 8:11a (MT LXX B): “and he fixed his gaze and stared at him, until he was ashamed” (RSV), where the subject of the various actions cited remains uncertain—who does the “staring” and who ends up being “ashamed”? (in LXX L the reference is to Hazael’s presenting himself before Elisha and laying his gifts before him until he [Hazael] is ashamed, i.e. by Elisha’s lack of response to the gifts.) See 2 Kgs 8:11b: “and the man of God wept.” Josephus supplies this motivation for Elisha’s “weeping” (2 Kgs 8:11b) on the basis of the prophet’s subsequent reply to Hazael in 8:12b.

Compare Hazael’s question to Elisha in 2 Kgs 8:12a: “why does my lord weep?” See 2 Kgs 8:12b. In the biblical Elisha’s catalogue of the 4 particular atrocities Hazael will commit, the 2nd item concerns his “slaying the young men with the sword.” Josephus places his version of this item (“you will kill the best of them”) in 1st position. He likewise has Elisha refer, perhaps under the influence of Ps 137:9 (“happy shall he be who takes your [Babylon’s] little ones and dashes them against the rock!”), to the Israelite children being dashed “against stones” rather than “in pieces.”

In 2 Kgs 8:13a Hazael, referring to himself as Elisha’s “servant” and “but a dog,” asks how he is to accomplish “this great thing.” Josephus’ Hazael dispenses with such self-deprecation. See 2 Kgs 8:13b. Here, in contrast to the earlier case of 8:10b (see note to “he would die” at 9.90), Josephus does reproduce Elisha’s invocation of God’s revelation to him. Josephus passes over Ben-hadad’s question to Hazael in 2 Kgs 8:14aβ (“what did Elisha say to you?”) which evokes the latter’s (fraudulent) favorable announcement in 8:14b. See 2 Kgs 8:15a. According to the RSV’s rendering, the object used by Hazael in killing the king was “a coverlet” (MT: ‮מכבר‬‎).

See 2 Kgs 8:15b. The epithet “energetic” (Greek: δραστήριος), which Josephus applies to Hazael, is the same used by him of Jezebel (Ant. 8.318) and Joram of Israel (9.27). Marcus (ad loc.) suggests that the remarks on Syrian conditions that Josephus appends to his notice on Hazael’s accession (// 2 Kgs 8:15b) in 9.93-94a may derive from Nicolaus of Damascus, whom he quotes by name when speaking of the succession of Syrian kings in Ant. 7.100.

Marcus (ad loc.) points out that the historically correct figure for the interval between the reigns of these kings (ca. 850 BCE) and Josephus’ own time (ca. 100 CE) would be “less than 1000 years.” In any case, Josephus’ remark here allows him to downplay the antiquity of these Syrian divinized rulers at a time when a people’s antiquity was so greatly prized (and controverted); see Apion 1.3, where he states that he is writing this work “to instruct all those who desire to know the antiquity of our race.” See further Droge 1996. This added reference to the Israelite Joram’s reaction to the death of “Ader” (Bible: Ben-hadad) recalls the account of the conflict between the 2 kings related in 9.60-87. The Bible does not mention such a “peace” between Joram and Ben-hadad’s successor, Hazael.

This parenthetical note refers back to 9.45, where Josephus introduces Joram of Judah and notes the fact of his having the same name as his Israelite counterpart. On Josephus’ depiction of Joram in 9.95-104, for which he bases himself on the more elaborate account of 2 Chr 21:4-22:4, as opposed to the summary presentation of 2 Kgs 8:16-24, see Begg 2000: 113-27. 2 Chr 21:4 speaks of “some of the princes of Israel” as those killed by Joram along with his brothers. This is Josephus’ elaborated rendering of the formula of 2 Kgs 8:18aα// 2 Chr 21:6aα: “he [Joram] walked in the ways of the kings of Israel, as the house of Ahab had done....”

Greek: Ὀθλία. This is the form of the name— corresponding to that used elsewhere by Josephus— conjectured by Niese and seconded by Marcus for the reading Γοθολία of the codices here in 9.96. In attributing Joram’s following the ways of the Israelite kings to the influence of his wife, 2 Kgs 8:18a // 2 Chr 21:6a do not mention her name. Josephus has already cited the queen’s name when relating her marriage to Joram in Ant. 8.398. Here he underscores her active role in leading Joram astray with his reference to her “teaching” him his aberrations. Josephus passes over the actual content of the divine “promise” to David cited in 2 Kgs 8:19// 2 Chr 21:7, i.e. “to give him and his sons a lamp for ever,” likely given the fact that by his day the Davidic dynasty had not ruled for several centuries. In speaking of God’s unwillingness to destroy the Davidic line, Josephus agrees with 2 Chr 21:7 against 2 Kgs 8:19 (where it is “Judah,” which God will not exterminate). Josephus’ accusation embellishes the reference to Joram’s doing “what was evil in the sight of the Lord” of 2 Kgs 8:18b// 2 Chr 21:6b (where it precedes the notice on the Lord’s nevertheless abiding by his covenant with David in 8:19// 21:7).

See 2 Kgs 8:20// 2 Chr 21:8, where “Edom” revolts against Judah’s rule. Josephus supplies the reference to the prior killing of the Idumean vassal king in light of the (also added) reference to this figure as being under Judean authority that he attributes to King Jehoshaphat in 9.30; see note to “to join the campaign” there. See 2 Kgs 8:21a// 2 Chr 21:9a. Josephus adds the reference to Joram’s “horsemen” to the biblical mention of his “chariots.” Like Chronicles, he has no equivalent to the place name (“Zair”), to which Joram is said to “pass over” in Kings. Compare 2 Kgs 8:21b, where once Joram “smites” the surrounding Edomites, his own army “flees home” (In 2 Chr 21:9b only the “smiting” of the Edomites is mentioned). Josephus’ rewording of Kings’ double notice seems designed to attenuate the discrepancy between its parts—why would the Judeans flee home after having smitten the enemy?

Cf. 2 Kgs 8:22a// 2 Chr 21:10a, which refer to Edom’s revolting “from the rule of Judah to this day.” Given that by his own time Edom’s revolt against Judah had long ceased, Josephus speaks rather of a general revolt of the entire Edomite population in response to Joram’s killing those on the frontier (see 9.97). MT (2 Kgs 8:22a// 2 Chr 21:10bα) ‮לבנה‬‎ (Eng.: “Libnah”); LXX B 2 Kgs 8:22a Σεννά; LXX L 2 Kgs 8:22a and LXX BL 2 Chr 21:10bα Λοβνά; Josephus Λαβίνα. Like Kings, Josephus has no equivalent, at this juncture, to the motivation for the revolts of Edom and Libnah cited in 2 Chr 21:10bβ: “because he [Joram] had forsaken the Lord, the God of his fathers.” Josephus’ 2 remaining uses of this adjective (Greek: ἐμμανής) are in War 4.233; 7.75, both times in the plural. See 2 Chr 21:11 (no parallel in 2 Kgs 8:16-24), which charges Joram with “making high places in the hill country of Judah” and “making Judah go astray.” The mention of the “heights of the mountains,” which Joram forces his people to ascend here recalls Josephus’ allusion (Ant. 8.265) to Jeroboam’s “erecting altars on the high mountains.” Similarly, the reference to the “alien gods” whom Joram compels his people to serve is reminiscent of the notice on his wife’s teaching Joram himself to worship “foreign gods” in 9.96.

Josephus adds this transitional phrase, with its reminiscence of the expression “ancestral customs” of 9.95. See 2 Chr 21:12a; 2 Kgs 8:16-24 has no equivalent to the sequence concerning Elijah’s communication and its sequels of 2 Chr 21:12-18, which Josephus utilizes in 9.99-104. The codices SP follow the words “Elijah the prophet” in 9.99 with the phrase “who was still on earth,” this indicating that the incident of Elijah’s letter took place prior to his removal to heaven recounted in 2 Kgs 2:11 (cf. 9.28). Josephus prefaces Elijah’s opening accusation (2 Chr 21:12b-13) with this initial, general indication about what awaits the reprobate king. 2 Chr 21:12b accuses Joram more specifically of not walking in the ways of Jehoshaphat and Asa, his father and grandfather, respectively. In 2 Chr 21:13aα Elijah charges Joram with having “walked in the ways of the kings of Israel.” Greek: θρησκείαν. The word is absent in RO and omitted by Niese, but read by Marcus in accordance with the other codices. Josephus provides a content for the charge, made by Elijah in 2 Chr 21:13aβ, that Joram “had led Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem into unfaithfulness” that recalls his previous references to the worship of other gods that Joram both practiced and promoted; see 9.96, 98. The phrase “adore idols” (Greek: σέβειν τὰ εἴδολα) recurs in 9.205 in connection with the Israelite king Jeroboam II. In 2 Chr 21:13aβ Elijah alludes to “the house of Ahab’s” having led Israel “into unfaithfulness.”

Elijah’s concluding charge in 2 Chr 21:13bβ mentions only Joram’s killing of his brothers, whom it qualifies as “better than yourself.” Josephus’ version adds a reference to Joram’s other victims (called those of his father’s “friends who were leaders as well” in 9.95), transferring the biblical epithet for the brothers to these figures. This added transition to the announcement of punishment component of Elijah’s letter (// 2 Chr 21:14-15) picks up on the opening words of 9.99: “… God disclosed that he [Joram] would receive a severe judgment from him.” 2 Chr 21:14 mentions a “great plague” that the Lord will “bring upon” Joram’s people, household, and possessions. Josephus avoids explicitly attributing the coming disasters to God. He likewise reverses the biblical order, where Joram’s children are cited prior to his wives.

The Josephan Elijah’s announcement to Joram here recalls Josephus’ description of Herod’s final illness in Ant. 17.69: “there was also an ulceration of the bowels and intestinal pains that were particularly terrible.” Josephus’ Elijah expatiates on the announcement of Joram’s malady in 2 Chr 21:15, adding, e.g., mention of the king’s helplessness in the face of this and the fact that he will ultimately die of it. Josephus rounds off his citation of Elijah’s letter in 9.99-101 (// 2 Chr 21:12-15) with this closing formula.

Like MT 2 Chr 21:16 (“the Philistines and the Arabs who are near Ethiopia”) Josephus speaks of 2 groups of invaders, whereas LXX BL mentions 3 such groups, i.e. “the Philistines, the Arabs, and those near the Ethiopians.” He uses the same term, i.e. ἀλλόφυλοι, which in LXX BL 2 Chr 21:16 designates the “Philistines.” In my translation, however, I, in contrast to Marcus’ “Philistines,” render this word by “foreign nations,” given that Josephus’ consistent designation for the Philistines is “Palestinoi.” 2 Chr 21:16 mentions the Lord’s “stirring up the anger” of the invaders. As in his version of 2 Chr 21:14 in 9.100, Josephus avoids a biblical formulation attributing Joram’s misfortunes directly to God. 2 Chr 21:17a explicitly mentions only the plundering of the palace. Josephus magnifies the calamity by having the invaders despoil the entire country. According to 2 Chr 21:17bα, Joram’s “sons and wives” were part of the plunder taken by the invaders. By stating that the king’s family members were actually put to death, Josephus brings their fate into line with Elijah’s announcement of their “butchery” in 9.100. Like MT, he does not mention the loss also of Joram’s “daughters,” as do LXX BL. MT (2 Chr 21:17) ‮יהואחז‬‎ (Eng.: “Jehoahaz”); LXX B Ὀχοζείας; LXX L and Josephus Ὀχοζίας. Elsewhere, in both Kings and Chronicles, this son and successor of Joram is called “Ahaziah” (Hebrew: ‮אחזיהו‬‎). Josephus leaves aside the Chronicler’s specification that Jehoahaz/Ahaziah was Joram’s “youngest son.”

See 2 Chr 21:18. Here, in contrast to his procedure with 2 Chr 21:14 in 9.100 and 2 Chr 21:16 in 9.102, Josephus follows the Bible in attributing Joram’s misfortunes directly to God. He adds the allusion to the fulfillment of Elijah’s announcement (see 9.101// 2 Chr 21:15). His reference to the prolonged duration of Joram’s illness reflects the indication of 2 Chr 21:19 that it was “at the end of 2 years” that the king’s bowels finally fell out. This detail about Joram’s witnessing the falling out of his insides lacks an explicit equivalent in the Chronicler’s account of the king’s demise in 2 Chr 21:19a. It does, however, correspond to the wording of the Josephan Elijah’s announcement in 9.101. With this remark Josephus synthesizes the 2 separate notices on the popular reaction to the death of Joram in 2 Chr 21:19b (the people make no fire in his honor as was done for his ancestors) and 21:20bα (Joram “departed to no one’s regret”).

Greek: κατὰ μῆνιν θεοῦ; Josephus’ other uses of this phrase are in Ant. 1.164; 2.344; 4.8; 9.236; 15.234. Josephus appends this explanation—recalling his previous notice on the “Deity striking at Joram’s stomach in his wrath” (9.103)—for the people’s contemptuous treatment of the king’s body. Josephus elaborates on 2 Chr 21:20bβ, which states that, whereas Joram was buried “in the city of David” (so also 2 Kgs 8:24bα), he was not interred in “the tomb of the kings.” He thereby accentuates the contrast between the dishonorable burial given Joram and the “magnificent” obsequies accorded his father Jehoshaphat (see 9.44). Josephus computes Joram’s total lifespan by combining the figures for his age at accession (32 years) and length of reign (8), as cited in 2 Kgs 8:17// 2 Chr 21:20aα. In attributing Ahaziah’s accession to the efforts of the people of Jerusalem, Josephus follows 2 Chr 22:1a, as opposed to 2 Kgs 8:24b, which does not ascribe such a role to them.

Ant. 9.105-139 features events in the Northern Kingdom, namely the elimination of Joram and all those associated with him by the usurper Jehu. On this segment (// 2 Kgs 8:25-10:36; cf. 2 Chr 22:2-9), see Begg 2000: 129-66; Mulzer and Krieger 1996; and Feldman 1998a: 352-62. Greek Ἀραμώθα; this is the reading of RO, which Niese follows. Marcus reads Ἀραμάθη with MSP, the reading found in Josephus’ earlier mention of the site (biblical “Ramoth-gilead”) in Ant. 8.398. See 2 Kgs 8:28a, which mentions the joint attack on “Ramoth-gilead” by Joram of Israel and Ahaziah of Judah. Josephus amplifies this notice with a reference to the occasion for the attack, namely, the death of the Syrian King “Ader” (see 9.92) and the motivation behind it, namely, Joram’s desire to recover the town (which had been lost to the Syrians in the time of Ahab’s father (see Ant. 8.398-399). Conversely, he holds over mention of Ahaziah’s involvement in the campaign until after he has related the wounding and withdrawal of Joram to Jezreel; see 9.112. Josephus adds details to the summary reference to Joram’s being “wounded” by the Syrians in 2 Kgs 8:28b. His mention of the king’s being (non-fatally) “shot” by a Syrian both associates and contrasts Joram with his father Ahab, who likewise was “shot” by a Syrian archer (Ant. 8.414), though in his case “fatally” (8.415). MT (2 Kgs 8:29) ‮יזרעאל‬‎ (Eng.: “Jezreel”); LXX B Ἰσραήλ; LXX L Ἰεζραήλ; Josephus Ἰεζαρήλη (this is the form read by Marcus; Niese reads Ἱεζέρηλη with RO). MT (2 Kgs 9:2) ‮יהוא‬‎ (Eng.: “Jehu”); LXX B Εἰού; LXX L Ἰού; Josephus Ἰηοῦς. Josephus mentioned this figure earlier in Ant. 8.352 (// 1 Kgs 19:16-17), where Elijah is told to appoint him king and informed of his task of executing the impious, matters that are now about to be realized. According to MT and LXX B 2 Kgs 9:2, Jehu was “the son of Jehoshaphat, the son of Nimshi.” LXX L calls him “the son of Nimshi, the son of Jehoshaphat.” Marcus and Schalit (s.v.) read the name of Jehu’s father here in 9.105 as Νεμεσαῖος, whereas the form attested by the codices and adopted by Niese is Ἀμασῆς. Josephus supplies this notice on Jehu’s being left in captured Ramoth-gilead with a view to the continuation of the biblical account, where Jehu’s presence at the city in a leadership capacity is presupposed. The notice replaces the mention, repeated in 1 Kgs 9:16b, of the visit to the wounded Joram by Ahaziah of Judah of 8:28b, which Josephus will utilize only in 9.112.

Josephus adds this notice on Joram’s plans; the notice is full of irony in that Joram, rather than being “cured,” is about to be assassinated by Jehu. MT and LXX 2 Kgs 9:1 designate Elisha’s agent as “one of the sons of the prophets,” while Tg. speaks of “one of the students of the prophets” (Aramaic: ‮מתלמידי נבייא‬‎). Josephus mentioned Elisha’s “disciples” in 9.68. Greek: τὸ ἅγιον ἔλαιον. In 2 Kgs 9:3 the reference is rather to the “flask of oil” that is to be used. Josephus’ qualification of the anointing oil as “holy” serves to assimilate Jehu’s anointing to those of Saul (see Ant. 6.83), David (Ant. 6.157) and Solomon (see Ant. 7.355), all of whom are anointed with “holy oil.” By contrast, the Talmud (see, e.g., b. Meg. 14a) distinguishes between the biblical kings Saul and Jehu who are anointed from a “flask” (see 1 Sam 10:1 and 2 Kgs 9:3, 6, respectively) and whose lines ruled for only a limited time on the one hand and David and Solomon, both of whom are anointed from a “horn” (see 1 Sam 16:13 and 1 Kgs 1:39, respectively) and whose dynasty was chosen to rule forever on the other. Josephus lacks an equivalent to several of the circumstantial details mentioned in Elisha’s directive to his agent as cited in 2 Kgs 9:1b-3a: he is to “gird his loins,” seek out Jehu, and summon him away by himself into an “inner chamber.” Exceptionally, he does reproduce the biblical term “anoint” of 9:3a; in the continuation of his Jehu account he will, however, use more general equivalents for the word. In 2 Kgs 9:3b Elisha instructs his agent: “open the door and flee; do not tarry.” Josephus supplies a motivation for the latter’s prescribed manner of travel, namely to avoid being observed.

See 2 Kgs 9:4-5a. Josephus appends mention of the fulfillment of the prophet’s prediction, thus highlighting Elisha’s clairvoyance. 2 Kgs 9:5b has Elisha’s envoy address Jehu with the words: “I have an errand for you, O commander.” Josephus eliminates the attached exchange between the pair concerning the identity of the intended recipient of the envoy’s message. That exchange might appear superfluous, given that in Josephus’ presentation the envoy goes up to Jehu and addresses himself specifically to him.

See 2 Kgs 9:6. Here (compare 9.106), Josephus replaces the biblical term “anoint” with a more general word, i.e. “designate.” See 2 Kgs 9:7, which mentions “the blood of all the servants of the Lord” in addition to that of “my [God’s] servants the prophets.” Josephus adds the qualification about Jezebel’s slaying the prophets (see Ant. 8.344) “lawlessly” (Greek: παρανόμως).

See 2 Kgs 9:9. Earlier (see Ant. 8.288), Josephus designated the founder of the 2nd Israelite dynasty as “Basanes” (biblical Baasha). See 2 Kgs 9:8. Josephus adds the reference to the “impiety” of Ahab’s line and rewords the vulgar biblical expression “those pissing against the wall” used of Ahab’s male descendants. He has no equivalent to the renewed reference to the fate awaiting Jezebel (see 9:7; cf. 9.108), with which Elisha’s agent concludes his discourse in 9:10a. Josephus elaborates the summary notice about the envoy’s opening the door and fleeing of 2 Kgs 9:10b with a reminiscence of the motivation behind this, i.e. concealment, previously introduced by him in his version of Elisha’s instructions to the messenger in 9.106 (compare 2 Kgs 9:3b).

See 2 Kgs 9:11a. Josephus leaves aside the officers’ opening query to Jehu, i.e. “is all well?” Josephus aligns the wording of Jehu’s response with that of the officers’ question to him. Both times, the Greek word qualifying Elisha’s agent as a “madman” is a form of the verb μαίνομαι. Compare Jehu’s statement to his colleagues in 2 Kgs 9:11b: “you know the fellow and his talk.”

Josephus attenuates the sharpness of the officers’ response (2 Kgs 9:12a) to Jehu’s evasive reply (9:11b; see previous note) to them: “that is not true; tell us now.” On the apologetic concern behind Josephus’ modification of the biblical presentation here with its seeming substantiation of contemporary charges about the Jews’ untrustworthiness, see Feldman 1998a: 355, 362. See 2 Kgs 9:12b. As in 9.108, Josephus replaces the Bible’s verb “anoint” with a more general term. Compare 2 Kgs 9:13a, where Jehu’s hearers place their garments “on the bare steps” (RSV). See 2 Kgs 9:13b.

Josephus supplies this transitional phrase in order to prepare for the continuation of the account in which Jehu appears surrounded by his troops. See 2 Kgs 9:14a, which speaks of Jehu’s “conspiring against” Joram. Josephus appends the allusion to his earlier account of Joram’s coming to Jezreel (9.105) under the influence of the parenthetical notice of 9:14b-15a, with its recapitulation of the events told in 8:28-29. Josephus here combines the data of 2 Kgs 8:27, 29b (earlier passed over by him) and 9:16 concerning the relationship between Ahaziah and Joram and the former’s visit to the latter following his wounding, likewise rendering more specific the indication of 8:29b (“for he [Joram] was sick”) concerning the purpose of the Judean’s visit. Contrary to his wording here in 9.112, Josephus in fact has not previously explicitly identified Ahaziah’s mother as the sister of Joram of Israel; see, however, 9.96, where “Othlia,” daughter of Ahab (and so sister of his son Joram) is cited as the wife of Joram of Judah, the father of “Ochozias” (see 9.102, 104).

Josephus supplies this motivation for the request Jehu is about to make of his men (// 2 Kgs 9:15b). Josephus here spells out the import of the formula with which Jehu introduces his appeal (2 Kgs 9:15b) to his men that none of them bring news of what has happened to Jezreel, i.e. “if this is in your mind....”

Josephus supplies this notice on the efficacy of Jehu’s appeal to his men (2 Kgs 9:15b). See 2 Kgs 9:16a (and the initial announcement of Jehu’s intended advance in 9.112). Josephus adds the reference to the elite cavalry force’s accompanying Jehu in order to prepare the Jezreel lookout’s subsequent report of seeing, not just a lone individual (Jehu), but “a company” (see 9:17a). Josephus embellishes the notice on the watchman’s report of 2 Kgs 9:17a with, e.g., mention of the king’s having stationed him and the reason for this. In the same line he has the watchman make his report specifically to Joram. The reference to “a band of horsemen” in the watchman’s report (compare 9:17b: a company) echoes Josephus’ added reference to Jehu’s taking along the “elite of his horsemen” earlier in 9.114.

In 2 Kgs 9:17b the question that Joram directs to be asked of those approaching runs: “Is it peace?” Josephus elucidates the question the messenger poses to Jehu in 2 Kgs 9:18a in accordance with the king’s instructions in 9:17b, i.e. “Thus says the king, ‘Is it peace’?” See previous note. Compare 2 Kgs 9:18b, where Jehu first picks up on the messenger’s question to him (“is it peace?,” 9:18aβ) with his counter-question, “what have you to do with peace?,” and then orders him “turn round and ride behind me.”

As in 9.114 (compare 2 Kgs 9:17a), Josephus has the watchman make his 2nd report (see 9:18c) specifically to the king. Josephus abbreviates the exchange between the 2nd rider and Jehu in 2 Kgs 9:19, with its verbatim repetition of the earlier such exchange (9:18ab).

Josephus combines into a continuous sequence the events recounted in 2 Kgs 9:20a (report of the 2nd horseman’s joining the advancing party) and 9:21a (the 2 kings’ going forth to meet Jehu), while holding over the intervening notice on Jehu’s own approach (9:20b; see note to “slowly” at 9.117). He adds the reminder concerning Ahaziah’s presence in Jezreel at this moment, reutilizing the wording of 9.112. Greek: σχολαίτερον. Josephus only other use of the adjective σχολαῖος is in War 7.98. Josephus’ characterization of Jehu’s driving corresponds to that of Tg. 2 Kgs 9:20b (Aramaic: ‮בניח‬‎, “with gentleness”), whereas both MT and LXX speak rather of the “wildness” of his driving. In all the biblical witnesses, the description of Jehu’s driving style is part of the watchman’s final report (see 9:20b), whereas Josephus presents it as a narrative editorial remark.

Josephus omits the designation of Naboth as “the Jezreelite” from 2 Kgs 9:21bβ, where the 2 kings encounter Jehu at Naboth’s property. Joram’s question in 9:22a runs: “Is it peace, Jehu?” Josephus has the king reiterate the question the first messenger posed to Jehu in 9.115. Josephus turns into a curse/invective Jehu’s rhetorical question to Joram in 2 Kgs 9:22b: “What peace can be, so long as the harlotries and the sorceries of your mother are so many?” The text read by RO and followed by Niese uses only 1 epithet for Jezebel (“sorceress,” Greek: φαρμακός, a Josephan hapax), whereas MSPLat (followed by Marcus) qualify her with 2 terms (“sorceress and harlot [Greek: πόρνη, also a Josephan hapax]”), as in the Bible (where the corresponding terms appear in reverse order). In his explicit mention of Joram’s “turning his chariot,” Josephus goes together with OL 2 Kgs 9:23aα against MT and LXX BL, where the king “turns his hands.” Josephus elaborates the notice of 2 Kgs 9:23 concerning Joram’s flight and his warning Ahaziah of “treachery,” adding the reference to the former’s mental state that prompts his initiatives. 2 Kgs 9:24abα features several additional details: Jehu’s shooting “with full strength” and striking Joram “between the shoulders.”

Josephus agrees with LXX BL 2 Kgs 9:24bβ in portraying Joram as sinking “to his knees”; MT has him “sink in his chariot” (the forms “his knees” and “his chariot” only differ by one consonant in Hebrew). Josephus adds the explicit mention of the king’s death. MT (2 Kgs 9:25) ‮בדקר‬‎ (Eng.: “Bidkar”); LXX B Βαδεκά; LXX L Βαδέκ; Josephus Βάδακος (Schalit s.v. reads Βάδακρος in line with the MT form). See 2 Kgs 9:25a, 26a. Josephus leaves aside the reference to “the blood of Naboth’s sons” from Jehu’s citation of the prophetic word (v. 26a), seeing that the story of Naboth’s murder in 1 Kings 21 (MT and LXX B 1 Kings 20; the plus in LXXL 1 Kgs 20:27 does refer to Jezebel’s having smitten Naboth and his son) makes no mention of them, while holding over for a later point (see 9.120) the allusion to the prophecy’s being delivered as Jehu and Bidkar ride behind Ahab of 9:25b. Conversely, he introduces mention of Elijah as the bearer of the word and adds the notice on Ahab’s family being requited at the spot along with him, in line with his version of Elijah’s original word to the king in Ant. 8.361. Finally, he passes over the repetition of Jehu’s directive to Bidkar about the disposition of Joram’s corpse of 9:26b= 9:25a.

According to Jehu’s statement in 2 Kgs 9:25b, both he and Bidkar were riding behind Ahab when the Lord uttered his word against the king. Compare 2 Kgs 9:26b, where Jehu reiterates his command to Bidkar from 9:25a and adds that he [Bidkar] is to dispose of the king’s corpse “in accordance with the word of the Lord.” The Greek term translated “prediction” here, i.e. πρόρρησις, occurs 18 times in Josephus, but never in the LXX. The above formula “according to the prediction,” recurs in Ant. 1.258; 2.229. Josephus embellishes the notice on Ahaziah’s flight of 2 Kgs 9:27a with mention of the fugitive king’s feelings and thoughts. His reference to “another road” replaces the more specific route cited in the Bible, i.e. “in the direction of Beth-haggan.”

2 Kgs 9:27bβ specifies the site of Ahaziah’s wounding as “the ascent of Gur, which is by Ibleam.” According to 9:27aβ, Jehu commands unspecified others to shoot Ahaziah. Josephus has him shoot the king himself, just as he did Joram earlier. MT (2 Kgs 9:27) ‮מגדו‬‎ (Eng.: “Megiddo”); LXX B Μαγεδαών; LXX L Μαγεδδώ; Josephus Μαγιάδδω (I adopt this as the more difficult reading with Niese, in preference to Lat’s more biblical form Mageddon). See 2 Kgs 9:27c. Josephus adds the reference to Ahaziah’s (unsuccessful) “treatment,” thus establishing a parallel between him and Joram, who likewise undergoes treatment after being “shot”; see 9.105. Josephus’ account of Ahaziah’s demise follows that given in 2 Kgs 9:27-28a, as opposed to the rather different version found in 2 Chr 22:9a, where Ahaziah is apprehended while hiding in Samaria, brought to Jehu, and “put to death” at an unspecified site. See 2 Kgs 9:28, which specifies that Ahaziah’s servants conveyed his corpse to Jerusalem “in a chariot” and that he was “buried in his tomb with his fathers in the city of David.” Contrast 2 Chr 22:9b, where Ahaziah seems to be buried somewhere in the North, with Jehu’s men performing the task. Josephus derives this datum from 2 Kgs 8:26// 2 Chr 22:2. He has no equivalent to the divergent biblical notices on Ahaziah’s age at accession, i.e. 22 in MT LXX BL 2 Kgs 8:26 and LXX L 2 Chr 22:2; 20 in LXX B 2 Chr 22:2; and 42 in MT 2 Chr 22:2. This closing, negative evaluation of Ahaziah is inspired by the more detailed judgments of 2 Kgs 8:27 // 2 Chr 22:3-4, which associate the reprobate Judean king with the “ways of the house of Ahab.” Josephus has no equivalent to the extraneous chronological notice of 2 Kgs 9:29, which synchronizes Ahaziah’s accession with the 11th regnal year of Joram of Israel.

2 Kgs 9:30 represents Jezebel, eyes painted and head adorned, “looking out the window” as Jehu comes to Jezreel. Josephus makes the queen’s location more specific. In 2 Kgs 9:31 Jezebel uses the name “Zimri,” the assassin of King Elah of Israel (see 1 Kgs 16:10), in her sarcastic address to the regicide Jehu. Likely finding the allusion too subtle for his intended audience, Josephus has her mockingly address Jehu as Joram’s “fine slave.” Josephus adds this initial address by Jehu to Jezebel herself, responding to her own previous words to him. Contrast 2 Kgs 9:32aβ, where he immediately asks “Who is on my side?” Josephus compresses the sequence of 2 Kgs 9:32aβ-33aα, where Jehu first asks, “Who is on my side?”; in response, 2 or 3 eunuchs look out at him, and Jehu directs them to throw Jezebel down. The reference to the “tower” recalls its mention earlier in 9.122.

See 2 Kgs 9:33aβb, where Jezebel’s blood also splatters on the horses. Josephus adds explicit mention of Jezebel’s death, just as he did with Joram in 9.119 (compare 2 Kgs 9:24). Josephus elaborates the notice of 2 Kgs 9:34a about Jehu’s eating and drinking even as Jezebel is meeting her violent end with various details: Jehu enters “the palace”; he is accompanied by his entourage; and refreshes himself after his travels. See 2 Kgs 9:34b. Josephus specifies to whom Jehu gives his command, while leaving aside the king’s pejorative designation of Jezebel as “this cursed woman.”

2 Kgs 9:35 makes explicit mention of Jezebel’s skull, feet, and the palms of her hands. Josephus amplifies the notice of 2 Kgs 9:35 concerning the finding of Jezebel’s extremities with this indication about the fate of the rest of the queen’s body under the inspiration of 9:36, where Jehu quotes Elijah’s announcement (see 1 Kgs 21:23) that “dogs shall eat the flesh of Jezebel.” With this formulation Josephus makes summary allusion to the core content of the extended quotation of Elijah’s word about Jezebel’s being consumed by dogs (see 1 Kgs 21:23; compare Ant. 8.361, where the Josephan Elijah speaks of Jezebel’s blood being shed in the place where dogs had eaten Naboth’s body) made by Jehu in 2 Kgs 9:36-37. In so doing, he turns the biblical Jehu’s statement into a notice on his wonderment at seeing the prophet’s word so dramatically realized. From Jehu’s citation of Elijah’s word Josephus omits the vulgar announcement (not previously attributed to the prophet either by the Bible or himself) of 9:37: “and the corpse of Jezebel shall be dung upon the face of the field in the territory of Jezreel, so that no one can say, ‘This is Jezebel’.”

See 2 Kgs 10:1a. Josephus derives his indication about the sons’ being “brought up” in Samaria from 10:6b. Josephus’ plural form corresponds to MT 2 Kgs 10:1b’s “letters,” whereas LXX BL have the singular “letter.” Greek: παιδαγωγοί. On the term, see Spicq 1978 (II): 639-41. 2 Kgs 10:2b mentions 3 categories of recipients of Jehu’s letters: the rulers of the city (LXX BL; MT: of Jezreel), the elders, and the guardians of Ahab’s sons. Josephus reduces the 3 groups to 2, each of whom receives a letter from Jehu. Josephus anticipates this core content of Jehu’s message from 2 Kgs 10:3a. Greek: αὐτῷ. This is the reading of RO adopted by Niese. Marcus reads αὐτοῖς (“they,” i.e. the Samaritan officials to whom Jehu is writing) with MSPLat. Josephus expands the 4-part catalogue of resources available in Samaria that he takes over from 2 Kgs 10:2 with mention of “an army.” This concluding statement of Jehu’s message is Josephus’ version of the (mock) exhortation of 2 Kgs 10:3b, in which Jehu urges the recipients to “fight for your master’s house.”

Josephus adds this comment explaining the purpose behind Jehu’s letters and their ironically-intended content: by means of his insolently provocative words Jehu aims to find out whether the leadership of Samaria is at all disposed to resist him. Greek: πρὸς τοῦτο. This is the reading of RO, which Niese follows. Marcus reads πρὸς τοῦτον (“in his [Jehu’s] regard”) with MSPLat. See 2 Kgs 10:4. Josephus’ term “reasoned” replaces the more generic “said,” introducing the biblical recipients’ words to one another concerning Jehu’s invincibility. See 2 Kgs 10:5, which attributes the collective answer sent to Jehu to “he who was over the palace and the city,” along with the elders and the guardians. Josephus omits the respondents’ closing protestation: “we will not make any one king; do whatever is good in your [Jehu’s] eyes.”

2 Kgs 10:6aα formulates Jehu’s response to the Samarians conditionally: “(if you are on my side) and if you are ready to obey me....” In 2 Kgs 10:6aβ Jehu’s directive is that the recipients themselves are to come to him at Jezreel with the heads of Ahab’s sons on the following day. Josephus’ rewording of this demand might reflect the consideration that the recipients would have found the command that they appear before Jehu in person too intimidating to act on. The sequence of 2 Kgs 10:6b-7 suggests that those responsible for the killing of Ahab’s sons were the “great men of the city who were bringing them up” (v. 6b). Josephus differentiates: the governors give the command for the sons’ execution, leaving it to their tutors to carry this out. See 2 Kgs 10:7. Josephus adds the editorial comment about the utter lack of compassion with which the executions were carried out.

See 2 Kgs 10:8a. Josephus appends the remark about Jehu’s “dining,” which recalls the mention of his “refreshing himself with food and other things” as Jezebel meets her end in 9.123 (// 2 Kgs 9:34). The repetition of the motif highlights Jehu’s cold-bloodedness. In 2 Kgs 10:8b Jehu specifies that the heaps are to be left “until the morning.”

See 2 Kgs 10:9a. Josephus omits Jehu’s opening words to the Jezreelites: “you are innocent,” which might seem unmotivated— what question can there be of their guilt or innocence in the matter at hand? Jehu’s reference to the heaps of heads before him is formulated as a question in 2 Kgs 10:9b: “but who struck down all these?” The Josephan Jehu more emphatically affirms his non-responsibility for their deaths. See 2 Kgs 10:10. Josephus re-formulates the biblical Jehu’s reference to the “word of the Lord” not “falling to the ground.” On the expression “the prophecy of God,” see the note on this phrase at Ant. 6.136.

2 Kgs 10:11 identifies Jehu’s Jezreelite victims as all Ahab’s “great men, familiar friends, and priests.” See 2 Kgs 10:12-13aα, which designates those whom Jehu meets on the way as Ahaziah’s “kinsmen.” Josephus omits the localization of the encounter cited in v. 12, i.e. “Beth-eked of the Shepherds.” See 2 Kgs 10:13aβ, where Jehu’s question to the Judeans is “who are you?”

From the Judeans’ response to Jehu in 2 Kgs 10:13b Josephus omits their opening self-identification as “kinsmen of Ahaziah.” He likewise modifies the biblical statement concerning the purpose of their journey, i.e. “to visit the royal princes and the sons of the queen mother.” Josephus appends this explanatory comment, which accounts both for the Judeans’ coming to visit 2 kings who are already dead and the unguarded way in which they speak to the kings’ killer. See 2 Kgs 10:14. Josephus omits the site of the massacre (“the pit of Beth-eked”) and the concluding biblical statement that Jehu “spared none of them.” In his account of the Judeans’ fatal encounter with Jehu, Josephus follows the version of 2 Kgs 10:12-14 in preference to 2 Chr 22:8 (where Jehu meets the “princes of Judah and the sons of Ahaziah’s brothers, who attended Ahaziah” and kills them personally).

MT (2 Kgs 10:15) ‮יהונדב‬‎ (Eng.: “Jehonadab”); LXX BL Ἰωναδάβ; Josephus Ἰωνάδαβος. Josephus’ notices on the qualities of Jehonadab and his long-standing relationship with Jehu replace the mention of his father’s name (“Rechab”) in 2 Kgs 10:15aα. Josephus’ added reference to the existing relationship between the pair seems inspired by Jehu’s opening question (which he does not reproduce) to Jehonadab in 2 Kgs 10:15aβ, where LXX BL (followed by RSV) reads “Is your heart true to my heart as mine is to your heart?” for MT’s “Is it right with your heart, as my heart is with your heart?” Jehonadab’s praise of Jehu’s bloody initiatives takes the place of the opening exchange between the 2 men as cited in 2 Kgs 10:15aβ, where Jehu asks whether Jehonadab is as devoted to him as he is to Jehonadab and receives an affirmative answer. On Josephus’ earlier utilization of the content of this exchange in his reference to the long-standing friendship between the pair, see previous note.

Josephus compresses the content of 2 Kgs 10:15bβγ, where Jehu asks Jehonadab to give him his hand and, upon his doing so, draws him up into his chariot. The 3 categories of persons cited by Jehu here all have their equivalents in Josephus’ story of the “Bethel confrontation” under Jeroboam I; for “false prophets,” see Ant. 8.242; for “false priests,” see 8.232; and for “those who misled the crowd,” see the phrase “to mislead the people” used of Jeroboam in 8.229. This 2-fold characterization of Jehonadab by Jehu picks up on Josephus’ introduction of him as “a good and just man” in 9.132. On the collocation “kind and just” (Greek: χρηστὸς καὶ δίκαιος), see the note to “just and kind” at Ant. 6.294. Greek: ἰδεῖν. This word is absent in ROM and omitted by Niese. Marcus reads it with SP (and possibly Lat). Josephus expatiates considerably on Jehu’s reference to his “zeal for the Lord,” which he invites Jehonadab to witness in Samaria in 2 Kgs 10:16a. At the same time, he avoids the Bible’s problematic “zeal-terminology,” which could convey the idea that Jehu was a proto-Zealot; see Feldman 1998a: 358-9.

Cf. 2 Kgs 10:16b-17aα. Josephus adds the reference to Jehonadab’s being “persuaded” by Jehu’s preceding discourse. See 2 Kgs 10:17aβb. Josephus passes over the Bible’s concluding reference to Jehu’s initiative being in accordance with “the word of the Lord which he spoke to Elijah.” Josephus provides this heading to the following story of Jehu’s elimination of the Baal cult (2 Kgs 10:18-28), anticipating the notice of 2 Kgs 10:19bβ (“but Jehu did it with cunning in order to destroy the worshipers of Baal”); the heading makes the king’s anti-Baal intentions clear from the start. The Bible, by contrast, seems at the outset to represent Jehu as actually going over to Baal. The collocation “deception and trickery” (Greek: ἀπάτη καὶ δόλος) occurs also in Ant. 7.32; 12.4 (reverse order); 18.326 (reverse order); Apion 2.200.

Jehu’s opening word to the assembly in 2 Kgs 10:18 runs: “Ahab served Baal a little, but Jehu will serve him much.” For the biblical contrast between a lesser and a greater service of a single god (Baal), Josephus substitutes that between Ahab’s deities and the still greater number of gods Jehu (purportedly) intends to worship. 2 Kgs 10:19aα has Jehu mention the same 3 categories of persons, though citing them in the order prophets, servants/slaves, and priests. Whereas the Bible designates the groups in question as associated with the single deity Baal, Josephus links them more generally with Ahab’s various “gods” to whom he has Jehu refer in what precedes. See 2 Kgs 10:19aβ, where Jehu announces his intention of offering “a great sacrifice to Baal.” Josephus continues his generalizing of the Bible’s mentions of Baal. See 2 Kgs 10:19bα, where Jehu declares “whoever is missing shall not live.” With this parenthetical comment Josephus makes use of the biblical association of Ahab with the god Baal in particular. The notice recalls Ant. 8.318, where Josephus mentions the building of a temple to “the Tyrian god Belias” (1 Kgs 16:32: Baal) by Ahab’s wife Jezebel. It takes the place of the editorial remark of 2 Kgs 10:19bβ (“but Jehu did it with cunning in order to destroy the worshipers of Baal”), already anticipated by Josephus in 9.134.

Cf. 2 Kgs 10:20-21. Josephus goes beyond v. 21aα in specifying that Jehu sent to summon the “priests of Baal,” just as he rewords Jehu’s order in v. 20, i.e. “sanctify a solemn assembly for Baal.” He leaves aside the statement of v. 21aβb that all the Baal worshipers without exception did in fact assemble and then proceeded to completely fill “the house of Baal.” Greek: τῷ ἱερεῖ. This is the reading of ROLat that Niese and Marcus follow. MSPE (and possibly Zon) read τοῖς ἱεροῦσι (“the priests).” See 2 Kgs 10:22, where Jehu’s directive about the vestments is made to “him who was in charge of the vestments.” See 2 Kgs 10:23. Josephus supplies the rationale for Jehu’s “search order” (which in the Bible concerns the presence of “servant(s) of the Lord” among the Baal worshippers).

Josephus agrees with MT and LXX L 2 Kgs 10:24a in making the Baal worshipers the ones to commence the sacrifices, whereas in LXX B it is Jehu himself who does this. He adds the reference to Jehu’s being informed of the outcome of the search he had ordered (see 9.136). This figure agrees with that read by MT and LXX B 2 Kgs 10:24bα. LXX L and some OL witnesses give a much higher figure, i.e. 3,000. Josephus appends this characterization of those selected by Jehu. He thereby accounts for the king’s choice of precisely these men for their intended mission. Josephus prefaces Jehu’s threatening word to the 80 (// 2 Kgs 10:24bβ) with this extended statement by the king about what he is asking them to do. This statement both anticipates and elaborates the order given by Jehu to “the runners and the third men” (RSV: the guard and the officers) in MT and LXX B 10:25aβ (LXX L reads “the runners and the 3,000”), i.e. “go in and slay them [the worshipers of Baal]; let not a man escape.” (The biblical presentation in 10:24-25 leaves it unclear whether the 80 of v. 24 are the same as the “the runners and the third men” of v. 25; Josephus simplifies matters by mentioning only the former group). The term “false prophets” used in Jehu’s word to the 80 here recalls the king’s remark to Jehonadab about his intended victims in 9.134. This threat corresponds to Jehu’s warning to the 80 in 2 Kgs 10:24bβ: “the man who allows any of those whom I give into your hands to escape shall forfeit his life.”

From the lengthy catalogue of anti-Baal measures perpetrated by Jehu’s men in 2 Kgs 10:25b-27, Josephus selects just these 2 for explicit mention. This summary formula takes the place of the various additional anti-Baal measures performed by Jehu’s men according to 2 Kgs 10:25-27: casting out of the bodies of the Baal-worshipers, removal and demolition of the “pillar(s) of Baal,” demolition of the house of Baal, and its transformation into a latrine “to this day.” On Josephus’ non-usage of the last of these items as reflective of his concern not to offend gentile religious sensibilities, see Feldman 1998a: 355-6. This parenthetical notice recalls the reference to “the Tyrian god whom they call Belias” in Ant. 8.318 and Josephus’ statement “now Achab’s god was called Baal” in 9.135. This appendix to Josephus’ account of Jehu’s elimination of the Baal-cult in Samaria recalls Ant. 8.318, where, however, the building of the temple for Baal/Belias as well as the appointment of his (false) prophets is attributed, not, as here, to Ahab himself, but rather to his wife Jezebel.

See 2 Kgs 10:28-29. Josephus omits the stereotyped terminology used of the “golden calves” in v. 29, where they are called “the sins of Jeroboam which he made Israel to sin.” He likewise rewords the biblical reference to Jehu’s “not turning aside” from Jeroboam’s idols, with its suggestion that the king personally participated in their cult, into a reference to Jehu’s (merely) “allowing” such participation by his people. In 2 Kgs 10:30 God speaks to Jehu directly. Josephus’ reference to a prophetic intermediary has a counterpart in S. ʿOlam Rab. 19.1, where the prophet in question is identified as Jonah. Compare 2 Kgs 10:30a, where the reference to Jehu’s God-pleasing deed of eliminating the house of Ahab functions as part of the divine word itself and as the grounds for (“because...”) God’s following promise to the king. In 2 Kgs 10:30b God promises Jehu that his sons to the 4th generation “shall sit on the throne of Israel.” Josephus at this point leaves aside the censure of Jehu (10:31) for his failure to walk carefully in the law of the Lord and his persistence in the “sins of Jeroboam” (see 10:29); he will, however, draw on the content of 10:31 subsequently, see 9.160. With this formula Josephus breaks off his account of Jehu in order to shift attention to the career of Athaliah in Judah to which he devotes 9.140-156 (// 2 Kgs 11:1-20// 2 Chr 22:10-23:21). By contrast, 2 Kgs 10:32-36 first completes the presentation of Jehu, prior to beginning the Athaliah story in 11:1.

2 Kgs 11:1a// 2 Chr 22:10a designate Athaliah rather as “the mother of Ahaziah.” Josephus’ qualification of her as Ahab’s “daughter” recalls Ant. 8.398; 9.96, where the same identification occurs. On Josephus’ version of the story of Athaliah (9.140-156// 2 Kgs 11:1-20// 2 Chr 22:10-23:21), see Begg 2000: 167-87. 2 Kgs 11:1a// 2 Chr 22:10a mention Athaliah’s hearing of the death of Ahaziah alone. Josephus supplies a further motivation for her subsequent bloody initiatives, i.e. the killing also of her brother Joram and of the Judean royal family. 2 Kgs 11:1b// 2 Chr 22:10b mention Athaliah’s extermination of the Judean royal family as a fact, rather than as something intended by her; see, however, next note.

With this phrase Josephus alludes to the virtual extermination of the Judean royal line perpetrated by Athaliah according to 2 Kgs 11:1b// 2 Chr 22:10b; see previous note. Josephus adds these transitional notices to the story of the survival of a single Judean royal male, which he is about to relate on the basis of 2 Kgs 11:2-3// 2 Chr 22:11-12. MT (2 Kgs 11:2) ‮יהושבע‬‎ (Eng.: “Jehosheba”); (2 Chr 22:11) ‮יהשבעת‬‎ (Eng.: “Jehoshabeath”); LXX B (2 Kgs 11:2// 2 Chr 22:11) Ἰωσαβεέ; LXX L (2 Kgs 11:2 // 2 Chr 22:11) Ἰωσάβεαι; Josephus Ὠσαβέθη. Josephus’ indication about the woman’s familial relationship corresponds to the references to her as “daughter of King Joram” and “sister of Ahaziah” in 2 Kgs 11:2/ / 2 Chr 22:11b. MT (2 Chr 22:11) ‮יהוידע‬‎ (Eng.: “Jehoiada”); LXX BL Ἰωδᾶε; Josephus Ἰώδας. In 2 Kings 11, Jehoiada’s name appears only in 11:4, and his relationship to Jehosheba (see 11:2) is not spelled out explicitly.

MT (2 Kgs 11:2// 2 Chr 22:11) ‮יואש‬‎ (Eng.: “Joash”); LXX Ἰωάς; Josephus Ἰώασος. See 2 Kgs 11:2a// 2 Chr 22:11b. Josephus adds the preliminary detail about Jehosheba’s “entering the palace,” where she comes upon Joash as well as the mention of the infant’s age. See 2 Kgs 11:2bβ-3// 2 Chr 22:12. Josephus’ attributing the custody of the child to the couple jointly corresponds to the wording of Chronicles, whereas Kings speaks of Joash’s “remaining with her [Jehosheba]” for the 6-year period. Josephus specifies the domain ruled by Athaliah, which both biblical passages simply designate as “the land.”

Josephus here follows the presentation of 2 Chr 23:1 (although omitting the names of the 5 commanders cited there) rather than 2 Kgs 11:4a, where Jehoiada summons to the temple “the captains of the Carites and of the guards.” With this appended notice Josephus spells out the content of the agreement that Jehoiada “enters into with” the 5 commanders according to 2 Chr 23:1. Once again, he avoids the term διαθήκη (= Hebrew ‮ברית‬‎) used here by LXX L.

See 2 Chr 23:2. Josephus adds the priests as a 3rd group of those summoned alongside the Bible’s Levites and “heads of the fathers’ houses of Israel.”

Josephus’ phrase “sworn pledge” seems to reflect the reference in 2 Kgs 11:4bα to Jehoiada’s “making a covenant” with the assembled military men (see 11:4a) and “putting them under oath.” Compare 2 Chr 23:3a: “all the assembly made a covenant with the king.” Josephus supplies a content for the “covenant” and the “oath” initiated by Jehoiada in 2 Kgs 11:4bα, likewise adducing the considerations that inspired these initiatives. Josephus supplies this transitional phrase. See 2 Kgs 11:4bβ. Greek: ἡμῖν. This is the reading of RO, which Niese follows. Marcus reads ὑμῖν (“your”) with MSPLatZon. Compare Jehoiada’s declaration to the assembly in 2 Chr 23:3b (no equivalent in 2 Kings 11): “this is the king’s son. Let him reign as God spoke concerning the sons of David.”

Josephus agrees with 2 Chr 23:4-5a and 2 Kgs 11:5-6 in distinguishing 3 guard detachments assigned by Jehoiada to their various positions. Otherwise, he leaves aside many particulars cited by one or other of his sources (or by both of them), e.g., the identification of the guards as “priests and Levites” (23:4a), the 2 divisions making up the 3rd detachment (11:6), and the references to the sabbath as the time when the guards come on/off duty. Josephus draws this further directive from 2 Chr 23:5b, adding the specification that the people are to remain “unarmed.” This directive represents Josephus’ version of 2 Chr 23:6a: “let no one enter the house of the Lord except the priests and the ministering Levites, for they are holy.” Josephus drops the Levites as those entitled to enter along with the priests, while adding the prohibition of entry by soldiers.

See 2 Chr 23:7, where it is the Levites alone who are assigned to guard the king (in 2 Kgs 11:7-8 Jehoiada directs the 3rd guard-detachment with its 2 divisions to watch over him).

Josephus’ indeterminate reference to “those persuaded” by Jehoiada covers both the groups who are said to act on the priest’s instructions in 2 Kgs 11:9a (the captains) and 2 Chr 23:8a (the Levites and all Judah), respectively. He leaves aside the allusions to those coming on and off duty on the sabbath common to 2 Kgs 11:9b and 2 Chr 23:8b. Josephus adds this reference to the “repository” of the weapons Jehoiada is about to distribute. He had not previously mentioned David’s building such a structure. According to 2 Kgs 11:10 // 2 Chr 23:9, it is only the “captains” who received weapons from Jehoiada. Josephus adds the 2 clerical groups who have figured so prominently in what precedes as recipients. Josephus’ mention of these 2 items corresponds to the reading of LXX L 2 Kgs 11:10 (where they appear in reverse order). In MT LXX B 2 Kgs 11:10 the reference is to “spears and shields.” MT 2 Chr 23:9 speaks of “spears and large and small shields,” LXX B 2 Chr 23:9 of “swords and large shields and weapons,” and LXX L 2 Chr 23:9 of “spears and small shields and weapons.” This 3rd item reflects the reading “weapons” of LXX BL 2 Chr 23:9; see previous note. Josephus adapts the notice of 2 Chr 23:10, which has Jehoiada placing “all the people” with their weapons to guard the king in a line extending from the south to the north side of the temple. (In 2 Kgs 11:11 “the guards” take their stand, weapons in hand, in the same formation.) Josephus’ (added) motivation of the priest’s measure recalls Jehoiada’s directive as cited in 9.146: “permit no trooper to enter, but only a priest.”

In making an unspecified collectivity (“they”) the subject of Joash’s crowning Josephus agrees with MT 2 Chr 23:11, whereas the other witnesses to 23:11, as well as those to 2 Kgs 11:12, have Jehoiada act as sole “crowner.” Josephus leaves aside the biblical reference to “the testimony” (RSV) given Joash on this occasion, perhaps because—like modern scholars—he was uncertain what this object was. Josephus agrees with LXX BL 2 Kgs 11:12 in making Jehoiada alone appoint Joash king. By contrast, the subject is an unspecified “they” in MT 11:12, and “Jehoiada and his sons” in the various witnesses to 2 Chr 23:11. Josephus adds the mention of Joash’s being “anointed with oil”—rather surprisingly given his general tendency to reword biblical anointing/messiah language. See 2 Kgs 11:12bβ for mention of the people’s applauding and acclaiming the king (2 Chr 23:11bβ cites only the latter point). Josephus adds the reference to the crowd’s “rejoicing.”

See 2 Kgs 11:13a// 2 Chr 23:12a. Josephus’ reference to the queen’s hearing the “acclamations” reflects the reading peculiar to 2 Chr 23:12a, which states that Athaliah heard the noise of the people “(running and) praising the king.” Josephus appends the remark on Athaliah’s emotional state upon hearing the commotion. Josephus supplies these preliminary details about Athaliah’s response to what she has just heard. Mention of the “soldiers” she takes with her serves to prepare subsequent elements of his presentation of the queen’s demise. Josephus elaborates the notices of 2 Kgs 11:13b// 2 Chr 23:12b, which simply mention Athaliah coming (alone) to the temple. His expansion narrates the carrying out of Jehoiada’s orders about who is (not) to be allowed access as cited in 9.146, 148.

The translation follows the Greek reading (ἐπὶ τῆς σκηνῆς) adopted by Niese, Marcus, etc.; compare LXX BL 2 Chr 23:13 ἐπὶ τῆς στάσεως αὐτοῦ, “at his station.” The codices RO read rather ἐπὶ τῆς στήλης (“at the pillar”) in accordance with MT LXX BL 2 Kgs 11:14 and MT 2 Chr 23:13. Neither 2 Kings 11 nor 2 Chronicles 23 mentions Athaliah’s “seeing” Joash in his crown (cf. 9.149). The reference takes the place of the enumeration of the things Athaliah does see and hear in the temple according to 2 Kgs 11:14a// 2 Chr 23:13a, i.e. the captains and trumpeters surrounding the king, the people of the land rejoicing and blowing trumpets (23:13a adds the singers with their musical instruments). Josephus keeps Athaliah’s attention focussed on Joash himself. In 2 Kgs 11:14b// 2 Chr 23:13b Athaliah’s rending her clothes is accompanied by the double exclamation “Treason! Treason!” The directive Josephus ascribes to the queen presupposes his earlier mention (9.150) of the soldiers she took with her (but who are now unable to obey her current command, since they were kept from following her into the temple itself). In 2 Kgs 11:15a// 2 Chr 23:14a Jehoiada’s initial command to the captains runs simply: “Bring her [Athaliah] out between the ranks.” Josephus’ added mention of the “Kedron [Bible: Kidron] valley” as the prescribed site of Athaliah’s execution may be inspired by the biblical references (see, e.g., 1 Kgs 15:13; 2 Kgs 23:4, 6, 12) to this valley as the place for the disposal of idolatrous phenomena of all kinds. Josephus spells out the grounds for Jehoiada’s prohibition “do not slay her [Athaliah] in the house of the Lord” as cited in 2 Kgs 11:15b// 2 Chr 23:14b.

Josephus, having first disposed of the topic of the queen’s fate, now makes delayed use of this further command, which the biblical Jehoiada attaches to his directive about bringing Athaliah out between the ranks in 2 Kgs 11:15a// 2 Chr 23:14a (“slay with the sword any who follows her”). See 2 Kgs 11:16// 2 Chr 23:15, which speak of the “horse gate” and associate this with the entrance of the palace.

Josephus supplies this transitional phrase, rounding off his account of Athaliah’s demise and leading into the sequels that he is about to narrate. This “summons” is Josephus’ addition. This 1st initiative by Jehoiada seems inspired by the reference in MT LXX B 2 Kgs 11:17b to the priest’s mediating a 2nd, additional covenant—one not mentioned in either LXX L 2 Kgs 11:17b or 2 Chr 23:16— “between the king and the people.” Josephus spells out the content of this agreement in so far as it obligates the people. Neither 2 Kgs 11:17 nor 2 Chr 23:16 mentions such a commitment imposed by Jehoiada on Joash alone. Conversely, both these texts cite a “covenant” established by Jehoiada, whereby king and people acknowledge their status as “God’s people.” Josephus makes the biblical, God-oriented agreement one assumed exclusively by Joash, at the same time giving it a more definite content.

See 2 Kgs 11:18aα// 2 Chr 23:17aα. Josephus appends an explanation of the origin of this temple, not previously mentioned in either the Bible or his own presentation. Cf. 2 Chr 24:7, where the sons of Athaliah are charged with having used the “dedicated things” of the temple “for the Baals.” On Baal as Ahab’s god, see 9.135. 2 Kgs 11:18aβ// 2 Chr 23:17aβ mention also the smashing of the “altars and images” for Baal. Josephus’ omission of these particulars is reminiscent of his abbreviation of the detailed description of the desecration of the Baal temple in Samaria (2 Kgs 10:25b-27) in 9.138. MT (2 Kgs 11:18b// 2 Chr 23:17b) ‮מתן‬‎ (Eng.: “Mattan”); LXX B 2 Kgs 11:18b Μαγθάν; LXX L 2 Kgs 11:18b// LXX BL 2 Chr 23:17b Ματθάν; Josephus Μάθαν. The biblical texts add that Mattan was killed “before the altars.”

See 2 Chr 23:18b (no parallel in 2 Kings 11), from which Josephus omits the indication that the sacrificial activity of the priests and Levites was to be accompanied “by rejoicing and singing.” Cf. the references to Jehoiada’s stationing of temple police 2 Kgs 11:18bβ and 2 Chr 23:18aα, 19. Josephus lacks an equivalent to the notice of 23:18aβ that these forces were to be under the direction of the priests and Levites.

See 2 Kgs 11:19a // 2 Chr 23:20a. Josephus omits mention of the gate through which the procession proceeds according to the biblical texts, i.e. “the gate of the guards” (2 Kgs 11:19a)/ “the upper gate” (2 Chr 23:20a). See 2 Kgs 11:19b-20a// 2 Chr 23:20b-21a. Josephus expatiates on the biblical references to the people’s “rejoicing” following the enthronement of Joash. See 2 Kgs 11:20b// 2 Chr 23:21b.

See 2 Kgs 12:1 (MT; Eng. 11:21) // 2 Chr 24:1aα. Josephus lacks an equivalent to the synchronism of Joash’s accession with the 7th year of Jehu of Israel given in 2 Kgs 12:2aα (MT; Eng. 12:1aα). On Josephus’ portrayal of Joash in 9.157-171 (// 2 Kgs 12:1-22 [MT; RSV 11:21-12:20]// 2 Chr 24:1-27), see Begg 2000: 189-206. MT (2 Kgs 12:2// 2 Chr 24:1) ‮צביה‬‎ (Eng.: “Zibiah”); LXX BL 2 Kgs 12:2// LXX B 2 Chr 24:1 Ἀβιά; LXX L 2 Chr 24:1 and Josephus Σαβία. MT (2 Kgs 12:2// 2 Chr 24:1) ‮באר שבע‬‎ (Eng.: “Beersheba”); LXX BL 2 Kgs 12:2// LXX B 2 Chr 24:1 and Josephus Βηρσάβεε; LXX L 2 Chr 24:1 Βηρσάβει. Josephus’ formulation follows 2 Chr 24:2 in its restricting Joash’s good behavior to the lifetime of Jehoiada. Compare 2 Kgs 12:3, where the king’s life-long (“all his days”) righteousness is attributed to the instruction of Jehoiada. Josephus has no counterpart to the notice of 2 Kgs 12:4 about the continuation of the cult on the high places under Joash, which qualifies the affirmation about the king’s righteousness in 12:3.

See 2 Chr 24:3 (no equivalent in 2 Kings 12). The MT wording in 24:3 leaves it uncertain which of the 2 men married the 2 wives—Joash (so RSV) or Jehoiada. LXX BL resolves the matter one way, making Jehoiada the one who marries them, Josephus the other. With this formula Josephus provisionally concludes his presentation of Joash, which he will then resume in 9.161, after an interlude (9.159-160) dealing with the end of Jehu’s reign that itself picks up on his last mention of this king in 9.139.

On this king (biblical “Hazael”) and his usurpation, see the segment 9.87-94, which concludes (9.94) with mention of the peace between him and Joram of Israel, a peace that gives way to conflict now in the time of Joram’s successor Jehu. Josephus omits the divine involvement in Hazael’s attacks highlighted in 2 Kgs 10:32a: “in those days the Lord began to cut off parts of Israel.” Of the Israelite place names cited in 2 Kgs 10:33, Josephus has no equivalent to the phrase “from Aroer, which is by the valley of the Arnon,” as well as the 1st of its 2 mentions of “Gilead.” 2 Kgs 10:32b merely states that Hazael “defeated them [the Israelites] throughout the territory of Israel.” Josephus’ elaboration concerning the Syrian’s depredations recalls the predictions of his future activities made by Elisha in 9.91 (// 2 Kgs 8:12b).

See 2 Kgs 10:35aα: “so Jehu slept with his fathers.” These negative remarks concerning Jehu at the end of his reign take the place of the source notice for him of 2 Kgs 10:34. They represent Josephus’ delayed utilization of the evaluation of the king given in 2 Kgs 10:31: “Jehu was not careful to walk in the law of the Lord the God of Israel....” The figure given in both MT and LXX BL 2 Kgs 10:36 for Jehu’s length of reign is 28 years. Josephus’ divergent figure is, however, paralleled in several OL manuscripts; see Mulzer and Krieger 1996: 67, n. 131. See 2 Kgs 10:35aβ. MT (2 Kgs 10:35b) ‮יהואחז‬‎ (Eng.: “Jehoahaz”); LXX BL Ἰωαχάζ; Josephus Ἰώαζος. Josephus will resume his account of this king in 9.172 (// 2 Kgs 13:1), after concluding his presentation of Joash of Judah in 9.161-171. He has no equivalent to the long plus, with its combination of elements drawn from 2 Kgs 8:25-9:28, that follows 2 Kgs 10:36 in LXX L.

Josephus dramatizes the king’s decision to restore the temple as cited in 2 Chr 24:4. In 2 Chr 24:5a Joash personally dispatches the priests and Levites on their mission; Josephus has him work through the head priest Jehoiada, this perhaps reflecting his personal conception of the primacy of the priesthood in Jewish life. In 2 Kgs 12:5-6 (MT; Eng. 12:4-5) no such “mission” is mentioned; rather, Joash issues directives to the priests about collecting various monies from the people and using these for the repair of the temple. In 2 Chr 24:5a itself the priests and Levites are simply instructed to collect “money” for the temple’s repair. Josephus’ specification of the amount is inspired by the Chronicler’s subsequent references (see 24:6, 9) to “the tax levied by Moses” for the tent of testimony in the desert. These references, in turn, allude to Exod 30:11-16 (cf. Ant. 3.194-196), where Moses asks for “half a shekel” from each Israelite on behalf of the sanctuary that is to be constructed. To the king’s directive about the collected money being used for the repair of the temple in 2 Chr 24:5a, Josephus adds an explanation as to why such repair is needed, i.e. the neglect of the edifice by Joash’s immediate predecessors. The wording of this addition is partially inspired by Joash’s subsequent statement in 2 Chr 24:7, where he recalls that the sons of Athaliah “broke into” the temple and used its votive offerings “for the Baals.” See also 9.154, where Athaliah and Joram are charged by Josephus with having built a temple for Baal in Jerusalem.

Josephus continues to highlight Jehoiada’s personal role in the affair. By contrast, Joash’s directive about repairing the temple is disregarded by “the priests” collectively in 2 Kgs 12:7 (MT; Eng. 12:6) and by “the Levites” in 2 Chr 24:5b. Josephus likewise supplies a rationale—lacking in both biblical texts—for the non-fulfillment of the king’s command. Josephus derives this dating indication for Joash’s new initiative—unparalleled in 2 Chronicles 24—from 2 Kgs 12:7 (MT; Eng. 12:6) which states that by the king’s 23rd year the priests had failed to do anything regarding the repair of the temple. In 2 Kgs 12:8a (MT; Eng. 12:7a) those confronted by Joash are Jehoiada and the other priests, while in 2 Chr 24:6a it is Jehoiada alone. Josephus’ added mention of the Levites is noteworthy, given his tendency to leave aside biblical mentions of them elsewhere (compare his mention of the Levites before the priests in 9.161, as against 2 Chr 24:5a’s “priests and Levites”). He may, however, have found inspiration for his introduction of them here in the accusatory question Joash addresses to Jehoiada in 2 Chr 24:6b, in which the Levites do figure; see next note. Josephus generalizes the wording of the alternative accusatory questions attributed to the king in 2 Kgs 12:8aβ (MT; Eng. 12:7aβ) (“Why are you [Jehoiada and the other priests] not repairing the house?”) and 2 Chr 24:6b (“Why have you [Jehoiada] not required the Levites to bring in from Judah and Jerusalem the tax levied by Moses...?”), respectively. In 2 Kgs 12:8b (MT; Eng. 12:7b) Joash enjoins the priests to no longer take money from their acquaintances, but rather to “hand it [the money] over for the repair of the house.” Given his modification of the king’s order, Josephus leaves aside the notice of 12:9 (MT; Eng. 12:8) on the priests’ response to Joash’s words to them, i.e. their agreeing to no longer take money from the people or repair the house. Josephus’ addition of this notice provides a lead-in to the subsequent course of the story, once again highlighting Jehoiada’s role. The reference to the people’s enthusiastic endorsement of the priest’s plan may be inspired by the mention of all the princes and people “rejoicing” as they place their contributions in the collection chest in 2 Chr 24:10.

See 2 Kgs 12:10a (MT; Eng. 12:9a); compare 2 Chr 24:8a, where “they” make the chest at the king’s command. Josephus adds the detail about the chest’s being “enclosed on all sides.” See 2 Kgs 12:10aβ (MT; Eng. 12:9aβ), which adds that the chest was located to the right of the altar “as one entered the house of the Lord”; compare 2 Chr 24:8b, which situates the chest “outside the gate of the house of the Lord.” Compare 2 Chr 24:9, where a “proclamation is made”—by whom or at whose instance it is not said— throughout the land, calling for the Mosaic sanctuary tax to be brought. Josephus earlier had Joash enjoin— unsuccessfully—the collection of that tax (see 9.161). He now portrays Jehoiada leaving the amount up to the individual giver, this time with positive results. With this notice on the response to Jehoiada’s initiative Josephus combines 2 Chr 24:10 (the princes and people “rejoice” as they place their contributions in the chest) and 24:11bβ (the designated officials “collect money in abundance”). In 2 Kgs 12:10b (MT; Eng. 12:9b), by contrast, it is the priests who place the contributions of those who have come to the temple in the chest. Josephus has made prior reference to the general enthusiasm for Jehoiada’s collection plan in 9.162.

Greek: καὶ ἱερεύς. This phrase, bracketed by Niese, is absent in the codices RO. Marcus omits Niese’s brackets. In 2 Chr 24:11b it is the “king’s secretary [literally: scribe] and the officer of the high priest” who “empty” the chest (which had previously been brought to them by Levites—a detail omitted by Josephus). 2 Kgs 12:11 (MT; Eng. 12:10) does not mention an “emptying” of the chest; rather, it describes the king’s secretary and the high priest “counting” and “tying up in bags” the collected monies. Josephus will mention the counting of the monies in the continuation of his account; see next note. Josephus’ mention of the “counting” of the money by the 2 officials corresponds to 2 Kgs 12:11 (MT; Eng. 12:10), which, however, does not state that this was done in the king’s presence. See 2 Chr 24:11aβ. Josephus omits the appended notice of 24:11bα that the officials performed their task “day after day,” thereby collecting “money in abundance” (Josephus has anticipated the latter notice in 9.163 and will make renewed use of in the continuation of 9.164). Josephus conflates the rather different notices on the (initial) use made of the collected monies found in 2 Kgs 12:12-13 (MT; Eng. 12:11-12) and 2 Chr 24:12. Like the latter text, he has king and priest take an initiative with the assembled funds (in 2 Kgs 12:12 [MT; Eng. 12:11] the king’s secretary and Jehoiada do this), while in line with the former passage (see 12:13 [MT; Eng. 12:12]) he mentions the purchase of needed supplies as well. In contrast to both biblical accounts, he cites only 2 categories of hired workers. Josephus’ opening transitional phrase concerning the availability of sufficient amounts of money picks up on the reference to the officials’ collecting “money in abundance” in 2 Chr 24:11bβ; see previous note.

This transitional phrase summarizes the more expansive notice on the temple work and its completion of 2 Chr 24:13-14aα. This notice agrees with 2 Chr 24:14a concerning an additional use made of the leftover monies. By contrast, 2 Kgs 12:14 (MT; Eng. 12:13) declares that the remaining funds were not used to procure such vessels for the temple. Josephus omits the preliminary detail of 2 Chr 24:14a, according to which those involved in the temple’s repair brought the remaining monies “before the king and Jehoiada.” Conversely, he adds the parenthetical reference to the magnitude of the still available funds that made possible the realization of several other projects connected with the temple. See 2 Chr 24:14b; compare 2 Kgs 12:17 (MT; Eng. 12:16), which states that the monies deriving from the guilt and sin offerings were not brought into the temple, given that these belonged to the priests. Josephus’ wording accentuates the opulence of the sacrificial cult made possible by the magnitude of what had been collected. Josephus adapts the final words of 2 Chr 24:14b (the sacrifices are offered “all the days of Jehoiada”), making these a transition that sums up the first, good period of Joash’s rule and intimates the change for the worse that is about to set in.

Josephus here begins his version (9.166-169) of a segment, 2 Chr 24:15-22, which has no parallel in 2 Kings 12. See 2 Chr 24:15. To the Chronicler’s notice on Jehoiada’s lifespan, Josephus adds a double characterization of the priest, employing the same collocation (Greek: δίκαιος καὶ χρηστός) used, in reverse order, of Jehonadab in 9.133. See 2 Chr 24:16. Josephus’ motivation for the special burial honor accorded Jehoiada, with its reference to the priest’s overthrow of the usurper Athaliah (see 9.140-156), is more specific than that given by the Chronicler, i.e. “...because he [Jehoiada] had done good in Israel, and towards God and his house.” Greek: ἐπιμέμεια πρὸς τὸν θεόν; the phrase occurs only here in Josephus. He prefaces the story of 2 Chr 24:15-22 with this notice on Joash’s defection, thereby highlighting the king’s personal responsibility for what now happens.

Greek: συνδιαφθείρω. This is the same verb used in Ant. 8.252 in Josephus’ reflection on subjects’ degenerating along with their depraved rulers. Josephus generalizes and compresses the account of Joash’s defection given in 2 Chr 24:17-18a, where the king listens to those “princes of Judah” who pay him homage (v. 17) with the result that “they” (king and princes) forsake the temple and serve “the Asherim and the idols” (v. 18a). Compare 2 Chr 24:18b: “wrath came upon Judah and Jerusalem for this their [the king and princes’] guilt.” Greek: διαμαρτύρομαι. The word is hapax in Josephus. See 2 Chr 24:19abα, where the prophets’ mission is to “bring them back to the Lord.”

Greek: δεινῆ ἐπιθυμία. Josephus uses this expression of Herod’s urge to scratch himself in Ant. 17.169; related expressions occur in Ant. 6.279 and 7.168. The wordpair “lust and desire” (Greek: ἔρως καὶ ἐπιθυμία) is hapax in Josephus. Josephus dramatizes the summary notice of 2 Chr 24:19bβ: “but they would not give heed,” attributing the hearers’ recalcitrance to the prophets’ appeal to their intense urge for depravity. MT (2 Chr 24:20) ‮זכריה‬‎ (Eng.: “Zechariah”); LXX B Ἀζαρίας; LXX L and Josephus Ζαχαρίας. Reversing the biblical order, Josephus speaks of Zechariah’s murder (// 2 Chr 24:21) at the instigation of Joash, unmindful of what he owed the former’s father (// 24:22a), prior to citing Zechariah’s own prophetic intervention (// 24:20).

This is Josephus’ characteristic rewording of the reference to the spirit of God’s “taking possession of” Zechariah in 2 Chr 24:20aα. 2 Chr 24:20aβ has Zechariah standing “over the people.” Josephus gives a free rendering of Zechariah’s warning in 2 Chr 24:20b, where he 1st asks the people why they are “transgressing the commandments of the Lord” with their resultant inability to “prosper,” and then announces that their “forsaking the Lord” has prompted the Lord to “forsake” them. In so doing, he also makes Joash a distinct addressee of Zechariah’s words. Greek: πικρῶς καὶ βιαίως. This collocation is hapax in Josephus. Greek: μάρτυς καὶ δικαστής. Josephus uses this same collocation, though with a reversal of its elements, of God in Ant. 4.46. See 2 Chr 24:22b. Josephus expatiates on both the brutality of Zechariah’s death and the grounds for his prayer that God deal appropriately with Joash.

Josephus supplies this heading to the following story of Joash’s calamity, highlighting the connection between this and his previous treatment of Zechariah. His inspiration for it is likely the “theological commentary” appended to the story of the Syrian invasion (2 Chr 24:23) in 24:24a, ascribing Israel’s defeat to the Lord’s punishment for its forsaking him. Like 2 Kgs 12:18 (MT; Eng. 12:17), Josephus has no parallel to the indication of 2 Chr 24:23a that the Syrian attack came “at the end of the year.” In his mention of Hazael’s initial capture of “Gath,” prior to his move against Jerusalem, Josephus agrees with 2 Kgs 12:18 (MT; Eng. 12:17) against 2 Chr 24:23b, where the former event is not cited. Josephus supplies this reference to Joash’s emotional state in the face of the Syrian invasion. See 2 Kgs 12:19a (MT; Eng. 12:18a). From the biblical passage Josephus omits the names of the 3 prior Judean kings whose “votive gifts” Joash hands over to the Syrian, while adding reference to the intended purpose of Joash’s initiative, i.e. delivery from still greater calamities. In contrast to both Kings and Josephus, 2 Chr 24:23b avers that the Syrians, upon coming to Judah and Jerusalem, destroyed the princes of the people and themselves dispatched spoil to Hazael. Josephus has no equivalent to the “theological commentary” on the Syrian invasion of 2 Chr 24:24a, which, however, he has drawn from in formulating his introduction to the episode of Joash’s punishment at the start of 9.170; see the note to “penalty for his acting lawlessly” there.

See 2 Kgs 12:19b (MT; Eng. 12:18b), whose notice on Hazael’s withdrawal Josephus expands with mention of the king’s motivation for this. 2 Kings 12 makes no mention of such a disease that provides the occasion for Joash’s assassination. In 2 Chr 24:25aα Joash is left “severely wounded” by the departing Syrians—a presentation that Josephus modifies, turning Joash’s affliction into a “disease” that befalls the king given the fact that in his (Kings-based) previous account, the Syrians do not actually get their hands on Jerusalem or Joash. See 2 Kgs 12:22a (MT; Eng. 12:21a)// 2 Chr 24:25aβ, where it is Joash’s “servants” who assault him, killing him “on his bed” according to Chronicles. Like the Chronicler, Josephus does not mention the places associated with Joash’s killing cited in 2 Kgs 12:22. He likewise passes over the names of his 2 assassins listed in both 2 Kgs 12:22a (MT; Eng. 12:21a: Jozacar and Jehozabad) and 2 Chr 24:26 (Zabad and Jehozabad).

Josephus’ notice on Joash’s being denied burial in the tombs of his predecessors agrees with 2 Chr 24:25bβ against 2 Kgs 12:22bα (MT; Eng. 12:21bα), which states that he was buried “with his fathers in the city of David.” Josephus adds this explanation as to why Joash, as stated in 2 Chr 24:25bβ, was denied burial with the earlier Judean kings. Josephus obtains this figure for Joash’s life-span by combining the years of his age at accession (7) and length of reign (40) as cited in 2 Kgs 12:1-2a (MT; Eng. 11:21-12:1a)// 2 Chr 24:1a. MT (2 Kgs 12:22bβ) ‮אמציה‬‎ (Eng [12:21bβ]: “Amaziah”)/ (2 Chr 24:27b) ‮אמציהו‬‎ (Eng.: “Amaziah”); LXX BL 2 Kgs 12:22 Ἀμεσσείας; LXX BL 2 Chr 24:27b; Josephus Ἀμασίας. Josephus has no equivalent to the (disparate) source notices for Joash of 2 Kgs 12:20 (MT; Eng. 12:19) and 2 Chr 24:27a.

MT and LXX BL 2 Kgs 13:1a date Jehoahaz’ accession to the 23th year of Joash of Judah. On Josephus’ account of the Israelite King Jehoahaz and his successor Joash in 9.173-185 (// 2 Kings 13), see Begg 2000: 207-24. Josephus mentioned Jehoahaz’ succession to his father Jehu in 9.160. This figure corresponds to that given in MT and LXX BL 2 Kgs 13:1b for Jehoahaz’ length of reign. 2 Kgs 13:2 simply “credits” Jehoahaz with persisting in the sins of Jeroboam I, a charge generalized in the 2nd part of Josephus’ evaluation. His initial reference to Jehoahaz’ not “imitating” his father Jehu (whom he calls a “despiser of [his duties towards] the Deity and contemptuous of holiness and the laws” in 9.160) may have in view the fact of the former’s appealing to God—as Jehu did not—in face of the Syrian threat as cited in 2 Kgs 13:4. Josephus’ designation of Jehoahaz as nevertheless “impious” parallels him with Joash of Judah, against whom the same charge is made in 9.172.

From the notice on Hazael’s reduction of Israel’s armed forces in 2 Kgs 13:7, which he anticipates here (in 1 Kings 13 the notice appears only after mention of Jehoahaz’ appeal and the Lord’s resultant delivery of Israel in 13:4-6) Josephus omits the detail about Israel’s being left with only 10 chariots, as well as the figurative reference to the Syrian’s making Jehoahaz’ troops “like the dust at threshing.” Conversely, he introduces mention of Hazael’s “destroying” the Israelite cities, likely under the influence of Elisha’s announcement concerning the Syrian’s future hostile initiatives as cited in 9.91, to which he will make explicit allusion in 9.175.

Josephus’ (added) allusion to Elisha’s prediction to Hazael as cited in 9.91 (// 2 Kgs 8:12b) underscores the fulfillment of that prediction. Compare 2 Kgs 13:3, which highlights the divine role in Syria’s subjugation of Israel, though without explicit mention of Elisha’s prediction of this. Josephus supplies this transitional phrase, which underscores the desperateness of the situation that prompts Jehoahaz’ turning to God. See 2 Kgs 13:4a; Josephus supplies a content for Jehoahaz’ appeal as mentioned there.

See 2 Kgs 13:4b, which attributes God’s favorable response to his seeing “the oppression of Israel.” Compare 2 Kgs 13:5a, which mentions the Lord’s giving Israel “a savior,” this resulting in their “escaping from the hand of the Syrians.” Josephus passes over this savior figure, whom the Bible leaves unnamed and whose identity remains a mystery. Josephus expatiates on the notice of 2 Kgs 13:5b, which states that the Israelites “dwelt in their homes as formerly.” He leaves aside both the reference to the mysterious “savior” God is said to give the Israelites in 13:5a (see previous note) and the affirmation of 13:6 that, notwithstanding their experience of God’s benefits, the people persisted in Jeroboam’s sin and that the Asherah still remained in Samaria.

Compare 2 Kgs 13:9aα: “Jehoahaz slept with his fathers.” MT (2 Kgs 13:9b) ‮יואש‬‎ (Eng.: “Joash”; in the continuation of 2 Kings 13 this form of the king’s name will alternate with a longer one, i.e. ‮יהואש‬‎, Eng. “Jehoash”); LXX BL Ἰωάς; Josephus Ἰώασος. Josephus leaves aside both the source notice for Jehoahaz (2 Kgs 13:8) and the mention of his burial (13:9aβ). Josephus’ figures for the synchronization of the Israelite Joash’s accession with the regnal year of his Judean counterpart and the former’s length of reign correspond to those cited in 2 Kgs 13:10 (MT and LXX BL). He supplies the parenthetical allusion to both contemporary kings having the same name (compare his similar notices on the 2 Jorams in 9.46, 94).

Josephus’ evaluation of Joash of Israel diverges dramatically from that given in 2 Kgs 13:11, which simply makes him one more adherent to the sins of Jeroboam I. The change has a partial equivalent in Josephus’ judgment on Jehoahaz in 9.173, as compared with that of 2 Kgs 13:2. The evaluation seems to be based on the fact of Joash’s friendly, non-accusatory, reception by God’s prophet Elisha in what follows— something that in the Bible itself comes as a surprise, given its negative judgment on the king in 2 Kgs 13:11. In MT and LXX B the evaluation of Joash (2 Kgs 13:11) is followed immediately by their concluding notices for this king (13:12-13). Like LXX L (where the content of 13:12-13 appears after 13:25), Josephus tells of Joash’s death, burial, and succession by his son Jeroboam only after he has drawn on the further biblical data concerning Joash found in 2 Kgs 13:14-25; see 9.185. See 1 Kgs 13:14a. Josephus adds the reference to Elisha’s advanced age.

Greek: βλέποντος αὐτοῦ. This phrase, bracketed by Niese, is absent in M (RO lacks the word αὐτοῦ). Marcus prints it without brackets. See 2 Kgs 13:14b, where Joash twice calls Elisha his “father,” and then designates him as “the chariots of Israel and its horsemen.” Josephus synthesizes the latter phrase with the term “weapon” which he has Joash apply to Elisha. With these added words Josephus has Joash spell out the reason for his giving Elisha’s the military title (“weapon”; compare 2 Kgs 13:14b: “the chariots of Israel and its horsemen”) he does. Josephus appends this affirmation about what the imminent loss of the “weapon” that Elisha has been for Joash will entail for the king.

Josephus rounds off his expansion of Joash’s summary address to Elisha in 2 Kgs 13:14b with this declaration by the king of his inability (or unwillingness) to carry on without the benefit of Elisha’s presence. See 2 Kgs 13:15-16a. Josephus supplies the allusion to Elisha’s “comforting” the king, thereby accentuating the cordiality of their relationship. He likewise compresses into a single continuous command the 2 separate orders concerning the bow given by Elisha in 13:15a, 16a with the notice on Joash’s compliance with the 1st order supervening in v. 15b. See 2 Kgs 13:16b-17a. Continuing to compress the biblical account, Josephus leaves aside the prophet’s command that Joash open the window towards the east and the latter’s doing this (13:17aα). 2 Kgs 13:17aβ does not specify how many arrows Jehoash actually “shot.” Josephus derives the figure from 2 Kgs 13:18, which has the king performing another action with the arrows, i.e. striking the ground with them, a total of 3 times.

Josephus draws this commentary by Elisha concerning Joash’s action with the arrows, not from his affirmation regarding the 1st of these actions, i.e. his shooting them, as cited in 2 Kgs 13:17b (where Elisha affirms that, as signified by the flight of the arrows, Joash will annihilate the Syrians “at Aphek”), but rather from the prophet’s remarks (2 Kgs 13:19) on Joash’s 2nd action with the arrows—which Josephus does not record himself—, namely, his striking the ground with them a total of 3 times. He likewise passes over the opening reference in 13:19 to Elisha’s “anger” at Joash and the former’s declaration there that, had he struck the ground 5 or 6 times, Joash would have made a full end of Syria. Conversely, he introduces the allusion to the intended outcome of Joash’s engaging the Syrians, i.e. to recover the territories Jehoahaz had lost to them (Josephus apparently draws this allusion from 2 Kgs 13:25a, which refers to Jehoash’s recovering the cities which Hazael “had taken from Jehoahaz his father in war”). Josephus supplies this reference to Joash’s reaction to the prophet’s favorable announcement (see 2 Kgs 13:19) to him.

Josephus expands the mention of Elisha’s death (2 Kgs 13:20aα) with a double characterization of him, whose 2nd component, i.e. “(clearly an) object of God’s solicitude” (Greek: σπουδασθείς ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ), occurs only here in Josephus; cf., however, the reference to the Deity’s being “clearly present” to Elisha in 9.60. Greek: θαυμαστὰ καὶ παράδοξα. This wordpair is hapax in Josephus. Josephus’ summation of Elisha’s career here recalls the language with which he introduces his account of him in 9.46, where he announces his intention of relating the prophet’s deeds as found in “the sacred books,” given that “they are splendid and worthy of history.” Just as he did with the Bible’s summary notice (2 Kgs 13:20aα) on Elisha’s death (see note to “God’s solicitude” at 9.182), Josephus expatiates on its jejune mention (13:20aβ) of the prophet’s burial. He uses the term “friend of God” (Greek: θεοφιλής ) for David in Ant. 6.280.

2 Kgs 13:20b-21a (MT and LXX BL) distinguishes between 2 groups of persons, i.e. the “marauding” Moabites and those (presumably Israelites) burying the dead man, who, on the Moabites’ appearance, toss his corpse into Elisha’s grave. Josephus’ identification of the buriers with the “robbers”—whose nationality he leaves unmentioned—has a parallel in the OL MS L 115; see Schenker 2004: 143-5. Whereas, however, L 115 (like MT and LXX BL) leaves indeterminate the circumstances behind the death of the man who corpse ends up being placed in Elisha’s grave, Josephus has him killed by the robbers themselves. On the proposed identifications of the dead man (e.g., the false prophet Zedekiah [1 Kgs 22:24], the son of the Shunammite woman previously resuscitated by Elisha [2 Kgs 4:18-37], and Shallum, the husband of the prophetess Huldah [2 Kgs 22:14]) in Jewish tradition, see Begg 2000: 220, n. 62. See 2 Kgs 13:21b. Josephus omits the biblical detail about the revived man’s “standing upon his feet.” With this appended notice, Josephus concludes his presentation of Elisha’s mighty deeds he began in 9.46. The phrase “divine power” (Greek: δύναμις θεία) was employed of Elisha in 9.58; cf. Ant. 8.408 (Micaiah).

MT (2 Kgs 13:24) ‮בן־הדד‬‎ (Eng.: “Ben-hadad”); LXX BL υἱὸς Ἀδερ; Josephus 0Addaj& (this is RO’s reading that Niese follows; Marcus and Schalit [s.v.] adopt the conjecture of J. Hudson, i.e. Ἄδαδος). Josephus has no equivalent to the MT LXX B sequence of 2 Kgs 13:22-23, which unexpectedly reintroduces the figure of the long-dead Jehoahaz, his conflict with the Syrians, and the Lord’s continued solicitude for Israel from 2 Kgs 13:3-7 (LXX L situates its parallel to 13:23 after 13:7) following the account of Elisha’s death and burial in 13:20-21. He likewise lacks a parallel to the plus of LXX L that follows its rendering of 13:22 (MT LXX B): “And Hazael took the Philistine [Greek: τὸν ἀλλόφυλον] out of his [Jehoahaz’] hand, from the sea of the West to Aphek.” On this plus see Schenker 2004: 113-5, who regards it as part of the original text of Kings. Josephus supplies this introductory heading to the biblical account of Joash’s successes against the Syrians (2 Kgs 13:25). See 2 Kgs 13:25, whose sequence Josephus rearranges, mentioning Joash’s triple defeat of Ben-hadad (13:25bα) in 1st place. He likewise eliminates the biblical’s verse’s double mention of the recovery of the Israelite cities.

Josephus appends this fulfillment notice, calling attention to the realization of Elisha’s promise to Joash as cited in 9.181 (// 2 Kgs 13:19). Compare his (likewise added) reference in 9.175 to the fulfillment, in Jehoahaz’ time, of “the prophecy of Elissai” (see 9.91) concerning the devastation of Israel by Hazael. As pointed out in the note to “in nature” at 9.178, Josephus, in relating Joash’s death, burial, and succession by his son at this point, aligns himself with the sequence of LXX L, where the notices in question stand after its rendering of 13:25 (MT), whereas in MT and LXX B they occur at a much earlier point, i.e. as 13:12-13. From the biblical complex of items concerning Joash’s end, Josephus omits the source notice of 13:12 (MT LXX B). In his mention of Joash’s burial he goes together with MT 13:13aβ (and its equivalent in LXX L after 13:25), against LXX B 13:13, which does not cite this event.Finally to be noted is the text-critical problem concerning the form of the name of Joash’s successor in 9.185. Niese reads the name as “Joas,” i.e. the same as that of the previous king, on the basis of ROMS. Given, however, that in 2 Kgs 13:13b the new king’s name is “Jeroboam” (II), Marcus and Schalit (s.v.) read “Hieroboam,” a reading attested in Codex Vaticanus as cited by J. Hudson (see Marcus’ note, ad loc.) and throughout 9.205-215. I adopt the later reading.

Josephus’ synchronism for Amaziah’s accession, previously cited by him in 9.171, agrees with that given in 2 Kgs 14:1 (MT and LXX BL). On his portrayal of this king in 9.186-204 (// 2 Kgs 14:1-22// 2 Chr 25:1-26:2), see Begg 2000: 225-49. MT (2 Kgs 14:2b) ‮יהועדין‬‎ (Eng.: “Jehoaddin”) / (2 Chr 25:1b) ‮יהועדן‬‎ (Eng.: “Jehoaddan”); LXX BL 2 Kgs 14:2b// LXX L 2 Chr 25:1b Ἰωαδείμ; LXX B 2 Chr 25:1b Ἰωννά; Josephus Ἰωάδη. Greek: τοῦ δικαίου προνὀέω. This same phrase is used in Jehoshaphat’s charge to the judges he has just named in 9.3. Josephus’ highlighting of Amaziah’s (moral) “precocity” is paralleled in his treatment of several other kings, i.e. Solomon (Ant. 8.21) and Josiah (10.50). His statement on the matter finds support in the notice of 2 Kgs 14:2aα// 2 Chr 25:1a (Amaziah acceded at age 25) taken together with that of 2 Kgs 14:5// 2 Chr 25:3 (Amaziah acted against his fathers’ assassins “as soon as the royal power was in his hand”). The statement takes the place of the (qualifiedly) positive judgments pronounced on Amaziah by 2 Kgs 14:3-4// 2 Chr 25:2, the former passage mentioning the king’s toleration of the high-place cult. 2 Kgs 14:5a// 2 Chr 25:3 mention merely the fact of Joash’s executing his father’s assassins. Josephus supplies the reference to the king’s thought processes that precede this initiative. On Joash’s assassination by “friends” (as opposed to the “servants” of the Bible), see 9.172.

See 2 Kgs 14:5b-6// 2 Chr 25:4. In contrast to both biblical texts, Josephus does not quote the wording of Deut 24:16 (cited by him in Ant. 4.289), but simply alludes in a general way to the “laws of Moyses” and what he did not permit.

See 2 Chr 25:5; this is the beginning of a segment (2 Chr 25:5-10), without parallel in 2 Kings 14, concerning the preparations for Amaziah’s Edomite war, which Josephus will utilize in 9.188-190. In 2 Chr 25:6 Amaziah hires the mercenaries “from Israel.” Josephus specifies that he procured them from the Israelite king. Josephus appends this explanation of the purpose behind Amaziah’s military preparations, as related in 2 Chr 25:5-6. He anticipates the name of the 2nd targeted people from 2 Kgs 14:7// 2 Chr 25:11, where it is called, respectively, “the Edomites” and “the men of Seir.” The 3 peoples cited by Josephus appear together as enemies of Israel in Ps 83:6; see also Tg. 2 Chr 25:14, where the MT reference to “the gods of the men of Seir” becomes “the idols of the men of Gebal.” Cf. further Begg 2000: 228-9.

Josephus supplies this transitional phrase. MT LXX BL 2 Chr 25:7 calls Amaziah’s anonymous interlocutor “a man of God.” Josephus’ designation finds a parallel in Tg.’s “the prophet of the Lord.” S.ʿOlam Rab. 20.21 identifies the anonymous biblical figure with Amoz, the father of Isaiah (Isa 1:1) and brother of Amaziah himself. Compare 2 Chr 25:7, where the man of God motivates his warning against Amaziah’s allowing the mercenaries to accompany him with the declaration “for the Lord is not with Israel, with all these Ephraimites.” Compare 2 Chr 25:8a, where Amaziah is warned that if allows the mercenaries to accompany him (see 25:7), “... God will cast you down before the enemy.” The biblical man of God concludes his words to Amaziah in 2 Chr 25:8b with a reference to God’s “power to help or cast down.” Josephus has the prophet end with a more definite assurance for Amaziah, should he obey his admonition.

Josephus turns the king’s question to the man of God about the money already paid by him of 2 Chr 25:9a into an editorial remark about Amaziah’s state of mind in face of the prophet’s preceding admonition. Josephus prefaces the prophet’s response of 2 Chr 25:9b, assuring Amaziah of divine compensation, with a call to do what pleases God. Josephus combines the notices of 2 Chr 25:10a (Amaziah dismisses the mercenaries) and 11a (Amaziah leads out his own troops), while leaving for a later point (see 9.192) the intervening mention of the mercenaries’ angry response to their dismissal (25:10b). The “nations” to which Josephus alludes here are the 3 named in 9.188.

Josephus draws this datum from 2 Kgs 14:7a// 2 Chr 25:11b, while omitting the biblical identification of the battle site, i.e. “the Valley of Salt”. Given that in his presentation Amaziah’s campaign is directed against 3 distinct peoples (see 9.188, 190), he likewise does not take over the Bible’s identifications of the casualties as “Edomites” (14:7a)/ “men of Seir” (25:11b). Josephus draws his mention of these 10,000 live captives from 2 Chr 25:12a (no parallel in 2 Kgs 14:7). Compare 2 Chr 25:12, where the captives are hurled from “the top of a rock” (MT: ‮הסלע‬‎). In MT 2 Kgs 14:7b the word ‮סלע‬‎ seems to be the proper name of a site (RSV: “Sela”), which Amaziah captures and renames “Joktheel.” Josephus’ notation concerning the location of the “rock” (Greek: πέτρα) from which the captives are hurled has a counterpart in Ant. 4.82, where he localizes Aaron’s death at “a place in Arabia ... now called Petra” (Greek: Πέτρα). Whereas 2 Chr 25:12 attributes the killing of the captives to the Judeans in general, Josephus’ formulation ascribes the deed to Amaziah personally. This notice has no equivalent in either biblical account of Amaziah’s Edomite campaign. By means of the addition, Josephus highlights the realization of the prophet’s promise in 9.190 that, if Amaziah does what “seems good to God,” he will gain “much wealth from him [God].”

MT (2 Chr 25:13) ‮בית־חורון‬‎ (Eng.: “Beth-horon”); LXX BL Βαιθωρών; Josephus Βηθσεμήρων. The Bible states that the irate mercenaries overran a territory extending “from Samaria to Beth-horon.” Josephus combines into a continuous sequence the separate notices of 2 Chr 25:10b (earlier passed over by him) and 13 concerning the mercenaries’ reaction to their dismissal by Amaziah. He adds the reference to the beasts of burden seized by them. The segment 2 Chr 25:13-16 concerning events contemporaneous with and immediately subsequent to Amaziah’s victory, which Josephus reproduces in 9.192-196a, has no parallel in 2 Kings 14.

Josephus prefaces the Chronicler’s following story (2 Chr 25:14-16; no parallel in 2 Kings 14) of Amaziah’s worship of the conquered enemy gods with this explanatory remark that portrays the king’s initiative as an instance of success-induced hubris. This is Josephus’ only use of the expression “overlook God” (Greek: θεὸν ὑπεροράω). Compare 2 Chr 25:14, which speaks of Amaziah’s bringing back “the gods of the men of Seir” and worshiping these. Josephus highlights the senselessness of the king’s deed by making the gods in question those of Israel’s arch-enemy, the Amalekites (whom he mentioned as the 1st of the 3 peoples against whom Amaziah campaigns in 9.188).

Josephus omits the opening reference to God’s “anger” at Amaziah in 2 Chr 25:15a, which prompts him to dispatch “a prophet.” In the OL text of 2 Chr 25:15 cited by Lucifer Calaritanus, De non parcendo in Deum delinquientibus 5.36 Amaziah’s interlocutor is called “Baneas.” Whereas 2 Chronicles 25 uses different designations for the one confronting the king, i.e. “man of God” (v. 7) and “prophet” (v. 15), thus leaving it unclear whether the reference is to the same figure, Josephus uses the identical title (“the prophet”; see 9.189, 194) both times, this suggesting a double intervention by a single divine envoy. Greek: ὑπεροράω. This is the same verb used in 9.193 of Amaziah’s “overlooking God.” Josephus expands considerably on the prophet’s summary allusion to the impotence of the captured gods in 2 Chr 25:15b, highlighting the foolishness of Amaziah’s adopting their worship.

Josephus supplies this reference to the king’s emotional state upon hearing the prophet’s words. See 2 Chr 25:16a, where Amaziah’s response to the prophet concludes with the threatening question “why should you be put to death?” Greek: ἀμελέω. Josephus uses this verb with God as subject also in Ant. 4.13; 5.31; 11.300. See 2 Chr 25:16b, where the prophet predicts the divine destruction of Amaziah for having adopted the enemy gods and not listening to his advice. Josephus’ reference to Amaziah’s “innovations,” using a participial form of the verb νεωτερίζω, introduces a Greek root that he frequently applies to the reprobate activities of the Jewish rebels of his own time to whom Amaziah is hereby assimilated; see Begg 2000: 237, n. 47.

Josephus’ wording here has a close parallel in his comment about most people’s inability to retain self-mastery when successful in Ant. 6.63. Josephus adds this psychological note that recalls his (also added) reference to Amaziah’s “becoming elated over his victory and achievements” in 9.193 and highlights the irony of the situation, in which the king abandons the source of his victory in order to devote himself to the defeated foreign gods. Greek: φρονηματίζομαι. Josephus’ one remaining use of this verb is in Ant. 5.222, where it has the sense “to take heart, summon up courage.” In 2 Kgs 14:8 Amaziah sends “messengers” to Joash, while in 2 Chr 25:17 he simply “sends” to him. Greek: εὐγνωμοέω. Josephus’ only other use of this verb is in Ant. 17.240. Josephus elaborates on Amaziah’s cryptic challenge to Joash as cited in 2 Kgs 14:8// 2 Chr 25:17: “Come, let us look one another in the face.” In particular, he adds the demand that Joash and his people submit to the Davidic dynasty, of which Amaziah is the current representative.

Josephus’ Joash responds in writing to Amaziah’s written message to himself, whereas in 2 Kgs 14:9a// 2 Chr 25:18a he simply “sends” to the latter. Josephus supplies this standard epistolary salutation formula in line with his depiction of Joash responding to Amaziah in writing; see previous note. 2 Kgs 14:9 and 2 Chr 25:18 both speak of a “cedar.” Josephus adds the double characterization of the tree, thereby accentuating the discrepancy between it and the low-lying “thistle.” See 2 Kgs 14:9aβ// 2 Chr 25:18aβb.

This added phrase makes explicit the intended link between Joash’s fable (2 Kgs 14:9// 2 Chr 25:18) and the admonition he proceeds to address to Amaziah (14:10// 25:19). Greek: γαυρόομαι. This verb is hapax in Josephus. It recalls the reference to Amaziah’s “becoming prideful” in 9.196. See 2 Kgs 14:10// 2 Chr 25:19. In both biblical texts the reference is to Amaziah’s smiting “Edom.” As in 9.193, Josephus substitutes mention of the Amalekites, this suggesting that they were Amaziah’s primary target among the 3 peoples attacked by him (see 9.188).

Greek: παρομάω. Josephus uses this verb with God as subject twice elsewhere (Ant. 4.111; 11:3), both times in a positive sense. Compare Ant. 8.409 and 10.76, where the subject is “fate” and “destiny,” respectively and where the term has the negative sense of “to lead astray.” Like 2 Chr 25:20, but in contrast to 2 Kgs 14:10, Josephus makes explicit reference to the divine agency operative in Amaziah’s refusal to heed Joash’s warning. His allusion to Amaziah’s “dealing lawlessly” takes the place of the Chronicler’s mention of “their [the Judeans’] seeking the gods of Edom” as that which prompts God to cause the king to disregard the warning given him. Greek: φόβος καὶ κατάπληξις. This collocation occurs only here in Josephus. Josephus goes beyond 2 Kgs 14:11b-12// 2 Chr 25:21-22 in making explicit and emphatic mention of the divine involvement in Judah’s defeat, this recalling his immediately preceding reference (9.199) to God’s “inducing” Amaziah to disregard Joash’s warning. Conversely, he leaves aside the biblical localization of the battle-site, i.e. “Beth-shemesh which belongs to Judah.”

See 2 Kgs 14:13aα// 2 Chr 25:23aα. Josephus amplifies the biblical notices on Amaziah’s capture with mention of the scattering of the Judean army and the king’s abandonment.

Greek: ἀνάγκη καὶ δέος. This wordpair occurs also in War 5.427. Neither 2 Kings 14 nor 2 Chronicles 25 mentions these developments surrounding Joash’s arrival at Jerusalem (14:13aβ// 25:23aβ). The addition helps explain how the Israelite king got immediate and uncontested control of the city, as the biblical accounts presuppose. It likewise highlights the contrast between Amaziah’s earlier “elation” (9.190) and his present craven fear for his life. See 2 Kgs 14:13b// 2 Chr 25:23b. Josephus omits the biblical indication concerning the precise stretch of wall leveled by Joash, i.e. “from the Ephraim Gate to the Corner Gate.” Josephus adds this item—with its reminiscence of contemporary Roman triumphal processions—to the biblical accounts of Joash’s measures at Jerusalem (2 Kgs 14:13-14// 2 Chr 25:23-24). The addition highlights, yet again, the humiliation of the once “proudful” (9.198) Amaziah, who earlier brought the captured enemy gods to Jerusalem (see 9.194), but is now himself “led captive” into the city.

Josephus supplies this transitional phrase. See 2 Kgs 14:14// 2 Chr 25:24. Josephus’ explicit reference to Joash’s release of Amaziah takes the place of the biblical statement that Joash carried off “hostages” (MT LXX L 2 Chr 25:24 mention an “Obed-edom” by name) as well as the temple and palace treasures. He has no parallel to the complex of closing notices for Joash, paralleling those already given in 2 Kgs 13:12-13, which in MT and LXX B 2 Kgs 14:15-16 immediately follow mention of the king’s return to Samaria in 14:14; see following note.

Josephus obtains this date for Jerusalem’s capture by Joash on the basis of the figures given in 2 Kgs 14:2a// 2 Chr 25:1a (Amaziah ruled a total of 29 years) and 2 Kgs 14:17// 2 Chr 25:25 (Amaziah survives Joash’s death—which Josephus, in accord with the sequence of MT LXX 2 Kgs 14:14-16 [see previous note], presupposes to have taken place immediately after his return from Jerusalem—by 15 years). Subtracting 15 from 29, Josephus arrives at Amaziah’s 14th regnal year as the date of Joash’s triumph. In 2 Kgs 14:19aα// 2 Chr 25:27aα an unspecified “they” conspires against Amaziah, Chronicles adding that the conspiracy arose “from the time when he [Amaziah] turned away from the Lord.” Josephus heightens the pathos of the episode by making the conspirators the king’s own “friends.” In so doing, he likewise establishes a more specific link between Amaziah and his father Joash, who also, in Josephus’ presentation, is assassinated by his “friends” (see 9.172). MT (2 Kgs 14:19aβ// 2 Chr 25:27aβ) ‮לכיש‬‎ (Eng.: “Lachish”); LXX BL Λαχείς; Josephus Λάχισα (this is the reading of ROE, followed by Niese; Marcus reads Λάχεισα with MS). See 2 Kgs 14:19b// 2 Chr 25:27b. 2 Kgs 14:20// 2 Chr 25:28 specify that the corpse was conveyed “upon horses” and that Amaziah was buried “with his fathers in the city of David.”

Josephus appends this theological commentary on Amaziah’s sorry end. Its phrase “neglect of God” (Greek: πρὸς τὸν θεὸν ὀλιγωρία, used also in Ant. 5.179 [the Israelites’ “neglect of the Deity”] and 9.257 [subject: King Ahaz]) recalls the reference to the king’s “beginning to overlook God” in 9.193, while its term “innovations” represents the same Greek participle employed by the prophet in his denunciation of Amaziah in 9.194. Josephus obtains this figure for Amaziah’s life-span by combining the notices of 2 Kgs 14:2a// 2 Chr 25:1a on the king’s age at accession (25) and length of reign (29). This figure for Amaziah’s length of reign corresponds to that cited in 2 Kgs 14:2a// 2 Chr 25:1a. MT (2 Kgs 14:21) ‮עזריה‬‎ (Eng.: “Azariah”)/ (2 Chr 26:1) ‮עזיהו‬‎ (Eng.: “Uzziah”); LXX BL 2 Kgs 14:21 Ἀζαρίας; LXX B 2 Chr 26:1 Ὀχοζείας; LXX L 2 Chr 26:1 and Josephus Ὀζίας. See 2 Kgs 14:21// 2 Chr 26:1. Josephus leaves aside the biblical indication that Azariah/Uzziah was made king by “all the people of Judah.” He likewise passes over the source notice for Amaziah of 2 Kgs 14:18// 2 Chr 25:26.

This synchronism for Jeroboam’s accession agrees with that given in 2 Kgs 14:23 (MT LXX BL). Following the sequence of 2 Kings 14, Josephus “interrupts” his account of Azariah/ Uzziah of Judah in order to give his presentation of Jeroboam II (into which he incorporates a greatly compressed version of the story of Jonah) in 9.205-216; on this complex, see Begg 2000: 251-72; on the Josephan Jonah, see Feldman 1998a: 393-415. MT (2 Kgs 14:23) ‮ירבעם‬‎ (Eng.: “Jeroboam”); LXX BL Ἰεροβοάμ; Josephus Ἱερόβοαμος. On the text-critical problem of this king’s name in 9.185, where Josephus first mentions him, see note to “Hieroboam” there. MT and LXX BL* 2 Kgs 14:23b assign Jeroboam II a 41-year reign. The LXX L MSS 127 and 93 give him a markedly shorter reign, of, respectively, 16 and 15 years. Greek: εἰς τὸν θεὸν ὑβριστής. This expression is hapax in Josephus. Greek: εἴδολα σέβομαι. Josephus uses this same phrase of the reprobate King Joram of Judah in 9.99. This is Josephus’ free variation on the stereotyped language of 2 Kgs 14:24, which charges Jeroboam II with persisting in the sins of the first Jeroboam. Josephus supplies this transitional notice that has in view the Jeroboam’s military achievements he will relate in 9.206-207.

MT (2 Kgs 14:25) ‮יונה‬‎ (Eng.: “Jonah”); LXX BL Ἰωνᾶ; Josephus Ἰωνᾶς. Josephus omits the biblical name of the prophet’s father (“Amittai”) and his place of origin (“Gath-heper”), as well as his title (“his [God’s] servant”). In having Jonah address Jeroboam directly, Josephus goes beyond the wording of 2 Kgs 14:25 itself, which merely states that the king’s conquests were “in accordance with the word which he [God] spoke by his servant Jonah....” The area recovered by Jeroboam according to 2 Kgs 14:25 extended “from the entrance of Hamath as far as the Sea of the Arabah [i.e. the Dead Sea].” Josephus here turns into a prophetic exhortation concerning what Jeroboam ought to do the biblical notice about what he actually did achieve (which he will subsequently also reproduce in shortened form; see 9.208). On “Lake Asphaltitis” (= the Dead Sea”), see note to “Lake Asphaltitis” at 9.7.

Josephus supplies this reminiscence of Joshua’s earlier fixing of Israel’s borders (see Ant. 5.80-89), perhaps under the inspiration of the reference in 2 Kgs 14:25a to Jeroboam’s “restoring the border of Israel.” There is the alternative Josephan form of the king’s name, found in 9.228 as well. Elsewhere, Josephus gives the name as “Hieroboam.” With this statement Josephus reproduces—in shortened form—the content of the notice of 2 Kgs 14:25 on Jeroboam’s achievements, while also underscoring the realization of Jonah’s prophetic announcement as formulated by him in 9.206.

By means of this notice Josephus makes the transition to the condensed version of the Book of Jonah (9.208-214) that he incorporates into his account of Jeroboam II (9.205-207, 215// 2 Kgs 14:23-29), inspired by the fact that the Kings passage itself mentions “Jonah” in 14:25. Whereas neither Kings nor the Book of Jonah ever applies the title “prophet” to Jonah, Josephus does so a total of 4 times in 9.208-214; cf. also his double mention of Jonah’s “prophesying” in 9.206, 207. This formulation replaces the stereotypical expression of Jonah 1:1: “the word of the Lord came to....” MT (Jonah 1:1) ‮נינוה‬‎ (Eng.: “Nineveh”); LXX Νινευή; Josephus Νινύος (this is the reading of RO, which Niese follows; Marcus reads Νίνος with MSP). Josephus mentions the founding of “Ninos” by “Assouras” (Asshur) in Ant. 1.143 // Gen 10:11. In Jonah 1:2a Jonah is instructed simply to “cry against” Nineveh; Josephus supplies a content for this “cry.” Conversely, he leaves aside the motivation for God’s sending Jonah to the city cited in 1:2b, i.e. “for their wickedness has come up before me.” Josephus supplies this reference to the emotional state that prompts Jonah’s attempt to evade his commission. Josephus avoids the anthropomorphic reference to Jonah’s fleeing the Lord’s “face” of Jonah 1:3aα. The phrase “run away from God” (Greek: ἀποδιδράσκει τὸν θεόν) occurs also in War 3.373, where Josephus uses it in his address to his compatriots, urging them not to commit suicide. MT (Jonah 1:3) ‮יפו‬‎ (Eng.: “Joppa”); LXX Ἰώππη; Josephus Ἰόπη. Josephus omits the reference to Jonah’s “paying his fare” and the 2nd mention of his going “away from the face of the Lord” of Jonah 1:3b. MT (Jonah 1:3) ‮תרשיש‬‎ (Eng.: “Tarshish”); LXX Θαρσις; Josephus Τάρσος. Jonah 1:3 does not further identify “Tarshish”; Josephus makes the same linkage between “Tarsos” and “Cilicia” in War 7.238.

See Jonah 1:4. Josephus omits the biblical reference to the Lord’s role in sending the storm. Jonah 1:5 mentions only the sailors in general. The term ναύκληρος (“ship owner”) is hapax in Josephus. Jonah 1:5aα speaks more generally of “each man crying to his god.” Josephus’ wording may be inspired by Jonah 1:16, where, following the cessation of the storm, the sailors “offer a sacrifice to the Lord and make vows.” Josephus leaves aside the reference (Jonah 1:5aβ) to the sailors’ casting the ship’s cargo into the sea. Josephus modifies the description of Jonah 1:5b, where the fugitive prophet descends into the inner part of the ship and there goes to sleep; in his presentation Jonah seems to remain on deck, but refrains from joining his shipmates’ vow-making. Josephus omits the confrontation, recounted in Jonah 1:6, between Jonah and the ship’s captain in the hull of the ship, in which Jonah is called on to “cry to his god” as the others are doing.

Anticipating the notice of Jonah 1:11b (“for the sea grew more and more tempestuous”), Josephus mentions this development at this point, so as to account for the sailors’ recourse to a new expedient, i.e. the casting of the lot to identify the guilty party as recounted in Jonah 1:7a. See Jonah 1:7a. Josephus supplies the reference to the sailors’ “surmise,” which leads to their decision to use the lot.

See Jonah 1:7b. Of the 4 questions that the sailors address to Jonah in Jonah 1:8, Josephus passes over the 1st and 4th, i.e. those concerning the source of their affliction and his country, respectively. In having Jonah call himself a “Hebrew,” Josephus agrees with MT Jonah 1:9a, whereas in LXX he identifies himself as a “servant/slave [Greek: δοῦλος] of the Lord.” This is the same designation (Greek: προφήτης τοῦ μεγίστου θεοῦ) Josephus uses of Elijah in Ant. 8.319. It takes the place of Jonah’s claim to be one who “fears the Lord” in Jonah 1:9b. Josephus omits the appended account of the crew’s further questions to Jonah in 1:10-11a, as well as the reference to the worsening of the storm in 1:1lb (anticipated by him in 9.210). See Jonah 1:12. In Josephus Jonah offers this advice on his own, whereas in Jonah 1:11-12 he does so in response to a question by the crew. Jonah’s admission here about his being the “cause of the storm” confirms the crew’s “surmise” on the matter as cited in 9.210.

This notice takes the place of the mention of the crew’s “rowing hard towards land” as their first, implicitly negative response to Jonah’s proposal (Jonah 1:12) in Jonah 1:13a. In reworking the biblical presentation here, Josephus likewise supplies a (positive) rationale for the crew’s initial unreadiness to do as Jonah had suggested. Josephus combines the notices of Jonah 1:13b (the storm prevents the sailors from making any headway) and 1:15a (their throwing Jonah into the sea), passing over their intervening appeal “to the Lord” in 1:14, in which they appear to become Jewish converts; see next note.

See Jonah 1:15b. Josephus omits the content of 1:16, where the crew responds to their delivery with “fear of the Lord,” sacrifices, and vows, just as he left aside their earlier appeal to the Lord’s mercy prior to their casting Jonah overboard (1:14). In both instances, sensitivity to Roman concerns over the issue of Jewish “proselytizing” appears to be operative; see Feldman 1998a: 409-10. Greek: λόγος. With this formula Jonah invites his readers to make up their own minds about the following “fish story.” Feldman (1998a: 403) points out that Herodotus (1.24) uses a similar formula (“they say [λέγουσι]”) in introducing the mythological tale of Arion who, having been thrown overboard, is rescued by a dolphin. See Jonah 2:1 (Eng. 1:17). As in the case of the storm (see 9.209), Josephus omits the biblical reference to God’s role in the fish’s swallowing Jonah. He reserves to a later point his version of the thanksgiving psalm that Jonah pronounced during his time in the fish according to Jonah 2:2-10 (Eng. 2:1-9); see 9.214. Greek: ἐκβράζω. Josephus’s one other use of this verb is in War 3.427. In Jonah 2:11 (Eng. 2:10) the fish, at the Lord’s command, vomits Jonah out “on dry land.” Marcus (ad loc.) suggests that Josephus’ added specification that the site was “on [the shore of] the “Euxine [Black] Sea” reflects his assumption that this body of water “would be the nearest sea to Nineveh,” Jonah’s God-designated destination according to 9.209.

This allusion to Jonah’s prayer both drastically condenses and gives a different content to Jonah’s “thanksgiving psalm” as cited in Jonah 2:2-10 (Eng. 2:1-9), turning the biblical prophet’s extended reminiscence of his affliction, his appeal to God and the latter’s hearing of this, as well as his concluding promise of praise and statement of confidence there into a summary notice on Jonah’s asking pardon for his (unspecified) “offenses.” In addition, Josephus has Jonah utter his prayer after, rather than during, his confinement in the fish. See Jonah 3:3aα. Josephus omits the biblical references to the new divine word to Jonah (Jonah 3:1-2, 3aβ) that prompts him to finally head for Nineveh. In his presentation, Jonah, having recognized the wrongfulness of his earlier shirking of his commission, now does this on his own. This transitional phrase replaces the biblical notices on the vast size of Nineveh (Jonah 3:3b) and Jonah’s proceeding a day’s journey into it (3:4a). Greek: πάνυ χρόνον; this is the reading of ROSPELat, which Niese and Marcus follow. M and the Ed. pr. have πάλιν (“again”). Jonah’s message in Jonah 3:4b is more precise and ominous: within 40 (MT; LXX 3) days Nineveh will be “overthrown.” Josephus’ rendering of the prophet’s proclamation picks up on the words that God confides to Jonah in 9.209, now with the added specification that Nineveh will be deprived of its rule over Asia within “a very short time.” Josephus appends this notice concerning what Jonah did once he had delivered his message in Nineveh as recounted in Jonah 3:4b. This closing formula for Josephus’ Jonah story (9.208-214) reads oddly in that, in fact, he leaves completely unused the whole concluding and climatic portion of the book (Jonah 3:5-4:11), featuring Nineveh’s repentance, God’s relenting, and the disputation between Jonah and the Deity regarding the latter’s sparing of the city. Two main factors would seem to be at work in this large-scale omission on Josephus’ part, namely Roman concerns about conversions to Judaism (for which the repentance of Nineveh—like the sailors’ previous turning to the Lord, also eliminated by Josephus—might seem a precedent) and the realization that gentile readers would likely find Jonah’s resentment at God’s sparing of a pagan city as conveyed in the concluding dialogue between him and the Deity offputting. See further Begg 2000: 271-2 and Höffken 2001: 399-400 (who argues that Josephus’ non-mention of the Ninevites’ repentance and God’s acceptance of this is to be explained rather in terms of the historian’s subsequent presentation in which Nineveh, in accordance with Nahum’s prediction, is destroyed [see 9.239-242]; this happening, according to Höffken, would make better sense if, as in Josephus’ account, there has been no previous repentance by the city and pardoning of it by God).

This added notice on the positive course of Jeroboam’s life recalls Josephus’ statement in 9.205 that, his personal depravity notwithstanding, the king was a source of “countless good things” to his people. Josephus repeats this datum from 9.205, once again diverging from 2 Kgs 14:23b, which assigns Jeroboam 41 regnal years. Compare 2 Kgs 14:29a, which mentions Jeroboam’s death, but not his burial. Josephus omits the source notice for the king (2 Kgs 14:28). MT (2 Kgs 14:29b) ‮זכריה‬‎ (Eng.: “Zechariah”); LXX B Ἀζαρίας υἱὸς Ἀμεσσείου; LXX L and Josephus Ζαχαρίας.

Josephus introduced “Ozias,” called alternatively “Uzziah” in 2 Chronicles and “Azariah” in 2 Kings, in 9.204. On Josephus’ presentation (9.216-227) of this king—which follows the more expansive account of 2 Chr 26:3-23 in preference to the summary treatment given him in 2 Kgs 15:1-7—, see Begg 2000: 273-84. Josephus’ synchronism for Uzziah/Azariah’s accession differs markedly from that of 2 Kgs 15:1 (MT LXX BL*), which dates that event to Jeroboam’s 27th year (the LXX L MS 127 reads 25th). MT (2 Kgs 15:2b) ‮יכליהו‬‎ (Eng.: “Jecoliah”)/ (2 Chr 26:3b) ‮יכיליה‬‎ (Eng.: “Jecoliah”); LXX B 2 Kgs 15:2b Χαλειά; LXX L 2 Kgs 15:2b// LXX L 2 Chr 26:3b Ἰεχελειά; LXX B 2 Chr 26:3b Χααιά; Josephus Ἀχία. Josephus agrees with all the biblical textual witnesses in calling her a Jerusalemite. Greek: ἀγαθὸς καὶ δίκαιος. This collocation is used of Jehonadab in 9.132. Greek: φιλοπονώτατος. This is Josephus’ only use of the superlative form of the adjective φιλόπονος (“industrious”). This evaluation replaces the stereotyped reference to Uzziah/Ahaziah’s “doing what was right in the eyes of the Lord” as his father had done of 2 Kgs 15:3 // 2 Chr 26:4. Josephus has no equivalent to the respective “qualifications” of their positive judgments of the king found in the biblical texts, i.e. his toleration of the cult on the high places (2 Kgs 15:4) and his seeking God and being prospered by God (only) during the lifetime of “Zechariah” (2 Chr 26:5).

See 2 Chr 26:6aα. Josephus here begins his reproduction (9.217-226) of a long segment of 2 Chronicles 26 (vv. 6-20a) that lacks a parallel in 2 Kings 15. MT (2 Chr 26:6) ‮גת‬‎ (Eng.: “Gath”); LXX BL Γέθ; Josephus Γίττα. MT (2 Chr 26:6) ‮יבנה‬‎ (Eng.: “Jabneh”); LXX B Ἀβεννήρ; LXX L Ἰαβνή; Josephus Ἰάμνεια (this is the reading proposed by J. Hudson on the basis of Codex Vaticanus, and adopted by Niese and Marcus; the remaining codices read Ἰαμνία). 2 Chr 26:6 adds a 3rd city, i.e. “Ashdod” (MT)/ “Azotos” (LXX BL). See 2 Chr 26:6aβ. Josephus adds the mention of Uzziah’s initial “storming” of the cities. Conversely, he leaves aside the statements of 26:6b-7a about Uzziah’s building cities in the territory of Ashdod/Azotus (see previous note) and elsewhere in Philistine territory and God’s helping him against the Philistines. 2 Chr 26:7b mentions God’s assistance in Uzziah’s campaign against “the Arabs,” whom it localizes “in Gurbal” and with whom it associates the “Meunites.” Josephus here makes his delayed use of the “stray” notice on Azariah’s/Uzziah’s “building” of “Elath” (2 Kgs 14:22)/ “Eloth” (2 Chr 26:2), incorporating it within his sequence concerning Uzziah’s military achievements. In utilizing this notice here Josephus omits the actual name of the city in question, while appending an indication concerning its location. His mention of the “garrison” Uzziah situates there replaces the biblical statements that the king “restored” the site “to Judah” following the death of his father (Amaziah).

Compare 2 Chr 26:8, where the Ammonites pay tribute to Uzziah and his “fame” reaches even to the borders of Egypt, due to his “strength.” Josephus’ rendering highlights the effective control over the peoples/ regions achieved by Uzziah. Josephus supplies this transition to the next category of Uzziah’s achievements, i.e. his building activities; see 2 Chr 26:9-10. Compare 2 Chr 26:9, which mentions 3 specific sites fortified by Uzziah in Jerusalem: the “Corner Gate,” the “Valley Gate,” and the “Angle.” Josephus appends this reference to the damage done by Joash of Israel in Jerusalem in the time of Amaziah as described in 9.201.

2 Chr 26:9 does not specify the size of the towers built by Uzziah in Jerusalem. Cf. 2 Chr 26:10a, which mentions Uzziah’s building “towers” in the desert. See 2 Chr 26:10bα. Josephus’ reference to the “grazing” potential of the region takes the place of the biblical specification concerning the sites where Uzziah maintained his herds, i.e. “both in the Shephelah and in the plain.”

Greek: γεωργικός. The term is hapax in Josephus. Cf. 2 Chr 26:10b, where Uzziah’s “love for the soil” motivates his stationing of “farmers and vine-dressers in the hills and in the fertile lands.” Uzziah’s excessive enthusiasm for agriculture to the detriment of his study of the Law is censured, e.g., in Gen. Rab. 22.3. The figure given in 2 Chr 26:13 is 307,500. Greek: ἀνυπόστατοι. This adjective is used only here in the Antiquities; it appears 6 times in the War. 2 Chr 26:12 numbers the “heads of the fathers’ houses” in Uzziah’s day as 2,600.

Josephus here alludes to the ordering of Uzziah’s army as described in 2 Chr 26:11, while omitting the names of the 3 figures responsible for this. The catalogue of weapons prepared by Uzziah for his men in 2 Chr 26:14 mentions “spears” rather than “swords,” refers also to “helmets,” and ends with “stones for slinging.” This phrase (Greek: καὶ ἀρτῆρας) is found only in SP; bracketed by Niese, it is omitted by Marcus. Josephus expatiates on the reference to Uzziah’s “engines... to shoot arrows and great stones” of 2 Chr 26:15a, doubtless drawing on his personal knowledge of contemporary siege equipment. He leaves aside the notice of 26:15b concerning the spread of Uzziah’s fame, due to his being “marvelously helped until he was strong.”

Greek: διεφθάρη τὴν διάνοιαν. Josephus uses this construction twice elsewhere: Ant. 9.261 (of the people in Ahaz’ time) and 11.332 (of Alexander the Great). Greek: χαυνόω; the verb is hapax in Josephus. Greek: θνητή περιουσία; this phrase is hapax in Josephus. Greek: ἀθάνατος ἰσχύς. This phrase occurs also in Ant. 18.14. Josephus expatiates on 2 Chr 26:16aba: “but when he [Uzziah] was strong he grew proud to his destruction. For he was false to the Lord his God....” His rendering of this notice highlights the familiar nexus between “satiety” and hubris, that will prove operative also in Uzziah’s case.

Further accentuating Uzziah’s fatal turn, Josephus appends a reference to the similar course taken by his father Amaziah before him; see 9.193, 196. Josephus elaborates on the summary description of Uzziah’s cultic crime given in 2 Chr 26:16bβ, adding mention of the occasion and the vestments worn by the king. For the Chronicler’s reference to the “altar of incense,” he substitutes “the golden altar” (on this, see Ant. 3.243; 8.90).

MT (2 Chr 26:17) ‮עזריהו‬‎ (Eng.: “Azariah”); LXX BL and Josephus Ἀζαρίας. Josephus omits the characterization of the priests as “men of valor” from 2 Chr 26:17. See 2 Chr 26:18. Josephus modifies the biblical conclusion of the priests’ words to Uzziah, namely “go out of the sanctuary; for you have done wrong, and it will bring you no honor from the Lord God.” In Chronicles, Uzziah is charged with having already done wrong; in Josephus he is warned not to do so. The phrase “act lawlessly against God” (Greek: παρανομεῖν εἰς τὸν θεόν) used of Uzziah here represents a further verbal link between Josephus’ account of this king and his father Amaziah, to whom the same construction is applied in 9.199. Josephus expands the mention of Uzziah’s “anger” in 2 Chr 26:19aα with an allusion to his threatening the priests who are confronting him. The added threat is reminiscent of the one King Amaziah directs against the prophet who is admonishing him in 9.194. Conversely, Josephus passes over the mention of the angry king’s having “a censer in his hand to burn incense” of 26:19aβ.

2 Chronicles 26 itself makes no mention of an earthquake in connection with Uzziah’s offense. Josephus draws the item from another biblical context, i.e. Zech 14:5, which alludes to “the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah.” Josephus supplies this indication on the effect of the earthquake as a preparation for what happens next, i.e. the ray of sunlight penetrating through the split-open temple and striking Uzziah’s face. In the Bible (and Josephus) “leprosy” is a general term for a variety of skin-diseases, whereas in today’s usage the term is used more restrictively to designate “Hansen’s disease.” See Wright and Jones (1992: 4:277-82). Josephus dramatizes the reference to leprosy “breaking out on Uzziah’s forehead” in 2 Chr 26:19 (cf. 2 Kgs 15:5: “and the Lord smote the king, so that he was a leper...”). His reference to the “ray of sunlight” as the “carrier” of the leprosy is, as Marcus (ad loc.) notes, likely based on the Chronicler’s use of the Hebrew verbal stem ‮זרה‬‎ (RSV “break forth”) in connection with the king’s leprosy in that in, e.g., Exod 22:2, this root refers to the “shining” of the sun. For other proposals regarding the background of/parallels to this element of Josephus’ account, see Begg 2000: 282, n. 38. Scholars have proposed 2 different biblical “inspirations” for this site-name, i.e. the locality “En-rogel” mentioned in 1 Kgs 1:9 and the phrase ‮גיא־הרי‬‎ (RSV: “the valley of my [God’s] mountains”) cited in Zech 14:5, a passage utilized by Josephus earlier in 9.225; see note to “a great earthquake shook the earth” there and cf. Begg 2000: 282, n. 40. Josephus here adapts the (eschatological) announcement of Zech 14:4-5a: “...the Mount of Olives shall be split in two from east to west by a very wide valley; so that one half of the Mount shall withdraw northward, and the other half southward. And the valley of my [God’s] mountains shall be stopped up....” In making a connection between this announcement and Uzziah’s calamity, he bases himself on the allusion in Zech 14:5b—incorporated by him at the opening of 9.225—to “the earthquake in the days of Uzziah.”

Greek: ἐναγής. Josephus expatiates on the reference to the priests’ “thrusting Uzziah out” of 2 Chr 26:20bα, citing the words used by them in doing this. The Josephan priests’ words are reminiscent of those with which Shimei assaults the fleeing David in Ant. 7.208 (“he directed him to exit the land as an accursed [Greek: ἐναγής]… person”). Compare 2 Chr 26:20bβ: “… he himself [Uzziah] hastened to go out....” The king’s earlier “frank speech” (Greek: παρρησία), to which Josephus alludes here, is his threat against the priests as cited in 9.224. Greek: ταλαιπωρός καὶ οἰκτρός. This collocation occurs only here in Josephus. Josephus expatiates on the summary reference to “God’s having smitten him [Uzziah]” in 2 Chr 26:20bg.

This is Josephus’ rendering of the reference to “the separate house,” in which Azariah/Uzziah lived for the rest of his life according to 2 Kgs 15:5a// 2 Chr 26:21a (which adds “for he was excluded from the house of the Lord”). On the prescription that lepers are to remain outside the city, see note to “stay outside the city” at 9.74. MT (2 Kgs 15:5b// 2 Chr 26:21b) ‮יותם‬‎ (Eng.: “Jotham”); LXX B 2 Kgs 15:5b Ἰωναθάν; LXX L 2 Kgs 15:5b// LXX BL 2 Chr 26:21b Ἰωαθάμ; Josephus Ἰώθαμος. 2 Kgs 15:5b// 2 Chr 26:21b speak of Jotham’s being “over the household, judging the people of the land.” Greek: λυπή καὶ ἀθυμία. Josephus’ only other use of this collocation is in Ant. 5.36, where it refers to the Israelites’ reaction to their defeat before Ai. Josephus adds the reference to Azariah/Uzziah’s emotional state to the mention of his death (“he slept with his fathers”) in 2 Kgs 15:7aα// 2 Chr 26:23aα. He omits the preceding source notice for Azariah/Uzziah of 2 Kgs 15:6// 2 Chr 26:22. Josephus obtains this figure for Azariah/Uzziah’s life-span by combining the figures for his age at accession (16) and length of reign (52) given in 2 Kgs 15:2a // 2 Chr 26:3a. This figure for Azariah/Uzziah’s length of reign corresponds to that cited in 2 Kgs 15:2a// 2 Chr 26:3a. Josephus’ indication concerning the burial place of Azariah/Uzziah differs from those of both 2 Kgs 15:7bα (“… with his fathers in the city of David”) and 2 Chr 26:23bα (“with his fathers in the burial field which belonged to the kings, for they said, ‘he is a leper’”). His formulation stresses that the king’s “isolation,” begun when he contracted leprosy, persisted even after his death. Josephus leaves aside the notice on Jotham’s accession of 15:7bβ// 26:23bβ, having already mentioned this event on the basis of 2 Kgs 15:5b // 2 Chr 26:21b earlier in 9.227.

Josephus introduced this king, successor of Jeroboam II, in 9.215. On Josephus’ presentation of the northern kings Zechariah-Pekah in 9.228-235 (// 2 Kgs 15:8-31), see Begg 2000: 285-93. See 2 Kgs 15:8b. Josephus omits the synchronization of Zechariah’s accession with Azariah’s 38th (the LXX L MS 127 reads 28th) year given in 15:8a. Perhaps in view of the extreme brevity of Zechariah’s reign, he also omits the negative evaluation of him found in 15:9 (see the similar case of the week-long reign of Zimri whose biblical condemnation [1 Kgs 16:19] Josephus passes over when mentioning this king in Ant. 8.307). Josephus adds the pathetic detail about Zechariah’s assassin being a friend of his; he made a similar addition concerning the killers of the Judean Kings Joash (9.171) and Amaziah (9.203). MT (2 Kgs 15:10) ‮שלם‬‎ (Eng.: “Shallum”); LXX B Σελλούμ; LXX L Σελλήμ; Josephus Σέλλημος. MT (2 Kgs 15:10) ‮יבש‬‎ (Eng.: “Jabesh”); LXX BL Ἰαβείς; Josephus Ἰάβησος. Josephus omits the varying source indications concerning the site of Zechariah’s assassination: “before the people” (MT)/ “in Keblaam” (LXX B)/ “in Ieblaam” (LXX L). Josephus combines the notices of 2 Kgs 15:10b (Shallum’s assuming the kingship) and 13b (his 1-month reign). He leaves aside the intervening segment 15:11-13a: the source notice for Zechariah (v. 11), the fulfillment notice for the prediction (2 Kgs 10:30// 9.139) that Jehu’s descendants would rule to the 4th generation (v. 12), and the synchronization of Shallum’s accession with the 39th year of Azariah of Judah. The non-utilization of the fulfillment notice of 15:12 is surprising, given Josephus’ tendency to add such notices where the Bible itself lacks them (see, e.g., 9.184). The omission may be a function of his wide-going abbreviation of the entire biblical account (2 Kgs 15:8-31) concerning the Israelite kings Zechariah-Pekah.

MT (2 Kgs 15:14) ‮מנחם‬‎ (Eng.: “Menahem”); LXX BL Μαναήμ; Josephus Μαναῆμος. Josephus omits the name of this figure’s father (MT: Gadi), even as he supplies him with the title “general.” MT (2 Kgs 15:14) ‮תרצה‬‎ (Eng.: “Tirzah”); LXX B Θαρσειλά; LXX L Θερσά; Josephus Θάρσε. Josephus embellishes the notice of 2 Kgs 15:14 concerning Menahem’s assassination of and succession to Shallum with further details: his hearing of Zechariah’s murder, bringing his army with him to Samaria, and engaging Shallum. Conversely, he omits the attached source notice for Shallum, 2 Kgs 15:15. MT (2 Kgs 15:16) ‮תפסה‬‎ (Eng.: “Tiphsah”); LXX BL Θερσά; Josephus Θαψά.

Josephus turns the notice of 2 Kgs 15:16aβ about the townsfolk of Tiphsah “not opening” to Menahem into a statement about their barring the gates to him. 2 Kgs 15:16 specifies “its [i.e. Tiphsah’s] territory from Tirzah on.”

Greek: ὠμότης καὶ ἀγριότης. This collocation is hapax in Josephus. The term ἀγριότης appears twice elsewhere in his corpus: War 7.7 (of the Jewish rebels) and Ant. 16.363 (of Herod). In applying the term to Menahem Josephus thus places him in very bad company. Josephus both generalizes and offers a strongly negative judgment upon the single specific atrocity attributed, without explicit commentary, to Menahem in 2 Kgs 15:16bβ: “he ripped up all the women who were with child.”

Greek: ὠμότατος. This superlative adjectival form echoes the noun ὠμότης used of Menahem in 9.231. See 2 Kgs 15:17b. Omitting the notice of 15:17a, in which Menahem’s accession is synchronized with the 39th (LXX L MS 127: 28th) year of Azariah, Josephus proceeds to give his own version of the stereotyped judgment formula for Menahem of 15:18, this continuing his earlier stress (see 9.231) on the king’s egregious “cruelty.” The terminology used by Josephus in 9.231-232 to highlight Menahem’s brutality recurs in his account of the degenerate Parthian prince Orodes in Ant. 18.44. MT (2 Kgs 15:19) ‮פול‬‎ (Eng.: “Pul”); LXX BL Φουά; Josephus Φοῦλος. Josephus supplies this item, thereby insinuating that Menahem was not only cruel towards those weaker them himself (see 9.231-232a), but also cowardly vis-à-vis the more powerful. Josephus combines the data of 2 Kgs 15:19bα (Menahem gives Pul 1,000 shekels) and 15:20b (Pul’s withdrawal), leaving aside the reference (15:19bβ) to the purpose of Menahem’s payment, i.e. that Pul might confirm his kingship. He likewise substitutes an equivalent value (“talents”) for the Bible’s “shekels.”

According to 2 Kgs 15:20a the head tax was “50 shekels of silver” and levied by Menahem (only) on the “wealthy men.” As Marcus (ad loc.) points out, Josephus elsewhere (see, e. g., Ant. 3.195; 8.189) equates the biblical shekel, not with the “drachma” as here in 9.233, but rather with the “tretradrachm.” Josephus omits the source notice for Menahem, 2 Kgs 15:21. To the mention of Menahem’s death that he draws from 2 Kgs 15:22a, Josephus adds the reference to his burial place. MT (2 Kgs 15:22b) ‮פקחיה‬‎ (Eng.: “Pekahiah”); LXX B Φακεσίας; LXX L Φακεεία; Josephus Φακέας. This allusion to Pekahiah’s imitating his father’s characteristic “cruelty” (Greek: ὠμότης; see 9.231-232a) takes the place of the stereotyped judgment notice for the former of 2 Kgs 15:24. Josephus’ figure for Pekahiah’s length of reign agrees with given in MT LXX B 2 Kgs 15:23b (LXX L* assigns him 10 years, the LXX L MS 127 12 years). Josephus leaves aside the notice of 15:23a, synchronizing Pekahiah’s accession with the 50th (LXX L MS 127: 40th) year of Azariah (Uzziah) of Judah.

Greek: δολοφονέω; this is the same verb used of Shallum’s assassination of Zechariah in 9.228. MT (2 Kgs 15:25) ‮פקח‬‎ (Eng.: “Pekah”); LXX B Φάκεε, LXX L Φάκεια; Josephus Φακέας (in Josephus both this regicide and his victim bear the same name, i.e. “Phakeas”). According to 2 Kgs 15:25a, Pekahiah was murdered “in the citadel of the king’s house” (MT adds 2 place names, i.e. Argob and Arieh). Josephus’ version accentuates the pathos of the king’s end—he is killed in the relaxed, intimate setting of a banquet while surrounded by friends. According to 2 Kgs 15:25, Pekah’s plot against Pekahiah involved (a mere) “50 men of the Gileadites.” Josephus makes him commander of a much larger force. MT (2 Kgs 15:25) ‮רמליהו‬‎ (Eng.: “Remaliah”); LXX BL Ῥαμελίου; Josephus Ῥομελίας. Josephus omits the appended source notice, 15:26, for the murdered Pekahiah. Josephus reproduces this (historically problematic) chronological datum from 2 Kgs 15:27b (MT LXX BL*; the LXX L MS 127 reads 30 years). He omits the synchronization of Pekah’s accession with the 52nd year of Azariah of Judah of 15:27a. Greek: ἀσεβὴς καὶ παράνομος. This is Josephus’ only use of this wordpair. It represents a free rendering of the stereotyped judgment notice on Pekah as one who continued the sins of Jeroboam I in 2 Kgs 15:28.

MT (2 Kgs 15:29) ‮תגלת פלאסר‬‎ (Eng.: “Tiglath-pileser”); LXX B Ἀλγαθφελλασάρ; LXX L Θεγλαθφαλασάρ; Josephus Φαγλαθφαλλάσαρ. Apparently, neither the Biblical authors nor Josephus realized that “Pul” (see 9.232// 2 Kgs 15:19) and “Tiglath-pileser” were one and the same person, the former name being the Babylonian throne name of the Assyrian king. 2 Kgs 15:29a mentions 8 specific cities or regions overrun by Tiglath-pileser. Of these, Josephus has an equivalent to 4 (Gilead, Galilee, Kadesh [Josephus: Kudissa] and Hazor [Josephus: Asora]), while his 5th listing, i.e. “the country beyond the Jordan,” has a more general character. He leaves aside the remaining biblical place names, viz. Ijon, Abel-beth-maacah, Janoah, and the land of Naphtali. See 2 Kgs 15:29b. With this formula Josephus rounds off his sequence on the northern kings Zechariah through Pekah (9.228-235), prior to reverting to the southern King Jotham in 9.236.

Greek: Ἰώθαμος; this is the form of the king’s name read by MSP, which Marcus and Schalit s.v. follow; Niese reads rather Ἰωσᾶς. Josephus introduced this king in 9.227; on Josephus’ treatment of him in 9.236-243 (// 2 Kgs 15:32-38// 2 Chr 27:1-9) with its incorporation of a citation from Nah 2:9-13 [Eng. 2:8-12], see Begg 2000: 297-313. See 2 Kgs 15:32// 2 Chr 26:23b. Like the Chronicler, Josephus lacks an equivalent to Kings’ opening synchronization of Jotham’s accession with the 2nd year of Pekah of Israel. MT (2 Kgs 15:33b) ‮ירושא‬‎ (Eng.: “Jerusha”)/ (2 Chr 27:1b) ‮ירושה‬‎ (Eng.: “Jerusha”); LXX B 2 Kgs 15:33b Ἐρούς; LXX L 2 Kgs 15:33b// LXX L 2 Chr 27:1b Ἰεροῦσα; LXX B 2 Chr 27:1 Ἰερουσσά; Josephus Ἰεράση. Josephus omits the name of her father (MT: Zadok). This is Josephus’ free rendering of the notice on Jotham’s “doing what was right in the eyes of the Lord, according to all his father Uzziah had done” of 2 Kgs 15:34// 2 Chr 27:2a. He omits the qualifications attached to the favorable biblical judgments on the king in 15:35a// 27:2b, which mention the people’s persistence in dubious practices during Jotham’s reign. Josephus supplies this transition to his following treatment of Jotham’s building activities in 9.237.

In relating Jotham’s building measures, Josephus follows the more expansive account of 2 Chr 27:3-4, as opposed to the summary notice of 2 Kgs 15:35b: “he built the upper gate of the house of the Lord” (// 2 Chr 27:3a). In his reproduction of the Chronicler’s account, Josephus also, however, makes a variety of changes: he adds the prefatory reference to the king’s lavishness as a builder; speaks in more general terms of his temple and wall constructions (omitting the mention of “Ophel” from 27:3b); and seems to depict Jotham’s towers as being erected—not “on the wooded hills” (so 27:4b)—but rather as part of the fortifications of Jerusalem itself. Finally, he has no equivalent to the notice of 27:4a on Jotham’s “building cities in the hill country of Judah.”

See 2 Chr 27:5a, which designates “the king of the Ammonites” as Jotham’s opponent. 2 Kings 15 does not mention this campaign. See 2 Chr 27:5b, which specifies that the talents were “of silver,” and refers to the payments being made by the Ammonites over a period of 3 years. Greek: ἀκαταφρόνητος. This adjective is hapax in Josephus. This summary notice concerning Jotham’s various achievements replaces the theological remark of 2 Chr 27:6 (“so Jotham became mighty, because he ordered his ways before the Lord his God”). Josephus likewise leaves aside the source notices for Jotham of 2 Kgs 15:36// 2 Chr 27:7.

Josephus’ placing of Nahum’s ministry in the reign of Jotham has no explicit biblical basis; neither Kings nor Chronicles mentions that prophet in connection with Jotham’s rule, just as the Book of Nahum itself provides no direct indications as to when Nahum prophesied. Contemporary scholarship, for its part, generally dates Nahum’s activity a century or more after the reign of Jotham (ca. 742-ca. 735 BCE), i.e. in that of Josiah (ca. 640-ca. 609), prior to the fall of Nineveh and the demise of the Assyrian empire in 612. On Josephus’ utilization of the Book of Nahum in 9.239-242, see Weill 1923 and Begg 2000: 301-10. MT (Nah 1:1) ‮נחום‬‎; LXX Ναούμ; Josephus Ναοῦμος. Josephus’ indication concerning the content of Nahum’s prophecy reflects the announcements of the coming overthrow of “Assyria” in Nah 3:18 and of its capital “Nineveh” in 2:9 (MT; Eng. 2:8); 3:7 (cf. also the mention of the city in the expanded LXX title of the book). His designation of the Assyrian capital as “Ninos” corresponds to his usage in Ant. 1.143; 9.208, 214 (here in his reproduction of the Book of Jonah). The codices employ a variety of alternate forms for the city’s name in 9.239-242. MT (Nah 2:9) ‮נינוה‬‎ (Eng. [2:8]: “Nineveh”); LXX Νινευή: Josephus Νινύας. Having used the alternative name “Ninos” in what immediately precedes, Josephus shifts to this more LXX-like form of the city’s name for his subsequent reproduction of Nah 2:9 (MT; Eng. 2:8). Josephus’ phrase here (Greek: κολυμβήθρα ὕδατος) corresponds exactly to that of LXX Nah 2:9a (MT; Eng. 2:8a); compare MT: [“Nineveh is like a pool] from the days that she has become and they....” With this phrase Josephus expatiates on the reference to a “fleeing” by those spoken of in Nah 2:9 (MT; Eng. 2:8). Josephus here combines the imperatives of Nah 2:9bα (MT; Eng. 2:8bα) (“halt! halt!”) and 2:10a (MT; Eng. 2:9a) (“plunder the silver, plunder the gold”).

Compare Nah 2:9bβ (MT; Eng. 2:8bβ): “but none turns back.” Nah 2:10b (MT; Eng. 2:9b) couples the calls to “plunder” of 2:10a (MT; Eng. 2:9a) with a remark about their being “no end of treasure or wealth of every pleasant thing.” Josephus replaces this remark with an explanation (“for”) as to why those summoned to stop and plunder precious metals for themselves (9.239) will be unwilling to do so. Compare Nah 2:11a (MT; Eng. 2:10a): “Desolate! Desolation and ruin! Hearts faint and knees tremble, anguish is on all loins.” The meaning of the MT reference to the condition of the Ninevites’ “faces” at the end of Nah 2:11 (MT; Eng. 2:10) is uncertain; some take its term ‮פארור‬‎ in the sense of “glowing, redness,” others rather as an allusion to the “paleness” of their faces (so RSV). Josephus’ mention of the faces’ “blackness” is in line with the understanding evidenced by the renderings of Tg., LXX, and Vulg. On the other hand, he lacks an equivalent to those versions’ comparison of the blackness of the fugitives’ faces with that of a “pot,” citing instead the reason (“fear”) for the blackened appearance of the Ninevites’ complexions. See further Begg 2000: 305-6.

The rhetorical question posed in Nah 2:12a (MT; Eng. 2:11a) concerns the fate of the lions’ “den” and “pasture” (this 2nd term is often emended to “cave,” see RSV). Josephus’ rendering turns this single question into 2 distinct ones, the 1st dealing with the lions’ abode, the 2nd concerning the mother lioness. He may have found inspiration for his allusion to the latter figure in Nah 2:13aβ (MT; Eng. 2:12aβ) (“[the lion] strangled prey for his lionesses”) and/or in the allegory of the lioness and her 2 cubs in Ezek 19:1-9; see Begg 2000: 306-7. Josephus substitutes this direct-address divine announcement concerning the coming overthrow of Nineveh, portrayed as the source of marauding lions, for the statements about the lion’s (= Nineveh’s) past successes as a hunter featured in Nah 2:13 (MT; Eng. 2:12). He thereby invests Nahum’s prediction of Nineveh’s fate with a heightened authority and solemnity.

Greek: ὀχλήρος. Josephus uses this adjective 3 other times: Ant. 15.345; 16.22; 20.162. With this formula Josephus begins his closing notice (9.242) for the preceding “Nahum interlude” (9.239-41). By means of it Josephus acknowledges that he has not reproduced the content of Nahum’s book integrally, given his concern not to tax readers’ patience with such digressions from his main story line, i.e. the account of the Jewish kings and their deeds. Overall, Josephus’ rather close and extended citation of the poetic language of Nah 2:9-13 (MT; Eng. 2:8-12) is quite exceptional in his handling of the prophetic books, the vast bulk of whose oracles he simply passes over, even as he gives prosaic content summaries of those oracles he does reproduce. The chronology of this statement is problematic for the modern historical-critical view that dates Nahum’s predictions of Nineveh’s fall a few decades at most prior to the city’s destruction in 612 BCE (see note to “at this time” at 9.239). On the other hand, that chronology does (more or less) cohere with Josephus’ own dating of Nahum’s activity during the reign of Jotham (742-735 BCE). See further Begg 2000: 309, n. 66. Josephus uses a similar closing formula to round off his account of Tiglath-pileser in 9.235.

Josephus arrives at this figure by combining the data of 2 Kgs 15:33// 2 Chr 27:1 [= 27:8] on Jotham’s age at accession (25) and length of reign (16 years). See 2 Kgs 15:33b// 2 Chr 27:1b (=27:8b). Josephus has no equivalent to the biblical source notices (2 Kgs 15:36// 2 Chr 27:6) for Jotham (or to the mention—unique to 2 Kgs 15:37—of the Lord’s sending the kings of Syria and Israel against Judah in Jotham’s day). 2 Kgs 15:38aβ// 2 Chr 27:9aβ specify that Jotham was buried “in the city of David.” MT (2 Kgs 15:38b// 2 Chr 27:9b) ‮אחז‬‎ (Eng.: “Ahaz”); LXX BL 2 Kgs 15:38b// LXX L 2 Chr 27:9b Ἀχάζ; LXX B 2 Chr 27:9b Ἀχάς; Josephus Ἄχαζος. Josephus has no counterpart to the synchronization of Ahaz’ succession with the 17th (LXX L MS 127: 18th) year of Pekah of Israel given in 2 Kgs 16:1. On Josephus’ treatment of Ahaz in 9.243-257 (// 2 Kgs 16:1-20// 2 Chr 28:1-27), see Begg 2000: 315-32. This overall negative characterization of Ahaz is Josephus’ counterpart to the general evaluation of him given in 2 Kgs 16:2b// 2 Chr 28:1b, where he is charged with not “doing what was right in the eyes of the Lord, like his father David.” Josephus’ reference to Ahaz’ being “impious towards God” sets him in sharp opposition to his father Jotham, of whom 9.236 states “he was pious towards God.” Greek: τοὺς πατρίους παραβὰς νόμους. This construction recurs, in positive terms, in Ant. 10.214, where Daniel’s relatives are said to be “unwilling to transgress the ancestral laws.” See 2 Kgs 16:3aα// 2 Chr 28:2a: (Ahaz) “walked in the ways of the kings of Israel.” Josephus adds the reference to Ahaz’ transgression of the laws. Josephus anticipates this reference to Ahaz’ altar-building in Jerusalem from 2 Chr 28:24bβ. Josephus generalizes the references to Ahaz’ making “molten images for the Baals and burning incense in the valley of the son of Himnon” of 2 Chr 28:2b-3a and to his “sacrificing and burning incense on the high places, and on the hills, and under every green tree” of 2 Kgs 16:4// 2 Chr 28:4. In his mention of a single “son” offered by Ahaz, Josephus agrees with MT and LXX B 2 Kgs 16:3b against LXX L 2 Kgs 16:3b// MT LXX BL 2 Chr 28:3b, which read the plural “sons.” In explicitly designating Ahaz’ initiative with his son as a “whole sacrifice” (or “holocaust”), Josephus differs from both biblical accounts of the king, which speak, respectively, of his “passing his son(s) through fire” (2 Kgs 16:3b) and of his “burning them [the sons] in the fire” (2 Chr 28:3b). Ahaz’ deed as portrayed by Josephus is reminiscent of that of the pagan Moabite king who makes a “whole sacrifice” of his own eldest son (see 9.43); he, however, at least had his desperate military situation as an extenuating circumstance for his doing this, a fact which makes the Judean King Ahaz’ (unprovoked) child sacrifice appear all the more reprehensible. Compare the association of Ahaz’ exposure of his son(s) to fire with “the abominable practices of the nations whom the Lord drove out before the people of Israel” in 2 Kgs 16:3b// 2 Chr 28:3b. This summarizing formula encompasses the remaining specific crimes alleged against Ahaz in the indictments of 2 Kgs 16:3b-4// 2 Chr 28:2b-4; see note to “to idols” at 9.243.

Josephus adds this qualification of Ahaz’ behavior as a transition to his account of its (military) consequences. In characterizing Ahaz as “acting crazily” (Greek: μαίνομαι), Josephus links him with his reprobate predecessor Joram of Judah, whom he calls “insane” (Greek ἐμμανής) in 9.98. MT (2 Kgs 16:5) ‮רצן‬‎ (Eng.: “Rezin”); LXX BL Ῥαασσών; Josephus Ῥαασής (this is the reading of RO, which Niese follows; Marcus reads Ἀράσης with ME). 2 Chr 28:5 does not name “the king of Syria” to whom it has God hand Ahaz over. MT (2 Kgs 16:5) ‮פקח‬‎ (Eng.: “Pekah”); LXX B Φάκεε; LXX L Φάκεαι; Josephus Φακέας. Having mentioned the name of this king’s father in 9.234 (// 2 Kgs 15:25), Josephus omits its repetition in 16:5 (the MT of both biblical texts call Pekah’s father “Remaliah”; compare “Romelias” in 9.234). Josephus here follows the presentation of 2 Kgs 16:5a, according to which Rezin and Pekah launch a joint (unsuccessful) attack on Jerusalem; to this he adds an explanation of the kings’ cooperation, i.e. the fact of their being “friends.” By contrast, 2 Chr 28:5-7 seems to speak of separate (successful) campaigns by the 2 rulers. See 2 Kgs 16:5b. Josephus appends the explanation of the failure of the siege.

2 Kgs 16:6a repeats the name of the Syrian king (Rezin [MT]/Raasson [LXX BL]) from 16:5. The mention of “the king of Aram/Syria” in 16:6a is often emended to “king of Edom” (thus RSV). Josephus’ reading corresponds to that MT LXX BL, however. MT (2 Kgs 16:6) ‮אילת‬‎ (Eng.: “Elath”); LXX BL Αἰλάθ; Josephus Ἠλαθούς. Josephus appends this localization of “Elath”; cf. Ant. 8.163. Whereas he refers to the Syrian “capture” of the city, 2 Kgs 16:6 speaks of its being “recovered”—an allusion to 2 Kgs 14:22a// 2 Chr 26:2a, where Azariah/Uzziah rebuilds Elath/Eloth and “restores” this to Judah (compare 9.217, which alludes, without naming the site, to Uzziah’s “founding a city on the Red Sea,” i.e. the same body of water mentioned by Josephus here in 9.245). Compare 2 Kgs 16:6b, where, once the king of Syria “expels” the Judeans from Elath, the city is occupied by Syrians, who have remained there “to this day.” Josephus’ identification of the new inhabitants of Elath as “Syrians” agrees with the MT ketiv, whereas the qere (as well LXX BL Tg. and Vulg.) designate them as “Edomites”; see note to “the king of the Syrians” at 9.245. Having reproduced the content of 2 Kgs 16:5-6 (the Israelite/Syrian failure before Jerusalem; the Syrian capture of Elath), Josephus now switches to the Chronicler’s alternative account of military developments under Ahaz given in 2 Chr 28:5-15. Here at the outset of this segment (9.245b-251), he presents his version of 28:5a, omitting its initial reference to God’s giving Ahaz into the hand of the king of Syria, while adding mention of where the Syrian’s massacres of the Judeans took place.

Greek: ἀξιόμαχος. Compare 9.61, where Joram of Israel is said “not to think himself militarily equal [Greek: ἀξιόμαχος] to the Syrians.” Josephus supplies this elaborate preface concerning Ahaz’ thinking and initiatives to the summary theological notice of 2 Chr 28:5b on the Judean’s “also being given [namely, by God] into the hand of the king of Israel,” which he will utilize in what follows. Greek: κατὰ μῆνιν τοῦ θεοῦ; on this formula, Josephus’ version of the phrase “he [Ahaz] was also given into the hand of the king of Israel...” of 2 Chr 28:5b, see 9.104, where it is used of God’s stance towards the reprobate Joram of Judah.

This figure for the Judean casualties corresponds to that given in 2 Chr 28:6a. MT (2 Chr 28:7) ‮זכרי‬‎ (Eng.: “Zichri”); LXX B Ἐζεκρει; LXX L Ζεχρεί; Josephus Ζάχαρις (this is the reading of the codices, which Niese follows; Marcus reads Ζαχαρίας, the conjecture of J. Cocceius). 2 Chr 28:7 designates the Israelite commander as a “mighty man of Ephraim.” MT (2 Chr 28:7) ‮מעשיהו‬‎ (Eng.: “Maaseiah”); LXX BL Μασαίαν; Josephus Ἀμασίας. This rendering reflects the plural form (Greek: ἔλαβον) read by Niese on the basis of ROS2; Marcus reads the singular ἔλαβεν (subject: Zichri) with S1P. In 2 Chr 28:7 Zichri is credited with personally “killing” the 2 Judean officials mentioned, in addition to the king’s son Maaseiah. MT (2 Chr 28:7) ‮עזריקם‬‎ (Eng.: “Azrikam”); LXX B Ἐγδρεικάν; LXX L Ἐζρεικάμ; Josephus Ἐρκάμ. MT 2 Chr 28:7 calls Azrikam “the commander of the house [i.e. palace].” MT (2 Chr 28:7) ‮אלקנה‬‎ (Eng.: “Elkanah”); LXX B Εἰλκανά; LXX L Ἐλκανάν; Josephus Ἐλικάς. 2 Chr 28:7 calls Elkanah “next in authority to the king.” 2 Chr 28:8a speaks more generally of the Israelites’ capture of their “kinsfolk” (literally: brothers). Marcus (ad loc.) suggests 2 possible explanations for Josephus’ mention of the “Benjamites” here: the reference might reflect a misreading of the Hebrew word ‮בנים‬‎ (“sons”) from the continuation of 28:8, or, alternatively, it could be designed to prepare the notice of 9.251 (// 2 Chr 28:15) about the Israelites’ captives being brought back to Jericho, a Benjamite city according to Josh 18:11-12. 2 Chr 28:8a distinguishes between “sons” and “daughters.” See 2 Chr 28:8b.

MT (2 Chr 28:9) ‮עדד‬‎ (Eng.: “Oded”); LXX BL Ὠδήδ; Josephus Ὠδηδάς. 2 Chr 28:9aα calls Oded “a prophet of the Lord” who “was there” (i.e. in Samaria; see 28:8). See 2 Chr 28:9aβ. Josephus specifies the site of the encounter. Greek: χολὸς τοῦ θεοῦ; Josephus’ other uses of this phrase are in War 7.34; Ant. 6.16; Apion 1.236 (“rage of the gods”). Compare the equivalent expression μῆνις τοῦ θεοῦ (“fury of God”) in 9.246. In 2 Chr 28:9bα Oded attributes Israel’s victory more generally to God’s being “angry with Judah.” Josephus keeps attention focussed on Ahaz and God’s stance towards him.

Compare Oded’s accusations against the Israelites in 2 Chr 28:9bβ-10: they have slain the hapless Judeans in a “rage that has reached up to heaven” (v. 9bβ); they intend to enslave the male and female inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem (v. 10a), this in spite of their having sins of their own against the Lord (v. 10b). Here again (see note to “the Benjamite tribe” at 9.247), Josephus introduces a reference to “Benjamin” where the Bible lacks this. See 2 Chr 28:11, where Oded’s discourse to the Israelites concludes with the words “for the fierce wrath of the Lord is upon you.” Josephus substitutes a warning about what God will do, should the hearers disregard Oded’s summons to repatriate the captives.

Josephus supplies this transition to his following account of the Israelites’ response (// 2 Chr 28:12-15) to Oded’s warning. MT (2 Chr 28:12) ‮ברכיהו‬‎ (Eng.: “Berechiah”); LXX B Ζαχαρίας; LXX L and Josephus Βαραχίας. Josephus omits the name of the father (MT: Meshillemoth) of this figure—who in the 4-man listing of 28:12 appears in 2nd place. 2 Chr 28:12 supplies the names and patronymics of these 3 (whom, along with “Berechiah” himself, it designates as “chiefs of Ephraim”). See 2 Chr 28:13aα. The reference to the threat of divine “annihilation” is Josephus’ addition to the leaders’ prohibition of bringing the captives into Samaria there. See 2 Chr 28:12aβb, where the leaders allude to Israel’s already existing guilt and the captors’ intention of increasing this. Josephus adds the reference to “what the prophets say,” thereby conferring a heightened authority on the leaders’ own words; the plural form (“prophets”) would seem to have in view not only the just-mentioned Oded (see 9.248), but such earlier northern prophets as Ahijah, Jehu, Elijah, and Elisha and their threatening announcements.

Josephus supplies this notice on the army’s assent to the leaders’ admonition. The wording of this notice recalls Oded’s advising the Israelites “to dismiss these [captives] unharmed to their homeland” in 9.249. Josephus’ added localization of Jericho in relation to Jerusalem takes the place of the former’s identification as “the city of palm trees” in 2 Chr 28:15. Josephus omits the further biblical notice about the Israelite leaders’ turning the captives over to their relatives at the site. See 2 Chr 28:15bβ. Josephus omits or generalizes various items from the preceding catalogue (28:15a) of the leaders’ benefactions to the captives, i.e. their clothing them, giving them sandals, anointing them, and carrying the feeble on asses.

Josephus adds this phrase as a transition to his account of Ahaz’ next move. See 2 Kgs 16:7 (2 Chr 28:16 does not mention the Assyrian king’s name). Josephus made initial mention of this figure in 9.235 (// 2 Kgs 15:29). See 2 Kgs 16:7. Josephus turns Ahaz’ initial biblical statement to Tiglath-pileser (“I am your servant and your son”) into this request for an “alliance.” He likewise has Ahaz add the promise of “a lot of money.” The Chronicler’s parallel to 2 Kgs 16:7 in 2 Chr 28:16 simply mentions Ahaz’ asking the Assyrian king “for help.” Josephus has no equivalent to the extended attached motivation for Ahaz’ initiative cited in 28:17-19, i.e. attacks upon Judah by both the Edomites and the Philistines as divine punishment for Ahaz’ apostasy. Josephus embellishes the reference to the “present” that Ahaz sends to Tiglath-pileser in 2 Kgs 16:8b, while delaying his use of the notice of 16:8a concerning the “source,” namely, the silver and gold of temple and palace, of Ahaz’ offering until a later point; see 9.254.

The wording of this notice picks up on Ahaz’ request for an “alliance” in 9.252; 2 Kgs 16:9a speaks simply of the Assyrian king’s “hearkening to” Ahaz. Compare 2 Chr 28:20, where Tiglath-pileser responds to Ahaz’ appeal for help (28:16), by attacking Ahaz himself. MT (2 Kgs 16:9) ‮רצן‬‎ (Eng.: “Rezin”); LXX Ῥαασσών; Josephus Ἀρασή (in 9.244 Josephus calls the [same] Syrian king Ῥαασής; Schalit s.v. reads this form also here in 9.253). 2 Kgs 16:9bα speaks of the Syrians being exiled to “Kir”; Josephus adds the reference to the bringing in of a new population to their former territory, thereby answering the question of what became of the newly depopulated Syrian region.

With this added notice Josephus presents Tiglath-pileser acting on Ahaz’ request (9.252// 2 Kgs 16:7) that he move, not only against Syria, but also against Israel. For his notice on the fulfillment of the kings’ previous “agreements” (see 9.252-253), Josephus draws on the mention in 2 Kgs 16:8a (cf. 2 Chr 28:21b, which adds that Ahaz’ tribute “did not help him”) of Ahaz’ despoiling the treasures of the temple and the palace in order to provide a “present” (16:8b) for the Assyrian king (in 2 Kgs 16:8-9 Ahaz makes his payment to Tiglath-pileser’s prior to the latter’s move against Syria, whereas Josephus has him do this both before [9.252] and after [9.254] the Assyrian initiative). Josephus likewise expands the notice of 2 Kgs 16:8a with mention of Ahaz’ stripping of the “votive offerings”; his inspiration here may be the listing of temple furnishings that Ahaz is said to have removed in 2 Kgs 16:17-18. Finally, he depicts Ahaz bringing his (2nd) “contribution” to Tiglath-pileser at Damascus in person, likely under the influence of 2 Kgs 16:10, where the former goes to the Syrian capital to meet the latter. 2 Kings 16 does not explicitly mention such a return by Ahaz after his visit to Tiglath-pileser at Damascus cited in v.10.

Greek: ἀνοήτος καὶ ἀσυλλόγιστος. This is Josephus’ only use of this collocation. In its 3 remaining uses (Ant. 4.161; 8.174; 12.40) in his corpus, the adjective ἀσυλλόγιστος has the meaning “countless, huge.” With this formulation, compare the notice (9.193) that Amaziah “continued to adore those [gods] that he had brought from the country of the Amalekites.” For this element of his Ahaz story, Josephus reverts to the account of 2 Chr 28:22-23, which speaks of Ahaz’ infidelity to the Lord becoming still greater in that, under duress, he turned to worshiping the gods of the victorious Syrians, doing this to his own ruin.

This reference to Ahaz’s being defeated “again” (i.e. after his initial defeat by the Syrians cited in 9.255; see 2 Chr 28:5 and cf. 2 Kgs 16:6) seems to reflect the mention of Tiglath-pileser’s “afflicting” Ahaz (see 2 Chr 28:20) rather than providing him with the help he had requested (see 28:16). Greek: πατρῷος καὶ ἀληθῶς. This wordpair occurs only here in Josephus. This phrase recalls the mentions of God’s “fury” and “rage” against Ahaz in 9.246 and 248, respectively. This notice on Ahaz’s worship also of the Assyrian gods seems to have in view the detailed account (2 Kgs 16:10-18; no parallel in 2 Chronicles 28) of the king’s constructing an altar in the temple complex like that which he had seen in Damascus at the time of his meeting with Tiglath-pileser there (see 16:10-16), undertaking this and other related cultic measures “because of the king of Assyria” (16:18).

Greek: ὀλιγωρία καὶ καταφρόνησις, a collocation that occurs also in Ant. 4.190 (where Moses warns the people about falling into such a stance with regard to virtue). Josephus supplies this transitional phrase, underscoring the wrongfulness of Ahaz’ behavior; compare his similar formulations in 9.244, 255. Josephus makes selective, rearranged, and modified use of the closing summation concerning Ahaz’ cultic transgressions of 2 Chr 28:24-25a (which itself seems to represent a reworking of the account of the cultic measures undertaken by Ahaz in Jerusalem under the influence of what he saw in Damascus in 2 Kgs 16:10-18), i.e. his cutting up of the temple vessels (v. 24a), closing of the temple doors (v. 24b), making altars throughout Jerusalem (v. 24c; Josephus anticipated this item already in his initial account of Ahaz’ cultic violations in 9.243), and constructing “high places” in the cities of Judah (v. 25a). To the mention of Ahaz’ closing the temple doors (28:24b), Josephus appends a reference to the consequence of this initiative, i.e. the termination of the “customary sacrifices.” In 2 Chr 28:25b Ahaz’ reprobate cultic initiatives (28:24-25a) are qualified as “provoking to anger the Lord, the God of his fathers.” Josephus’ reference to Ahaz’ “outraging [Greek: ὑβρίζω] God” serves to associate the king with the notorious Jeroboam I, of whom he uses the same expression in Ant. 8.277. Josephus obtains this figure for Ahaz’ life-span by combining those given for his age at accession (20 years) and length of reign (16) in 2 Kgs 16:2a// 2 Chr 28:1a. Josephus draws this figure for Ahaz’ length of reign from 2 Kgs 16:2a// 2 Chr 28:1a. MT (2 Kgs 16:20b// 2 Chr 28:27b) ‮חזקיהו‬‎ (Eng.: “Hezekiah”); LXX BL and Josephus Ἐζεκίας. Josephus omits both the source and burial notices for Ahaz of 2 Kgs 16:19// 2 Chr 28:26 and 16:20a// 28:27a, respectively.

Josephus introduced this figure and his coup against “Pekahiah” in 9.234 (// 2 Kgs 15:25). As he did with Zechariah (see 9.228), Josephus goes beyond the Bible (2 Kgs 15:30) itself in attributing Pekah’s assassination to a “friend.” MT (2 Kgs 15:30a) ‮הושע‬‎ (Eng.: “Hoseha”); LXX BL Ωσῆε; Josephus Ὠσήης. Josephus lacks an equivalent to the naming of the assassin’s father (MT: Elah), the dating of his coup in the 20th year of Jotham of Israel (15:30b MT LXX B; LXX L lacks the synchronization), and the appended source notice for Pekah of 15:31. For this notice on Hoshea’s length of reign Josephus draws on the resumption of the biblical account of Israel’s last king in 2 Kgs 17:1. He leaves aside that verse’s synchronization of Hoshea’s accession with Ahaz’ 12th (LXX L MS 82: 10th; LXX L MS 127: 14th) year—a datum that conflicts with 2 Kgs 15:30b (also omitted by Josephus; see previous note), which states that Hoshea acceded in the 20th year of Jotham. Josephus leaves aside the enigmatic qualification of the negative judgment on Hoshea (“he did what was evil in the sight of the Lord”) found in 2 Kgs 17:2, i.e. “yet not as the kings of Israel who were before him (so MT LXX B; LXX L charges Hoshea with doing evil “beyond” all his predecessors). See further von Mutius 1980. His reference to Hoshea’s being “neglectful [Greek: ὀλίγωρος) of God” (a phrase that occurs only here in his writings) is reminiscent of his mention of Ahaz’ “neglect [Greek: ὀλιγωρία] [of God]” in 9.257.

MT (2 Kgs 17:3) ‮שלמנאסר‬‎ (Eng.: “Shalmaneser”); LXX B Σαμεννάσαρ; LXX L Σαλμανάσσαρ; Josephus Σαλμανάσσας. Greek: εὐμενής. With this phrase, compare Josephus’ reference to God’s panicking the army of Amaziah of Judah, as he does “when he is not benevolent [Greek: εὐμενής]” in 9.199. Greek: σύμμαχος. The above collocation “benevolent and an ally” (Greek: εὐμενής καὶ σύμμαχος) used in reference to God has a counterpart in Ant. 4.296, where it is employed of God’s (positive) stance towards the Israelites. Greek: ὑπήκοον. This term is absent in RO and omitted by Niese. Josephus expands the mention in 2 Kgs 17:3 of Hoshea’s paying tribute to Shalmaneser with a notice on the background to his doing this, i.e. the latter’s defeat of the former, itself due to God’s non-support for Hoshea.

Josephus’ synchronization of Hezekiah’s accession agrees with that found in the LXX L MS 127 of 2 Kgs 18:1 (MT and LXX BL* date the event to Hoshea’s 3rd year). At this point, Josephus interrupts his account of the demise of the Northern Kingdom (// 2 Kings 17), in order to relate the early reign of Hezekiah, whom he introduced in 9.257. On Josephus’ treatment of Hezekiah’s beginnings in 9.260-276 in relation to its biblical sources, i.e. 2 Kgs 18:1-7 and 2 Chr 29:1-31:21, see Begg 2000: 339-65. See further the synthetic treatment of the Josephan Hezekiah in Feldman 1998a: 363-75. MT (2 Kgs 18:2b) ‮אבי‬‎ (Eng.: “Abi”)/ 2 Chr 29:1b ‮אביה‬‎ (Eng.: “Abijah”); LXX B 2 Kgs 18:2b Ἀβού; LXX L Ἀβούθ; LXX B 2 Chr 29:1b Ἀββά; LXX L 2 Chr 29:1b and Josephus Ἀβίας. Josephus’ identification of Hezekiah’s mother as a Jerusalemite takes the place of the biblical (2 Kgs 18:2b// 2 Chr 29:1b) mentions of her father’s name (MT: Zechariah). This triple qualification of Hezekiah takes the place of the stereotyped formula of 2 Kgs 18:3// 2 Chr 29:2: “he did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, according to all that David his father had done.” Josephus’ characterization of Hezekiah as “pious” sets him in sharp contrast to his father Ahaz, whom he calls “impious towards God” in 9.243. Josephus supplies this transitional notice to his account, based on 2 Chr 29:3-31:21, of Hezekiah’s restoration of the temple cult. Its wording represents a generalization of the reference— not reproduced by him—to Hezekiah’s opening and repairing the temple doors already in the 1st month of the 1st year of his reign in 29:3. See 2 Chr 29:4-5aα. Josephus omits the biblical mention of the site of the assembly (“the square on the east,” v. 4), while making also the people as a whole an addressee of Hezekiah’s discourse. He likewise passes over the content of 29:3, which narrates Hezekiah’s opening and repair of the temple doors in the 1st month of the 1st year of his reign (see, however, previous note). In 29:5aβ Hezekiah addresses himself specifically to the Levites. Josephus, in line with his tendency to downplay the Levites’ role in his history, has him speak to all 3 assembled groups.

Greek: ὁσία καὶ τιμή. This collocation occurs only here in Josephus. Its noun τιμή (“honor”) echoes the double use of the verb τιμάω (“to honor”) of Ahaz’ worship of other gods in 9.256. Josephus has Hezekiah commence his speech to the assembly with a reminder, based on 2 Chr 29:6-9, of their sin-filled recent history and the God-inflicted consequences of this. In his version of the biblical segment he accentuates Ahaz’ personal culpability vis-à-vis that of the people (whom Ahaz “corrupted in mind” and “induced” into false worship). At the same time, he leaves out much of the Chronicler’s expansive detail concerning the themes of sin (the neglect of the temple cult, v. 7) and punishment (Judah and Jerusalem have become an object of derision to the nations, v. 8; the slaughter and exiling of the population, v. 9).

This general appeal to the entire assembly to renounce “impiety” has no explicit counterpart in Hezekiah’s speech of 2 Chr 29:5-11. Greek: καθᾶραι… μιασμάτων. This phrase occurs also in War 6.48; Ant. 5.42; 9.273. With the phrase Josephus reverts to the opening of Hezekiah’s biblical speech in 2 Chr 29:5aβ, where, however, it is the Levites alone who are called to “sanctify themselves.” This directive is without parallel in Hezekiah’s instructions as cited in 2 Chr 29:5. Compare 29:3, where prior to beginning his discourse, Hezekiah himself “opens” the temple doors. Such an “opening” of the sacred precinct is necessary, given that in 9.257 Ahaz is said to have “closed the sanctuary.” Greek: ἀρχαῖος καὶ πάτριος. These terms are collocated also in Ant. 10.72; 12.280, 301; cf. 18.11. Josephus expands the biblical Hezekiah’s command that the temple be sanctified and the “filth” removed from it (2 Chr 29:5b) with a positive directive to the cultic officials about their reactivating the sacrificial system. Conversely, he leaves aside the king’s closing words in 29:11, where he urges the Levites (see v. 5aβ) not to be negligent in view of God’s choice of them to minister to him and burn incense. Greek: εὐμενής. Compare 9.259, which states that Hoshea “did not have God benevolent (Greek: εὐμενής)” to himself. This concluding affirmation is Josephus’ version of Hezekiah’s declaration (2 Chr 29:10) of his intention to make a covenant with the Lord so that “his fierce anger might turn away from us.” Characteristically, Josephus omits the biblical reference to a “covenant.” The noun “wrath” here recalls the cognate verb “to be wrathful” used of God’s stance towards Ahaz in 9.256.

Josephus passes over the entire segment 2 Chr 29:12-15 featuring the response on the part of 15 named Levites to the directives given them in particular by Hezekiah in 29:5-11. Here again (see note to “in these words” at 9.260), Josephus evidences a tendency to downplay the Levites’ part in biblical history. Greek: ηὐτρέπισαν. This verb is absent in ROM and omitted by Niese; Marcus reads it with MSP. Josephus brings his (greatly abbreviated) version of the priests’ cultic initiatives as related 2 Chr 29:16-19(20-36) into line with the directives given them (and the Levites) by Hezekiah in 9.262, i.e. they are to open and cleanse the temple, and then offer “the customary sacrifices.” The concluding reference to the priests’ sacrificing here in 9.263 represents Josephus’ initial utilization of the extended biblical sequence (29:20-36) concerning the series of sacrifices that are offered already prior to the Passover observance as described in 2 Chronicles 30.

2 Chr 30:1 mentions Ephraim and Manasseh in particular. Josephus leaves aside the appended parenthetical details (30:2-4) about the decision taken in Jerusalem to keep the Passover in the 2nd—rather than the prescribed 1st month—given the priests’ failure to sanctify themselves in sufficient numbers. The priest Josephus understandably omits this mention of such a failure on the priests’ part and its consequences for the date of Hezekiah’s Passover. Subsequently too, Josephus will disregard biblical indications (see 2 Chr 30:13, 15) that Hezekiah’s Passover was in fact celebrated in the 2nd month, just as earlier he left aside the Pentateuch’s legal basis (see Num 9:9-12) for such a “delayed Passover” in the case of those who are “unclean” at the time of its regular celebration in the 1st month. Compare the “negative” opening exhortations of Hezekiah’s message to the northerners (2 Chr 30:6b-9), i.e. not be like their “faithless” relatives (v. 7), nor “stiff-necked” like their ancestors (v. 8a). Josephus here synthesizes the “positive” exhortations that Hezekiah directs to the northerners in 2 Chr 30:6a (“return to the Lord...”) and 30:8aβbα (“... yield yourself to the Lord, and come to his sanctuary... and serve the Lord...”). Josephus adds this assurance by Hezekiah, with its reference to the specific occasion (see 9.263) to which the northerners are being urged to come. The verb συμπανηγυρίζω (“to join in the festive assembly”) is hapax in Josephus. This concluding assertion by Hezekiah concerning his good intentions vis-à-vis the northerners takes the place of the recurrent theological motivations that the biblical king appends to his appeal, stressing that if the northerners respond to the appeal, God’s favor will return to them (see 30:6b, 8bβ-9).

Compare the negative response to Hezekiah’s appeal reported in 2 Chr 30:10b: “… but they [the northerners] laughed them [Hezekiah’s messengers] to scorn, and mocked them.” In what follows Josephus expands considerably on this summary notice; see 9.265b-266. Josephus appends this reference to the northerners’ disregard of (their own) prophets, whose message reinforces that of Hezekiah’s messengers. The notice seems inspired by 2 Kgs 17:13-14, where, in the context of a review of the causes of the demise of the Northern Kingdom, mention is made to the succession of prophets and seers the Lord sent to the Israelites, urging them to repent, but who met with stubborn disbelief. The reference to “the prophets” and their warnings here in 9.265 likewise recalls 9.250, where the leading men of Samaria, when urging the release of the southern captives, remind the Israelites of what “the prophets” have been telling them about Israel’s own sins (in this instance the Israelites do act in accordance with the prophets’ warnings, whereas in 9.265 they do not— thereby ensuring their imminent doom). Greek: διαπτύω. Josephus only use of this verb is in Ant. 1.166. In a metaphorical sense it means “to reject, despise.” This notice on the northerners’ killing of the prophets is a further Josephan creation, which highlights the former’s hopeless depravity and so helps account for their eventual annihilation that Josephus will shortly relate.

Josephus’ elaboration of the notice on 2 Chr 30:10b on the Israelites’ negative response to Hezekiah’s appeal culminates in this remark, foreshadowing the catastrophic consequences of their obstinacy, which he will relate in 9.277-291.

According to 2 Chr 30:11, it was only a “few men” of the tribes of Asher, Manasseh, and Zebulun who responded positively to the appeal of Hezekiah’s messengers. In Josephus’ presentation the northerners’ respond rather to the message of their own “prophets” as featured in the addition of 9.265b-266. Compare 2 Chr 30:11: “they [the Israelite minority] humbled themselves.” Josephus’ alternative language (“they turned back to piety”) picks up his reference to the prophets’ urging the northerners to “shift to piety towards God” in 9.265. Josephus leaves aside the appended notice of 30:12 about the “hand of God” operating on the Judeans, causing them to act with one accord in carrying out the Passover project of Hezekiah and his princes. Josephus elaborates on the concluding word of 2 Chr 30:11 (“[the righteous northerners] came to Jerusalem”) with mention of the purpose of their coming.

Cf. 2 Chr 30:13, which refers to “many people,” a “great assembly” convening in Jerusalem. Having omitted the Chronicler’s earlier notice that Hezekiah’s Passover will have to celebrated, not in the 1st, but rather in the 2nd month (2 Chr 30:2-4; see note to “the people” at 9.263), Josephus likewise does not reproduce the related indication of 30:13 that the people assembled “in the 2nd month.” He leaves for a later point (see 9.273) the appended biblical reference to the assembly’s cleansing Jerusalem of idolatrous objects (30:14), prior to its initiating the celebration of the feast itself. In fact, at this point, Josephus appears to conflate the content of 30:13 (the people’s assembling in Jerusalem) with the opening of a segment (29:20-30)—earlier passed over by him—dealing with a initial set of sacrifices, preceding the celebration of passover; see 29:20, with its mention of king and officials going to the temple. See 2 Chr 29:21a, where “they” (i.e. the king and his officials, 29:20) bring 7 of each of the 4 categories of beasts “as a sin offering for the kingdom and for the sanctuary and for Judah.” Greek: καλλιερέω; the verb recurs in 9.271. See 2 Chr 29:21b. Josephus here anticipates (and generalizes) the reference in 29:23b, where the king and assembly lay their hands on the he-goats (nothing is said of this being done with the 3 other categories of victims cited in 29:21a).

With this phrase Josephus summarizes the extended description of the actual performance of the (pre-Passover) sacrifices by the priests in 2 Chr 29:22-24. 2 Chr 29:25a speaks of Hezekiah’s “stationing” the Levites. 2 Chr 29:25a specifies “cymbals, harps, and lyres.” Josephus here combines elements drawn from 2 Chr 29:25-28: the singing (see vv. 27b, 28aβ), the harps (v. 21a), and David as a musical authority (v. 21b, which likewise cites the prophetic figures Gad and Nathan; cf. also the mention of Asaph alongside David in v. 30a). On David’s instructing the Levites in their musical roles, see Ant. 7.305-306. Cf. the phrase “the priests with their trumpets” at the end of 2 Chr 29:26, as well as the references to “trumpets” in v. 27 and to “trumpeters sounding” as the “singers sing” in v. 28. Josephus combines 2 Chr 29:28a (“the whole assembly” worships) and 30b (“they [i.e. the Levites, acting on the directive of Hezekiah and the princes, v. 30a] bow down and worship”).

In 2 Chr 29:31-32 these 3 categories of victims are provided by the assembly, at Hezekiah’s direction, as “burnt offerings.” Josephus highlights Hezekiah’s personal contribution to the national cult. Compare 2 Chr 29:33, where the 600 bulls and 3,000 sheep cited are designated as “consecrated offerings” and their donor is not explicitly identified. Here too (see previous note), Josephus highlights the king’s personal contribution—this time as the one who provides his people with the makings of a feast. This is the priest Josephus’ substitution for the (critical) allusion, in 2 Chr 29:34, to the lack of sufficient priests and the greater cultic zeal of the Levites who fill in for the missing priests on this occasion. Josephus leaves aside biblical notice (2 Chr 29:35) on the additional sacrifices by means of which the temple cult was re-activated. Cf. 2 Chr 29:36a, where king and people “rejoice” over what God has done for them. Josephus adds the reference to the parties’ joint “feasting.” He leaves aside the (extraneous) comment of 29:36b: “for the [which?] thing came about suddenly.”

Whereas 2 Chr 30:1-2 has Hezekiah summoning people to a celebration of Passover, the account of the actual observance in 30:13-22 oscillates between references to “Passover/the Passover lamb” (vv. 15, 16, 18) and the “feast of Unleavened Bread” (vv. 13, 21). Here in 9.271, Josephus, reversing the standard biblical sequence of the 2 observances (see, e.g., Exod 12:1-20), differentiates between the earlier “feast of Unleavened Bread” (to which Hezekiah summons Judeans and northerners in 9.263-264) and the subsequent Passover sacrifice. See further Feldman (BJP 3: 303 n. 716) on Ant. 3.248-249, where questions about the relationship between the 2 festivals also arise. On the Passover in Josephus overall, see Colautti 2002. See 2 Chr 30:22b, which mentions the people’s “sacrificing peace offerings for the 7 days of the festival” (i.e. of Unleavened Bread (see 30:21—in Josephus this feast precedes “Passover” and its appended sacrifices). Josephus leaves aside the details concerning Hezekiah’s Passover as reported in 2 Chr 30:15-22a, these including the references to the “priests and Levites being put to shame” (30:15bα) and to the northerners’ consuming the Passover lamb notwithstanding their state of ritual impurity (30:18a), so that Hezekiah must pray (30:18b-19) for their pardon by God, who grants this (30:20). Josephus thus avoids ascribing such cultic irregularities to the participants on this momentous occasion, when the illegalities of Ahaz’ reign are to be reversed. See 2 Chr 30:24a. Josephus accentuates Hezekiah’s generosity to the people by doubling the number of cattle—1,000 according to the Chronicler—that he denotes to the people. He leaves aside the preceding notice of 30:23, with its reference to a communal decision to extend the (now-concluded) 7-day observance of the feast of Unleavened Bread for an additional 7 days—something not envisaged in the pentateuchal regulations concerning Passover/Unleavened Bread. In 2 Chr 30:24b the figures for the princes’ donation are 1,000 bulls and 10,000 sheep. Whereas Josephus magnifies Hezekiah’s personal donation (see previous note), he drastically reduces the Chronicler’s figure for the non-bovine animals contributed by the royal officials.

See 2 Chr 30:26. Josephus omits the listing of the festival participants given in 30:25 as well as the mention (30:27) of the priests and Levites’ blessing the people such that their voices reach God’s habitation in heaven. Josephus here generalizes the catalogue of iconoclastic measures perpetrated outside Jerusalem following Hezekiah’s Passover as cited in 2 Chr 31:1a. He leaves aside the attached notice (31:1b) on the subsequent return of the Israelites to their homes.

This is Josephus’ “delayed” and generalized version of 2 Chr 30:14, which speaks of the people’s removal of the idolatrous altars from Jerusalem to the Kidron valley, prior to (rather than after, so Josephus) Hezekiah’s Passover festival. Compare 2 Kgs 18:4, which enumerates a series of iconoclastic measures initiated by Hezekiah, including his destruction of the bronze serpent, Nehustan, which Moses himself had made (Josephus omits not only this reference, but also the entire episode to which it refers, i.e. Num 21:4-9, with its seeming imputation of idol-making to Moses himself). See 2 Chr 31:3, which enumerates the various kinds of sacrifices for which the king provides the victims. Josephus omits the preceding notice (31:2) on Hezekiah’s appointing the various divisions of priests and Levites. 2 Chr 31:4a speaks more generally of the “portion due the priests and Levites.” Greek: ἀχώριστος. This term occurs only 1 other time in the Josephan corpus, namely in War 1.388, and there only in some MSS. Greek: θεραπεία τοῦ θεοῦ. This expression occurs also in Ant. 3.251; cf. Ant. 4.70. Compare the motivation attached to Hezekiah’s order that the people provide the priests and Levites with their portions in 2 Chr 31:4b: “that they [the clerical orders] might give themselves to the law of the Lord.”

See 2 Chr 31:5, which provides an extended list of the items collected. Josephus has no equivalent to the following biblical sequence (31:6-10) concerning the people’s “heaping up” their contributions and the discussion regarding these heaps between Hezekiah and the cultic officials. In 2 Chr 31:11 some collectivity (“they”-the cultic officials?, the people as a whole?) prepares the temple storehouses according to the king’s directives. Josephus accentuates Hezekiah’s personal involvement in the project. Josephus condenses the extended account given in 2 Chr 31:12-19 concerning the procedures for the distribution of the people’s contributions to the priests and Levites. He likewise attributes the distribution directly to Hezekiah, whereas in Chronicles the king works through priestly and Levitical overseers appointed by him. This brief conclusion to Josephus’ account of Hezekiah’s cultic reform (9.260-274) takes the place of the more expansive summary of the king’s (cultic) achievements in 2 Chr 31:20-21. Its phrase “ancient worship” recalls the expressions “ancient and ancestral honor” of 9.262 and “ancient custom” in 9.264.

Josephus supplies this transition to his account of the (initial) military events of Hezekiah’s reign in what follows. For this notice Josephus draws on 2 Kgs 18:8, where the king’s Philistine conquests extend “as far as Gaza and its territory, from watchtower to fortified city.” Compare 2 Chr 32:1, where, following Hezekiah’s cultic reforms (2 Chronicles 29-31), the Assyrian king Sennacherib invades Judah, with the intention of subjugating its fortified cities (in 2 Kgs 18:7b the reference is rather to Hezekiah’s rebelling against the king of Assyria and refusal to serve him). Josephus replaces the Chronicler’s indication concerning the intention behind the Assyrian invasion with an allusion to the tribute Ahaz had paid the Assyrians; see 9.252, 254.

See 9.260, where, when introducing Hezekiah, Josephus characterizes him as “pious.” MT (2 Kgs 19:2, etc.) ‮ישעיהו‬‎ (Eng.: “Isaiah”); LXX BL Ἠσαίας; Josephus Ἡσαΐας. Josephus rounds off his initial presentation of Hezekiah with these notices (which have no precise parallel in the biblical accounts) on Hezekiah’s response to the first emergence of the Assyrian threat and his relationship to the prophet Isaiah.

Josephus introduced this king and his initial dealings with Hoshea of Israel in 9.259. On Josephus’ account of the end of the Northern Kingdom in 9.277-291 (// 2 Kgs 17:4-41; 18:9-12), see Begg 2000: 367-86. MT (2 Kgs 17:4) ‮סוא‬‎ (Eng.: “So”): LXX B Σηγώρ; LXX L Ἀδραμέλεχ τόν Αἰθίοπα; Josephus Σώας. The identity of this figure remains a mystery. 2 Kgs 17:4 does not mention the intended purpose of Hoshea’s “sending” to King So; it notes, rather that the former in connection with this initiative, ceased paying tribute to Assyria. 2 Kgs 17:4 itself does not provide a date for the Assyrian move against Hoshea. The parallel text 2 Kgs 18:9 (MT; LXX BL) however, gives the same date for this initiative as does Josephus, adding that this was also the 4th year of Hezekiah.

According to the sequence of 2 Kgs 17:4b-6, Hoshea had already been captured by Shalmaneser (v. 4b) prior to the latter’s laying siege to Samaria (v. 5). Perhaps finding it implausible that Shalmaneser could have gotten his hands on Hoshea before capturing his capital, Josephus presents the Assyrian siege and capture of Samaria as preceding the seizure of Hoshea himself, who he portrays as refusing admittance to the advancing Assyrians, thereby necessitating the siege of the city that will lead to his own capture (see 9.278b). Josephus agrees with MT LXX BL 2 Kgs 17:5b-6 and 18:10 in dating the fall of Samaria to the 9th year of Hoshea, following a 3-year siege. The latter text further places the event in the 6th year of Hezekiah (the LXX MS 127 reads 12th here). It might be noted that Josephus’ dating indications in 9.277-278 concerning the course of the siege appear internally inconsistent: the siege begins in Hoshea’s 7th year, lasts 3 years, and ends in Hoshea’s 9th year, rather than the expected 10th. Greek: ἄρδην. This term occurs only here in the Antiquities; it is used 4 times in the Life (102, 306, 375, 384). The accounts of the Assyrian measures against Israel in 2 Kgs 17:4-6 and 18:9-12 do not explicitly mention such an annihilation of the Israelite leaders. Josephus may have derived his inspiration for the item from the biblical description of the Babylonians’ executing the Jerusalem leadership following their capture of the city; see 2 Kgs 25:18-21 (// Ant. 10.149). In introducing the item here, he reinforces the parallelism between the respective ends of the 2 capitals. Josephus generalizes the wording of 2 Kgs 17:6 // 18:11, where the Israelites are carried initially “to Assyria” and then settled “in Halah, and on the Habor, the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes.” Josephus may have derived his combination “Media and Persia” from the use of the phrase “the Medes and the Persians” in such biblical texts as Dan 5:28; 6:8. As pointed out in the note to “admit him” at 9.278, 2 Kgs 17:4b represents Hoshea as being captured prior to, rather than after, the Assyrian siege of Samaria.

MT (2 Kgs 17:24) ‮כותה‬‎ (Eng.: “Cuthah”); LXX B Χουνθά; LXX L Χωθά; Josephus Χουθᾶς. Josephus supplies this localization, itself picking up on his reference to “Persia” in 9.278, of the site “Cuthah” mentioned in 2 Kgs 17:24. Josephus anticipates this notice on the Assyrian re-population measures, corresponding to their deportation of the Israelites, from 2 Kgs 17:24, which lists a series of 4 sites, in addition to “Cuthah,” from which the new populations are drawn. Of the 5 place names of 2 Kgs 17:24, Josephus singles out “Cuthah” alone for mention, given that this is the origin of the derogatory name for the Samaritans used by him (and Rabbinic tradition), i.e. “Couthaioi”; see on 9.290.

Josephus’ expression here appears careless in that the 10 tribes in question were not inhabitants of “Judea,” but rather of the Northern Kingdom, Israel. My translation follows that of Marcus, who omits the words “it was 800 years” that follow the name “Iesous” in the codices (and the text printed by Niese) as a “scribal addition,” lacking in ELat. See Ant. 8.212-224. This figure corresponds precisely to the datings given by Josephus for the reigns of the northern kings from Jeroboam I to Hoshea; see the chart in Marcus ad loc. With the above “chronological interlude,” linking the fall of Israel with other key events of the nation’s earlier history, Josephus highlights the importance of the former happening, just as he does Solomon’s initiation of the building of the temple in Ant. 8.61-62.

See 2 Kgs 17:16a: “and they [the Israelites] forsook all the commandments of the Lord....” Josephus leaves aside the many particular cultic transgressions of the Israelites cited in illustration of this general charge in 17:7-12, 15, 16b-17. See 2 Kgs 17:13-14, which speaks of Israel’s refusal to heed the series of “prophets and seers” sent by the Lord to warn the people. The wording of Josephus’ version here is reminiscent of his (added) reference (9.265) to the Israelites of Hezekiah’s time despising the prophets who “predicted what they would experience if they did not shift to piety towards God.” Those prophets’ despised prediction has now proved true.

The underlying Greek here contains a cognateaccusative wordplay: ἡ στάσις ἥν ἐστασίασαν. Greek: ἐχθρὸν ποιέω. Josephus’ only other use of this phrase is in Ant. 4.190, where Moses warns the people of the consequences of their having antagonized God. See 2 Kgs 17:21-22 on Jeroboam’s accession, his apostasy, and the people’s joining in this as further grounds for Israel’s demise, beyond the cultic crimes adduced in 17:7-20. The reference to the people’s participation in Jeroboam’s offenses is reminiscent of Ahijah’s charge in Ant. 8.271 that the Israelites “have followed the impieties” of Jeroboam. In 2 Kgs 17:23 Israel as a whole is punished for its persistence in the sins of Jeroboam by being exiled to Assyria. In Josephus’ presentation Jeroboam himself undergoes his ultimate punishment in the overthrow of the kingdom that he inaugurated.

At this point Josephus interrupts his version of 2 Kings 17 in order to make use of the accounts given by his various extra-biblical sources concerning other military initiatives by Assyria, more or less contemporaneous with its campaign against Samaria. By means of the insertion, Josephus reminds gentile readers of the existence of extra-biblical evidence for the existence and military exploits of the Assyrian king Shalmaneser, the conqueror of Samaria according to the Bible. The above formulation is Josephus’ heading to the extra-biblical accounts he is about to relate. Josephus mentioned the “Tyrian archives” in connection with his treatment of the correspondence between Solomon and Hiram of Tyre in Ant. 8.55-56, claiming that these confirm the biblical account of their exchanges. Josephus draws the name of this Tyrian king (Greek: Ἐλουλαῖος) from the passage of Menander that he will cite in what follows. Josephus earlier introduced Menander and mentioned his work as a translator of the “Tyrian records” in Ant. 8.144a, prior to citing that historian’s testimony concerning the exchanges between Solomon and Hiram in 8.144b-146.

This phrase (Greek: θεμένων αὐτῷ Πύας), retained by Niese and Marcus, is missing in Lat and omitted by the Ed. pr. On the long-running discussion concerning the identity of “Puas,” see Begg 2000: 376, n. 50. This is the conjecture (Greek: Κιτιέων) of Niese, followed by Marcus and Schalit s.v., for the reading of the codices, i.e. Κιτταῖων, which Niese prints in his text. The name designates the inhabitants of Cyprus. This phrase translates the conjecture of Niese (Greek: ἐπὶ τούτου Σἐλάμψας [= Shalmaneser]), inspired by Lat’s “contra quos denuo salamanassis...,” which Marcus (ad loc.) follows “with hesitancy.” By contrast, the codices MSPLauV and editors prior to Niese read ἐπὶ τούτους πέμψας (“against whom [the king of Assyria] having sent...”). See Begg 2000: 376-7, n. 55. Josephus draws his own formulation at the opening of 9.283 from this portion of Menander’s text. The Greek phrase (σπεισάμενος εἰρήνην) used here translates literally as “libating peace”; see the related expression “libate friendship” in Ant. 5.51; 17.68.

The codices Lau and V read another place name here, i.e. “Acco,” the later Ptolemais. Scholars are divided as to which reading is to be preferred; see Begg 2000: 377-8, n. 58. “Old Tyre” was a mainland site, located opposite the island called “Tyre,” from which the island Tyre drew its water supply.

On the problem of the marked numerical discrepancy between the Phoenician and the Tyrian contingents (60 vs. 12 ships) posed by the above reading, and on scholarly proposals for dealing with this (e.g., reading 16 rather than 60 for the number of Phoenician ships), see Rebuffat 1976 and Begg 2000: 378, n. 61. The rendering of the Greek phrase (ἐπετάθη δῆ παντῶν ἐν Τύρῳ τιμή διὰ ταῦτα) underlying the above translation has long been controverted. My translation follows a line of interpretation initiated by H. Grotius and adopted by Marcus. See Reinach 1924 and Begg 2000: 378, n. 63 for more details.

This formula picks up on Josephus’ mention of the “Tyrian archives” (9.283), which Menander—whom he has been quoting in 9.284-287—is there said to have translated. Note that, contrary to Josephus’ assertion here in 9.287, the name “Salmanasses” (biblical Shalmaneser) does not actually appear in the Greek text of his quotation from Menander (in 9.284 “Selampsas” as the name for the Assyrian king is Niese’s conjecture and the identification of that name with Salmanasses/ Shalmaneser a further conjecture; see note to “Selampsas” there).

At this juncture, Josephus resumes his account of the replacement population established by the Assyrians in the former territory of Israel, begun by him in 9.279 (// 2 Kgs 17:24) and interrupted by the extended intervening segment (9.280-287) dealing with the dating of the Israel’s demise in relation to other significant biblical events (9.280-282) and the extra-biblical documentation concerning Samaria’s conqueror, Shalmaneser (9.283-287). Josephus supplies this non-biblical, collective name for the replacement population (“Couthaioi”) and then connects this name with the population’s place of origin as mentioned by him in 9.279. With this figure Josephus alludes to the 5 cities/regions named in 2 Kgs 17:24 (Babylon, Cuthah, Avva, Hamath, and Sephar-vaim) from which Samaria was re-populated. This is Josephus’ version of the statement of 2 Kgs 17:25a, according to which the new immigrants to Samaria initially “did not fear the Lord”—an idiom Josephus regularly avoids. In connection with the Samaritans this designation recurs in Ant. 9.289 and 12.257 (where their temple on Mt. Gerizim is said to be dedicated to this Deity). The designation replaces the phrase “the god of the land” of 2 Kgs 17:26-27, which might seem to suggest a geographical limitation to the Lord’s power. Josephus adds this reference to God’s emotional response to the settlers’ worship of other deities. The collocation “wrath and rage” (Greek: ὀργὴ καὶ χολός) occurs only once elsewhere in Josephus, i.e. in Ant. 6.16, where it is used of God’s response to the lack of respect shown the ark by the people of Beth-shemesh.

Josephus generalizes the notice of 2 Kgs 17:25b, according to which God-sent “lions” killed the new settlers. Josephus supplies this notice as a preparation for his modified rendering of the continuation of the biblical account of the settlers; the addition indicates that the solution to their plight was devised by God himself, not by the Assyrian king as in 2 Kgs 17:27. Compare 2 Kgs 17:26, where the identity of those informing the Assyrian king of the settlers’ plight is left unspecified and their condition is simply reported to him without any proposal being made as to how this might be alleviated, whereupon (17:27) the king, on his own, decides to send them a priest to teach them “the law of the God of the land.” In line with his previous addition (see preceding note), Josephus has the settlers be the ones to report to the king and to make a request of him (i.e. that he send them priests), to which the king then accedes.

In 2 Kgs 17:28 the reference is to a single priest returnee, who settles at Bethel and teaches the inhabitants “how they should fear the Lord.” The phrase “reverence [Greek: ὁσία] for this God” recalls the expression “reverence [Greek: ὁσία] and honor towards God” in 9.261. This double notice on the effect of the priest(s)’ teaching has no explicit equivalent in 2 Kings 17. Josephus omits the long appendix of 2 Kgs 17:29-41 concerning the Samaritans’ ongoing syncretism, even after their instruction by the priest (17:28). This remark on the designation’s ongoing use picks up on Josephus’ earlier notice concerning the etymology of the name “Chouthaioi” (see 9.288). In Ant. 10.184 Josephus gives a similarly worded notice on the 2 names for the Samaritans. There, however, the name “Samareitai” is not said to be the one used by the Greeks as here in 9.290, but rather to derive from the name of their place of residence, i.e. Samareia.

Greek: μετοικοί. Josephus’ 1 other use of this word is in Ant. 14.115. This concluding remark to his account of the origins of the Samaritans (9.279, 288-291) looks ahead to the continuation of Josephus’ narrative, where he makes similar charges about the Samaritans’ duplicitous vacillations regarding their (non-) kinship with the Jews; see Ant. 11.340; 12.257, 261. On Josephus’ (ambivalent) stance towards the Samaritans overall, see Egger 1986; Coggins 1987; Feldman 1992; and Zangenberg 1994: 44-91.

This is the reading of the codices RO, which Niese follows. The remaining MSS (and Marcus) have “(king) of the Assyrians,” in accord with the title given “Sennacherib” in 2 Kgs 18:13// Isa 36:1. Historically, Sennacherib was king both of Assyria and Babylon. MT (2 Kgs 18:13// Isa 36:1) ‮סנחריב‬‎ (Eng.: “Sennacherib”); LXX B 2 Kgs 18:13 Σενναχεηρείμ; LXX L 2 Kgs 18:13 Σενναχηρείβ; LXX Isa 36:1 Σενναχηριμ; Josephus Σεναχείριμος. See 2 Kgs 18:13// Isa 36:1. Josephus adds the reference to Sennacherib’s “large contingent” and his capturing not only the cities of Judah, but also those of Benjamin. On Josephus’ account of the delivery of Jerusalem from Sennacherib in 10.1-23 (// 2 Kgs 18:13-19:37// Isa 36:1-37:38; cf. 2 Chr 32:1-23), see Begg 2000: 387-417 and Höffken 1998: 37-48.

Josephus adds this transitional phrase, motivating Hezekiah’s following overture to Sennacherib as described in 2 Kgs 18:14-16 (no parallel in Isaiah 36). Josephus omits the specification of 2 Kgs 18:14aα concerning Sennacherib’s current whereabouts, i.e. “at Lachish.” From Hezekiah’s statement to Sennacherib in 2 Kgs 18:14aβ, Josephus omits its opening confession “I have done wrong” (this alluding to the mention of Hezekiah’s rebelling against and refusing to serve the king of Assyria in 18:7b) and the appended appeal “withdraw from me.” These indications concerning Sennacherib’s response expatiate on the notice regarding his financial demands of 2 Kgs 18:14b. Josephus’ figures for the sums demanded by Sennacherib agree with those cited in 2 Kgs 18:14b (MT and LXX BL). The biblical account says nothing about any such promises on Sennacherib’s part in return for the payment demanded by him in 2 Kgs 18:14b. Josephus’ mention of these promises underscores the wrongfulness of the Assyrian’s renewed attack on Hezekiah in what follows.

This added allusion to Hezekiah’s state of mind as he proceeds to fulfill Sennacherib’s demand heightens the contrast between the good faith of the former and the perfidy of the latter. Josephus generalizes the notice of 2 Kgs 18:15-16 concerning the various “sources” (the temple and palace, as well as the gilding of the temple doors and doorposts) from which Hezekiah drew the required payment. Josephus appends this notice on the (deluded) expectations with which Hezekiah makes his payment to the Assyrian king.

Josephus supplies this reference to Sennacherib’s Egyptian/Ethiopian campaign here in order to prepare his subsequent citation of extra-biblical witnesses concerning that campaign; see 10.17-20. Cf. the notice on the Sennacherib’s hearing of the advance of “Tirhakah king of Ethiopia” against him in 2 Kgs 19:9a// Isa 37:9a. In 2 Kgs 18:17// Isa 36:2 Sennacherib dispatches his general(s) to Jerusalem “from Lachish.” In Josephus he “leaves [them] behind” at an unspecified location within Hezekiah’s territory, as he himself sets out against the Egyptians and Ethiopians. MT (2 Kgs 18:17// Isa 36:2) ‮רב־שקה‬‎ (Eng.: “Rabshakeh”); LXX BL 2 Kgs 18:17// LXX Isa 36:2 and Josephus Ῥαψάκης. Josephus takes the Assyrian title, meaning “chief steward,” as the officer’s proper name. MT (2 Kgs 18:17) ‮תרתן‬‎ (Eng.: “Tartan”); LXX BL Θανθάν; Josephus Θαρατά. MT (2 Kgs 18:17) ‮רב־סריס‬‎ (Eng.: “Rabsaris”; this title translates literally as “chief of the eunuchs”); LXX B Ῥαφείς; LXX L Ῥαψείς; Josephus Ἀράχαρις. In mentioning the 2 colleagues of the “Rabshakeh” Josephus goes together with 2 Kgs 18:17a against Isa 36:2a, which cites only the latter figure. On the other hand, Josephus, reverses the sequence of the 3 Assyrian titles in 18:17a, making “Rabshakeh” the 1st rather than the last of these, likely in consideration of the fact that this official will be the sole Assyrian speaker in what follows. Josephus appends this indication concerning the purpose of Sennacherib’s dispatch of his officer(s) as mentioned in 2 Kgs 18:17a// Isa 36:2a.

Josephus continues to follow the presentation of 2 Kgs 18:17b-18a (where the Assyrian officers summon Hezekiah upon their arrival) rather than Isa 36:2b-3 (where Hezekiah’s officials simply go out to the Assyrians without a prior summons by them). He leaves aside the topographical indication, common to both biblical accounts, concerning the site where the Assyrians take their stand, i.e. “the conduit of the upper pool, which is on the highway to the Fuller’s Field.” Conversely, he appends the mention of the purpose (i.e. “negotiations”) of the Assyrian summons to Hezekiah. Josephus supplies this unflattering explanation as to why Hezekiah did not go out in person to meet the Assyrians when summoned by them. On the addition, see Feldman 1998a: 367. Neither 2 Kgs 18:18b nor Isa 36:3 mentions this status of Hezekiah’s 3 envoys as his intimate friends. Josephus’ addition on the matter serves to explain why he chose these men in particular for the task at hand. In 2 Kgs 18:18// Isa 36:3 Eliakim’s title is “the one over the house” (MT)/ “the steward” (LXX). MT (2 Kgs 18:18// Isa 36:3) ‮אליקים‬‎ (Eng.: “Eliakim”); LXX BL 2 Kgs 18:18 Ἐλιακείμ; LXX Isa 36:3 Ἐλιακιμ; Josephus Ἐλιακίας. MT (2 Kgs 18:18// Isa 36:3) ‮שבנה‬‎ (Eng.: “Shebneh”); LXX BL 2 Kgs 18:18// LXX Isa 36:3 Σόμνας; Josephus Σουβαναῖος. Josephus omits the biblical title of this official (RSV: “the secretary”). MT (2 Kgs 18:18// Isa 36:3) ‮יואה‬‎ (Eng.: “Joah”); LXX B 2 Kgs 18:18 Ἰωσαφάτ; LXX L 2 Kgs 18:18 and LXX Isa 36:3 Ἰωάχ; Josephus Ἰώανος (this is the reading of R, which Niese follows; Marcus and Schalit s.v. read Ἰωάχος with MSP). Josephus omits the names of the fathers of both Eliakim and Joah, i.e. “Hilkiah” and “Asaph,” respectively. Josephus’ title corresponds to that given “Joah” in 2 Kgs 18:18// Isa 36:3, i.e. “the recorder” (RSV).

Josephus supplies the notice on the position assumed by Hezekiah’s envoys as the negotiations begin. In 2 Kgs 18:19-20// Isa 36:4-5 the Rabshakeh poses a series of 3 questions that the messengers are to convey to Hezekiah, all revolving around the grounds for the king’s current “confidence.” Josephus’ version picks up on the 2nd of these questions (“on whom do you now rely that you have rebelled against me?”), likewise specifying the nature of Hezekiah’s “rebellion” in terms of his refusal to listen to his overlord and admit his army. Josephus turns the Rabshakeh’s statement of 2 Kgs 18:21a// Isa 36:6a about Hezekiah’s “relying” on Egypt into this question by him about whether the king is expecting the Egyptians to defeat Sennacherib (whose current campaign against them Josephus has mentioned in 10.4).

Josephus expatiates on Rabshakeh’s qualification of Egypt as “a broken reed of a staff, which will pierce the hand of any man who leans on it” of 2 Kgs 18:21a // Isa 36:6a, underscoring the delusiveness of such a hope. He leaves aside the Assyrian’s allusion to another potential—but equally delusive—object of Hezekiah’s confidence, i.e. the Lord himself, whose “high places and altars” outside Jerusalem the king has “removed” (2 Kgs 18:22// Isa 36:7). With regard to this latter element, Josephus may have found it implausible that a foreign general would have been thus informed about Hezekiah’s cultic measures. See 2 Kgs 18:25// Isa 36:10, where the Rabshakeh concludes his speech to the envoys with the affirmation that the Lord as commissioned Sennacherib to destroy Hezekiah’s land. Josephus amplifies this statement with a reminder of Assyria’s recent destruction of Israel.

Josephus supplies this remark about the Rabshakeh’s knowledge of and use of Hebrew in speaking to the envoys in order to prepare the new turn the negotiations will now take. Josephus adds this remark on the motivation behind the Judean’s request (2 Kgs 18:26// Isa 36:11) that the Rabshakeh switch languages in speaking to them. The reference to Eliakim’s “fear” echoes Josephus’ allusion to Hezekiah’s own “cowardice” in 10.5. Both Josephan additions underscore the terror-engendering magnitude of the Assyrian threat (as well as the still greater power of God as displayed in his subsequent elimination of that threat). In 2 Kgs 18:26// Isa 36:11 all 3 Judean envoys make the request of the Rabshakeh. Josephus highlights the stature of Eliakim by having him alone address the Assyrian. Josephus uses the LXX’s term (συριστί, “Syrian”) for the language the Rabshakeh is being asked to speak, whereas MT 2 Kgs 18:26a// Isa 36:11a call it ‮ארמית‬‎ (RSV: “in the Aramaic language”). Josephus omits the continuation of the envoys’ request (18:26b // 36:11b), in which they first aver that they themselves understand “Aramaic” and then ask the Rabshakeh not to speak “the language of Judah” (i.e. Hebrew) in the presence of those on the wall. Josephus’ added notice on the Rabshakeh’s “perception” of what lies behind Eliakim’s request picks up on his remark earlier in 10.8 about the “fear” that prompts the Judean’s appeal. In 2 Kgs 18:28// Isa 36:13 the Rabshakeh uses “a loud voice” when he begins his address to the city’s defenders (18:28-35// 36:13-20), following his separate, previous response to the 3 envoys in 18:27// 36:12. Josephus conflates the Assyrian’s 2 distinct biblical discourses into a single one, this directed both to the envoys and to Jerusalem’s defenders. Josephus substitutes this designation (Greek: ἑβραϊστί) for the language of the Rabshakeh’s subsequent discourse for the biblical terms used in 2 Kgs 18:28// Isa 36:13, i.e. ‮יהודית‬‎ (MT; RSV: “in the language of Judah”) / Ἰουδαιστί (LXX). The earliest extant attestation of the use of the word “Hebrew” to designate a language is in the Prologue to the Greek translation of the Book of Sirach, written sometime after 132 BCE by the author’s grandson. This explanation as to why the Rabshakeh intends to use “Hebrew” in his subsequent discourse takes the place of the vulgar language used by him in his initial response to the envoys (alone) in 2 Kgs 18:27// Isa 36:12: “has my master sent me to speak these words to your master and to you, and not to the men on the wall, who are doomed with you to eat their own dung and drink their own urine?”

This assertion—associating the envoys with Hezekiah himself—takes the place of the double warning the Rabshakeh issues in 2 Kgs 18:29-30// Isa 36:14-15 about what the defenders should not “let” Hezekiah do, i.e. “deceive” them and make them “rely on the Lord.” Josephus omits the general’s opening call to attention (“hear the word(s) of the great king, the king of Assyria”) of 18:28b// 36:13b. Josephus at this juncture incorporates into the Rabshakeh’s address to the envoys and the defenders a portion of his previous speech to the former, earlier passed over by him, i.e. the general’s “wager” about the 2,000 horses the Assyrian king will furnish to Hezekiah should he be able to provide riders for these (see 2 Kgs 18:23// Isa 36:8). In so doing, he has the Rabshakeh spell out both the intended “purpose” of the wager (the opportunity for the Judeans to “display their own force”) and the fact of their inability to meet the challenge.

With this question of the Rabshakeh to his hearers concerning their “hesitation,” compare the appeal made by him in his master’s name in 2 Kgs 18:31aβ// Isa 36:16aβ: “make your peace with me and come out to me.” Josephus leaves aside the general’s preceding negative admonition and attached messenger formula of 18:31aα// 36:16aα: “do not listen to Hezekiah; for thus says the king of Assyria....” This summarizing conclusion to the Rabshakeh’s speech with its general allusion to the alternatives facing the hearers takes the place of the more specific items featured in the final portion of the general’s biblical speech: promises for the hearers should they surrender (2 Kgs 18:31b-32a// Isa 36:16b-17) and warning not to listen to Hezekiah’s assurances that the Lord will deliver Jerusalem (18:32b// 36:18a), given that “no god” has been able to defend his city/country against the Assyrian king hitherto (18:33-35// 36:18b-20).

Josephus conflates the sequence of 2 Kgs 18:36-37// Isa 36:21-22, in which the reactions of the people and the envoys to Rabshakeh’s address(es) are reported separately: the former remain silent as ordered by Hezekiah, while the latter go to the king with rent garments and make their report to him. In 2 Kgs 19:1aβ// Isa 37:1aβ Hezekiah “rends” his clothes. In 2 Kgs 19:1bα// Isa 37:1bα Hezekiah “covers himself with sackcloth.” 2 Kgs 19:1bβ// Isa 37:1bβ simply state that Hezekiah went “into the house of the Lord.” Josephus accentuates the king’s piety with his mention of a prayer-appeal by him, carried out in “accordance with the ancestral law,” i.e. traditional practice on such occasions.

2 Kgs 19:2// Isa 37:2 mention Eliakim and Shebna by name (and title) as members of the royal delegation. Josephus’ general allusion to these figures via the term “friends” picks up on his earlier designation of Hezekiah’s envoys as “3 of his closest friends” in 10.5. He omits the biblical detail about the delegation’s being “clothed in sackcloth.” Josephus made previous mention of “Isaiah” and Hezekiah’s reliance on him in Ant. 9.276. Here he omits the name of the prophet’s father (MT: Amoz) cited in 2 Kgs 19:2b// Isa 37:2b. On Josephus’ overall treatment of Isaiah, see Feldman 1998a: 376-92. This is Josephus’ rendering of the conclusion of Hezekiah’s appeal to Isaiah as cited in 2 Kgs 19:4b// Isa 37:4b (“...lift up your prayer for the remnant that is left”). In his reworking of the king’s biblical message to the prophet (19:3-4// Isa 37:3-4), Josephus has him add the reference to a prior sacrificing by Isaiah and makes more specific what it is that Hezekiah wants Isaiah to ask of God. He leaves aside the opening messenger formula and attached figurative language about it being “a day of distress” of 19:3// 37:3, as well as the king’s allusion (19:4a// 37:4a) to the possibility that, having heard the words of the Rabshakeh, the Lord will “rebuke” those words.

This sequence, with its focus on Isaiah himself, replaces the mention of the delegation’s approaching the prophet in 2 Kgs 19:5// Isa 37:5. The reference to God’s speaking to Isaiah “by way of an oracle” (Greek: χρηματίσαντος) echoes the allusion to the pagan arrivals in Samaria “learning by an oracle” (Greek: χρησμῷ) about how they might appease God in Ant. 9.289. Josephus’ mention of Isaiah’s “encouraging” the king and his friends turns into a narrative notice the prophet’s opening exhortation of 2 Kgs 19:6// Isa 37:6: “do not be afraid because of the words you have heard....” Compare Isaiah’s initial announcement in 2 Kgs 19:7a// Isa 37:7a: “… I [God] will put a spirit in him [Sennacherib], so that he shall hear a rumor, and return to his own land.” Josephus’ reformulation might have in view the continuation of the biblical accounts (see 2 Kgs 19:35-36// Isa 37:36-37), where it is rather the angelic decimation of his army at Jerusalem that prompts Sennacherib’s withdrawal. By means of the reformulation, Josephus, in line with his usual tendency, likewise avoids a biblical reference to the (divine) “spirit.”

Here Josephus has Isaiah make advance allusion to the destruction of the Assyrian army that he will relate in 10.21 on the basis of 2 Kgs 19:35// Isa 37:36. This element of Isaiah’s prediction has no equivalent in those attributed to him in 2 Kgs 19:7// Isa 37:7. The addition recalls Josephus’ (also added) reference to Sennacherib’s “campaigning against the Egyptians and Ethiopians” in 10.4, and looks ahead to the account he will give of the outcome of the campaign in 10.17-20. With the addition, Josephus highlights the prophetic stature of Isaiah, who can predict also this event. This conclusion to Isaiah’s prediction corresponds to the prophet’s closing words as cited in 2 Kgs 19:7b// Isa 37:7b: “I [God] will cause him [Sennacherib] to return to his own land; and I will cause him to fall by the sword in his own land.”

In 2 Kgs 19:9b// Isa 37:9b Sennacherib “sends messengers” to Hezekiah; Josephus’ reference to his “communications” is based on the subsequent biblical passages 2 Kgs 19:14a// Isa 37:14a, which refer to the king’s “receiving the letter from the hand of the messengers.” Josephus likewise generalizes the detailed background indications concerning the Assyrian’s new initiative given in 19:8-9a// 37:8-9a: upon his return from Jerusalem the Rabshakeh finds that Sennacherib, having left Lachish (see 18:14// 36:2), is currently fighting against Libnah (19:8// 37:8). Sennacherib, for his part, sends to Hezekiah (19:9b// 37:9b) after hearing that Tirhakah of Ethiopia has set out to fight against him (19:9a// 37:9a). Greek: ἀνόητος; this is the same epithet that the Rabshakeh applies to Hezekiah in his words to the envoys in 10.7. Josephus compresses the concluding portion of Sennacherib’s message, in which he asks rhetorically (2 Kgs 19:11b// Isa 37:11b [MT, > LXX]) “and shall you be delivered?,” and then goes on to enumerate a whole series of nations and gods whom his ancestors have overthrown (19:12-13// 37:12-13). He likewise leaves aside the opening portion of the Assyrian’s discourse with its commissioning formula for the messengers (19:10a// 37:10a), warning to Hezekiah not to let himself be deceived by the promises of his God (19:10b// 37:10b), and mention of the Judean’s having heard of the destruction wrought by the earlier Assyrian kings (19:11a// 37:11a). This conclusion to Sennacherib’s message is Josephus’ own formulation, picking up on the Rabshakeh’s earlier querying of why Hezekiah was “refusing to admit his [Sennacherib’s] army” (10.6) and his further allusion to the advantage of “voluntary surrender” in 10.10. Josephus’ compression and reworking of Sennacherib’s 2nd warning discourse to Hezekiah (2 Kgs 19:10-13// Isa 37:10-13) reflects the fact that this discourse largely reiterates what has been said in the Assyrian king’s initial discourse, as mediated by the Rabshakeh, in 2 Kgs 18:19-25, 28-35// Isa 36:4-10, 13-20.

Josephus appends this allusion to Hezekiah’s emotional reaction to Sennacherib’s message to the notice (2 Kgs 19:14a// Isa 37:14a) on his reading the letter brought him by the messengers. Its reference to the “confidence” the king “had received from God” recalls the notice of 10.13 about Isaiah’s “encouraging the king himself”; cf. also Ant. 9.276, where Josephus states that Hezekiah “gave no thought” to the earlier Assyrian threats, due to his being “encouraged by his piety towards the Deity and by the prophet Hesaias.” Compare 2 Kgs 19:14b// Isa 37:14b, where Hezekiah goes in person to “the house of the Lord,” and “spreads” Sennacherib’s letter “before the Lord.” On Sennacherib’s (written) “communications” to Hezekiah, see 10.15. In line with his frequent tendency, Josephus reduces Hezekiah’s prayer of 2 Kgs 19:15-19// Isa 37:15-20 to this brief allusion to its content. From the king’s biblical prayer—which nowhere explicitly mentions “the city,” i.e. Jerusalem—he omits Hezekiah’s affirmation that the gods of the other nations destroyed by the Assyrians were in fact “no gods,” but mere human productions (19:17-18// 37:18-19)—an affirmation gentile readers might well find offensive, just as they might Hezekiah’s concluding appeal that the Lord act against Sennacherib in order “that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that thou, O Lord, art God alone” (19:19b; cf. 37:20b). See 2 Kgs 19:20b; the opening of Isaiah’s response in Isa 37:21 lacks an explicit statement concerning God’s “hearing” of the king’s prayer. This is the reading of MSP, which Marcus follows; Niese reads “the Syrian” with the remaining codices. With Isaiah’s announcement here, compare his more expansive statement in 2 Kgs 19:32// Isa 37:33: “... he [the king of Assyria] shall not come into this city or shoot an arrow there, or come before it with a shield or cast up a siege mound against it.” This portion of Isaiah’s announcement is vaguely inspired by the figurative language of 2 Kgs 19:29-30 // Isa 37:30-31 concerning the promised agricultural revival of ravaged Judah. Overall, Josephus both rearranges and drastically shortens—in accord with his usual practice—the poetic, image-filled prophetic response to Hezekiah’s appeal in 2 Kgs 19:21-34// Isa 37:22-35.

At this point, Josephus interrupts his reproduction of the biblical accounts of Jerusalem’s deliverance (2 Kings 18-19// Isaiah 36-37) in order to draw on various extra-biblical testimonies concerning related events that he will cite in 10.17-20. Greek: ἐπιβολή. This is the conjecture of G. Dindorf, which Niese and Marcus follow. The codices have ἐπιβουλή (“plot”). This event represents the fulfillment of the Josephan Isaiah’s prediction to Hezekiah in 10.14: “Senacheirim... would fail utterly in the Egyptian affair.” The Bible itself makes no mention of this siege. Josephus is here drawing on the extra-biblical historians to whom he will allude in what follows. “Pelusion” was located on the Mediterranean, near Egypt’s eastern frontier. MT (2 Kgs 19:9b// Isa 37:9b) ‮תרהקה‬‎ (Eng.: “Tirhakah”); LXX B 2 Kgs 19:9b Θαρά; LXX L 2 Kgs 19:9b Θαρθάκ; LXX Isa 37:9b Θαρακα; Josephus Θαρσίκης. 2 Kgs 19:9b// Isa 37:9b simply state that Sennacherib heard that “Tirhakah” was marching against him. Josephus may have derived the additional details with which he elaborates this notice from the extra-biblical sources he utilizes in 10.17-20.

The reference is to 2.141. The above translation reflects the reading of SPLauV, which Marcus adopts. Niese prints the rather different reading of ROM, which he views as a scribal attempt to fill a lacuna in the text of Josephus. In Herodotus (2.141) the figure of the king of Egypt and priest of Hephaestus, to whom Josephus alludes here, is called “Sethos.” In Greek mythology Haphaestus was the smith-god; his Roman equivalent was Vulcan. According to Herodotus (2.141), once the Egyptian king Sethos had encamped at the frontier site Pelusion along with the rabble who followed him from Egypt, the Assyrian enemy headed towards the site as well. With the wording of Herodotus as cited by Josephus here, compare the latter’s own notices on Hezekiah’s “praying to God” and Isaiah’s response that “(God) has heard him [the king]” in 10.16. In Herodotus (2.141) the Egyptian king’s appeal to his god occurs prior to his going to Pelusion and facing the enemy attack there. In response to his appeal, the deity promises him that he would “suffer no ill by encountering the host of Arabia”—the (apparent) inspiration for Josephus’ reference to the god-sent plague upon “the Arab,” i.e. King Sennacherib. See next note.

In Herodotus (2.141) Sennacherib is not explicitly called “king of the Arabs” or “the Arab,” as Josephus avers (see preceding note). Also in this case then, as earlier in Ant. 8.253, 260-262, Josephus’ criticism of Herodotus’ historical “mistakes” is itself open to criticism, given that he does not quote his predecessor with the requisite precision (this, of course, on the presumption that Josephus had the same text of Herodotus as we do today). Herodotus (2.141) depicts the outcome of the mice infestation of the Assyrian camp in more dramatic terms, i.e. on the following day the army fled unarmed, many of them being killed. Josephus omits Herodotus’ appended etiological notice about the commemorative statue of the god standing in the temple of Hephaestus with a mouse in his hand and the accompanying inscription reading “look on me, and fear the gods.”

This formula rounds off Josephus’ reproduction of the testimony of Herodotus on Sennacherib’s Egyptian campaign and its disastrous outcome in 10.18-19. On Berosus (ca. 330-250 BCE) and Josephus’ use of him, see Bloch 1879: 62-65; BJP 3 (Feldman) 34, n. 235. Josephus’ other mentions of this figure are in Ant. 1.93, 107, 158; 10.34, 219; Apion 1.129, 130, 134, 143, 145. Berosus’ own work on Babylonian history is no longer extant; Josephus himself quotes it, not directly, but from an abridgement of the work by Alexander Polyhistor dating to the 1st century BCE. This phrase, bracketed by Niese, is absent from RO. Marcus reads it without brackets. These words are absent from LauV. Niese and Marcus include them, following the other codices, and so posit that a quotation from Berosus has fallen out of the text of Josephus at this point.

With this phrase Josephus resumes the thread of his main story line concerning the deliverance of Jerusalem, interrupted after 10.16 in order to make room for the extra-biblical interlude of 10.17-20. In the text printed by Marcus, itself based on Lat’s reading, there follows the phrase διὰ λοιμοῦ κινδυνεύουσαν (“in danger from a plague”). This phrase has no equivalent in the Greek codices and is not included in Niese’s text. This notice points back to 10.4, where Sennacherib “leaves behind” his 3 officers “in great strength” with the mission of “ravaging” Jerusalem, while he himself proceeds against the Egyptians and Ethiopians. 2 Kgs 19:35a// Isa 37:36a attribute the slaying of the Assyrians to “the angel of the Lord,” as does Josephus himself in his address (War 5.362-419) to the defenders of Jerusalem in War 5.388; cf. Feldman 2001: 319. Josephus’ figure for the Assyrian troops killed corresponds to that given in 2 Kgs 19:35a// Isa 37:36a (which, however, do not mention additional casualties among the army’s leadership). Josephus omits the notice of 19:35b// 37:36b about the survivors’ observing the dead bodies in the morning.

Greek: ἀγωνία δεινή. Josephus uses this phrase of King Ahab’s reaction to the Syrian threat in Ant. 8.373. Josephus adds this reference to Sennacherib’s emotional state. The mention of the king’s being “frightened” (Greek: δείσας) ironically echoes 10.8, where the Assyrian general perceives the “fright” (Greek: δέος) of Hezekiah’s envoy, Eliakim. Now the tables have been turned. In 2 Kgs 19:36// Isa 37:37 Sennacherib simply “departs” for home and “dwells in Nineveh.” Cf. Ant. 1.143, where “Assouras” founds the city of “Ninos” (“Nineveh” in Gen 10:11).

Josephus adds this chronological indication on the span of time between Sennacherib’s coming to Nineveh (2 Kgs 19:36// Isa 37:37) and his murder there (19:37// 37:38). 2 Kgs 19:37aα// Isa 37:38aα do not specify that the parricides were Sennacherib’s “elder” sons. MT (2 Kgs 19:37aα// Isa 37:38aα) ‮אדרמלך‬‎ (Eng.: “Adrammelech”); LXX BL 2 Kgs 19:37aα// Isa 37:38aα Ἀδραμέλεχ; Josephus Ἀνδρόμαχος. MT (2 Kgs 19:37aα// Isa 37:38aα) ‮שׂראצר‬‎ (Eng.: “Sarezer”); LXX B 2 Kgs 19:37aα// LXX Isa 37:38aα Σαράσαρ; LXX L 2 Kgs 19:37aα Σαράσα; Josephus Σελεύκαρος. MT (2 Kgs 19:37aα// Isa 37:38aα) ‮נסרך‬‎ (Eng.: “Nisroch”); LXX B 2 Kgs 19:37aα Ἐσδράχ; LXX L 2 Kgs 19:37aα Ἀσράχ; LXX Isa 37:38aα Νασαραχ; Josephus Ἀράσκη. Whereas the sources identify “Nisroch” as Sennacherib’s “god,” Josephus understands the term as referring to a royal sanctuary in which Sennacherib is buried—a point not mentioned in the Bible. Josephus adds mention of a pursuit of the parricides to the notice on their “escape” in 2 Kgs 19:37bα // Isa 37:38bα. His designation for their place of refuge (“Armenia”) corresponds to the reading of LXX Isa 37:38bα, whereas the MT of both biblical verses, as well as LXX BL 2 Kgs 19:37bα, call it “the land of Ararat.” MT (2 Kgs 19:37bβ// Isa 37:38bβ) ‮אסר־הדן‬‎ (Eng.: “Esarhaddon”); LXX B 2 Kgs 19:37bβ and LXX Isa 37:38bβ Ἀσορδάν; LXX L 2 Kgs 19:37bβ Ἀχορδάν; Josephus Ἀσαραχόδδας. The Greek phrase qualifying “Esarhaddon” underlying the above translation is lacking in Lat and is called “undoubtedly corrupt” by Marcus. The Bible has no equivalent to this reference to still other sons of Sennacherib, intermediate in age (and right of succession) between the 2 parricides and Esarhaddon, who, nevertheless, secured the throne for himself. See Marcus’ note ad loc. Josephus appends this closing notice to his account of Jerusalem’s deliverance, 10.1-23 (// 2 Kgs 18:13-19:37// Isa 36:1-37:38).

This account of Hezekiah’s response to Jerusalem’s deliverance (10.1-23) has no parallel in the biblical accounts. On the other hand, it does pull together elements of Josephus’ own previous account, i.e. Hezekiah’s “fear” here recalls the mention of his “cowardice” in 10.5; the allusion to the destruction of the enemy being solely due to the nation’s “alliance with God” is reminiscent of the king’s confession that he has “no other hope of safety” except in God (10.10), while the mention of the “fear” that prompts Sennacherib’s withdrawal brings to mind the notice on the Assyrian’s “fear and terrible anxiety” in 10.22. Josephus’ addition concerning Hezekiah’s “sacrifice,” for its part, serves to underscore the king’s piety; conceivably, it was inspired by Isaiah’s announcement that the sick Hezekiah will be able to “go up to the house of the Lord” in 2 Kgs 20:5bβ. (Songs Rab. 4.8.3, noting the absence of any mention of Hezekiah’s thanking God for the deliverance of Jerusalem in the biblical accounts, avers that this failure caused God to revoke his earlier decision to designate Hezekiah as the Messiah.)

Greek: σπουδή καὶ φιλοτιμία; the wordpair occurs also in Ant. 6.292; 7.380; 12.83, 134; 14.154; 15.312. Josephus’s added phrase here highlights the king’s piety, even while it makes the transition to the subsequent, final events of Hezekiah’s reign as told in 2 Kings 20// Isaiah 38-39 (cf. 2 Chr 32:23-33). On Josephus’ account of the finale of Hezekiah’s kingship in 10.24-36, see Begg 2000: 419-41. Josephus goes beyond 2 Kgs 20:1a// Isa 38:1a in highlighting the hopelessness of Hezekiah’s condition as something to which even his doctors and friends are resigned. Greek: ἀθυμία δεινή. Josephus’ 2 remaining uses of this phrase are in War 3.182 and Ant. 5.36. Compare the mention of Sennacherib’s ἀγωνία δεινή (“terrible agony”) in 10.22. This notice on Hezekiah’s emotional reaction to his condition and the grounds for it has no biblical counterpart. Josephus’ mention of the king’s childlessness at this point in his reign is, however, paralleled in Rabbinic tradition (see b. Ber. 10a; y. Sanh. 10.28b; S.Eli R. 8, p. 46); in contrast to Josephus, these witnesses explicitly make Hezekiah’s childlessness a matter of his own choice, inspired by the fear that any progeny he might have would turn out degenerate.

This initial appeal by Hezekiah, picking up on Josephus’ preceding addition concerning the king’s distress at the prospect of his dying childless (see previous note), has no equivalent in 2 Kgs 20:1-11// Isa 38:1-22.

Compare 2 Kgs 20:5// Isa 38:5, where Isaiah is sent back a 2nd time to announce to Hezekiah that God has “heard your prayer.” Josephus turns this new, 2nd announcement by Isaiah, revoking his earlier prediction of death for the king (20:1b// 38:1b), into an (anticipated) editorial comment about the divine decision that precedes Isaiah’s one-time approach to the king in what follows. Josephus’ extended explanation as to why God gives a favorable response to Hezekiah’s appeal, made even before Isaiah approaches the king—like that appeal itself as cited in 10.25-26—is without biblical parallel. 2 Kgs 20:1b-3a// Isa 38:1b-3 relate God’s initial dispatch of Isaiah to Hezekiah with the announcement that he will not recover, whereupon the king makes a tearful appeal to God. Josephus markedly reworks this entire sequence. In his presentation, Hezekiah’s appeal (and God’s decision to honor this) precede Isaiah’s (one and only) approach to him. In thus adapting the biblical account Josephus disposes of the problem posed by this, i.e. it seems to make Isaiah a “false” prophet whose initial announcement—for which he evokes divine authority (see the messenger formula, “thus says the Lord” in 20:1b// 38:1b)—is immediately abrogated by the instructions God gives Isaiah in 20:4-6// 38:4-6. See further 10.35. Compare Isaiah’s (2nd) announcement to Hezekiah in 2 Kgs 20:5bβ (no parallel in Isaiah 38): “on the 3rd day you shall go up to the house of the Lord.” Josephus leaves aside the biblical references to the healed king’s going to the temple at this juncture; he will, however, make use of this element subsequently; see 10.29. He likewise omits the preceding, preliminary announcement (20:5bα// 38:5bα) that Isaiah is sent back to convey to the king in response to his appeal, i.e. that the Lord has heard his prayer (see, however, Josephus’ anticipation of this at the opening of 10.27) and seen his tears. See 2 Kgs 20:6aα// Isa 38:5bβ: “I [God] will add 15 years to your [Hezekiah’s] life.” This final promise, responding to the Josephan Hezekiah’s concern about dying without progeny (see 10.25-26), takes the place of the concluding divine announcement of 2 Kgs 20:6aβb// Isa 38:6b, i.e. that God will deliver and defend Jerusalem (and Hezekiah himself) against the king of Assyria. Josephus’ non-use of this biblical announcement is understandable, given that it appears to come “too late” in the sequence of 2 Kings 18-20// Isaiah 36-39, where Jerusalem’s deliverance has already been effected by the end of 2 Kings 19// Isaiah 37.

Josephus adds this transitional phrase concerning Isaiah’s fulfillment of his divine mandate. 2 Kgs 20:4-6// Isa 38:4-6 do not explicitly mention the prophet’s delivering God’s (2nd) message to Hezekiah. Conversely, Josephus omits Isaiah’s directive (20:7// Isa 38:21) that a “cake of figs” be applied to Hezekiah’s “boil” in order that he might recover. He perhaps found such a presentation of the prophet too “magical” and/ or he may have noticed that the directive has no further function in/effect on the continuation of the biblical accounts. Josephus supplies this reference to Hezekiah’s skepticism in response to Isaiah’s announcement and the reasons for it. Greek: σημεῖον καὶ τεράστιον; this collocation is hapax in Josephus (prior to him it is used for the first time in Ezekiel the Tragedian, l. 90). His only other use of the word τεράστιον (“portent”) is in 10.232, where it refers to the handwriting on the wall at Belshazzar’s feast. In War 1.28 and Ant. 20.168 Josephus uses the more common collocation σημεῖα καὶ τεράτα. See 2 Kgs 20:8 (the parallel passage Isa 38:22 oddly has Hezekiah asking for a sign after this has already been given to him in 38:8b). Josephus supplies Hezekiah with a rationale (i.e. the accreditation of Isaiah’s words as emanating from God) for making the request he does. He leaves aside the allusion to Isaiah’s previous promise (see 2 Kgs 20:5bβ) that the king will go up to the house of the Lord on the 3rd day, which Hezekiah attaches to his request in 20:8 (and 38:22), given that in his rendering of Isaiah’s predictions to Hezekiah in 10.27 he does not cite this promise (see note to “after three days” there). Josephus appends this editorial comment concerning Hezekiah’s request for a sign. The terminology of “(un)belief” permeates Josephus’ version of the king’s request (see 2 Kgs 20:8// Isa 38:22) in 10.28.

In Josephus Hezekiah gets to ask for whatever sign he wishes. In Isa 38:7-8a, by contrast, Isaiah simply informs him of the sign he will be given, while 2 Kgs 20:9-10 limits the king’s choice to having the shadow advance or recede 10 paces. Josephus’ version highlights the magnitude of the choice offered Hezekiah (and Isaiah’s confidence that he can provide whatever the king may request). See 2 Kgs 20:10b. Josephus omits the king’s opening biblical statement that it would be an “easy thing” to have the shadow advance 10 steps (20:10a). In its place he has Hezekiah refer, in line with the closing words of 2 Kgs 20:11b// Isa 38:8b with their mention of the “10 steps by which the sun had declined on the dial of Ahaz [38:8b lacks this mention of Hezekiah’s father],” to the sun’s previous “decline” and the result of this. See 2 Kgs 20:11a (no equivalent in Isaiah 38). Josephus spells out the content of Isaiah’s “cry to the Lord” there. Cf. 2 Kgs 20:11b// Isa 38:8b, which state that the shadow did recede 10 steps. This notice on the fact of Hezekiah’s cure, fulfilling the promise Isaiah makes him in 10.27, lacks a direct biblical counterpart. Cf., however, the allusion to the king’s cure in the title of the “Psalm of Hezekiah” (Isa 38:10-20) in Isa 38:9: “a writing of Hezekiah after he had been sick and recovered from his sickness.” (Like 2 Kings 20 and in line with his own practice of omitting or greatly reducing the content of such biblical prayer texts, Josephus has no equivalent to the lengthy “Psalm of Hezekiah” itself.) Josephus goes beyond the biblical accounts in making explicit mention of the cured Hezekiah’s going to the temple, turning into a narrative notice on the matter Isaiah’s promise of 2 Kgs 20:5bβ, omitted by him in his version of the prophet’s announcement in 10.27 (see note to “after three days” there), that he would do this.

Josephus supplies this notice by way of background to his following account of Hezekiah’s dealings—not, as might be expected in light of what precedes—with an Assyrian, but rather a Babylonian king. His only subsequent allusion to the overthrow of the Assyrian empire—previously announced by Jonah (Ant. 9.208, 214) and Nahum (9.239)—comes in 10.74, where he attributes that event to the Babylonians as well as the Medes. MT (2 Kgs 20:12) ‮בראדך בלאדן‬‎ (RSV, following an emendation based on Isa 39:1, renders “Merodach-baladan”)/ Isa 39:1 ‮מרדך בלאדן‬‎ (Eng.: “Merodach-baladan”); LXX B 2 Kgs 20:12 Μαρωδαχβαλδάν; LXX L 2 Kgs 20:12 Μαρωδαχ Βαλδάν; LXX Isa 39:1 Μαρωδαχ; Josephus Βαλάδας. Josephus omits the initial portion (“Merodach”) of the king’s biblical name as well as that of his father (MT: Baladan). 2 Kgs 20:12// Isa 39:1 mention “letters” brought by the envoys as well and attribute their visit to Merodach-baladan’s having heard of Hezekiah’s sickness and recovery. Josephus makes explicit the political purpose behind the Babylonian’s initiative.

With this added remark Josephus accentuates the welcome given the envoys by Hezekiah. S. Eli.Rab. (8)9, p. 47 mentions the king’s dining with them in person. Josephus abbreviates the catalogue of objects shown the envoys by Hezekiah cited in 2 Kgs 20:13// Isa 39:2, which mention also silver, spices, and precious oil and end up with the hyperbolic assertion that there was “nothing” in his house or kingdom that the king did not show the messengers. Josephus adds this notice with its continuing accentuation of Hezekiah’s hospitality: the king not only receives gifts from Merodach-baladan (so 2 Kgs 20:12// Isa 39:1), but himself sends back presents of his own to the latter.

Compare 2 Kgs 20:14a// Isa 39:3a, whose initial question by Isaiah (“what did these men say?”) Josephus omits—perhaps because it remains unanswered by Hezekiah in what follows. Greek: παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ; this is the reading of ROM, which Niese follows. Marcus reads παρὰ τοῦ κυριοῦ αὐτῶν (“from their master,” i.e. Merodach-baladan) with SPLauV. In 2 Kgs 20:14b// Isa 39:3b Hezekiah informs Isaiah that the envoys have come “from a far country, from Babylon.” In the reading adopted by Niese Hezekiah offers an implicit justification for his dealings with the envoys, namely, the divine origin of their mission. In 2 Kgs 20:15// Isa 39:4 Hezekiah’s statement about having shown the envoys everything comes in response to a further question by Isaiah, i.e. “what have they [the envoys] seen in your house?” Josephus depicts a more forthcoming king, who volunteers information without waiting to be asked for it. Josephus appends this motivation for Hezekiah’s showing the envoys “everything,” as he admits having done in 2 Kgs 20:15b// Isa 39:4b.

Greek οὐ; this is the reading of ROLauVLat, which Niese follows; Marcus reads a different particle, namely ὡς (“that [after a little time]”) with MSP. See 2 Kgs 20:17// Isa 39:6. Josephus omits Isaiah’s opening summons to hear (20:16// 39:5) as well as the formula (“nothing shall be left”), with which the prophet sums up his announcement about the loss of Hezekiah’s property in 20:17// 39:6. He holds over until the end of Isaiah’s entire prediction his equivalent of the phrase “says the Lord” which stands between the 2 parts of the prophetic announcement in 20:17-18 // 39:6-7; see the end of 10.33. Greek: εὐνουχίζω; this verb is hapax in Josephus. See 2 Kgs 20:18// Isa 39:7. Josephus leaves aside the biblical references to the deportation of Hezekiah’s descendants, while highlighting both the fact of their castration and the slavery that awaits them. Compare the phrase “says the Lord,” with which Isaiah concludes the 1st part of his announcement (2 Kgs 20:17// Isa 39:6), before proceeding to the prediction about the fate of Hezekiah’s descendants in 20:18// 39:7.

Josephus supplies this reference to Hezekiah’s emotional reaction to Isaiah’s announcement. This expression of concern for his people has no equivalent in the response of the biblical Hezekiah in 2 Kgs 20:19// Isa 39:8, where the king’s whole focus is on what is (not) to happen to him personally. See next note. Josephus adds the reference to the immutability of God’s decisions (see the similar affirmation attributed to the prophetess Huldah in 10.60). He likewise turns the king’s self-assured, egotistical assertion in 2 Kgs 20:19// Isa 39:8 about there being “peace and security in his own days” into a humble prayer for such peace. On Berosus, see 10.20.

With this phrase (Greek: προφήτης θεῖος), compare Ant. 18.64, where, as part of his “testimony” concerning Jesus, Josephus refers to “the divine prophets.” Josephus’ (added) emphasis on Isaiah’s life-long veracity here helps explain his earlier omission of the biblical notice on Isaiah’s initial approach to Hezekiah (2 Kgs 20:1b// Isa 38:1b) with a message that God subsequently countermands in response to Hezekiah’s appeal; see note to “Hesaias” at 10.27. With this notice Josephus evidences his awareness of the existence of writings attributed to Isaiah and spells out the prophet’s purpose in composing these. Josephus’ figure for the “writing prophets” here is perplexing—one would expect rather 14 (as in the MT) or 15, i.e. the 12 “Minor Prophets,” along with Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel (counting his book as part of the prophetic corpus with LXX). Marcus (ad loc.) links Josephus’ figure with his statement in Apion 1.40 that the post-Mosaic prophets composed 13 books, of which Isaiah would be 1, with the rest of the prophetic corpus—however precisely Josephus may have counted this—amounting to 12 books. For more on the question of Josephus’ biblical canon and relevant bibliography, see Mason 2002. Greek εἴ τι φαῦλον; this is the reading of R, which Niese follows. Marcus adopts the more expansive reading of MSPLauELat, i.e. εἴτε ἀγαθὸν εἴτε φαῦλον (“whether good or bad”). In fact, Josephus nowhere mentions the 7 minor prophets Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, and Malachi.

The reference is to the 15 extra years of life God promises Hezekiah in 10.27. With this addition Josephus indicates that Hezekiah’s prayer for “peace” in his lifetime (see 10.34) was indeed fulfilled. See 2 Kgs 20:21a// 2 Chr 32:33aα, which speak of Hezekiah’s “sleeping with his fathers.” Like MT 2 Kgs 20:21, Josephus has no equivalent to the mention of Hezekiah’s burial in 2 Chr 32:33aβ (and LXX BL 2 Kgs 20:21). In accord with his standard practice, he omits the source notices for the king of 20:20// 32:32. Josephus arrives at this figure for Hezekiah’s life-span by combining those given in 2 Kgs 18:2a// 2 Chr 29:1a for the king’s age at accession (25 years) and length of reign (29). This figure for the duration of Hezekiah’s reign agrees with that given in 2 Kgs 18:2a// 2 Chr 29:1a.

MT (2 Kgs 20:21b// 2 Chr 32:33bβ) ‮מנשה‬‎ (Eng.: “Manasseh”); LXX B 2 Kgs 20:21b// LXX B 2 Chr 32:33bβ Μανασσή; LXX L 2 Kgs 20:21b// LXX L 2 Chr 32:33bβ and Josephus Μανασσῆς. On Josephus’ treatment of Manasseh in 10.37-46 (// 2 Kgs 21:1-18// 2 Chr 33:1-20), see Begg 2000: 441-52 and Feldman 1998a: 416-23. MT (2 Kgs 21:1b) ‮חפצי־בה‬‎ (Eng.: “Hephzibah”); LXX B Ὁψειβά; LXX L Ἐψιβά; Josephus Ἐχίβας. 2 Chronicles 33 does not mention the name of Manasseh’s mother. Greek: πολῖτις; Josephus uses this feminine form of the royal mothers Ioade (Ant. 9.186) and Noosta (10.98) as well. 2 Kgs 21:1b does not mention the home town of Manasseh’s mother. Josephus generalizes the opening accusation of 2 Kgs 21:3aα// 2 Chr 33:3aα, according to which Manasseh rebuilt the high places Hezekiah had broken down. Josephus here intensifies the stereotyped charges of 2 Kgs 21:2a// 2 Chr 33:2a; 21:6b// 33:6b about Manasseh’s “doing evil in the sight of the Lord.” Greek: μιμοὐμενος… τὰς… παρανομίας. This construction is used in Ant. 9.282 of the Israelites who “imitate the lawlessness” of Jeroboam. In 2 Kgs 21:2b// 2 Chr 33:2b (see also 21:9// 33:9) Manasseh’s evildoing is said to be in accordance with “the abominable practices of the nations whom the Lord drove out before the people of Israel.” Josephus connects the king’s transgressions rather with those of the Israelites themselves and their fate, perhaps under the influence of 2 Kgs 21:3bα, where Manasseh’s making of an Asherah is associated with the same offense on the part of “Ahab, king of Israel.” Cf. Ant. 9.243, where Josephus affirms that Ahaz “imitated the kings of the Israelites.” Greek: μιαίνω τὸν ναόν; this construction occurs also in Ant. 11.297, 300; cf. 9.151 (object: τὸ ἱερὸν, “the sacred precinct”). With this formulation Josephus synthesizes the more expansive biblical notices about Manasseh’s building altars for the host of heaven in the temple courts (2 Kgs 21:4-5// 2 Chr 33:4-5) and setting up an Asherah/idol in the temple (21:7a// 33:7a). Josephus concludes his enumeration of Manasseh’s cultic abuses (10.37) by extending these to encompass Jerusalem and Judah as a whole. This generalization goes together with his drastic shortening of the catalogue of the king’s illicit cultic initiatives given in 2 Kgs 21:2-9// 2 Chr 33:1-9, from which Josephus eliminates many details, e.g., Manasseh’s burning his son(s) as an offering and involvement with divination (21:6a// 33:6a) and the extended quotation of the Lord’s word to David and Solomon concerning his (conditional) presence in the temple (21:7b-8// 33:7b-8).

Greek: εἰς τὸν θεὸν καταφρόνησις. Josephus supplies this characterization of Manasseh, employing a phrase used earlier by him for Nimrud (Ant. 1.113) and similar to the one employed of Saul in Ant. 6.264. For this item Josephus anticipates 2 Kgs 21:16aα (no parallel in 2 Chronicles 33), which charges Manasseh with “shedding very much innocent blood.” Neither 2 Kings 21 nor 2 Chronicles 33 mentions Manasseh’s killing the prophets in particular. Conceivably, Josephus’ statement represents a generalization of the tradition, attested, e.g., by Mart. Ascen. Isa. 5.1 (cf. Heb 11:37) that Manasseh had the prophet Isaiah sawn in half. See Begg 2000: 444, n. 21. See 2 Kgs 21:16aβ: (Manasseh shed much innocent blood) “till he had filled Jerusalem from one end to the other.”

Josephus adds this reference to God’s emotional response to Manasseh’s crimes. Josephus here seems to combine the wording of 2 Kgs 21:10a (“the Lord said by his servants the prophets”) and 2 Chr 33:10a (“the Lord spoke to Manasseh and to his people”). Josephus compresses the prophets’ elaborate judgment speech cited in 2 Kgs 21:11-15 (no parallel in 2 Chronicles 33), reducing this to an allusion to the crimes of king and people (compare 21:11, where Manasseh alone is charged with having acted more wickedly than the Amorites of old) and the announcement of a fate like that of the Israelites that awaits them (compare the figurative language of 21:13a: “I [God] will stretch over Jerusalem the measuring line of Samaria, and the plummet of the house of Ahab”). This reference to the hearers’ non-responsiveness elaborates on the statement that the people did “not listen” in 2 Kgs 21:9a// 2 Chr 33:10b. Josephus’ notice that the audience “did not believe” (Greek: οὐκ ἐπίστευον) is reminiscent of his remark in Ant. 9.265 that the Northerners were “not persuaded” (Greek: οὐκ ἐπείσθησαν) by Hezekiah’s appeals. This added remark serves to prepare Josephus’ following account of God’s punishment of the recalcitrant king and people.

This transitional phrase is a Josephan addition, highlighting the stubbornness of the hearers as further grounds for God’s punishment of them. In 2 Chr 33:11 (no parallel in 2 Kings 21, which further lacks any equivalent to the whole sequence, 2 Chr 33:11-17, reproduced by Josephus in 10.40-45, concerning Manasseh’s capture, release, and his initiatives once he returns to Jerusalem) Manasseh’s nemesis is called “the king of Assyria.” Josephus’ designation reflects both his earlier statement about the overthrow of Assyria’s power (10.30) and the problem posed by 2 Chr 33:11, where the “commanders of the king of Assyria” bring the captive Manasseh—not to the Assyrian capital Nineveh, as would be expected— but rather to Babylon. Finally, Josephus’ double title (which recurs in 10.183 of Nebuchadnezzar) seems to distinguish the “Babylonians” and “Chaldeans” as 2 distinct peoples, rather than, in line with biblical usage, as equivalent names for the same people. In 2 Chr 33:11 the Assyrian measures affect only Manasseh personally. Josephus, who earlier insisted on the refusal of the entire people to heed the prophets’ warnings, now has them also suffer punishment along with the king, in accordance with his statement (10.39) that “they learned nonetheless by reality that what the prophets said was true.” Josephus’ added reference to Manasseh’s being captured by “treachery” helps explain how the enemy was able to get him in its power, given that 2 Chr 33:11 itself does not mention a battle, but simply a “binding” of the king. Josephus elaborates on the reference to Manasseh’s being brought “to Babylon” at the end of 2 Chr 33:11 with an allusion to his captor’s intentions regarding him.

Josephus supplies these indications on the captive Manasseh’s state of mind. Greek: φιλάνθρωπος καὶ ἐλεήμων. Josephus’ 1 other use of this collocation (and of its 2nd component term) is in Ant. 8.335, where Ben-hadad’s servants characterize the kings of Israel with this phrase. Josephus spells out the content of Manasseh’s “entreating the favor of the Lord” (2 Chr 33:12) and “praying to him” (33:13aα). The extra-biblical text known as the “Prayer of Manasseh” offers a still more elaborate version of the king’s appeal. 2 Chr 33:13aβbα speaks of the Lord’s “hearing” Manasseh’s entreaty and “bringing him back again to Jerusalem into his kingdom.” Josephus specifies how Manasseh’s repatriation was accomplished, namely via his release by the Babylonian king in accord with Manasseh’s prayer that God make him “humane and merciful.”

Greek: ὧν μεταβουλεύειν; this is the reading of the Ed. pr., followed by Marcus. The codices have ὦν ἐπιβουλεύειν (“which [he hastened] to assault”), while Niese conjectures θεῷ δε δουλευείν (“[he hastened] to be a slave to God”) on the basis of Lat. Josephus elaborates on the summary notice of 2 Chr 33:13bβ: “Then Manasseh knew the Lord was God,” highlighting the king’s new-found piety. On the word “respect” (Greek: δεισιδαιμονία), see Spicq 1982: 113-6. Greek: τὸν ναὸν ἁγνίζω. This construction recurs in Ant. 12.318. Compare the negative parallel phrase “pollute the sanctuary of God” in 10.42. Josephus here anticipates and generalizes the notices of 2 Chr 33:15 about Manasseh’s removing the “foreign gods” from the city and the “idol” from the temple, along with the “altars” he had built “on the mountain of the house of the Lord and in Jerusalem.” Cf. the reference to Manasseh’s “thank offerings” in 2 Chr 33:16aβ. The reference to Manasseh’s concern to “keep God “benevolent (Greek: εὐμενής)” recalls Hezekiah’s declaration in Ant. 9.262 that by restoring the ancient religious system “we shall make God benevolent (Greek: εὐμενής).”

See 2 Chr 33:16b: “he [Manasseh] commanded Judah to serve the Lord the God of Israel.” Josephus adds the reference to the motivation behind the king’s instructing the people. Conversely, he omits 33:17, with its indication that the people only partially assimilated Manasseh’s directives in that they “still sacrificed on the high places,” albeit to the Lord alone. See 2 Chr 33:16a. Josephus adds the reference to Moses’ prescription.

Josephus adds this transitional phrase, summarizing the repentant Manasseh’s cultic initiatives. In the Chronicler’s presentation, Manasseh’s military defense measures (2 Chr 33:14) are mentioned prior to his cultic initiatives (33:15-16). Josephus accentuates the repentant king’s piety by reversing this sequence—Manasseh attends to divine matters in first place. 2 Chr 33:14a speaks of Manasseh’s building “an outer wall for the city of David.” Josephus leaves aside the biblical details concerning the placement of this new wall, while adding mention of Manasseh’s repair of the city’s existing walls. Greek: συγκομιδῇ. This word is conjecturally supplied by Niese, whom Marcus follows. Greek: καί. This word is conjecturally supplied by Niese, whom Marcus follows. Josephus’ mention of Manasseh’s lofty “towers” seems to reflect the reference in 2 Chr 33:14aβ to the king’s raising the outer wall “to a very great height.” His notice on the building and stocking of the fortresses is a free modification of 33:14b, which has Manasseh placing “commanders in all the fortified cities of Judah.”

Greek: μακαριστὸς καὶ ζηλωτός. This collocation occurs only here in Josephus. With this summary notice concerning Manasseh’s later reign, Josephus rounds off his account (10.40-45) of the king’s capture, release, and new direction that he draws from 2 Chr 33:11-17 (no parallel in 2 Kings 21). The language of the notice is reminiscent of that employed of the repentant Manasseh in 10.42, even as it reverses the reference to the king’s initial “contempt for God” of 10.38.

Josephus obtains this figure for Manasseh’s life-span by combining the data for his age at accession (12 years) and length of reign (55) given in 2 Kgs 21:1a// 2 Chr 33:1. Compare 2 Kgs 21:18aα// 2 Chr 33:20aα, which use the figurative language of Manasseh’s “sleeping with his fathers.” Josephus omits the preceding source notices of 2 Kgs 21:17// 2 Chr 33:18-19. This figure for Manasseh’s length of reign corresponds to that given in 2 Kgs 21:1aβ// 2 Chr 33: 1b. Josephus’ burial notice for Manasseh stands closest to that of LXX BL 2 Chr 33:20aβ (“they buried him in the garden of his house”). Compare 2 Kgs 21:18aβ (MT and LXX BL): “he was buried in the garden of his house, in the garden of Uzza” and 2 Chr 33:20aβ (MT): “they buried him in his house.” MT (2 Kgs 21:18b// 2 Chr 33:20b) ‮אמון‬‎ (Eng.: “Amon”); LXX B 2 Kgs 21:18b// LXX B 2 Chr 33:20b Ἀμώς; LXX L 2 Kgs 21:18b// LXX L 2 Chr 33:20b Ἀμών; Josephus Ἀμμών. On Josephus’ treatment of Amon in 10.47-48, see Begg 2000: 452-4. MT (2 Kgs 21:19b) ‮משלמת‬‎ (Eng.: “Meshullemeth”); LXX B L Μεσσολλάμ; Josephus Ἐμασέλμη (2 Chronicles 33 does not mention Amon’s mother). Josephus leaves aside the name of the woman’s father (MT: Haruz). MT (2 Kgs 21:19b) ‮יטבה‬‎ (Eng.: “Jotbah”); LXX B Ἰεσεβάλ; LXX L Ἐτεβαθά; Josephus Ἰαζαβάτη (this is the reading of R, which Niese follows; Marcus reads Ἰαταβάτη with OLauV, while Schalit s.v. adopts the form Ἰατάβη of MSP).

Josephus compresses the more expansive (negative) judgment notices concerning Amon of 2 Kgs 21:20-22// 2 Chr 33:21-22. His reference to Amon’s imitating the young Manasseh presupposes his (and the Chronicler’s) preceding account concerning the latter’s repentance, whereas both 21:20 and 33:22 parallel Amon’s evil-doing with that of his father without any such qualification. See 2 Kgs 21:23// 2 Chr 33:24. Josephus arrives at this figure for Amon’s life-span by combining the figures for his age at accession (22 years) and length of reign (2) given in 2 Kgs 21:19a// 2 Chr 33:21. This figure for Amon’s length of reign corresponds to that given in 2 Kgs 21:19aβ// 2 Chr 33:21a.

2 Kgs 21:24a// 2 Chr 33:25a speak of “the people of the land,” an expression Josephus regularly avoids. See 2 Kgs 21:26a: “he [Amon] was buried in his tomb in the garden of Uzza” (2 Chronicles 33 does not mention Amon’s burial). Like Chronicles, Josephus has no equivalent to the source notice for Amon of 2 Kgs 21:25. MT (2 Kgs 21:26b// 2 Chr 33:25b) ‮יאשיהו‬‎ (Eng.: “Josiah”); LXX BL 2 Kgs 21:26b// LXX B 2 Chr 33:25b Ἰωσείας; LXX L 2 Chr 33:25b and Josephus Ἰωσίας. On Josephus’ portrayal of Josiah in 10.48b-80—in which he oscillates between the rather different presentations of 2 Kgs 22:1-23:30a and 2 Chr 34:1-35:27—, see Begg 2000: 457-97; Feldman 1998a: 424-36; Spilsbury 1998: 195-200; and Delamarter 2004: 43-48. See 2 Kgs 22:1aα// 2 Chr 34:1a. MT (2 Kgs 22:1b) ‮ידידה‬‎ (Eng.: “Jedidah”); LXX B Ἰεδειά; LXX L Ἰεδδειά; Josephus Ἰέδις. 2 Chronicles 34 does not mention the name of Josiah’s mother, while Josephus omits the name of her father (“Adaiah” in MT 2 Kgs 22:1b). MT (2 Kgs 22:1b) ‮בצקת‬‎ (Eng.: “Bozkath”); LXX BL Βασουρώθ; Josephus Βοσκέθ.

Greek: πρὸς ἀρετὴν εὖ γεγονώς. This construction is hapax in Josephus. Greek: ζηλωτής. This word is conjecturally supplied by Dindorf and Marcus. Niese holds that there is a lacuna in the text before the name “David.” The word is often used in the War as a negative designation for the Jewish rebels; its only other occurrences in Antiquities are in 12.271; 20.47. In Apion 1.11 the term has the meaning “devotee”; see BJP 9 (Mason): 19, n. 81. Greek: σκοπὸς καὶ κανών. This collocation occurs only here in Josephus, who uses its 2nd component term a single time elsewhere, i.e. in Apion 2.174. Josephus varies the stereotyped wording of 2 Kgs 22:2// 2 Chr 34:2 concerning Josiah’s “doing what was right in the eyes of the Lord” and “walking in the ways of his father David,” without deviating “to the right or the left.”

Josephus here follows 2 Chronicles 34 against 2 Kings 22 in recounting an initial reform initiative by the boy Josiah (see 34:3-7) prior to that associated with the finding of the book in the temple in the king’s 18th regnal year (and 26th year of life); see 2 Kgs 22:3// 2 Chr 34:8. Whereas, however, the Chronicler (see 34:3a) distinguishes between Josiah’s initial turning to the Lord in his 8th regnal year (= his 16th year of life) and the practical effects of this “conversion” in his 12th regnal year (= his 20th year of life; see 34:3b), Josephus situates the entire process still earlier, i.e. when the king was a mere 12 years of age, thereby accentuating his precocious piety. Compare 2 Chr 34:3a: (in his 8th regnal year) “Josiah began to seek the God of David, his father.” Such a teaching activity by the boy Josiah is not mentioned by either biblical account. That activity is, however, reminiscent of the instructional initiatives that Josephus, following the Chronicler, attributes to King Jehoshaphat in Ant. 8.395 (// 2 Chr 17:7) and 9.2 (// 2 Chr 19:4) and to Hezekiah in 9.264 (// 2 Chr 30:1-9); see Feldman 1998a: 428-9. Throughout his presentation of Josiah, Josephus, in this going beyond the Bible itself, depicts him as one who recapitulates the good deeds of his righteous predecessors. This notice on the youthful Josiah’s comprehensive review of his predecessors’ practices has no biblical counterpart. Its highlighting of the king’s precocity does, however, recall Josephus’ introduction of a like emphasis in his portrayals of the young Kings Solomon (Ant. 8.21) and Amaziah (Ant. 9.186).

Josephus’ only other use of this collocation (Greek: σοφία καὶ ἐπίνοια) is in Ant. 6.69, where he employs it of the stratagems of the brutal King Nahash. The translation follows the more expansive text read by Niese and Marcus; the codices ROLauV have no equivalent to the words “relying on the… of the elders.” On the “Pharisaic” phrase “tradition of the elders” (Greek: τῇ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων… παραδόσει) here, see Feldman 1998a: 427-8 and S. Schwartz 1990: 181, n. 34. Cf. also its NT parallels in Mark 7:3// Matt 15:2. Greek: πόλεως; this is the reading of ROLauV, which Niese follows. Marcus reads πολιτείας (“of the constitution”) with MSP. With this summary comment concerning the influences behind Josiah’s initiatives and their efficacy, Josephus rounds off his extended elaboration of the notice of 2 Chr 34:3a regarding the 1st stirrings of the youthful Josiah’s piety.

With this phrase Josephus conflates into 1 Josiah’s 2 separate reform initiatives, the 1st covering Judah and Jerusalem, the 2nd extending to the territory of the former Northern Kingdom as related in 2 Chr 34:3b-5 and 6-7, respectively. In his use of this term (Greek: ἄλση) Josephus follows LXX’s rendition of the MT mention of the “Asherim” that Josiah eliminates first from Jerusalem and Judah (2 Chr 34:3b) and then from the former northern territory (34:7). See further the note to “trees” at Ant. 8.318. 2 Chr 34:4 (MT) speaks of Josiah’s destruction of the “altars of the Baals” and the “incense altars” in Judah and Jerusalem, while 34:7 mentions the elimination of the “altars” and “incense altars” from the former northern territory. Greek: περιυβρίζω. In Ant. 9.103 this same verb is used in connection with the handling of the body of the reprobate King Joram of Judah by the populace. Josephus’ mention of Josiah’s destruction of the illicit royal votive offerings has no direct equivalent in the catalogue of the king’s iconoclastic measures in 2 Chr 34:3b-7a. Conversely, Josephus omits from that catalogue a whole series of other items whose destruction/defilement by Josiah it records, e.g., the high places (34:3b), the graves of the idolaters and the molten images (34:4, 7), and the bones of the idolatrous priests (34:5). Such “abbreviation” is in line with Josephus’ overall handling of the Bible’s cultic particulars, especially illicit ones.

Greek: δόξα. Josephus employed this same term in 10.50, where he refers to Josiah’s urging the people to turn away from “their opinion about idols.” The same term figures in Josephus’ account of Elijah’s efforts to induce the people to abandon their “opinions” about the existence of gods other than their own; see Ant. 8.337, 343. The terminological communality serves to associate the Josephan Josiah and Elijah as (successful) advocates of a sole deity. The account of Josiah’s initial reform measures in 2 Chr 34:3-7 does not mention either the effect of these on the people or a sacrificial activity by Josiah at their conclusion, as Josephus does here. With the former addition Josephus notes the success of Josiah’s instructional initiatives as mentioned in 10.50, while also introducing a reminiscence of his notice on the efficacy of Jehoshaphat’s earlier teaching mission (see Ant. 8.395). As for the reference to the sacrifices that follow the king’s cultic “cleanup,” these have a parallel in Ant. 9.263, where, at the beginning of Hezekiah’s reign, the priests, once they have removed the offending objects from the temple, proceed to offer the “customary sacrifices” on the altar. This notice on Josiah’s judicial appointments early in his reign has no counterpart in either Kings or Chronicles. It does, however, serve to establish another parallel between him and a previous reform king, i.e. Jehoshaphat, who, like Josephus’ Josiah, follows his instruction of the people (compare Ant. 9.2 and 10.50, 53a) with the appointment of judges over them (compare 9.3 and 10.53b).

For this notice Josephus draws on, while also modifying, the reference to the monies that the Levites had collected from the “remnant of Israel, as well as Judah and Jerusalem” in 2 Chr 34:9. In his adaptation, the Levites’ role in the collection is replaced by that of Josiah himself. This modification, in turn, serves to parallel Josiah with another of Judah’s (initially) good kings, i.e. Joash, who initiated an (unsuccessful) attempt to collect a half-shekel from each person throughout the whole country for the temple’s repair; see Ant. 9.161.

This (added) transitional notice points up the success of Josiah’s solicitation (10.54), while likewise serving to (favorably) contrast him with his predecessor Joash whose similar effort (see previous note) came to nothing, given the non-cooperation of the high priest Jehoiada; see Ant. 9.162. 2 Chr 34:8 (itself inspired by the chronological indication of 2 Kgs 22:3) dates Josiah’s appointment of the commission charged with repair of the temple to the king’s 18th regnal year. MT (2 Chr 34:8) ‮מעשיהו‬‎ (Eng.: “Maaseiah”); LXX B Μαασά; LXX L Μασσίαν; Josephus Ἀμασίας. In 2 Chr 34:8 this figure is mentioned in 2nd place, after “Shaphan.” This title corresponds to that given “Maaseiah” in 2 Chr 34:8, i.e. “the governor of the city” (RSV). Josephus draws this title (RSV: “secretary”) for Shaphan from 2 Kgs 22:8// 2 Chr 34:15, etc. MT (2 Chr 34:8) ‮שפן‬‎ (Eng.: “Shaphan”); LXX BL Σαφάν; Josephus Σαφᾶς. Josephus omits the name of his father (MT: Azaliah). MT (2 Chr 34:8) ‮יואח‬‎ (Eng.: “Joah”); LXX B Ἰουάχ; LXX L Ἰωάς; Josephus Ἰωάτης. Josephus omits the name of his father (MT: Joahaz). This title corresponds to that given “Joah” in 2 Chr 34:8, i.e. “the recorder” (RSV). MT (2 Chr 34:9, etc.) ‮חלקיהו‬‎ (Eng.: “Hilkiah”); LXX B Χελκείας; LXX L Χελκίας; Josephus Ἐλιακίας. In 2 Chr 34:8-9 “Hilkiah” is not mentioned as one of the 3-man commission set up by Josiah to oversee the repair of the temple; rather, the commission goes to him. Josephus makes Hilkiah himself a member of the commission, given his status as the temple’s high priest.

This notice on the alacrity with which the commission carries out its mandate to repair the temple and the resultant manifestation of Josiah’s own piety are a compressed version of the more detailed account of the temple repair project and the many individuals and groups involved in this given in 2 Chr 34:10-13 (from which Josephus, characteristically, omits the segment, vv. 12-13, concerning the Levites’ role as supervisors of the repair work).

Josephus derives this dating indication for the incident of the finding of the book and its sequels from 2 Kgs 22:3. Cf. 2 Chr 34:8, where, in contrast to Josephus’ presentation, the finding of the book (see 34:14) takes place during the course of the repair of the temple, rather than as a later, distinct moment. See 2 Kgs 22:3, which specifies that it was his “secretary” Shaphan whom Josiah sent to Hilkiah. The instructions Josiah gives Shaphan for Hilkiah in 2 Kgs 22:4-7 concern only a distribution of funds to those involved in the temple repair work. Josephus supplies a different content to the king’s directives, given that in his presentation these are issued after the temple repair project has already been completed (see 10.56). That new content to Josiah’s instructions, in turn, seems inspired by Josephus’ account of an earlier king with whom he has already implicitly paralleled Josiah, i.e. Joash (see note to “the sanctuary” at 10.54), under whom, according to Ant. 9.165 (// 2 Chr 24:14), the monies remaining from the repair of the temple were used to make various sorts of cultic vessels—just as Josiah now commands be done with the leftover monies from his temple repair project.

Josephus draws this notice from 2 Chr 34:14b, which recounts Hilkiah’s finding “the book of the law of the Lord given through Moses” during the removal of the monies from the temple, but does not explicitly state where Hilkiah found the book. 2 Kings 22 lacks an equivalent narrative statement; in its v. 8 (// 2 Chr 34:15a) Hilkiah informs Shaphan of his having found “the book of the law in the house of the Lord.” In contrast to both biblical accounts, Josephus has Hilkiah discover “books.” Josephus supplies this transitional phrase, alluding back to his likewise added reference to the books being found “stored in the sanctuary.” In 2 Kgs 22:8// 2 Chr 34:15 Hilkiah’s giving of the book to Shaphan is preceded by the former’s announcement of his “find” to the latter. Josephus draws this reference to Shaphan’s first reading the book(s) for himself from 2 Kgs 22:8bβ (no parallel in 2 Chronicles 34). Josephus’ mention of Shaphan’s going to the king corresponds to 2 Kgs 22:9a, whereas 2 Chr 34:16a refers to his “bringing” the book to Josiah. Josephus abbreviates Shaphan’s more detailed initial report to the king with its mention of the pay given the temple workers—a matter not mentioned in the king’s instructions to Hilkiah in his version (see note to “vessels of that sort” at 10.57)—as cited in 2 Kgs 22:9b// 2 Chr 34:16b-17. In 2 Kgs 22:10// 2 Chr 34:18 Shaphan’s reading of the book to Josiah is preceded by the former’s announcement that Hilkiah had given him “a book.” Josephus’ omission of this announcement parallels his non-use of Hilkiah’s own statement about finding the book (22:8a// 34:15a); see note to “Saphas” at 10.58.

See 2 Kgs 22:11// 2 Chr 34:19. This phrase replaces the names of the remaining members of the delegation cited in 2 Kgs 22:12// 2 Chr 34:20, i.e. Ahikam, Achbor/Abdon, and Asaiah. The same phrase is used of the 3 envoys dispatched by Hezekiah to parley with the Assyrian general in 10.5. Greek: προφῆτις. Josephus uses this feminine noun twice elsewhere: Ant. 5.200 (Deborah) and 10.60 (Huldah). MT (2 Kgs 22:14// 2 Chr 34:22) ‮חלדה‬‎ (Eng.: “Huldah”); LXX Ὀλδα/ Ὅλδα; Josephus Ὀολδά. In the presentation of both 2 Kings 22 and 2 Chronicles 34, Josiah does not specify through whom he intends the delegation to “inquire of the Lord” for him (22:13// 34:21), and thus the delegation approaches Huldah in particular (22:14// 34:22) on its own initiative. Josephus has the king himself designate the one to whom the delegation is to go. MT (2 Kgs 22:14// 2 Chr 34:22) ‮שלם‬‎ (Eng.: “Shallum”); LXX Σελλήμ; Josephus Σάλλουμος. LXX B 2 Kgs 22:14 calls Huldah the mother rather than the wife of Shallum. 2 Kgs 22:14// 2 Chr 34:22 mention the names of Shallum’s father and grandfather, but do not comment on the family’s social status. They likewise cite 2 further details not taken over by Josephus, i.e. Shallum’s occupation as “keeper of the wardrobe,” and Huldah’s living in the “Second Quarter.” Josephus’ highlighting of Shallum’s societal position would help account for Josiah’s dispatching his delegation specifically to Huldah, i.e. she is the wife of a distinguished personage who shares in her husband’s status. Greek: ἱλάσκεσθαι τὸν θεόν. Josephus uses this construction also in Ant. 6.124; 8.112 and in Apion 1.308 with “gods” as object. In 2 Kgs 22:13a// 2 Chr 34:21a Josiah’s command to the delegation is that they “inquire of the Lord... concerning the words of this book that has been found.” Josephus’ Josiah gives the delegation a more definite charge, viz. to ask for Huldah’s intercession with God. Also elsewhere, Josephus introduces references to the prophet’s expected role as intercessor; see, e.g., Ant. 9.67, where King Joram is enraged against Elisha because of the latter’s failure to appeal to God on behalf of famine-racked Samaria. The phrase “make benevolent” (Greek: ποιεῖν εὐμενῆ) used by Josiah here of what he hopes Huldah will effect with God recalls Hezekiah’s affirmation that the restoration of Judah’s ancient cult will “make God benevolent” in Ant. 9.262. Josephus expatiates on the words with which Josiah motivates his dispatch of the delegation in 2 Kgs 22:13b// 2 Chr 34:21b: “for great is the wrath of the Lord that is poured out upon us, because our fathers have not kept the words of this book....” In particular, he portrays Josiah as foreseeing the exile that ultimately awaits his people.

See 2 Kgs 22:14b// 2 Chr 34:22b-23. With this opening component of her response— unparalleled in the biblical accounts—Huldah implicitly rejects Josiah’s appeal that she attempt to “propitiate God” (10.59) as pointless and underscores the irrevocability of God’s decrees. For a comparable emphasis, see 10.34, where Hezekiah acknowledges that “it was impossible to change what God had determined.” Josephus’ Huldah makes more concrete and specific the announcement of doom pronounced by her biblical counterpart in 2 Kgs 22:16, 17b// 2 Chr 34:24a, 25b: “behold, I [God] will bring evil upon this place… my [God’s] wrath will be kindled against this place, and it will not be quenched.” At the same time, he leaves aside the biblical prophetess’ identification (22:16bβ// 34:24b) of Judah’s announced doom with the words/curses of the book that had been read to Josiah. Compare the more specific (cultic) accusations Huldah levels against the people in 2 Kgs 22:17a// 2 Chr 34:25a: “because they have forsaken me [God] and have burned incense to other gods, that they might provoke me to anger with all the works of their hands.” Greek: σωφρονεῖν; Niese qualifies the word as “perhaps spurious.” This is the same verb that is used in 10.50, where Josiah is said to “have made his people prudent.” The biblical Huldah’s speech does not refer to previous prophets and their admonitions. Josephus’ added allusion to them recalls his references to the unheeded exhortations of the Israelite prophets in Ant. 9.265, 281.

This indication concerning the purpose of the coming punishment, i.e. the demonstration of God’s— and his prophets’—veracity, is a Josephan amplification of the biblical Huldah’s judgment speech (2 Kgs 22:16-17// 2 Chr 34:24-25). Its language recalls Josephus’ statement about Manasseh’s people, who themselves had failed to believe the prophets’ words, in 10.39: “They learned nonetheless by reality that what the prophets said was true.” This phrase—with its reminiscence of Josephus’ mention of Josiah’s manifesting his “justice” at age 12 in 10.50—replaces Huldah’s more expansive allusion (2 Kgs 22:18-19a// 2 Chr 34:26-27a) to Josiah’s penitential gestures upon hearing the words of the book (see 2 Kgs 22:11// 2 Chr 34:19) that prompt God to exempt him personally from the coming catastrophe. Josephus’ formulation of Huldah’s announcement concerning Josiah’s not living to see the calamity of his people avoids attributing to her the problematic statement of 2 Kgs 22:20aβ// 2 Chr 34:28aβ, namely, that the king would be “gathered to his grave in peace.” That announcement could well seem an instance of false prophecy, given the fact that Josiah died a violent (and premature) death according to 2 Kgs 23:29// 2 Chr 35:23-24.

See 2 Kgs 22:20bβ// 2 Chr 34:28bβ. In 2 Kgs 23:1// 2 Chr 34:29 it is “the elders of Judah and Jerusalem” who assemble in response to Josiah’s “sending.” Josephus derives his indication concerning those convened from 2 Chr 34:30a, where “the priests and the Levites [2 Kgs 23:2: the priests and the prophets], all the people, both great and small” accompany the king to the temple for the covenant-making ceremony.

In 2 Kgs 23:2b// 2 Chr 34:30b Josiah reads “the book of covenant” to the assembly. Compare 10.58, where Hilkiah discovers “the sacred books of Moyses.” This is the same site from which the high priest and David issue their pronouncements in Ant. 4.209 and 7.370, respectively. According to 2 Kgs 23:3aα, Josiah stands “by the pillar” in concluding the covenant, while in 2 Chr 34:31aα he stands “in his place” (the Targums refer to his standing “upon the balcony”). Josephus’ wording concerning Josiah’s initiative characteristically avoids the biblical reference (see 2 Kgs 23:3aβ// 2 Chr 34:31aβ) to the king’s “making a covenant before the Lord.” He likewise abbreviates the statement of the content of this covenant found in 23:3bα// 34:31b, eliminating, e.g., the reference to “the book” in which the terms of the covenant are set down.

Josephus goes beyond 2 Kgs 23:3bβ// 2 Chr 34:32 in highlighting the people’s willing acceptance of the king’s directives. Greek: καλλιερέω. Marcus renders “while singing the sacred hymns,” while noting the uncertainty surrounding the correct rendering of the verb (used previously in Ant. 9.268, 271, where he translates it with “sacrifice auspiciously”) here. Neither biblical account mentions such cultic activities, whereby the people act on Josiah’s demand that they “worship God” (10.63), at this juncture. The added mention of sacrifices recalls Josephus’—also added—notice on Josiah’s sacrificing following his initial reforms in 10.53. Greek: εὐμενής καὶ ἵλεως. Josephus uses this wordpair 1 other time, i.e. in Ant. 4.243, there too in reference to God. This reference to the people’s entreating divine favor recalls Josiah’s sending the delegation to ask Huldah to “propitiate God and try to make him benevolent” in 10.59. At the same time, the people’s appeal at this point seems to reflect a certain self-delusion or willed ignorance, given Huldah’s prior statement (see 10.60) that “no one could nullify God’s decrees by entreaties.”

Compare 2 Kgs 23:4a, where Josiah addresses his directive, not only to Hilkiah himself, but also to 2 classes of subordinate cultic officials. Josephus generalizes the mention of “Baal, Asherah and the host of heaven” in 23:4bα, while adding the reference to Josiah’s predecessors as the source of the illicit objects. His conditional (re-)wording of the king’s command (“if any vessel... was left over....”) reflects the fact that in his presentation—in contrast to that of 2 Kings 22-23— Josiah has already (see 10.52// 2 Chr 34:3-7) conducted a comprehensive cultic “cleanup.” Josephus omits several details concerning Josiah’s iconoclastic initiatives as cited in 2 Kgs 23:4bβγ, i.e. his burning the illicit objects “outside Jerusalem in the fields of Kidron” and carrying their ashes “to Bethel.” In MT 2 Kgs 23:5aα Josiah “deposes” the idolatrous priests, while in BL LXX (and OL) he “burns” them. MT 2 Kgs 23:5aα designates the priests in question with the rare Hebrew term ‮כמרים‬‎ (RSV: “idolatrous priests”), which LXX B transliterates and LXX L translates neutrally as “the priests.” 23:5aβb goes on to qualify these priests as ones designated by the kings of Judah to burn incense to an array of deities. Josephus appends this additional ground for Josiah’s execution of the idolatrous priests: not being of the line of Aaron, they had no right to exercise priestly functions of any sort. The phrase recalls Jeroboam’s claim that his people had no need of “the sons of Aaron” in Ant. 8.228 and Uzziah’s attempt to offer the sacrifice that was reserved to the “family of Aaron” in 9.224.

This transitional phrase replaces the extended list of further cultic initiatives undertaken by Josiah in 2 Kgs 23:4-14 (Josephus will return to this list momentarily in 10.69 in order to cite an additional item from it). In thus abbreviating Kings’ list, Josephus aligns himself with the Chronicler, who limits his account of Josiah’s post book-finding cultic purification measures to a single verse, 2 Chr 34:33. The reason for such compression by the Chronicler and Josephus is that both have already narrated a comprehensive reform by Josiah prior to the finding of the book; see 2 Chr 34:3-7// 10.52. See 2 Kgs 23:19, where Josiah “removes all the shrines of the high places that were in the cities of Samaria, which the kings of Israel had made....” Josephus here combines elements of 2 Kgs 23:15a (Jeroboam’s altar-building) and 23:16bα (Josiah’s burning of bones on the altar). The latter verse does not specify whose bones were burnt. Josephus’ clarification on the point recalls the announcement he attributes to the Judean prophet in Ant. 8.232, namely Josiah will burn on the Bethel altar “the bones of these misleaders of the people, these impostors and unbelievers.” From the sequence of 23:15-16abα, Josephus leaves aside a variety of additional details: the location of Jeroboam’s altar at Bethel, Josiah’s pulverizing of this, his burning of the Asherah (v. 15), as well as his seeing of tombs on the mount and his removal of bones from these tombs (v. 16a).

In Ant. 8.231 Josephus gives the name of this prophet as “Jadon,” whereas in 1 Kings 13 he remains nameless. With Josephus’ cross-reference here to the prediction he ascribes to the Judean prophet “Jadon” in Ant. 8.232, compare 2 Kgs 23:16bβ, where Josiah defiles the altar “according to the word of the Lord which the man of God proclaimed, who had predicted these things.” This is the reading (Greek: ἑξηκονταέν) adopted by Niese and Marcus. Curiously, however, the latter translates “361” in accordance with the reading of Lau. Josephus’ figure for the period between the Bethel confrontation under Jeroboam I and the reform of Josiah in his 18th year is somewhat higher than that calculated by modern historians, who would date the former event to ca. 920 BCE and the latter to 622 BCE for a total of just about 300 years; see Marcus ad loc. In any event, this added chronological indication takes the place of the sequence appended to the notice on Josiah’s defiling of the Bethel altar (2 Kgs 23:16) in 23:17-18, where the king asks about the tomb he sees and it is told that is that of the Judean man of God whose word he has just fulfilled (v. 17), whereupon Josiah enjoins that the man’s remains be left undisturbed, with the result that the bones of the prophet who had misled him are also left in peace (v. 18)—just as the latter had anticipated (see 1 Kgs 13:31-32). Given Josephus’ penchant for highlighting the fulfillment of prophetic announcements and given too that he does reproduce the Bethel’s prophet’s expectation from 1 Kgs 13:31-32 in Ant. 8.242, it appears surprising that he does not make use of the content of 23:17-18, which offers a dramatic instance of the realization of a prophetic words centuries after its delivery. On the other hand, however, Josephus explicitly qualifies the Bethel prophet as a “false prophet” (see Ant. 8.236), and so may not have wished to acknowledge that he did make a true prediction, as he is represented as having done in 23:18.

Josephus supplies this transition between Josiah’s initial iconoclastic measures outside Jerusalem (10.67) and his subsequent such measures (10.68-69). The account of Josiah’s measures outside of Jerusalem in 2 Kgs 23:15-20 says nothing about such Israelite escapees. Josephus’ introduction of them here enables him to avoid having Josiah’s (successful) teaching initiative that he will relate in what follows be directed to the reprobate “Chouthaioi”/ Samaritans, the inhabitants of the former Northern Kingdom since the time of Hezekiah. Greek: τὸν... θεὸν εὐσεβεῖν. This is the same phase used of the repentant Manasseh in 10.45. Josiah’s (biblically unparalleled) success as a religious instructor of the repatriated Northerners here recalls the efficacy of his previous teaching of his Judean subjects concerning the senselessness of idolatry in 10.50, 53. The king’s double success in this regard sets him in contrast to his predecessor Hezekiah, whose efforts to win over the Northerners were generally rebuffed by them; see Ant. 9.265.

This notice represents an adaptation of the reference to Josiah’s iconoclastic measures in the Samaritan cities of 2 Kgs 23:19-20a. The Josephan Josiah’s efforts at eradicating all vestiges of idolatry from the former Northern Kingdom are far more thorough-going, extending even into private homes. Josephus’ allusion to such a house-to-house search for idolatrous matter has a counterpart in Midr. Rab. Lamentations 1.53, where Josiah entrusts the search to 2 disciples of the Sages (whose efforts are, however, thwarted by the cunning of the householders). For this item, Josephus seems to make delayed (and modified) use of a portion of the earlier account of Josiah’s measures regarding the illicit cult of Jerusalem and Judah in 2 Kgs 23:4-14, namely Kgs 23:11: “And he [Josiah] removed [MT; LXX BL: burned] the horses that the kings of Judah had dedicated to the sun, at the entrance of to the house of the Lord, by the chamber of Nathan-melech the chamberlain...; and he burned the chariots [MT; LXX BL: chariot] of the sun with fire.” In Josephus’ version the reference to the “royal officials” (Greek: βασιλευομένοις, literally: “those ruled over”) might be inspired by the biblical mention of Nathan-melech the chamberlain. See further Marcus ad loc. With this formulation Josephus alludes to the many additional cultic items whose elimination from Judah and Jerusalem by Josiah 2 Kgs 23:4-14 recounts. It takes the place of the closing notice on Josiah’s return to Jerusalem (2 Kgs 23:20b), following his initiatives in the north (2 Kgs 23:15-20a).

Josephus supplies this transitional phrase, rounding off his account of Josiah’s cultic purification of both Judah/Jerusalem (10.65, 69b) and the former territory of Israel (10.66-69a), subsequent to the finding of the book. The phrase further serves to suggest the readiness of the entire land—north and south—to celebrate the pan-Israelite Passover Josephus will now describe. Greek: καὶ τήν. G. Dindorf conjectures τῆν καὶ, which yields the sense “Unleavened Bread also called Pascha,” a reading involving the identification of the 2 feasts, rather than a distinction between them as in the above translation. See Marcus ad loc. and cf. next note. See 2 Kgs 23:21 (Josiah commands the people to observe the Passover)// 2 Chr 35:1 (Josiah keeps the Passover in Jerusalem). In 2 Chr 35:17 “Passover” and “Unleavened Bread” are also spoken of as 2 distinct feasts, although in reverse order to Josephus’ mention of them here (see, however, previous note). Compare Ant. 9.271, where Josephus speaks of the Phaska being sacrificed following at the “festival of Unleavened Bread.” Josephus’ account of the Josianic Passover observance in 10.70-72 stands midway between the summary version of 2 Kgs 23:21-23 and the much more expansive ones in 2 Chr 35:1-19// 1 Esdras 1:1-20, from which he omits, e.g., most of the material featuring the activities of the Levites. This is the figure read by RO and followed by Niese. MSPLauVLat read rather 30,000, the figure cited in 2 Chr 35:7// 1 Esdras 1:7 and adopted by Marcus ad loc. Josephus’ figure for Josiah’s bovine donations corresponds to that given in 2 Chr 35:7// 1 Esdras 1:7. Like 1 Esdras, Josephus does not mention the contribution of victims made by the “princes” as cited in 2 Chr 35:8a.

This is the figure for the priests’ contribution of sheep given in 2 Chr 35:8b// 1 Esdras 1:8 (where 3 of “the chief officers of the house of God” are mentioned by name and their contribution of “300 calves” is also mentioned). With these figures for the Levitical leaders’ contributions compare those cited in 2 Chr 35:9 (5,000 lambs and kids, 500 bulls) and 1 Esdras 1:9 (5,000 sheep plus 700 calves). These 2 texts further mention 6 Levitical leaders by name.

This notice on the priests’ role replaces the more detailed description of the Passover observance given in 2 Chr 35:10-15// 1 Esdras 1:10-16, whose recurring references to the Levites’ involvement in the proceedings Josephus leaves aside. In his specific mention of “the prophet Samouel” here Josephus agrees with 2 Chr 35:17// 1 Esdras 1:20 against 2 Kgs 23, which speaks more generally of the “days of the judges who judged Israel” as the last time such a Passover had been celebrated. With this added phrase Josephus spells out the distinctiveness of Josiah’s Passover, viz. its full conformity to the requirements of law and custom.

Conceivably, Josephus found inspiration for this summary statement concerning the characteristics of Josiah’s reign in the reference to the king’s “splendor” in 1 Esdras 1:31b (Eng. 1:33). Compare the concluding evaluation of Josiah in 2 Kgs 23:25, lauding him as unequaled in his adherence to the Lord and the Law. Like 2 Chronicles 35 and 1 Esdras 1 (although cf. v. 27), Josephus has no equivalent to the editorial remarks about the Lord’s not relenting from his anger against Judah for the crimes of Manasseh of 2 Kgs 23:26-27, given that he, following the Chronicler, represents Manasseh as an ultimately repentant and forgiven king. He likewise dispenses with the source notices for Josiah of 2 Kgs 23:28// 2 Chr 35:26// 1 Esdras 1:31 (Eng. 1:33). Josephus introduces this heading to his account of Josiah’s end (for which he follows the more expansive version of 2 Chr 35:20-25—itself (largely) paralleled in 1 Esdras 1:23-30 [Eng. 1:25-32]—rather than the summary narrative of 2 Kgs 23:29-30).

MT (2 Kgs 23:29) ‮נכה‬‎ (Eng.: “Neco”)/ 2 Chr 35:20 ‮נכו‬‎ (Eng.: “Neco”); LXX Νεχαώ; Josephus Νεχαῦς (this is the reading of O [and R subsequently], which Niese follows; Marcus reads Νεχαώ with SPLat). Josiah’s Egyptian opponent is not named in 1 Esdras 1. There is an odd reference in the context of Josephus’ address to the defenders of Jerusalem (War 5.362-419) to “Neco” (Greek: Νεχαώς) as the Pharaoh, who, having invaded Palestine, threatened to take Sarah from Abram (War 5.379; compare Gen 12:10-10// Ant. 1.161-169); see Feldman 2001: 315. Josephus adds this preliminary detail. This indication concerning Neco’s destination has a counterpart in 2 Kgs 23:29 and 2 Chr 35:20 (where MT—and 1 Esdras 1:23 [Eng. 1:25]—add the further specification “at Carchemish”). According to 2 Kgs 23:29 (and LXX BL 2 Chr 35:20), Neco was marching to/against “the king of Assyria.” Josephus’ reformulation reflects the fact that in his presentation the power of Assyria has already been overthrown by the Medes during the reign of Hezekiah, with the resultant emergence of the Babylonian kingdom; see 10.30, 40. Josephus’ indication concerning the Medes and Babylonians, rather than the Assyrians, as Neco’s “target” is in accord with what is now known of the history of the time from extra-biblical sources, viz. Neco’s objective was to prop up the remnant of the Assyrian empire against the rising power of Babylon. Josephus supplies this motivation for Neco’s advance, which the biblical accounts leave without an explicit rationale.

MT (2 Kgs 23:29) ‮מגדו‬‎ (Eng.: “Megiddo”); LXX B Μαγέδω; LXX L Μαγεδδώ; Josephus Μένδη (Schalit s. v. reads Μαγιδδώ in line with the biblical name for the site). On the problem of Josephus’ site-name as read by Niese and himself, see Marcus ad loc. 2 Chr 35:20 and 1 Esdras 1:23 (Eng. 1:25; cf., however, 1:27 [Eng. 1:29]: in the plain of Megiddo) do not specify where the encounter took place. Josephus supplies this indication concerning the location of Megiddo/Mende. Josephus expatiates on the notices of 2 Kgs 23:29// 2 Chr 35:20b// 1 Esdras 1:23b (Eng. 1:25b), which have Josiah (alone) going to meet Neco, with no indication as to what lay behind his doing this. In supplying a motivation for Josiah’s move, Josephus draws on—his likewise added—mention of Neco’s projected campaign against the Medes (and Babylonians) in 10.74. 2 Chr 35:21 speaks of Neco’s “messengers.” Compare Neco’s message as cited in 2 Chr 35:21a// 1 Esdras 1:24b-25a (Eng. 1:26b-27a; no parallel in 2 Kings 23): “What have we to do with each other, king of Judah? I am not coming against you this day, but against the house with which I am at war.” Josephus’ reference to the Euphrates as Neco’s destination has a counterpart in the wording of the king’s message in 1 Esdras 1:25a (Eng. 1:27a), where this replaces the Chronicler’s above indication concerning the Egyptian’s “target.” Josephus’ formulation of the warning with which Neco’s message concludes eliminates the double invocation of “God” in 2 Chr 35:21b: “and God has commanded me to make haste. Cease opposing God who is with me, lest he destroy you.” (no parallel in 2 Kings 23; in 1 Esdras 1:25b [Eng. 1:27b] Neco’s closing warning is expanded and the Deity is designated as “the Lord”). Josephus may have thought it inappropriate (or implausible) that a pagan king should make such claims about his having the (true) Deity’s backing.

Josephus’ notice on Josiah’s initial response to Neco’s warning seems to reflect the expanded version of the Chronicler’s statement (“nevertheless Josiah would not turn back,” 2 Chr 35:22a) found in 1 Esdras 1:26a (Eng. 1:28a): “but Josiah did not turn back to his chariot, but tried to fight with him [Neco].” Greek: τῆς πεπρωμένης. The codices add the word ἀλαζονείας to this nominalized participle of the verb πόρω, this yielding the reading—rejected by Niese, Marcus, etc.—“destined boastfulness.” In attributing Josiah’s ill-advised move to the influence of “destiny” here, Josephus diverges from both 2 Chr 35:22 (where Josiah’s disastrous initiative is due to his failure to heed “the words of Neco from the mouth of God”) and 1 Esdras 1:26b (Eng. 1:28b) (where his demise is ascribed to his not attending to “the words of the prophet Jeremiah from the mouth of the Lord”). On the other hand, Josephus’ formulation is quite reminiscent of Ant. 8.409, where he associates Ahab’s calamitous decision to put his trust in Zedekiah’s promise of victory to the operation of “fate” (Greek: τὸ χρεών). By contrast, in Ant. 9.199 he represents God himself as inciting the Judean King Amaziah to foolishly provoke Joash of Israel.

Josephus supplies these details concerning Josiah’s preparations for battle. Like 1 Esdras 1:27 (Eng. 1:29), he lacks a parallel to the Chronicler’s mention (see 2 Chr 35:22a) of Josiah’s “disguising himself” prior to the battle—a move that might suggest cowardice on Josiah’s part. Josephus’ mention of Josiah’s being “shot” during the battle corresponds to 2 Chr 35:23a (“the archers shot King Josiah”). Compare 2 Kgs 23:29b (“Pharaoh Neco slew him [Josiah] at Megiddo, when he saw him”) and 1 Esdras 1:27b (Eng. 1:29b) (“and the commanders came against King Josiah”). Josephus appends the reference to the effect of the shooting upon Josiah’s fighting spirit. Compare 2 Chr 35:23b// 1 Esdras 1:28a (Eng. 1:30a), where Josiah commands his servants to “take him away,” on account of his being “badly wounded”/ “very weak.” Josephus represents the suffering king as concerned not only, or in the first place, with his personal condition, but rather with the safety of his troops. In this, the Josephan Josiah recalls the historian’s portrayal (Ant. 8.415) of Ahab, who, even though he is “in pain,” stands in his chariot until sunset. Josephus leaves aside the various details of Josiah’s “return” as given in one or other of the 3 source texts 2 Kgs 23:30aα// 2 Chr 35:24a// 1 Esdras 1:28b-29a (Eng. 1:30b-31a), i.e. his removal from the line of battle, transfer to a 2nd chariot, death in Megiddo, and his being brought by his servants to Jerusalem. In having Josiah die in Jerusalem itself, Josephus agrees with 2 Chr 35:24aβ// 1 Esdras 1:29bα (Eng. 1:31bα), against 2 Kgs 23:29bβ-30aα, where Josiah is killed at Megiddo, whence his corpse is brought to Jerusalem by his servants. 2 Chr 35:24aβ// 1 Esdras 1:29bβ (Eng. 1:31bβ) have Josiah buried “in the tombs of his fathers,” 2 Kgs 23:30aβ rather “in his own tomb.” Josephus adds the reference to the magnificence of Josiah’s burial. Josephus obtains this figure for Josiah’s life-span by combining the data of 2 Kgs 22:1a// 2 Chr 34:1, namely his accession at age 8 and 31 years of reign. This figure for Josiah’s length of reign corresponds to that given in 2 Kgs 22:1a// 2 Chr 34:1b.

2 Chr 35:24bβ ascribes the mourning for Josiah to “all Judah and Jerusalem,” 1 Esdras 1:30a (Eng. 1:32a) to “all Judea.” 2 Kings 23 does not mention such mourning for the dead king. MT (2 Chr 35:25) ‮ירמיהו‬‎ (Eng.: “Jeremiah”); LXX BL 2 Chr 35:25// 1 Esdras 1:30 (Eng. 1:32) Ἰερεμίας; Josephus Ἱερεμίας. Josephus’ use of the title “prophet” for Jeremiah here is paralleled in 1 Esdras 1:30. Greek: μέλος θρηνητικόν. The 2nd term of this phrase is bracketed by Niese, but not by Marcus. Josephus compresses the notices of 2 Chr 35:25aβb// 1 Esdras 1:30b (Eng. 1:32b) concerning the ongoing practice of lamentation for Josiah. Like the latter text, he lacks an equivalent to the Chronicler’s mention of the laments for Josiah being “written in the Laments” (the Book of Lamentations?).

Josephus now takes the occasion offered him by the mention of Jeremiah in 2 Chr 35:25// 1 Esdras 1:30 (Eng. 1:32) to append a segment of his own composition (10.79-80), in which he supplies an initial characterization both of this prophet and his contemporary Ezekiel whose content he draws from their respective books. Josephus use of the plural “writings” here likely has in view the Book of Jeremiah and that of Lamentations (which LXX Lam 1:1 and b. Bat. 15a attribute to the prophet explicitly). With this phrase Josephus represents Jeremiah as having also announced the recent capture of Jerusalem by the Romans. On the phrase, see Marcus (ad loc.), who argues that it is original with Josephus himself. Josephus here refers to the predictions of the ultimate overthrow of Babylon itself found in Jeremiah 50-51 (MT). MT (Ezek 1:3) ‮יחזקאל‬‎ (Eng.: “Ezekiel”); LXX Ἰεζεκιηλ; Josephus Ἰεζεκίηλος. On this enigmatic reference to Ezekiel’s “2 books,” see Marcus (ad loc.) who suggests that it refers to the 2 distinct halves of the Book of Ezekiel, i.e. the words of judgment in chaps. 1-24 and the announcements of salvation in chaps. 25-48. In any case, Josephus’ ascription of “2 books” to Ezekiel reinforces the parallelism between him and Jeremiah who is credited with leaving behind “writings” earlier in 10.79, and which he is concerned to accentuate throughout his presentation of the pair. This reference to Ezekiel’s being the “first” to write the predictions about Jerusalem’s fall is problematic in that it seems not to accord with the chronologies of the ministries of Jeremiah and Ezekiel as found in their respective books and in Josephus’ own subsequent presentation; see further Begg 2000: 492, n. 254. In any case, Josephus will return to the topic of the 2 prophets’ common message of doom in 10.106-107.

On Jeremiah’s priestly lineage, see Jer 1:2; on that of Ezekiel, see Ezek 1:3. Josephus derives this chronology for the duration of Jeremiah’s ministry from Jer 1:3 (which, however, lacks the specification that Jeremiah was living in Jerusalem throughout this period). He adds the reference to the destruction also of the “sanctuary,” just as he will supply allusions to that structure’s coming fate throughout his account of Judah’s last years. With this notice Josephus rounds off the “prophetic interlude” of 10.79-80 and looks ahead to his subsequent utilization of selected portions of the Book of Jeremiah in 10.89-180.

This formula resumes the main story line from 10.77-78 after the “prophetic interlude” of 10.79-80. MT (2 Kgs 23:30b// 2 Chr 36:1) ‮יהואחז‬‎ (Eng.: “Jehoahaz”); LXX BL 2 Kgs 23:30b// 2 Chr 36:1 Ἰωαχάζ; 1 Esdras 1:32 (Eng. 1:34) Ἰεχονίας; Josephus Ἰώαζος (this is the reading of RO, which Niese and Schalit s.v. follow; Marcus ad loc. reads Ἰωάχαζος with LauVE). This figure for Jehoahaz’ age at accession corresponds to that given in 2 Kgs 23:31aα// 2 Chr 36:2a// 1 Esdras 1:32 (Eng. 1:34). 2 Kgs 23:30b// 2 Chr 36:1 attribute Jehoahaz’ accession to an initiative by “the people of the land” (1 Esdras 1:32 [Eng. 1:34]: the men of the nation). This figure for Jehoahaz’ length of reign corresponds to that given in 2 Kgs 23:31aβ// 2 Chr 36:2b/ / 1 Esdras 1:33a (Eng. 1:35a). MT (2 Kgs 23:31b) ‮חמוטל‬‎ (Eng.: “Hamutal”); LXX B 2 Kgs 23:31b Ἁμειταί; LXX L 2 Kgs 23:31b / / LXX L 2 Chr 36:2a Ἀμιτάλ; LXX B 2 Chr 36:2α Ἀβειτάλ; Josephus Ἀμιτάλη (he leaves aside the name of her father, i.e. “Jeremiah,” MT 2 Kgs 23:31b). Neither MT 2 Chronicles 36 nor 1 Esdras 1 mentions the name of Jehoahaz’ mother. MT (2 Kgs 23:31b) ‮לבנה‬‎ (Eng. “Libnah”); LXX B 2 Kgs 23:31b Λημνά; LXX L 2 Kgs 23:31b// LXX L 2 Chr 36:2 Λοβεννά; LXX B 2 Chr 36:2 Λοβενά; Josephus Τομάνη (this is the reading of RO, which Niese follows; Marcus and Schalit s.v. adopt the conjecture of J. Hudson, i.e. Λοβάνη). Greek: ἀσεβῆς καὶ μιαρός. Josephus’ only other use of this collocation is in Ant. 13.316, where it appears in a confession by Aristobulus concerning his offenses. This characterization of Jehoahaz replaces the stereotyped phrase of 2 Kgs 23:32// LXX BL 2 Chr 36:2b: “he did what was evil in the sight of the Lord, according to all that his fathers had done.” Neither MT 2 Chronicles 36 nor 1 Esdras 1 offers an assessment of the short-reigned Jehoahaz.

In 2 Kgs 23:33a (and LXX BL 2 Chr 36:2c) “Hamath” is a region, within which is located the city of “Riblah,” where Neco seizes Jehoahaz. Josephus makes “Amatha” itself a city (located in Syria), just as he did earlier in Ant. 9.206 (where the site is called “Amath”). Josephus’ account of Jehoahaz’ deposition here follows the version given in 2 Kgs 23:33a// LXX BL 2 Chr 36:2c (Neco binds Jehoahaz “at Riblah in the land of Hamath,” thereby ending his reign in Jerusalem) as opposed to MT 2 Chr 36:3a (the Egyptian king deposes Jehoahaz in Jerusalem) and 1 Esdras 1:33b (Eng. 1:35b) (the Egyptian king deposes Jehoahaz “from reigning in Jerusalem”). At the same time, Josephus also makes several additions to (Pharaoh’s return from battle, i.e. against the Medes and Babylonians [see 10.74]) and his summoning of Jehoahaz) and modifications of (the confrontation occurs at the “city” of “Amatha” in Syria; see previous note) the Kings text. Josephus’ derives his specification that Eliakim/ Jehoiakim was the “older” brother of his predecessor Jehoahaz from the notations given in 2 Kgs 23:31, etc. (Jehoahaz began his 3-month reign at age 23) and 23:36, etc. (Jehoiakim succeeded Jehoahaz when he [Jehoiakim] was 25 years old). In assigning the “same mother” to Eliakim/ Jehoiakim and Jehoahaz, i.e. “Amitale” (see 10.81), Josephus follows LXX L 2 Kgs 23:31, 36// LXX L 2 Chr 36:2, 5. (See, however, 10.83, where, contradicting his statement here in 10.82, Josephus assigns Jehoiakim a different mother than the one he mentions for Jehoahaz in 10.81.) By contrast, MT and B 2 Kgs 23:31, 36 (as well as B 2 Chr 36:2, 5) assign the 2 kings different mothers, i.e. “Hamutal” (2 Kgs 23:31, MT) and “Zebidah” (2 Kgs 23:36, MT), respectively. MT 2 Chronicles 36 and 1 Esdras 1 do not refer to Eliakim/ Jehoiakim’s mother. MT (2 Kgs 23:34a// 2 Chr 36:4) ‮אליקים‬‎ (Eng.: “Eliakim”); LXX BL Ἐλιακείμ; Josephus Ἐλιάκειμος. 1 Esdras 1 does not mention Jehoiakim’s earlier name. MT (2 Kgs 23:34a// 2 Chr 36:4) ‮יהויקים‬‎ (Eng. “Jehoiakim”); LXX BL 2 Kgs 23:34a// 2 Chr 36:4a Ἰωακείμ; 1 Esdras 1:35 (Eng. 1:37) Ἰωακιμ; Josephus Ἰωάκειμος. In 2 Kgs 23:33b// 2 Chr 36:3b// 1 Esdras 1:34 (Eng. 1:36). Pharaoh’s imposition of tribute is mentioned prior to, rather than after, his appointment of Eliakim/Jehoiakim.

See 2 Kgs 23:35a; Josephus omits the further biblical detail (23:35b) about Jehoiakim’s taxing the “people of the land” to obtain the required payment. Neither MT 2 Chronicles 36 nor 1 Esdras 1 mentions Jehoiakim’s actual payment of the required tribute; the latter text speaks rather (see 1:36 [Eng. 1:38]) of other initiatives by the new king, i.e. his imprisoning the “nobles” and bringing up his brother “Zarius” from Egypt after “seizing” him. See 2 Kgs 23:34b// 2 Chr 36:4b (where MT— but not LXX BL—lacks mention of Jehoahaz’ dying in Egypt). 1 Esdras 1 does not mention Jehoahaz’ deportation to and death in Egypt. In 2 Kgs 23:31aβ// 2 Chr 36:2b// 1 Esdras 1:33a (Eng. 1:35) Jehoahaz is assigned a 3-month reign, just as he is earlier by Josephus himself (see 10.81). Marcus (ad loc.) suggests that Josephus at this juncture confuses Jehoahaz with his nephew Jehoiachin, who according to 2 Chr 36:9, did reign for 3 months and 10 days. MT (2 Kgs 23:36b) ‮זבידה‬‎ (Eng.: “Zebidah”); LXX B 2 Kgs 23:36b Ἰελλά; LXX L 2 Kgs 23:36b// 2 Chr 36:5 Ἀμιτάλ; LXX B 2 Chr 36:5 Ζεχορά; Josephus Ζαβουδᾶ (MT 2 Chronicles 36 and 1 Esdras 1 do not mention Jehoiakim’s mother). Josephus leaves aside the name of her father, i.e. “Pedaiah,” MT 2 Kgs 23:36b. The indication Josephus gives here in 10.83 concerning the identity of Jehoiakim’s mother conflicts with his previous statements on the matter, in which, after citing the mother of Jehoahaz as “Amitale” (10.81), he goes on to affirm (10.82) that Jehoahaz and Jehoiakim had the same mothers; see the note to “as he” at 10.82. MT (2 Kgs 23:36b) ‮רומה‬‎ (Eng.: “Rumah”); LXX B 2 Kgs 23:36b Κρουμά; LXX L 2 Kgs 23:36b// LXX 2 Chr 36:5 Λοβεννά; LXX B 2 Chr 36:5 Ῥαμά; Josephus Ἀβουμᾶ. Greek: ἄδικος καὶ κακοῦργος. Josephus’ only other use of this collocation is in Life 290, where he applies it to his opponent Ananias. Greek: μήτε πρὸς θεὸν ὅσιος μήτε πρὸς ἀνθρώπους ἐπιεικής. This precise collocation occurs only here in Josephus. It has, however, a positive counterpart in Josephus’ epithet for King Jotham of Judah, whom he calls “pious towards God and just with humans” in Ant. 9.236.2 Kgs 23:37// 2 Chr 36:5b// 1 Esdras 1:37b (Eng. 1:39b) charge Jehoiakim with “doing what was evil in the sight of the Lord” (2 Kgs 23:37 and LXX BL 2 Chr 36:5b add “according to all that his fathers had done”). On Josephus’ treatment of Jehoiakim, see Begg 2000: 503-23; Delamarter 1998: 190-204.

Josephus here introduces an interlude, unparalleled in the Bible’s historical books, concerning Nebuchadnezzar’s victory over Neco at Carchemish and its immediate sequels (10.84-86), inspired by Jer 46:2 (MT; LXX 26:2), which dates that victory “in the 4th year of Jehoiakim....” MT (2 Kgs 24:1// 2 Chr 36:6) ‮נבוכדנאסר‬‎ (Eng.: “Nebuchadnezzar”); LXX BL 2 Kgs 24:1// 2 Chr 36:6 // 1 Esdras 1:38 (Eng. 1:40) Ναβουχοδονοσόρ; Josephus Ναβουχοδονόσορος. Josephus adds this preliminary detail concerning Nebuchadnezzar’s accession to his subsequent mention, drawn from Jer 46:2 (MT; LXX 26:2), of the Babylonian’s advance against Neco. Historically, Nebuchadnezzar’s succeeding his father Nabopolassar as king of Babylon followed his victory over the Egyptians at Carchemish; both events occurred in the summer of 605 BCE. MT (Jer 46:2) ‮כרכמש‬‎ (Eng.: “Carchemish”); LXX (Jer 26:2) Χαρχαμις; Josephus Καρχαμισσά. The city was situated in today’s northern Syria. See Jer 46:2 (MT; LXX 26:2), from which Josephus draws the dating indication with which 10.84 opens. He appends the reference to Neco’s being the master of “all Syria” at the moment Nebuchadnezzar moves against him.

With these notices concerning Neco’s response to Nebuchadnezzar’s advance, Josephus elaborates on the allusion to the presence of the Egyptian army at Carchemish on the Euphrates in Jer 46:2 (MT; LXX 26:2).

Josephus expatiates on the mention of Neco’s “defeat” in Jer 46:2 (MT; LXX 26:2) in light of the poem describing the Egyptian rout in 46:3-12 (MT; LXX 26:3-12). In Ant. 10.220 Josephus quotes a passage from Berosus that apparently alludes to the battle of Carchemish as well. There, however, “Carchemish” is not mentioned by name and the opponent whom Nebuchadnezzar defeats is an anonymous “satrap” of Egypt, Coele-Syria and Phoenicia who had revolted against the Babylonians. Josephus adds this notice on the extent of the territory occupied by Nebuchadnezzar following his victory; the mention of Judah’s exemption serves to prepare his subsequent account of the interaction between the Babylonian and Judah’s king Jehoiakim. On “Pelusion,” see 10.17-19.

2 Kgs 24:1a [“in his [Jehoiakim’s days”) provides only the vaguest of datings for Nebuchadnezzar’s “coming up” and Jehoiakim’s resultant submission to him. Josephus seems to have calculated his more precise dating of these events on the basis of the chronological indications he found elsewhere in 2 Kings 23-24, i.e. Jehoiakim reigned a total of 11 years (2 Kgs 23:36a) and remained subservient to Nebuchadnezzar for 3 years, after which he revolted against him (24:1b). Assuming that the 3 years of Jehoiakim’s subservience were the last of his 11-year reign, Josephus here dates the approach of Nebuchadnezzar, which resulted in Jehoiakim’s initial submission to him, to the latter’s 8th year, this in turn, being Nebuchadnezzar’s own 4th regnal year, given Josephus’ earlier statement (10.84) that the Babylonian began to rule (and launched his campaign against Neco) in Jehoiakim’s 4th year of reign, i.e. 4 years before his advance against the Judean king (10.87). Josephus elaborates on the summary mention of Jehoiakim’s 3-year submission to Nebuchadnezzar in 2 Kgs 24:1a, highlighting, e.g., the latter’s overwhelming display of force and the fear this prompted in the former.

Josephus expatiates on the notice concerning Jehoiakim’s “rebelling against” Nebuchadnezzar after 3 years of subservience in 2 Kgs 24:1b with mention of the Judean’s hearing of the Egyptian move and his non-payment of his earlier tribute. Josephus could have found inspiration for this notice that he appends to his preceding rendition of 2 Kgs 24:1 in the statement of 2 Kgs 24:7 that “the king of Egypt did not come again out of his land,” this being due to Nebuchadnezzar’s having despoiled all his possessions from “the Brook of Egypt to the river Euphrates.”

The predictions that Josephus attributes to Jeremiah here pick up on his own foregoing description of Judah’s situation following Jehoiakim’s revolt in 10.88. They take the place of the announcements made by Jeremiah in the context of his “Temple Sermon” (Jeremiah 26, MT [LXX 33]) at the beginning of Jehoiakim’s reign (v. 1), viz. “I [God] will make this house like Shiloh, and I will make this city a curse for all the nations of the earth.” On Josephus’ back-to-back reproduction of Jeremiah 26 (MT, LXX 33) and 36 (MT, LXX 43) in 10.89-95, see Begg 2000: 508-18; on his (sympathetic) treatment of Jeremiah as a scriptural precedent for his own stance during the siege of Jerusalem, see Wolff 1976: 10-15; Daube 1980; Johnson 1983. On Josephus’ use of a MT-like, more expansive text of the Book of Jeremiah as opposed to the shorter form represented by LXX, see Piovanelli 1992: 11-36.

Josephus supplies this heading to his account of the “trial” of Jeremiah that follows the prophet’s “Temple Sermon” (Jer 26 [LXX 33]:1-6) in Jer 26 (LXX 33):7-24; the notice has in view the whole course of the interaction between Jeremiah and his audience, explaining this as something that was determined in advance, given that the whole people was already doomed to succumb to the dangers facing them, as Huldah announced in 10.60. Jer 26:7-8 identifies “the priests and the prophets and all the people” as those who take action against Jeremiah on this occasion. Josephus adds this reference to the emotional state of Jeremiah’s accusers. In Jer 26:9 the accusation made against Jeremiah takes the form of a repetition of the prophet’s own words concerning the temple and the city in 26:6, words reformulated by the Josephan Jeremiah in 10.89. Josephus’ own version of the accusation picks up the announcement he there attributes to Jeremiah, i.e. that the rebellious Jehoiakim would be subjugated by Nebuchadnezzar, with the accusers’ construing this prediction as a “using divination” (Greek: οἰωνίζομαι; the verb, hapax in Josephus, is employed of the augurer Calchas in Il. 1.69; see Begg [2000: 511, n. 65]) against the king. Compare Jer 26:11, where the priests and the prophets demand the death penalty for Jeremiah from “the princes and all the people,” given his previous words against the city. Josephus passes over the earlier statement “you shall die” addressed by the priests, prophets, and people to Jeremiah in 26:8, which seems to anticipate the verdict of the following trial.

In making the “elders” the sole group to back Jeremiah, Josephus simplifies the account given in Jer 26:10-19, where it is “the princes” (introduced already in v. 10), who (joined at this point by the people, v. 16) first speak on Jeremiah’s behalf, being thereafter seconded by “certain of the elders” (v. 17). Josephus’ elimination of the princes’ “pro-Jeremiah” role in the proceedings may have in view their subsequent hostility towards the prophet. In any case, their elimination also leads to Josephus’ non-use of the speech of self-defense that Jeremiah addresses to princes and people in vv. 12-15. Josephus adds this positive characterization of the elders (and their subsequent intervention). These statements about the elders’ authoritative disposition of Jeremiah’s case go beyond the words attributed to them in Jer 26:18-19, which end up with them simply averring: “But we are about to bring great evil upon ourselves.”

Josephus introduces the elders’ words, which in Jer 26:18 begin immediately with an invocation of Micah’s prophecy, by having them make this explicit connection between the messages of the 2 prophets. The formulation here recalls Josephus’ earlier comment in 10.80 that Jeremiah was not alone in predicting calamities for Jerusalem, but was seconded therein by Ezekiel. MT (Jer 26:18) ‮מיכיה‬‎ (Eng.: “Micah”); LXX (33:18) and Josephus Μιχαίας. This is Josephus’ only mention of the classical prophet Micah. He leaves aside the Bible’s qualification of him as “the Moreshite.” In Jer 26:18 the elders date Micah’s activity more specifically to “the days of Hezekiah, king of Judah.” Josephus leaves aside the actual wording of Micah’s announcement, which the elders in Jer 26:18 cite from Mic 3:12 (“Zion shall be plowed as a field; Jerusalem shall become a heap of ruins, and the mountain of the house a wooded height”), limiting himself to a very general allusion to its content. This statement replaces the elders’ rhetorical question of Jer 26:19aα: “Did Hezekiah king of Judah and all Judah put him [Micah] to death?” As earlier in 10.92 (see note to “before him” there) Josephus omits the name Hezekiah—perhaps because in the biblical historical books, whose presentation of that king he previously followed, nothing is said of an interaction between Micah and Hezekiah. Once again (see previous note), Josephus transposes a biblical rhetorical question (“did he [Hezekiah] not fear the Lord and entreat the favor of the Lord?,” Jer 26:19aβ) into a general, positive statement. He leaves aside the elders’ additional rhetorical question of 26:19bα, i.e. “did not the Lord repent of the evil which he had pronounced against them?” This omission is likely prompted by the question’s reference to a divine change of mind—something which Josephus elsewhere asserts to be impossible; see, e.g., 10, 34, 60. He omits as well the elders’ (seemingly inconclusive) final statement of 26:19bβ: “but we are about to bring great evil upon ourselves,” having previously mentioned their authoritative resolution of Jeremiah’s case; see 10.91.

This notice, with its explicit statement that Jeremiah was indeed acquitted, recalls Josephus’ initial presentation of the elders and their initiative in 10.91. It takes the place of the complex of notices (26:20-24) appended to the account of Jeremiah’s trial in Jeremiah 26 itself, i.e. the extradition and execution of Jeremiah’s colleague Uriah (vv. 20-23) and the protection given Jeremiah by a certain Ahikam (v. 24). With this phrase, Josephus makes the transition to a 2nd episode drawn from the Book of Jeremiah, i.e. Jeremiah 36 (LXX 43), that he combines with that of chap. 26 (LXX 33) in 10.89-95. His reason for thus combining these 2 passages, which in the Book of Jeremiah itself are separated by 10 chapters, is that both focus on the varying receptions accorded Jeremiah and his word by the hearers. In having Jeremiah, on his own initiative, both write down his words and read these to the assembled people, Josephus greatly simplifies the complicated scenario laid out in Jeremiah 36 (MT, LXX 43), where the Lord commands Jeremiah to write down his previous words (v. 2), whereupon the latter dictates these to Baruch (v. 4) and dispatches him to read these in the temple (vv. 5-7), as Baruch proceeds to do (vv. 8-10). In MT Jer 36:9 Baruch’s reading occurs in the 9th month of the 5th (LXX: 8th) year of Jehoiakim’s reign on the occasion of a national “fast.” Josephus disregards the chapter’s initial, conflicting (?) dating indication, i.e. “in the 4th year of Jehoiakim” (36:1). His (inattentive) reproduction of the year-date of 36:9 involves him in a seeming chronological anomaly: in what precedes he has already recounted events of Jehoiakim’s 8th year and of his revolt 3 years after this (10.87-8). Moreover, in 10.89, at the opening of his “Jeremiah segment” (10.89-95), Josephus has the prophet addressing that ill-advised revolt in what is implicitly Jehoiakim’s 11th (and final) year, such that one is surprised here in 10.93 to hear of Jeremiah’s activities at a much earlier point, i.e. Jehoiakim’s 5th year. Compare the indication concerning the content of the book that Jeremiah is divinely instructed to write down in Jer 36:2, i.e. “all the words that I [God] have spoken to you against Israel and Judah from the days of Josiah until today.” Here, as in 10.80, Josephus singles out the temple and its fate as a particular focus of Jeremiah’s message.

Josephus continues to abridge the presentation of Jeremiah 36, where (vv. 11-18) there is an extended sequence in which various named princes command Baruch, following his public reading of Jeremiah’s book, to bring this with him to the place where they are assembled; once he does this, they have him read it to them and ask him questions about it. In Josephus’ version, this Baruch-centered account disappears, given that he has previously depicted Jeremiah both writing and publicly reading his own book. MT (Jer 36:19) ‮ברוך‬‎ (Eng.: “Baruch”); LXX (43:19) Βαρουχ; Josephus Βαροῦχος. Jer 36:19 itself does not use the scribe title for Baruch; Josephus anticipates the designation from Jer 36:26, 32 (MT, absent in LXX). In Jer 36:19 the princes tell Baruch that he and Jeremiah are to conceal themselves. Josephus has the order given directly also to Jeremiah, the protagonist in what precedes. In having the leaders as a group take the book directly to the king, Josephus once more simplifies the presentation of Jeremiah 36, where, leaving the book in the room of one of their number, they inform Jehoiakim of its contents (v. 20), whereupon the king sends one of his officials to fetch it (v. 21a). In Jer 36:21b a certain “Jehudi” reads the book to the king, beside whom “all the princes” are standing. Josephus omits the additional details of 36:22 about the time and place of the reading: in the 9th month (see 36:9) with the king in his winter house, where a fire is burning before him.

Josephus supplies this reference to the king’s emotional response—which recalls that of the audience to Jeremiah’s speech in 10.90—to the reading of the book. See Jer 36:23. Josephus omits the additional biblical details about the king’s using a pen-knife to successively dismember the book following the reading of 3 or 4 columns. As previously, he does not mention the “brazier” in which the fire is burning. He further passes over the notices of 36:24 and 25 concerning, respectively, the failure of the words of the book to affect the king and his servants in any way, and the unavailing efforts of 2 courtiers to keep the king from destroying the book. In Jer 36:26a, 2 named officials are commanded by Jehoiakim to arrest Jeremiah and Baruch (Josephus agrees with MT in designating the latter as “the scribe,” a designation absent in LXX). Josephus appends the notice on the intended purpose of the pair’s arrest. Josephus’ formulation of this notice stands closer to LXX Jer 43:26b (“and they [Jeremiah and Baruch] were hidden”) than to MT Jer 36:26b (“but the Lord heard them”). The reference to Jehoiakim’s “wrath” recalls the mention of the king’s “becoming wrathful” upon his hearing the reading of the book at the start of 10.95. Josephus ends his version of Jeremiah 36 at this point, leaving aside the chapter’s closing notices on the remaking of the destroyed book at the Lord’s command (36:27-28, 32) together with the intervening divine word of doom for Jehoiakim (36:29-31— which, however, he will implicitly draw on in recounting the king’s fate in 10.97).

With this phrase Josephus makes the transition from his “Jeremiah interlude” (10.89-95), based on Jeremiah 26 and 36, to his account of Jehoiakim’s end, drawn, with modifications, from the historical books. None of the biblical accounts that cite Nebuchadnezzar’s move against Jehoiakim, i.e. 2 Chr 36:6a; 1 Esdras 1:38a (Eng. 1:40a); Dan 1:1 (in 2 Kgs 24:2-4 it is the Lord himself who dispatches raiding bands against Judah in punishment for the inexpiable sins of Manasseh) mentions such an initial voluntary surrender by Jehoiakim to the invader. That surrender is, however, paralleled in the initiative taken shortly afterwards by Jehoiakim’s son Jehoiachin in the face of the ongoing Babylonian siege according to 2 Kgs 24:12; it likewise serves to account for Josephus’ own subsequent presentation, in which Nebuchadnezzar will be in a position to have Jehoiakim executed (see 10.97)— something likewise not reported in the biblical narratives. Josephus further supplies several motivations for Jehoiakim’s anticipation of his successor’s move, i.e. the fear evoked by Jeremiah’s predictions (see 10.89) and his (deluded) confidence that he will be left unpunished.

Nebuchadnezzar’s disregard of his pledges here is reminiscent of Sennacherib’s similar violation of his promises to Hezekiah in 10.4. In neither case is there a biblical basis for Josephus’ charge against the foreign overlord. Compare BL 2 Chr 36:6b; 1 Esdras 1:38 (Eng. 1:40); and Dan 1:2, where Nebuchadnezzar transports the captive Jehoiakim to Babylon (in MT 2 Chr 36:6b he makes preparations to do this, while in 2 Kgs 24:6a Jehoiakim dies during the siege). None of these accounts mentions a killing of the city’s inhabitants (Josephus’ designation of these other victims as physically outstanding might be inspired by Dan 1:3, where Nebuchadnezzar commands that the best-looking among the exiled Israelite elite be prepared for service at his court) at this juncture. The reference to Jehoiakim’s being killed at Nebuchadnezzar’s command serves to prepare the additional order the Babylonian will give concerning the former’s corpse, this fulfilling the prophecy cited in Jer 36:30. None of the biblical narratives recounts such a treatment of Jehoiakim’s corpse (in LXX L 2 Kgs 24:6 and LXX BL 2 Chr 36:8 Jehoiakim is “buried with his fathers in the garden of Oza [LXX B 2 Chr 36:8 ἐν Γανοζα]).” The notice does, however, represent a fulfillment of the prediction—not previously reproduced by Josephus (see note to “they, however, escaped his wrath” at 10.95)—of Jer 36:30b, concerning the king (“his dead body shall be cast out to the heat by day and the frost by night”), as also of the related announcement of Jer 22:19: “with the burial of an ass he [Jehoiakim] shall be buried, dragged and cast forth beyond the gates of Jerusalem.” MT (2 Kgs 24:6b// 2 Chr 36:8b) ‮יהויכין‬‎ (Eng. “Jehoiachin”); LXX B 2 Kgs 24:6b Ἰωακείμ; LXX L 2 Kgs 24:6b Ἰωακείν; LXX BL 2 Chr 36:8b Ἰεχονίας; 1 Esdras 1:41 (Eng. 1:43) Ἰωακιμ; Josephus Ἰωάκειμος (who thus gives the new king the same Greek name as his father). On Josephus’ treatment of Jehoiachin, see Begg 2000: 523-31 and Feldman 1998a: 437-49, who notes that Josephus, in comparison with the biblical accounts, offers a more positive portrait of Judah’s penultimate king, doubtless because he saw him—as he did Jeremiah—as a scriptural precedent for his own advocacy of surrender to the overwhelming might of the Romans. In 2 Kgs 24:6b// 2 Chr 36:8b// 1 Esdras 1:41 (Eng. 1:43) Jehoiachin appears to assume the kingship prior to Nebuchadnezzar’s gaining control of the city. In Josephus’ presentation the Babylonian has secured such control already before Jehoiakim’s death and so naturally appoints his successor—just as Neco did in the case of Jehoiakim (2 Kgs 23:34a// 2 Chr 36:4a// 10.82) and Nebuchadnezzar himself will do subsequently with Zedekiah (2 Kgs 24:17// 2 Chr 36:10b// 10.102).

The biblical accounts do not record such a deportation at this point, i.e. prior to Jehoiachin’s surrender of Jerusalem to the Babylonians, a development that Josephus will relate only later; see 10.100. (As to the figure for those deported at this point, i.e. 3,000, Josephus may have rounded this off from the number, i.e. 3,023, of those whom Nebuchadnezzar carried off in the initial deportation in his 7th year according to Jer 52:28 [MT; LXX lacks this reference]). Conversely, 2 Chr 36:7// 1 Esdras 1:39 (Eng. 1:41)// Dan 1:2b tell of the Babylonians’ removal of certain temple vessels in connection with their deportation of Jehoiakim to Babylon. Josephus introduced this figure as an ideological fellow of Jeremiah in 10.79-80. The Bible does not relate the actual deportation of Ezekiel, nor his age when this occurred. In Ezek 1:2 Ezekiel receives his call among the exiles “in the 5th year of the exile of King Jehoiachin” (which itself took place following his reign of 3 months [and 10 days] according to the sequence of 2 Kings 24// 2 Chronicles 36// 1 Esdras 1, i.e. subsequent to the earlier deportation at the moment of Jehoiachin’s accession posited by Josephus in 10.98). Ezek 1:1 further dates Ezekiel’s call in “the 30th year”; this dating is often understood as a reference to the prophet’s age at the time of his call. So understood, it could have inspired Josephus’ allusion to his being “a boy” at the moment of his deportation several years prior to his call-experience. Josephus now returns momentarily to the figure of Jehoiakim (the elder “Joakeim” in his nomenclature) in order to conclude his account of him. See Josephus’ account of his ignominious demise in 10.97. Josephus obtains this figure for the king’s life-span by combining the data for Jehoiakim’s age at accession (25 years) and length of reign (11) given in 2 Kgs 23:36a// 2 Chr 36:5a; cf. 1 Esdras 1:37a (Eng. 1:39a), which only mentions his accession-age. This figure for Jehoiakim’s length of reign corresponds to that given in 2 Kgs 23:36aβ// 2 Chr 36:5aβ. MT (2 Kgs 24:8b) ‮נחשתא‬‎ (Eng.: “Nehushta”); LXX B Νεσθά; LXX L Νεεσθάν; Josephus Νοόστη (2 Chronicles 36 and 1 Esdras 1 do not mention the name of Jehoiachin’s mother). Josephus leaves aside the name of her father, i.e. “Elnathan” (MT 2 Kgs 24:8b). Josephus draws this datum about Nehushta from 2 Kgs 24:8b. This figure for Jehoiachin’s length of reign corresponds to that given in 2 Chr 36:9a and 1 Esdras 1:42a (Eng. 1:44a). 2 Kgs 24:8a (MT; LXX BL), on the contrary, assigns him a round 3 months.

This transitional phrase picks up on the reference to Nebuchadnezzar’s appointment of Jehoiachin in 10.97. See 10.97. This whole sequence has no biblical parallel; its reference to Nebuchadnezzar’s “fright” appears quite implausible in light of what precedes, where Jehoiakim opens Jerusalem to him out of a “fright” of his own (10.96) and where Jehoiachin himself is portrayed as Nebuchadnezzar’s creature. The passage does, however, serve to make the necessary transition between Josephus’ own earlier, “un-biblical,” presentation (10.96-98), in which, at the start of Jehoiachin’s reign, Nebuchadnezzar is already master of Jerusalem and the (biblically-based) continuation of his account which portrays Jerusalem as under siege throughout Jehoiachin’s brief reign. See 2 Kgs 24:10, which attributes the siege to Nebuchadnezzar’s “servants.” Josephus leaves aside the notice of 24:11 about Nebuchadnezzar himself arriving at Jerusalem during the course of the siege.

Greek: χρηστὸς καὶ δίκαιος. This characterization of Jehoiachin—utilizing a collocation previously used of Jehoiada (Ant. 9.166) and Hezekiah (9.260)—differs sharply from the unanimous (and unqualified) judgment of 2 Kgs 24:9// 2 Chr 36:9b// 1 Esdras 1:42b [Eng. 1:44b]), according to which “he [Jehoiachin] did what was evil in the sight of the Lord.” On this divergence see Feldman (2000a: 442-4), who attributes it to Josephus’ sense of identification with a king who thought it better to surrender Jerusalem to an overwhelming enemy force than to see it destroyed. Feldman further points out that Josephus’ “rehabilitation” of Jehoiachin has a certain parallel in Rabbinic tradition, according to which, during his long captivity, the once wicked Jehoiachin repented; it is likewise paralleled in Josephus’ own earlier words to John of Gischala during the siege of Jerusalem in War 6.103-105, where he invokes King “Jeconiah” (= Jehoiachin) as a precedent for the course of action that he is calling John to adopt. See Begg 2000: 525, n. 134 and Feldman 2001: 321. Josephus supplies this explanation of Jehoiachin’s motivation for his subsequent surrender of the city. In 2 Kgs 24:12 Jehoiachin surrenders himself, his mother, servants, princes and palace officials to Nebuchadnezzar (who according to 24:11 arrived in Jerusalem during the course of the siege) in person. The account in 2 Kgs 24:10-16, which Josephus is following here, says nothing about such oaths being given Jehoiachin in connection with his voluntary surrender. Compare, however, 10.2, where Josephus adds the reference to Sennacherib’s swearing to Hezekiah’s messengers “that he would not do him [Hezekiah] any wrong....”

Like his preceding mention of the pledges given Jehoiachin, this notice on the violation of those pledges is without basis in Josephus’ sources. It does, however, recall other instances of the perfidy of foreign kings introduced by Josephus into his retelling of biblical history; see 10.4 (Sennacherib) and 10.97 (Nebuchadnezzar in his dealings with Jehoiakim). In 10.230 Josephus cites Nebuchadnezzar’s deceitful treatment of Jehoiachin as the motive behind the former’s son (the biblical Evil-merodach, 2 Kgs 25:27) releasing the latter from prison on the occasion of his own accession. For his listing of Nebuchadnezzar’s captives Josephus draws selectively on the various, repetitive catalogues of such persons given in 2 Kgs 10:12-16; see, vv. 14 and 16, where there is a double mention of “the men of valor” and the “craftsmen.” He makes no mention of the removal of a portion of the temple (and palace) fabric at this time as attested by 2 Kgs 24:13// 2 Chr 36:10a// 1 Esdras 1:43 (Eng. 1:45). Compare 2 Kgs 24:14, where the round number of 10,000 deportees is given (24:16 speaks rather of 7,000). Josephus apparently derived the “extra” 832 persons of his total by adding the figure for Nebuchadnezzar’s 2nd deportation, i.e. 832, given in Jer 52:29 (MT; LXX and OL lack the figure. On Josephus’ possible use of the figure, 3,023, cited by MT Jer 52:28 [MT] for Nebuchadnezzar’s initial deportation in 10.98, see note to “to Babylon” there).

With this added notice on the imprisonment of the Judean deportees Josephus prepares his later account of Jehoiachin’s release; see 10.229-230 (// 2 Kgs 25:27-30).

This is the figure for Zedekiah’s age at accession given in 2 Kgs 24:18a// 2 Chr 36:11a// 1 Esdras 1:46b (Eng. 1:48b)// Jer 52:1a. Josephus’ statement concerning the identity of Zedekiah’s mother differs from the notices of 2 Kgs 24:18b// Jer 52:1b, where her name is given as “Hamutal, the daughter of Jeremiah of Libnah” (neither 2 Chronicles 36 nor 1 Esdras 1 makes any reference to this figure), and there is no mention of her being the mother of Jehoiakim as well. In fact, according to the indications of 2 Kings, the brother with whom Zedekiah shared a common mother was Jehoahaz (see 2 Kgs 23:31b and 24:18b, where the mother of the 2 kings is identified as “Hamutal, the daughter of Jeremiah of Libnah”), rather than Jehoiakim (whose mother is called “Zebidah” in MT LXX B 2 Kgs 23:36b). As Marcus (ad loc.) suggests then, Josephus seems to have confused Zedekiah’s half brother Jehoiakim (son of “Zabouda” [Bible: “Zebidah”] according to 10.83) with his full brother Jehoahaz (son of “Amitale” [Bible: “Hamutal”] according to 10.81) in his formulation concerning Zedekiah’s mother here. Compare the LXX L text in 2 Kgs 23:31b, 36b; 24:18b, which assigns all 3 kings the same mother, i.e. “Amital, daughter of Jeremiah of Lobenna.” This negative judgment on Zedekiah corresponds to the notice “he did what was evil in the sight of the Lord” of 2 Kgs 24:19// Jer 52:2 (both of which add “according to all that Jehoiakim had done”) // 2 Chr 36:12a// 1 Esdras 1:45a (Eng. 1:47a). This notice on the depravity, not only of the king personally, but also of his associates and the people as a whole seems to reflect 2 Chr 36:14, which charges the “leading priests and the people” of Zedekiah’s time with being “exceedingly unfaithful”; compare 1 Esdras 1:47 (Eng. 1:49), where similar charges are made against “the leaders of the people and of the priests.”

Josephus here expatiates on the summary allusion to “Jeremiah the prophet who spoke from the mouth of the Lord,” which in 2 Chr 36:12b stands at the opening of the Chronicler’s account of Zedekiah’s reign; cf. the similar reference in 1 Esdras 1:47b (Eng. 1:49b) to “the words that were spoken by Jeremiah the prophet from the mouth of the Lord.” Josephus’ development of these allusions supplies a content for Jeremiah’s initial message to the new king, this based on his admonitions to Zedekiah as found in various contexts of the Book of Jeremiah.

Josephus nuances and differentiates the global statements of 2 Chr 36:12b (Zedekiah did not “humble himself before” Jeremiah) and 1 Esdras 1:47b (Eng. 1:49b) (Zedekiah did not “heed” Jeremiah’s words) in light of the presentation of the prophet-king relationship in the Book of Jeremiah, where Zedekiah is on occasion receptive to Jeremiah’s words, but is also deterred from acting on them by those around him.

This reference recalls 10.98, where Josephus mentions the boy Ezekiel’s being brought to Babylon as part of a group of 3,000 deportees following the execution of Jehoiakim. This notice on the joint message of Ezekiel and Jeremiah recalls Josephus’ mention of the former’s seconding the latter’s predictions in 10.79. The Book of Ezekiel itself does not mention such a written transmission of Ezekiel’s message to Jerusalem; Josephus supplies the reference in light of his knowledge of writings ascribed to the prophet (see 10.79) and in order to account for Zedekiah’s knowledge of the distant Ezekiel’s message, as presupposed by the continuation of his account. The whole following sequence on Zedekiah’s “disbelief” of the common message of the 2 prophets is Josephus’ creation, based on his knowledge of a point of detail in their respective utterances, where they seemed to disagree. As will emerge, Josephus’ point in this connection is that, even in this detail, the 2 prophets’ announcements were ultimately compatible, with both reaching eventual fulfillment. As such, the example represents a notable instance of various general principles Josephus is concerned to inculcate, namely true prophets make accurate predictions even in the particulars of what they say and fully agree with one another in doing so. See Jer 32:3-5 and Ezek 12:13a, both of which texts announce that the captured Zedekiah will be brought to Babylon. See Ezek 12:13b: “(I [the Lord] will bring him [Zedekiah] to Babylon...), yet he shall not see it,” where Ezekiel seems to allude to the notice of 2 Kgs 25:7 on the blinding Zedekiah underwent prior to his transport to Babylon. See Jer 32:5, where Jeremiah states: “he [Nebuchadnezzar] shall take Zedekiah to Babylon...,” an announcement that Josephus will cite in 10.141. It might be noted here that, Josephus to the contrary, the words of the 2 prophets are not necessarily discordant in that Jeremiah’s announcement as quoted by Josephus does not exclude the captive Zedekiah’s being taken to Babylon in a blinded state—just as Ezekiel predicted.

See 10.141, where Josephus relates the fulfillment of both the seemingly “contradictory” prophecies of 10.106.

This indication concerning the duration of Zedekiah’s fidelity to Babylon has no explicit biblical basis. Josephus likely inferred the figure on the basis of 2 Kgs 25:1// Jer 39:1// Jer 52:4, which state that it was in Zedekiah’s 9th year that Nebuchadnezzar moved against the rebel king. Josephus will reproduce this biblical chronological indication in 10.116. See 2 Kgs 24:20b// 2 Chr 36:13a// Jer 52:3b// 1 Esdras 1:46 (Eng. 1:48). On Zedekiah’s prior oath to Nebuchadnezzar, see 10.102. In Josephus’ presentation, Zedekiah violates his “pledges” to Nebuchadnezzar, just as the latter had transgressed his own pledges to Jehoiakim (10.97) and to Jehoiachin (10.101). Josephus appends this notice concerning the motivation behind Zedekiah’s defection. The reference to the king’s “hope” of support from the Egyptians picks up on Jeremiah’s allusion to the claims of the false prophets that the Egyptians would move against Nebuchadnezzar in 10.104.

Josephus holds over the precise dates for the beginning of the siege given in 2 Kgs 25:1// Jer 52:4// 39:1 to a later point; see 10.116. He adds the reference to Nebuchadnezzar’s preliminary initiatives, prior to commencing the siege of Jerusalem itself.

Josephus elaborates on the allusion to Pharaoh’s army “coming out of Egypt” in Jer 37:5a (cf. 37:7 where the purpose of its advance is said to be “to help you [Zedekiah]”). Josephus’ designation of Zedekiah as Pharaoh’s “ally” alludes to the former’s switch to the Egyptian side after “maintaining his alliance with the Babylonians for eight years” in 10.108. Josephus expatiates on the notice of Jer 37:5b (cf. 37:11) about the Chaldeans’ “withdrawing from Jerusalem” once they hear of the advance of the Egyptian army (37:5a). In particular, he spells out what happened subsequent to that withdrawal, i.e. the Babylonians’ crushing of the Egyptian attempt to relieve Jerusalem, contrary to Zedekiah’s “hopes” (see 10.108).

This added transitional phrase picks up on the reference to Nebuchadnezzar’s “withdrawing from Jerusalem” in 10.110 (// Jer 37:5b), following Josephus’ appended account of the resultant battle between the Babylonians and Egyptians (see previous note). The transition serves to prepare Josephus’ subsequent narrative of what happened in Jerusalem during the absence of the Babylonians. Mention of these figures and their deceptive announcement of the end of the Babylonian threat recalls 10.104, where Jeremiah alludes to their misleading Zedekiah with their claims about a coming Egyptian victory over the Babylonians. Cf. 10.96, 101 on Nebuchadnezzar’s 2 earlier deportations of the Jerusalemites. For his “citation” of the false prophets’ message on this occasion Josephus draws on—while also generalizing—the words attributed in Jer 28:2-4 (MT; LXX 35:2-4) to the prophet Hananiah, who announces the imminent breaking of the Babylonian yoke, the return of the temple vessels, as well as the repatriation of King Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) “and all the exiles from Judah who went to Babylon.” (In contrast to the biblical accounts, Josephus himself has not mentioned a Babylonian removal of the temple vessels up to this point.)

Jeremiah’s assertion about his prophetic colleagues here recalls his earlier warning to Zedekiah (see 10.104) not “to believe the false prophets who were misleading him....” Cf. Jeremiah’s warning (Jer 37:9) to the people subsequent to the temporary Babylonian withdrawal (Jer 37:5b): “Do not deceive yourselves, saying ‘The Chaldeans will surely stay away from us....’” Josephus here adapts Jeremiah’s announcement of Jer 37:7b-8a (“Pharaoh’s army... is about to return to Egypt. And the Chaldeans shall come back and fight against this city” (cf. also 34:21-22) in light of his own earlier mention (see 10.110) of the Babylonian victory over the Egyptians. In attributing the above series of announcements to Jeremiah Josephus bases himself on the actual course of the siege of Jerusalem and its aftermath. In so doing, he elaborates on the prophet’s terse prediction in Jer 37:8b: “they [the Babylonians] shall take it [Jerusalem] and burn it with fire” (see also 34:22), thereby highlighting Jeremiah’s predictive powers (which the continuation of his speech in 10.112-113 will accentuate still further). For this prediction of the people’s long-term future, the Josephan prophet draws on (cf. 29:10): “these nations shall serve the king of Babylon 70 years.”

Jer 25:12 speaks of God himself “punishing the king of Babylon and that nation, the land of the Chaldeans....” Josephus draws his mention of the earthly agents of Babylon’s overthrow from another biblical context, i.e. Dan 5:28, where Daniel announces to King Belshazzar of Babylon that his kingdom has been “divided and given to the Medes and the Persians.” As a further possible inspiration for Josephus’ formulation here, Marcus (ad loc.) adduces 2 Chr 36:20 (the survivors of Jerusalem remain servants of the kings of Babylon “until the establishment of the kingdom of Persia [MT; LXX: of the Medes]”). Cf. Jer 29:10, where, after promising to “visit” the exiles once Babylon’s 70 years have been fulfilled (see 25:11-12 and 10.112), God goes on to announce “I will bring you [the people] back to this place.” The Josephan Jeremiah’s additional announcement of the eventual rebuilding of Jerusalem and its temple accentuates his long-term predictive capacities. The addition might be inspired by Ezra 1:1-4, where the “edict of Cyrus” (vv. 2-4) permitting the Judean deportees to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple there is attributed (v. 1) to God’s prompting of Cyrus “that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished.”

Greek: ἐξεστηκός τῶν φρενῶν; this phrase occurs only here in Josephus. Jeremiah 37—Josephus’ starting point for the series of predictions he attributes to the prophet in 10.112-113—does not mention a reaction on the part of the hearers to his words there. Josephus’ depiction of the mixed response that Jeremiah’s message receives on this occasion recalls his notices on the likewise varied reactions to the prophet’s preaching at 2 earlier moments, i.e. his “Temple Speech” (see 10.90-92) and his reading of his collected words (see 10.94-95). That mixed reaction will characterize the “reception” of Jeremiah’s message in what follows as well. For his mention of the leaders’ deriding Jeremiah as though he were “out of his mind,” Josephus may have found inspiration in Jer 29 (LXX 36):26, where Shemaiah (v. 24), writing to the priest Zephaniah (v. 25) in order to castigate him for his failure to rebuke Jeremiah, reminds him that the Lord has appointed him “to have charge in the house of the Lord over every madman who prophesies.” In Jer 37:12 Jeremiah’s destination is designated in more general terms as “the land of Benjamin.” Josephus derives his mention of “Anathoth” as Jeremiah’s home town and more specific destination by combining the related texts of Jer 32:8 (Jeremiah is urged to buy the field of his cousin Hanamel “at Anathoth in the land of Benjamin”) and 1:1 (Jeremiah stems from “the priests who were at Anathoth in the land of Benjamin”). Josephus supplies this indication concerning the distance (about 2.5 miles; see Marcus ad loc.) between the 2 sites. He leaves aside the source reference (Jer 37:12) to the motivation for Jeremiah’s journey, i.e. “to receive his portion among the people” (cf. Jeremiah 32). Josephus omits several details concerning Jeremiah’s arrest given in Jer 37:13, i.e. the site (the Benjamin Gate), as well as the name and function of his captor (the sentry Irijah). Conversely, he goes beyond the Bible’s neutral allusion to the fact of Jeremiah’s being accused in his use of the verb συκοφαντέω (“to falsely charge”) to refer to the accusation. This verb occurs only here in Antiquities; it recurs in War 1.11; Life 52; and Apion 2.42.

Josephus supplements Jeremiah’s denial of the charge made against him (Jer 37:14a) with a positive statement by the prophet, this recalling his own earlier narrative notice in 10.114 on Anathoth as Jeremiah’s “ancestral town,” about what he is actually doing. See Jer 37:14b. Josephus supplies the indication concerning the purpose of the arrestor’s bringing Jeremiah before the rulers. The addition serves to associate this episode with Jeremiah’s “Temple Sermon,” which likewise results in the prophet’s being “brought to judgment”; see 10.90. Greek: αἰκία καὶ βάσανοι. This phrase recurs (in reverse order) in Ant. 16.389; cf. War 3.321. See Jer 37:15-16. Josephus omits various details of the biblical account: the princes’ rage against Jeremiah, their beating him, and his confinement in “the house of Jonathan the secretary,” which had been converted into a prison. Conversely, he adds an explicit (negative) characterization of the treatment meted out to Jeremiah; cf. his use of the term “falsely charge” of the accusation made against Jeremiah in 10.114 as compared with the neutral wording of Jer 37:13.

After the interlude concerning the activities of the false prophets and of Jeremiah himself during the temporary Babylonian withdrawal from Jerusalem (10.110-115), Josephus now resumes his account of the siege of the city, which he began in 10.109. Josephus now reproduces the biblical dating for the beginning of the siege (see 2 Kgs 25:1// Jer 52:4// 39:1 [MT; the month indication is lacking in certain LXX MSS]) that he left aside when mentioning the start of the siege in 10.109. The reference to Nebuchadnezzar’s “2nd” campaign against Jerusalem alludes to his breaking off his initial move against the city in order to counter the Egyptian advance; see 10.110. The collocation προσκαθίζω and ποδιορκέω (“position before” and “besiege”) used here is a Josephan favorite (see War 1.61, 116; Ant. 10.116; 12.347). Before his time, the combination was used most often by Thucydides (1.11.2, 61.3, 126.8, 134.3; 5.61), who always uses προσκαθίζω in the middle voice, and by Polybius (1.12.4, 15.5; 5.61.8, 62.6; 8.7.6), who favors the active voice. Cf. also Diodorus Siculus (12.72.9, 76.4) and Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Ant. rom. 3.3.74; 5.58.1). Josephus uses the active form of the verb in Antiquities, the middle/passive in War. I owe these remarks to Prof. Steve Mason. Josephus supplies a figure for the total duration of the siege, calculating this on the basis of the dates given in, e.g., Jer 52:4 (the siege began in the 10th month of Zedekiah’s 9th year) and 52:5-6 (the city’s bread supply ran out in the 4th month of Zedekiah’s 11th year), i.e. some 18 months after the siege commenced. He goes beyond the biblical accounts in underscoring the determination with which the siege was conducted. Greek: λιμὸς καὶ φθορά. This collocation is common in Josephus: War 1.377; 4.361; 6.421; Ant. 10.132. Before his time, it is attested in Hesiod (Op. 243), Thucydides (1.23.3; 2.54.3), and Herodotus (7.171; 8.115), but most often in Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Ant.rom. 7.13.4; 10.58.8; Dem. 39; Thuc. 20) and Philo (Ebr. 79; Somn. 2.125, 129; Mos. 1.110, 265; 2.16). I owe these remarks to Prof. Steve Mason. Josephus derives his reference to the “famine” afflicting Jerusalem during the siege from the notice of Jer 52:5-6, etc. that the city’s bread supply ran out in the 4th month of Zedekiah’s 11th year; cf. also Jeremiah’s prediction of “famine” in 10.112. He adds the allusion to the other calamity, i.e. “plague” under the influence of the combination of the terms “famine” and “pestilence” (along with “the sword”) in the announcements concerning the fate of the city attributed to Jeremiah in such texts as Jer 21:9; 32:24; 38:2.

Cf. the reference to Jeremiah’s being “kept under guard for punishment” in 10.115. This reference, in turn, is based on Jer 37:15, where the princes “imprison Jeremiah in the house of Jonathan the secretary, for it had been made into a prison.” Cf. Jer 37:21b “so Jeremiah remained in the court of the guard.” See Jer 38:2b, where the leaders overhear Jeremiah assuring the people that those who “go out to” the Babylonians will preserve their lives by doing so; cf. the similar promise Jeremiah makes to Zedekiah personally should he surrender to the Babylonians in 38:17. See further note on “death” at 10.118b.

See the words the leaders overhear Jeremiah telling the people in Jer 38:2a: “He who stays in this city shall die by the sword, by famine, and by pestilence.” Cf. too Josephus’ own reference to the “famine and plague” that are assaulting Jerusalem in 10.116. Josephus here returns to the initial positive alternative Jeremiah put before the people in 10.118, now reproducing the prophet’s words from Jer 38:2bα (“he who goes out to the Chaldeans shall live”) more closely. He leaves aside the prophet’s concluding promise of 38:2bβ: “he [the deserter] shall have his life as a prize of war, and live.”

The leaders’ disbelief here recalls Josephus’ earlier contrast between them and the majority of the people who, as he states in 10.114, did believe Jeremiah’s announcements. See Jer 38:4a. Josephus adds the reference to the leaders’ wrath, this recalling the response he attributes to King Jehoiakim when Jeremiah’s book is read to him in 10.95. Greek: μαίνομαι; this is the term twice used of Jehu’s anointer in Ant. 9.110 and of King Amaziah of Judah in 9.244. The leaders’ charge concerning Jeremiah’s mental state here is not explicitly paralleled in those attributed to the princes in their denunciation of Jeremiah to the king in Jer 38:4. It does, however, recall the reference to the leaders and the impious’ deriding Jeremiah as “being out of his mind” (Greek: ἐξεστηκός τῶν φρενῶν) in 10.114. Greek: προκατακλάω; this verb is hapax in Josephus. Greek: ἡ τῶν χειρόνων καταγγελία; this expression (like the noun καταγγελία) is hapax in Josephus. Greek: ἐκλύω τὸ πρόθυμον. This phrase recurs in Ant. 13.231. Greek: κινδυνεῦσαι; the word is missing in ROM, but is read by Niese (who offers the conjecture κινδυνεύσειν) and Marcus. Lat reads pugnare (“to fight”). Compare the princes’ charge in Jer 38:4: “he [Jeremiah] is weakening the hands of the soldiers... and the hands of all the people, by speaking such words to them.” Josephus’ leaders add the reminder that those whom Jeremiah is (purportedly) seeking to demoralize are (still) loyal supporters of king and country—a further reason for Zedekiah to act against him. This abbreviated “citation” of Jeremiah’s own incriminating words as reported by Josephus in 10.117-118 takes the place of the princes’ concluding assertion about him in Jer 38:4: “This man is not seeking the welfare of this people, but their harm.”

Greek: χρεστότης καὶ δικαιοσύνη; this noun combination is used of Ezra in Ant. 11.139. It recalls the adjectival collocation χρηστὸς καὶ δίκαιος (“kind and just”) applied to Jehoiachin in 10.100. Josephus’ positive characterization of Zedekiah here is without explicit biblical warrant and stands in contrast to his own earlier evaluation of the king as one “who scorned what was just [Greek: τῶν δικαίων] and requisite” in 10.103. It does, however, have a certain basis in the following episode, in which Zedekiah will show himself concerned for Jeremiah’s welfare, just as it recalls Josephus’ affirmation (War 5.391-392) in the context of his address to the defenders of Jerusalem in War 5.362-419, that, faced with the provocations of Jeremiah’s words, Zedekiah proved himself “moderate” and (along with his people) refrained from putting the prophet to death—whereas Josephus’ own contemporary audience is “assailing” him “with abuse and missiles,” even as he tries to persuade them to save themselves and their city. See Feldman 2001: 320. Josephus prefaces his rendering of Zedekiah’s response to the leaders as cited in Jer 38:5 (“behold, he [Jeremiah] is your power; for the king can do nothing against you”) with this explanation as to why the king, notwithstanding his lack of personal animosity towards Jeremiah, nevertheless does give the leaders carte blanche to do as they wish with him.

Greek: πηλοῦ; this is the generally accepted conjecture for the form πλήθους (“by the crowd”) read by the codices and E. See Jer 38:6. Josephus omits the biblical specifications concerning Jeremiah’s place of confinement, i.e. “the cistern of Malchiah, the king’s son, which was in the court of the guard.”

Jer 38:7a supplies the name (“Ebed-melech”) and the status (“a eunuch,” so MT; LXX [Jer 45:7a] lacks the term) of the king’s informant as well. Josephus adds the reference to the royal favor he enjoyed. Jer 38:7b notes that the king “was sitting in the Benjamin Gate” when Ebed-melech approached him. Josephus adds this element of explicit (negative) evaluation to his version of Ebed-melech’s report to the king, Jer 38:8-9. The Ethiopian’s concluding allusion to the extreme painfulness of the death awaiting Jeremiah here takes the place of his closing words in Jer 38:9: “(Jeremiah will die there of hunger), for there is no bread left in the city.”

Josephus supplies the reference to Zedekiah’s second thoughts; the addition gives a more positive depiction of the king in his dealings with Jeremiah, in line with Josephus’ mention of his “personal kindness and justice” in 10.120. This figure agrees with that found in all but 1 of our extant Hebrew manuscripts of Jer 38:10 as well as in the corresponding LXX verse, Jer 45:10. The single Hebrew manuscript in question reads “3.” Zedekiah’s command to Ebed-melech in Jer 38:10 does not mention the “implements” he is to take with him. Josephus anticipates his mention of “ropes” from 38:11-13, where these are used in the actual rescue process. Josephus omits the various details of the “rescue process” as reported in Jer 38:11-13, e.g., the directives Ebed-melech gives Jeremiah about his (the prophet’s) own part in the process in v. 12a.

Cf. Jer 38:14. Josephus omits the biblical indication that the interview between king and prophet took place “at the 3rd entrance of the temple of the Lord,” as well as Zedekiah’s concluding admonition to Jeremiah, i.e. “hide nothing from me.” Cf. Jeremiah’s direct address charge against Zedekiah in Jer 38:15 (“And if I give you counsel, you will not listen to me”), which Josephus turns into a generalized, impersonal formulation. He thereby attenuates Zedekiah’s personal responsibility for Jeremiah’s plight as well as the adversarial relationship between them. Josephus derives his reference to the royal friends from Jer 38:22b, where Jeremiah accuses Zedekiah’s “trusted friends” of having “deceived” and “prevailed against” him (the king). The Josephan Jeremiah’s affirmation that the friends have “destroyed” him (Jeremiah) recalls 10.121, where the “leaders” lower the prophet into the cistern “that he might die on his own.” With Jeremiah’s allusion to the “something vile” he has purportedly done here, compare the prophet’s question to Zedekiah in Jer 37:18: “what wrong have I done to you or your servants or this people, that you have put [MT reads a plural verb here, while LXX 44:18 has the singular, making Zedekiah himself the subject] me in prison?” Josephus here seems to combine Jeremiah’s words to Zedekiah from 2 different contexts, i.e. Jer 37:19 (“Where are your prophets who prophesied to you, saying ‘The king of Babylon will not come against you and against this land?’”) and 38:22b (“your trusted friends have deceived you...”). Josephus turns Jeremiah’s initial question to the king (“If I tell you, will you not be sure not to put me to death?”) of Jer 38:15a into a statement by the prophet about his fear and the reason for this.

See Jer 38:16. Josephus characteristically omits Zedekiah’s oath formula: “as the Lord lives, who made our souls....” Josephus supplies this allusion to the positive effect of Zedekiah’s oath upon Jeremiah.

Compare the opening “messenger formula” of Jer 38:17: “Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel.” Josephus adds the reference to the temple and its eventual fate (see 10.112) to the conditional promise Jeremiah makes to Zedekiah in Jer 38:17. There appears to be a lacuna in the text of Jeremiah after the phrase “or the sanctuary burned down”; compare Jeremiah’s assurance in 38:17a: “if you [Zedekiah] surrender to the princes of the king of Babylon, then your life will be spared.” This bracketed phrase (Greek: μῆ πεισθέντα) is a conjecture of J. Hudson, based on the Lat reading (quod si non fieret) that Marcus adopts. Jeremiah’s words of conditional promise and warning here represent Josephus’ adaptation of those addressed by the prophet to Zedekiah in Jer 38:17-18.

This initial response by Zedekiah has no counterpart in the king’s words as reported in Jer 38:19. It makes the king appear more insightful about the situation he is facing than is his biblical counterpart. The king’s response to Jeremiah at this juncture recalls that which Josephus attributes to him at the start of his reign in 10.105: “Whenever Sacchias heard the prophet saying these things, he was convinced; he agreed that all of them were true and that was it to his advantage to believe them.” See Jer 38:19. Josephus adds the king’s allusion to his being “slandered,” this establishing an implicit connection between Zedekiah and himself, who was likewise slandered by his compatriots (see Life 425, 428-429). Zedekiah’s confession of being “frightened” here recalls 10.124, where Jeremiah himself admits to being “in fear.”

Compare Jeremiah’s opening response to Zedekiah in Jer 38:20: “you shall not be given to them [i.e. the Chaldeans, see 38:19].” Josephus accentuates the prophet’s concern to allay the king’s fears. The biblical Jeremiah highlights the negative consequences of Zedekiah’s refusal to surrender to the Babylonians in his extended reply to the king in Jer 38:20-23, touching only briefly on the benefits of such surrender, i.e. “it will be well with you, and your life shall be spared” (v. 20b). Josephus, by contrast, has Jeremiah focus exclusively on the positive alternative facing Zedekiah. In so doing, he reapplies phrases used in a negative sense in 38:20-23 in positive terms (see the reference to Zedekiah’s wives and children who are at risk of being handed over to the Babylonians according to 38:23a). He likewise adds yet another reference to the fate hanging over the temple—which is nowhere mentioned in 38:20-23 itself.

Josephus expatiates on Zedekiah’s initial response to Jeremiah in Jer 38:24: “Let no one know of these words and you shall not die.” The biblical text does not mention the actual release of Jeremiah. See 10.124 on this summons of Jeremiah by Zedekiah. Josephus compresses the extended discourse that Zedekiah envisages the “princes” addressing to Jeremiah in Jer 38:25, leaving aside, e.g., their promise not to put him to death, if he tells them what he and the king had said to each other. In Jer 38:26 Jeremiah is instructed by the king to tell the princes that he had begged Zedekiah “not to send him back to the house of Jonathan to die there.” Josephus, just as he did previously (see 10.115 and compare Jer 37:15) leaves aside the Bible’s mention of Jonathan and the site associated with him.

See Jer 38:27a. Josephus leaves aside the appended notice of 38:27b: “so they [the princes] left off speaking with him, for the conversation [i.e. that between Zedekiah and Jeremiah] had not been overheard.” This closing formula rounds off the interlude of 10.117-130 focussed on the interactions among various inhabitants of Jerusalem during the course of the siege; in what follows Josephus returns to his account of the siege itself, initiated in 10.116. The formula takes the place of the notice of Jer 38:28: “and Jeremiah remained in the court of the guard until the day that Jerusalem was taken.”

Greek: ἐντεταμένως καὶ προθύμως. This collocation occurs only here in Josephus; he uses the adverb ἐντεταμένως twice elsewhere: Ant. 11.96; 18.262. Josephus’ resumption of his account of the siege here picks up on the wording of 10.116: “Having positioned [his army] before it [Hierosolyma], he [the Babylonian king] besieged it with the utmost intensity for eighteen months.” On Josephus’ description of Jerusalem’s fall in 10.131-154, see Begg 2000: 575-94. Josephus here expatiates on the summary notice of 2 Kgs 25:1// Jer 52:4: “(the Babylonians) built siegeworks against it [Jerusalem] round about.” His elaboration is doubtless inspired by his personal experience of the devices used by the Romans in their siege of Jerusalem.

Greek: καρτερῶς καὶ προθύμως. This wordpair occurs only here in Josephus. On this double affliction of the besieged Jerusalem, see 10.116, 118 (which adds the sword as well). Greek: ἀντιμηχανήματα; this word is hapax in Josephus. Josephus’ account here, which goes far beyond the summary references to the siege in 2 Kgs 25:1// Jer 52:4, seems to be describing the 1st great siege of Jerusalem in terms of the fanatical resistance with which Jews of his own time had faced the 2nd such siege.

Greek: ὀχύτης καὶ σύνεσις. This wordpair occurs only here in Josephus. With these remarks Josephus sums up his portrayal of the Babylonian/Jerusalemite contest as a foreshadowing (or retrojection) of that between the Romans and Jerusalem’s defenders in his own time; cf. the references to the stratagems devised by the Jews in countering the Roman siege measures in, e.g., War 5.109, 121; 6.152, 177.

Josephus has already mentioned this duration of the siege in 10.116. Cf. the mention of the failure of the city’s bread supply in 2 Kgs 25:3// Jer 52:6. On the Babylonians’ siege-towers, see 10.131. The mention of the use of “projectiles” against the inhabitants is another detail based, not on the biblical accounts, but rather on Josephus’ own experience of Roman tactics; cf. his description of the siege of Jotapata in War 3.167-168, 240-248a, 285-287.

Josephus draws this triple dating-indication for the city’s fall from Jer 39:2, where it refers to the breaching of the city. In 2 Kgs 25:2-3// Jer 52:5-6 (MT; LXX does not cite the month in question) the same 3-fold dating-indication is used in connection with the mention of the failure of the city’s food supply, this being followed by the breaching of the city in 25:4// 52:7. Josephus anticipates this reference to Nebuchadnezzar’s headquarters during the siege from 2 Kgs 25:6 // Jer 52:9// Jer 39:5, which have the captured Zedekiah being brought before his overlord “at Riblah, in the land of Hamath.” (The reading of the city’s name as “Arablatha” here follows the conjecture of Niese, adopted also by Marcus and Schalit [s.v.], for the form “Arabatha” in RMSLauV Lat 10.135.) Josephus uncharacteristically reproduces a list of (minor) biblical names, perhaps aiming thereby to enhance the credibility of his account of a key event of his history, namely the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians. The only biblical account to cite the names in question is Jer 39:3, where in MT these total 4, of which the 1st and the 4th are the same (“Nergal-sharezer”), while the last 2 have titles attached to them. In the LXX parallel text (Jer 46:3), 6 proper names are listed, of which the last is the title (“the Rabmag”) of the 4th and final individual on the MT list. Like OL (which has no equivalent to LXX’s “Rabamag”), Josephus cites a total of 5 names. This form (Greek: Ῥεγάλσαρος) appears to be Josephus’ equivalent for the 1st name in the listing of Jer 39:3: MT ‮נרגל שׂר־אצר‬‎ (Eng.: “Nergal-sharezer”); LXX (46:3) Ναργαλασρασαρ (a close variant of this name, i.e. Ναργαλσαρασερ, appears in 5th position in the LXX list). This form (Greek: Ἀρέμαντος) lacks a recognizable equivalent in the names of either MT Jer 39:3 or LXX 46:3. This form (Greek: Σεμέγαρος) is an abbreviation of the 2nd name on the MT list (‮סמגר־נבו‬‎, Eng.: “Samgar-nebo”) in Jer 39:3; compare Σαμαγωθ in LXX 46:3. This form (Greek: Ναβώσαρις) corresponds to the 4th name in LXX Jer 46:3 (Ναβουσαρις), which itself appears to conflate the concluding element of the 2nd name (Samgar-nebo) and part of the title of 3rd figure (Sarsechem the Rabsaris) in the list of MT Jer 39:3. This form (Greek: Ἀχάραμψαρις), apart from its concluding element, i.e. psaris, corresponding to the final portion of the title (“rabsaris,” MT ‮רב־סריס‬‎) of the 3rd name (“Sarsechem,” MT ‮שר־סכים‬‎) in the list of MT Jer 39:3, lacks a discernible equivalent among the names of either MT or LXX. Josephus lacks an equivalent to the concluding reference to “all the rest of the officers of the king of Babylon” common to MT LXX and OL.

2 Kgs 25:4// Jer 52:7// 39:4 (MT; LXX and OL have no equivalent to MT’s Jer 39:4-13) all speak in more general terms of the flight of the soldiery taking place “by night.” Josephus adapts the presentation of MT Jer 39:3-4, where Zedekiah and his men “see” (v. 4) the Babylonian commanders, who have themselves taken their seat “in the Middle Gate” (v. 3). 2 Kgs 25:4// Jer 52:7// Jer 39:4 (MT) speak only of the “men of war” accompanying Zedekiah in his flight. Josephus’ added reference to other groups of fugitives, i.e. the king’s “wives and children,” the “leaders,” and the royal “friends,” recalls the mention of these groups in 10.128 and 10.124, respectively. His mention of Zedekiah’s taking these persons along on his flight introduces another positive element into Josephus’ portrait of the king in comparison with the biblical accounts, which say nothing of such a concern by the fugitive Zedekiah for the safety of those close to him. Greek: καρτερὰ φάραγξ. Marcus (ad loc.) proposes as an alternative translation “steep valley.” Josephus simplifies the topographical indications concerning the flight route given in 2 Kgs 25:4, etc.: “by way of the gate between the two walls, by the king’s garden... they went in the direction of the Arabah.” He likewise leaves aside the parenthetical biblical notices about the Chaldeans’ being “around the city” from which Zedekiah is attempting to escape.

The fear expressed by Zedekiah to Jeremiah in 10.127 now comes upon him, as “deserters” report his flight to the Babylonians. The biblical accounts lack a corresponding indication as to how the Babylonians came to learn of Zedekiah’s flight. This chronological indication (cf. the phrase “about midnight” in 10.136) lacks a counterpart in the biblical notices (2 Kgs 25:5// Jer 52:8// Jer 39:5 [MT]) on the Babylonian pursuit. 2 Kgs 25:5a// Jer 52:8a// Jer 39:5a (MT) specify “in the plains of Jericho.” In 2 Kgs 25:5b// Jer 52:8b (Jeremiah 39 [MT] lacks a corresponding indication) it is Zedekiah’s army —his sole entourage according to 2 Kgs 25:4// Jer 52:7 // Jer 39:4 (MT)—who are “scattered from” him. Josephus focusses rather on the behavior of another group whose accompanying of Zedekiah he mentioned in 10.136, i.e. the royal “friends.” In so doing, he highlights the deliberateness with which the king’s socalled “friends” abandon him in search of their personal safety. He thereby reinforces his unrelievedly negative portrayal of these figures, which began with his reference to their “corrupting” Zedekiah once again in 10.105.

In 2 Kgs 25:6a// Jer 52:9a (cf. Jer 39:5a, MT) Zedekiah appears to be alone at the moment of his capture, his army having been “scattered from him” in 25:5b// 52:8b. The “men” to whom Josephus alludes here are presumably (some of) the “leaders” who, along with the “friends” are said to accompany Zedekiah on his flight in 10.136. Since the latter group has now abandoned the king (10.137), it is only the former group that could furnish those men who still remain with him. On these persons as part of the Josephan Zedekiah’s entourage in his flight, see 10.136. 2 Kgs 25:6// Jer 52:9// Jer 39:5b identify the site as “Riblah in the land of Hamath.” Josephus has already drawn on this indication concerning Nebuchadnezzar’s current whereabouts in 10.135. Greek: παράσπονδος. This adjective occurs only here in Josephus. This denunciation of Zedekiah by Nebuchadnezzar prior to his punishment of him lacks a biblical basis. It does, however, recall 10.102, where Nebuchadnezzar makes Zedekiah swear “to preserve the country for him.”

On this event, see 10.102. This additional charge by Nebuchadnezzar concerning Zedekiah’s “ingratitude” is another Josephan invention. On God as the subject of the verb “hate” (Greek: μισέω) in Josephus, see note to “God so hated” at Ant. 6.138. Josephus’ placing of this invocation of (the one) God on the lips of a pagan king is noteworthy since, e.g., he leaves aside the biblical references to a similar invocation on the part of Pharaoh Neco; see on 10.75. His doing so in this instance is indicative of his own negative feelings about Zedekiah’s rebellious dealings with his overlord—which, of course, foreshadowed those adopted by the contemporary Zealots towards their Roman rulers.

See 2 Kgs 25:7aα// Jer 52:10// Jer 39:6 (MT). In contrast to 2 Kings, but like the 2 Jeremiah passages, Josephus mentions the execution not only of Zedekiah’s sons, but also of other persons. Whereas, however, Jer 39:6b designates the latter group as “all the nobles of Judah,” and Jer 52:10b calls them “all the princes of Judah,” he equates these additional victims with Zedekiah’s “friends” (whose accompanying of the fugitive king and their subsequent desertion of him he cites in 10.136 and 137, respectively). Josephus goes beyond all the biblical accounts in noting that prisoners other than Zedekiah himself (his wives? the leaders?) witnessed the executions as well. Compare War 5.391, where, in the context of his address to the defenders of Jerusalem (War 5.362-419), Josephus alludes to the captive Zedekiah’s “seeing,” not the execution of his sons as here in 10.140, but rather “the town [Jerusalem] and the temple leveled to the ground.” See Feldman 2001: 321. See 2 Kgs 25:7aβb// Jer 39:7 (MT). Jer 52:11 adds that, having brought Zedekiah to Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar imprisoned him there “till the day of his death”; Josephus will make use of this additional item in 10.154.

Josephus supplies this allusion to his earlier discussion of the apparent discrepancy between Jeremiah’s and Ezekiel’s announcements concerning Zedekiah’s fate (10.106-107), a discussion that concludes with the promise that he will return to the matter, as he does here in 10.141. Josephus at this point draws on the wording of the relevant Jeremian passage, i.e. Jer 32:4b (Zedekiah is to speak face to face with Nebuchadnezzar and see him eye to eye), whereas previously in 10.106, he simply had Jeremiah announce that Zedekiah will be taken to Babylon “in chains.” See 10.106= Ezek 12:13.

Greek: φύσις τοῦ θεοῦ. On this expression, see note to “the nature of God” at Ant. 8.338. Greek: τεταγμένος. This word is hapax in Josephus. Greek: ἀγνοὶα καὶ ἀπιστία. This collocation occurs only here in Josephus. This appended moral about the theological lessons to be learned from Zedekiah’s calamity recall the remarks with which Josephus concludes his account of the death of Ahab in Ant. 8.418-420. In both passages, e.g., he points out that, even with the benefit of divine predictions, people still do pursue the course that leads to their own destruction.

As Marcus (ad loc.) points out, this figure for the succession of kings from David to Zedekiah excludes the non-Davidic Athaliah, who usurped the Judean throne. Several chronological problems arise with the above figures. First, according to Ant. 6.378 Saul reigned, not 20, but 40 years. In addition, if one adds the 20 years ascribed to Saul here to the lengths of reign given by Josephus for the 20 Davidic kings in what precedes, one comes up with a figure of 534 rather than 514 years for the monarchical period. See further Marcus ad loc. With this notice Josephus reminds readers that Saul was from the tribe of Benjamin, in contrast to David and his successors who were of the tribe of Judah.

MT (2 Kgs 25:8// Jer 52:12) ‮נבוזראדן‬‎ (Eng.: “Nebuzaradan”); LXX BL 2 Kgs 25:8// LXX Jer 52:12 Ναβουζαρδάν; Josephus Ναβουζαρδάνης. Greek: συλλάω τὸν ναόν. This phrase is characteristic of Josephus (War 1.32; Ant. 10.144, 145, 233, 275; 11.10, 58, 91, 102; 12.357), though not attested in earlier or contemporary authors. I owe this remark to Prof. Steve Mason. In 2 Kgs 25:8// Jer 52:12 (no equivalent in Jeremiah 39) Nebuzaradan simply “comes” to Jerusalem, without being sent or receiving orders from Nebuchadnezzar about what he is to do. Josephus fills this lacuna, thereby making clear that what the former does in Jerusalem is not done on his own initiative. The orders he attributes to Nebuchadnezzar here recall (elements of) the predictions made by Jeremiah in 10.112.

Nebuzaradan’s coming to Jerusalem is dated to Nebuchadnezzar’s 19th year in 2 Kgs 25:8// Jer 52:12 (MT; LXX and OL lack an equivalent). Josephus’ dating of the event by reference rather to Zedekiah’s 11th year picks up on his mention of the city’s capture in that same year in 10.135. He leaves aside—for the moment, but see 10.146—the month and day references given in the biblical accounts. In the sequence of 2 Kings 25// Jeremiah 52 (cf. also 2 Chr 36:19), the temple’s despoliation (25:13-16 // 52:17-23) is cited after the “burning” of the structure itself (25:9// 52:13) (Jeremiah 39 [MT] mentions neither of these events in its account of the Babylonian measures in the fallen Jerusalem, vv. 8-14.) Josephus rearranges this sequence so as to have the Babylonians follow a more logical order in their operations—first they remove the temple valuables and only then demolish the edifice. With this phrase, Josephus abridges the detailed catalogue of confiscated temple vessels given in 2 Kgs 25:14-15// Jer 52:18-19 (no parallel in Jeremiah 39). See 2 Kgs 25:13b// Jer 52:17b. Josephus appends the reference to Solomon’s placement of this object as recounted by him in Ant. 8.79-80. Josephus here combines (and notably abbreviates) the indications concerning the pillars and their accoutrements found in 2 Kgs 25:13a, 17// Jer 52:17a, 21-23. On the fabrication of these objects, see Ant. 8.77-78. These 2 objects are not mentioned in the catalogue of items plundered by the Babylonians in 2 Kgs 25:13-17// Jer 52:17-23. Conversely, Josephus passes over several items found in one or both of the biblical lists, e.g., the “stands” (25:13// 52:17) and the “12 bronze oxen” (52:20).

See 2 Kgs 25:15b// Jer 52:19b: “what was of gold the captain of the guard [Nebuzaradan] took away as gold, what was of silver, as silver.” See 2 Kgs 25:9a// Jer 52:13a (and 2 Chr 36:19a). Jeremiah 39 does not mention the burning of the temple. Nebuzaradan’s initiative fulfills Jeremiah’s announcement in 10.112 that, “after removing the wealth of the sanctuary, [the Babylonian king] would then burn it down.” Compare 2 Kgs 25:8, where Nebuzaradan’s coming to Jerusalem and his initiatives there are dated to the 7th (so MT LXX B; LXX L reads 9th) day of the 5th month (Jer 52:12 [MT; LXX reads the 10th day of the 5th month; OL has the 5th year, rather than the 5th month]) of Nebuchadnezzar’s 19th year (see note to “Sacchias” at 10.145). Josephus’ reference to the 11th year of Zedekiah’s reign picks up on the same dating indication in 10.135, 145. 2 Kgs 25:8// Jer 52:12 (MT; LXX and OL lacks the indication) date Nebuzaradan’s arrival in Jerusalem and his activities there to the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign; see note to “Sacchias” at 10.145. 2 Kgs 25:9b// Jer 52:13b// 39:8a (MT), as well as 2 Chr 36:19b, mention the burning of other houses (mansions) in Jerusalem as well. 2 Kgs 25:10// Jer 52:14// Jer 39:8b (MT) speak of the pulling down of the city’s walls. Josephus’ notice provides a fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prediction in 10.112 that Nebuchadnezzar will “demolish the city.” Compare War 5.391, where, in the context of his address to the defenders of Jerusalem (War 5.362-419), Josephus alludes to the captive Zedekiah’s seeing “the town and the temple levelled to the ground.”

In Ant. 20.232 the figure given by Josephus for the duration of the high priesthood from the time of Solomon down to the temple’s destruction by Nebuchadnezzar is 466 years, 6 months, and 10 days, i.e. 4 years less than the total cited in 10.147. Feldman (ad loc.) attributes the discrepancy to Josephus’ failure to incorporate Solomon’s first 4 years prior to his building of the temple into the figure given in 20.232. He further points out that according to b. Yoma 9a Solomon’s temple lasted 410 years. Josephus arrives at this figure by combining those given by him for the interval between the Exodus and the building of the temple in Ant. 8.61 (i.e. 592 years) and for the period from the latter event to the temple’s destruction cited just previously in 10.147, i.e. 470 years, 6 months, and 10 days. In Ant. 20.230 and Apion 2.19, on the other hand, he gives a much lower figure for the period in question, i.e. 612 years. On the basis of this figure, there would have been an interval of 1,487 years from the Flood to the building of the temple, whereas in Ant. 8.61 the figure given for that period is 1,440 years.

This is the reading adopted by Niese and Marcus. RO read 4,510; LauVEZonLat have 3,513. A notably lower figure, i.e. 3,572+ years, for the number of years from Adam to the burning of the temple results if one tallies the totals given for the time between Adam and the building of the temple in Ant. 8.62 (3,102 years) and the 470+ years for the interval between the temple’s construction and its destruction cited in 10.147. The above notice serves to round off Josephus’ chronological notices for the period from Adam to the temple’s destruction. His added chronological interlude of 10.147-148 highlights the significance of the demolition of the temple as an event on a par with the other key biblical events cited in this segment.

Josephus here resumes the thread of his narrative after the chronological interlude of 10.147-148; the resumption picks up on the language of Nebuchadnezzar’s orders to Nebuzaradan in 10.143, these including the razing of Jerusalem and the deportation of the inhabitants. For the latter event—not previously mentioned by him—see 2 Kgs 25:11// Jer 52:15// Jer 39:9 (MT), which mention various categories of persons deported by Nebuzaradan, e.g., the remaining inhabitants of the city and the deserters. Josephus will return to the topic of Nebuzaradan’s dealings with the Judean survivors in 10.155. MT (2 Kgs 25:18// Jer 52:24) ‮שׂריה‬‎ (Eng.: “Seraiah”); LXX BL Σαραίας (LXX and OL Jer 52:24 do not name the high priest); Josephus Σεβαῖος (this is the reading of RO adopted by Niese; Marcus and Schalit s.v. follow LauV’s Σαραίας; see further on 10.150). MT (2 Kgs 25:18 ‮צפניהו‬‎ (Eng.: “Zephaniah”)/ Jer 52:24 ‮צפניה‬‎ (Eng.: “Zephaniah”); LXX B 2 Kgs 25:18 Σοφονίας; LXX L 2 Kgs 25:18 Σαφανίας (LXX and OL Jer 52:24 do not name the “2nd priest”); Josephus Σεφενίας. 2 Kgs 25:18// Jer 52:24 speak of “the second priest.” In 2 Kgs 25:18// Jer 52:24 the 3 figures in question are designated as “keepers of the threshold” (LXX and OL Jer 52:24: “of the way”). Josephus uses the same term (Greek: εὐνοῦχος) as does the LXX for this figure; the corresponding Hebrew word ‮סריס‬‎ (MT 2 Kgs 25:19// Jer 52:25) may have a broader meaning (RSV: officer). In 2 Kgs 25:19// Jer 52:25 the reference is to “men of the king’s council who were found in the city”; Josephus’ substitution reflects his highlighting of the (negative) role played by the royal “friends” throughout Zedekiah’s reign. His figure for this group corresponds to that given in Jer 52:25, whereas 2 Kgs 25:19 reads 5. Josephus simplifies the complicated designation used of this figure in 2 Kgs 25:19// Jer 52:25, i.e. “the secretary (scribe) of the commander of the army who mustered the people of the land.” Compare 2 Kgs 25:19// Jer 52:25 (MT LXX) “60 men of the people of the land, who were found in the city.” OL Jer 52:25 does not mention this last group of captives. 2 Kgs 25:20// Jer 52:26 speak only of Nebuzaradan’s bringing of the prisoners cited in 25:18-19// 52:24-25, not also the temple vessels, to Nebuchadnezzar at Riblah. On Nebuzaradan’s removal of the vessels from the temple, see 10.145. MT (2 Kgs 25:20// Jer 52:26) ‮רבלה‬‎ (Eng.: “Riblah”); LXX Δεβλάθα; Josephus Ἀραβλαθά (this is the conjecture of Niese, which Marcus and Schalit s.v. adopt; RO read Σαλάβαθα). Niese, followed by Marcus and Schalit, conjectures the same form also in 10.135, 150. 2 Kgs 25:21// Jer 52:27 locate “Riblah” in “the land of Hamath.”

2 Kgs 25:21a// Jer 52:27 have Nebuchadnezzar executing all the prisoners listed in 25:18-19// 52:24-25// 10.149. Nebuchadnezzar’s transport of the bound Zedekiah to Babylon has already been reported by Josephus in 10.140. Josephus derives his mention of this figure and his deportation from another biblical context, i.e. 1 Chr 5:40-41 (MT; Eng. 6:14-15) where MT calls him ‮יהוצדק‬‎ (Eng.: “Jehozadak”); LXX B Ἰωσαδάκ; LXX Ἰωσεδέκ. Josephus’ form is Ἰωσάδακος. Greek: Σαραίας. In 10.149 the name is given by RO (followed by Niese) as Σεβαῖος, whereas Marcus reads Σαραίας there too. See the opening of 10.150, where, in contrast to 2 Kgs 25:21// Jer 52:27, Josephus makes explicit mention of the execution of the “high priest,” i.e. the biblical Seraiah. Josephus’ notice on Nebuchadnezzar’s deportation of the king and the high priest’s son here replaces the more general notice of 2 Kgs 25:21b// Jer 52:27b (MT, > LXX OL) concerning Judah’s being removed from its land.

See 10.143, with its summary allusion to the succession of Israel’s kings beginning with Saul. The codices (and Niese) read κακαδείξαντες (“founded”). On the basis of Lat’s habuerunt (“they held”), Marcus, following J. Cocceius, proposes the reading καταχόντες, which I adopt. The “priestly interlude” that follows in 10.152-153 has a counterpart in the listings of the successive priests in Ant. 6.361-362 and 8.12. It is (very loosely) based on the list of high priests in 1 Chr 5:34-41 [Eng. 6:7-14] from Zadok to the exiled Jehozadak.

Compare 1 Chr 5:36 (Eng. 6:10), which states that it was Zadok’s great-great grandson Azariah who officiated in the temple Solomon built. MT (1 Chr 5:35) ‮אחימעץ‬‎ (Eng. [1 Chr 6:8]: “Ahimaaz”); LXX Ἀχιμάας; Josephus Ἀχιμᾶς. MT (1 Chr 5:35) ‮עזריה‬‎ (Eng. [1 Chr 6:9]: “Azariah”); LXX and Josephus Ἀζαρίας. With this great-grandson of Zadok Josephus’ list begins to diverge markedly from that of 1 Chr 5:34-41 [Eng. 6:1-15], only rejoining that list for its name “Shallum” of 5:38-39 [Eng. 6:12-13]. In the MT listing the 5 names between Azariah (I) and Shallum are as follows: Johanan, Azariah, Amariah, Ahitub, and Zadok, Compare the 10 names covering the same interlude as cited by Josephus: Joram, Jos, Axioram, Phideas, Soudaias, Jouel, Jotham, Ourias, Nerias, and Odaias.

MT (1 Chr 5:38-39) ‮שלום‬‎ (Eng. [1 Chr 6:12-13]: “Shallum”). With this name Josephus rejoins the biblical listing, from which he deviated after the figure of Azariah (I); see previous note. MT (1 Chr 5:39) ‮חלקיה‬‎ (Eng. [1 Chr 6:13]: “Hilkiah”); LXX Χελκίας; Josephus Ἐλκία. In 10.55-58 this figure is called Ἐλιακίας. MT (1 Chr 5:39-40) ‮עזריה‬‎ (Eng. [1 Chr 6:13-14]: “Azariah”); LXX Ἀζαρίας; Josephus Ἄζαρος (this is the reading adopted by Niese and Marcus). In making this figure the father, rather than the grandfather of “Jehozadak” here, Josephus differs not only from 1 Chr 5:40 (MT; Eng. 6:14), but also from his own 10.150, where he gives the name of Jehozadak’s father as “Saraias,” corresponding to the biblical “Seraiah.” Accordingly, Niese posits a lacuna in the text of Josephus after the name “Azar” in 10.153. See 10.150.

This notice corresponds to the plus of Jer 52:11bβ (no parallel in 2 Kgs 25:7), mentioning Nebuchadnezzar’s keeping Zedekiah in prison “till the day of his death.” The word used for Zedekiah’s place of confinement here in 10.154 (Greek: εἱρκτή) is the same used for Jeremiah’s “prison” in 10.117, 121. The biblical narrative accounts do not mention the fact of Zedekiah’s burial. Josephus’ notice on the matter does, however, represent an implicit fulfillment of the prediction made to the king by Jeremiah in Jer 34:5 “… as spices were burned for your fathers. so men shall burn spices for you and lament for you, saying ‘Alas, lord’.” Rabbinic tradition as well (see b. Moʿed Qaṭ. 28b; S. ʿOlam Rab. 28.3) goes beyond the Bible itself in affirming that Zedekiah did receive the burial due a deceased king; see Begg 2000: 594, n. 132. See Dan 1:2 (cf. 5:2; Ezra 1:7) where—at a much earlier point, i.e. the 3rd year of the reign of Jehoiakim (see 1:1)—Nebuchadnezzar brings some of the temple vessels “to the land of Shinar, to the house of his god, and placed the vessels in the house of his god.” Josephus’ mention of Nebuchadnezzar’s disposition of the vessels at this point picks up on his (also added) mention of Nebuzaradan’s bringing these to him at “Arablatha” (biblical Riblah) in 10.149. Cf. 2 Chr 36:20: “He [Nebuchadnezzar] took into exile in Babylon those who had escaped from the sword, and they became servants to him....” This notice on Jehozadak’s release has no biblical counterpart; it picks on the mention of his being taken to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar in 10.150 // 1 Chr 5:41 (Eng. 6:15).

This transitional phrase picks up on the reference to Nebuzaradan’s deportation of the people in 10.149. See 2 Kgs 25:12// Jer 52:16// Jer 39:10 (MT), which mention “some of the poorest of the land” being left behind by Nebuzaradan for agricultural purposes, while 25:11// 52:15// 39:9 (MT) have Nebuzaradan taking the “deserters” (along with some [others] of the poorest of the land and those “left in the city”) into exile in Babylon. Josephus thus modifies the biblical notices on the fate meted out to the deserters; they— who had reported Zedekiah’s flight to the Babylonians (see 10.137)—are “rewarded” by being allowed to remain behind in the land. MT (2 Kgs 25:22; cf. Jer 40:5) ‮גדליהו‬‎ (Eng.: “Gedaliah”); LXX BL Γοδολίας; Josephus Γαδαλίας. MT (2 Kgs 25:22) ‮אחיקם‬‎ (Eng.: “Ahikam”); LXX BL Ἀχεικάμ; Josephus Ἀΐκαμος. Josephus omits the name of Gedaliah’s grandfather (MT: Shaphan). These positive characterizations of Gedaliah have no counterpart in the notice on his appointment in 2 Kgs 25:22 (cf. Jer 40:5). Significantly, Josephus’ only other use of the collocation “gentle and just” (Greek: ἐπιεικῆς καὶ δίκαιος) is in reference to David in Ant. 7.391. For his account of Gedaliah, his short-lived governorship, and its sequels Josephus bases himself on the extended account given in Jeremiah (39:11-14) 40-44 as opposed to the much shorter version of 2 Kgs 25:22-26 (Jeremiah 52 does not mention Gedaliah). On the Josephan Gedaliah, see Begg 2000: 599-622 and Feldman 1998a: 463-72. The biblical accounts do not report such a command being issued by Nebuzaradan himself. In Jer 40:9-10 it is Gedaliah who gives analogous instructions to the assembled Judeans: “dwell in the land and serve the king of Babylon... gather wine and summer fruits and oil, and store them in your vessels....”

See Jer 39:13-14, where Nebuzaradan, along with the other Babylonian commanders, removes Jeremiah “from the court of the guard.” For his presentation in 10.156-157 Josephus conflates the double account of an interaction involving Nebuzaradan and Jeremiah that eventuates in the latter’s joining Gedaliah found in Jer 39:11-14 and 40:1-6. He makes no use of the word of assurance that God instructs the still-imprisoned Jeremiah to convey to his rescuer Ebed-melech (cf. 10.122-123) cited in Jer 39:15-18. Josephus derives this 1st alternative that Nebuzaradan offers to Jeremiah from Jer 40:4aβ: “if it seems good to you to come with me to Babylon, come, and I will look after you well.” He draws the appended reference to Nebuchadnezzar’s command concerning the prophet from Jer 39:12, where the king directs Nebuzaradan to “look after him [Jeremiah] well.” He leaves aside Nebuzaradan’s opening words (vv. 2-3) to Jeremiah, in which the commander speaks of what has happened as a divine punishment for what “you” (plural) had done. The words which Josephus earlier attributes to Nebuchadnezzar in his denunciation of Zedekiah (10.138-139) might, however, be viewed as an anticipation/adaptation of their content. Cf. Nebuzaradan’s exhortation to Jeremiah in Jer 40:4b: “but if it seems wrong to you to come with me to Babylon, do not come. See, the whole land is before you; go wherever you think it good and right to go.” Josephus adds the reference to Nebuzaradan’s intention of reporting Jeremiah’s decision to the king.

Greek: ταλαίπωρος. Josephus uses this term in reference to the divine punishment of King Uzziah for his arrogation of priestly prerogatives in Ant. 9.226. Jeremiah 40 does not report a response by Jeremiah to Nebuzaradan’s extended discourse (vv. 2-5a// 10.156) to him, offering him a double option; rather, the latter simply lets the prophet go, following his words to him (v. 5b). The reply Josephus attributes to Jeremiah highlights the prophet’s sense of solidarity with his surviving compatriots and their wretched state. This sequence lacks an equivalent in Jeremiah 40, where Nebuzaradan simply mentions the possibility of Jeremiah’s joining Gedaliah (v. 5a) and Jeremiah ends up doing this (v. 6). It corresponds rather to the alternative presentation in Jer 39:13-14, where Nebuzaradan and other Babylonian officers entrust Jeremiah to Gedaliah so that he “might take him home.” Josephus’ added reference to the command given by Nebuzaradan to the governor concerning Jeremiah’s care highlights the general’s solicitude for the prophet’s welfare. See Jer 40:5b. Josephus’ mentions of “gifts” corresponds to the LXX reading in 47:5b, whereas the MT parallel 40:5 speaks of a single “gift.” Josephus accentuates the favor shown Jeremiah by Nebuzaradan still more by specifying that the general’s gifts were “costly” ones. The “costly gifts” the Babylonian general gives the captive Jeremiah here have a counterpart in War 3.408, where the Roman commander Vespasian awards the captured Josephus “precious gifts.”

At this point there follows in the codices the words εἰς Δάναν [“to Dana”] which have no equivalent in Lat; the words are bracketed by Niese and omitted by Marcus. They may reflect the LXX reading “from Dama” of LXX Jer 47:1 (MT 40:1 has “from Ramah”); see Marcus ad loc. MT (Jer 40:6) ‮המצפתה‬‎ (Eng.: “Mizpah”); LXX (47:6) Μασσηφα; Josephus Μοσαφθά (this is the reading of RSP, which Niese follows; Marcus reads Μασαφαθά, the reading adopted by Niese for the subsequent mention of the site in 10.159, with O). In his earlier mentions of “Baruch” in 10.94, 95, Josephus designates him as the prophet’s “scribe.” MT (Jer 43:3) ‮נריה‬‎ (Eng.: “Neriah”); LXX (50:3) Νηρία; Josephus Νῆρος. Neither Jeremiah’s request on behalf of Baruch nor the appended characterization of the latter has a biblical counterpart. Josephus’ added notices on these points serve to prepare for Baruch’s presence in the subsequent course of the story (see 10.178-179// Jer 43:3, 6) while the characterization of him as an important personage helps account for Jeremiah’s asking for his release in particular and the Babylonian general’s willingness to grant this. The addition likewise sets up a parallelism between the prophet’s initiative and that of Josephus himself, who, following the destruction of Jerusalem, requests Titus to free some of his compatriots; see Life 418.

This notice, unparalleled in Jeremiah 40, rounds off Josephus’ account of the activities of Nebuzaradan, whom he first introduced in 10.144. This added notice prepares Josephus’ subsequent account, based on Jer 40:7-8, of the gathering of the dispersed survivors to Gedaliah. Greek: καί. Niese brackets this word; if it is eliminated, Josephus would be speaking of a single group of those left behind by the Babylonians, rather than of 2 different groups as in the above translation. Cf. 10.155, which cites Nebuzaradan’s directing the survivors to “cultivate the soil” and thereby meet their obligations to the king. See Jer 40:7 (MT), where “the captains of the forces in the open country and their men” hear that Gedaliah has been appointed governor and entrusted with the “men, the women, and children, those of the poorest of the land,” who had not been taken to Babylon. On Josephus’ name for the site (“Masphatha”) where the survivors convene to Gedaliah, see note to “Mosphotha” at 10.158.

The 1st leader cited (after the miscreant Ishmael) in Jer 40:8// 2 Kgs 25:23 is called “Johanan” (MT ‮יוחנן‬‎; LXX [Jer 47:8] Ἰωανάν), whereas Josephus here names him Ἰωαδης (subsequently, see 10.164, etc., however, he uses the more biblical form “Joannes”) . MT (Jer 40:8// 2 Kgs 25:23) ‮קרה‬‎ (Eng.: “Kareah”); LXX (Jer 47:8) Καρῆε; Josephus Κάριος. MT (Jer 40:8// 2 Kgs 25:23) ‮שׂריה‬‎ (Eng.: “Seraiah”); LXX (Jer 47:8) Σαραιά; Josephus Σερέας. Josephus omits the name of Seraiah’s father, i.e. “Tanhumeth” (MT). MT (Jer 40:8// 2 Kgs 25:23) ‮יזניהו‬‎ (Eng: “Jezaniah”); LXX (Jer 47:8) Ἰεζονίας; Josephus Ἰωαζανίας. Josephus omits the biblical qualification of “Jezaniah” as “the son of the Maacathite” (MT). With this phrase Josephus encompasses the mention of the “the sons of Ephai the Netophathite,” and of the “men” accompanying each of the leaders named in Jer 40:8. MT (Jer 40:8// 2 Kgs 25:23) ‮ישמעאל‬‎ (Eng.: “Ishmael”); LXX (Jer 47:8) Ἰσμαήλ ; Josephus Ισμαηλος. In Jer 40:8 this figure appears 1st in the list of those who come to Gedaliah. Josephus omits the name of his father, i.e. “Nethaniah” (MT). Josephus anticipates this indication concerning Ishmael’s royal status from a later point in the biblical accounts; see Jer 41:1// 2 Kgs 25:25. Josephus adds this characterization of Ishmael, thereby already imparting a sense of foreboding to his version of the Gedaliah story. The characterization serves to set Ishmael in sharp opposition to Josephus’ Gedaliah himself, whom in 10.155 he has qualified as “gentle and just.” It further associates Ishmael with Josephus’ own arch-rival, John of Gischala, to whom he applies both of the above terms, i.e. “vile” (Greek: πονηρός; see War 2.585; 4.213, 389; 5.441; Life 102) and “very crafty” (Greek δολιώτατος; see War 2.585; 4.208), as is pointed out by Feldman 1998a: 466-7. MT (Jer 40:14) ‮בעליס‬‎ (Eng.: “Baalis”); LXX (Jer 47:14) Βεελιας; Josephus Βααλείμ; in 10.164 Josephus calls this king “Baalim.” This “flight” by Ishmael is not mentioned in the biblical accounts. Josephus infers its occurrence from the reference to Ishmael’s having been dispatched by the Ammonite king to kill Gedaliah in Jer 40:14—if Ishmael is now being sent by the king, he must have joined him earlier, and the siege of Jerusalem would have provided a suitable occasion for his doing this.

See Gedaliah’s opening words to the survivors as cited in Jer 40:9a: “do not be afraid to serve the Chaldeans.” Gedaliah’s urging the survivors to “farm the ground” here reflects Nebuzaradan’s similar directive in 10.155 (cf. 10.159). Compare the continuation of the governor’s exhortation to his visitors in Jer 40:9b: “dwell in the land, and serve the king of Babylon, and it shall be well with you.” This is Josephus’ delayed use of the reference to Gedaliah’s “swearing to” the assembly with which Jer 40:9 begins. Josephus expatiates on the promise made by Gedaliah in Jer 40:10a: “As for me, I will dwell at Mizpah, to stand for you before the Chaldeans who will come to us.” There is a note of irony to Gedaliah’s promise to be a “protector” to the assembled Judeans here, in that subsequently he will be unable to protect even himself against Ishmael’s assault.

Greek: ἀνακτίζω. This verb is characteristic of Josephus (War 1.155, 160, 166, 200, 416; 3.414; Ant. 10.162; 11.9, 12, 84; 14.92; 15.421; Life 45), but is extremely rare before his time: in literature it occurs only in Strabo (9.2.5, 32; 13.1.42). I owe this remark to Prof. Steve Mason. Compare Jer 40:10bβ, where Gedaliah concludes his discourse with the words: “dwell in your cities that you have taken.” Here, as in 10.157, Josephus highlights the devastated state of the country. Compare Gedaliah’s words to the assembly in Jer 40:10bα: “but as for you, gather wine and summer fruits and oil, and store them in your vessels.” Josephus supplies a motivation (getting through the winter) for the initiative advocated by Gedaliah. This “dismissal” of the assembly by Gedaliah at the end of his words to them is not mentioned in Jeremiah 40. The addition serves to explain how it happened, as reported in 40:11, that further Judean survivors came to hear of Gedaliah’s appointment, i.e. they did so via the governor’s initial hearers, whom he had sent off to settle wherever they see fit.

Jer 40:11a specifies that those who now hear of Gedaliah were the Jews in Moab, among the Ammonites, in Edom and in other lands. The “report” cited in Jer 40:11b has a more general and less “inviting” character than it does in Josephus’ rendering, i.e. merely that Nebuchadnezzar had left a remnant in Judah and appointed Gedaliah governor. Josephus’ wording of the report draws on his previous account of Gedaliah’s dealings with the first group of survivors in 10.161-162. The combination of the expressions “farming the soil” and “paying tribute to the Babylonian [king]” here recalls the directive issued by Nebuzaradan in 10.155. As Marcus (ad loc.) points out, Josephus’ formulation here evidences carelessness on his part since the referent of its “they” can only be “the nations around Judea,” whereas according to Jer 40:11-12a it was not the nations themselves who came to Gedaliah, but rather the Jews who had been living among these nations. Josephus omits the notice of Jer 40:12b according to which the resettled survivors “gathered wine and summer fruits in great abundance,” perhaps on the consideration that the rapid (and violent) course of subsequent events would not have allowed time for this.

Greek: χρηστότης καὶ φιλανθρωπία. This combination of nouns applied to Gedaliah recalls Josephus’ initial characterization of him as “gentle and just” (Greek: ἐπιεικῆς καὶ δίκαιος) in 10.155, as well as the mention of the governor’s “humanely” (φιλάνθρωπως) receiving the fugitives in 10.163. Cf. also Ant. 8.214, where an equivalent phrase, employing nominalized adjectives (τὸ χρηστὸν καὶ φιλάνθρωπον), is used to refer to what the people (vainly) seek from Rehoboam. See the note to “Joad” at 10.160. Greek: ὑπεραγαπάω. Josephus uses this verb of one character’s intense love for another also in Ant. 1.222 (Abraham for Isaac) and 12.295 (Hyrcanus for his son Joseph); it appears elsewhere in Ant. 2.224; 11.132. Jeremiah 40 does not mention the leaders’ sentiments towards Gedaliah. Josephus’ added reference to their feelings helps explain their subsequent exertions in warning him about Ishmael and their volunteering to act on his behalf against Ishmael. Compare 10.160, where the form of the king’s name read by Niese is “Baaleim.” Greek κρυφίως. Josephus uses an equivalent form (κρυφαίως) 1 other time, i.e. in Ant. 2.219. Josephus elaborates on the leaders’ reference to Ishmael’s dispatch by Baalis to kill Gedaliah in Jer 40:13, supplying a motive for this initiative that itself incorporates mention of Ishmael’s royal status, a point already cited by him in 10.160, where he anticipates it from Jer 41:1 (// 2 Kgs 25:25).

In Jer 40:15 Johanan alone volunteers to kill Ishmael, doing so after the narrator has noted (40:14b) that Gedaliah did not “believe” the leaders’ claims about Ishmael (40:14a). Josephus has the whole group of leaders offer to do the deed—a more realistic scenario. Compare Johanan’s appeal to Gedaliah in Jer 40:15aβ: “let me go and slay Ishmael..., and no one will know it.” Josephus turns into an affirmation by the leaders Johanan’s rhetorical question in Jer 40:15b: “Why should he [Ishmael] take your [Gedaliah’s] life, so that all the Jews... would be scattered, and the remnant of Judah would perish?”

Josephus combines the narrative notice of Jer 40:14b (“but Gedaliah. would not believe them”) and Gedaliah’s word to Johanan in 40:16bβ (“you are speaking falsely of Ishmael”) into a statement by the governor in which he adduces a reason for his “disbelief,” i.e. the fact that Ishmael had been “well-treated” by himself. Mention of this fact, in turn, serves to heighten the wrongfulness of Ishmael’s eventual murder of Gedaliah. Greek: πονηρὸς καὶ ἀνόσιος. This collocation has a counterpart in Ant. 2.22, where Reuben calls the brothers’ plan to kill Joseph “vile and unholy to God and humans.” Josephus supplies these further—unfortunately altogether unfounded—considerations that motivate Gedaliah’s refusal to “believe” (see Jer 40:14b, 16bβ) the leaders’ charges against Ishmael.

This concluding statement by Gedaliah, in which he declines to act on the leaders’ proposal even should their charges be true, takes the place of the governor’s final response to Johanan in Jer 40:16b: “you shall not do this thing, for you are speaking falsely of Ishmael.” Josephus’ version highlights the highmindedness of Gedaliah, but also his fatal mis-assessment of the character of Ishmael. On Ishmael’s earlier coming to Gedaliah, see 10.160.

This departure of the leaders is not narrated in Jeremiah 40-41, where one is left wondering whether the leaders were on hand for Ishmael’s appearance, and if so, why they did not act to protect to Gedaliah, and where it is only after the governor’s murder that it emerges that the leaders in fact had not been on the scene (see 41:11, where they “hear” about what has happened). Compare the chronological indication of Jer 40:1// 2 Kgs 25:25: “in the 7th month.” See Jer 41:1a// 2 Kgs 25:25a. Josephus elaborates on the summary reference to the 2 parties’ “eating bread together” in Jer 41:1b. The expansion accentuates Gedaliah’s hospitality, but also his criminal irresponsibility in failing to stay vigilant— also for the sake of all those committed to his care (see 10.155)—in the presence of one about whose murderous intentions he has just been warned. At the same time, the added reference to Gedaliah’s “drunkenness” serves to explain how Ishmael and his small band were able so easily to overpower the governor and those around him—Gedaliah was in no state to organize resistance to the assailants.

Greek: ἀναισθησία. Josephus uses this term twice elsewhere, i.e. Ant. 2.150 and 4.47. This added transitional phrase underscores the unscrupulous ruthlessness of Ishmael, who thinks nothing of attacking his helpless host, thereby proving himself to be indeed the “vile and very crafty man” Josephus calls him in 10.160. This group of persons is not mentioned in the list of those killed by Ishmael in Jer 41:2-3. See Jer 41:3. Josephus adds the specification that the killings took place “by night,” the time when Ishmael’s small band would have more of an advantage in assaulting the (sleeping) Babylonian soldiers. The Josephan detail likewise underlines Ishmael’s readiness, here too, to take advantage of his opponents’ diminished capacity for self-defense. Ishmael may be “very crafty” (10.160), but he is not at all a hero concerned to fight fairly.

See Jer 41:4-5a, which specifies (v. 5a) that the arrivals came from “Shechem, Shiloh, and Samaria.” Josephus leaves aside the description of the 80 as having—for reasons left unexplained—”their beards shaved, and their clothes torn, and their bodies gashed,” as well as the biblical indication that they were “bringing cereal offerings and incense to present at the temple of the Lord.” His omission of this last item likely has in view the fact that it not does seem to make sense for the travelers to be bringing offerings for a temple that had just been totally destroyed. See Jer 41:6, from which Josephus omits the allusion to Ishmael’s “weeping” as he comes forth to meet the visitors. The Bible does not explain why Ishmael does this, and in any case such weeping might well have alarmed the visitors and thus interfered with Ishmael’s plans to get them in his power so that he can murder them too. Greek: αὔλειον; this is the reading printed by Niese; Marcus reads αὐλήν (“court[yard]”) with the codices and Lat. See Jer 41:7. Josephus represents Ishmael acting alone, whereas in the source he is assisted by his men. He adds the references to the closing of the “door” (or court[yard]; see previous note) and the purpose of Ishmael’s casting the corpses down the cistern. He omits the Bible’s subsequent, parenthetical allusion (Jer 41:9) to the well in question being one built by King Asa.

Jer 41:8 specifies that the survivors amounted to 10 men. Josephus expands the catalogue of hidden foodstuffs given in Jer 41:8 (wheat, barley, oil, and honey) to encompass other kinds of items.

To the list of those carried off by Ishmael in Jer 41:10a Josephus adds the “wives and infants” of those living at the time in Mizpah. See Jer 41:10b.

Greek: τὰ ἐν τῇ Μασφαθῇ. This phrase is absent in ROE and bracketed by Niese. Marcus reads it without brackets. See Jer 41:11. Josephus adds the reference to the emotional effect of the news upon the leaders; compare his likewise added mention of their “feeling great affection” for Gedaliah in 10.164. MT (Jer 41:12) ‮ןועבג‬‎ (Eng.: “Gibeon”); LXX (Jer 49:12) Γαβαών; Josephus Ἰβρών (this is the reading adopted by Niese and Marcus; Schalit s.v. reads the LXX form of the city’s name). Josephus omits the biblical reference to the “great pool” at the site.

See Jer 41:13. Josephus supplies the motivation for the captives’ joy. See Jer 41:14. See Jer 41:15. Neither the Bible nor Josephus explains how Ishmael’s original retinue of 10 men (see 41:1// 10.168) has now been reduced to 8.

From the list of those rescued by the leaders cited in Jer 41:16 Josephus omits “the soldiers,” given the reference in 10.169 (// Jer 41:3) to Ishmael’s having killed “the troops who had been left behind by the Babylonians” in Mizpah. The presence of “eunuchs” among Ishmael’s captives has not been mentioned previously either by the Bible or Josephus. MT (Jer 41:17) ‮גרות כמוהם‬‎ (Eng.: “Geruth Chimham”); LXX (Jer 49:17) Γαβηρωθ Χαμααμ; Josephus Μάνδρα (on the various scholarly proposals concerning this form and its origin, see Begg 2000: 613, n. 50). Josephus omits the biblical indication that the site in question was “near Bethlehem.” Josephus supplies this chronological indication. See Jer 41:17b. See Jer 41:18. Josephus supplies the specification concerning the identity of the Babylonians (namely, those who had survived Ishmael’s massacre; see 10.169) whom the Judeans fear as well as the reference to the former’s presumed “wrath” over Gedaliah’s murder.

Jer 42:1 mentions 2 other leaders by name as well as “all the people from the least to the greatest.” Josephus keeps attention focussed on the one leader he does name, i.e. “Joannes.” See Jer 42:2-3. Josephus omits the assembly’s allusion to their “remnant” status and their opening appeal that their “supplication come before” Jeremiah of 42:2a. In Jeremiah 42, the assembly’s oath of v. 5— whose actual wording Josephus leaves aside—follows Jeremiah’s initial reply to them in v. 4.

Josephus compresses the wording of Jeremiah’s positive response to the people in Jer 42:4, omitting in particular his (presumptuous) statement “whatever the Lord answers you I will tell you...,” which seems to presuppose that God is bound to provide Jeremiah with an answer. Compare Jer 42:7, where, after 10 days, it is simply “the word of the Lord” that comes to Jeremiah. On Josephus’ penchant for adding divine appearances to biblical accounts of God’s speaking, see Begg 1993: 53-54, n. 300; Begg 2000: 32, n. 16. Josephus abbreviates the extended, positive alternative the Lord sets out for the people in Jer 42:9b-12. Characteristically, he omits God’s affirmation about his “repenting of the evil which I did to you” of 42:10b, just as elsewhere he leaves aside biblical references to divine changes of mind. Josephus compresses the lengthy, highly repetitious divine word concerning the 2nd, negative possibility facing the hearers presented in Jer 42:13-22, where (see v. 21) the people’s disregard of God’s warning is spoken of as having already occurred. The phrase “those things which… their brothers had already suffered” synthesizes the biblical Jeremiah’s repeated references to “the sword, famine, and pestilence” (see vv. 16, 17, 22).

With this notice Josephus conflates the double biblical reference to Jeremiah’s conveying the divine message of Jer 42:8-9a (Jeremiah summons Johanan, the commanders, and all the people and says to them) and 43:1 (“when Jeremiah finished speaking to all the people all the words of the Lord...”). Josephus supplies this editorial notice on the audience’s disbelief with their subsequent reply (see 43:2-3) to the prophet in view. The assembly’s refusal to believe Jeremiah recalls Gedaliah’s disbelief of the leaders’ claims about Ishmael in 10.166. In both instances, their disbelief has disastrous consequences for those who adopt such a posture. Greek: καταψεύδεσθαι τοῦ θεοῦ. Josephus uses this construction of the Jewish false prophets in War 6.228 and in formulating Micaiah’s affirmation about his being unable to “tell lies in God’s name” in Ant. 8.404. See Jer 43:2-3, where Baruch is charged (v. 3) with inciting Jeremiah against the audience with the intention of handing them over to the Chaldeans.

Greek: συμβουλίας; this is the reading adopted by Niese and Marcus; SP read συμμαχίας (“alliance”). Compare Jer 43:4: “so Johanan… and all the commanders of the forces and all the people did not obey the voice of the Lord...” See Jer 43:5-6, whose wording Josephus compresses.

Jer 43:7b-8a identifies the Egyptian site where the refugees arrive and where God communicates to Jeremiah as “Tahpanhes.” In having God’s discourse begin immediately with this announcement (// Jer 43:11a), Josephus passes over the obscure divine directives about the stones that Jeremiah is to conceal and on which Nebuchadnezzar will spread his “canopy” of 43:9-10. Compare Jer 43:11, where God’s announcement is that Nebuchadnezzar will “smite” Egypt, handing over some to pestilence, others to captivity, and still others to the sword, and where it is unclear whether it is the fate of the Egyptians or that of the Judean fugitives that is being described. Josephus clarifies that it is the latter group which is in view, likewise adding mention of the place to which the captives will be taken. He leaves aside the extended sequence of additional divine words of doom for both the Egyptians and the Judean refugees of Jer 43:12-44:30.

In this appendix to his presentation of Gedaliah’s governorship and its aftermath (10.155-180// 2 Kgs 25:22-26// Jeremiah 40-44) Josephus goes beyond the Bible’s narrative accounts in relating (10.181-182) later campaigns of Nebuchadnezzar, whereby he fulfills various biblical prophecies against a variety of nations. Josephus calculates this figure by combining the dates given in 10.146 (Jerusalem fell in Nebuchadnezzar’s 18th year) and 10.181 (the king’s later campaigns took place 5 years later). Cf. Apion 1.143, where Josephus avers: “statements like those of Berosus are found in the Phoenician archives, which relate how the king of Babylon subdued Syria and the whole of Phoenicia.” On the various uses of the designation “Coele-Syria” over time, see Smith (1896: 538) who states: “For Josephus Coele-Syria is all Eastern Palestine, and the only town west of the Jordan which belonged to it was the capital of the Decapolis, Beth-Shan.” For the association between “Coele-Syria” and the above 2 nations, see Ant. 1.206, where Josephus states that the Moabites and Ammanites are both “peoples of Coele-Syria.” Josephus may have found inspiration for his notice on Nebuchadnezzar’s assault upon the Moabites and the Ammonites in the oracles announcing doom for them of Jeremiah 48 and 49:1-6, respectively.

Josephus now comes to relate the fulfillment of the divine announcement concerning the fate of Egypt cited in 10.180. This notice is an implicit realization of Jer 44:30, where God announces his intention of giving Pharaoh Hophra “... into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar... who was his enemy and sought his life.” This development fulfills the announcement of 10.180 that Nebuchadnezzar will lead some of the Judeans who had fled to Egypt “to Babylon as captives.”

See Ant. 9.277-278 (and 10.184) which mention King “Salmanasses” as the one responsible for this deportation. On this double title, see 10.40, where it is used of the nameless monarch who brings God’s punishment upon Manasseh.

See Ant. 9.279, 283 for Shalmaneser’s initiatives and the (original) name of the people resettled by him in the former territory of Israel. Compare Ant. 9.290, where Josephus states: “(they) are called ‘Chouthaioi’ in the Hebrew language, whereas in Greek they are called ‘Samareitai’.” Greek: ναός. This is the reading of LauVELat, which Niese and Marcus adopt. ROMSP read λαός (“people”). Earlier (see 10.112), Josephus, basing himself on the concluding element of Jeremiah’s announcement in Jer 25:11, has the prophet predict a 70-year period of enslavement to the Babylonians for the Jews. Here, drawing on the allusion to the Jeremiah text in 2 Chr 36:21, he notes the fulfillment of the prophetic word, at the same time adding a reference to the temple and its fate. He gives the same figure for the duration of the Judean exile in Apion 1.132, whereas in Apion 1.152-159 he reduces the figure for the period in question to about 50 years, so as to bring it into line with the data of other records alluded to by him.

Marcus (ad loc.) points out that this figure for the period between the 2 deportations diverges slightly from the dates for the regnal years between Hezekiah’s 7th year (in which the Israelite deportation took place; see Ant. 9.278) and the 11th year of Zedekiah (in which the Judean deportation occurred; see 10.135), which come to a total of 132 years, 6 months, and 20 days. The figure likewise differs somewhat from that based on modern computations for the dates of the 2 deportations (722/721 and 587/586, BCE respectively), i.e. ca. 135 years.

Josephus opens his narrative of Daniel by emphasizing the youths’ aristocratic lineage and bearing. Daniel is among those relatives of the Judean king who are outstanding both physically and intellectually. In addition to natural qualities that Daniel possesses, he also receives the best possible education, continues to grow in wisdom, and enjoys the Babylonian king’s honor and favor. Josephus’ account essentially omits the first two verses of the Book of Daniel, which problematically date the opening scenes of the book to the third year of the reign of King Jehoiakim of Judah, i.e. 605 B.C.E. Josephus, by contrast, connects the story of Daniel to the immediate aftermath of the destruction of the temple in 586 B.C.E. Perhaps the biggest surprise in this section is the insinuation that Daniel may have been among those in the king’s court who were castrated. Ναβουχοδονόσορος with variant spellings: Ναβουχοδονόσαρος (e.g. Ant. 10.222), Ναβουχαδανάσσαρος (e.g. Ant. 10.220, P; –άσαρος, S), Ναβουχοδονόσωρ (e.g. Ant. 10.195, Exc.). MT ‮נבוכדנאצר‬‎ (Dan 1:1), ‮נבכדנצר‬‎ (Dan 1:18), ‮נבוכדנצר‬‎ (Dan 3:1), ‮נבוכדראצר‬‎ (e.g. Jer 21:2); Θ and LXX have Ναβουχοδονοσορ; Nebuchadnezzar II (var. Nebuchadrezzar; ruled 605–562 B.C.E.), the second king of the Neo-Babylonian empire founded by his father Nabopolassar (Sack 1992d, 4: 1058–59). For notes on Josephus’ portrait of Nebuchadnezzar, see Feldman 1993: 52–54. Josephus implies that the deportation of Daniel and his friends coincided with the end of Zedekiah’s reign in 586 B.C.E. (Bruce 1965: 148; Collins 1993: 132 n. 29; Braverman 1978: 64 n. 54). This may have been motivated by a desire to maintain chronological continuity from the end of the previous section of the Antiquities to the beginning of the Daniel story. However, the change also enabled Josephus to side-step the chronological difficulty in Dan 1:1, which dates the opening events of the Book of Daniel to “the third year of the reign of King Jehoiakim of Judah” (i.e. 605 B.C.E.). Josephus elsewhere correctly dates the destruction of Jerusalem to the eleventh year of the reign of Zedekiah and the eighteenth year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar (Ant 10.146; cf. Jer 52:29). For a survey of the difficulties associated with Daniel’s opening chronology see Collins 1993: 130–33. Madden, who accepts the chronology of Daniel, suggests that Josephus understood Daniel’s deportation to have taken place in 605 B.C.E. in the aftermath of the battle of Carchemish, but has difficulty explaining why Josephus associated the Judean youths with Zedekiah who would not become king until eight years later (Madden 2001: 37). For a summary of the complicated chronology of this period see Cogan 1992, 1: 1008. Josephus makes a similar chronological modification in Ant 10.195 (see note to “Egypt” at 10.195) Josephus’ emphasis on the nobility of Daniel and his lineage (see also Ant 10.188) parallels the way he describes himself in Life 2 and War 5.419. Indeed, there are numerous instances throughout his recounting of the story of Daniel where Josephus seems to draw connections between the biblical hero and the way he describes himself in other places. In Ant. 10.187 his depiction of the youths’ intellectual abilities is reminiscent of the way he describes himself in Life 8–9. In 10.190 he uses an expression he will later use of himself as well to describe Daniel’s determination to “discipline himself” (cf. Life 11). Daniel’s aptitude for dream interpretation is akin to Josephus’ own in War 3.352. In Ant. 10.204 Daniel defends the integrity of men described as “noble and good,” while in Life 13 Josephus claims also to have defended individuals of this description. Finally, Josephus may also have seen a parallel between himself and Daniel in the foretelling of imperial succession (cf. Ant. 10.205–210, 270–275 // War 3.401; 4.623, 626). For further possible parallels between Josephus and Daniel, see also notes at 10.194, 237, 250, 253 and 268. On this subject see also Daube 1980; Begg 1993; Gnuse 1996: 29–32; Gray 1993: 70– 78. On the genealogy of Daniel and his companions see note to “Sacchias” at 10.188. Σαχχίας. VE σεδεκίας (In War 5. 391 Josephus uses the form Σεδεκίας). Hebrew ‮צדקיהו‬‎; LXX Σεδεκιας; Zedekiah (ruled ca. 597–586 B.C.E.). On the derivation of the form Σαχχίας from ‮זכאי‬‎, an Aramaic form of ‮צדקיהו‬‎, see Schalit 1968 s.v. The king’s given name was Mattaniah but it was changed by Nebuchadnezzar, who made him king in place of his nephew Jehoiachin (2 Kgs 24:17), who ruled Judah for only three months (2 Kgs 24:8). He was a brother to Jehoiachim who ruled Judah from 609/8–597 B.C.E. (Althann 1992, 6: 1068– 71). It is striking that Josephus chooses to associate Daniel and his friends with Zedekiah even though the biblical account passes negative judgements on him (2 Kgs 24:19; 2 Chron 36:12). Josephus himself echoes this perspective in Ant 10.103 when he states that Zedekiah “scorned what was just and requisite” (Begg, BJP) and turned a blind eye to outrages committed by the mob. However, in Ant 10.120 Josephus refers to Zedekiah’s “kindness and personal justice” (Begg, BJP) in his treatment of the prophet Jeremiah. Schalit (1968 s.v.) cites rabbinic tradition (b. Šabb. 149b; b. Moʾed Qat. 28b and b. ʿArak. 17a) that treats Zedekiah as a righteous (‮צדיק‬‎) king. See also Ginzberg 1909–38, 4: 294. While the biblical text also emphasizes the youths’ physical qualities, calling them “young men without physical defect and handsome,” (Dan 1:4) Josephus seems to go further in his praise of their physical perfection. As Feldman (1998: 91–93) has shown, this is a common feature of Josephus’ portrayal of his biblical heroes; cf. Ant. 1.200; 2.9, 41, 98, 224, 230, 231, 232; 5.277; 6.45, 130, 137, 164; 7.189. For similar themes in other ancient literature, see Homer, Il. 22.370; Plato Resp. 7.535 A11–12; Phaedr. 279; Isocrates Evagoras 22–23; Dionysius of Halicarnassus Ant. rom 1.79.10; Philo Mos. 2.14.70. Josephus omits the role of Ashpenaz (‮אשפנז‬‎; Θ Ασφανεζ; LXX Αβιεσδρι), the chief eunuch, in selecting the Judean youths (Dan 1:3; Vermes 1991: 153), but see note to “Aschanes” at Ant 10.190. Vermes suggests that this enhances the status of Daniel and his friends. See also next footnote and note to “renamed” at 10.188. In Hellenizing fashion, Josephus has the youths’ education entrusted to tutors (παιδαγωγοί) rather than to the “palace master” (NRSV) or “chief eunuch” of the biblical narrative (Dan 1:3). In this he may have taken his lead from LXX Dan 1:5, which uses the verb ἐκπαιδεῦσαι, “to educate,” for the Hebrew ‮גדלם‬‎. Θ has θρέψαι, “to nourish.” Josephus has ἐπαίδευε in Ant. 10.187. On Greek and Roman ideals and practices of education, see Thomas 2003 and Muir 2003. Again, Josephus omits the role of Ashpenaz as the individual in charge of the youths’ education at this stage (Vermes 1991: 153, 164), though he does introduce him as the one entrusted with their care at a slightly later point in the story (Ant 10.190). See also previous footnote. Greek ποιήσας τινὰς αὐτῶν ἐκτομίας. Josephus, or the tradition on which he drew, apparently derived this assertion, which is not found in the Book of Daniel, from 2 Kgs 20:18/Isa 39:7—”Some of your own sons who are born to you shall be taken away; they shall be eunuchs (‮סריסים‬‎, LXX σπάνδοντας) in the palace of the king of Babylon.” (Bruce 1965: 148; Vermes 1991: 153). In Ant. 10.33 Josephus renders this passage: “…after no little time, this wealth of yours will be carried away to Babylon and your descendants, having been made eunuchs (εὐνουχισθησομένους) and deprived of their manhood (ἀπολέσαντας τὸ ἄνδρας εἶναι), will be slaves to the Babylonian king” (Begg, BJP). Commenting on Dan 1:3 Jerome states: “From this passage the Hebrews think that Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah were eunuchs, thus fulfilling that prophecy which is spoken by the prophet Isaiah to Hezekiah….” (Jerome, Expl. Dan. on Dan 1:3; cited by Braverman 1978: 53). In another place (Jov. 1.25) Jerome states: “…the Hebrews, up to the present day, declare that both [Daniel] and the three boys were eunuchs, drawing proof from that sentence of God which Isaiah speaks to Hezekiah….And they argue that if Daniel and the three boys were chosen from the royal seed…and if Scripture predicted that there would be eunuchs from the royal seed…these men were those who were made eunuchs” (cited by Braverman 1978: 63). Jerome’s claim concerning Jewish views on this subject is well supported in the rabbinic literature, e.g. b. Sanh. 93b; Pirke R. El. 52; Tg. Esth. I, 4:5 (cited by Braverman 1978: 54–56). A similar tradition is found in Origen, Comm. Matt. 15:5 Fr. Ezech. 14:16 and Hom. Ezech. 14:14 (cited by Braverman 1978: 57). In Midrash Meg. 176 Daniel and his friends castrate themselves in order to prove their innocence in the face of accusations of immorality. In y. Šabb. 6, 8d the virility of the castrated Daniel and his three companions is miraculously restored in the fiery furnace (Braverman 1978: 54, n. 8; Ginzberg 1909–38, 6: 415 n. 78; Vermes 1991: 153). Feldman (1998: 632) suggests that this tradition would have constituted a delicate problem for Josephus, as it did for the rabbis, because the biblical text states that the youths were “without blemish” (Dan 1:4). Be that as it may, it is difficult to understand why Josephus included the reference at all since it is not found in the book of Daniel itself, nor is it a necessary implication of anything in the biblical text.Still, Josephus does not explicitly include Daniel and his companions among those who were castrated, though he does not rule out the possibility either. Vermes (1991: 153) notes that in the Lives of the Prophets 4.1 Daniel was only thought to be a eunuch because of his chastity. In Josephus’ summary of the laws of Moses he includes the biblical narrative’s negative assessment of eunuchs (cf. Deut 23:1): “Turn away from eunuchs (γάλλους) and flee companionship with those who have deprived themselves of their manhood and its fruit…. Banish them just as [you would deal] with a murderer of children” (Ant. 4.290; Feldman, BJP). Josephus does not address the issue of whether Daniel and his friends would have been unfit for participation in the temple cult. On attitudes to eunuchs in Greek and Roman society, see Hunt 2003. Hunt cites Herodotus, Hist. 3.92 as evidence that Darius I exacted boys for castration as tribute from some subject peoples; see also Hist. 8.105; Collins 1993: 134; Madden 2001: 136. See further note to “eunuch” at 10.190.

This line is Josephus’ addition. Perhaps he wanted to emphasize the point that deportation was not an ignominy experienced by the Jews alone. In LXX Dan 1:10 Daniel is compared to youths of other nations (νεανίας τῶν ἀλλογενῶν). Josephus has τοὺς ἄλλων ἐθνῶν. For Josephus’ views on foreign ethnicities, see Rajak 2001: 137–145. Josephus reflects LXX and Θ here, both of which have τραπέζης for ‮פת־בג‬‎, “portion,”a Persian loan word that made its way into Greek as ποτίβαζις, which is attested in Athenaeus, Deipn. 11.503 (Collins 1993: 127, 139–40 and n. 109). Greek δίαιτα. On Josephus’ use of this term in the present narrative and elsewhere, see note to “regimen” at 10.190. Greek τὰ ἐπιχώρια, which Josephus distinguishes from τὰ τῶν Χαλδαίων γράμματα. The Hebrew text refers to ‮ספר ולשון כשדים‬‎, “the literature and language of the Chaldeans” (Dan 1:4). Θ reads, γράμματα καὶ γλῶσσαν Χαλδαίων, while LXX reads, γράμματα καὶ διάλεκτον Χαλδαϊκὴν. In Ant. 10.194 Josephus states that the youths mastered all the learning of the Hebrews and the Chaldeans. Roman readers of this section of Josephus’ narrative would presumably have understood the term “Chaldean” to have some connection to ancient Babylonian traditions of astrology, though they may also have thought of the term as having specific ethnic connotations as well. In Apion 1.129 Josephus seems to convey both aspects when he describes Berosus as a native Chaldean (ἀνὴρ Χαλδαῖος…τὸ γένος) famous for his writings on astronomy and philosophy. The term could also denote, as it often does in the Daniel stories, a special profession. In Roman circles opinion was divided between suspicion (e.g. Cicero, Div. Book 2; Juvenal Sat. 6.554–564), sometimes leading to harsh treatment (Valerius Maximus 1.3.3), and begrudging respect (Diodorus 2.29–31; Tacitus, Hist. 2.22); see further Barclay, BJP on Apion 1.128, Collins 1993: 137–38 and note to “seers” at 10.195. The portrayal of Daniel’s outstanding intellectual abilities is just one of the ways in which Josephus uses the biblical figure as a type of himself (cf. Life 8–9). For other such parallels, see note to “noblest” at 10.186. Daniel’s wisdom is a major motif of Josephus’ presentation of the biblical figure (e.g. Ant. 10.200, 204, 239, 240). In the present instance, though, σοφία refers more to a body of knowledge mastered by Daniel than to an attribute of Daniel (see also Ant. 10.189, 194). Josephus also uses the adjective σοφός for Daniel in Ant. 10.237 and classes him among the “wise men” (σόφοι) of Babylon. On this last point, see note to “seers” at 10.195. As in the biblical narrative, Daniel’s wisdom in Josephus’ paraphrase is “not the gnomic wisdom of Ben Sira, but rather an occult insight into the meaning of dreams and visions” (Mason 1994: 163; see also Collins 1993: 144; Gray 1993: 67–69). Gray notes that “as in the case everywhere in Jewish tradition, this kind of esoteric wisdom is regarded by Josephus partly as an acquired skill and partly as a gift from God” (68). In rabbinic tradition Daniel’s wisdom was said to outweigh the combined wisdom of all others (b. Yoma 77a; cited by Feldman 1998: 633 n. 10). The biblical text implies that the Israelite youths were already “versed in every branch of wisdom, endowed with knowledge and insight, and competent to serve in the king’s palace” before they were taught “the literature and language of the Chaldeans” (Dan 1:4). It also goes on to say that the youths’ education would last three years (Dan 1:5). Josephus omits this reference to the duration of the studies (Vermes 1991: 153), perhaps because of the chronological difficulties it caused; see note to “Egypt” at 10.195.

The Hebrew text, followed by both Θ and LXX, states only that Daniel and his three companions were of the tribe of Judah (Dan 1:6), though the possibility that they belonged to Zedekiah’s line is presumably derived from Dan 1:3, where the youths are characterized as coming from “the royal family and of the nobility.” In addition to this, 2 Kgs 20:18/Isa 39:7, which Josephus clearly applied to the beginning of the Book of Daniel (see note to “castrated” at 10.186), is addressed to king Hezekiah, and refers to “some of your own sons who are born to you.” Josephus explicitly places Daniel and his companions in the royal lineage, and implies later (Ant. 10.201) that they were all, in fact, brothers. In Dan 2:17 the three youths are said only to be Daniel’s “companions” (‮חברוהי‬‎, Θ: φίλοις; LXX: συνεταίροις). Feldman (1998: 631) following Braverman (1978: 66–68) cites the tradition that while Daniel was from the tribe of Judah, the three companions came from other tribes (b. Sanh. 93b; cf. Pirqe R. El. 53; Jerome on Isa 39:7). Josephus connects the youths with Zedekiah rather than with Jehoiakim, with whose reign the Book of Daniel begins, in order to side-step the chronological difficulty raised by the reference in Dan 1:1. On this, see further note to “taken” at 10.186. Greek τὰς φύσεις. On Josephus’ treatment of the youths’ “natural qualities” see note to “qualities” at 10.189. Greek καλοί τε καὶ ἀγαθοί. In Ant. 10.204 Josephus uses the contracted form καλοὺς κἀγαθούς, on which see note to “noble and good” at 10.204. Marcus (LCL) omits this phrase from his translation even though it is in the Loeb Greek text. Δανίηλος. Hebrew ‮דניאל‬‎; Θ and LXX Δανιηλ. The transcription of names in Josephus’ text is a complex matter. In the present translation an editorial decision has been made to omit the standard Greek endings from Josephus’ declined forms (-ος, -ης, etc) in cases where such an ending alone would distinguish the form from that familiar in English. Thus, we have “Daniel” in our translation, rather than “Danielos,” and “Misael” instead of “Misaelos,” and so on. It should be noted, though, that in contrast to the practice of the LXX translators, Josephus deliberately attempted to make the biblical names sound more familiar to Greek readers. In Ant. 1.129 Josephus explains his practice concerning names, stating, “For the names have been hellenized for the sake of the beauty of the narrative with a view toward the pleasure of those who come upon it” (Feldman, BJP). One of the effects of this alteration would undoubtedly have been to give the impression that the biblical figures were themselves hellenized in some way. Ανανίας. Hebrew ‮חנניה‬‎; Θ and LXX Ανανιας; Hananiah. Μισάηλος. Hebrew ‮מישאל‬‎; Θ and LXX Μισαηλ; Mishael. Αζαρίας. Hebrew ‮עזריה‬‎; Θ and LXX Αζαριας; Azariah. Josephus implies that it was the king himself who renamed Daniel and his companions, while the biblical text attributes this action to Ashpenaz the palace master (Dan 1:3, 7; Vermes 1991: 153). Josephus’ version of the story undoubtedly enhances the status of Daniel and his companions (Feldman 1998: 631; Vermes 1991: 164). On similar omissions of the role of Ashpenaz, see notes 760 and 761 above.

Βαλτάσαρος. Hebrew ‮בלטשאצר‬‎; Θ and LXX Baltasar; Belteshazzar. Neither Θ nor LXX distinguishes between the name given to Daniel and the name of the king in Dan 5. Josephus, however, calls the king Βαλτασάρης (Ant.10.231). Josephus repeats the changing of Daniel’s name in Ant.10.212. Σεδράχης. Hebrew ‮שדרך‬‎; Θ and LXX Σεδραχ; Shadrach. Μισάχης. Hebrew ‮מישך‬‎; Θ and LXX Μισαχ; Meshach. Αβδεναγώ. Hebrew ‮עבד נגו‬‎; Θ and LXX Αβδεναγω; Abednego. Greek εὐφυΐας, natural goodness of shape, shapeliness; also, good natural parts, cleverness, genius, goodness of disposition (LSJ s.v.); natural ability, talents (Rengstorf 1973–1983, s.v.). Feldman (1998: 641) points out that in Apion 2.148 Josephus cites Apollonius Molon deriding the Jews for being “the most untalented (ἀφυεστάτους) of all the barbarians.” In contrast to such calumnies, Josephus has already claimed that the Judean youths were “by nature” both noble and good (Ant. 10.188), and will later represent Nebuchadnezzar marveling at Daniel’s nature (Ant. 10.211). See note to “wisdom” at 10.187. The honor Daniel enjoyed is an important theme in this part of the Antiquities, on which see further note to “public” at 10.266. This statement is an addition to the biblical narrative (Vermes 1991: 153), but see Dan 1: 18–19. In LXX Dan 1:20 it states that the king appointed them rulers (ἄρχοντας).

In this section Josephus builds on the theme of the youths’ superior personal qualities and education by presenting them as individuals dedicated to the kind of disciplined regimen worthy of the most sophisticated philosophers. It also becomes clear in this section that Daniel, far more than being merely intelligent in a conventional way, has a wisdom extending to unusual insight into things of the divine realm. One of the features of this story that perhaps attracted Josephus the most was the experimental nature of the youths’ diet and the proof that it seemed to provide of the validity of the Judean way of life. See note to “brothers” at 10.201. Greek σκληραγωγεῖν ἑαυτὸν. Marcus (LCL) translated the term “to live austerely.” S. Mason translates the expression “to live ascetically” (Mason 1994: 169) in the present context, but uses the expression “to toughen himself” in his translation of Life 11, which is the only other place where Josephus uses the expression (Mason 2001: 17). In that context Thackeray rendered it with the phrase “to submit to hard training” (Thackeray, LCL; see also Feldman 1998: 642). Significantly, the context of the term’s use in Life is Josephus’ own experience with various philosophical schools, on which see Mason 2001: 18 n. 76. C.T. Begg (1993: 541) finds significance in the fact that Josephus uses the same language to describe Daniel’s and his own experience. For other such parallels between Daniel and Josephus himself, see note to “noblest” at 10.186. In Philo’s writings (Spec. 4.17.102; Contempl. 69) the noun form σκληραγωγία is used with reference to the austerity of the Spartans (cited by Satran 1980: 45 n. 12). Mason points out that it was the goal of philosophical training to make a person insensitive to hardships, weakness and desire. It is significant in the present context that Josephus points out that the youths’ diet kept their bodies from becoming soft (Ant. 10.194). It is also significant to note that Josephus avoids the biblical assertion that Daniel and his friends rejected the king’s food and wine for fear of defilement, whether ritual or moral: “But Daniel resolved that he would not defile (‮גאל‬‎; ἀλισγηθῇ) himself with the royal rations of food and wine; so he asked the palace master to allow him not to defile himself” (Dan 1:8; see further Collins 1993: 141–43; Satran 1980: 34). The closest Josephus comes to the theme is in Ant. 10.194, on which see note to “uncorrupted” at 10.194. Instead, as we have noted, Josephus provides philosophical reasons for Daniel’s abstention; see further note to “dates” at 10.190 and to “cause” at 10.194. This is particularly striking when seen in contrast to the widespread concern among Judeans in the Second Temple period to avoid dietary defilement; e.g. Jub. 22:16; Jdt 10:5; 12:1–2; Tob 1:10–11; 1 Macc 1:61–62; 2 Macc 5:27; Satran 1980:34, 44 n. 4. Josephus’ reasons for avoiding the defilement motif may have included a desire to avoid the kind of pagan ridicule of Jewish food scruples reflected in Plutarch’s Quaest. conv. 4.4.4 (cited by Feldman 1998: 642). Josephus may also have wanted to avoid the explicit condemnation of idolatry sometimes associated with Jewish aversion to gentile food; e.g. Add. Esth C 14:17. At one point in the Book of Daniel (Dan 10:12), in the context of Daniel’s mourning and fasting, he is said to have “humbled himself” (‮התענות‬‎; LXX ταπεινωθῆναι; Θ κακωθῆναι) and so to have been heard by God.Josephus’ concept of self-discipline has different connotations. On the connection between self-affliction and visionary experiences in Second Temple literature, see Satran 1980: 36. On the importance of the related concept of ἄσκησις, asceticism, in the Greek philosophical tradition and the later Christian adaptations of it, see Rousseau 2003. In Apion 2.171–174 Josephus claims that the Law of Moses uniquely combines rational education (λόγῳ διδασκαλικός) with the training of character (διὰ τῆς ἀσκήσεως τῶν ἠθῶν). The training of morals, moreover, is closely tied to instructions about which kinds of food are appropriate and which are not. See also Ant. 1.6. In Ant. 20.265 Josephus speaks of the “discipline” (ἄσκησις) of attaining exact knowledge of sacred writings. In War 2.150 and Ant. 6.296 Josephus speaks of the ἄσκησις, “training,” of the Essenes and the Cynics respectively. Greek ἀπέχεσθαι. The term has significant philosophical connotations, on which see further note to “living things” in this paragraph. Greek ἐδεσμάτων, meats, food. Josephus does not seem to share the biblical text’s concern to specifically include the king’s wine in that which was to be avoided (Dan 1:8, 10, 12, 16). Greek πάντων τῶν ἐμψύχων. The expression is the opposite of τῶν ἀψύχων used later in the same paragraph (see note to “vegetarian” below). In War 6.267 Josephus uses the term ἔμψυχοι to refer generally to all living things. The biblical text does not specifically state that Daniel wished to avoid the flesh of living things, though it is perhaps implied by Daniel’s request for vegetables and water (Dan 1:12). Later in the Book of Daniel (Dan 10:3) the prophet relates how during a time of mourning he abstained from meat and wine. More significantly, abstention from animal food was part of a well established theme in a philosophical tradition running at least from Plato in the fourth century B.C.E. till Porphyry in the third century C.E. (Satran 1980: 36–37). In his Laws Plato provides a description of the Orphic way of life which is characterized by abstention (ἀπεχόμενοι) from animal (ἐμψύχων) food in favor of non-animal (ἀψύχων) food Leg. 782 C-D. Porphyry, for his part, wrote an entire treatise originally entitled Περὶ Ἀποχῆς Ἐμψύχων (On Abstinence from Animal Food). Apollonius of Tyana, a contemporary of Josephus, whose Life was written by Flavius Philostratus in the third century, epitomized the Pythagorean virtues of abstention from animal food (Vit. Apoll. 6.11; 8.5). These were, of course, not the only voices on the subject of animals in the ancient world. A significant debate centered on whether or not animals possessed a rational soul, and thus whether or not they should be accorded justice. Aristotle denied reason to animals, as did the Stoics and the Epicureans, while others, especially the Neopythagoreans, argued otherwise. On these issues see further Sorabji 2003. Josephus refers to animals as “irrational” (ἄλογος) in War 4.170; 6.197; Ant. 10.262; Apion 1.224; 2.213; 271. The last two of these references are particularly significant because they speak of the Jews’ kind treatment of animals (on which see also Ant. 4.275). Ant. 10.262 is of interest because it speaks of irrational animals having insight into the morality of humans. In contrast to the philosophical concern about eating that which is ἔμψυχος, Philo speaks of the Therapeutae’s concern for eating that which was ἔναιμος (Contempl. 73), “containing blood,” which is a reflection of the Hebrew Bible’s prohibition against eating blood (e.g. Gen 9:4; Lev 3:17; 7:26–27; 17:10–14; 19:26; Deut 12:16, 23–25; 15:23; Beckwith 1988: 408–9). Josephus reflects these concerns in Ant. 1.102 (“For I have made you lords of all creatures…but without blood…for the soul is in it” [Feldman, BJP]), and 3.260 (“He prohibited the use of all blood for food…considering it to be the soul and the spirit” [Feldman, BJP]). Note in particular the connection between blood (αἷμα) and soul (ψυχή) in these passages. Ἀσχάνης. The biblical text distinguishes between the palace master (‮רב סריסיו‬‎, Dan 1:3, ‮שר הסריסים‬‎, Dan 1:7, 9; LXX ἀρχιευνοῦχος), called Ashpenaz (‮אשפנז‬‎; Θ Ασφανεζ; LXX Αβιεσδρι, Dan 1:3), who refuses Daniel’s request for a special diet despite the fact that God had allowed Daniel to receive favor and compassion from this individual (Dan 1:9), and “the guard” (‮המלצר‬‎) appointed to care for Daniel and his companions (Dan 1:11), who complies with the request on a trial basis. Θ treats the latter term as a proper noun (Αμελσαδ, with variants Αμελσαρ, Αμερσαρ, Αμελλασαρ, Αμεσαδ, Αμελσαλ, Αμελασαδ, αμαλεσαδ, Αμελδαδ, etc.), while LXX and Josephus treat the two palace officials as the same person (Vermes 1991: 154). Josephus uses the term εὐνοῦχος for the Hebrew ‮סריס‬‎, “eunuch” (cf. the various terms in the previous footnote), but which often refers to high military and political officials without the necessary implication of emasculation. In Jer 39:3 it applies to the officials of the king of Babylon, and in Gen 39:1 the term is used of Potiphar even though he is married (Collins 1993: 134–135; Schneider 1964, 2: 766). On the etymology of the term and its various uses, see also Madden 2001: 40–41. On the possibility that Daniel and his companions were castrated, see note to “castrated” at 10.186. This statement is an addition to the biblical narrative. Greek ὄσπρια. The term may refer to any kind of pulse or legumes including fava beans, lentils, and chickpeas. Satran (1980: 38–39, 46 n. 16) points out that Josephus’ retention of this item in the youths’ diet does not fit well with his otherwise complete transformation of Daniel into a Greco-Roman sage, since beans generally were not considered an appropriate part of a philosopher’s diet because of their tendency to cause flatulence. Cf. Empedocles in Diels 1934: 1.368; ch. 31 (21) no. 141; Tertullian De anima 48.3. For ancient medical and philosophical attitudes to the consumption of beans, see Arbesmann 1949–1951: 25 nn. 89–91. Feldman (1998: 642 n. 30) notes that Josephus may have felt constrained by the Greek biblical text to include ὄσπρια, and reflects further that readers in antiquity might not have identified pulse with beans, for which a different word (κύαμος) is used. The MT has ‮זרעים‬‎ at Dan 1:12 and ‮זרענים‬‎ at Dan 1:16, both of which are hapax legomena (Satran 1980: 34). According to Goldingay 1987: 6 the terms, which derive from “seeds,” (BDB 281–283) could refer to vegetables, grain and non-meat products generally. Θ has σπέρματα “seeds,” while LXX has ὄσπρια (see previous footnote). The Vulgate renders the terms legumina. Josephus has ὄσπρια καὶ φοίνικας, “lentils and dates.” In the context of Levitical dietary legislation it is the characteristic dryness of this food that renders it clean even under adverse conditions (cf. Lev 11:37–38; Satran 1980: 34). Josephus’ inclusion of dates in the youths’ diet would seem to be in keeping with a certain philosophizing tendency, because dates were a well-known favorite food of Pythagorean philosophers (Mason 1994: 169; Satran 1980: 38); cf. Flavius Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 1.21; 2.26. For other philosophizing aspects of Josephus’ portrait of Daniel, see notes at 10.194. Greek τῶν ἀψύχων, non-animal; see also note to “living things” above. Vegetarianism was also a defining characteristic of the Therapeutae according to Philo (Contempl. 37, 73), and Judith’s diet consisted of roasted grain, dried fig cakes and bread (Jdt 10:5). In Life 14 Josephus highlights the piety of certain priests whose commitment in adverse circumstances included subsisting on a diet of figs and nuts. On this incident see further Mason 2001: 23 n. 103. On motivations for vegetarianism in antiquity, see Beckwith 1988: 407– 10. Greek κεκινῆσθαι, to be stirred up, aroused, urged on, LSJ s.v. Josephus uses the term δίαιτα here and throughout this episode (Ant. 10.187, 191, 192) to refer to the youths’ choice of food, or diet, but as Satran as aptly noted, “the choice of food is not only a matter of taste or nourishment but a question of outlook and values” (Satran 1980: 45 n. 13; also Feldman 1998: 634, 644). Thus, while it is clearly the specifics of food that are in the forefront of the present episode, the broader implications of the story relate to Daniel’s way of life in general (see also Ant. 15.371 where δίαιτα is used of the Essenes’ “way of life,” which is similar to that taught by Pythagoras; also War 2.137, 138, 151, 160). At other points in the biblical narrative, Josephus uses the term with a wide range of meaning, e.g. “abode/dwelling/residence” (Ant. 1.336, 345; 8.225; 9.5, 18), “fare/rations/food/eating” (Ant. 2.39, 61; 3.57, 78; 6.34; 7.114; 8.134; 11.178), “customs” (Ant. 2.257), “arbitration” (Ant. 3.69), “household items” (Ant. 2.297). In the sense of “way of life” Josephus uses the term at Ant. 3.278; 5.306, 344; 10.216 and 242. In an instructive comparison to Daniel, Josephus comments on the young Samson’s “frugality of regimen” (περὶ τὴν δίαιταν σωφροσύνης Ant. 5.285; cf. Apion 1.182), which was one of the early indications that the youth was destined to become a prophet. Later in the same context it was precisely Samson’s abandonment of his own rule of life (τὴν οἰκείαν δίαιταν) in favor of foreign customs (ξενικῶν…ἐθισμῶν) that proved to be the beginning of his decline (Ant. 5.306). In Apion 2.174 Josephus claims that Moses’ laws cover both the food eaten in infancy and “the private life of the home” (κατὰ τὸν οἶκον…διαίτης). In Ant. 4.137, where he relates the story of Midianite (bibl. Moabite) women who seduced Hebrew youths to follow strange gods (cf. Num 25), Josephus puts in the mouth of these women the charge that the Hebrews “follow customs and a way of life that is most contrary to everyone else, even as your food is of a peculiar type and your drink is not common to others” (Feldman, 2000; see also 4.139). Strikingly, Josephus accepts this characterization as true, though without accepting the libelous insinuation that Jewish food scruples imply misanthropy of any kind. On this incident see further Spilsbury 1998: 127–29; van Unnik 1974. In Ant. 3.259–260 Josephus gives a much abbreviated list of laws concerning unclean foods.

Josephus omits the biblical statement that “God allowed Daniel to receive favor and compassion from the palace master” (Dan 1:9). Greek δίαιτα. See note to “regimen” at 10.190. Greek αἴτιοι κινδύνου καὶ τιμωρίας αὐτῶ καταστῶσιν, literally “they would become the causes of danger and punishment for him.” LXX has κινδυνεύσω τῷ ἰδίῳ τραχήῳ, “I will endanger my own neck.”

Collins (1993: 144) notes that the setting of a specific time limit is in continuity with the visions of the second half of the Book of Daniel, which set specific times for their predictions. In Ant. 10.267 Josephus highlights the specificity of Daniel’s prophecies as indicative of his superiority over other prophets. Greek δίαιτα. See note to “regimen” at 10.190.

Josephus embellishes the biblical narrative which states simply that “they appeared better and fatter than all the young men who had been eating the royal rations” (Dan 1:15). The biblical narrative states only that the guard “continued to withdraw” the unwanted food and drink (Dan 1:16; Vermes 1991: 154). Nevertheless, a similar theme appears in the Testament of Joseph (3.4) where after a seven-year period of fasting Joseph “seemed to the Egyptian as if living in luxury, for those who fast for the sake of God receive grace of countenance” (cited by Satran 1980: 42).

The biblical text reads: “To these four young men God gave knowledge (‮מדע‬‎; Θ: σύνεσιν; LXX: ἐπιστήμην) and skill (‮השכל‬‎; Θ: φρόνησιν; LXX: σύνεσιν) in every aspect of literature (‮ספר‬‎; Θ: γραμματικῇ; LXX: γραμματικῇ τέκνῇ) and wisdom (‮חכמה‬‎; Θ: σοφίᾳ)” (Dan 1:17). The variant reading in LauELat reads βαρβάροις instead of Ἑβραίοις. Ant. 10.187 refers to the youths learning both “the local ways” and “Chaldean literature.” C.T. Begg (1993: 541) suggests that Daniel’s mastery of both Hebrew and foreign learning constitutes a similarity been Josephus’ portrayal of Daniel and his own self-presentation (cf. Ant. 20.263). For other such parallels, see note to “noblest” at 10.186. In this passage Josephus reflects a bipartite view of the human person made up of body (σῶμα) and soul (ψυχή). See also War 1.84; 2.31, 60, 136, 357, 476, 580; Ant. 13.317; 15.251; 17.238; 18.333; 19.325; etc. Josephus expresses a similar view in his speech against suicide at Jotapata: “All of us…have mortal bodies (σώματα θηντά), composed of perishable matter (φθαρτῆς ὕλης), but the soul lives forever, immortal: it is a portion of the Deity housed in our bodies” (War 3.372; Thackeray, LCL; cf. Ant 6.3). In War 7.341–348, however, Josephus has Eleazar use a similar understanding of the soul in relation to the body to argue in favor of suicide. Josephus ascribes a similar view of soul and body to the Essenes in War 2.154: “For it is a fixed belief of theirs that the body is corruptible and its constituent matter impermanent, but that the soul is immortal and imperishable” (Thackeray, LCL). On these passages see further Mason 1991: 158–70; Smith 1987: 238–9. On Josephus’ views on the afterlife, see Sievers 1998. In Ant. 4.153 Josephus comments on Phinehas’ courage of both soul and body (τόλμῃ δὲ καὶ ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος ἀνδρείᾳ; cf. Ant. 4.298; 6.375; 15.158; War 1.429–430; 2.476, 580), while in Ant. 6.160 God distinguishes between “comeliness of body” (σωμάτων εὐμορφίας) and “virtue of soul” (ψυχῶν ἀρετῆς). A different, tripartite, perception is reflected in Ant. 1.34 where Josephus nuances the biblical account of creation by saying that “God fashioned humanity, taking dust from the earth, and he injected breath [or “spirit,” πνεῦμα] and soul into him” (Feldman, BJP). Similarly, in Ant. 3.260 in his description of the biblical prohibition against eating blood (Lev 17:11; Deut 12:23), Josephus states that Moses “prohibited the use of all blood for food…considering it to be the soul and the spirit” (Feldman, BJP). On this understanding even animals would have to be considered body, soul, and spirit. Wis 15:11 also uses the three-fold division as does 1 Thess 5:23. This understanding has roots in the classical tradition (e.g. Plato Resp. 4.439 D–E; Phaedo; see Jacob 1974, 9: 608–17). The tripartite composition of humanity can also be found in Lev. Rabbah 32.2 and Eccl. Rabbah 10.20 (cited by Feldman 2000: 13 n. 59). In Ant. 11.240 “spirit” and “soul/life” are virtually equivalent, while in Ant. 15.190 Josephus uses a tripartite designation of “soul and body and substance” (ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος καὶ περιουσίας). The expression καθαρῶν…καὶ…ἀκραιφνῶν is the closest Josephus comes to the theme of purity and defilement that characterizes this story in the biblical narrative (cf. Dan 1:8; see further note to “discipline himself” at 10.190), though even here cultic or ritual defilement is not in view. Elsewhere in Josephus’ biblical paraphrase (Ant. 1.23) he uses the term ἀκραιφνής to speak of the “purity” of God’s virtue (ἀρετή; cf. Ant. 18.288), while in Ant. 17.238 he uses the same term to describe Herod’s “unimpaired” reason. In Ant.18.366 the term is used of soldiers who are “fresh,” or “well rested” for battle. Dan 1:17 attributes the youths’ progress in learning directly to God (see note to “learning” at 10.194). Josephus’ description of the youths here is reminiscent of Moses’ description of the Israelites as those “who scorn labors and who have trained [their] souls in virtue” (Ant. 4.460 Feldman, BJP). Apollonius of Tyana expounds the virtue of a lighter diet in Philostratus’ Vit. Apoll. 8.5. Significantly, this diet is cited as the cause of the philosopher’s ability to predict the future. The toughening of the youths’ bodies is a result of their decision to discipline or toughen themselves (cf. Ant. 10.190). In Ant. 10.215, where Josephus relates the story of the youths being thrown into the fiery furnace, he states that God made their bodies too strong to be consumed by the fire. Here Josephus provides the philosophical rationale for the youths’ choice of diet—a rationale that enables Josephus to avoid the issue of defilement explicit in the biblical text (Dan 1:8). Satran refers to Josephus’ argument here as “a classic description of that balance of physical and mental training which becomes synonymous with the philosophic existence” (1980: 37). He cites Plato, Resp. 9.571D–72B; Leg. 6.782C–D and Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 1.21; 2.26 as examples. See also Cicero, Div. 1.53.121 (cited by Feldman 1998: 643 n. 31). Seth Schwartz speculates that Josephus has Daniel use the same kind of rationale that Jews in similar situations in Josephus’ day (including Josephus himself) actually did use (Schwartz 1990: 182 n. 35). The rabbis based Daniel’s actions on considerations of piety rather than those of health (b. ‘Abod. Zar. 36a; cited by Feldman 1998: 644). See note to “wisdom” at 10.187. Dan 1:17 states, “Daniel also had insight into all visions (‮חזון‬‎) and dreams (‮חלמות‬‎).” LXX refers to Daniel’s understanding of ὁράματι καὶ ἐνυπνίοις, while Θ has πάσῃ ὁράσει καὶ ἐνυπνίοις. The ability to interpret dreams was an important aspect of Josephus’ presentation of his own identity in the Judean War (3.352). On other such parallels between Josephus himself and Daniel, see note to “noblest” at 10.186. Besides Daniel and himself, only Josephus’ biblical namesake, Joseph (Ant. 2.9–17, 63–90) and the Essenes (War 2.158; Ant. 13.311–312; 15.373, 379; 18:20) are presented as interpreters of dreams (Mason 1994: 177). On parallels between Josephus’ presentation of himself and various biblical figures, especially Joseph, Jeremiah, and Daniel, see further Daube 1980; Begg 1993; Gnuse 1996: 29–32; Gray 1993: 70–78. Josephus seems to have been particularly drawn to dreams and their interpretation. Gnuse (1996: 181) has noted that in contrast to his extensive treatments of the dreams in the first half of the Book of Daniel, Josephus pays little attention to the visions of the latter half of the book. In the present context Josephus uses the term ὄνειρος for “dream,” instead of ἐνύπνιον, which is used by both LXX and Θ throughout the Book of Daniel. Josephus does use ἐνύπνιον five times in his Daniel narrative (Ant. 10.196, 198 [twice], 202, 217), but favors the term ὄναρ, which he uses a total of eleven times (Ant. 10.195 [three times], 196, 200, 203 [twice], 205, 208, 211, 216) in the story of Daniel. ὄνειρος, which is used in the present context, is used again in Ant. 10.234. Gnuse (1996: 17–18) treats ὄναρ and ὄνειρος as synonyms, stating that “the two terms function together as one word in common usage, not only in Josephus but in Greek literature in general” (18; see also Oepke 1967, 5: 221; Gray 1993: 59–60). Elsewhere in the biblical paraphrase Josephus uses ἐνύπνιον only in the story of Pharaoh’s dream (Ant. 2.75), while in Apion it is used of dubious dreams at 1.207, 211, 294, 298 and 312. Mason, following Oepke 1967, 5: 221, suggests that Josephus “already seems sensitive to Artemidorus’ distinction [see Onir. 1.1b] of ἐνύπνιον from ὄνειρος on the criterion that the former refers to an insignificant dream, whereas the latter signifies an event susceptible of interpretation” (Mason 1994: 170; see also Gray 1993: 60–64). In Ant. 10.199 and 216 Josephus uses ὄψις (“vision”) as a synonym for “dream,” while in Ant. 10.234 and 272 the “vision” is not associated with sleep. On Josephus’ use of the language of dreams and the historical context, see further Gnuse 1996: 17–20; Gray 1993: 58–79; Oepke 1967, 5: 220–238; Price 2003. Greek τὸ θεῖον. Josephus uses this term for God six times in his retelling of the story of Daniel (Ant. 10.194, 242, 250, 258, 260, 262), and many times throughout his writings. More often throughout he uses θεός. Versnel (2003) notes that τὸ θεῖον became an equivalent for θεός, which from Herodotus onwards could be used to account for occurrences that could not be explained by natural causes (see also Kleinknecht 1965, 3: 122). In Ant. 10.241 Daniel refers to his prophetic gift as that which is “wise and divine” (τὸ…σοφὸν καὶ θεῖον). Earlier in the same context Belshazzar had acknowledged the “divine spirit” (τὸ θεῖον…πνεῦμα) which attended Daniel (Ant. 10.239). See further Smith 1987. Greek φανερὸν, “visible, manifest, known.” This statement is an addition to Scripture. Josephus, however, omits the biblical assertion that the king found the four Judean youths to be “ten times better than all the magicians and enchanters in his whole kingdom” (Dan 1:20). It is possible that Josephus found the statement too inflated, or perhaps he wanted to avoid any implication that the youths dabbled in magic. The overall impact of Josephus’ portrait of Daniel is that it presents him as an illustrious Jewish philosopher (Mason 1994: 169). As Satran points out, “the disciplined pursuit of purification has brought Daniel to the supreme achievement of the Greco-Roman sage—the movement from human to divine wisdom” (Satran 1980: 38). It is possible that Josephus was prodded in this direction by a Greek text similar to the one in LXX Dan 1:20, which states that Daniel became ten times wiser than all the “sages and philosophers” (τοὺς σοφιστὰς καὶ τοὺς φιλοσόφους) in the kingdom. In the narrative that follows Josephus often implies that Daniel had achieved a level of existence, or access to the divine, not normally associated with mere mortals; e.g. Ant. 10.196, 204, 215, 237, 239, 264, 267. On similar themes in the Greco-Roman world at large, see Bieler 1935–1936; Hengel 1974: 210–18.

Except for the chronological adjustment at the very beginning of this episode (see next footnote), Josephus adheres fairly closely to the biblical narrative in this section. Josephus apparently was drawn to the story’s palpable demonstration of Daniel’s skills as an interpreter of dreams, and he makes sure to take the opportunity to heighten the dramatic elements within the story. The notice in Dan 2:1 that places Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of the great statue in the second year of the king’s reign has long caused biblical commentators difficulties. These difficulties are connected to the fact that Dan 1:5 and 18 imply that Daniel has already been in the king’s court for three years by this point in the narrative. Numerous attempts have been made to explain or rectify the discrepancy including, for example, the variant reading in Chester Beatty Papyrus 967 of LXX that reads “twelfth” instead of “second” (cited by Vermes 1991: 154). Collins 1993: 154–5 surveys various proposed solutions to the problem. S. ‘Olam Rab. 28.124 dates the dream to two years after the destruction of the Temple. For other rabbinic and patristic solutions, see further Braverman 1978: 72–76. Josephus was clearly also aware of the difficulty, perhaps because of the reason stated above, but also because in his own reconstruction of the chronology of events he has already implicitly synchronized the deportation of the Judean youths with the end of Zedekiah’s reign (Ant. 10.186 and note to “taken” there). By this reckoning Daniel could not have come into Nebuchadnezzar’s custody until the eighteenth year of his reign. Thus, Josephus tries to avoid the chronological difficulty by dating the events “after the second year from the sack of Egypt.” Just which event Josephus is referring to here is not clear, but there is reason to believe that Josephus saw the events of the Book of Daniel as following immediately after the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple in 586 B.C.E. What is more, he linked these events to Nebuchadnezzar’s defeat of the Egyptian army described by Berosus (see Ant. 10.220–222; Apion 1.135–137; on which see note to “satrap” at 10.220). In doing this Josephus was in error because the Berosus passage actually deals with events surrounding the Battle of Carchemish between Nebuchadnezzar and Necho II of Egypt in 605 B.C.E. However, it seems clear from references to the destruction of the temple in Apion 1.132 and 145, both before and after his citation of Berosus’ account of the Battle of Carchemish, that Josephus read it as applying directly to the events of 586 B.C.E. If this is indeed the case, then Josephus’ reference in the present instance to “the sack of Egypt” is most likely connected to the statement in Berosus about Nebuchadnezzar “settling the affairs of Egypt” (Apion 1.137//Ant. 10.222). It should be noted, too, that on this reading Josephus would have taken the Judean captives in the Berosus passage (Ant. 10.222; Apion 1.137) to be a reference to the group that included Daniel and his companions. When we look at Josephus’ account of the events leading up to the final fall of Jerusalem we find an extra-biblical account of a battle between Nebuchadnezzar and the Egyptians who were attempting to rescue Zedekiah’s Jerusalem from the Babylonians’ siege (Ant. 10.110). This event, though not attested in the Hebrew Bible (but see Jer 37:7, cited by Marcus 1937: 218 n. a), roughly corresponds to the end of Zedekiah’s reign and the destruction of Jerusalem, and may be the same event that Josephus refers to in our present passage as “the sack of Egypt.” It is perhaps relevant in this regard to remember that some rabbinic exegetes, who also discerned the chronological difficulty in the biblical passage, assigned the events in this story to the second year after the destruction of the temple. Madden (2001: 47) argues that the “sack of Egypt” in Ant. 10.195 refers to the Battle of Askelon (603 B.C.E) since this city was under Egyptian rule at the time. The main difficulty with this suggestion is that it falls foul of the fact that Josephus coordinates Daniel’s deportation with the end of Zedekiah’s reign (586 B.C.E.); see Ant. 10.186. Greek θαυμαστός. The biblical narrative indicates that the dreams (plural) troubled the king’s spirit and deprived him of sleep (Dan 2:1). The same is said of Pharaoh in Gen 41:8. The claim that God revealed the interpretation of the dream to Nebuchadnezzar in the dream is an addition to the biblical narrative motivated, perhaps, by the need to explain how the king would have recognized the correct interpretation when he heard it. Similarly, in his paraphrase of the story of Pharaoh’s dream in the time of Joseph (Ant. 2.75/Gen 41:1–8), Josephus states that the king had been given the explanation of his dream in his sleep along with the dream itself, but that he forgot the explanation. “It” refers to the dream (the demonstrative adjective is masculine/neuter, whereas the word for “interpretation” is feminine). The biblical narrative does not say that the king forgot the dream (or its interpretation). The king states, rather, “I have had such a dream that my spirit is troubled by the desire to understand it.” The implication of the biblical story seems to be that the king withheld the dream from the wise men as a test to see if they really did have insight into such things; see especially Dan 2:9. Feldman (1993: 52; 1998: 645–6) suggests that Josephus’ version of the story presents a more favorable, less capricious, picture of the king. Josephus uses the terms Χαλδαῖοι, μάγοι, and μάντεις for those the king expected to be able to interpret the dream. The biblical terms are “magicians (‮חרטמים‬‎; Θ and LXX: ἐπαοιδοὺς), enchanters (‮אשפים‬‎; Θ and LXX: μάγους), sorcerers (‮מכשפים‬‎; Θ and LXX: φαρμακοὺς), and the Chaldeans (‮כשדים‬‎; Θ: Χαλδαίους; LXX has the expression φαρμακοὺς τῶν Χαλδαίων)” (Dan 2:2). Later in the story (Ant. 10.197) Josephus refers to these people collectively as “wise men” (οἱ σόφοι; cf. Dan 2:12) and a little later as σόφοι, Χαλδαῖοι, and μάγοι (Ant. 10.198). Twice in Ant. 10.198–199 he uses μάγοι as a collective term for the whole group, and once he uses μάγοι and Χαλδαῖοι. In Ant. 10.203 Josephus apparently includes Daniel among the Χαλδαῖοι and μάγοι. In Ant. 10.234 the magi and Chaldeans are referred to as “all of those among the Babylonians who were able to interpret signs and dreams.” The term μάντεις occurs nowhere else in Book 10 of the Antiquities. Elsewhere in the Antiquities the term is used of Balaam (Ant. 4.104, 112) and the diviners expelled from the land by King Saul (Ant. 6.327, 331). In this context they are classed alongside ventriloquists (ἐγγαστριμύθοι), but distinguished from the prophets (οἱ προφῆται). In War 1.79–80 and Ant. 13.311–313 μάντις is used of Judas the Essene who correctly predicted the murder of Antigonus, while in War 2.112 and Ant. 17.345 it is used of certain individuals skilled in interpreting dreams. When the related terms μαντεία and μαντικός are considered, the references include the Egyptian seers (Ant. 2.241; Apion 1.236, 256–258, 267, 306), the witch of Endor (Ant. 6.330–331, 338), a seer in Alexander’s army (Apion 1.203–204), the emperor Tiberius (Ant 18.217, 222), the Delphic oracle (Apion 2.162), and soothsayers in general (War 2.112; Ant 17.345; Gnuse 1996: 32). In War 4.625 Vespasian refers to Josephus’ own μαντείαι, i.e. “predictions,” and Josephus uses the related term προμαντεύσαιτο for himself in War 3.405. On Josephus’ use of this terminology, see Blenkinsopp 1974: 246–7; Gray 1993: 107–10. On another note, S. Mason (1994: 182–3) has observed that the only other context in Josephus’ writing in which the terms μάντεις and Χαλδαῖοι appear along side each other is War 2.111– 113 in which the story is told of Archelaus’ dream of nine ears of corn being eaten by oxen. In addition to the story’s obvious echo of the Joseph story in Gen 41:2–4, Mason argues that it provides evidence that Josephus already had the Book of Daniel in mind as he wrote the Jewish War. The significance of this point is discussed at length by Bruce (1965: 153–60) and Mason (1994: 178–90). See also note to “wise men” at 10.197. Collins (1993: 155) points out that the assembly of interpreters is a familiar scene in dream reports of Persian kings; see Herodotus, Hist. 1.106; 7.19; Cicero, Div. 1.23.46.

Josephus omits the biblical statement that the Chaldeans spoke to the king in Aramaic (Dan 2:4), nor does he indicate that this marks the beginning of the section of the MT (Dan 2:4–7:28) that is in Aramaic. On the presence of Hebrew and Aramaic in the earliest layers of the textual tradition of the Book of Daniel, see Vermes 1991: 149. Here Josephus condenses the words of the biblical Chaldeans: “There is no one on earth who can reveal what the king demands! In fact, no king, however great and powerful, has ever asked such a thing . . . . The thing that the king is asking is too difficult, and no one can reveal it to the king except the gods (LXX τι ἄγγελος; Θ θεοί), whose dwelling is not with mortals” (Dan 2:11). In Ant. 10.204 Josephus has Daniel himself affirm that what the king demanded was not within human abilities to perform. In Ant. 10.237 and 239 Daniel is described as privy to knowledge not normally accessible to mortals. Josephus greatly condenses the biblical king’s threats and promises of reward (Dan 2:5). Josephus omits the direct discourse between the king and the Chaldeans in this section (Dan 2:5–11)

Greek τοὺς σοφούς. On Josephus’ use of this term, see note to “seers” at 10.195. Mason (1994: 185) has drawn a connection between this reference, along with the description in Ant. 10.267 where Daniel is described as the prophet who specified not just what would happen in the future but also the time (καιρόν) at which it would happen, with War 6.313. This last refers to an “ambiguous oracle” found in the sacred scriptures “to the effect that at that time (κατὰ τὸν καιρὸν ἐκεῖνον) one from their country would become ruler of the world,” but which many of their wise men (τῶν σοφῶν) misinterpreted. Mason adduces this as further evidence that Josephus’ presentation of the Judean war was deeply influenced by his reading of the Book of Daniel. See note to “brothers” at 10.201. Jerome reports the concern of Jewish commentators to explain why, if Daniel and his friends had not been initially a part of the group who had been unable to explain the king’s dream, they should share their punishment (Expl. Dan. on Dan 2:12–13, cited by Braverman 1978: 77). Jerome’s answer to the question is that Daniel and his friends were too modest to put themselves forward or to grasp at the rewards offered by the king. Nevertheless, the Chaldeans, because of their envy, were only too happy to have the Judean youths share in their peril. Josephus comments similarly on Daniel’s aversion to rewards (Ant. 10.241, 251) and the envy of his enemies (Ant. 10.212, 250, 256). Ἀριόχης. MT ‮אריוך‬‎; Θ: Αριωχ; LXX: Ἀριώχης. Dan 2:14 uses the term ‮רב־טבחיא‬‎; Θ and LXX: ἀρχιμάγειρος, chief of the royal guard. The NRSV renders the term “chief executioner.” In the next verse Arioch is referred to as ‮שליטא די־מלכא‬‎, “royal offical” (Θ: ἄρχων τοῦ βασιλέως).

On Josephus’ use of these terms, see note to “seers” at 10.195. Josephus characteristically, and somewhat tediously, repeats the main elements of the story he has just told, rather than follow the example of his biblical precursor which states simply, “Arioch then explained the matter to Daniel” (Dan 2:15). In the biblical narrative Daniel makes the request directly to the king (Dan 2:16). Feldman (1998: 648) suggests that Josephus wanted to avoid the impression of brazenness on the part of Daniel. In the biblical narrative Daniel himself “goes in” to make his request of the king. Daube (1980: 28–29) has suggested that Josephus’ adaptation of the narrative so as to include an intermediary between Daniel and the king reflects Josephus’ own use of an intermediary in order to get his “prophecy” heard by Vespasian (War 3.399). The suggestion is not entirely compelling. The biblical Daniel requested that the king “give him time” to interpret the dream (Dan 2:16). Josephus heightens the drama of the episode by implying that Daniel had but a single night to come up with the interpretation. On Josephus’ use of this term, see note to “seers” at 10.195. Josephus supplies the motivation only implicit in the biblical narrative (Dan 2:16).

On Josephus’ use of this term, see note to “seers” at 10.195. This sentence is Josephus’ own expansion of the biblical narrative. See note to “brothers” at 10.201. This is an addition to the biblical narrative. Greek γνωρίσαι, “to reveal [the dream].” A variant reading in MSPExc has σῶσαι, “to save,” while E reads ἐλεῆσαι, “to have mercy.” Josephus’ Daniel is more concerned for the welfare of the magi and Chaldeans than the biblical counterpart; cf. Dan 2:18 (Feldman 1998: 645). On Josephus’ use of the terms “magi” and “Chaldeans,” see note to “seers” at 10.195.

In Dan 2:18 Daniel instructs his companions “to seek mercy from the God of heaven concerning this mystery.” The Greek term ἀγασάμενος is the aor. part. mid. masc. nom. sg. of either ἄγαμαι (“to admire”) or ἀγάζω (“to honor”). Rengstorf (1973–1983, s.v.) does not list the latter possibility, and Marcus (LCL) clearly opted for ἄγαμαι. Nevertheless, the idea that God honored Daniel’s wisdom is perhaps to be preferred over the notion that God admired him. For this usage see also Pindar, Nem. 11.6. I am grateful to Steve Mason for this suggestion. This statement is typical of Josephus’ tendency to aggrandize the major biblical characters in general (see Feldman 1998: 74–131), and of his tendency to emphasize the wisdom of Daniel and his companions in particular (see further note to “wisdom” at 10.187). In Dan 2:20 Daniel praises God “for wisdom and power are his.” In 2:21 he states that God “gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to those who have understanding. He reveals deep and hidden things; he knows what is in darkness, and light dwells with him.” Daniel concludes his praise with the acknowledgement: “for you have given me wisdom and power” (Dan 2:22). Josephus picks up on this aspect of the story in Ant. 10.203, where he has Daniel humbly insist that he is not in fact wiser than the Chaldeans and magi, but rather the recipient of God’s mercy. It is at this point (Dan 2:19) that Θ first uses the verb ἀποκαλύπτω, “to reveal,” for the Aramaic ‮גלא‬‎, ‮גלה‬‎. Θ uses the same word again at 2:22, 28, 29, 30, 47 and 10:1 (the usage in 11:35 is a mistranslation). In none of these instances, or anywhere in Daniel, does LXX use ἀποκαλύπτω , but rather ἀνακαλύπτω (2:22, 28, 29), δείχνυμι (10:1), δηλόω (2:47), or ἐκφαίνω (2:19, 30, 47). Josephus, too, never uses ἀποκαλύπτω in his Daniel narrative or, indeed, in his paraphrase of the Bible. When he does use the term it is only in a non-theological sense (War 1.297; 5.350; [6.209]; Ant. 12.90; 14.406). The terms he prefers in the Daniel narrative include γνωρίζω (Ant. 10.199), δείκνυμι (Ant. 10.205, 270, 277), δηλόω (Ant. 10.195, 198, 201, 202, 205, 208, 210, 218, 234, 235, 243, 244 [twice], 245, 254, 272, 273, 274), ἐπιδείκνυμι (Ant. 10.271), μηνύω (Ant. 10.195, 239, 241), and σημαίνω (Ant. 10.200, 208, 213, 214, 216, 238, 239, 241, 243, 244, 245, 259, 270, 272 [twice]). Bilde 1998 has shown that these terms indicate that Josephus was indeed very much interested in themes and concerns associated with “apocalypticism” despite his avoidance of the technical term ἀποκαλύπτω. On Θ’s use of ἀποκαλύπτω in Daniel see Collins 1993: 159. Cf. Dan 2:30 “… in order that the interpretation may be known to the king and that you may understand the thoughts of your mind.”

The idea that the four young men were brothers (ἀδελφοί) is Josephus’ embellishment of the story. He has already implied that they all belonged to the royal lineage of King Zedekiah (Ant. 10.186, 188), and in Ant. 10.190, 197, 199, 212 and 214 he calls them “relatives” (συγγενεῖς). In Dan 2:17 the three youths are said to be Daniel’s “companions” (‮חברוהי‬‎, Θ: φίλοις; LXX: συνεταίροις). Daniel’s joy and the despair of his friends, along with Daniel’s words of encouragement to them are additions to the biblical narrative. Josephus heightens the psychological dimensions of the story and seeks to increase the sense of tension and drama. Feldman (1998: 635) has pointed out further that this scene is reminiscent of Aeneas’ attempts to raise the flagging spirits of his men in Virgil’s Aeneid 1.198–207.

Thus Josephus summarizes the content of the biblical Daniel’s hymn of praise to God (Dan 2:20–23). The participation of the friends is an addition to the biblical narrative. The biblical narrative does not highlight the youthfulness of Daniel and his friends at this point. Josephus alludes to their youthfulness to increase readers’ sympathy with the protagonists. “Daybreak” is not explicit in the biblical narrative. Literally, “before the preceding night.”

Of all the accounts of dreams and visions in the Book of Daniel only this one gets anything like a full treatment by Josephus. While this may well have something to do with Josephus’ not wanting to repeat dreams and visions that he may have taken to be referring to the same things, it would still probably be fair to say that Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of the statue was of enormous personal importance for Josephus. Among other things, it seems to have exerted a formative influence on his understanding of the ebb and flow of world history. Josephus implies that Daniel is to be understood as belonging to the same group as the Chaldeans and the magi. On these terms see further note to “seers” at 10.195. The biblical Daniel’s modesty takes a slightly different form from Josephus’. In Dan 2:27 Daniel says to the king: “No wise men, enchanters, magicians or diviners can show to the king the mystery that the king is asking, but there is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries ….” The biblical Daniel does go on to affirm that his knowledge of the dream and its interpretation are in no way to be attributed to his own wisdom (Dan 2:30), but Josephus’ Daniel emphasizes God’s mercy in responding to his prayer. On the importance of the virtue of modesty throughout Josephus’ biblical narrative, see Feldman 1998: 112–3. Josephus switches from third person to first person part way through the sentence necessitating the introduction of quotation marks. The reference to God’s mercy on Daniel and his friends is an addition to the biblical narrative at this point, but it echoes the biblical Daniel’s instructions to his friends that they should “seek mercy from the God of heaven…so that Daniel and his companions with the rest of the wise men of Babylon might not perish” (Dan 2:18).

The concern for the king’s honor (δόξα, “the opinion which others have of one, estimation, reputation, credit, honor, glory,” LSJ s.v.) and the implied criticism of his petulance is an addition to the biblical narrative; but see Θ Dan 2:15 where Daniel asks Arioch why the king’s decree is so “shameless” (ἀναιδής). Feldman (1998: 646) sees this as part of a pattern of presenting the king in a more favorable light than does the biblical narrative. Tomasino (1995: 235) sees this as an example of Josephus’ presentation of Daniel as “the ideal collaborator,” someone whom the monarch may trust implicitly to look out for his interests. Similarly, Madden 2001: 49. Tomasino argues further that in presenting Daniel in this way Josephus was seeking to justify his own association with the Romans. Greek καλοὺς κἀγαθούς. Marcus (LCL) has “fine and excellent men.” Feldman (1998: 646) suggests the translation “perfect gentlemen.” Mason uses “gentlemen” throughout his translation of Life (BJP Life 13, 29, 256). In his discussion of the expression Mason (2001: 22 n. 97) points out that it was already a proverbial way of referring to those who were simply honest and decent (e.g. Aristophanes, Eq. 184, 227, 735; Lys. 1060; Herodotus Hist. 1.30; 2.144; Isocrates, Soph. 13.6; Antid. 15.316; Lucian Patr. Enc. 3) on the one hand and, more specifically, to those of aristocratic class (Diogenes Laertius 3.88), on the other. In philosophical discourse the expression took on the weightier connotation of moral perfection (e.g. Aristotle Mag. Mor. 1207b.2.9.2–5). See further LSJ s.v. καλοκἄγαθος. In the present context Josephus applies the expression to “the Chaldeans and magi” generally, though one may discern a certain emphasis on Daniel and his friends within that group. In Ant. 10.188 Josephus uses the uncontracted form καλοί τε καὶ ἀγαθοί of Daniel and his companions. Begg (1993: 542) has noted a similarity between Josephus’ Daniel and Josephus’ self-presentation in that he too claims to have defended individuals described as καλοὺς κἀγαθούς (Life 13). For other such parallels between Daniel and Josephus, see note to “noblest” at 10.186. Josephus follows the biblical narrative in emphasizing the point that insight into dreams is a divine prerogative; e.g. Dan 2:10–11, 21–23, 27–28, 47. Josephus several times emphasizes the point that, unlike the wise men of Babylon, Daniel is indeed privy to divine knowledge (Ant 10.194, 196, 237, 239).

Josephus supplies the psychological detail which explains the subject matter of the king’s dream. For Josephus the king’s thoughts and the dream are apparently of a purely political nature. In the book of Daniel the king is troubled by the dream itself (Dan 2:1), though we are not told why it came to him. Later we are told that the king had been given thoughts of “what would be hereafter” (Dan 2:29) and that God had revealed to the king what will happen “at the end of days (‮באחרית יומיא‬‎; Θ and LXX: ἐπ’ ἐσχάτων τῶν ἡμερῶν)” (Dan 2:28). Josephus does not convey the eschatological flavor of this expression. God’s desire is an explanation supplied by Josephus.

Josephus does not follow the biblical narrative’s emphasis upon the fearsomeness of the image: “This statue was huge, its brilliance extraordinary; it was standing before you, and its appearance was frightening” (Dan 2:31). Josephus uses the term ἀνδριάς throughout this section (Ant. 10.206–214) rather than εἰκῶν used by both LXX and Θ for the Aramaic ‮צלמא‬‎. Vermes (1991: 152) points out that Symmachus’ version of Dan 2:31 twice uses the same term as Josephus. On Josephus’ use of a Greek text of the Book of Daniel see the Excursus at the beginning of this section (Ant. 10.186). Dan 2:32: “fine gold.” Dan 2:32: “chest and arms;” Θ: αἱ χεῖρες καὶ τὸ στῆθος καὶ οἱ βραχίονες (“the hands and the chest and the arms”); LXX: τὸ στῆθος καὶ οἱ βραχίονες (“the chest and the arms”) Dan 2:33 states that while the statue’s legs were of iron, its feet were partly of iron and partly of clay. See further notes to “kings” and “bronze” in 10.208 and 209 respectively.

In MT the stone is not at first (Dan 2:34) described as coming from a mountain, but is described that way in the interpretation in Dan 2:45. In LXX and Θ the stone comes from a mountain in both passages. The Book of Daniel also states that after destroying the statue, the rock became a great mountain that filled the whole earth (Dan 2:35). In 4 Ezra 13, which is dependent on the Book of Daniel, the mountain stands for Zion. Josephus omits the significant phrase in Dan 2:34 to the effect that the stone “was cut out, not by human hands.” The image of a mountain was an important motif in the prophetic literature of the Hebrew Bible, e.g. Isa 2:2; Mic 4:1. The same is true the ancient Mesopotamia generally; cf. Collins 1993: 165, n. 128. The biblical narrative specifies that the stone struck the statue on its feet (Dan 2.34). Greek ἀλεύρων λεπτότερον. LXX states that the crushed statue became λεπτότερον ἀχύρου “finer than chaff,” while Θ has ὡσεὶ κονιορτὸς “like dust.” MT states that the crushed pieces became “like the chaff (‮כעור‬‎) of the summer threshing floors” (Dan 2:35). Josephus reverses the order of metals given in Dan 2:35, which starts from the bottom of the statue. The biblical image of the chaff of the summer threshing floors being blown away (Dan 2:35) would seem to be more coherent than the picture Josephus suggests of the flour being blown away. Josephus apparently intended to emphasize the violence of the scene. Josephus’ phrase (ἅπασαν…τὴν γῆν ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ πεπληρῶσθαι) is closer to Θ (ἐπλήρωσεν πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν, “filled the whole earth”), than to LXX (ἐπάταξε πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν, “struck the whole earth”), here. The picture of the world-filling stone is reminiscent of the prophecies of Balaam who in Josephus’ account predicted the world-wide dispersion of the Jewish people so that “all land and sea will be filled with the glory surrounding them, and there will be enough of you for the world to supply every land with inhabitants from your race” (Ant. 4.115, Feldman, BJP). On this passage as the key to interpreting Josephus’ understanding of the stone in Nebuchadnezzar’s vision, see Spilsbury 2003: 17–20; also Bilde 1998: 52–55.

Josephus’ account of the interpretation follows the pattern common from the first century C.E. onward; so Bruce (1965: 148). For a summary of the history of ancient interpretation, see Rowley 1964: 70–137. Dan 2:37–38 states that the head of gold represents Nebuchadnezzar alone, while Josephus has it that the head symbolizes all the Babylonian kings down to Nebuchadnezzar (Vermes 1991: 155). Josephus omits the biblical Daniel’s fulsome praise of the king: “You, O king, the king of kings—to whom the God of heaven has given the kingdom, the power, the might and the glory, into whose hand he has given human beings, wherever they live, the wild animals of the field, and the birds of the air, and whom he has established as ruler over them all—you are the head of gold” (Dan 2:37–38). A textual variant in SPLauVELatZon has “two hands.” Only Θ specifically mentions the statue’s hands (Dan 2:32). Cf. note to “arms” at 10.206. The biblical text attaches no significance to the fact that the statue has two hands and shoulders. Josephus’ rendition makes it clear that the second kingdom is to be understood as the ‘partnership’ of Cyrus the king of Persia and Darius the Mede (Ant. 10.232). Josephus omits the biblical statement (Dan 2:39) that the second kingdom will be inferior to the first. Josephus may have wanted to avoid the implication that the kingdoms grew successively weaker, since in his view the fourth kingdom was Rome. Josephus also omits the biblical reference to the statue’s feet being made of iron mixed with clay; see further notes at 10.206 and 209.

Greek ἀπὸ τῆς δύσεως. The biblical text contains no reference to the third kingdom being from the west. Josephus apparently borrowed this detail from the vision of the male goat in Dan 8:5 which comes “from the west” (‮מן־המערב‬‎ , ἀπὸ δυσμῶν in LXX, but ἀπὸ λιβὸς [“from the southwest wind”] in Θ). Josephus presumably identified the third kingdom of the statue with the third beast that came up from the sea in Dan 7:6. Hippolytus made the connection in Comm. Dan. 1–3 (cited by Madden 2001: 53). This beast had four wings of a bird and four heads. These details in turn may have suggested a connection with the male goat in chapter 8 since it moved “without touching the ground,” (8:5) and later grew “four prominent horns” (Dan 8:8; Goldingay 1987: 209; Madden 2001: 53). In any case, Josephus clearly implies that the third kingdom of the statue is to be understood as Alexander’s (Bruce 1965: 149; Mason 1994: 171; Vermes 1991: 155). See further note to “from there” at 10.270. Josephus will relate later in his narrative how Alexander the Great himself read the prediction in Scripture that “one of the Greeks would destroy the empire of the Persians” (Ant. 11.337). In Josephus’ reading the iron kingdom is Rome. In Ant. 10.276 Josephus states explicitly that Daniel “wrote about the empire of the Romans.” In the rabbinic tradition, Exod. Rab. 35.5 also identifies the fourth kingdom with Rome (cited by Vermes 1991: 155 and Feldman 1998: 649 n. 38). In Ant. 15.385–387 Josephus makes explicit the sequence of the four empires: Babylon, Persia, Macedonia, Rome. On the four-kingdom schema in the Book of Daniel and other literature in the Hellenistic and Roman periods, see Collins 1993: 166–170; Flusser 1972. Greek κρατήσει δὲ εἰς ἅπαντα. The present translation is to be preferred over that of Marcus (LCL) “will have dominion forever.” See also Fischer 1987: 179; Mason 1994: 172 and Lindner 1972: 44 (“und sie wird herrschen über alles”). Josephus clearly did not believe in the perpetual rule of the iron kingdom: it is destroyed by the stone along with the rest of the statue; see further Spilsbury 2003: 15–16. In the biblical vision the phrase “which shall rule over the whole earth” (‮די תשלט בכל־ארעא‬‎; Θ and LXX: ἣ κυριεύσει πάσης τῆς γῆς) is applied to the third (bronze) kingdom (Dan 2:39). Josephus used the phrase εἰς ἅπαντα in Ant. 4.114 to speak of God’s word-wide alliance with the Hebrew people, though both Thackeray, LCL (“perpetual”), and Feldman, BJP (“for eternity”), translate the phrase in a temporal sense. Josephus takes over from the biblical text the reference to the destructive power of the fourth kingdom: “just as iron crushes and shatters everything, it shall crush and shatter all these” (Dan 2:40). LXX adds καὶ σεισθήσεται πᾶσα ἡ γῆ, “and the whole earth will be shaken.” However, Josephus omits the biblical detail that the fourth kingdom would be a divided kingdom (Dan 2:41), a mixture of iron and clay (Dan 2:33, 41), which Daniel interpreted to mean that this kingdom “shall be partly strong and partly brittle” (Dan 2:42). Josephus also makes no reference to the biblical implication (Dan 2:43) that the fourth kingdom’s weakness was due to mixing in marriage. Such marriages are mentioned again in Dan 11:6, 17 where they apparently refer to inter-dynastic marriages between the Ptolemies and Seleucids. On this issue see Collins 1993: 170–1 and the literature cited there. Josephus’ primary concern seems to have been to avoid any implication of weakness in the fourth kingdom, Rome (Bruce 1965: 149). Mason (1994: 185) suggests that Josephus may have derived the wholly iron kingdom by conflation of the vision in Dan 2 with the vision of the fourth beast in Dan 7:7, which is described as “terrifying and dreadful and exceedingly strong. It had great iron teeth and was devouring, breaking in pieces, and stamping what was left with its feet.” If this is correct, it provides us with evidence that Josephus had in fact reflected on Dan 7, even though there is no other evidence of this chapter in Josephus’ biblical paraphrase. On Josephus’ reasons for omitting chapter 7, see note at beginning of 10.263. See also note to “about” at 10.267. On rabbinic interpretations of the fourth beast of chapter 7 as Rome, see Braverman 1978: 90– 94.

Dan 2:44–45: “And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall this kingdom be left to another people. It shall crush all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever; just as you saw that a stone was cut from the mountain not by hands, and that it crushed the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold.” Jerome noted that “the Jews and the impious Porphyry” believed the stone to be the Jewish people (Collins 1993: 171). 4 Ezra 13:6 and 36 seem to fit Porphyry’s observaton (cf. Fischer 1978: 180 and n. 68). Ginzberg (1909–38, 6: 415 n. 80), cites rabbinic interpretations of the stone as the Messiah: Tanh. [Buber] 2.91–92; Tanh. Terumah 7. See also Num. Rab. 13 (cited by Fischer). A Christian messianic appropriation of the stone in Dan 2 is found in Luke 20:18, “Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces; and it will crush anyone on whom it falls;” cf. Mark 12:10–11; Matt 21:42; Luke 20:17; 1 Pet 2:6–8; Rom 9:33. When read in conjunction with Josephus’ commentary on Num 24 in Ant. 4.115–116, it becomes clear that he understood the stone to be “the Jewish nation dispersed abroad throughout the world” (Spilsbury 2003: 19–20). See also note to “it” at 10.207 and to “them” at 10.276. Josephus uses balanced and synonymous expressions to summarize his historical duty: He is to relate τὰ παρελθόντα and τὰ γεγενημένα. His claim to be focusing only on the historical material of the Scriptures is, by and large, sustainable. He excludes from his biblical paraphrase, for example, all the wisdom literature, the psalms and most of the prophets. From the Book of Jeremiah he excerpts only the historical material and he summarizes the visionary material in Dan 7–12 with a single composite vision based mainly on Dan 8 and pertaining to events already (for Josephus) in the past (Mason 1994: 173). His summaries of legal material from the Pentateuch (e.g. Ant. 3.90–286 and 4.196–301) could also be justified as aspects of the historical experience of the Hebrews. Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that Thucydides saw the historical task as shedding light on what is likely to happen in the future (1.22.4; cited by Feldman 1998: 650). Feldman points out, further, that Josephus did in fact see a kinship between the prophet and the historian: e.g. Apion 1.37, 41. See also Gnuse 1996: 22– 23: “Josephus never calls himself a prophet…. But he is a successor to the prophets, especially in his function as a historian” (23). Robert Hall has shown, further, that Josephus distinguished between the “inspired prophetic histories” of the canonical prophets and the “interpretive prophetic histories” of later historians such as himself (Hall 1971: 22–30). Josephus’ reticence to comment on the meaning of the stone is, presumably, due to his belief that the iron kingdom destroyed by it is Rome; e.g. Blenkinsopp 1974: 245; Braverman 1978: 109–11; Delling 1974: 117–8; Feldman 1998: 649; Flusser 1972: 158–9; Gray 1993: 40. It should be noted, though, that Josephus could have omitted the account of the stone altogether, but chose not to (though he did omit Dan 7:18). This might suggest that Josephus was not willing to bypass the opportunity to express his view about the future demise of Rome. On this subject, see further Spilsbury 2003: 15–20; Mason 1994: 172–3: Josephus’ references to the end of Rome lack apocalyptic urgency and “seem…to fall into the category of harmless philosophical reflection, not revolutionary aspiration” (173). Be that as it may, Josephus seems to have cherished discrete hopes about the future overthrow of the Roman Empire. So also Davies 1991: 174. Ant. 4.125 contains a similar reference to prophetic insights that might be gained by a reading of the Jewish scriptures. Both there and here the passages in question relate, in Josephus’ mind, to the future destiny of the Jewish people; on this passage see further Spilsbury 2003: 17–20; Bilde 1998: 52–55. Mason (1994: 173) has observed that since the Book of Daniel does not materially clarify the meaning of the stone beyond what Josephus has already said, Josephus must not have expected his readers actually to consult the biblical book. Similar invitations to read further are found in Ant. 16.398 (on the Jewish ‘philosophies’) and Life 6 (on Josephus’ genealogical records). Mason concludes that Josephus “wants to leave the impression that the Jewish scriptures contain all sorts of oriental mysteries beyond what he as a historian can presently discuss.” This is almost certainly true, but we should not conclude from this that Josephus did not have a genuine exegetical basis for his claim here. On this matter, see further Spilsbury 2003: 17–19. Josephus gives an account of the twenty-two books of Hebrew Scriptures in Apion 1.37–41. He breaks these down into five books of Moses, thirteen books of prophets who wrote the history of their own times in the period from the death of Moses to Artaxerxes, and four books of psalms and wisdom. Thackeray (1926: 179 n. b) suggests that Josephus places the Book of Daniel within the thirteen books of the prophets; however it should be noted that the Book of Daniel was not widely considered to fall with the prophetic section of the Hebrew Bible. On the state of the Hebrew canon in Josephus’ day, see further Mason 2002; Leiman 1989; Meyer 1974; Rajak 2001: 16–17; Thackeray 1929: 79. On Daniel as a prophet, see note to “prophets” at 10.267.

The first two paragraphs of this section cover the last paragraph of Dan 2 (vv. 46–49), while the next three paragraphs (213–215) summarize the entire narrative of Dan 3. Josephus makes no use at all of the Prayer of Azariah or the Song of the Three Young Men found in the Greek versions, but possibly not in the Greek text he was using. He also makes no mention of the notice in both LXX and Θ (but not in MT) that this event took place in the eighteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar. The section is characterized by the theme of the honor paid to both Daniel and his companions by the king, despite their refusal to follow Gentile religious practices. It also reflects Josephus’ tendency to provide rationalistic explanations for miraculous events. Greek φύσις, the nature, natural qualities, powers, constitution, condition, of a person or thing (LSJ s.v.). Josephus makes much of Daniel’s natural abilities and his exemplary character. He also emphasizes his relation to God and possession of the divine Spirit. See further notes at 10.196 and 237. The biblical king also falls on his face before Daniel, but does not address him as a god. Later in his narrative Josephus will have Alexander the Great perform a similar act of obeisance before the Jewish high priest, Ant. 11.331. B.A. Mastin (1973: 85) argues with reference to the biblical book of Daniel that “Nebuchadnezzar is simply expressing in an extravagant way his gratitude for the very considerable service which Daniel has done him by interpreting his dream.” Further, he notes that Josephus’ readers would likely have understood the king’s action within the framework of the benefactor cult in Rome (88).

Josephus adheres closely to Dan 2:46–47 here, but changes the emphasis from praise of Daniel’s God to praise of Daniel himself. The picture of Daniel being honored as a god is repeated later in Josephus’ narrative where he makes the comment that Daniel had a reputation for divinity (Ant. 10.268; cf. 10.25). On this theme, see further notes at 10.250 and 268. Josephus gleaned this detail from Dan 4:8 where Nebuchadnezzar refers to Daniel, “who was named Belteshazzar after the name of my god.” The text of LXX is quite different at this point and omits this reference, while Θ retains it. Josephus has already related Daniel’s name change in Ant. 10.189. Collins (1993: 141, 222) notes that the etymology of the name implied by the Book of Daniel, and followed by Josephus, is incorrect. Josephus omits the biblical statement in Dan 4:8 (also in vv. 9 and 18) that Daniel is “endowed with a spirit of the holy gods.” On this point see further note to “spirit” at 10.239. Greek ἐπίτροπος. This was the standard equivalent to the familiar Latin term procurator—used of an official ranging from a minor steward to an imperial financial agent to a praesidial governor. See note at War 2.16 in BJP 1. Josephus implies that all four of the youths were rewarded with the same rank (Vermes 1991: 156). See further next footnote. In the biblical narrative (Dan 2:48–49) Daniel is given many gifts and is promoted to ruler (‮השלטה‬‎; LXX κατέστησεν ἐπὶ τῶν πραγμάτων τῆς Βαβυλωνίας; Θ κατέστησεν αὐτὸν ἐπὶ πάσης χώρας βαβυλῶνος) over the whole province of Babylon and chief prefect (‮רב־סגנין‬‎; LXX ἄρχοντα καὶ ἡγούμενον; Θ ἄρχοντα σατραπῶν) over all the wise men of Babylon. At his request his three friends are given positions of authority over the affairs of the province of Babylon. In Dan 4:9 the king refers to Daniel as “chief of the magicians” (‮רב חרטמיא‬‎; Θ ὁ ἄρχων τῶν ἐπαοιδῶν; LXX [= Dan 4:18] τὸν ἄρχοντα τῶν σοφιστῶν καὶ τὸν ἡγούμενον). Josephus refers to the three youths as Daniel’s “relatives” (συγγενεῖς) here, as also in Ant. 10.190, 197, 199 and 214. In Ant. 10.201 he calls them brothers; see also Ant. 10.186, 188. Josephus often attributes his protagonists’ woes to the jealousy and malice of others (e.g. Ant. 10.250, 256; 13.288, 310; War 1.67, 208, 634; Life 80, 122, 204, 423; Daube 1980: 29; Feldman 1998: 644). The theme is common in Hellenistic moral philosophy; e.g. Plato, Ep. 316E; Isocrates, Demon.7.26; etc. (Mason 2001: 66 n. 435).

Note the connection with the statue of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in which the golden head represented the Babylonian kings (Ant. 10.208). Dan 3:1 reads “the great plain of Dura in the province of Babylon.” Θ calls the plain Δεϊρα. LXX translates the word ‮דורא‬‎ with the noun περίβολος, which means “enclosure;” hence, “the plain of the enclosure.” On the possible meanings of this phrase, see Collins 1993: 182. Josephus introduces a plain into the narrative in Ant. 10.269 Greek οἱ πρώτοι. Dan 3:2–3 identifies these people as “the satraps, the prefects, and the governors, the counselors, the treasurers, the justices, the magistrates, and all the officials of the provinces.” Later (Dan 2:4) they are addressed as “peoples, nations, and languages” (cf. verse 7). LXX specifies that Nebuchadnezzar ruled the entire region from India to Ethiopia (Dan 3:1). Dan 3:5 and 7 specify the playing of “the horn, pipe, lyre, trigon, harp, drum, and entire musical ensemble;” however, LXX Dan 5:7, 10 and 15 summarize the list with “the trumpet and every musical sound.”

See note to “brothers” at 10.201. Greek οἱ πάτριοι νόμοι. The Judeans’ loyalty to their ancestral laws is one of their key identity markers for Josephus (cf. Ant. 4.71, 130; 5.108; 7.130, 131, 374; 8.361; 9.243; 10.11; 11.109, 140, 231, 338 etc.). Similar expressions used by Josephus include τὰ πάτρια ἔθη (Ant. 5.90, 101; 8.192, 340; 9.95, 137, 339 etc.), οἱ πάτριοι ἐθισμοί (Ant. 1.72; 8.190), τὰ πάτρια νόμιμα (Ant. 1.310; 8.129; 9.99 etc.), and τὰ πάτρια (Ant. 4.139; 8.281 etc.). On this subject see further Mason 1991: 96-106, Schröder 1996, and Spilsbury 1998: 111–13. In the biblical narrative the Judeans (‮יהודיא‬‎, Ἰουδαῖοι) are denounced to the king by “certain Chaldeans” and accused of paying no heed to the king and not serving his gods (Dan 3:8–12). Josephus makes no reference to the king’s furious rage, nor to the king’s offer of a second chance for the youths to comply (cf. Dan 3:13–15). Josephus inserts the notion of divine providence (θείᾳ προνοίᾳ) in place of the biblical reference to the angel who rescued the youths from the furnace. For another instance of this strategy, see Ant. 10.259–260. For the significance of πρόνοια in Josephus, see note to “providence” at 10.278. See note to “unexpected” at 10.266. Josephus’ highly condensed and rationalized account of the youths’ survival is a far cry from the biblical narrative at this point. Josephus omits the king’s challenge to the youths which makes it clear that a showdown of divinities and religious loyalties is in view: “Who is the god that will deliver you out of my hands?” (Dan 3:15). To which the youths respond, “If our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the furnace of blazing fire and out of your hand, O king, let him deliver us. But if not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods and we will not worship the golden statue that you have set up” (Dan 3:17–18). Josephus also omits the biblical narrative’s dramatic references to the furnace being heated up seven times more than was customary (Dan 3:19) and that the flames killed the men who threw the youths into the fire (Dan 3:22). He also omits the colorful description of the youths’ “tunics, their trousers, their hats and their other garments” (Dan 3:21), which are not harmed by the fire or even by the smoke (Dan 3:27). Finally, Josephus omits the biblical reference to a fourth personage in the fire called by Nebuchadnezzar first a son of the gods and then an angel of the Most High God (Dan 3:24–28). The rabbinic tradition, cited by Feldman (1998: 640 n. 28) and Ginzberg (1909–38, 6: 418–9 n. 90), is sharply critical of Nebuchadnezzar’s reference to the figure as a son of God: see y. Šabb. 6 (end), Exod. Rab. 20.20, Song Rab. 7.9, Midr. Sam. 5.60, ʾAg. Ber. 27.55. Josephus also omits the biblical reference to the angel who rescued Daniel in the lions’ den (Dan 6:22; Ant. 10.259), where once again he gives a rationalizing explanation; see further notes at 10.216, 259, 271, and 272. It should also be noted that Josephus shows no knowledge of the Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Young Men that are found in both ancient Greek versions at this point.

LXX uses the same phrase (οὐκ ἥψατο) at Dan 3:27 [= LXX 3:94]. Josephus often adds moralizing editorials to the narrative; e.g. Ant. 1.46–51, 65–66, 72, 194–195; 4.45– 53, 154–155, 312–314; 5.107–109; 6.3–7, 147–151; 8.190–198, 265, 284, 313–314; 9.103–104; 10.37–39; 17.168–171; 19.201–211. Josephus very typically reflects on the matter of rewards and punishments, and God’s protection of the upright. Indeed, he states at the very beginning of the Antiquities that the main lesson to be learned from the work is that “those who comply with the will of God and do not venture to transgress laws that have been well enacted succeed in all things beyond belief and that happiness (εὐδαιμονία) lies before them as a reward from God” (Ant. 1.14, Feldman, BJP). A similar point is made in Ant. 1.20 when he writes, “God…grants a happy life (εὐδαίμονα βίον) to those who follow Him and surrounds with great misfortunes (μεγάλαις… συμφοραῖς) those who transgress virtue” (Feldman, BJP). See also Ant. 1.23, 72; 6.307; 7.93; 17.60; 19.16 (cited by Sterling 1992: 296 n. 321). In the story about the youths’ choice of diet (Ant. 10.190–194), Josephus had argued that their regimen had toughened their bodies; see notes at 10.190 and 194. It is not clear whether Josephus intends his readers to understand that the youths’ diet played a part in their survival of the furnace. The biblical narrative states that all saw that “the fire had not had any power over the bodies of those men” (Dan 3:27). A more elaborate explanation is offered in the narrative interlude between the deuterocanonical Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Young Men, where the author writes, “But the angel of the Lord came down into the furnace, and made the inside of the furnace as though a moist wind were whistling through it. The fire did not touch them at all and caused them no pain or distress” (Add. Dan 1:26–27). Greek δικαίους. On the importance of this virtue for Josephus, see note to “just man” at 10.246. Greek θεοφιλεῖς. Josephus uses the same term for Daniel in Ant. 10.264. Three times in the Book of Daniel (Dan 9:23; 10:11, 19) the prophet is addressed by an angelic figure as “greatly beloved” (‮חמודות‬‎; Θ ἀνὴρ ἐπιθυμιῶν, LXX ἄνθρωπος ἐλεεινός). Goldingay (1987: 256) states that the term ‮חמד‬‎ “suggests both a feeling and an attitude that expresses itself in being drawn toward the object of love and committing oneself to it,” and further, “Daniel is one to whom God is committed.” A closely related theme is the honor in which Daniel and his friends were held by both the king and God. See further note to “public” at 10.266. Ant. 14.22 is of particular interest in the present context because it describes a certain Onias whose prayers for rain in a time of drought were heard by God because he was “a righteous man and dear to God” (δίκαιος ἀνὴρ καὶ θεοφιλής), which is very similar to the expression used of Daniel’s three companions. War 1.331 and Ant. 14.455 are parallel accounts of Herod’s amazing escape from a collapsing building that led all to conclude that he must be a “favorite of heaven.” In War 5.381 Josephus refers to Abraham and those with him, who were unexpectedly enriched by Pharaoh, as “beloved of God.” In his biblical paraphrase Josephus applies the term to the patriarchs (Ant. 1.106), Isaac (Ant. 1.346), David (Ant. 6.280), Solomon (Ant. 8.49, 190), and Elisha (Ant. 9.182). On the honor in which Daniel and his companions were held, see previous footnote. The biblical narrative is both more detailed and more effusive. Nebuchadnezzar blesses the God of the three youths and praises them for disobeying his own command and yielding up their bodies “rather than serve and worship any god except their own God” (Dan 3:28). Additionally, the biblical king issues a decree to the effect that anyone who utters blasphemy against the God of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego “shall be torn limb from limb, and their houses laid in ruins; for there is no other god who is able to deliver in this way” (Dan 3:29; on the omission of this passage, see Feldman 1993: 53). The three young men are also promoted in the province of Babylon (Dan 3:30). The biblical Daniel refers back to this incident again in his address to the later king, Belshazzar (Dan 5:18–21).

In this section Josephus summarizes the content of Dan 4 with just two paragraphs followed up by a rather defensive notice (Ant. 10.218) about why he included the story at all. He omits the Book of Daniel’s description of the dream itself, in which an enormous tree is ordered to be felled by a “holy watcher,” and its stump bound with an iron and bronze band (Dan 4:13– 17). He omits the biblical Nebuchadnezzar’s first-person praise of God (Dan 4:2–3, 34–35, 37), his acknowledgement of Daniel as endowed with a divine spirit (Dan 4:8, 18), his description of the dream itself (Dan 4:10–17), Daniel’s detailed interpretation of the dream and counsel to the king (Dan 4:19–27), and the fulfillment of the dream just as Daniel had predicted it (Dan 4:28–33). The overall impact of Josephus’ summary is to present a slightly more sanitized picture of the king’s humiliation (cf. Feldman 1993: 53). It is noteworthy that Josephus often omits biblical references to heavenly or angelic beings in his narrative; cf. notes at 10.214, 259, 271 and 272. The biblical tradition at this point is complicated by significant differences between MT/Θ and LXX. The chapter also has a very complex tradition history in which sources originally referring to Nabonidus, rather than Nebuchadnezzar, have likely been woven into the story. On this issue see Collins 1993: 216–21. Josephus’ summary of the story is too short for us to determine whether his biblical text was closer to MT/Θ or LXX; but see notes to “desert” and “years” in this paragraph. Greek δίαιτα. On Josephus’ use of this term, see note to “regimen” at 10.190. Josephus uses a similar expression in Ant. 10.242. Josephus uses the phrase ἐπὶ τῆς ἐρημίας, “in the desert” (also in the next paragraph), which is reminiscent of LXX Dan 4:25 εἰς τόπον ἔρημον, “a desolate place.” So also LXX. MT and Θ have “times” (‮עדנין‬‎, καιροί). Josephus omits the reference to the king’s fear in relation to the dream (Dan 4:5). Feldman (1993: 53) suggests that this is part of an overall tendency on Josephus’ part to present a somewhat more positive picture of the king than the biblical narrative.

Josephus apparently felt the need to comment on the state of the government during Nebuchadnezzar’s absence, in keeping with Antiquities’ ongoing interest in constitutions (1.5-6, 10), not only in Judea (see bks 18-19). The biblical Nebuchadnezzar states only that, “My counselors and my lords sought me out, I was reestablished over my kingdom, and still more greatness was added to me” (Dan 4:36). Josephus must have assumed that the king’s counselors and lords had been in charge of the kingdom during this period. In the passage which Josephus quotes from Berosus there is a reference to a Chaldean nobleman who oversees the affairs of state immediately before Nebuchadnezzar’s accession (Ant. 10.223). The biblical Nebuchadnezzar does not ask for the kingdom back again, but acknowledges God’s sovereignty over all the earth. Then reason returns to him (Dan 4:34–36).

Josephus’ seems somewhat embarrassed by the historical implausibility of this story, but no doubt retained it in his narrative because it served his overarching purpose of emphasizing God’s sovereignty over the kingdoms and rulers of the world: To the king’s boast (“Is this not magnificent Babylon, which I have built as a royal capital by my mighty power and for my glorious majesty?” Dan 4:30) the divine response is, “You shall be made to eat grass like oxen…until you have learned that the Most High has sovereignty over the kingdoms of mortals, and gives it to whom he will” (Dan 4:25). At the end of Ant. Book 10, Josephus again insists that he has reported what he has found in his reading (Ant. 10.281). For other passages where Josephus makes similar claims, see note at 10.281. Greek ἐν τοῖς ἀρχαίοις…βιβλίοις. Josephus is probably referring to the Scriptures in general here, despite the fact that in one place he refers to the books of Daniel in the plural (Ant. 10.267). Josephus reminds his readers of the claim made at the very beginning of the Antiquities that this would be a work of translation following the precedent set by the translators of the Septuagint (Ant. 1.10–17; also 1.5). Mason (1994: 170) points out that this reference to the book’s introductory material indicates that Josephus maintained a sense of unity throughout the Antiquities despite its unwieldy nature. Josephus distinguishes between translating or paraphrasing (μεταφράζειν) the Scriptures and explaining (δηλώσειν) them. In the course of his biblical narrative Josephus uses a number of different terms to refer to translating, paraphrasing, or interpreting the Hebrew Bible. In Ant. 1.5 he states that his work is going to cover the Jews’ history and constitution “translated (μεθηρμηνευμένην) from the Hebrew writings” (see also Apion 1.228 of Manetho). Later in the same context he implies that this involves setting down the “precise details” (τὰ ἀκριβῆ) of the Scriptures without omission or addition (Ant. 1.17). In his account of the translation of the Septuagint, Josephus uses μεθερμηνεῦσαι as distinct from μεταγράψαι, “to transcribe” (Ant. 12.20; see also Ant. 12.48), though he uses the term μεταβαλεῖν of the same event in Ant. 1.10. In Ant. 1.52 and 8.142 Josephus uses μεθερμηνευόμενον to refer to the translation or interpretation of individual terms (see also War 4.11; 5.151; Apion 1.167). In Apion 1.54 he refers back to his translation of the Scriptures in the Antiquities with the verb μεθηρμήνευκα, though it is perhaps instructive to note that at the end of the Antiquities itself, Josephus had characterized his work as an accurate cataloguing of the line of the high priest and the succession, conduct, achievements and policies of the kings and the judges. This, he states, is what he had promised to do at the beginning of his history (Ant. 20.261). A fascinating parallel to this, which is nevertheless in contrast to Josephus’ claims, is 2 Macc 2:19–32 where the author explains his intention to “condense” (ἐπιτεμεῖν) five books of Jason of Cyrene into a single book. This author writes of “abbreviating” (ἐπιτομῆς) the original text (2:26), and of focusing on the “outlines of the condensation” (ὑπογραμμοῖς τῆς ἐπιτομῆς) while avoiding the “exact details” (διακριβοῦν). Like a painter or decorator who leaves the construction of a building to the master builder, so he sees his task as recasting the narrative while striving for brevity of expression and not exhaustive treatment. One wonders whether Josephus would not have been better served by an analogous characterization of his work. See further Feldman 1998: 37–46. The promise “to explain” (δηλώσειν) the Scriptures here would appear to be more than Josephus promised at the beginning of the Antiquities (1.17)— where Josephus undertook to set down only the precise details of the Scriptural records—but gives a more accurate picture of how Josephus envisaged his task as a “translator.” For various views on how to understand Josephus’ claim to be offering a literal translation of the Hebrew Bible, see Feldman 1998: 37–46 and 2000: 7– 8 n. 22. Greek μήτε προστιθεὶς τοῖς πράγμασιν αὐτὸς ἰδίᾳ μήτ’ ἀφαιρῶν. This statement is an echo of Ant. 1.17 where Josephus similarly promises to render the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek “neither adding nor omitting anything” (οὐδὲν προσθεὶς οὐδ’ αὖ παραλιπώ ν). Josephus’ pledge, which calls to mind the biblical requirements of Deut 4:2 and 12:32, is also reminiscent of the resolve of the translators of the Septuagint to ensure that no alterations be admitted to their to work (Let. Aris. 311; cf. Ant. 12.109). In Apion 1.42 Josephus refers to Jewish reverence for Scripture, claiming that “no one has ventured either to add, or to remove, or to alter a syllable” (οὔτε προσθεῖναί τις οὐδὲν οὔτε ἀφελεῖν αὐτῶν οὔτε μεταθεῖναι τετόλμηκεν). Feldman (2000: 7– 8 n. 22) has pointed out that similar formulae appear in Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Thuc. 5 and 8) and Lucian (Quomodo Historia Conscribenda Sit 47), as well as in a number of other ancient sources.

In this section Josephus departs from the biblical narrative in order to cite a number of non-Jewish historians on Nebuchadnezzar, and thus presumably by a process of association to place Jewish history on the world stage (Mason 1994: 170). It is striking that Josephus inserts this extra-biblical information immediately following the statements in the previous paragraph (itself an abbreviation of the biblical account) about his commitment “to translate the Hebrew books into the Greek tongue” and his promise “to explain them, neither adding to the content anything of my own nor taking anything away” (Ant. 10.218). Josephus apparently did not see the addition of this kind of non-biblical corroborative material as a contradiction of his promise. 605–562 B.C.E. This is an extra-biblical detail that Josephus apparently derived from the third book of Berosus’ Chaldean History (see Apion 1.146). Nebuchadnezzar’s 43-year reign is also mentioned in the Uruk king list (Barclay, BJP). Greek ἀνὴρ δραστήριος. Feldman (1993: 52–54) has shown that Josephus’ criticism of Nebuchadnezzar is far less severe than that offered by the Book of Daniel. Βηρωσός, a Babylonian historian (Josephus calls him a “native Chaldean” in Apion 1.129; cf. Ant. 1.93; c. 330-250 B.C.E.), who was a priest of Bel (Tatian, Oratio ad Graecos 36), and known in some circles for his publication in Greek of works on Babylonian astronomy and philosophy (Apion 1.129). Barclay (BJP ad loc.) cites Seneca, Nat. 3.29.1; Pliny, Nat. 7.123 and Athenaeus, Deipn. 14.14 as examples of Berosus’ modest reputation among later authors. Χαλδαϊκά. Berosus’ history (also referred to as Βαβυλωνιακά) consisted of three books presented to Antiochus I and preserved now only in fragments (cf. FGH 680). Book 1 described the country and creation; book 2 continued down to Nabonassar (747-734 B.C.E.); and book 3 contained political history to Alexander the Great (Kuhrt, 2003). In Apion 1.130–131 Josephus provides his own synopsis of the contents of Berosus’ work. Josephus cites Berosus on six other occasions besides the present instance (Ant. 1.93, 107, 158; 10.20, 34; Apion 1.129–153). Within the last of these passages, Apion 1.135–141 is an almost verbatim repeat of the quotation in Ant. 10.220–226 (notwithstanding some forty textual variants). The commentary that follows is dependant upon Barclay’s comments (BJP 10) on the Apion passage at numerous points. On whether Josephus knew Berosus directly or, as is more likely, indirectly through an intermediary source such as Alexander Polyhistor or Nicolaus of Damascus, see Feldman 2000: 34, n. 235. The passage that follows is Berosus’ account of the events surrounding the Battle of Carchemish (605 B.C.E.) between Nebuchadnezzar and Pharaoh Necho II (ruled 609–595 B.C.E.), though Josephus suppresses the connection with Carchemish for reasons that I will suggest below. The historical events reflected in the Berosus citation are known to us from Babylonian records, which read as follows: “In the twenty-first year the king of Akkad [Nabopolassar] stayed in his own land, Nebuchadnezzar, the crown prince, mustered (the Babylonian army) and took command of his troops; he marched to Carchemish which is on the banks of the Euphrates, and crossed the river (to go) against the Egyptian army which lay in Carchemish,…fought with each other and the Egyptian army withdrew before him. He accomplished their defeat and to nonexistence [beat?] them. As for the rest of the Egyptian army which had escaped from the defeat (so quickly that) no weapon had reached them, in the district of Hamath the Babylonian troops overtook and defeated them so that not a single man [escaped] to his own country. At that time Nebuchadnezzar conquered the whole area of the Hatti-country (Palestine). For twenty-one years Nabopolassar had been king of Babylon. On the 8th of the month of Ab he died (lit. ‘the fates’); in the month of Elul Nebuchadnezzar returned to Babylon and on the first day of the month of Elul he sat on the royal throne in Babylon. In the ‘accession year’ Nebuchadnezzar went back again to the Hatti-land; in the month of Sebat he took the heavy tribute of the Hatti-territory to Babylon” (D.J. Wiseman 1956: 68–69). Josephus, who knows about these events, supplies his own account in Ant 10.84–86 without any reference to the passage from Berosus (biblical references to the battle may be found in 2 Chron 35:20 and Jer 46:2–12). Most significantly, Josephus does not explicitly link the quotation from Berosus with the events surrounding the battle of Carchemish. His intention seems to be, rather, to present the Berosus passage as if it supplies a summary of Nebuchadnezzar’s conquest of Judea and subsequent deportation of the inhabitants of Jerusalem to Babylon. In other words, he presents the passage as if it applied directly to the story of Daniel. See further note to “satrap” at 10.220..

The text as it stands implies that Nebuchadnezzar had a father by the same name (the textual variants are simply variant spellings of the name Nebuchadnezzar), which is incorrect. Nebuchadnezzar’s father was Nabopolassar (ruled 626–605 B.C.E.; Sack 1992d, 4: 977–8), founder of the neo-Babylonian empire. The mistake would seem to be due to a copying error on Josephus’ own part since he quotes the same passage from Berosus in Apion 1.135–141 in which the father’s name is correctly identified. The text refers to the rebellion of a satrap, i.e. a subordinate Babylonian official in control of a region of the Babylonian empire, against Nabopolassar’s rule. This is a distortion of the account given in the Babylonian Chronicle, which identifies the antagonists as “the Egyptian army which lay in Carchemish” (cited in previous footnote). The question that this raises is whether the distortion is due to Josephus, or to Berosus, or to an abbreviator of Berosus (such as Alexander Polyhistor) from whom Josephus may have obtained this passage. Unfortunately there is no way to decide this issue on currently available evidence. However, we may note a number of features of Josephus’ use of the passage which have some bearing on the subject.First of all, we should note that Josephus clearly was knowledgeable of the Battle of Carchemish and the combatants involved in that event. In his own description of these events (Ant. 10.84, following Jer 46:2 = LXX 26:2; cf. 2 Kgs 24:1) he identifies “the Egyptian king Necho, to whom all Syria was subject” as the object of Nebuchadnezzar’s aggression at Carchemish. Earlier in his narrative Josephus had described Necho and his army marching towards the Euphrates “to make war on the Medes and the Babylonians who had overthrown the Assyrian empire” (Ant. 10.74//2 Kgs 23:29; 2 Chron 35.20; 1 Esd 1:25). Thus, Josephus was fully aware of this important historical event, and more, he knew that it had nothing to do with the final fall of Jerusalem and destruction of the temple. However, Josephus does not cite the passage from Berosus in connection with Carchemish at all. Rather, he manipulates the citation in such a way as to make it apply to events surrounding the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple. This is seen especially clearly in Apion 1.132 where he states that Nebuchadnezzar led his army “against Egypt and against our land, when he learned that they had rebelled” (Barclay, BJP 10). In that context, Josephus implies that this military action led immediately to the destruction of the temple and the deportation of the population of Jerusalem to Babylon (see also Apion 1.145)Returning to the question of the unnamed satrap at the beginning of the excerpt from Berosus, we may perhaps be justified to suspect that Josephus would have been happy to keep the identity of this individual as vague as possible in order to facilitate his use of this passage for a context unrelated to its original setting. Barclay observes that the quotation from Berosus strangely omits the names of all key people and battle-sites. It may well be that it was Josephus himself who omitted the names in order to dislodge the passage from any explicit historical connection to the Battle of Carchemish in 605 B.C.E., and thus to render the passage more amenable to the different uses he had in mind for it. The term Coele-Syria was applied to various portions of Syria and Palestine by authors of different periods. Hellenistic authors used the term to include much of the Eastern Mediterranean seaboard extending as far as the Euphrates river, but excluding Phoenicia. For a summary of the complex variations in the usage of the term, see Smith 1992.

Greek ἐκράτησε; see also Apion 1.133. The parallel passage in Apion 1.136 has ἐκυρίευσε, “overpowered.” Greek τὴν χώραν ἐκ ταύτης τῆς ἀρχῆς, literally “the territory from that empire/rule.” The parallel passage in Apion has ἐξ ἀρχῆς, “again,” which may be taken to reflect the assumption that the territory was originally Babylonian (Barclay, BJP 10). See note at 10.220. That this number is historically accurate is confirmed by a fragment of a Babylonian chronicle (British Museum 21946, cited by Wiseman 1956: 67– 75), which gives the date of his death as the 8th of the month of Ab = 15/16th August, 605 B.C.E.

It is not entirely clear what Berosus may have meant by “settling the affairs of Egypt and the rest of the region.” According to a fragment from the Babylonian Chronicles (cited in note at 10.219), Nebuchadnezzar returned to Babylon fairly soon after his victory at Carchemish and the subsequent military operations in the region. He certainly did not invade Egypt or gain control of its territory. It is possible, however, that Josephus mistakenly understood Berosus to be speaking about an actual sacking of Egypt—an event he possibly refers to in Ant. 10.195. On “friends” as court officials, see note at 10.263. It is apparently this reference to Judean captives that forms the basis of Josephus’ insinuation in Apion 1.132 and 145 that the events described here formed part of the sequence that led to destruction of the temple and the deportation of the people of Jerusalem. In Ant. 10.238 Josephus uses the same term that is used here for the “prisoners of war” (αἰχμάλωτος) to refer to Daniel. In fact, Berosus is most likely referring to Judean mercenaries captured during the Battle of Carchemish and subsequent skirmishes (Collins 1993: 132). The parallel text in Apion 1.137 omits the final καί, “and,” before “Egyptian peoples” (τῶν κατ’ Αἴγυπτον ἐθνῶν), giving the impression that this last designation should be read in apposition to all the others. Barclay (BJP 10), translates the final phrase as “peoples bordering Egypt.”

The term τοῦ βελτίστου αὐτῶν, “their best man” might also be rendered “their noblest man” (so Barclay in BJP 10) or “their ablest man” (so Marcus Ant., LCL). Thackeray (Apion, LCL) has “their chief nobleman.” As with the “satrap” at the beginning of this excerpt from Berosus, this individual is not named. It is possible that Josephus left out the names from his source in order to make it fit into his historical scheme; see note to “satrap” at 10.220.

The temple of Bel, or Marduk, called “Esagila” was one of Babylon’s most famous buildings. It adjoined the great ziggurat called “Etemenanki.” On these structures see further Wiseman 1985: 64–73 and Unger 1970: 165–87. Archaeologists have identified temples dedicated to Ninmah, Gula, Ninurta, Ishtar of Agade and Nabu (Margueron 1992). Later in his narrative (Ant. 10.233) Josephus refers to a shrine (ναός) of Nebuchadnezzar himself. Josephus undoubtedly intended for his readers to think that these “spoils of war” included items taken from the temple in Jerusalem (on this point see note to “satrap” at 10.220). In his account of the downfall of Belshazzar (following the biblical narrative of Dan 5:2) he refers to the king’s sacrilegious act of using the sacred vessels (τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ σκεύη) plundered by Nebuchadnezzar from the Jerusalem temple (Ant. 10.233). Herodotus (Hist. 1.191) tells of Cyrus’ tactic of diverting the river upstream to enable his men to enter the city along the river’s bed. The tactic envisioned in the present passage seems to be quite different from that. Abydenus, cited by Eusebius, writes that Nebuchadnezzar “changed the course of the river Armacales, which is a branch of the Euphrates” (Eusebius Praep. ev. 9.41.7; FGH 685, frag. 6). See also Xenophon, Cyr. 5.9.19 cited by Barclay, BJP 10. There are numerous textual corruptions in this sentence (from “. . . he also refurbished”); I have followed the emendations of Marcus (LCL), but see also Barclay (BJP 10). The Greek text is very complex at this point and appears to be corrupt. Marcus emends the text, following Apion 1.139, to read: “[the walls] of the inner city being of burnt brick and bitumen, while those of the outer city were of brick alone” (Marcus, LCL). Babylon’s walls were particularly famous in antiquity; cf. Herodotus, Hist. 1.178–179; Strabo, Geogr. 16.1.5; Diodorus 2.7; Curtius Rufus 5.1.16. Abydenus (cited in Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.41.7; FGH 685, frag. 6b) also refers to “a triple circuit of walls.”

Herodotus, Hist. 1.179 mentions bronze gateways. See also Abydenus in Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.41.5 (FGH 685, frag. 1, cited by Barclay, BJP 10). The parallel text in Apion 1.140 reads “it would perhaps take too long to describe” (Barclay, BJP 10), for what is here “it may perhaps be superfluous to speak.” Unger (1970: 22) cites an inscription that similarly claims that the structure was completed in fifteen days. Abydenus refers to the walls of Babylon being completed in fifteen days (cited by Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.41.7; FGH 685, frag. 6b).

The hanging garden of Babylon was considered one of the seven wonders of the world (Strabo, Geogr. 16.1.5; Diodorus 2.10). Amytis, daughter of the Median king Astyages (cf. Berosus, FGH 680, frag. 7d). Diodorus 2.10 and Curtius Rufus 5.1.35 (cited by Barclay, BJP 10) claim that the garden was planted by a Syrian king for his Persian concubine.

Megasthenes (c. 350–290 B.C.E.) was a diplomat who served under Sibyrtius, whom Alexander the Great appointed satrap of Arachosia and Gedrosia. The Indika embodied Megasthenes’ firsthand experience of India, covering geography, the system of government, classifications of citizens and religious customs, archaeology, history and legends (Barber and Sacks 2003). Barclay (BJP 10) considers it unlikely that Josephus knew this author firsthand, but that Josephus gleaned this reference from the work of Alexander Polyhistor. Abydenus (cited by Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.41.1; FGH frag. 6) quotes Megasthenes saying that “Nebuchadnezzar was braver than Hercules, and made an expedition against Libya and Iberia, and, having subdued them, settled a part of their inhabitants on the right shore of the Pontus.” Barclay (BJP 10) cites Strabo, Geogr. 15.1.6 to the effect that Nebuchadnezzar had a greater reputation among the Chaldeans than even Heracles, and led an expedition to the Pillars.

There were several ancient historians by this name (cf. Oxford Classical Dictionary [3d rev. ed.] 470–71), though we do not know of one who wrote a history of Persia. We know nothing of this historian beyond what Josephus says of him here. He does mention him again in Apion 1.144 as agreeing with “Phoenician archives” on the siege of Tyre. The 13-year siege is referenced again in Apion 1.156 but here the information is said to come from “the Phoenician records.” It is possible that Josephus was using Philostratus at this point as well, but Barclay (BJP 10) thinks it more likely that his source at this point was Menander of Ephesus, whose work on Phoenicia Josephus quoted in Apion 1.116– 127. Ethbaal III (ruled c.591–573 B.C.E.) The siege of Tyre, which lasted from 585 to 573 B.C.E. and exhausted the city of all of its strength, is mentioned in Ezek 29:17–18. See further Katzenstein 1992. In the parallel passage in Apion Josephus’ citation of Berosus continues to Cyrus’ defeat of Nabonidus (Apion 1.146–153).

In this section Josephus again goes beyond the biblical narrative by providing details concerning the royal succession from Nebuchadnezzar to Belshazzar. His sources for this information include the Babylonian historian Berosus along with historical narratives in 2 Kings, 2 Chronicles, and Jeremiah. When it comes to the narrative of Dan 5, it is noteworthy that once again there are significant differences between MT/Q and LXX, with LXX much the shorter this time. Another difference is that LXX prefaces the chapter with a summary of the story’s main points (on which, see Collins 1993: 241), including the 3 mysterious words, which are lacking in the narrative of LXX. At one point (see note to “still more” at 10.236) Josephus seems to follow the narrative of LXX rather than MT/Θ. Ἀβιλμαθαδάχος with textual variants ἀβιαμαθαδάχος O (R), ἀβελμάρθαχος P, ἀβελμάθαχος S, ἀβιλαμαρώδαχος LauV, ἀβιλαραμάταχος E, amilmathapacus (amilmatharacus cod. Neapol.) qui et abimathadocus Lat; Εὐειλμαράδουχος Apion; Hebrew ‮אויל מרדך‬‎; LXX Ευιλμαρωδαχ, Ουλαιμαραδαχ; Evil-merodach (ruled 562–560 B.C.E.). In Akkadian his name was Amel-Marduk, “Man of Marduk” (Sack 1992b, 2: 679). This is historically accurate (a fact gleaned from Berosus; cf. Apion 1.146), though not mentioned in the biblical narrative; see further Sack 1992b, 2: 679. 2 Kings 25:27/Jer 52:31 “in the year that he began to reign.” Ἰεχονίας. In Ant. 10.97–102 Josephus refers to this king (the biblical Jehoiachin) as Ἰωάχιμος. Hebrew ‮יהויכין‬‎; LXX Ιωακιμ. 2 Kings 25:27–30/Jer 52:31–34. On the use of the term “friend” to designate a court official, see note at 10.263. 2 Kings 25:28/Jer 52:32 “He spoke kindly to him, and gave him a seat above the other seats of the kings who were with him in Babylon.”

Greek τὴν πίστιν οὐκ ἐφύλαξεν. In Ant. 10.97 Josephus uses the similar expression: οὐκ ἐφύλαξε τὰς πίστεις, “did not keep his promises.” Josephus implies that Evil-merodach was making amends for his father’s treachery. In Apion 1.147, though, Josephus quotes Berosus who characterizes Evil-merodach’s rule as “lawless and debauched” (Barclay, BJP 10). Ant. 10.97; cf. 2 Kings 24:12; 2 Chron 36:10; Jer 22:24–27.

This appears to be incorrect. Apion 1.147, quoting from Berosus, gives Evil-merodach only 2 years. It is not clear why Josephus has 18 years for this king here, though it may have something to do with Josephus’ calculations in connection with the 70 years of exile prophesied by Jeremiah (Jer 25:11). In Ant. 11.2 (cf. Ezra 1:1) Josephus cites Jeremiah’s prediction that “after they had served Nebuchadnezzar and his descendants and survived this servitude for seventy years he would restore them to their ancestral land” (Spilsbury, BJP 6). Since the temple fell in the eighteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar’s 43-year reign (Ant. 10.146 and 219), the first 25 years of exile were under Nebuchadnezzar. 18 years were endured under Evil-merodach, 4 years under Nergal-sharezer (following the variant reading in Apion 1.148), 9 months under Labasi-Marduk, and 17 years under Balshazzar (Ant. 10.247), for a total of 64 years and 9 months under Nebuchadnezzar and his “descendants” (cf. Ant. 10.248). The missing 5 years and 3 months were perhaps ascribed to “Darius the Mede.” Ἠλίσαρος, with textual variants ἰγλίσαρος SP, νιγλίσαρος LauVE; helesarus Lat; Νηριγλίσαρος Apion. In Jer 39:3, 13 he appears as ‮נרגל שר־אצר‬‎; LXX Ναργαλασαρ; Nergal-sharezer (ruled 560–556 B.C.E.). In Ant. 10.135 the name appears as Νηρεγάλσαρος with variants. His Babylonian name was Nergal-s\ar-us[ur (Marcus 1937: 286 n. b), which means “Nergal [i.e. the Babylonian sun god] protect the king;” Bracke 1992. This king was not, in fact, Evil-merodach’s son. According to Berosus (quoted in Apion 1.147) he was Evil-merodach’s brother-in-law, who plotted against him and murdered him. Berosus (quoted in Apion 1.148) ascribes to this ruler only four years, which is closer to historical fact. Λαβοσόρδαχος, with textual variant λαβροσόδαχος SP; Λαβοροσοάρδοχος Apion; Labasi-Marduk (ruled 556 B.C.E). According to Apion 1.149 he was an evil person and was assassinated by his friends. Barclay (BJP 10) cites the Nabonidus stele (ANET, 309), which states that his accession to power was against the will of the Gods. See also Abydenus (apud Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.41.4). According to Thompson (CAH 3: 218, cited by Marcus 1937: 286, n. d) his reign lasted from March to the end of summer, 556 B.C.E. Βαλτασάρης with textual variants Βαλτασάρις O, Βαλτάσαρις SP, Βαλτάσαρος LauV; Aramaic ‮בלשאצר‬‎; Θ and LXX Βαλτασαρ; Belshazzar. He ruled as co-regent for at least 3 years between 556 and 539 B.C.E. during his father Nabonidus’ reign (Sack 1992a, 1: 661). Ναβοάνδηλος with textual variants ναβοὰν δῆλος O, ἀβοάνδηλος E, naboan Lat; Ναβόννηδος Apion; Nabonidus (ruled 556–539 B.C.E.). Sack 1992c, 4: 973–6. Herodotus referred to him as Labynetus (Hist. 1.188). Josephus treats Belshazzar and Nabonidus as the same person, though Belshazzar was in fact Nabonidus’ son, who shared his father’s rule for at least three years during the latter’s absence in Arabia (see the Nabonidus Chronicle and the Verse Account of Nabonidus 2.20, ANET. 313, cited by Collins 1993: 32). Marcus suggests that Josephus has conflated the Book of Daniel’s account of the last Babylonian king (Belshazzar) with the accounts of Herodotus and Berosus in which Nabonidus and Labynetos respectively are identified as the last Babylonian king (Marcus 1937: 287, note f). Dan 5:11, 18, and 22 refer to Belshazzar as Nebuchadnezzar’s son. See further note to “grandmother” at 10.237.

Κῦρος. Hebrew ‮כורש‬‎ and ‮כרש‬‎; Θ and LXX Κῦρος; Cyrus (590–530 B.C.E.). Δαρεῖος. Hebrew ‮דריוש‬‎; Q and LXX Δαρεῖος. Josephus retains the biblical reference to Darius the Mede who is otherwise unknown to history. 2 Chron 36:20 summarizes the succession from Nebuchadnezzar to Cyrus thus: “He [i.e. Nebuchadnezzar] carried into exile to Babylon the remnant…and they became servants to him and his sons until the kingdom of Persia came to power.” This passage, along with the numerous other references to Cyrus in the Hebrew Bible, implies that he was the successor of the Babylonian empire (e.g. Ezra 1:1-2, 7-8). For a summary of difficulties and discussions surrounding Darius the Mede in history and tradition-history, see Collins 1993: 30–31; Koch 1992. Jer 51:11 contains the idea that the Medes will destroy Babylon. Since Josephus clearly subscribed to the view that the four kingdoms of Nebuchadnezzar’s statue were Babylon, Persia, Macedonia, and Rome (see note to “end” at 10.209), it was necessary for him to subsume the reign of Darius the Mede under that of Cyrus. In Ant. 10.248 Cyrus and Darius the Mede are said to be relatives. The biblical narrative makes no reference to a siege but does state that Darius the Mede took over the kingdom on the very night of the fateful banquet (Dan 5:30). Josephus states that Darius took the city “not long afterwards” (Ant. 10.247). Josephus’ scenario of a banquet in the middle of a siege greatly increases the drama of the episode. Herodotus (Hist. 1.191) and Xenophon (Cyr. 7.5.15) state that the Babylonians were celebrating a festival at the time of the city’s capture. Collins (1993: 243–4) cites the Nabonidus Chronicle on the akitu festival, which is known to have been celebrated in Babylon in the year the city fell. In LXX Dan 5:9 the writing on the wall is referred to as a sign (τοῦ σημείου) that is great (μέγα). Dan 5:1 “a thousand of his lords;” Dan 5:3 “his lords, his wives and his concubines.” LXX lacks the reference to the women in the scene, while Θ includes them. On the significance of the term “friends,” see note at 10.263. The preface to LXX Dan 5 states that two thousand powerful nobles had been invited to the celebration. The biblical narrative (Dan 5:1) does not specify where the banquet took place, though the preface to chapter 5 in LXX states that it occurred “on the day of the inauguration of his palace” (translation by Collins 1993: 237).

Greek τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ σκεύη. Dan 5:3 refers to the “vessels of gold and silver that had been taken out of the temple, the house of God in Jerusalem.” Dan 5:23 refers to them as “the vessels of his temple.” In Ant. 10.145 Josephus describes the despoiling of the temple thus: “He…carried out the gold and silver vessels of God (τὰ σκεύη τοῦ θεοῦ) and [or, “in particular”—καὶ δὴ καὶ] the great laver that Solomon had erected, together with the bronze columns and their capitals and the golden tables and the lampstands” (Begg in this volume). See also Ant. 9.263; 10.242; 11.10, 31; 12.250. Jewish tradition was very interested in the fate of the temple vessels: e.g., 2 Baruch 6:7–9; 4 Baruch 3:8–11, 17– 20. In 1 Macc 1:21–23 and 2 Macc 5:16 robbery of the temple vessels features prominently among the crimes of Antiochus Epiphanes (Collins 1993: 133). The biblical narrative does not mention personal shrines for Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar. Dan 1:2 states that Nebuchadnezzar took some of the vessels of the house of God and placed them in the “treasury of his gods.” Nevertheless, the structure of the biblical narrative does indeed imply that Belshazzar had exceeded Nebuchadnezzar’s arrogance. Greek θράσους, “daring, rashness, audacity, impudence, recklessness;” see also Ant. 1.66; 7.313; 10.13. The biblical narrative attributes the king’s decision to the influence of wine (Dan 5:2), as well as to arrogance (Dan 5:22). The preface to LXX Dan 5 states that the king was “puffed up” (ἀνυψούμενος) from the wine (cf. LXX Dan 5:2). Arrogance features prominently in the description of Antiochus Epiphanes’ robbery of the temple vessels in 1 Macc 1:21–22. Josephus shows no awareness of the rabbinic tradition referred to by Jerome to the effect that Belshazzar was gloating over the fact that Jeremiah’s prophecy of 70 years had not been fulfilled (Jerome, Expl. Dan. 5:2; cf. b. Meg. 11b–12a; cited by Braverman 1978: 79–80). The book of Daniel states that they drank wine from the sacred vessels and “praised the gods of gold and silver, bronze, iron, wood, and stone” (Dan 5:4). Later Daniel himself repeats the accusation that they have praised these gods “which do not see or hear or know” but have neglected to honor the God to whom they owe their very existence (Dan 5:23). See further Ant. 10.242. Dan 5:5 specifies the “fingers of a man’s hand.” Josephus apparently differentiates between the city wall (τεῖχος) and the wall of the banquet hall (τοῖχος), but omits the biblical reference to the writing being on the wall “next to the lampstand” (Dan 5:5). Both LXX and Θ use only the term τοῖχος. Bruce 1965: 149–150 finds Josephus’ differentiation between τεῖχος and τοῖχος to be “odd” and suggests that it might best be explained as an attempt to introduce a stylistic variation of vocabulary. Josephus does something similar at War 5.57 (cf. Polybius 8.4.2; 21.28.8 and Diodorus Siculus 1.48.1. I am grateful to S. Mason for these references). Marcus (1937: 288–9 n. b) suggests that Josephus may have followed the text of Θ, which, he claims, reads “on the plaster of the wall and of the king’s palace” (italics Marcus’). It should be noted, though, that Θ does not have καί at this point.

The biblical narrative emphasizes the king’s terror caused by the hand (Dan 5:6,9,10). Dan 5:7 refers to “the enchanters, the Chaldeans, and the diviners,” and to all of them collectively as “the wise men of Babylon.” On Josephus’ use of these and similar terms see further note to “seers” at 10.195. Greek τά τε σημεῖα καὶ τὰ ὀνείρατα. Josephus seems to have regarded the ability to interpret dreams as relevant in the present case even though the spectacle of the writing on the wall was not a dream. We have seen already that he regarded the terms ὄνειρος, ὄναρ, and ὄψις as broadly synonymous; see note to “dreams” at 10.194.

Josephus follows the biblical narrative (throughout Dan 5) in referring to Belshazzar as “king,” though in fact he was never technically king of Babylon. Rather, he served as coregent with his father Nabonidus during the latter’s sojourn in Arabia. On this complex issue see further Collins 1993: 32–33 and the literature cited there. See note at 10.266. The comparison with the Chaldean kings is Josephus’ addition, derived perhaps from texts such as 1 Esd 3:6; Esth 8:15; 1 Macc 10:20; 62, 64; 14:43; Xenophon, Anab. 1.5.8; 8.29; Cyr. 1.3.2; 2.4.6; Herodotus, Hist. 3.20; etc. See also Gen 41:42. Dan 5:7 “…and rank third in the kingdom.” On the (unlikely) suggestion that the biblical text alludes here to the historical situation in which Belshazzar as co-ruler with his father Nabonidus offers the rank of third in the kingdom to one who is able to decipher the writing, see Collins 1993: 247.

The second wave of wise men follows the narration of events in LXX Dan 5:7. Josephus amplifies the story, though, by stating that the offer of a reward increased the number of people trying to decipher the riddle.

Dan 5:10 identifies this person as “the queen.” Josephus apparently understood her to be the queen mother, i.e. Nebuchadnezzar’s wife and Belshazzar’s grandmother (μάμμη). This would take account of the longer passage of time in his own account between the reigns of Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar, though it does not account for the fact that, according to his own record of the succession of the various kings, Belshazzar was not related to Nebuchadnezzar. Josephus thus failed fully to integrate his historical sources with the biblical account, which presents Belshazzar as Nebuchadnezzar’ son (Dan 5:11, 18 and 22; also Bar 1:11, 12); cf. note to “Babylonians” at 10.231. Bruce (1965: 150) suggests that Josephus may have wanted to identify the queen in this story with Nitocris in Herodotus’ Hist. 1.185–187. On the importance of the queen mother in the ancient Near East, see Collins 1993: 248. Josephus follows MT and Θ at Dan 5:10 in having the queen take the initiative in addressing the king, whereas LXX has the king seeking out the queen’s advice (LXX Dan 5:9; cf. Esth 4:11). Josephus apparently found the term αἰχμάλωτος, “prisoner of war, captive,” to be a point of contact between Daniel and the prisoners from Judea mentioned by Berosus in Ant 10.222. Begg (1993: 453 n. 20) has also pointed out that Josephus uses the term αἰχμάλωτος for himself in War 3.400; 6.107 and 626. For other possible parallels between Josephus’ self-presentation and his portrayal of Daniel, see note to “noblest” at 10.186. Greek σοφὸς ἀνήρ. On Josephus’ presentation of the wisdom of Daniel, see note at 10.187. Josephus emphasizes several times that Daniel had access to knowledge not normally granted to human beings (Ant. 10.194, 196, 204, 239). In the present context the biblical queen refers to Daniel as someone “endowed with the spirit of the holy gods” and as someone found to possess “enlightenment, understanding, and wisdom like the wisdom of the gods” (Dan 5:11). She then adds that “an excellent spirit, knowledge and understanding to interpret dreams, explain riddles, and solve problems” were found in him (Dan 5:12; cf. 5:14). These statements are similar to those of Nebuchadnezzar in Dan 4:8–9, 18 (in MT and Θ, but not in LXX). On the attribution of a divine spirit to Daniel see note to “spirit” at 10.239. Cf. Ant. 10.195–210/Dan 2:1–45; Ant. 10.216– 217/Dan 4:4–27.

The motivation to condemn the ignorance of the Babylonian wise men and the foreshadowing of a gloomy (σκυθρωπόν) prospect are amplifications of the biblical narrative. Like the biblical author, Josephus does not comment on the anomaly that someone as prominent as Daniel seems to be completely unknown to the king.

In this section of Dan 5 (vv. 13–28) Josephus follows the narrative of MT/Θ rather than LXX, which is significantly shorter, lacking much of vv. 13–16, 18– 22, and 24. LXX also lacks the mysterious words themselves, though they are supplied in the preface to chapter 5 in a different order (μανη, φαρες, θεκελ). In LXX 5:26–28 there are 5, rather than 3, explanatory phrases for the meaning of the writing on the wall, on which see Collins 1993: 243. Josephus’ concern in this section and the next is to emphasize Daniel’s wisdom and the honor he enjoyed from both the king and God. On the importance of Daniel’s wisdom throughout Josephus’ narrative see note at 10.187. In the present context Josephus makes explicit what, for him, was the primary nature of Daniel’s wisdom, namely a divinely imbued ability “to discover things that do not enter into the thinking of others.” See also Ant. 10.237 where Belshazzar refers to Daniel as a man “skilled at discovering inexplicable things known only to God.” The editio maior reads θεῖον πνεῦμα, without the article, following RO. The LCL text, following SPLauV, reads τὸ θεῖον πνεῦμα, “the divine spirit.” Josephus’ term is reminiscent of the biblical narrative’s attribution of a divine spirit (‮רוח אלהין קדישין‬‎, “a spirit of the holy gods;” Θ: πνεῦμα θεοῦ, “a spirit of God”) to Daniel by the queen in Dan 5:11, and the king in Dan 5:14 (‮רוח אלהין‬‎, “a spirit of the gods;” Θ πνεῦμα θεοῦ). Both of these references are closely connected to Nebuchadnezzar’s thrice-repeated affirmation in chapter 4 (vv. 8, 9, 18) that Daniel is endowed with “a spirit of the holy gods” (‮רוח אלהין קדישין‬‎; Θ: πνεῦμα θεοῦ ἅγιον, “a holy spirit of God); cf. Gen 41:38 of Joseph. Significantly, LXX does not have any of these references to a divine spirit, either from chapter 4 or from chapter 5. The only partial exception is when the queen in Dan 5:12 refers to the “excellent spirit” (‮רוח יתירה‬‎; Θ πνεῦμα περισσόν) in Daniel. For this statement LXX has πνεῦμα ἅγιον, “a holy spirit.” These observations suggest that Josephus’ biblical text may have been more like Θ than LXX at this point (cf. Levison 1996: 250, n.72). Later in his narrative (Ant. 10.250) Josephus paraphrases part of Dan 6:3 by stating that Daniel was believed to have the divinity (τὸ θεῖον) in himself, which is akin to his statement in the present context. In Dan 6:3 the LXX again has πνεῦμα ἅγιον, “a holy spirit,” for MT’s ‮רוח יתירא‬‎; and Θ’s πνεῦμα περισσόν. Earlier in his paraphrase of the Bible we find the same association between the divine spirit and the gift of prophecy: Josephus states that the deity (τὸ θεῖον) abandoned Saul and that “the divine spirit” (τοῦ θείου πνεύματος) passed to David, enabling him to prophesy (Ant. 6.166). Later in the story of Saul and David armed soldiers are overcome by “the divine spirit” (τοῦ θείου πνεύματος) and they begin to prophesy (Ant. 6.222). In Ant. 8.408 the “true prophet” is characterized as the man who has “the power of the divine spirit” (τοῦ θείου πνεύματος ἔχει τὴν δύναμιν). On Josephus’ understanding of the divine spirit in general, see Levison 1996, 1997; Best 1959. On the related matter of Josephus’ use of the the notion of “divine inspiration” (ἔνθεος γενόμενος), see Ant. 6.56, 76; 8.346; 9.35; War 3.353; Gray 1993: 28–30. The biblical narrative states three times (Dan 5:11, 12, 14) that the divine spirit was “in” Daniel. However, Josephus states that the spirit was “present with” (συμπάρεστι) him; cf. Ant. 10.250 and footnote there. Levison (1996: 250–51; 1997: 169–170) argues that Josephus deliberately distances himself from the biblical view in which God’s spirit resides within Daniel, partly because such a view was vulnerable to easy caricature, as in Plutarch’s Cessation of Oracles (Mor. 414e), where divine inspiration is seen as something akin to mechanical manipulation. Alternatively, Levison suggests Josephus may have been aware of (and keen to avoid) understandings of divine inspiration as sexual penetration (cf. Lucan, Bell. civ. 5.163–167, cited by Levison 1996: 251). While it is possible that concerns such as these may have played a part, it is important to note that the verb συμπάρειμι is used 6 times in Josephus’ paraphrase of the Bible (Ant. 1.260; 2.268, 340; 3.316; 8.108; 10.239. Cf. War 5.380), and in each case it refers to God’s presence with the people involved. This suggests that Josephus is more concerned to show the continuity of God’s presence with significant individuals at significant times in biblical history than he is to distance Daniel from pagan notions of divine presence. The biblical king states in Dan 5:14, “I have heard of you that a spirit of the gods is in you, and that enlightenment, understanding and excellent wisdom are found in you.” Josephus frequently emphasizes Daniel’s access to knowledge not normally available to human beings (e.g. Ant. 10.194, 196, 204, 237).

The reason for the gifts is Josephus’ addition.

Greek θεῖον. For related uses of this term, see note at 10.194. Greek ἀδωροδόκητος. On the importance of being free from corruption, see note at 10.251. Josephus softens the retort of the biblical Daniel: “Let your gifts be for yourself, or give your rewards to someone else!” (Dan 5:17). Feldman (1998: 634) sees in this statement a retort to the likes of Juvenal (Sat. 14.103–104) who claimed that the Jews never offered any kind of help to non-Jews. Greek ὑπὲρ τὴν ἀνθρωπίνην φύσιν. In contrast to the king’s hubris, Josephus several times describes Daniel as one who functions with divine enabling at a level beyond that normally allowed to humans; see notes at 10.194 and 215. Josephus follows the narrative of MT and Θ, in which Daniel recalls the humiliation of Nebuchadnezzar because of his impiety. LXX, however, lacks Dan 5:18–22. Dan 5:20, “But when his heart was lifted up and his spirit was hardened so that he acted proudly, he was deposed from his kingly throne, and his glory was stripped from him.” Josephus does not emphasize Nebuchadnezzar’s insolence toward God as much as the biblical narrative, though he does refer to him as an audacious man in Ant. 10.219.

Greek βίος, “manner of living,” is used in this context as a synonym of δίαιτα in the same passage. Greek δίαιτα, “mode of life,” is used in this context as a synonym of βίος in the same passage. On the use of this term elsewhere in Josephus, see note to “regimen” at 10.190. Ant. 10.216–217/Dan 4:4–37. Dan 5:21 “. . . until he learned that the Most High God has sovereignty over the kingdom of mortals, and sets over it whomever he will.” On Josephus’ scruples against defaming the gods of others, see Ant. 4.207 and Apion 2.237. Philo expresses similar scruples in QE 2.5; Spec. 1.9.53; Mos. 2.37.203–38.208. Cf. Exod 22:27 (28). See further Feldman 2000: 403 n. 623. Greek τὸ θεῖον. For other uses of this term, see note at 10.194. Daniel’s condemnation of the king is reminiscent of Josephus’ own condemnation of the Judean revolutionaries who had defiled the temple during the siege of Jerusalem in his day (War 5.401–402). One cannot escape the suspicion that the criticism also has a bearing on Josephus’ attitude to the Roman desecration of the temple and the removal of its sacred objects to Rome.

The riddle of the words on the wall continues to be a matter of scholarly debate and speculation. Part of the difficulty lies in the fact that there is some discrepancy in the original story between the form of the words on the wall (Dan 5:25) and the form of the words as they are given in Daniel’s interpretation (Dan 5:26–28); e.g., the first word, mene is repeated on the wall but not in Daniel’s interpretation; and the third word parsin is the plural of the word peres, which Daniel interprets. Also, the original words appear to be noun forms, while the interpretations of Daniel take them to be passive participles. This has led many scholars to conclude that the words originally had different meanings from those ascribed to them by Daniel (Collins 1993: 250–51). Josephus treats the words as nouns. On another note, it has often been suggested that the mysterious words originally referred to weights or monetary units listed in order of descending value. ‮מנא‬‎, mene, stood for the mina, ‮פרס‬‎, peres, stood for the half-mina, and ‮תקל‬‎, tekel, stood for the shekel. On this understanding the declining values would be analogous to the declining value of the metals in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of the statue made of different metals. As the narrative presently reads in the Book of Daniel, though, the order has been disrupted, with ‮פרס‬‎ standing last rather than ‮תקל‬‎, perhaps in order to make a pun on “Persia.” The preface to chapter 5 in LXX preserves the likely original order (Collins 1993: 251). Josephus follows the order of MT and does not seem to have appreciated the possible monetary or weight connotations of the terms. Greek μάνη with textual variants μανῆ P and μανή LauE. Aramaic ‮מנא מנא‬‎; Θ Μανη; LXX omits the divine words at Dan 5:25 and 26, but the preface to chapter 5 renders it Μανη. Collins (1993: 252) notes a word-play with ‮מני‬‎, the word used for “fate” in Isa 65:11. The term could also be used for the monetary unit or weight of a mina (see previous note). Greek ἀριθμός. This is an editorial aside for the reader. Josephus is not implying that the king spoke Greek. The MT does not provide a single-word translation of the divine word (see note to “short” in this paragraph), though LXX, in the preface to chapter 5, renders this divine word ἠρίθμηται, “it has been numbered” (Vermes 1991: 152, n. 9; Collins 1993: 237). In the biblical text (Dan 5:26) it is the king’s rule alone that has been numbered (Vermes 1991: 157). MT Dan 5:26 reads ‮מנה־אלהא מלכותך והשלמה‬‎: “God has numbered the days of your kingdom and brought it to an end.” LXX follows this reading closely with ἠρίθμηται ὁ χρόνος σου τῆς βασιλείας, ἀπολήγει ἡ βασιλεία σου, “the time of your kingdom is numbered, your kingdom is coming to an end” (translation by Collins 1993: 239). Θ renders this verse ἐμέτρησεν ὁ θεὸς τὴν βασιλείαν σου καὶ ἐπλήρωσεν αὐτήν, “God has measured your kingdom and completed it.” The Latin, apparently rendering a text that combines aspects of LXX and Θ, reads Numeravit Deus regnum tuum et conplevit illud.

Greek θέκελ with textual variant θεκέλ SPLauE. Aramaic ‮תקל‬‎; Θ θεκελ; LXX omits the divine words at Dan 5:25 and 27, but the preface to chapter 5 renders it θεκελ. Collins (1993: 252) notes that ‮תקל‬‎ can also be read as the imperfect of ‮קלל‬‎ (be light), hence Rashi’s rendering: “You have been weighed before him and have been found light in every way.” This is reminiscent of the biblical text’s “you have been weighed on the scales and found wanting” (Dan 5:27). Collins points out further that the motif of weighing the actions of people is common in eschatological contexts, e.g. 1 En. 41:1; 2 En. 52:15; T. Ab. 13:10; 4 Ezra 3:34. The term thekel could also be used for the monetary unit of a shekel. Greek τὸν σταθμόν. The MT does not provide a single-word translation for the divine word (see note to “he said” in this paragraph), though LXX, in the preface to chapter 5, renders this divine word ἕσταται, which is the perf. ind. mid/pass. 3rd sing. of ἵστημι. Collins (1993: 237) renders “it is established,” which is possible (cf. LXX Gen 6:18; 12:8), though it could also have the specific sense of being set in a balance or scale (cf. Xenophon, Cyr. 8.2.21, where the verb is paralleled with ἀριθμέω as here); thus “it has been weighed” (so Vermes 1991: 152, n. 9), which seems better in context (cf. LXX 2 Sam 14:26). The rather strange image of God weighing time, τὸν χρόνον, may arise from an imperfect recollection of the image in LXX Dan 5:26, which refers to μανη rather than to θεκελ; see note to “short” in previous paragraph. MT Dan 5:27 reads ‮תקילתה במאזניא והשתכחת‬‎: ‮חסיר‬‎ “You have been weighed on the scales and found wanting.” LXX differs from this widely with the statement, συντέτμηται καὶ συντετέλεσται ἡ βασιλεία σου, “Your kingdom is cut off and finished” (Collins 1993: 239). Θ follows the biblical text more closely with ἐστάθη ἐν ζυγῷ καὶ εὑρέθη ὑστεροῦσα, “[Your kingdom] has been weighed in the balance and found lacking.” The Latin follows MT and Θ with, adpensum est in statera et inventus es minus habens. Greek φαρές. MT ‮פרסין‬‎ (Dan 5:25), ‮פרס‬‎ (Dan 5:28); Θ φαρες; LXX omits the divine words at Dan 5:25 and 28, but the preface to chapter 5 renders it φαρες. The word may refer to the monetary unit of a half-mina, but it also contains a play on “divide” and “Persia” (Collins 1993: 252). Greek κλάσμα. This is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. The MT does not provide a single word translation for the divine word (see next footnote) though LXX, in the preface to chapter 5, renders this divine word ἐξῆρται, which is the perf. ind. mid/pass. 3rd sing. of ἐξαίρω, “to be carried or taken away” (thus Collins 1993: 237; cf. LXX 3 Kgdms 8:25). Vermes (1991: 152 n. 9) renders “it has been divided” with unclear justification. MT Dan 5:28 reads ‮פריסת מלכותך ויהיבת למדי‬‎: ‮ופרס‬‎ “Your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians.” Θ follows the biblical text closely with διῄρηται ἡ βασιλεία σου καὶ ἐδόθη Μήδοις καὶ Πέρσαις, “Your kingdom has been divided and given to the Medes and Persians.” LXX omits the first part of the sentence and has only τοῖς Μήδοις καὶ τοῖς Πέρσαις δί δοται, “it has been given to the Medes and Persians.” The Latin follows MT and Θ with divisum est regnum tuum et datum est Medis et Persis.

In this section Josephus expands on the last 2 verses of Dan 5 and the first 2 verses of chapter 6. In the process he heightens the drama of the story, and once again places it in the context of wider history (though not without some deft maneuvering to accomplish this). As in previous episodes Daniel emerges as a man held in high esteem by kings. Belshazzar’s emotional response is Josephus’ addition.

On Daniel as a prophet, see note to “prophets” at 10.267. In Ant. 10.268 Josephus claims that Daniel was distinguished from other prophets in that he was a prophet of good news. For other instances where Daniel in fact predicted bad news, see note there. Belshazzar’s thought processes are Josephus’ own addition to the narrative. Collins (1993: 253) argues that the reward of the successful interpreter is a traditional motif in such tales. Greek ἀνδρὸς ἀγαθοῦ καὶ δικαίου. Josephus consistently emphasizes the exemplary character of Daniel (see Feldman 1998: 631–5). On the virtue of justice throughout Josephus’ writings see also War 5.27; 5.34; Ant. 1.158; 3.66, 67; 4.46; 217, 223; 6.36, 160, 212, 290, 294, 305; 7.110, 391; 8.21; 10.50, 155; 11.121, 139, 183; 13.294; 16.176, 177; Apion 2.293; Feldman 1998: 113–6. Dan 5:29 states only that Belshazzar gave to Daniel the things that had been promised.

Dan 5:30 states that Belshazzar was killed “that very night.” Collins (1993: 252–253) cites Xenophon, Cyr. 7.5.17–29 to the effect that Babylon fell to a night-time attack. See also Herodotus, Hist. 1.191; Nabonidus Chronicle col. 3.15. The biblical narrative makes no mention of Cyrus at this point. In Apion 1.150–153 (on which, see Barclay, BJP 10) Josephus quotes Berosus’ account of the end of the neo-Babylonian empire, which makes it clear that it was Cyrus of Persia who defeated the last Babylonian king, Nabonidus. Cf. Herodotus, Hist. 1.188–191; Xenophon, Cyr. 7.5.15. In the present context, though, Josephus’ task is complicated by the Book of Daniel’s introduction of Darius the Mede, and by the handwriting’s prediction that the Babylonian kingdom would be divided between the Medes and the Persians. Josephus gleaned this information from Berosus (cf. Apion 1.150). Nabonidus, with whom Josephus identifies Belshazzar (Ant. 10.231), reigned from 556– 539 B.C.E. According to rabbinic tradition, Belshazzar reigned only 2 years (Ginzberg 1909–38, 6: 430).

Belshazzar was not in fact of the line of Nebuchadnezzar, despite the biblical representation of him as Nebuchadnezzar’s son (Dan 5:11, 18 and 22); cf. notes at 10.231. Josephus’ claim to be passing on what he knows of the succession of these kings is belied by his own work in Apion, in which he quotes Berosus’ more accurate account. Josephus makes Darius the Mede a relative (τοῦ συγγενοῦς) of Cyrus. According to Ant. 10.232 they were comrades in arms. This association would seem to be Josephus’ own innovation motivated in part by his interpretation of the fourth kingdom of Nebuchadnezzar’s statue as Rome. See further note to “the Mede” at 10.232. This accords with MT Dan 6:1 [= English 5:31], which is followed by Θ. LXX states that Darius was “full of days and illustrious in old age.” Unlike MT and Θ, LXX states that the kingdom was given to Ἀρταξέρξης ὁ τῶν Μήδων, “Artaxerxes of the Medes.” A variant reading in Pap. 967 reads “Xerxes, king of the Medes.” Astyages (ruled 585–550 B.C.E) was the last king of the Medians whose daughter, Mandane, was the mother of Cyrus; Yamauchi 1992. Dan 9:1 states that Darius the Mede was the son of Ahasuerus (on which see Collins 1993: 348). Josephus’ vague comment about another name for Darius the Mede betrays the difficulty created by the fact that Josephus’ non-biblical sources contained no reference to Darius the Mede, whose identity has long been a puzzle to historians. Bruce (1965: 150) suggests that Josephus may have had in mind Cyaxares II of Xenophon’s Cyropaedia 1.5.2 etc.

On Daniel as a prophet, see note to “prophets” at 10.267. Josephus anticipates Dan 6:28 (Vermes 1991: 158). The honor Daniel enjoyed is an important theme in this part of the Antiquities, on which see further note to “public” at 10.266. Dan 6:1–2 refers to three “presidents” (‮סרכין‬‎; Θ τακτικούς “officers” [Marcus 1937: 296, n. a], “ministers” [Collins 1993: 256, n. 11]; LXX ἡγουμένους “governors”) in authority over 120 satraps (‮אחשדרפניא‬‎; Θ and LXX σατράπας). LXX has 127 satraps. Josephus apparently read the passage to mean each of the three presidents was in charge of one hundred and twenty satrapies, for a total of three hundred and sixty satrapies. Herodotus (Hist. 3.89) ascribes to Darius I of Persia the organization of his realm into twenty satrapies. In Esther we read that Xerxes had 127 provinces administered by “satraps” and “governors” and “officials” (1:1; 8:9). Similarly, 1 Esd 3:2 speaks of the 127 satrapies of Darius I under “satraps and generals and governors.”

In this section and the next Josephus covers the biblical narrative of Dan 6 for which LXX differs from MT/Θ in many small ways (Collins 1993: 262–264), though no clear pattern emerges regarding Josephus’ use of either. Josephus’ primary concern in this part of his narrative seems to be to show how Daniel’s success, and in particular the honor in which he was held by the king, led to envy and malice on the part of others. The honor Daniel enjoyed is an important theme in this part of the Antiquities, on which see further note to “public” at 10.266. Dan 6:3 states that Darius planned to appoint Daniel over the whole kingdom. Josephus claims something more modest for Daniel. Feldman (1998: 653–4) argues that Josephus was careful to avoid any suggestion that Jews exercise undue power. Feldman (1998: 638) and Levison (1996: 251; 1997: 170) argue that Josephus’ use of πεπιστευμένος in connection with Daniel’s possession of the divine spirit betrays reticence on Josephus’ part to affirm that God was actually “in” Daniel rather than simply “with” him; cf. Ant. 10.239 and note to “with him” there. It should be noted, however, that Josephus several times hints that Daniel was blessed with an intimacy with God not normally associated with mere mortals (e.g. Ant. 10.194, 196, 200, 204, 211–212, 215, 237, 239, 264, 267, 268, 277). By stating in the present context that Daniel “was believed” to possess the divine spirit Josephus can appear to be modest while at the same time greatly enhancing Daniel’s profile in a Roman setting. In other words, the present statement is closely akin to Josephus’ claim in Ant. 10.268 that Daniel had “a reputation for divinity (θειότητος) with the public.” The ascription of the view to the public (τοῖς ὄχλοις) lends an air of authority to the statement without implying that Josephus was uncomfortable with it. Indeed, in the paragraph immediately preceding this one (Ant. 10.267), Josephus states that on the basis of the books Daniel wrote, “we believe (πεπιστεύκαμεν) …that Daniel kept company with God” (emphasis added). A similar strategy may be detected in Josephus’ presentation of Moses (cf. Ant. 3.75, 96–97, 99, 180, 318, 320; Apion 1.279). I have argued in another context (Spilsbury 1998: 106–9) that Josephus was not averse to his Roman audience forming opinions of his biblical characters that were akin to their own views of divine figures (Tiede 1972: 207–40). On a related note, Josephus states in Ant. 6.263 that humble people are persuaded (πεπιστεύκασιν) that the deity is present (πάρεστι) in all that happens in life. Here again Josephus clearly does not intend to distance himself from the affirmation of God’s presence. Greek τὸ θεῖον. Josephus makes a similar statement about Daniel in Ant. 10.268. For other uses of this term, see note to “deity” at 10.194. For other references to Daniel’s possession of the divine Spirit, see note to “spirit” at 10.239. Dan 6:3 states that an “excellent spirit” (‮רוח יתירא‬‎; Θ πνεῦμα περισσόν, LXX πνεῦμα ἅγιον) was in him. Josephus makes explicit and emphasizes what is implicit in the biblical narrative, namely that the presidents and satraps conspired against Daniel because they were jealous of his high position (Dan 6:3–4). In MT the number of those envious of Daniel includes 120 satraps and the two presidents who served alongside Daniel. Θ calls these latter individuals οἱ τακτικοί, “the ministers” (Collins 1993: 164). Josephus does not follow LXX at Dan 6:4, which specifies that it was the two young men (νεανίσκοι), his fellow presidents, who were Daniel’s chief opponents in the story (Collins 1993: 262–263). Josephus often attributes his protagonists’ woes to the jealousy and malice of others (e.g. Ant. 10.212, 256; Daube 1980: 29; Feldman 1998: 644). In the present instance one might well detect a rueful reflection on Josephus’ own experience of the jealousy and slander of others (e.g. Life 80, 84, 122, 189, 204, 416, 424, 425, 428). On other such parallels between Josephus and Daniel see note to “noblest” at 10.186.

Josephus has already demonstrated this virtue of Daniel in Ant. 10.241. Dan 6:4 states that “they could find no grounds for complaint or any corruption, because he was faithful and no negligence or corruption could be found in him.” Earlier in his biblical narrative (Ant. 4.46) Josephus describes Moses as having never accepted a gift so as to corrupt justice. See also Thucydides 2.60.5 (cited by Feldman 1998: 115). Further, it should also be noted that the only other time Josephus uses the phrase παντὸς λήμματος is with reference to himself in Life 79. On other such parallels between Josephus himself and Daniel, see cross-references in previous footnote. Josephus embellishes the biblical narrative in characteristic fashion, matching his claims about his own probity (Life 80).

According to the biblical narrative the conspirators initially tried to find a way to impeach Daniel in connection with the affairs of state (literally, ‘from the side of the kingdom,” Dan 6:4), but quickly concluded, “We shall not find any ground for complaint against this Daniel unless we find it in connection with the law of his God” (Dan 6:5). Josephus does not specifically raise the matter of the law here, but focuses on Daniel’s practice of daily prayers. Braverman (1978: 81) notes Jerome’s claim that Jewish interpreters took the phrase “from the side of the kingdom” to be a reference to the queen or the king’s concubines. In other words, the conspirators tried to catch Daniel in some sexual impropriety, but were unable to do so because he was a eunuch. Jerome himself did not hold to this interpretation. While there is no extant evidence of such an interpretive tradition in rabbinic literature, Braverman cites Midrash Meg. 176, in which Daniel and his companions subjected themselves to castration in order to remove suspicions of immorality. On the tradition that Daniel and his companions were eunuchs, see further note to “castrated” at 10.186. Josephus brings this detail forward from its slightly later position in the biblical narrative (Dan 6:10; Vermes 1991: 158). In the biblical narrative the conspirators are already aware of Daniel’s religious practice.

The prohibition against prayer is not extended to prayers to the king in the biblical narrative. Dan 6:7 states “whoever prays to anyone, divine or human, for thirty days, except to you, O king, shall be thrown into a den of lions” (emphasis added). The biblical narrative would seem to be more coherent than Josephus’ in that it suggests that the king’s vanity was the cause for his blindness to the evil intent of the plot. Josephus’ version excludes this motivation, thus making the story that much less plausible. It is possible that Josephus was influenced by a desire not to appear to be criticizing the imperial cult in Rome. Throughout this episode Josephus, following both LXX and Θ, uses the term λάκκος for the “pit” of lions (Ant. 10.253, 257, 258, 259, 261). Significantly, the term functions as a point of comparison between Daniel, Jeremiah, Joseph and Josephus himself, all of whom had experiences in a pit at one time or another (Ant. 2.31–35; 10.121; War 3.341). For Josephus’ sense of personal identification with these biblical figures, see further Daube: 1980, Gnuse 1996: 27–32, and note to “noblest” at 10.186.

In this section Josephus highlights Daniel’s piety and his innocence in the face of the accusations brought against him by his enemies. Josephus’ account of Daniel in the lions’ den is embellished in terms of drama, and glossed with rationalization. These insights into the king’s state of mind are Josephus’ own contribution.

The biblical narrative makes no reference to the actions of others at this point. Josephus’ portrayal of Daniel emphasizes his courage (Feldman 1998: 633). Collins (1993: 268) notes that the biblical Daniel is less confrontational than Josephus’ Daniel at this point. The biblical narrative states that Daniel continued to go to his house to pray, “just as he had done previously” (Dan 6:10). b. Ber. 31a (cited by Collins 1993: 269) states that Daniel’s practice in the present story already had the force of custom. See also b. Ber. 26b. Dan 6:10 states that Daniel got down on his knees three times a day to pray. Θ follows MT, but LXX depicts Daniel prostrating himself (ἔπιπτεν ἐπὶ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ). Josephus depicts Daniel standing to pray, and omits the reference to the thrice daily repetition. The Gospel of Mark assumes standing as a common posture in prayer: “Whenever you stand praying…” (Mark 11:25; see also Matt 6:5; Luke 18:11, 13). The Mishnah takes standing to be the normal posture for prayer; m. Ber. 5.1 (cited by Collins 1993: 269; see also Bockmuehl 1990). In Ant. 4.212 Josephus reports Moses as requiring that prayers of thanksgiving be offered to God twice daily. Feldman (2000: 406 n. 639) takes this as a reference to recitation of the Shema (Deut 6:7) rather than the three daily prayers that were instituted to replace the daily sacrifices (b. Ber. 26b). Biblical support for three times of daily prayer includes Ps 55:17, but see also Ps 119:164 which speaks of praying seven times a day. Did. 8 and 2 En. 51:4 also make mention of thrice daily prayers. On the complex practice in Qumran, see Collins 1993: 269. The biblical account tells of Daniel going in his own house to the upper room which had windows open toward Jerusalem (Dan 6:10). Josephus makes no mention of the upper room, or of praying toward Jerusalem, on which see 1 Kgs 8:35; 1 Esd 4:58; m. Ber. 4.5. In War 2.128 the Essenes are said to pray toward the sun; but see Ezek 8:16.

The emphasis on Daniel as the only one to disobey the king’s edict is an addition to the biblical narrative. There appears to be text missing at this point. Feldman (1998: 653 n. 47) states: “the import appears to be that those who observed the edict not to pray did so not because of impiety but because they realized how important it was to maintain respect for law and order.” Josephus often attributes his protagonists’ woes to the jealousy and malice of others (e.g. Ant. 10.212, 250; Daube 1980: 29; Feldman 1998: 644).

Josephus’ narrative implies that the king might well have been tempted to overlook the law or even to change it in favor of Daniel. The biblical narrative, though, speaks of the unchangeable law of the Medes and Persians, which bound the king to fulfill its requirements despite his desire to rescue Daniel (Dan 9:8, 12, 15).

Josephus supplies the element of Darius’ hope in God. Greek τὸ θεῖον. For other uses of this term, see note to “deity” at 10.194. The biblical Darius gives no such exhortation to cheerfulness, but utters the prayer, “May your God, whom you faithfully serve, deliver you!” (Dan 6:16).

Josephus abridges the biblical king’s words in which he asks whether Daniel’s God has been able to deliver him (Dan 6:20). Feldman (1998: 638) notes a tendency on Josephus’ part to deemphasize the role of God at certain points in his narrative. Josephus omits the biblical Daniel’s reference to an angel sent from God to shut the lions’ mouths (Dan 6:22). He made a similar omission in the story of the three youths in the furnace (Dan 3:24–28; Ant. 10.214–215); cf. notes at 10.216, 271 and 272. LXX similarly omits the reference to the angel found both in MT and in Θ. Instead, LXX Dan 6:19 has the statement ὁ θεὸς τοῦ Δανιηλ πρόνοιαν ποιούμενος αὐτοῦ ἀπέκλεισε τὰ στόματα τῶν λεόντων, “the God of Daniel took providential care of him and shut the mouths of the lions” (Collins 1993: 259). This is the only instance in either of the Greek versions of the Book of Daniel in which the term πρόνοια occurs (πρόνοια is used elsewhere in LXX at 2 Macc 4:6; 3 Macc 4:21; 5:30; 4 Macc 9:24; 13:19; 17:22; Wis 14:3; 17:2). The term is highly significant for Josephus’ conception of God’s involvement in human affairs (on which see note to “providence” at 10.278). In the present context it is noteworthy that Josephus uses πρόνοια in the very next sentence. This may indicate that Josephus was using a biblical text similar to LXX at this point. It is also significant to note that in another of the stories where Josephus omits a biblical reference to divine aid mediated through an angelic figure, namely the story of the three youths in the furnace, Josephus once again used the notion of divine providence (θείᾳ προνοίᾳ) as a substitute (Ant. 10.214).

Greek τὸ θεῖον. For other uses of this term, see note to “deity” at 10.194. In the present instance the expression used by Josephus, τὸ θεῖον καὶ τὴν τούτου πρόνοιαν, is reminiscent of the expression θείᾳ προνοίᾳ in Ant.10.214; cf. previous footnote. Josephus uses the highly significant term πρόνοια here to speak of God’s providential care of Daniel. On Josephus’ use of this term throughout his works, see note to “providence” at 10.278. Feldman (1998: 639) cites a rabbinic parallel to this motif from the Midrash on Ps 64:1. The biblical narrative makes no such reference to the views of Daniel’s enemies.

This test of the lions’ hunger is an addition to the biblical narrative.

Greek τὸ θεῖον. For other uses of this term, see note to “deity” at 10.194. Josephus omits the biblical detail that the wives and children of Daniel’s enemies were thrown to the lions as well (Dan 6:24). He also does not follow LXX Dan 6:25 in specifying that it was just two men who along with their families were thrown to the lions. On these individuals, see note to “slander” at 10.250. Josephus’ vagueness of this matter enabled him to sidestep the rather difficult implication of the biblical narrative that 122 men along with their wives and children were all thrown to the lions. Vermes (1991: 158 n. 15) cites a similar haggadic account in the Midr. Ps. on Psalm 64:1 (ed. S. Buber, 311). Josephus makes a similar editorial comment about the demise of Haman in Ant 11.268. The rationality, or otherwise, of animals was a matter of significant debate in the ancient world; see Sorabji 2003. Josephus calls the lions ἄλογος, “without λόγος, lacking reason”, yet ascribes to them insight into the morality of humans. See also War 4.170; 6.197; Apion 1.224; 2.213, 271. In Ant. 4.108 Balaam’s donkey is said to discern (συνεῖσα) the divine spirit. This rationalizing explanation is Josephus’ addition. The biblical Daniel expresses the view that God sent an angel to save him because he was blameless before God and the king, and no harm came to him because he trusted in God (Dan 5:22–23).

In this section, which runs from here all the way to the end of Book 10, Josephus composes an elaborate conclusion to his recitation of the story of Daniel. This conclusion can be divided into three distinct parts. In Part 1 (Ant. 10.263–265) Josephus covers the closing verses of Dan 6 (vv. 25–28), emphasizing once again the honor Daniel enjoyed with both the king and God, and then going beyond the Bible in portraying Daniel as a man of action not unlike Nebuchadnezzar himself, whose famous building projects are described in Ant. 10.224–226. In Part 2 (Ant. 10.266–275) Josephus praises Daniel’s prophetic abilities and provides in the process first a summary and then an interpretation of Dan 8, as an example of the precision and reliability of his predictions. In Part 3 (Ant. 10.276–281) Josephus brings his conclusion to a climax by arguing that Daniel’s prophecies prove beyond all doubt that God excercises providential oversight over human affairs, and that those who, like the Epicureans, deny this are sorely mistaken.Part 1 of this conclusion to the story of Daniel functions for Josephus as a bridge between the story of lions’ den and the vision of Dan 8. As such, it stands in the narrative in the place of the Dan 7, which Josephus omits altogether. We may only speculate at to why Josephus chose to omit this chapter. He might have defended his actions with a rationale similar to the one he used in Ant. 10.210, namely that it was his duty as a historian to record the past and not predictions about the future. More important than that, though, is the fact that Josephus would very likely have perceived significant thematic continuities between the Nebuchadnezzar’s vision of the statue in Dan 2 and Daniel’s own vision of the four beasts and the “one like a human being” in Dan 7. His reasons for omitting chapter 7 would thus likely have been the same as for his reticence to speak of the meaning of the stone in chapter 2. In both visions a 4-staged procession of Gentile kingdoms is succeeded by an eternal kingdom that is in some sense not simply a continuation of the human empires. Of the stone in Dan 2 we read: “And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall this kingdom be left to another people. It shall crush all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever” (Dan 2:44). In a similar vein in Dan 7:14 we read of the kingdom given to the one like a human being: “To him was given dominion and glory and kingship, that all peoples, nations and languages should serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not pass away, and his kingship is one that shall never be destroyed.” A few verses later: “But the holy ones of the Most High shall receive the kingdom and possess the kingdom forever—forever and ever” (Dan 7:18; see also v. 27). Josephus may have felt that his oblique comments on Nebuchadnezzar’s stone vision were already bold enough, and that to repeat chapter 7 for a Roman audience would be pushing their patience a little too far. Josephus may also have felt more comfortable reporting such predictions when they came from the mouths of a Gentile (like a Nebuchadnezzar or a Balaam; cf. Ant. 4.114–117, 125) than when they came from a Judean like Daniel. Of course, we should observe that Josephus also omits Daniel’s visions in chapters 9–12. P.R. Davies has suggested that this might be due to the fact that while in the first half of the book empires are granted to various peoples according to the divine will, in the latter visions “they emerge as the outcome of angelic warfare…as if to deny the direct working of divine providence in the imperial sequence” (1991: 166). Be that as it may, Josephus may simply have felt that his summary of chapter 8 already said as much as he wanted to, and that he had by this time already given Daniel more than his fair share of space in the Antiquities. As is made clear in the notes below, there are indications that Josephus occasionally modified his account of Dan 8 with narrative details gleaned from the final chapters of the Book of Daniel. On Daniel’s omission of chapters 7 and 9–12, see also Fischer 1978: 175–7. The biblical narrative has it that Darius wrote to “all peoples and nations of every language throughout the whole world” (Dan 6:25). Dan 6:26–27 is more effusive: “I make a decree, that in all my royal dominion people should tremble and fear before the God of Daniel: For he is the living God, enduring forever. His kingdom shall never be destroyed, and his dominion has no end. He delivers and rescues, he works signs and wonders in heaven and on earth; for he has saved Daniel from the power of the lions.” In LXX the king requires all his subjects to worship Daniel’s God and he renounces idol worship. The honor Daniel enjoyed is an important theme in this part of the Antiquities, on which see further note to “public” at 10.266. The title πρῶτος τῶν φίλων, “first of friends,” was characteristic of Hellenistic courts; cf. Stählin 1974, 9: 147–8; Bickerman 1938: 40–42; Millar 1977: 110–22. . Dan 6:28 states simply that “Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius and the reign of Cyrus the Persian;” though LXX Pap. 967 states: “Daniel was appointed over all the kingdom of Darius” (cited by Collins 1993: 259, n. 27). Vermes (1991: 151) notes that Josephus’ phrase echoes LXX’s use of φίλος as a court official in Dan 3:91, 94; 5:23 and 6:14. In the last of these references Daniel is explicitly referred to as the king’s friend (τὸν φίλον σου). In the present context, Josephus also states that Daniel was a friend of God (see next footnote). See also Ant 11.32, 121.

Greek θεοφιλής. On Josephus’ use of this term, see note at 10.215. In the present context Josephus draws a clear connection between the fact that Daniel was “friend” (φίλος) of the king and a “friend of God” (θεοφιλής) Bruce (1965: 150) suggests that Josephus may have confused Ecbatana, where according to Ezra 6:2 there was a fortress (‮בירתא‬‎; LXX βᾶρις), with Susa. It is not at all clear where Josephus got the idea that Daniel built a fortress in Ecbatana, or anywhere else. It may be relevant to note, that the term used for fortress here, βᾶρις, does occur in Θ Dan 8:2. MT states that Daniel was in the fortified city (‮הבירה‬‎) of Susa (for this translation of ‮הבירה‬‎ see Collins 1993: 329), which Θ renders ἐν Σούσοις τῇ βάρει, “in the fortress of Susa.” LXX has ἐν Σούσοις τῇ πόλει (“in the city of Susa”). This slight evidence, however, does not relate to Ecbatana; nor does it say anything about Daniel actually building the fortress. Feldman suggests that Josephus added the claim motivated by a desire to present Daniel as the ideal man of action (Feldman 1998: 635–636), not unlike Nebuchadnezzar.

For various rabbinic traditons related to this point, see note to “memorial” in next paragraph.

Greek παραδόξως, “contrary to expectation, incredible” (LSJ, s.v.). Josephus uses the term two other times in his paraphrase of the Book of Daniel (Ant. 10.214, 235), and a total of 29 times in his biblical paraphrase as a whole (Ant. 2.91, 216, 223, 267, 285, 295, 345, 347; 3.1, 14, 30, 38; 5.28, 37, 125; 6.171, 290; 7.239; 8.130, 317; 9.14, 58, 60, 182; 10.24, 28). It often refers to the divine or miraculous element in the narrative. On Josephus’ ambivalent attitude to miracles, see Betz 1974, 1987; MacRae 1965. I have followed the emendation of Marcus (LCL, following SPLauV) for this clause: ἅπαντα γὰρ αὐτῷ παραδόξως…εὐτυχήθη. The editio maior reads ἀπαντᾷ γὰρ ἀυτῷ παραδόξως, “for it happened* unexpectedly for him.” A textual variant (SPLauV and followed by Marcus, LCL) has “as for one of the greatest prophets.” The present reading is supported by RO, and it seems to be the (preferred) “more difficult reading” in light of the Christian copyists’ tendency to include Daniel among the prophets. On Josephus’ presentation of Daniel as a prophet, see note at 10.267. The honor in which Daniel was held by all is an important theme of this section of the Antiquities; cf. Ant. 10.189, 215, 240, 249, 250, 252, 263. A closely related theme is the honor Daniel received from God. In Ant. 10.263–264, after speaking of the exceptionally high honor in which Daniel was held by King Darius, Josephus refers to Daniel’s reputation as a man dear to God (θεοφιλής). A similar pattern pertains in Ant. 10.215 with respect to Daniel’s three friends who are also honored by the king and referred to as θεοφιλεῖς. In Ant. 10.277 Josephus remarks on how readers of Daniel’s prophecies marvel at the honor he received from God. Josephus does not describe the place or time of Daniel’s death. Various rabbinic and Christian traditions on this matter (R. Benjamin of Tudela 74–76; R. Pethahiah 7b; Chronicon Paschale 92.396) are cited by Ginzberg (1909–38, 4: 350; 6: 437 n.20), who deems them to be dependent upon Josephus. The Lives of the Prophets 4:18 states that Daniel died in Babylon and was buried in the royal tomb. Other sources cited by Ginzberg were of the opinion that Daniel returned to Judea in later life and died there (Song Rab. 5.5; b. Sanh. 93 b). The mausoleum of Danial-e-Nabi is today a prominent and revered site, known since at least the 12th century, in the excavated city of Shoosh (Susa), in Iran’s Khuzestan province. Samarkand in Uzbekistan also hosts a tomb of Daniel, however, on the claim that his remains were transported there from his place of death.

The biblical canon contains only one book ascribed to Daniel. Either Josephus is simply using language carelessly or a more extensive Daniel literature is no longer extant. Collins (1993: 38 n. 335) suggests that this is probably a reference to the different visions in Dan 7–12, “as there is nothing to indicate that Josephus knew other Danielic literature.” Begg (1993: 543 and n. 19) has suggested that this is yet another way in which Josephus shapes the Daniel narrative to parallel his own self-presentation (cf. War 7.454–455; Ant. 20.258–260; Life 361–367, 430). In Ant. 10.210 and 11.337 Josephus refers to a single book of Daniel. Greek ὡμίλει τῷ θεῷ. This claim is in keeping with a theme running throughout Josephus’ portrayal of Daniel; cf. note to “believed” at 10.250 and the references cited there. Josephus viewed prophecy as primarily predictive. On this subject, see further van Unnik 1978: 52–54; Blenkinsopp 1974: 244–45; Feldman 1990: 394–97; Mason 1994: 171. Mason points out that “Josephus is characteristically ambiguous about the possibility of avoiding what is determined.” In Ant. 8.418–419 (cited by Mason) Josephus asserts that “nothing is more beneficial than prophecy and the foreknowledge (πρόγνωσις) which it gives, for in this way God enables us to know what to guard against;” but also, that “it behoves us to reflect on the power of Fate (τὴν τοῦ χρεὼν ἰσχύν), and to see that even with foreknowledge (προγινωσκόμενον) is it impossible to escape it…” (Thackeray and Marcus, LCL). In Ant. 10.35 Josephus asserts that “whatever happens to us whether for good or ill comes about in accordance with their [i.e. the prophets’] prophecies” (Marcus, LCL). Josephus considered Daniel to be a prophet (cf. Ant. 10.246, 249, 268) despite the fact that he is not called a prophet in the book of Daniel itself. In Dan 9:2–24 Daniel refers to “the prophets” (including Jeremiah) as a distinct group not including himself. It is also noteworthy that the book of Daniel did not appear in the prophetic section of the Hebrew Bible. Daniel was not considered a prophet by some of the later Talmudic tradition: b. Meg. 3a; b. Sanh. 93b–94a (Vermes 1991: 158, n. 14). Ancient sources that did view Daniel as a prophet include the Lives of the Prophets, 4QFlor II, 3, Matt 24:15, Mek. 1b, Pesiq. Rab Kah. 4.36b, Pesiq. Rab. 14.61, and S. ‘Olam Rab. 20 (Feldman 1998: 636 n. 17, Ginzberg 1909–38, 6: 413 n. 76). On the place of the Book of Daniel in Josephus’ canon, see note to “writings” at 10.210. On the importance of prophecy to Josephus generally, see Aune 1982; Blenkinsopp 1974; Delling 1974; Feldman 1990: 387–94; Gnuse 1996: 21–33; Gray 1993: 23–26; Paul 1975. Josephus is perhaps referring here to passages in the Book of Daniel where specific periods of time and numbers of years or days are given: e.g. Dan 7:25; 12:7 (“a time, two times, and half a time”); 8:14 (2,300 evenings and mornings); 9:24–27 (70 weeks divided into 7 weeks, 62 weeks, and 1 week divided into 2 halves); 12:11 (1,290 days); 12:12 (1,335 days). There are also numerous more vague time indicators in Dan 11, for example (Dan 11:6, 7, 8, etc.). It is noteworthy, however, that Josephus omits most of these passages from his paraphrase. The only exception is his paraphrase of chapter 8 in which he renders the 2,300 evenings and mornings (rather confusingly) as 1,296 days in Ant. 10.271, but as 3 years in Ant.10.275. Despite Josephus’ omission of both chapter 7 and chapter 9 from his biblical paraphrase, scholars have long speculated, with varying results, about whether these chapters influenced his presentation of history, especially as it unfolded in his own time (e.g. Bruce 1965; Mason 1994). F.F. Bruce argued that the Book of Daniel’s references to the “abomination that desolates” (Dan 9:27) influenced Josephus’ description of events during the Jewish war (e.g. War 4.150, 157, 201; 5.16– 17). Bruce also suggests that the oracle mentioned by Josephus (War 6.311) to the effect that the city and sanctuary would fall when the temple became a square may have been drawn from Dan 9:25: “and for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with streets (‮רחוב‬‎, Θ: πλατεῖα) and moat, but in a troubled time.” Further, Bruce suggests that oracles of “ancient prophets” circulating in the city during the siege that the city would fall if the Jews fought against each other or defiled the temple (War 4.388; 6.109) may recall Dan 11:30–32 and 12:7. Finally, he suggests that the “ambiguous oracle” to which Josephus refers in War 6.312, to the effect that “at that time one from their country would become ruler of the world” (Thackeray, LCL; emphasis added) was an allusion to the “prince who is to come” of Dan 9:26, because of its reference to a specific date. In that context Josephus notes that, contrary to the rebels’ expectation, the oracle in fact predicted the rise of Vespasian (War 6.313). In contrast to Bruce, Mason argues that it was in Dan 7 (perhaps read in conjunction with Num 24:17) that Josephus found predictions of his own time. In particular it was in the fourth beast of Daniel’s vision that Josephus would have discerned a clear prediction of the rise of Rome, and in that beast’s tenth horn he would have found a clear reference to Vespasian, the 10th ruler from Julius Caesar (Mason 1994: 185–6). Blenkinsopp (1974: 245) argues that the “ambiguous oracle” was not drawn from the Book of Daniel at all, but from Gen 49:10–12 and/or Num 24:17. On how the vision of the fourth beast may have influenced Josephus’ description of the iron kingdom in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, see note to “bronze” at 10.209.

Josephus’ narrative does not bear this out. Both Nebuchadnezzar (Ant. 10.217) and Belshazzar (Ant. 10.243–244) received bad news from Daniel. Daniel also predicted the sufferings under Antiochus Epiphanes (Ant. 10.275–276) and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans (Ant. 10.276) according to Josephus, so it is not entirely clear what he means by good news here. According to the biblical narrative Daniel’s favor with the kings was due to his ability to interpret dreams and visions related to the rise and fall of political powers. Feldman (1998: 652) has suggested that Josephus was cryptically addressing his Jewish readership here and alluding to passages like Dan 9:24–27 (omitted by Josephus) that refer to future Jewish greatness. Josephus’ statement in the present context, however, would seem to relate to Daniel’s message to the various kings he served, and not to the Jews. Daube (1980: 28) has suggested, on the contrary, that it was Josephus’ sense of personal identification with Daniel that influenced his statement here, since he saw himself as one who had predicted good tidings for the Flavian house. See also Fischer 1978: 175–7. For other parallels between Josephus’ Daniel and his own self-presentation, see note to “noblest” at 10.186. Greek θειότης, “divine nature, divinity” (LSJ s.v.). The word is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. It is used of the “divine” law in Wis 18:9, and of God’s “divine nature” in Rom 1:20. The term was also used as a title of Roman emperors. The reputation that Josephus here ascribes to “the public” (τοῖς ὄχλοις) is one which he has been hinting at throughout his narrative; cf. Ant. 10.194, 196, 200, 204, 211–212, 215, 237, 239, 250, 264, 267, 277). Josephus makes similar claims about other biblical figures in his paraphrase of the Bible, e.g. Moses (Ant. 3.180 [on which see Feldman 2000: 279 n. 473]; Apion 1.279), and Isaiah (Ant. 10.35). See further Smith 1987: 239 and notes at 10.239 and 250 above.

“Works” is not in the Greek text, which reads κατέλιπε δὲ γράψας. Josephus uses a similar expression in Ant. 10.267 where he writes τὰ...βιβλία, ὅσα δὴ συγγράψαμεος καταλέλοιπεν, literally, “the books which, having written, he has left behind.” It is unclear in the present context whether Josephus would have us think of “works” in the plural, or simply a singular book since, while in Ant. 10.267 he refers to “the books” (τὰ βιβλία) left behind by Daniel, in Ant. 10.210 and 11.337 he refers to but a single book of Daniel. See further note to “books” at 10.267. Josephus’ display of confidence in the accuracy of Daniel’s prophecies was, apparently, more than rhetorical flourish, as is seen by his reluctance to relate the meaning of the stone in Ant. 10.210. Josephus’ account of the vision that follows is taken mainly from Dan 8, with some of the introductory material drawn from Dan 10 (see notes at 10.269). It should be noted that Josephus has omitted the vision of the 4 beasts, the little horn, “the ancient of days” and the “one like a human being” in Dan 7, on which see note at 10.263. Commentators on Dan 8:2 debate whether Daniel was claiming to have actually visited Susa, or whether he only saw himself in Susa in a vision, though the latter seems to be what is indicated. Josephus, however, historicizes the incident by situating him bodily in Susa. Having said this, though, it should also be noted that Josephus does not specify when Daniel was in Susa despite the notice in Dan 8:1 that these events took place “in the third year of the reign of King Belshazzar.” The effect of this omission is to avoid some of the complex chronology of the Book of Daniel in which chapters 7 and 8 return to the time of King Belshazzar after chapter 6, which is set in the time of Darius the Mede. Chapters 9 and 11 are set in the time of Darius, while chapter 10 is set in the third year of Cyrus the Great. Josephus correctly identifies Susa as the capital of the Persian kings. Collins (1993: 329) notes that Susa was one of three royal residences of the Achaemenid Empire. The others were Babylon and Ecbatana (cf. Xenophon, Cyr. 8.6.22). Josephus’ use of the term “metropolis” (μητροπόλει) may indicate his use of a Greek text similar to LXX at this point, since it reads ἐν Σούσοις τῇ πόλει. Θ, on the other hand, reads ἐν Σούσοις τῇ βάρει, “in Sousa the fortress,” which closely follows MT ‮בשושן הבירה‬‎. The biblical narrative does not refer to a plain, but states rather that Daniel was standing by the river Ulai (Dan 8:2). The reference to a plain is reminiscent of Nebuchadnezzar’s golden statue erected, according to Josephus, in the great plain of Babylon (Ant. 10.213; Dan 3:1) Greek ἑταῖροι. Josephus uses this term as a synonym for φίλοι (on which see further note to “friends” at 10.263), which he uses later in the sentence. On the ἑταῖροι as official “companions” of early Macedonian kings, see Errington 2003. The earthquake is apparently Josephus’ own introduction to the narrative, perhaps for dramatic effect. The account in Dan 8 does not refer to Daniel’s companions. Josephus has apparently borrowed these details from Dan 10, where Daniel states, “the people who were with me did not see the vision, though a great trembling fell upon them, and they fled and hid themselves” (Dan 10:7). Literally, “on his face on his two hands.” The biblical narrative states in a number of places that Daniel fell on this face (Dan 8:17, 18; 10:9). Daniel’s fearful state and the personage who touches him (called Gabriel in Dan 8:16) are only mentioned after the vision in Dan 8:15–18. It is possible that once again Josephus actually borrowed these narrative details from chapter 10 (Dan 10:8–10). The order to stand up is apparently borrowed from Dan 10:11. This statement seems to have been borrowed from Dan 10, where the angelic personage says that he has come “to help you understand what is to happen to your people at the end of days” (Dan 10:14). However, there is also the statement of Gabriel in chapter 8 which says, “The vision is for the time of the end” (Dan 8:17), and, “I will tell you what will take place later in the period of wrath; for it refers to the appointed time of the end” (Dan 8:19).

Josephus’ “great ram,” rather than the “one ram” of MT and Θ Dan 8:3, is found also in LXX. 4QDan a, b and the text of Aquila also have a “great” ram (Vermes 1991: 159 n. 17). In MT/Θ the ram becomes great in Dan 8:4. Dan 8:3 has “two horns.” The Hebrew form is dual (‮קרנים‬‎), while both Θ and LXX simply have κέρατα, “horns.” However, in both of these texts the next line implies that there were in fact only two horns: τὸ ἓν ὑψηλότερον τοῦ ἑτέρου. The same is true of the subsequent narrative in MT; e.g., in verse 3 it states that the second (‮שני‬‎) horn was longer than the first. This reading is further borne out by the interpretation given later in the chapter, in which the horns represent the kings of Media and Persia (Dan 8:20). Josephus took the ram itself to represent the combined kingdoms of the Medes and the Persians, and the horns to represent their many kings (Ant. 10.272). Josephus’ term ὑψηλότερον, “highest, loftiest, most proud or arrogant,” is used by both LXX and Θ in Dan 8:3. Josephus’ picture of one arrogant horn among many is reminiscent of the “little horn” in Dan 7:8, 11 and 20. Josephus omits the biblical details that the ram came from the east (implied by the statement that it charged “westward and northward and southward” [Dan 8:4]), and that “all beasts were powerless to withstand it, and no one could rescue from its power; it did as it pleased and became strong” (Dan 8:4). LXX, however, includes “eastward” (ἀνατολὰς) in its description of the directions of the ram’s aggression. Dan 8:5 states that Daniel saw the male goat “coming across the face of the whole earth without touching the ground.” Josephus’ expression, δι’ ἀέρος φερόμενον, means literally, “being carried through the air.” The present translation is suggested by Vermes 1991: 159. Josephus states that Daniel looked into the west (εἰς τὴν δύσιν) to see the male goat. This corresponds with Dan 8:5 in both MT and LXX which both refer to the goat coming from the west (‮מן־המערב‬‎, ἀπὸ δυσμῶν), while Θ has ἀπὸ λιβὸς, “from the southwest wind.” Josephus transfers this description to the third kingdom of Nebuchadnezzar’s vision of the great statue, Ant. 10.209. The reference to two attacks is additional to scripture, though Josephus may have derived it from the statement in Dan 8:7 that the male goat broke the ram’s two horns. Josephus later interprets these attacks as two battles in which the Greek king would defeat the Persian (Ant. 10.273). Josephus uses the term πατῆσαι for “trampled,” which is close to Θ’s συνεπάτησεν. LXX has συνέτριψεν, “to shatter, to crush” (LSJ s.v.).

Dan 8:5 has a “conspicuous” (‮חזות‬‎) horn between its eyes. Hence, Θ’s κέρας θεωρητὸν. LXX has ἓν, “one” horn, presumably reading ‮אחת‬‎ for ‮חזות‬‎ (Collins 1993: 325 n. 19). In the biblical account this horn is described before the encounter with the ram (Dan 8:5). Josephus’ account is less coherent, since it introduces the great horn almost as an afterthought and only after the male goat’s military victories. A great horn appears on a ram in 1 En. 90:9. Dan 8:8 states that after the overthrow of the ram the male goat “grew exceedingly great,” but that “at the height of its power” the great horn was broken. Josephus omits the biblical characterization (Dan 8:8) of the four winds as being “of heaven” (‮השמים‬‎; LXX and Θ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ). Dan 8:9 states that the small horn grew up “out of one of them.” See also Ant. 10.275. Greek μικρότερον. The Hebrew text has a “little” (‮מצעירה‬‎) horn, while both Θ and LXX have a “strong” (ἰσχυρόν) horn. Feldman (1998: 630 n. 3) argues that this constitutes evidence that Josephus worked directly with a Hebrew-Aramaic text of the Book of Daniel. This is possible, but it is just as possible (and perhaps more likely) that Josephus used a Greek text which closely reflected the Hebrew original at this point. On the Josephus’ biblical text, see further the Excursus before 10.186. Josephus ignores the biblical reference to Gabriel as the interpreter of the vision (Dan 8:16). This is in keeping with Josephus’ tendency to reduce the role of angels in his narrative; see notes at 10.214, 216, 259, and 272. Dan 8:10 “It grew as high as the host of heaven….” The Book of Daniel does not explicitly mention an attack on his nation or city, though it does state that the little horn “grew exceedingly great toward the east and toward the beautiful land” (Dan 8:9). Josephus omits the statements of Dan 8:10–11 to the effect that the little horn would throw down some of the stars and trample on them, and that it would act arrogantly against “the prince of the host.” The Book of Daniel states that the little horn took the regular burnt offering away from the prince of the host and “overthrew the place of his sanctuary” (Dan 8:11). Further, “Because of wickedness, the host was given over to it together with the regular burnt offering; it cast truth to the ground and kept prospering in what it did” (Dan 8:12). It is not clear why Josephus uses this number, as it does not correspond to any of the numbers given in the Book of Daniel. Dan 8:14 has 2,300 evenings and mornings, which is a reference to the evening and morning sacrifices in the temple, not, as in the Greek versions, a reference to 2,300 days. This number of sacrifices would take 1,150 days to complete (Collins 1993: 336; Marcus 1937: 309 n. d). Collins notes that this period is shorter than the three and a half years of Dan 7:25 because chapter 8 was written somewhat later and some of the predetermined time was assumed to have already passed (Collins 1993: 336). Another significant time period appears in Dan 12:11 where we read, “From the time that the regular burnt offering is taken away and the abomination that desolates is set up, there shall be 1,290 days.” This is followed in the next verse by the statement: “Happy are those who persevere and attain the 1,335 days.” The specific significance of all these figures and their relationship to each other is a matter of ongoing debate. However, it would seem to be clear that they all bear some relation to the period of three and a half years of Dan 7:25; 9:27 and 12:7 (Collins 1993: 400). It has been suggested by Bruce (1965: 161 n. 7) that Josephus intended to use the figure of 1,290 from Dan 12:11 in the present context, but that he inadvertently conflated it with the figure of 1,260—a number that in some circles in Josephus’ time was taken to be the meaning of the expression “a time, times, and half a time” (cf. Rev 11:3; 12:14). The result of the conflation was the confusing 1,296 days of the present text. It is also possible that this number represents Josephus’ own reinterpretation of Daniel’s schema. However, when Josephus relates the interpretation of the present vision in Ant.10.275 he indicates that this period will last for three years, a figure that derives from 1 Macc, on which see further note to “years” at 10.275.

Josephus ignores the biblical reference to Gabriel as the interpreter of the vision (Dan 8:16). See also Ant. 10.271. This is in keeping with Josephus’ tendency to reduce the role of angels in his narrative; see notes at 10.214, 216, 259, and 271. Dan 8:20 “As for the ram that you saw with the two horns, these are the kings of Media and Persia.” The biblical narrative does not comment on the meaning of this horn, which Josephus apparently took to refer to Darius III of Persia (reigned 336–330 B.C.E.), though the implication of the Book of Daniel seems to be that that it stands for the Persians as a whole, who were stronger than the Medes (Dan 8:3, 20).

In Ant. 11.337 Josephus asserts that Alexander the Great, when reading the Book of Daniel, recognized himself as the king in question. Cyrus, too, read of his own actions towards the Jews in advance of their occurrence in the Book of Isaiah (Ant. 11.4–5). This is an addition to the biblical narrative. Josephus is presumably referring to the battles of Issus (333 B.C.E.) and Gaugamela (331 B.C.E.).

So Dan 8:21. The reference is to Alexander the Great (356–323 B.C.E.). Josephus seems to make both the male goat and the great horn refer to Alexander. The “Successors” or “Diadochi” (διάδοχοι) is the term applied to the more important of Alexander’s officers who ultimately partitioned his empire: Antigonus I (c.382–301 BCE), Antipater (c.397–319 BCE), Cassander (?–297 BCE), Lysimachus (c.355–281 BCE), Ptolemy I (c.367–282 BCE), and Seleucus I (c.358–281 BCE). See Hornblower 2003. The notion that there were four Successors is a simplification of the complex reality. Josephus inserts this detail from Dan 11:4, though the form of his expression, οὔτε δὲ παῖδας αὐτοῦ…οὔτε συγγενεῖς, suggests that he was aware that one child (παῖδας) and one relative (συγγενεῖς) were in fact involved in minor ways in the wars of the Diadochi. Philip Arrhidaeus (c. 357–317 B.C.E.), Alexander the Great’s mentally impaired brother, was joint ruler with Alexander’s infant son, Alexander IV. Neither exerted any real influence on affairs and both were eventually murdered, Philip in 317 B.C.E. and Alexander in 310/11. Dan 8:22 states only that four successor kingdoms would arise, “but not with his [i.e. Alexander’s] power.” A much more detailed account of these kingdoms is given in Dan 11, a part of the book which Josephus largely omits.

Dan 8:23 has, “At the end of their rule….” Cf. Ant. 10.271. Josephus uses the term πολιτεία to refer to the Jews’ way of life. On Josephus’ use of this important term, see further Rajak 2001: 195–217; Schwartz 1983– 1984, Amir 1994, Colautti 2002: 224–229; Mason 1998: 80–87; Troiani 1994. Dan 11:31 speaks of Antiochus “profaning” (‮חללו‬‎) the temple (Θ: βεβηλώσουσιν; LXX: μιανοῦσι). Josephus’ term, συλήσοντα, strikes a different note, emphasizing the theft of holy objects rather than the desecration of the temple. Josephus uses the same term for actions taken against the temple by Nebuchadnezzar in Ant. 10.111. 144, 145, 149, 154, 233; 11.10, 14, 58, 91, 100. The word is also used of Antiochus’ actions against the temple in Ant. 12.249, 357; War 1.32; 7.44 Josephus is drawing this characterization of events from chapters 9 (v. 27) and 11 (vv. 30–31), rather than chapter 8. 1 Maccabees, on which Josephus draws in Ant. 12.320, also states that the desolation of the temple lasted three years. 1 Macc 1:54 dates the beginning of the desolation to the 15th of Chislev in the 145th year of the Seleucid era (i.e. 167 B.C.E. by our reckoning), and 4:52 dates the rededication to 25th of Chislev in the 148th year (164 B.C.E.). The ten-day differential between the days of Chislev is overlooked by 1 Macc 4:54, which says the two events happened on the very same day of the month (so too 2 Macc 10:5, though the duration of the desolation is set at only two years in verse 3). Josephus places both events on 25th Chislev in Antiquities (Ant. 12.248, 319–321), but in War, clearly under the influence of the Book of Daniel rather than 1 Maccabees, he states that the desolation of the temple lasted for three years and six months (War 1.32; 5.394). In the present context Josephus has already indicated that this period lasted for 1,296 days, i.e. roughly three and a half years (Ant. 10.271). Josephus does not seem to have resolved the discrepancy between the Book of Daniel and 1 Maccabees.

Josephus’ statement corresponds to the affirmation in Dan 8:26, which states, “The vision of the evenings and the mornings that has been told is true.” Antiochus (IV) Epiphanes, c.215–164 BCE; Sherwin-White 2003. Josephus relates the narrative of these events in Ant. 12.248–256 and, briefly, in War 1.32–35, 5.394. Josephus omits the statement in Dan 8:27 that Daniel “was dismayed by the vision and did not understand it” (Feldman 1998: 633). In Ant. 12.322, in his description of the events of Antiochus’ time, Josephus writes: “Now the desolation of the temple came about in accordance with the prophecy of Daniel, which had been made 408 years before; for he had revealed that he Macedonians would destroy it” (Marcus, LCL). By this reckoning Daniel’s prophecy was given in the year 575 B.C.E. Since it is clear that Josephus interpreted Dan 8 with help from Dan 11 (see notes at 10.274 and 275), it is significant to note that LXX Dan 11:30 has “Romans” ( Ῥωμαῖοι) for the “ships of Kittim” (‮ציים כתים‬‎) of MT (Θ: Κίτιοι; Lat: trieres et Romani, “triremes and Romans”). If Josephus’ text of the Book of Daniel was like LXX at this point he would undoubtedly have taken this reference as justification for his claim that Daniel also prophesied about the Romans, even though earlier in Ant. he associated the term “Kittim” (Χεθίμ) with Cyprus and hence with all island and most maritime countries (Ant. 1.128). “Kittim,” either as a designation of the descendants of Javan (Gen 10:4; 1 Chr 1:7), or as a place, occurs in numerous places throughout the Hebrew Bible, and often with a maritime connection (Num 24:24; Isa 23:1, 12; Jer 2:10; Ezek 27:6). While the author of 1 Maccabees took the term to refer to Macedonia (the birth place of Alexander the Great, 1 Macc 1:1; 8:5), other Jewish sources treat the term as a reference to the Romans (e.g. Tg. Onq. on Num 24:24; Tg. Ps.-J. on Num 24:24; Frg. Tg. on Num 24:24; Pesher Habakkuk cols. 2–6 [on Hab 1]; Gen. Rab. 37:1 see also Jub. 24:28–29). In Jerome’s commentary on Daniel 11:31 he writes: “The Jews…would have us understand that this [i.e. the coming of the Kittim in Dan 11:30] is referring not to Antiochus Epiphanes or the Antichrist but to the [coming of the] Romans [in 63 B.C.E.]” (Braverman 1978: 115). Jerome then goes on to comment on v. 31 by asserting that the Jewish tradition he knows states that, “a king, Vespasian, shall emerge from the Romans themselves….It is his arms and descendants who will rise up, namely his son Titus, who with his army will defile the sanctuary and remove the continual sacrifice and hand over the Temple to permanent desolation” (Braverman 1978: 115). On Dan 11:33 Jerome comments: “The Hebrews interpret these things [as taking place] at the final destruction of the Temple, which took place under Vespasian and Titus; that there were many of their nation who knew their God and were slain for keeping his Law” (Braverman 1978: 119). There is no extant rabbinic tradition to corroborate Jerome’s claims on these points, though Braverman cites a number of medieval Jewish commentaries on the theme (116 n. 6). On a related matter, it is quite possible that Josephus understood the Kittim of Num 24:24 to be the Romans, in which case the prophecies of Balaam would appear to have a direct bearing on Josephus’ understanding of the Book of Daniel; on this issue, see further Spilsbury 2003: 17–20. Josephus also believed that Jeremiah and Ezekiel had predicted the Roman destruction of Jerusalem (Ant. 10.79). It may be relevant to observe in this connection that both of these prophets also made mention of the Kittim (see references above). Josephus’ statement in the present context also confirms our suspicion that for him the 4th kingdom of Nebuchadnezzar’s statue vision represented Rome; cf. Ant. 10.209. On the Kittim, see further Baker 1992. Josephus’ statement is highly ambiguous and open to a number of different interpretations. The text of the editio maior reads τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ τρόπον ὁ Δανίηλος καὶ περὶ τῆς Ῥωμαίων ἡγεμονίας ἀνέγραψε, καὶ ὅτι ὑπ’ αὐτῶν ἐρημωθήσεται. The final clause of this sentence, “and that it would be laid waste by them,” leaves both the “it” and the “them” ambiguous. The most straightforward reading would be to take “the empire of the Romans” to be the subject of the passive verb, hence, it is “the empire of the Romans” that would be laid waste. If this reading were adopted, the “them” of the sentence would presumably be “our nation” from the previous sentence. Those who lean toward such a reading (e.g. Braverman 1978: 109) suggest that Josephus is alluding to a passage like Dan 9:26, which reads, “…and the troops of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary [and his] end shall come with a flood….” If this is indeed what Josephus intended, then this statement would correspond to the meaning of the stone in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, since both would be about the demise of the Roman Empire at the hands of the Jewish nation (see note to “stone” at 10.210). However, it would be very surprising for Josephus to make such a bold statement here given his refusal to explain the meaning of the stone earlier. A second way to read the statement— perhaps the better of the two readings—is to take the “them” to refer to the Romans, and “it” to be “our nation.” Support for this sense of the statement is provided by an alternative reading of the ambiguous final clause in Chrysostom’s Adv. Jud. 5.8 and followed by Marcus in LCL. The text reads αἱρεθήσεται τὰ Ἱεροσόλυμα καὶ ὁ ναὸς ἑρημωθήσεται, “Jerusalem would be taken by them [i.e. the Romans] and the sanctuary laid waste.” The fragment most likely represents Chrysostom’s attempt to clarify his understanding of Josephus’ meaning. Braverman argues, however, that Josephus intended his Roman and Jewish audiences to read his ambiguous statement in quite different ways. To Romans it would seem obvious that Josephus was talking about the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, while to Jewish readers there would be a palpable allusion to the prophesied destruction of the superpower by the Jews (Braverman 1978: 109–111).It has also been noted (e.g. Begg 1993: 541) that in foretelling matters of imperial succession in general (Ant. 10.205–210, 270–275 // War 3.401; 4.623, 626), and in predicting the rise of Rome in particular (War 3.351, 354), Josephus saw himself as parallel to Daniel. For other such parallels between Josephus himself and Daniel, see note to “noblest” at 10.186.

The honor Daniel received from God is an important theme in this section of the Antiquities, on which see further note to “public” at 10.266. In Ant. 10.142 Josephus reflects similarly on the lessons to be learned from fulfilled prophecy and the folly of those who deny God’s providence. The followers of the philosophical school of Epicurus (341–270 BCE). For a summary of his life and teaching see Furley 2003. The only other place where Josephus names the Epicureans is in Ant. 19.32 where they are characterized as advocating a quiet, i.e. non-political, life (ἀπραγμονος…βίου). On this aspect of Epicurean philosophy, see De Witt 1954: 187; also O’Connor 1993 and Inwood, Gerson, and Hutchinson 1994. In Apion 2.180 Josephus refers to the Epicureans without explicitly naming them, and characterizes them, as he does in the present passage, as philosophers who deprive God of his providential care of humanity (τὴν ὑπὲρ ἀνθρώπων αὐτὸν πρόνοιαν ἀφαιρουμένων). The Jewish religion, by contrast, affirms that God “sees all things.” Rivalry among philosophical schools was a common feature of philosophical discourse in antiquity, yet this is the only place in Josephus’ writings where he takes sides against a Greek philosophical school in such a direct way (van Unnik 1973: 343). Nevertheless, one may observe veiled criticism of the Epicureans in those places where he describes the three so-called philosophical schools (αἱρέσεις) within Judaism (War 2.119–166; Ant. 13.171–173; 18.11–20; see also Ant. 13.297–298). The Pharisees he compares with the Stoics (Life 12) and the Essenes with the Pythagoreans (Ant. 15.371). Although he never says so explicitly, it is likely that he would have his readers compare the Sadducees with the Epicureans since they deny life after death and the role of fate in human affairs (Mason 2001: 16–17, n. 72). Van Unnik (344) points out that in the context of conflict between various philosophical schools, Josephus’ decision to defer to the Stoic-like school of the Pharisees in public life (Life 12) meant by implication the rejection of Epicurean teachings. On Josephus’ personal connection with the Pharisees, which is a matter of some debate, see Mason 1991: 325–56; Feldman 1998: 367. Gnuse (1996: 6) regards Josephus’ claim to have studied with each of the three sects within Judaism (Life 10–11) as artificial. Rajak (1983: 34–36), who recognizes the traditional patterning of Josephus’ claim, is nevertheless not so dismissive of its veracity.Josephus was by no means the only Jewish writer to criticize the Epicureans. Both Philo (Conf. 23.114; cf. Wolfson 1948, 1: 108–9 and 2: 511–2) and the rabbis (e.g. m. ʾAbot 2.14; m. Sanh. 10.1) rejected their teachings. In the latter, the term ʾapikoros ( ‮אפיקורוס‬‎) came to signify an atheist or unbeliever; see further Krauss 1898–99, 2: 107–108. Feldman (1998: 640 n. 26) cites Maimonides defining the ʾapikoras as one who denies prophecy, divine revelation, or divine knowledge of human actions (Mishneh Torah, Teshuvah 3.8). Finally, Josephus’ attack on the Epicureans makes him a conversation partner with contemporary writers such as Plutarch (Pyth. orac. [Mor.] 8; Mason 1994: 169).

Greek τήν…πρόνοιαν ἐκβάλλουσι; cf. Apion 2.180, cited in note to “Epicureans” in previous paragraph. Josephus’ outburst against the Epicureans might seem strange were it not for the fact that he, along with others in antiquity (e.g. Cicero Nat. d. 2.73– 75; Irenaeus Haer. 3.38.2 [3.24.2]; Origen Cels. 1.8, 13; 2.13; cf. van Unnik 1973: 344, 353 n. 11), epitomized them as philosophers who rejected divine providence (πρόνοια)—one of the most important themes in the Antiquities. The term πρόνοια occurs some 120 times in the Antiquities, with 78 of those occurrences falling within the biblical paraphrase (Ant. 1.1–11.296). The term sometimes refers generally to human “provision” or “forethought” (e.g. Ant. 2.39, 104, 236 Mason 2001: 24 n. 107), but often refers specifically to God’s protection, provision, or providence (e.g. Ant. 1.46; 225; 2.24, 60, 219, 286, 330 etc.). The concept of God’s providence also occurs in passages where the term itself is not used, e.g. Ant. 1.14, 20. On the Josephus’ use of the term in his biblical paraphrase, especially in connection with God’s punishing of evil and rewarding of good, see Attridge 1976: 71–108, 145–51; also Spilsbury 2003: 7–12; van Unnik 1973: 349–51. Josephus uses the verb ἐπιτροπεύειν [τῶν πραγμάτων] to refer to God’s role as the “guardian” of the world’s affairs. He uses the same verb of God’s role in Ant. 4.2. In Ant. 10.212 he used the noun ἐπίτροπος for the role of administrator or governor of the kingdom of Babylon awarded to Daniel and three friends by Nebuchadnezzar. Greek τῆς μακαρίας καὶ ἀφθάρτου…οὐσίας. This phrase echoes the teaching of Epicurus as reflected in the Kyriai doxai 1 (cited by van Unnik 1973: 344): τὸ μακάριον καὶ ἄφθαρτον οὔτε αὐτὸ πράγματα ἔχει οὔτε ἄλλῳ παρέχει: “The blessed and incurruptible Being has no trouble himself and brings no trouble upon any other…” Josephus is using Epicurus’ phrase for God, but in the opposite sense, in that while Epicurus held that God did not involve himself with human affairs, Josephus held that he did. Greek αὐτομάτως. The term refers to things that happen of themselves or spontaneously, without apparent cause, accidentally, or “naturally.” Josephus makes a similar point in Ant. 4.47 where Moses implores God, addressed as “Master of everything” (δέσποτα τῶν ὅλων), to prove that “all things are governed by your providence (προνοίᾳ) and that nothing happens by itself (αὐτομάτως) and that they come to their goal (τέλος) through your directed will (βούλησιν βραβευόμενον)” (Feldman 2000; on this passage see ibid. 344 n. 115). While Josephus is opposed to the Epicurean notion that the entire natural order simply operates by natural (i.e. non-providential) processes, he is not opposed to the notion that some things within the natural order seem to operate by their own internal laws or principles (a similar distinction is found in Plato, Pol. 270A). In his retelling of the biblical story of the first humans, Josephus used αὐτομάτως and the related form αὐτόματος in a positive sense to describe how plants in the garden of Eden would spring up spontaneously, without anyone having to cultivate them—a benefit that was taken away after the first humans’ disobedience (Ant. 1.46, 49). In the story of Cain and Abel (Ant. 1.54), Abel’s offering is said to have pleased God because he offered something that arose “spontaneously and according to nature” (τοῖς αὐτομάτοις καὶ κατὰ φύσιν γεγονόσι), i.e. milk and the firstlings of his flocks, rather than something forced from the earth by human artifice. A similar usage occurs in Life 11 where Josephus refers to Bannus who lived in the wilderness eating only such things as grew by themselves (αὐτομάτως [On this passage see Mason 2001: 19 n. 83]; see also Ant. 3.281; 12.317). Feldman (2000: 18 n. 102, 20 n. 116) points out that spontaneous growth was often associated with the Golden Age in antiquity; e.g. Plato, Pol. 272A; Hesiod, Op. 109 ff.; Ovid, Metam. 1.101 ff. In Ant. 2.347 Josephus allows that the amazing passage of the Israelites through the Red Sea may have been either “by the will of God or maybe by accident” (εἴτε κατὰ βούλησιν θεοῦ εἴτε κατὰ ταὐτόματον, Thackeray LCL), while in Ant. 3.207 αὐτόματον is used of the fire that sprang up spontaneously to consume the first offering on the altar, and unexpectedly (παρὰ δὸξαν, Ant. 3.210) caused the deaths of two of Aaron’s sons. Again in Ant. 4.55 Josephus compares the divine fire that killed Korah and his party to a forest fire that bursts spontaneously from the woods. It is clear that in this case, as in the one cited previously, “spontaneously” does not mean the same thing as “accidentally.” The same point can be made about the use of the term in War 6.293 and 295 where the gates of the temple are said to have opened “of their own accord” as an evil omen of things to come. Interestingly Josephus can also use our term negatively to say essentially the same thing. Thus the change of wind direction that spelled the doom of the besieged in Masada did not happen of its own accord, or by mere accident (οὐκ αὐτομάτως, War 7.332). In other instances the term does refer to things that happen by chance or accident (e.g. War 1.373, 378; 3.100, 101, 386, 433; 5.292; Ant. 1.262; 7.284; 19.236; Apion 2.24, 186). Ant. 18.249 refers to “naturally occurring” hot springs. Feldman (1998: 640 n. 24) notes that the term ʾabtomtos occurs in Midr. Ps. 1.5 in reference to heretics, presumably the Epicureans. Greek ἡνίοχος, “driver, charioteer, guide” (LSJ s.v.). God’s care of the universe is one of the main themes of the Antiquities as a whole (see, e.g., Ant. 1.20). Josephus thus uses Daniel to prove his thesis that God exercises a careful providence over human affairs (Mason 1994: 168). It is worth noting, however, that Josephus does not criticize the Epicureans for their rejection of divination, despite the prevalence of this theme among their other critics (e.g. Cicero, Nat. d. 2.162; Div. 1.5; Plutarch, Adv. Col. 27). His reason for this may have been the biblical prohibition of such practices (e.g. Deut 18.10–11; van Unnik 1973: 348– 9).

Greek ἀπροστάτητος, a rare term that signifies lack of a προστάτης, in the sense of “one who stands before and protects, guardian, champion” (LSJ s.v.). It may also have the sense of “patron,” a concept that Josephus uses in other places to characterize God’s relation to Israel; see Spilsbury 1998. The term ἀπροστάτητος occurs again in Ant. 13.5 (where Marcus [LCL] translates it “without a defender”) and 20.180 (where Feldman [LCL] renders it “no one in charge”). Van Unnik (1973: 346) has observed that his is an argument per viam negativam: without “providence” there would be complete chaos, but since this is not the situation, there must be “providence.” Philo uses similar analogies of helmsmen and charioteers to argue for providential care of the world (Conf. 23.114–115; see also Plato, Resp. 6.488A7–489A2).

Greek αὐτοματισμῷ. “Something that happens of itself, chance,” LSJ s.v. The expression is a hapax legomenon in Josephus, though the related terms αὐτομάτως and αὐτόματος occur more frequently. Josephus’ argument in favour of “providence” differs from that in Cicero, Philo, and others in that he argues from the fulfillment of prophecy in history rather than from nature (van Unnik 1973: 347).

Josephus frequently reminds his readers of his claim to be relating what he finds in the Hebrew Scriptures; e.g. Ant. 1.17 (the introduction to Josephus’ biblical history); 2.347 (crossing the Sed Sea); 3.81 (Moses on Mount Sinai); 9.214 (the story of Jonah); 10.218 (Nebuchadnezzar’s insanity). Josephus frequently extends to his readers the option of holding a different opinion on the matters he relates, especially when they involve the actions of God; e.g. Ant. 1.108; 2.348; 3.81, 268, 322; 4.158; 8.262; 17.354; 19.108; War 5.257. Similar formulae appear in Herodotus (Hist. 2.123; 3.122.1), Thucydides (6.2.1), Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Ant. rom. 1.48.1, 4; 2.40.3; 2.74.5; 3.36.5), Lucian (Quomodo Historia Conscribenda Sit 60), and Pliny (Nat. 9.18). See Feldman 2000: 39 n.271; Thackeray 1929: 56–58; MacRae 1965: 140–42. MacRae, following Delling 1958: 300 and 306, argues that the statement does not indicate scepticism on Josephus’ part. “Instead, it must be regarded as a … gesture of courtesy to the pagan readers who cannot accept the interpretation of the author, an expression of the tolerance of Diaspora Judaism for the religious or philosophical convictions of others” (141; see also van Unnik 1973: 350–51).

Josephus habitually begins Ant. volumes with δέ (2.1; 3.1; 4.1; 5.1; 6.1; 7.1; 9.1; 10.1; 14.1; 16.1; 17.1; 18.1; 19.1; 20.1; cf. Life 1). In the present case, the structure of the first clause of the book (Τῷ δὲ πρώτῳ τῆς Κύρου βασιλείας ἔτει), which establishes a grammatical link with the previous book of the Antiquities, reflects Ezra 1:1, which reads ובשׁנת אחת לכורשׁ מלך פרס (“In the first year of King Cyrus of Persia”). The corresponding statement in 1 Esd 2:1 (Βασιλεύοντος Κύρου Περσῶν ἔτους πρώτου) lacks the postpositive δέ. Josephus takes over this chronological reference from the biblical material (2 Chr 36:22; Ezra 1:1; 6:3; 1 Esd 2:1), which dates Cyrus’ reign to his conquest of Babylon (i.e., October 539 bce). Cyrus’ first regnal year over the small kingdom of Anshan in Persia was c. 557 bce (Briant 2003; Williamson 1985: 8). For Josephus, though, Cyrus’ first year is dated to seventy years after the fall of Jerusalem; see further notes to “day” in the present paragraph and to “210 years” at 11.5 below. Greek Κῦρος. mt כורשׁ and כרשׁ; lxx Κῦρος; Cyrus the Great (590–530 bce), founder of the Persian Empire. For a brief summary of his life, see Cuyler Young 1992a. The Book of Ezra does not refer explicitly to the period of seventy years here. 1 Esd 1:21 (following 2 Chr 36:21), however, does do so. Josephus is fully aware that the deportation of the inhabitants of Jerusalem and Judah took place in several stages over a period of more than ten years, but focuses here on the events surrounding the destruction of the temple, which he dates to the new moon of the fifth month in the eleventh year of Zedekiah’s reign and to the eighteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign (i.e., 586 bce; Ant. 10.144–150; cf. Jer 52:12, 29; 2 Kgs 25:8). Josephus regarded Cyrus’ edict as coming seventy years after this date (cf. note to “210 years” at 11.5 below). Current scholarship, however, dates Cyrus’ edict, made within the same year he conquered Babylon, no later than c. 538 bce, only forty-eight years after the desolation of Jerusalem and not the seventy of Jeremiah’s prophecy (Williamson 1985: 8–9). Josephus uses the active form of the verb μετανίστημι, giving a more positive sense to the word than the notion of deportation or exile, on which see Feldman 1997: 147. The next clause in the sentence, however, sounds a more grimly realistic note with references to God’s pity on “the captivity and the misfortune of those who were suffering.” Josephus used the same verb in Ant. 10.149 to speak of the people of Jerusalem being “removed” or “led away” into exile (cf. War 1.17), while in Ant. 1.160 the word, in a quotation from Nicolaus of Damascus, refers to Abraham’s migration from Chaldea. In Ant. 2.200, 317; 3.289, and 290 Josephus uses the term with reference to the Hebrews’ “migration” from Egypt and the constant “moving” of the Israelite camp. In the present context (Ant. 10.147), Josephus also uses the cognate noun μετανάστασις to speak of the people’s “migration” from Egypt. The same term is used in Ant. 2.318 and Apion 2.6, while in Ant. 19.3 the term is used for the “banishment” of certain individuals from Rome. In Ant. 8.271 Josephus uses the verb διασπείρω (“to scatter”) in the prophet Ahijah’s announcement that the people “will be driven off the good land and scattered to places beyond the Euphrates, because they followed the impieties of the king [i.e., Jeroboam]” (cf. 1 Kgs 14:15). In Ant. 9.280 Josephus states that the “ten tribes” of the Israelites “migrated” (μετῴκησαν) from their land. On Jewish perceptions of exile or Diaspora in the ancient world, see Gruen 2002: 232–52, Barclay 1996, Scott 1997, Kraabel 1987, and van Unnik 1993. God’s pity (ἠλέησεν) is Josephus’ addition to the narrative. He may have been influenced by Jer 30:18 (lxx 37:18): “Thus says the Lord: I am going to restore the fortunes of the tents of Jacob, and have compassion [ארחם; lxx ἐλεήσω] on his dwellings.” Later Josephus uses a similar expression of Nehemiah, who is said to have “taken pity on the misfortune” (ἐλεήσας τῆς συμφορᾶς) of his compatriots (Ant. 11.162). See also Ant. 8.115 and War 2.280. Josephus uses the expression τὴν αἰχμαλωσίαν καὶ τὴν συμφορὰν. lxx Jer 37:18, which also uses αἰχμαλωσίαν, may have influenced his language here. Greek Ἰερεμίας. mt ירמיהו and ירמיה; lxx Ιερεμιας. The reference to Jeremiah comes from 1 Esd 1:57 (cf. 2 Chr 36:22). For Jeremiah’s predictions of suffering and exile see, e.g., Jer 25:9–11 and 27:6. The devastation of the city is referenced in Jer 25:9–11: “I am going to send for all the tribes of the north, says the Lord, even for King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon, my servant, and I will bring them against this land and its inhabitants, and against all these nations around; I will utterly destroy them, and make them an object of horror and of hissing, and an everlasting disgrace. And I will banish from them the sound of mirth and the sound of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride, the sound of the millstones and the light of the lamp. This whole land shall become a ruin and a waste, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years.”

Greek Ναβουχοδονόσορος. mt נבוכדנצר (Ezra 1:7; 5:12, 14; 6:5) and נבכדנצור (Ezra 2:1); lxx Ναβουχοδονοσορ; Nebuchadnezzar ii (var. Nebuchadrezzar). The second king of the Neo-Babylonian Empire founded by his father Nabopolassar, Nebuchadnezzar ruled 605–562 bce (Sack 1992b; 1992c). See Ant. 10.248 where Josephus likewise refers to the descendants of Nebuchadnezzar. The reference is likely based on 1 Esd 1:57, which states: “they were servants to him and to his sons until the Persians began to reign” (so too 2 Chr 36:20). Similarly, Jer 27:7 states, “All the nations shall serve him and his son and his grandson.” In fact, however, the kings who followed Nebuchadnezzar’s son Evil-merodach in the Neo-Babylonian succession were not his relatives (Sack 1992a; cf. notes at Ant. 10.231 in bjp 5). Jeremiah’s prophecy of seventy years of exile followed by restoration is in Jer 25:11–12 and 29:10 (cf. 2 Chr 36:21; Dan 9:2; Zech 1:12; 7:5). The period from the destruction of Jerusalem till Cyrus’ edict was, in fact, substantially shorter than seventy years. See note to “day” at 11.1 above. Isaiah issued a similar oracle against Tyre in Isa 23:15–17. Throughout his account of the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem Josephus uses the terms ὁ ναός and τὸ ἱερόν interchangeably to refer to the sacred structure. In the present translation ὁ ναός is rendered “sanctuary,” while τὸ ἱερόν is rendered “temple.” Compare Jer 29:11–14.

Greek παρορμάω, “urge on, stimulate, incite.” 1 Esd 2:1 states that the Lord “stirred up” (ἤγειρεν) the spirit of the king. Ezra 1:1 and 2 Chr 36:22 have העור (lxx ἐξήγειρεν). The notion is also found in Isa 41:2, 25; 44:28; 45:1. Williamson (1985: 10) draws attention to Jer 51 (lxx Jer 28), verse 1 of which states that the Lord is going to “stir up [מעור; lxx ἐξεγείρω] a destructive wind against Babylon,” while verse 11 (a prose interlude) states, “The Lord has stirred up [העור; lxx ἤγειρεν] the spirit of the kings [lxx: king] of the Medes because his purpose concerning Babylon is to destroy it, for that is the vengeance of the Lord, for his temple.” Greek ψυχή. Ezra 1:1 and 2 Chr 36:22 have רוח (“spirit” lxx τὸ πνεῦμα). So too, 1 Esd 2:1. The emphasis in the biblical narratives (Ezra 1:1; 2 Chr 36:22; 1 Esd 2:1) is on the oral proclamation, with the reference to a written edict added as a parenthetical afterthought (Williamson 1985: 4). Greek πᾶσαν τὴν Ἀσίαν. Ezra 1:1, 1 Esd 2:1, 2 Esd 1:1, and 2 Chr 36:22 state that the proclamation was sent throughout Cyrus’ kingdom. Josephus uses the expression ὁ θεὸς ὁ μέγιστος for Ezra 1:2’s “the Lord, the God of heaven” (יהוה אלהי השׁמים; lxx κύριος ὁ θεὸς τοῦ οὐρανοῦ). 1 Esd 2:2 has “the Lord of Israel, the Lord Most High” (ὁ κύριος τοῦ Ισραηλ, κύριος ὀ ὕψιστος). The only instance in lxx of Josephus’ term μέγιστος being applied to God is Add Esth E 16 (Rahlfs 8:12q), where the Jews are called “children of the living God, most high, most mighty” (υἱοὺς τοῦ ὑψίστου μεγίστου ζῶντος θεοῦ). Josephus, who clearly knew this text, omits these designations for God in his paraphrase of Artaxerxes’ letter (Ant. 11.279). Nevertheless the epithet μέγιστος is one that Josephus uses fairly regularly in the second half of his biblical paraphrase (Ant. 6.86; 7.353; 8.319, 343; 9.133, 211, 288, 289; 10.68; 11.90; cf. Ant. 12.257; 13.64, 67; 15.385). As for the term ὕψιστος used in 1 Esdras, it is found in Josephus’ works only once: when Augustus refers to Hyrcanus as “priest of the highest God” (Ant. 16.163). Greek με ... τῆς οἰκουμένης ἀπέδειξε βασιλέα. This clause is close to 1 Esd 2:2, which reads: Ἐμὲ ἀνέδειξεν βασιλέα τῆς οἰκουμένης. Ezra 1:2 and 2 Chr 16:23 read: “[The Lord] has given me all the kingdoms of the earth.” Greek Ἰσραηλῖται. Josephus uses this term frequently throughout Ant. 1–11, but nowhere outside of these books. On Josephus’ use of this term as compared to his use of the two related terms Ἰουδαῖοι and Ἑβραῖοι, see Spilsbury 1998b: 36–42. The term Ἰσραηλῖται does not occur in either 1 or 2 Esdras, though the expression οἱ υἱοὶ Ισραηλ (“the sons of Israel”) occurs 15 times in 2 Esdras as a whole, but only 5 times in the chapters parallel to the Book of Ezra (3:1; 6:16, 21; 7:7; 8:18), and 9 times in 1 Esdras (1:5, 17; 5:46; 7:6, 10, 13, 8:5, 89; 9:37). Ezra 1:3 states: “he is the God who is in Jerusalem” (cf. 1 Esd 2:3).

In addition to the points made in the next note, we may observe that the statement that God “predicted” that Cyrus would build a house for him in Judah may have been derived in part from the term ἐσήμηνεν in 1 Esd 2:2, translated “commanded” in the nrsv, but which can also have the sense of “to show by a sign.” Cyrus’ reference to God’s prediction of his name is Josephus’ addition, derived, no doubt, from the references to Cyrus in Isa 44:28 and 45:1, in which he is referred to as the Lord’s “shepherd” and his “anointed.” Isa 45:4 seems particularly relevant as well, in which the Lord states, “For the sake of my servant Jacob, and Israel my chosen, I call you by your name [mt בשׁמך; lxx τῷ ὀνόματί σου], I surname you [mt אכנך; lxx προσδέξομαί], though you do not know me.” Josephus’ reference to plural “prophets” is a further indication that he was thinking of both Isaiah and Jeremiah. See note to “seventieth year” at 11.1 above. Greek Ἱεροσόλυμα. lxx Ιερουσαλημ. Josephus’ spelling for “Jerusalem” reflects the etymology he provides in Ant. 1.180 and War 6.438 (i.e., ἱερός + Σολυμᾶ); see also Ant. 7.67 and Apion 1.179. The biblical text underlying Josephus’ etymology is Gen 14:18 where Melchizedek is referred to as the king of Salem (cf. Ps 76:3 and Heb 7:2). Josephus’ phrasing here echoes 1 Esd 2:4: “and he has commanded me to build him a house at Jerusalem, which is in Judea.” See also Isa 44:28b: “and who says of Jerusalem, ‘It shall be rebuilt,’ and of the temple, ‘Your foundation shall be laid.’”

The idea that Cyrus read the Book of Isaiah is Josephus’ addition to the story, perhaps inferred from Cyrus’ statement in Ezra 1:2 (cf. 2 Chr 36:23; 1 Esd 2:2) that, “[The Lord, the God of heaven] has charged me to build him a house at Jerusalem in Judah.” Certainly, it suits Josephus to depict a world ruler learning important information from the Jewish scriptures. In Ant. 11.337 Josephus similarly has Alexander the Great read of himself in the Book of Daniel. Greek Ἡσαΐος. mt ישׁעיהו; lxx Ησαιας. Josephus is fond of stating how far in advance of events the prophets had predicted them. In Ant. 12.322 he dates Daniel’s prediction of the desolation of the temple by Antiochus Epiphanes 408 years before the event. In the present context (Ant. 11.6) Josephus gives us still another chronological reference, namely, that Isaiah made his prophecy 140 years before the destruction of the temple. Since Josephus dates the destruction of the temple to c. 586 bce (cf. Ant. 10.144–150), we may conclude that he dated Isaiah’s prophecy to c. 726 bce and Cyrus’ edict (210 years later) to c. 516 bce (cf. note to “day” at 11.1 above). Marcus (1937: 316–17 n. a; cf. 236 n. b) has noted, however, that there is an inconsistency in Josephus’ chronology of the kings in relation to Isaiah’s prophecy. According to the regnal years of the Judean kings from Hezekiah to Zedekiah in Ant. 10.36, 46, 47, 77, 83, 98, and 135 this period was indeed very close to 140 years (139 years, 6 months, and 20 days, to be exact). However, Josephus perhaps forgot that in Ant. 10.28–33 Isaiah’s prediction of the exile takes place not at the beginning of Hezekiah’s reign, but fifteen years from its end. Thus, by Josephus’ own chronology the period from Isaiah’s prediction to the fall of Jerusalem was 125 years, 6 months, and 20 days. Greek οὗτος. Greek ἀπόρρητος. The reference to God’s secret or forbidden communication is Josephus’ addition, possibly to explain why this fact about Cyrus was not widely known. God’s statement, given here in direct address, is Josephus’ addition to the biblical narrative.

Josephus thus dates the Book of Isaiah to c. 726 bce (cf. note to “210 years” at 11.5 above). Cyrus’ enthusiasm and determination to fulfill what had been written are Josephus’ novelistic colorations of the narrative, somewhat reminiscent of Alexander the Great’s joy at discovering his own military victories foretold in the Book of Daniel (Ant. 11.337). Josephus envisages the king seeking to fulfill the prophecy once he encounters it in the Scriptures, rather than a more miraculous scenario in which the prophecy is fulfilled without the king’s prior knowledge of its existence. In his reflections on the Book of Daniel, though, Josephus does not hesitate to emphasize the extraordinary nature of the prophet’s predictions (Ant. 10.272–280). See note to “210 years” above. In the biblical narratives (Ezra 1:3//1 Esd 2:3) Cyrus addresses all the Judeans; however, Josephus’ emphasis on the community leaders may be derived from Ezra 1:5//1 Esd 2:5, where the leaders are mentioned. The biblical narratives do not emphasize the rebuilding of Jerusalem.

Greek τοῦτον. Greek σύμμαχος. On this important term for describing Josephus’ conception of the relation between God and the Judeans, see Spilsbury 1998a. In War 5.389, where Josephus gives a summary of the present story, he again has Cyrus referring to God as the Judeans’ “ally.” On that episode, see Spilsbury 2001: 252–55. In the biblical narrative (Ezra 1:4//1 Esd 2:4) Cyrus commands the Judeans’ own neighbors in Babylon to contribute material support for the journey. Josephus has imported these instructions from the ones given by Darius much later in the biblical narrative (Ezra 6:8– 9//1 Esd 6:28–29; cf. Ant. 11.102).

Josephus’ phrase for the “leaders of the tribes” (οἱ τῶν ... φυλῶν ἄρχοντες) is reminiscent of 1 Esd 2:5, which uses the expression οἱ ἀρχίφυλοι τῶν πατριῶν τῆς ... φυλῆς. 2 Esd 1:5 has ἄρχοντες τῶν πατριῶν for Ezra 1:5’s ראשׁי האבות. This explanation of why many remained behind is Josephus’ contribution to the story. No doubt it reflects a desire to explain the presence of the Jewish community still there in his own day.

In the biblical narrative it is the Judeans’ neighbors who assist them before their departure from Babylon (cf. note to “governors and satraps” at 1.7 above). Josephus uses the verb ἐβοήθουν, which also occurs in 1 Esd 2:6 (ἐβοήθησαν). 2 Esd 1:6, however, uses the verb ἐνίσχυσαν for Ezra 1:6’s חזקו. The reference to horses, which does not occur in Ezra or in 2 Esdras, is parallel to 1 Esd 2:6. Greek τάς ... εὐχάς. See also 1 Esd 2:6 (εὐχαῖς). See further next note. It is interesting that Josephus, unlike either Ezra or 1 Esdras, depicts the retuning exiles offering customary sacrifices at a point in the narrative before the altar in Jerusalem has been reestablished. In doing this Josephus perhaps took his lead from the reference to “a very great number of votive offerings” (εὐχαῖς ὡς πλείσταις πολλῶν) in 1 Esd 2:6. See previous note. Josephus uses the striking verb ἀναβιόω (“to bring back to life”) to anticipate the resurrection, as it were, of Jewish national worship.

Greek τὰ σκεύη τοῦ θεοῦ. This is a formulaic phrase in Josephus (e.g., Ant. 9.263; 10.145, 233; 12.250). 1 Esd 2:7 has τὰ ἱερὰ σκεύη τοῦ κυρίου. Throughout this section, as in his account of Belshazzar’s feast (Dan 5; Ant. 10.232–238), Josephus shows a keen interest in the fate of the temple vessels (Ant. 11.14, 15, 31, 58, 63, 92, 100, 126, 136), which, as often as not, are referred to as having been looted by Nebuchadnezzar. One cannot but wonder whether the presence in Rome of the stolen sacred objects from the Temple was weighing on Josephus’ mind as he wrote these words.

Greek παραδίδωμι. The same verb occurs in 1 Esd 2:8, while 2 Esd has ἐξήνεγκεν (“delivered”). Greek Μιθριδάτης. mt ‪מתרדת‬; 2 Esd Μιθραδάτης; 1 Esd Μιθριδάτης; Mithredath. Greek γαζοφύλαξ. The same term is used in 1 Esd 2:8. 2 Esd 1:8 uses the term γασβαρηνός for Ezra 1:8’s גזבר (“treasurer”). 2 Esd 5:14 uses the synonym θησαυροφύλαξ of Sheshbazzar. Greek Ἀβέσσαρος (Variants: FLAVW read Ἀβάσσαρος/-σαρω). mt ‪שׁשׁבצר‬; 2 Esd Σασαβασαρ; 1 Esd Σαναβάσσαρος; Sheshbazzar. The identity of this individual is shadowy at best. In the Book of Ezra, he is mentioned at 1:8, 11; 5:14, and 16. In 1:8 he has the title “the prince of Judah” (‪הנשׂיא ליהודה‬; 2 Esd 1:8 ἄρχων τοῦ Ιουδα; 1 Esd 2:8 προστάτης τῆς Ιουδαίας), while in 5:14 he is referred to as a “governor” (‪פחה‬; 2 Esd 5:14 θησαυροφύλαξ, “treasurer;” 1 Esd 6:17 ἔπαρχος) who had charge of the sacred objects from the temple and laid the foundations of the temple in Jerusalem, before disappearing from the story without a trace. In Ant. 11.13 and 14 Josephus seems to replace the biblical Sheshbazzar with Zerubbabel, whom he describes as “governor of the Judeans” (ὁ ἄρχων τῶν Ἰουδαίων). In doing this he may have been taking his lead from 1 Esd 6:17, which introduces Zerubbabel into the story (“Zerubbabel and Sheshbazzar the governor [ἔπαρχος]”) in a place where Ezra and 2 Esd only have Sheshbazzar (cf. 1 Esd 6:28). Josephus may have taken this phrase, the subsequent use of the singular pronoun, and the disappearance of the name of Zerubbabel to imply that Zerubbabel was an alternate name for Sheshbazzar. On the distinct identities of Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel in Ezra, see Williamson 1985: 17–19. By paying such close attention to the sacred vessels Josephus emphasizes an important continuity between the original temple and the rebuilt one, which would eventually suffer a similar fate at the hands of Titus.

Josephus has brought this letter forward in the story from the position it occupies in the biblical narrative at Ezra 6:3–5//1 Esd 6:23–25, where it is quoted retrospectively. Josephus quotes the letter again, in a form closer to that of the biblical sources at the point in the narrative parallel to these biblical references (Ant. 11.99– 103). Josephus also combines into one letter from Cyrus what in Ezra and 1 Esdras are two sets of instructions, the first issued by Cyrus (Ezra 6:3–5//1 Esd 6:23–25), the second issued by Darius many years later in response to the rediscovery of Cyrus’ letter (Ezra 6:6–12//1 Esd 6:27–33). By conflating these two sets of instructions Josephus introduces characters from a later time into an earlier stage of the narrative. See note to “greeting” in this paragraph and to “Zorobabel” at 11.13. Greek Σισίνης (Variants: LAW read Σισίννης; F reads Συσσίνης). mt ‪תתני‬; 2 Esd Θανθαναι; 1 Esd Σισίννης; Tattenai. In Ant. 11.95, 98, 104 and 105 his name is spelled Sisinnes. Greek Σαραβασάνης (Variants: P reads Σαραβασάνις; V reads Σαραβατάνης; W reads Σαραβασάννης). mt ‪שׁתר בוזני‬; 2 Esd Σαθραβουζανης; 1 Esd Σαθαρβουζανα; Shetharbozenai. In Ant. 11.89 and 104 he is called Sarobazanes (Σαρωβαζάνης) and Sarabazanes (Σαραβαζάνης) respectively. Josephus has Cyrus address his letter to Tattenai/ Sisinnes and Shethar-bozenai/Sathrabuzanes, when in the Bible it is Darius who addresses these individuals many years later in response to the rediscovery of Cyrus’ letter (Ezra 6:6//1 Esd 6:26). This move possibly accounts for Josephus’ conflation of the identities of Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel (cf. note to “Zorobabel” at 11.13 below). The same conflation occurs later in the Antiquities when Josephus again cites Cyrus’ decree (11.99–103). Josephus also transposes the third-person instructions of the biblical narratives (“Let the house be rebuilt…” etc.), into more personal and direct first-person discourse. 1 Esdras does not explicitly state that the temple is to be situated on the original site, though in 1 Esd 6:24 we read that Cyrus “ordered the building of the house of the Lord in Jerusalem, where they sacrifice with perpetual fire.” Perhaps this is the basis for Josephus’ idea that the site of the new temple would be exactly where the original one had been. Also, a little later the king orders that the previously stolen sacred vessels “should be restored to the house in Jerusalem, to be placed where they had been” (1 Esd 6:26).

Mithredath and Zerubbabel are not mentioned in Cyrus’ letter in the biblical narratives. Greek Ζοροβάβηλος. mt ‪זרבבל‬; lxx Ζοροβαβελ; Zerubbabel. Josephus seems to have conflated the identities of Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel at this point (cf. Ant. 11.14; Ezra 1:8, 11; 5:14, 16). In doing so he may have been taking his lead from a misreading of 1 Esd 6:26 and 28 in which “Zerubbabel the governor” is explicitly mentioned in connection with Darius’ instructions concerning the rebuilding of the temple. Josephus, however, seems to have taken Darius’ instructions concerning Zerubbabel to be part of Cyrus’ original decree. This possibility would seem to be confirmed by the inclusion of Sisines and Sarabasanes as the addressees of the letter. Marcus (1937: 319 n. a), following Ginzberg (1913: 352), points out that rabbinic tradition identifies Zerubbabel with Nehemiah. By introducing Zerubbabel this early in the story (cf. Ezra 2:2), Josephus creates a narrative difficulty for himself, since in Ant. 11.33–58 (drawing on 1 Esd 3–4) Zerubbabel appears as Darius’ bodyguard in Babylon. Josephus thus provides a transitional passage to return Zerubbabel to Babylon in Ant. 11.31–32. Greek ὁ ἄρχων. The title is used of Zerubbabel again at Ant. 11.14, 75, and 116. In two instances (Ant. 11.32, 73) he is referred to as “leader” (ἡγεμών). In the Book of Ezra, Zerubbabel is not given an official title, though in a number of places (4:2, 3) he is associated with the “heads” (‪ראשׁי‬; 1 Esd ἡγούμενοι; 2 Esd ἄρχοντες) of the ancestral families. In 1 Esd 5:8 and 9 Zerubbabel is referred to as one of the “leaders” (προηγούμενοι) of the community, and in 6:26 and 28 he is referred to as “eparch, governor” (ἔπαρχος; cf. 6:17) of Judea. On Josephus’ use of this last term, see note to “eparch” at 11.89 below. The foundations of the temple are not specified in Ezra and 1 Esdras (nor, indeed, in Ant. 11.99). Compare Ant. 11.99 and Ezra 6:3//1 Esd 6:24. Williamson (1985: 71) regards these dimensions as corrupt. He suggests that the dimensions in 1 Kgs 6:2 (“60 cubits long, 20 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high”) are closer to the original ones. Josephus’ wording differs slightly here from that given in 11.99, where it is very close to the wording of 1 Esd 6:24 (cf. note to “wood” at 11.99 below). The altar is not specifically mentioned in the biblical narratives, but the temple is described as “the place where sacrifices are offered and burnt offerings are brought” (Ezra 6:3). 1 Esdras refers to the temple as the place “where they sacrifice with perpetual fire” (1 Esd 6:23). Josephus includes the altar again in Ant. 11.99.

For the importance of these sacred vessels to Josephus, see note to “vessels” at 11.10. Mithredath and Zerubbabel are not mentioned in Cyrus’ letter in the biblical narratives (or at Ant. 11.100).

The inventory of sacred vessels is not a part of Cyrus’ letter in either Ezra/2 Esdras (1:9–10) or 1 Esdras (2:9–11), but stands alone in a different context. The items on Josephus’ list are different in detail from both Ezra/2 Esdras and 1 Esdras. In the synopsis at the foot of this page the items appear in Josephus’ order. Greek ψυκτῆρες. The term tops the list in 2 Esdras as well, but with the quantities of 30 gold and 1,000 silver. Antiquities 11.15 1 Esdras 2:9–11 2 Esdras 1:9–11 Wine coolers (ψυκτῆρες) Wine coolers (ψυκτῆρες) gold: 50; silver: 400 gold: 30; silver: 1,000 θηρίκλεια Censers (θυΐσκαι) παρηλλαγμένα gold: 50; silver: 400 gold: 29 29 Pitchers (κάδοι) gold: 50; silver: 500 Libation cups (σπονδεῖα) Libation cups (σπονδεῖα) gold: 40; silver: 300 gold: 1,000; silver: 1,000 Bowls (φιάλαι) Bowls (φιάλαι) Bowls (κεφφουρη) gold: 30; silver: 2,400 gold: 30; silver: 2,410 gold: 30; silver (200) Other large vessels (σκεύη ἄλλα μεγάλα): 1,000 Other vessels (ἄλλα σκεύη): 1,000 Other vessels (σκεύη ἕτερα): 1,000 Total (not supplied by Josephus): 5,220 Total (supplied): 5,469 Total (supplied by 2 Esd, but not the sum of the above): 5,400

Thericles was a renowned potter, reportedly from Corinth in the fifth century bce, whose craftsmanship in designing drinking vessels became legendary. Other potters, glass-, and metal-workers continued to produce exclusive tableware in the Thericlean style for centuries, and it remained a rare commodity among the very rich (Cicero, Verr. 2.4.38; Philo, Contempl. 49; Lucian, Lexi. 8; esp. Athenaeus 11.33, 37, 41–43). Possessing so many pieces of Thericlean ware in gold was a sign of unfathomable wealth. Josephus may have used this term instead of, or as an interpretation of, θυΐσκαι (“censers”) in 1 Esd 1:9, which is itself possibly a replacement for the difficult παρηλλαγμένα (“strange things;” from παραλλάσσω) in 2 Esd 1:9. See also the hapax מחלפים (“knives”) in Ezra 1:9, on which see Williamson 1985: 5–6. Greek κάδοι. In lxx Isa 40:15 the word means “bucket” (mt דלי). The term is not used by either 1 or 2 Esdras. Greek σπονδεῖα. The term occurs as the first item in 1 Esd 2:9, but with 1,000 of gold and 1,000 of silver. Greek φιάλαι. The phrase φιάλαι χρυσαῖ τριάκοντα occurs verbatim in 1 Esd 2:10. 1 Esdras, however, lists 2,410 silver bowls (Ezra 1:10 has 410) in comparison to Josephus’ 2,400. 2 Esdras has 30 golden bowls (κεφφουρη), and 200 silver ones (2 Esd 1:10). The 1,000 “other” vessels are the only item on which Josephus, Ezra, 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras all agree. Josephus’ wording is slightly closer to 1 Esdras (cf. table in note to “them” at 11.15 above).

The following grants and instructions (through 11.17) are part of Darius’ provisions in the biblical narratives rather than Cyrus’. The notion that Cyrus was restoring an ancestral honor is Josephus’ addition to the story. The list of items to be provided is more extensive in the biblical narratives (Ezra 6:9//1 Esd 6:28–29//2 Esd 6:9)—bulls, rams, sheep, wheat, salt, wine, and oil—but lacking the specific amounts provided by Josephus. According to Ezra 6:8 the expense is to be borne by “the royal revenue, the tribute of the province Beyond the River.” In 1 Esd 6:28 it is borne by the tribute of Coele-Syria and Phoenicia. Marcus (1937: 322–23 n. b) suggests that Josephus is taking a “deliberate dig” at the Samaritans. In this version of the letter at Ant. 11.103, Josephus states that Cyrus arranged for the expenses to be paid “out of the tribute of countries they were governing.”

The reference to the law of Moses is Josephus’ addition, showing his own priorities; but see Ezra 3:2//1 Esd 5:48, Ant. 11.76, and 11.108. The biblical narratives stipulate that action be taken “as the priests in Jerusalem require” (Ezra 6:9) or “as the priests in Jerusalem may indicate” (1 Esd 6:29). In Ant. 11.102 the wording is closer to the biblical sources. Josephus’ reference to the law of Moses reveals his conviction that the priests functioned under Mosaic rules. Ezra 6:10 states, “so that they may offer pleasing sacrifices [1 Esd, “libations”] to the God of heaven, and pray for the life of the king and his children.” Similarly, 1 Esd 6:30. In the Book of Ezra, the punishment threatened here relates to anyone who dares to alter (2 Esd 6:11: ἀλλάξει) the edict. Josephus’ emphasis reflects that of 1 Esd 6:31 in making the crime one of disobeying (Josephus: παρακούσαντας; 1 Esd: παραβῶσιν) or rejecting (Josephus: ἀκυρώσαντας; 1 Esd ἀκυρώσωσιν) the edict. The same is true in Ant. 11.103, where Josephus refers to those who transgress (παραβάντας) the edict. Greek ἀνασταυρόω. The precise meaning of the term is not clear, and may refer to different forms of suspension on a wooden pole, such as being crucified or impaled (cf. Herodotus 3.125; 6.30; Polybius 1.11.5). In a Roman context such as Josephus’, the former connotation is perhaps more likely. Samuelsson (2011: 95–110) provides a wide ranging discussion of the issue, including Josephus’ use of σταυρ-terminology. 2 Esd 6:11 uses the term παγήσεται (“he shall be impaled”), while 1 Esd 6:31 has κρεμασθῆναι (“to be hanged/crucified”). The Hebrew term מחא means “to strike,” hence Williamson’s (1985: 69) translation of Ezra 6:11: “and, fastened erect [to a beam], he shall be flogged.” Many English translations of the Bible render the term as “impale.” See note to “crucify” at 11.246 below. Ezra 6:11 states that the house of anyone altering the king’s edict “shall be made a dunghill.” On the possible alternate rendering of נול as “to confiscate,” see Williamson (1985: 72). Both 1 and 2 Esdras state that the offender’s property shall be confiscated by the crown. Josephus’ phrase, εἶναι βασιλικάς, is close to that in 1 Esd 6:31 (εἶναι βασιλικά). See note to “coffers” at 11.103 below.

See note to “letter” at 11.12 above. The reference to the numbers of returning exiles at this point reflects the order of events as they are set out in the Book of Ezra (chapter 2). 1 Esdras places the list of exiles at a slightly later point in the narrative (chapter 5). The fact that Josephus cites the numbers of returning exiles twice (in the present context, and again at Ant. 11.68–69) is possibly an indication that he used both the Hebrew/Aramaic text of Ezra and the Greek text of 1 Esdras (unless he used a text, no longer extant, that incorporated the characteristics of both Ezra and 1 Esdras). See next note. Josephus omits the detailed itemization of the returning exiles given in Ezra 2. His total number also differs significantly from that given in Ezra 2:64–65, which has 42,360 plus 7,337 male and female servants, and 200 male and female singers. 1 Esd 5:41 uses much the same figures (only the third differs). Nehemiah 7:66–67 contains a similar list of exiles with the same total figures found in 1 Esdras. Josephus apparently conflated the account in the Book of Ezra with that of 1 Esdras. The result is that he treats the events in Ezra 2 and 1 Esdras 5 as distinct and thus gives two separate totals of exiles: one in the present context (based on Ezra 2, occurring in the reign of Cyrus), the other at Ant. 11.68–69 (following 1 Esd 5, occurring in the reign of Darius). In the latter instance Josephus puts the total number of returning exiles at 48,462 plus 74 Levites and 40,762 women and children. On the relationship between the lists in Ezra and Nehemiah, and their likely relation to the gradual return of various groups over a period of some twenty years, see Williamson 1985: 28–32.

In Ant. 11.19–30 Josephus follows the narrative sequence of 1 Esd 2:12–4:23 rather than that of the Book of Ezra, in which this section appears much later (4:4– 24). See chronological chart on pp. 6–7 above. Josephus elsewhere implies that negligible progress was made on the temple during this early phase. See note to “resumed” at 11.79 below. Greek Χουθαίοι. The term is a pejorative reference to the Samaritans (cf. War 1.63; Ant. 9.288, 290; 10.184; 11.20, 88, 302; 13.255). Josephus’ assertion that opposition to Judeans came “especially from the Chutheans” is an addition to the biblical narrative, which refers only to various Persian officials “living in Samaria and other places” (1 Esd 2:12). Indeed, Josephus heightens the hostility of the Samaritans throughout his account of the reestablishment of Jerusalem (e.g., Ant. 11.84, 88, 97, 114). Greek Σαλμανασσάρης. mt ‪שׁלמנאסר‬; lxx Σαλαμανασσαρ; Shalmaneser V, king of Assyria (ruled 726–722 bce). This otherwise relatively unimportant Assyrian ruler is very significant in the history of Israel because he laid siege to the city of Samaria for three years before it fell in 722 bce and its citizens were carried off into exile in Assyria (2 Kgs 17:1–18:12; Grayson 1992). See note to “Salmanassar” at 11.85 below. Compare Ant. 10.184. Josephus advances a view of Samaritan origins based on 2 Kgs 17, according to which the original population of Samaria had been deported by Shalmaneser V of Assyria (cf. previous note). Then, according to the biblical account, “The king of Assyria brought people from Babylon, Cuthah, Avva, Hamath, and Sepharvaim, and placed them in the cities of Samaria in place of the people of Israel; they took possession of Samaria, and settled in its cities” (2 Kgs 17:24). This new population is said to have brought with them a wide range of religious practices from their own places of origin which they subsequently combined with the worship of Yahweh. Josephus’ account of these events may be found at Ant. 9.277–291, on which see notes in bjp 5. In Ezra 4:2, however, the adversaries of the Judeans identify themselves as people who had been brought into the region by the later Assyrian king Esarhaddon (ruled c. 681–669 bce). On this passage, see further Williamson 1985: 49–50 and Ezra 4:10. In the Samaritans’ version of their origins they were the direct descendants of the Israelite tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh who survived the destruction of the northern kingdom of Israel by the Assyrians in 722 bce (Anderson 1992: 941).

The parallel passage in 1 Esdras does not mention bribery, whereas Ezra 4:5 does make such a reference. This would seem to be evidence that Josephus has not entirely abandoned the Hebrew/Aramaic. Josephus’ phrasing is striking, with its reference to the selling (ἀπημπόλησαν) of negligence (ἀμελὲς) and indifference (ῥᾴθυμον). According to Herodotus (1.214), Cyrus was killed while fighting the Massagetai in 530/529 bce. Ctesias (preserved fragmentarily in Diodorus and Photius) and Xenophon (Cyr. 8.7.1–28) give differing accounts of the king’s death.

Greek Καμβύσης. Cambyses ii (ruled 530–522 bce). Herodotus (3.67) says Cambyses ruled seven months short of eight years. Josephus replaces the Artaxerxes of 1 Esd 2:12 with Cambyses in an attempt to restore the historical sequence of Persian kings: Cyrus, Cambyses, Darius, Xerxes [= Ahasuerus], Artaxerxes. 1 Esdras itself rearranges the chronology of Ezra, in which the Judeans’ enemies write a hostile letter to Xerxes/Ahasuerus (Ezra 4:6), and then Persian officials write a letter to Artaxerxes (Ezra 4:7–16) about the construction of the city’s walls and foundations. Rather than resolving the problems in Ezra, 1 Esdras introduces chronological difficulties of its own. See chronological chart on pp. 6–7 above. Josephus avoids the personal names in the biblical narrative at this point. 1 Esd 2:12: Bishlam, Mithridates, Tabeel, Rehum, Beltethmus, and Shimshai; Ezra 4:7–10: Bishlam, Mithredath, and Tabeel.

Greek οἱ παῖδές σου. The same phrase is used in 1 Esd 2:13 (cf. 2 Esd 4:11). Greek Ῥάθυμος. mt ‪רחום‬; 1 Esdras Ραουμος; 2 Esdras Ραουμ; Rehum. Josephus’ form is to be found in some variant readings of the lxx. Schalit (1968: 100) suggested this form was based on a misreading of an Ο for a Θ yielding ραθυμοσ instead of ραουμοσ. Greek Σεμέλιος (Schalit [1968: 110] amends the Greek text to Σεμσαῖος). mt ‪שׁמשׁי‬; 1 Esdras Σαμσαῖος; 2 Esdras Σαμσαι; Shimshai. Greek ἀνάγω. The passive form used here has the sense of being “taken up” or “deported” to Babylon. On Josephus’ terminology for exile, see note to “migrated” at 11.1 above. Greek τήν τε πόλιν τὴν ἀποστάτιν καὶ πονηρὰν οἰκοδομοῦσιν καὶ τὰς ἀγορὰς αὐτῆς. Josephus’ phrasing here is almost identical to that of 1 Esd 2:14: τὴν πόλιν τὴν ἀποστάτιν καὶ πονηρὰν οἰκοδομοῦσιν, τάς τε ἀγορὰς αὐτῆς. 2 Esd 4:12 is also similar, but does not have the reference to the markets. 2 Esd 4:12, following Ezra 4:12, refers only to the foundations of the city. 1 Esd 2:14, however, refers to laying the foundations of the sanctuary (ναὸν ὑποβάλλονται).

The phrase “[they will] stand against kings” (βασιλεῦσιν ἀντιστήσονται) is found also in 1 Esd 2:15. This phrase is Josephus’ addition.

This phrase follows a similar construction in 1 Esd 2:16. Ezra/2 Esdras do not have a parallel. Greek περιιδεῖν (“to overlook, disregard, allow”). 1 Esd 2:16 uses the synonym ὑπεριδεῖν. Greek ἀποστάτας καὶ τῶν βασιλέων ἐχθροὺς. 1 Esd 2:22–23 states, “You will find in the annals what has been written about them, and will learn that this city was rebellious, troubling both kings and other cities, and that the Jews were rebels and kept setting up blockades in it from of old.” The accusation that Jews are enemies of kings will rear its head again in the stories of Haman (Ant. 11.217) and Alexander the Great (Ant. 11.303, 323).

The term Coele-Syria was applied to various portions of Syria and Palestine by authors of different periods. Hellenistic authors used the term to include much of the Eastern Mediterranean seaboard extending as far as the Euphrates River, but excluding Phoenicia. For a summary of the complex variations in the usage of the term, see R. W. Smith 1992. The reference to access to these regions is taken from 1 Esd 2:18. In Ezra 4:16 the letter warns the king more generally that he will “have no possession in the province Beyond the River.” In 2 Esd 4:16 the king is warned that he will “have no peace.”

Greek φύσει πονηρός. Josephus often ascribes to malice the difficulties encountered by the biblical protagonists. The king’s emotional response is Josephus’ addition to the narrative. Greek βεέλζεμος. mt ‪בעל־טעם‬; 1 Esdras Βεελτέεμος; 2 Esdras Βααλταμ. Josephus, like both 1 and 2 Esdras, takes the Aramaic term to be a personal name, whereas it was more likely the official title of Rehum (hence nrsv, “royal deputy”). Josephus’ phrasing in this sentence, from “Rathymos” to “Phoenicia,” is taken almost verbatim from 1 Esd 2:19. Apart from the differences in the forms of the names, the only other difference is that 1 Esdras includes “Syria” in the list of geographical locations. The text of the king’s letter is a close paraphrase of 1 Esd 2:20–24.

Greek ἐχθρὰ βασιλεῦσιν ἀεὶ. In Ezra 4:19 the king states that the city “has a long history of revolt against kings and has been a place of rebellion and sedition.” See note to “kings” at 11.24 above.

Greek κακία. Josephus gladly reproduces the charge of badness against the Judeans because he knows that the story will soon prove it to be false.

The Book of Ezra states that the officials hurried to Jerusalem, “and by force and power made them cease” (4:23). 2 Esd 4:23 translates closely, but includes horses in the scenario: κατήργησαν αὐτοὺς ἐν ἵπποις καὶ δυνάμει (“they hindered them with horses [cavalry] and a force”). 1 Esd 2:25 embellishes the scene, stating that they went quickly to Jerusalem “with horses and an army in [battle] formation” (μεθ᾽ ἵππου καὶ ὄχλου παρατάξεως).

Josephus himself supplies this reckoning so as to accommodate the rule of Cambyses, here said to have been for a period of six years (but cf. note to “Cambyses” at 11.21 above), and the one-year hiatus before the rule of Darius (cf. Ant. 11.31). Compare Ezra 4:24//1 Esd 2:25. On Cambyses’ conquest of Egypt see, briefly, Briant 1992: 238. Compare Herodotus 3.64–66, according to whom Cambyses died in Syrian Ecbatana, to be distinguished from the more famous city of that name in Media.

This paragraph and the next, which do not have a basis in the biblical sources, function as a literary bridge enabling Josephus to place Zerubbabel back in Babylon where the action of the next part of the narrative occurs. Herodotus (3.61–78) relates the story of two Magian brothers who conspired to take the throne from Cambyses. One of the brothers, who happened to look like Cambyses’ deceased brother Smerdis, and who also had the same name, impersonated the royal Smerdis and set himself up as king. Darius’ somewhat different version of the story is told in the Behistun Inscription, on which see Waters 2014. The accidental death of Cambyses is recounted by Herodotus 3.64–66. Herodotus (3.70–71) refers to seven conspirators (including Darius I) who colluded in the murder of the false Smerdis. Greek Δαρεῖος. mt ‪דריושׁ‬; lxx Δαρειος. Darius I (ruled 521–486 bce). Compare Herodotus 3.71. On the complex circumstances surrounding Darius’ rise to power see Waters 2014 and Cuyler Young 1992b. In 1 Esd 4:43–46 Zerubbabel asks Darius to fulfill a previously unmentioned vow that he had made “on the day when [he] became king” to rebuild Jerusalem and to restore its sacred vessels to the temple there. Josephus here provides a narrative setting for Darius’ vow in anticipation of Zerubbabel’s later request (Ant. 11.58). For the importance of these sacred vessels to Josephus, see note to “vessels” at 11.10 above. The temple, of course, has not yet been rebuilt at this point. Darius’ vow in 1 Esd 4:43–46 thus includes a promise to restore the temple as well, a point which Josephus includes when he returns to this subject in Ant. 11.58.

Greek ἡγεμών. See note to “governor” at 11.13 above. Greek φιλία. Friendship with the ruler is an important theme throughout this story, as in the stories of Daniel and Esther. See notes to “friends” at 11.186 and at 11.251 below. Josephus’ convoluted statement here is perhaps an attempt to explain how one who had been appointed leader of the Judeans could now be serving as a bodyguard, without suggesting that Zerubbabel had been demoted or otherwise reassigned.

The story of the three bodyguards (Ant. 11.33–67) is drawn from 1 Esd 3–4, which Josephus closely paraphrases. It does not appear in the Hebrew Book of Ezra, and appears to have originated as a distinct tale about a wisdom contest written originally in Aramaic. See further Myers 1974: 53 and Nickelsburg 1984: 131–35. Bird (2012: 26) has noted that this apocryphal tale is likely the main reason for the book of 1 Esdras having been preserved and handed down from antiquity. For a summary of Patristic references to this story, see Myers 1974: 17–18. 1 Esd 3:1 does not contain this detail. Josephus’ chronology explicitly allows for the resumption of work on Jerusalem and on the temple in the second year of the king’s reign (Ant. 11.30; Ezra 4:24//1 Esd 2:25). Josephus, like 1 Esdras, lists the kinds of dignitaries present at the banquet. The respective lists are similar, but not identical. See at the foot of this page. The geographical extent of the Persian Empire from India to Ethiopia is also implied in Herodotus 3.90–97. The same termini are claimed of Xerxes’ kingdom in Esth 1:1 and 8:9.sur Ant. 11.33 ἡγεμόνες σατράπαι τοπάρχαι στρατηγοί Ant. 11.37 μεγιστᾶνες σατράπαι τοπάρχαι 1 Esd 3:1, 2 μεγιστᾶνες σατράπαι τοπάρχαι στρατηγοί 1 Esd 3:14 μεγιστᾶνες σατράπαι τοπάρχαι στρατηγοί ὕπατοι

Reward Josephus 1 Esdras Purple garments πορφύραν ἐνδύσασθαι πορφύραν περιβαλέσθαι Golden goblets ἐν ἐκπώμασιν χρυσοῖς πίνειν ἐν χρυσώμασιν πίνειν Golden bed ἐπὶ χρυσίου καθεύδειν ἐπὶ χρυσῷ καθεύδειν Gold-bridled chariot ἅρμα χρυσοχάλινον ἅρμα χρυσοχάλινον Linen turban κίδαριν βύσσινον κίδαριν βυσσίνην Golden necklace περιαυχένιον χρύσεον μανιάκην περὶ τὸν τράχηλον Seat of honor μετ᾽ αὐτὸν ἕξειν προεδρίαν δεύτερος καθιεῖται Δαρείου Called Darius’ relative συγγενής μου ... κληθήσεται συγγενὴς Δαρεῖου κληθήσεται

So too 1 Esd 3:2. Herodotus (3.89) says that Darius organized his realm into 20 satrapies or governments (ἀρχαί). In Esth 1:1 and 8:9 Ahasuerus is said to have had 127 provinces. Daniel 6:1–2 refers to three “presidents” in authority over 120 satraps in the time of Darius the Mede. lxx has 127 satraps at this point. Josephus, however, apparently read the passage to mean each of the three presidents was in charge of 120 satrapies, for a total of 360 satrapies (Ant. 10.249). On the organization of the Persian Empire under Darius, see further Briant 1992: 239–40.

Josephus avoids the apparent contradiction in 1 Esdras (3:3, 8, 13), in which the king is wakeful, but the guards slip an envelope under his pillow while he sleeps. Josephus has the king propose the competition among the three bodyguards. This removes the absurdity in 1 Esdras 3:4–7, in which it is the bodyguards who come up with the idea—including the lavish rewards— among themselves. The scenario in which a king requires answers to a series of philosophical questions is quite common in ancient literature (e.g., Herodotus 1.30; Plutarch, Alex. 64; Let. Aris. 187–294). 1 Esdras (3:4, 15) specifies that the bodyguards were “youths” (νεανίσκοι; cf. 4:58), perhaps an echo of the three young men of the Book of Daniel.

In 1 Esd 3:8 the bodyguards, who choose their subjects themselves, write down their statements and place them in a sealed envelope under the king’s pillow while he sleeps. Josephus’ version makes it clearer why these topics were chosen: the king assigned them. In 1 Esdras, the bodyguards decide independently what their answers will be. Josephus uses the term νικητήριος for the victor’s reward. In 1 Esd 3:5 the king refers to “rich gifts and great honors of victory” (δωρεὰς μεγάλας καὶ ἐπινίκια μεγάλα). The rewards promised in Josephus’ version are essentially the same as in 1 Esdras, though with some minor differences in terminology, see the table at the foot of this page. The golden necklace is reminiscent of the reward given to Mordecai on two occasions in the Esther story (Ant. 11.254, 284).

Greek ὑπερισκύω. The same term is used in 1 Esd 3:5, 10–12. Josephus does not remark on the point that Zerubbabel is given two topics rather than one (cf. note to “truth” at 11.49 below). The effect, of course, is to present Zerubbabel as a wise youth in the tradition of Daniel and the three youths (cf. Dan 1:17, etc.).

See note to “leaders” at 11.33 above. Josephus simplifies the procedure of the competition by omitting the stage in which the guards each first write their answers and place them under the king’s pillow while he sleeps (1 Esd 3:8). In the morning the king reads each answer before summoning the bodyguards to defend their position before the assembled dignitaries.

Greek δύναμις. 1 Esd 3:17 uses ἰσχύς (“strength”). See also Ant. 11.43. Reflection on the power or dangers of wine is a common theme in ancient Jewish literature (e.g., Prov 20:1; 23:29–35; Sir 31:25–31; Tob 4:15).

Greek σφάλλω. This phrase is Josephus’ addition, though the verb does occur in 1 Esd 4:27. Greek ἀπατάω. 1 Esd 3:18 uses πλανάω (“lead astray”). The phrase, “and one who needs a guardian” (καὶ δεομένου κηδεμόνος … τίθησιν), is Josephus’ addition. Greek δοῦλος. 1 Esd 3:19 uses οἰκέτης. 1 Esd 3:19 states more simply: “It makes equal the mind of the king and the orphan, of the slave and the free, of the poor and the rich.”

Greek μεταποιεῖ … καὶ μεταγεννᾷ τὰς ψυχὰς. This striking clause is Josephus’ addition. Compare 1 Esd 3:20: “It turns every thought to feasting and mirth, and forgets all sorrow and debt.” Josephus adds δοκεῖν (“to think”) to 1 Esdras’ πάσας καρδίας ποιεῖ πλουσίας (“it makes all hearts rich”). Greek ὀνόματα (“names”). I have followed the translation of Marcus (1937: 333), which catches the monetary theme of Josephus’ statement. 1 Esd 3:21 has simply: “[It] makes everyone speak of talents.”

Greek στρατηγῶν καὶ βασιλέων. 1 Esd 3:21: βασιλέα οὐδὲ σατράπην (“kings or satraps”). Greek συνήθης. 1 Esd 3:22 has ἀδελφοί (“brothers”). 1 Esd 3:22: “and before long they draw their swords.”

1 Esd 3:23 has simply: ὅταν ἀπὸ τοῦ οἴνου γενηθῶσιν (“when they recover from the wine”). Josephus uses the adjectival forms ὑπερκρατοῦντα and βιαιότατον, whereas 1 Esd 3:24 uses the verbal forms ὑπερισχύει and ἀναγκάζει.

Josephus paraphrases the second speech closely without often using exactly the same vocabulary or phrasing. The characteristics of kings are summed up in the Book of Daniel too. Daniel 2:37–38: “You, O king, the king of kings—to whom the God of heaven has given the kingdom, the power, the might, and the glory, into whose hand he has given human beings, wherever they live, the wild animals of the field, and the birds of the air, and whom he has established as ruler over them all.” Daniel 5:18–19: “O king, the Most High God gave your father Nebuchadnezzar kingship, greatness, glory, and majesty. And because of the greatness that he gave him, all peoples, nations, and languages trembled and feared before him. He killed those he wanted to kill, kept alive those he wanted to keep alive, honored those he wanted to honor, and degraded those he wanted to degrade.” Josephus supplies a longer transition between the first and second speakers than 1 Esd 4:1.

1 Esd 4:2: “Are not men strongest, who rule over land and sea and all that is in them.” The statement evokes Gen 1:26: “Then God said, ‘Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth’” (cf. Gen 9:2). The clause running from “and those having mastery” is Josephus’ addition, making more explicit the sense of the argument.

1 Esd 4:4: “If he tells them to make war on one another, they do it; and if he sends them out against the enemy, they go…” Greek κατεργάζομαι. The same term is used in 1 Esd 4:4. 1 Esd 4:4 (end) reads: “…they go, and level mountains, walls and towers.” Greek κτείνεσθαι ... καὶ κτείνειν. 1 Esd 4:5 has φονεύουσιν καὶ φονεύονται. Josephus uses synonyms and reverses the occurrence of the active and passive voices. A close paraphrase of 1 Esd 4:5b: “if they win the victory, they bring everything to the king—whatever spoil they take and everything else.”

1 Esd 4:6: “Likewise those who do not serve in the army or make war but till the soil; whenever they sow and reap, they bring some to the king; and they compel one another to pay taxes to the king.” Again, Josephus is clearly choosing synonyms rather than quoting directly from 1 Esdras, his evident source.

With this sentence Josephus summarizes the substance of 1 Esd 4:7–10: “And yet he is only one man! If he tells them to kill, they kill; if he tells them to release, they release; if he tells them to attack, they attack; if he tells them to lay waste, they lay waste; if he tells them to build, they build; if he tells them to cut down, they cut down; if he tells them to plant, they plant. All his people and his armies obey him.” Josephus elaborates on the luxury of the king, which is not mentioned in 1 Esdras. The bond of fear is Josephus’ contribution, no doubt to add drama to the speech.

Josephus’ phrasing is far more elaborate than that in 1 Esd 4:11: “but they keep watch around him, and no one may go away to attend to his own affairs, nor do they disobey him.” The final rhetorical question in Josephus’ version follows the substance of 1 Esd 4:12 (“Gentlemen, why is not the king the strongest, since he is to be obeyed in this fashion?”), only more elaborately.

Greek διδάσκω. With this verb, which is not used by 1 Esdras at this point, Josephus presents Zerubbabel not merely as a debater or rhetorician like the others, but as a teacher of truth. Marcus (1937: 336 n. b) argues that the original popular tale probably made “women” the third and correct answer to the question posed by the king, and that the writer of 1 Esdras added “truth” to give the story a moral. 1 Esd 4:14 makes this point in the form of a question: “Who is it, then, that rules them, or has mastery over them? Is it not women?”

1 Esd 4:15: “Women gave birth to the king and to every people that rules over sea and land.” 1 Esd 4:16: “…women brought up the very men who plant the vineyards from which comes wine.” This summation is Josephus’ addition. Josephus elaborates 1 Esd 4:17’s simpler statement, “Women make men’s clothes,” but omits the statement that “they bring men glory.”

1 Esd 4:17: “Men cannot exist without women.” Greek προσχάσκω. For ἐγχάσκω in 1 Esd 4:19. 1 Esd 4:18–19: “If men gather gold and silver or any other beautiful thing, and then see a woman lovely in appearance and beauty, they let all those things go, and gape at her, and with open mouths stare at her, and all prefer her to gold or silver or any other beautiful thing.”

Variant: καὶ μητέρας is omitted in most of the mss. (PFWE Lat) and is not found in 1 Esd 4:20. The inclusion of “mothers” by Josephus’ later copyists is possibly attributable to the influence of Gen 2:24, “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh.” The verse is perhaps already alluded to in 1 Esd 4:20, which includes the statement that the man leaves his father and “clings to his wife” (πρὸς τὴν ἰδίαν γυναῖκα κολλᾶται). lxx Gen 2:24 has προσκολληθήσεται πρὸς τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ. 1 Esd 4:20–21, with the conclusion in verse 22, “Therefore you must realize that women rule over you.”

With this sentence Josephus summarizes the more colorful 1 Esd 4:22–27: “Do you not labor and toil, and bring everything and give it to women? A man takes his sword, and goes out to travel and rob and steal and to sail the sea and rivers; he faces lions, and he walks in darkness, and when he steals and robs and plunders, he brings it back to the woman he loves. A man loves his wife more than his father or his mother. Many men have lost their minds because of women, and have become slaves because of them. Many have perished, or stumbled, or sinned because of women.”

Josephus omits the critical point made in 1 Esd 4:28 that “all lands fear to touch him,” something that makes the concubine’s actions all the more shocking. Further, 1 Esd 4:30 refers to the king’s being slapped in the face “with her left hand,” a point that Josephus chooses to omit. Greek Ἀπάμη. Old Iranian *Apama, a name indirectly attested in Greek and Babylonian sources (Tavernier 2007: 107). A recently published cuneiform dossier from Borsippa confirms that Darius also had a wife of this name, transcribed into Akkadian as “Queen Apammu” (Zadok 2002; 2003). See next note. Greek Ῥαβέζακος τοῦ Θεμασίου. 1 Esd 4:29 has Βαρτάκης τοῦ θαυμαστοῦ (“Bartacus the Illustrious”). Herodotus (7.194) refers to an individual with a similar name, Θαμάσιος. However, if the Apame referred to in this tale was inspired by Darius’ wife of that name and not an otherwise unknown concubine (cf. previous note), then the filiation Josephus (following 1 Esdras) ascribes to her may be fictitious. Darius is known to have had a total of six wives, the names of all but one of whom are known from other sources (Brosius 1996: 47–64). It is possible that Apame was Darius' first wife, the hithero unnamed “daughter of Gobryas,” a Persian nobleman mentioned by Herodotus (7.2.2; cf. Zadok 2002: 63). In both 1 Esdras and Josephus the word used is τὸ διάδημα. The symbolic significance of taking the king’s crown from his head is obvious (cf. Bird 2012: 172). This story is reminiscent of a scene in Josephus’ account of Moses’ infancy in Egypt, in which Moses removes the king’s crown and throws it to the ground (Ant. 2.233). A paraphrase of 1 Esd 4:31: “At this the king would gaze at her with mouth agape. If she smiles at him, he laughs; if she loses her temper with him, he flatters her, so that she may be reconciled to him.”

Greek σατράπαι and ἡγεμόνες. 1 Esd 4:33 has “the king and the nobles” (ὁ βασιλεὺς καὶ οἱ μεγιστᾶνες). See note to “leaders” at 11.33 above. Greek Εἰ γάρ ἐστιν ἡ γῆ μεγίστη καὶ ὑψηλὸς ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ταχὺς ὁ ἥλιος. 1 Esd 4:34 reads very similarly: μεγάλη ἡ γῆ, καὶ ὑψηλὸς ὁ οὐρανός, καὶ ταχὺς τῷ δρόμῳ ὁ ἥλιος (“The earth is vast, and heaven is high, and the sun is swift in its course”). The swiftness of the sun is connected in 1 Esdras with the fact that “it makes the circuit of the heavens and returns to its place in one day.” Greek κατὰ βούλησιν τοῦ θεοῦ. Josephus’ reference to the will of God here (not found in 1 Esdras) is reminiscent of what he says elsewhere about God’s providential oversight of the world (cf. Ant. 10.279–280, on which see notes in bjp 5). On the related theme of divine “providence” in Josephus, see Attridge 1976: 86–87. The speech in Josephus’ version does not seem to be strictly about truth as such, but rather the providence of God (cf. 1 Esd 4:36–40). On this passage, see further Bird 2012: 175–79.

Greek θνητὰ καὶ ὠκύμορα. See next note. Greek ἀθάνατον δὲ ἡ ἀλήθεια χρῆμα καὶ ἀίδιον. Josephus emphasizes the contrast been the short-lived nature of earthly things and the eternality of truth. 1 Esd 4:38 states: “But truth endures and is strong forever, and lives and prevails forever and ever” (ἡ δὲ ἀλήθεια μένει καὶ ἰσχύει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα καὶ ζῇ καὶ κρατεῖ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος). The fleeting nature of beauty is not referenced here in 1 Esdras. The vagaries of fortune (τύχη) are a common theme in Josephus (e.g., War 3.354; 4.622; 5.367), though not mentioned in 1 Esdras at this point. See further Klawans 2012: 46–47, 85–86, Cohen 1982: 371–75, and Spilsbury 2003. Greek τὰ δίκαια καὶ τὰ νόμιμα. The emphasis on just rules and customs is Josephus’ addition. Josephus makes only passing reference to the connection between truth and justice (or righteousness), though this is the main focus in 1 Esdras. See further the passage quoted in note to “succeed” at 11.55 above.

Josephus continues to closely paraphrase 1 Esdras, often using synonyms and different constructions to avoid direct quotation. Greek τὸ ἀληθὲς ἰσχὺν ἄτρεπτον καὶ ἀγήρω μόνον ἔχοι. 1 Esdras’ statement at 4:41 has taken on a proverbial quality: “Great is truth and strongest of all” (μεγάλη ἡ ἀλήθεια καὶ ὑπερισχύει). Zerubbabel is said to be wiser and more intelligent (σοφῷ καὶ … συνετῷ) than all the others, and the expression is repeated in the next paragraph. In 1 Esd 4:42 the king declares that Zerubbabel has “been found to be the wisest.” This declaration reveals the intent of the story, namely, to show how it was that Zerubbabel qualified himself to remind the king of his obligation to fulfill his vow to rebuild the temple.

So too, 1 Esd 4:43–44. Unlike 1 Esdras, though, Josephus has this vow in the introduction to his account of King Darius (cf. note to “vow” at 11.31 above), though it is not clear how Zerubbabel would have come to know about it. For the importance of these sacred vessels to Josephus, see note to “vessels” at 11.10 above. Greek σοφῷ καὶ συνετῷ. This sentence, including a second reference to Zerubbabel’s acumen, is Josephus’ addition. In 1 Esd 4:42 it is the king who refers to Zorobabel as the wisest (σοφώτερος) of the guards.

In this section, again, Josephus paraphrases 1 Esdras closely without often quoting from his source directly. Greek τοπάρχαι and σατράπαι. 1 Esd 4:47 has “treasurers [οἰκονόμους] and regional governors [τοπάρχας] and commanders [στρατηγοὺς] and satraps [σατράπας].” See note to “leaders” at 11.33 above. 1 Esd 4:47 has “Jerusalem.”

Greek συγκατασκευάζω. 1 Esd 4:48 has οἰκοδομέω. Thus Josephus summarizes 1 Esd 4:49: “He wrote on behalf of all the Judeans … in the interest of their freedom, that no officer or satrap or regional governor or treasurer should forcibly enter their doors.” See also 4:53.

Greek ἐπίτροπος. This was the standard equivalent to the familiar Latin term procurator—used of an official ranging from a minor steward to an imperial financial agent to a praesidial governor. See note at War 2.16 in bjp 1b. 1 Esd 4:50 refers only to Idumeans. Josephus supplies the Samaritans and “those from Coele-Syria.” 1 Esd 4:50 refers to these villages as belonging to the Judeans: “the villages of the Judeans that they held.” 1 Esd 4:51–52 has 20 talents a year until the temple was completed, plus an additional 10 talents a year for daily burnt offerings.

The reference to the sacrifices is Josephus’ addition. 1 Esdras does not specifically identify the high priest’s vestments. Rather, it refers to “the priests’ vestments in which they were to minister” (1 Esd 4:54). 1 Esdras does not specifically mention the Levites’ instruments (cf. 1 Esd 4:55).

Josephus elaborates the “land and wages” of 1 Esd 4:56. For the importance of these sacred vessels to Josephus, see note to “vessels” at 11.10 above. Greek ἀποκατάστασις. In Ant. 11.98 the term is used to refer to the rebuilding of the temple. See further Feldman 2001: 229–31. So too 1 Esd 4:57.

1 Esd 4:58 adds, “toward Jerusalem.” In 1 Esd 4:58 God is referred to as “the King of heaven” (τῷ βασιλεῖ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ). Thus Josephus summarizes the more poetic 1 Esd 4:59–60: “From you comes the victory; from you comes wisdom, and yours is the glory. I am your servant. Blessed are you, who have given me wisdom; I give you thanks, O Lord of our ancestors.”

This clause is Josephus’ addition. Greek ὁμόφυλος. 1 Esd 4:61 has ἀδελφός (“brother, kindred”). Greek εὐαγγελίζομαι (“to announce [good] news”). 1 Esd 4:61 has ἀπαγγέλλω (“to report”).

Greek πότον καὶ κώμους. 1 Esd 4:63 says they “feasted [ἐκωθωνίζοντο], with music and rejoicing” (μου-σικῶν καὶ χαρᾶς). The verb suggests drinking (cf. Esth 3:15), thus Bird (2012: 63) renders it, “they drank hard.” The reference to the “re-founding and rebirth of their native place” (ἀνάκτησιν καὶ παλιγγενεσίαν τῆς πατρίδος) is unique to Josephus here.

Josephus seems to give a different sense to the choosing that happens here. In 1 Esd 5:1 we read that the leaders of the ancestral tribes were chosen to go (along with their families, etc.). In Josephus, tribal leaders are chosen from among those who are going. Josephus uses a form of the verb συμπέμπω, here with the sense “to help in conducting.” 1 Esd 5:2 states that Darius sent 1,000 cavalry to take them back to Jerusalem. In the next sentence Josephus uses the similar verb προπέμπω, with the sense “conduct, escort, especially a departing traveler.” For this latter term, see also Ant. 11.59. 1 Esd 5:2 refers to the music of drums (τυμπάνων) and flutes (αὐλῶν), whereas Josephus refers to harps (ψαλλόμενοι), flutes (καταυλούμενοι), and cymbals (κυμβάλοις). See note to “conducting” in the previous sentence. 1 Esd 5:3 states that Darius “made them go up with them.” Greek μετὰ παιδιᾶς (“with childish play, sports, games, pastimes”). Marcus (1937) has “with merriment.” Josephus is paraphrasing παίζοντες in 1 Esd 5:3, “with merriment.”

In this section Josephus generally follows the categories of 1 Esd 5, though the totals differ. Similar lists occur in Ezra 2 and Neh 7. The table on this page sets out the various numbers as they occur in Josephus and the biblical sources. Most of the smaller discrepancies are probably related to textual transmission or harmonization. Thus Josephus omits the names given in 1 Esd 5:4–38. He makes a similar point at Ant. 11.152, and in other places omits biblical names without saying that he has done so (e.g., Ant. 11.134, 155, 190, 289).

Niese’s text is evidently corrupt at this point, reading μυριάδες τετρακόσιαι ἑξηκονταδύο καὶ ὀκτακισχίλιοι (“462 myriads and 8,000;” i.e., 4,628,000). The figure used in the present translation follows the amendment of Marcus (1937: 346) who inserts τέσσαρες (“four”) after μυριάδες on the example of lxx. The emended text still differs from 1 Esdras, Ezra and Nehemiah, all of which have 42,360. Josephus’ higher number is probably to be explained by the assumption that he included the priests in his total, though the sums still are not exact. Josephus moves the total number of those relocating from its position at the bottom of the biblical lists to the head of his own list. Greek σώματα (“bodies”). Josephus alone provides this number.

Ezra 2:60–62//1 Esd 5:37.

This figure is apparently Josephus’ contribution. In Ezra and 1 Esdras the focus is on the ancestry of the men, rather than that of their wives as here. Josephus seems to have conflated this incident with that of the intermarriage of priests in Ezra 9–10//1 Esd 8:65–9:36. Categories Antiquities 1 Esdras Ezra Nehemiah Total above twelve years of age 48,462† 42,360 42,360 42,360 Priests* 4,288 4,289 4,289 Levites 74 74 74 74 Women and Children 40,742 Levite singers 128 128 128 148 Gate keepers 110 139 139 138 Temple slaves 392 372 392 392 Israelites of questionable 652 652 652 652 ancestry Rejected priests 525 no number given no number given no number given Servants 7,337 7,337 7,337 7,337 Male and female harpists 245 245 200 245 Camels 435 435 435 435 Horses* 7,036 736 736 Mules* 245 245 245 Beasts of burden 5,525 5,525 [donkeys] 6,720 [donkeys] 6,720

* Not mentioned in Ant. † Emended text. See note in the next paragraph.

Greek ὑποζύγια. So too 1 Esdras, though Ezra and Nehemiah have 6,720 donkeys (mt ‪חמרים‬; 2 Esdras ὄνοι). Josephus omits the numbers associated with horses and mules in the biblical narratives.

Greek Σαλαθίηλος. mt שׁאלתיאל and ‪שׁלתיאל‬; lxx Σαλαθιηλ; Shealtiel. So too 1 Esd 5:5. Zerubbabel’s Davidic lineage, not mentioned by Ezra, is set out in 1 Chr 3:10–19. Greek Ἰησοῦς. mt ‪ישׁוע‬; lxx Ἰησοῦς; Jeshua (Joshua [יהושׁע] in Haggai and Zechariah). On Jeshua’s role in the biblical sources, see Eskenazi 1992. Greek Ἰωσέδεκος. mt ‪יוצדק‬; lxx Ιωσεδεκ; Jozadak, or Jehozadak (יהוצדק), the last officiating high priest before the exile (cf. 1 Chr 5:40 [6:15]; Ant. 10.150, 153; 20.231–234). Jeshua is frequently referred to as the son of Jozadak/Jehozadak in the biblical sources, though in Neh 10:9 a Jeshua is identified as the son of Azaniah. Williamson (1985: 33) refers to him as Jozadak’s grandson. Jeshua is not referred to as the high priest in Ezra-Nehemiah or 1 Esdras, though he is referred to as “the great priest” (הכהן הגדול) in Haggai (1:1, 12, 14; 2:2, 4) and Zechariah (3:1, 8; 6:11). Greek Μαρδοχαῖος. mt ‪מרדכי‬; lxx Μαρδοχαιος; Mordecai. Greek Σερεβαῖος. mt ‪שׂריה‬; lxx Ζαραιος; Seraiah. It is not clear why Josephus chooses just these two names out the list given in Ezra 2:2//1 Esd 5:8, other than that at Ezra 2:68//1 Esd 5:43 it states that “some” of the heads of the families made freewill offerings for the temple. No explicit link is made with the names given in the list. In a statement not found in the biblical sources Josephus indicates that these individuals were “separated” or “distinguished” (κεκριμένοι) from the crowd, but does not indicate the mechanism by which this happened. 1 Esd 5:44 has 1,000 minas of gold, 5,000 minas of silver, and 100 priestly vestments. So too Ezra 2:69, except that is has 61,000 darics (minas in 2 Esdras) of gold. In Neh 7:70–72 the gifts are more elaborate: 1,000 darics of gold, 50 basins, and 530 (30 in 2 Esdras) priestly robes from the governor; 20,000 darics of gold and 2,200 minas of silver from “some of the heads of the ancestral houses;” and 20,000 darics of gold, 2,000 minas of silver, and 67 priestly robes from “the rest of the people.”

Greek πατρίς. Josephus uses this significant term here for the Judeans’ homes in Babylonia, rather than for Judea or Jerusalem, as is his usual practice (e.g., Ant. 11.6, 12, 66, 165, 270). See also Ant. 11.133, where Josephus states that the majority of Judeans still, even in Roman times, live beyond the Euphrates.

Josephus continues his close paraphrase of 1 Esdras, still preferring for the most part to use vocabulary and syntactical constructions that differ only slightly from those of his source. Josephus adds the phrase “after their departure from Babylon,” thus interpreting an ambiguous reference to “the seventh month” in the biblical sources (Ezra 3:1//1 Esd 5:46). Williamson (1985: 29–30) has shown that Ezra 3:1, along with the preceding list in Ezra 2, was taken over from Neh 7, in which the reference to the seventh month makes more chronological sense. This phrase μηδὲν προθυμίας ἀπολιπόντες is Josephus’ addition to his source. Marcus (1937: 349 n. h) notes that it is reminiscent of Thucydides 8.22.1. Greek πανδημεί. For ὁμοθυμαδόν in 1 Esd 5:46. Josephus’ term is a favorite adverb of Herodotus (24 times), Thucydides (35 times), and, closer to Josephus’ time, especially Diodorus (75 times). Josephus has it otherwise at Ant. 6.377; 15.145; Life 290.

Greek κατασκευάζω. 1 Esd 5:47 has ἑτοιμάζω (“get ready, prepare”). 1 Esd 5:46 says that the people gathered “in the square before the first gate toward the east,” while 5:49 states, “And they erected the altar in its place.” Ezra 3:3 states: “They set up the altar on its foundation” (nrsv), or, as Williamson (1985: 40) translates על־מכונתיו, “on its original site” (cf. Ezra 2:68). Josephus would seem to be justified in emphasizing the concern for continuity between the first and second temples (Williamson 1985: 46). Marcus (1937: 349 n. i) notes that this phrase, οὐκ ἦσαν ἐν ἡδονῇ, is reminiscent of Thucydides 1.99.2, which refers to the Athenians’ making themselves offensive to their allies. Ezra 3:3 states that the Judeans were “in dread of the neighboring peoples.” 1 Esd 5:49 refers to the hostility of the surrounding peoples, but also to some of the “other peoples of the land” who joined them.

Greek σκηνοπηγία. So too 1 Esd 5:50 for the Hebrew חג־הסכות (Ezra 3:4). The “lawgiver” in question is, of course, Moses. 1 Esdras has the less personal, “as it is commanded in the law.” Greek οἱ ἐνδελεχισμοί. So too 1 Esd 5:51 for the Hebrew תמיד, the “regular” burnt offering (Ezra 3:5). 1 Esdras adds “and on new moons.” Ezra 3:5 has “the offerings at the new moon.” The reference to the new moon of the seventh month is taken from 1 Esd 5:52. Ezra 3:6 has “from the first day of the seventh month.”

This clause corresponds to the statements in the biblical sources to the effect that “the sanctuary was not yet built” (1 Esd 5:52) or “the foundation of the temple of the Lord was not yet laid” (Ezra 3:6). Ezra 3:7 and 1 Esd 5:53 add “and Tyrians.” The biblical sources say nothing about things being “pleasant and easy” for the workers. Josephus’ statement is perhaps an interpretation of the difficult χαρρα (“carts”) in 1 Esd 5:53 (Codex Alexandrinus), reading χαρα (“joy”) instead. So too Codex Vaticanus (cf. Bird 2012: 207–8). Ezra 3:7 has “So they gave … food, drink, and oil to the Sidonians and Tyrians.” So too 1 Esd 5:53. The biblical description of the transportation of building materials is a conscious allusion to the preparations for the first temple (cf. 1 Chr 22:2–4; 2 Chr 2:7–15 [8–16]). Thus Josephus clarifies the otherwise difficult chronological notice in 1 Esd 5:53.

For Josephus, this is also the second year of Darius’ reign (cf. Ant. 11.30). 1 Esd 5:54 (following Ezra 3:8) has “In the second year after their coming to the temple of God in Jerusalem.” In Ant. 11.19 Josephus indicates that the work of construction was begun in the time of Cyrus, but at 11.30 that it was halted (for a period of nine years) by Cambyses. However, when Josephus describes the duration of the building of the temple in 11.106–107 he takes the second year of Darius as the starting point of the construction, thus perhaps implying that negligible progress was made in the earlier period. On the complex chronological problems related to the building of the temple in the Book of Ezra, see Blenkinsopp 1988: 102–4. So 1 Esd 5:55. Ezra 3:8 does not mention the day on which construction began. Greek Ζοδμοῆλος. mt ‪קדמיאל‬; lxx Καδμιηλ; Kadmiel. The biblical texts are confusing at this point. Ezra 3:9 has קדמיאל ובניו בני־יהודה (“Kadmiel and his sons, sons of Judah”), which 2 Esd 3:9 renders literally (Καδμιηλ καὶ οἱ υἱοὶ αὐτοῦ υἱοὶ Ιουδα), but which is evidently a corruption of “Kadmiel and his sons, Binnui and Hodaviah” (cf. Ezra 2:40). The names in 1 Esd 5:56 are apparently an attempt to make sense of a complex text. Josephus draws Ἰούδα from Ιωδα and Ἀμιναδάβος from Ημαδαβουν.

This sentence corresponds to the statement in 1 Esd 5:56 to the effect that the workers were “pressing forward the work on the house of God with a single purpose.” The notion that the work was completed sooner than expected is Josephus’ addition. Josephus’ reference to the completion of the temple here is somewhat surprising because the biblical sources refer only to the completion of the foundation at this point. Since Josephus himself will describe the completion of the temple later (11.106–108; cf. Ezra 6:13; 1 Esd 7), he is either confused or writing in a misleading way. This difficulty runs all the way through the present episode, so that the people lament the completion of an inferior sanctuary, while in the biblical accounts the disappointment is provoked by the foundations, which allow the Judeans to anticipate how small the completed structure will be. We may assume that Josephus took his lead from a statement such as the one in 1 Esd 5:62 in which all the people praise the Lord “for the erection of the house of the Lord.” A close paraphrase of 1 Esd 5:57//Ezra 3:10. Josephus omits the hymn of praise that follows.

Josephus greatly embellishes the emotional state of those who are disappointed with the new temple (cf. Ezra 3:12//1 Esd 5:60).

This elaborate sentence corresponds to the biblical statement: “…while many came with trumpets and joyful noise” (1 Esd 5:61).

So 1 Esd 5:62. Ezra 3:13 states that the people could not distinguish the sad sounds from the happy.

In keeping with his practice throughout his account of the return from exile, Josephus identifies the biblical “adversaries of Judah and Benjamin” (Ezra 4:1//1 Esd 5:63) as the Samaritans. Later in the biblical narratives (Ezra 4:4//1 Esd 5:69) the Judeans’ adversaries are referred to as the people(s) of the land (‪עמ־הארץ‬; τὰ ἔθνη τῆς γῆς). Greek ἀπεχθάνομαι. The hatred of the Samaritans is a common theme for Josephus (e.g., Ant. 11.88, 97, 114). See note to “Chutheans” at 11.19 above. It is interesting to note here that Josephus implicitly identifies the Ἰουδαῖοι (Jews/Judeans) with “the tribes of Judah and Benjamin” (τε Ἰούδα φυλῇ καὶ τῇ Βενιαμίτιδι). Compare Ezra 4:1//1 Esd 5:63. On the translation of the key term Ἰουδαῖοι, see note to “designation” at 11.173 below.

In 1 Esd 5:66 the claim is that they obey (ἀκούομεν) the Lord “just as you do.” Josephus uses the phrase σεβόμεθα … τὸν θεόν. Greek τῆς θρησκείας ἐσμὲν ἐπιθυμηταὶ. 1 Esd 5:66 has αὐτῷ ἐπιθύομεν (“we sacrifice to him”). Ezra 4:2 states, “We seek your God [נדרושׁ] and have been sacrificing to him [זבחים].” Ezra 4:2 has Esarhaddon (‪אסר חדן‬; 1 Esdras Ασβασαρεθ; 2 Esdras Ασαραδδων); i.e., the son of the Assyrian king Sennacherib, who ruled c. 681–669 bce. Josephus, however, who identified the Samaritans with the Chutheans who were resettled by the earlier Assyrian king Shalmaneser V (2 Kgs 17:1–18:12), simply replaces Esarhaddon with the earlier king at this point. See note to “Salmanassar” at 11.19 above. See note to “Chuthea” at 11.19 above. See note to “homeless” at 11.19 above.

Josephus implies that the refusal of the Samaritans’ offer to participate was based on the restrictiveness of imperial legislation, rather than the Judeans’ own preferences. Ezra 4:3 states: “You shall have no part with us in building a house to our God; but we alone will build to the Lord, the God of Israel, as King Cyrus of Persia commanded us.” Similarly, 1 Esd 5:67 dismisses the offer with the statement: Οὐχ ὑμῖν καὶ ἡμῖν τοῦ οἰκοδομῆσαι τὸν οἶκον κυρίῳ τῷ θεῷ ἡμῶν. Josephus himself adds Darius to take into account his rearrangement of the narrative. That 1 Esdras does not have something similar at this point is indicative of the chronological confusion of its account.

In Life 348 Josephus refers to the temple as “the common temple of all.” In War 4.311 the defenders of the temple beg the Idumeans “to have regard for their common temple” (τοῦ κοινοῦ ἱεροῦ). Elsewhere in War, Josephus traces the destruction of Jerusalem to the rejection of gifts and sacrifices, including the “sacrifice of Caesar,” from foreigners (2.409). On this theme see next note. This concession is Josephus’ addition to the text in keeping with what he says elsewhere about the inclusiveness of the Jewish temple. For example, in Solomon’s dedication of the temple (Ant. 8.116), he prays: “I do not, however, ask for this help from you for the Hebrews alone when they go astray. Rather, even if some should come from the ends of the world and from any country and turn to God in prayer and earnestly beseech that they obtain some good, be attentive and give [this] to them. For thus all will learn that it was by your wish that this house was built by us for you and that we are not inhumane by nature nor ill-disposed to those who are not compatriots. Rather, we wish that your help and the benefit of good things be common to all” (cf. 1 Kgs 8:41–43a//2 Chr 6:32– 33a). Josephus strikes a similar note of openness at Ant. 8.108, where Solomon describes God as one who, though dwelling in the temple, is near to everyone.

Josephus, who has been following the narrative outline of 1 Esdras closely up to this point, omits the first two verses of chapter 6, which introduce the ministries of the prophets Haggai and Zechariah (cf. Ezra 5:1–2). Josephus introduces the prophets at a slightly later stage (Ant. 11.96) in his narrative. See note to “Chutheans” at 11.19 above. 1 Esdras does not explicitly say that the Judeans’ adversaries enlisted the help of the Syrians at this point. Rather, it states: “But the peoples of the land pressed hard upon those in Judea, cut off their supplies, and hindered their building; and by plots and demagoguery and uprisings they prevented the completion of the building” (1 Esd 5:69–70). The Book of Ezra, however, comes closer to such a statement when it refers to the adversaries bribing officials to frustrate the building plans (Ezra 4:5). Josephus has referred to these bribes in Ant. 11.19. With this statement Josephus amends the anachronistic statement in 1 Esd 5:70–71 to the effect that “they prevented the completion of the building as long as King Cyrus lived. They were kept from building for two years, until the reign of Darius.” Josephus inserts Cambyses into the narrative at 11.21–30 instead of the anachronistic Artaxerxes of 1 Esdras. Josephus also insists, with this statement, that it was the same group of adversaries, the Samaritans, who hindered the Judeans throughout this period.

Greek Σισίνης. See note to “Sisines” at 11.12 above. Greek ἔπαρχος. So too 1 Esd 6:3 and 2 Esd 5:3. Josephus uses this title to designate regional Persian high officials or governors (Ant. 11.101, 104, 115, 117, 118, 138, 167, 168). Although the term is used of Zerubbabel in 1 Esdras (6:26, 28; cf. 6:17), Josephus prefers ἄρχων or ἡγεμών for the leader of the Judeans. See note to “governor” at 11.13 above. Greek Σαρωβαζάνης. See note to “Sarabasanes” at 11.12 above. The comparison with a fort is Josephus’ (cf. Ant. 11.97). In 1 Esd 6:8 the description of the strength of the construction (“a great new house for the Lord, of hewn stone, with costly timber laid in the walls”) comes in the officials’ subsequent letter to Darius. The biblical sources do not refer to the city walls at this point. Rather, the officials ask about the identity of the builders: “And who are the builders that are finishing these things?” (1 Esd 6:4; cf. Ezra 5:4).

The Judeans’ response is not related at this point in the biblical narrative. Rather, it is reported a little later in the officials’ letter to Darius (Ezra 5:11–16//1 Esd 6:12–19). Greek δούλους ... εἶναι τοῦ μεγίστου θεοῦ. 1 Esd 6:12 has “We are the servants [παῖδες] of the Lord who created the heaven and the earth” while Ezra 5:11 has “We are the servants [עבדוהי] of the God of heaven and earth.” On the description of God as μέγιστος, see note to “God” at 11.3 above. I.e., Solomon. The terms used to describe Solomon here are reminiscent of Josephus’ description of him elsewhere. In Ant. 8.211 Josephus describes him as a man who “surpassed all other kings in good fortune, wealth, and wisdom” (cf. Ant. 8.24, 42–49). Josephus’ description of Solomon in the present context embellishes the description of him in 1 Esd 6:13 as “great and strong” (cf. Ezra 5:11 “a great king of Israel”). On Josephus’ portrayal of Solomon, see Feldman 1995, 1998a, and Spilsbury 1998: 179–81. Greek ἀρετή. Josephus makes a great deal of the “virtue” of the Jewish protagonists in general, and of their possession of specific cardinal virtues in particular, especially wisdom (σοφία), courage (ἀνδρεία), temperance (σωφροσύνη), and justice (δικαιοσύνη), in addition to what for Josephus is the most important virtue of all, namely piety (εὐσέβεια). See also Apion 2.146, 170 and Feldman 1998a, 1998b.

Greek ἀσεβέω. For παραπικράναντες ἥμαρτον (“provocatively sinned”) in 1 Esd 6:14. See Bird 2012: 77. See also 1 Esd 1:47, Jdt 7:28, 8:19, 25, and Bar 3:8. Josephus routinely identifies impiety as the cause of national disaster (e.g., War 5.391–414), a point that fits neatly into his philosophy of history stated at the beginning of the Antiquities, namely, “that those who comply with the will of God and do not venture to transgress laws that have been well enacted succeed in all things beyond belief and that happiness lies before them as a reward from God. But to the extent that they dissociate themselves from the scrupulous observance of these laws the practicable things become impracticable, and whatever seemingly good thing they pursue with zeal turns into irremediable misfortunes” (1.14). Greek μετοικίζω. On Josephus’ terminology for deportation and exile, see note to “migrated” at 11.1 above. Compare 2 Chr 36:15–20.

Josephus probably does not mean to imply that Cyrus’ reign immediately followed that of Nebuchadnezzar. Ezra 5:13 and 1 Esd 6:16 simply refer to the first year of Cyrus’ reign. Greek ἀναθήματα. See also Herodotus 1.14.1. 1 Esd 6:17 refers to “holy vessels of gold and silver” at this point (cf. Ezra 5:14). For the importance of these sacred vessels to Josephus, see note to “vessels” at 11.10 above. There is some confusion over the names of the officials involved. The table at the foot of the previous page sets out the names of the Judean officials as they appear first in the earlier part of the narrative and then in the present context. See note to Sabaser in next paragraph. Ezra 1 Ezra 5 1 Esdras 2 1 Esdras 6 Ant. 11.11 Ant. 11.13 Ant. 11.92–3 Mithredath Mithridates Mithridates Mithridates Mithridates Sheshbazzar Sheshbazzar Sanabassaros Sanabassar Abassar Sabaser Zorobabel Zorobabel Zorobabel

Greek Σαβάσηρος (Variants: L reads Σαναβάσαρος; AE read Σαβανάσαρος; V reads Αβάσαρος). See also Ἀβέσσαρος at 11.11 above. Either Josephus himself or his copyists have introduced a great deal of confusion with the names of the officials involved in these transactions. “Sabaser” would appear to be a version of the name “Abassar,” which Josephus used at Ant. 11.11 for the biblical “Sheshbazzar.” However, in 11.13 Josephus seems to have replaced the biblical Sheshbazzar with Zerubbabel. In the present context Josephus reintroduces the Sheshbazzar figure without omitting Zerubbabel, thus leaving himself with an extra person in the narrative. A comparison with Ezra and 1 Esdras on this matter suggests still further confusion. The problem may stem from copyists trying to harmonize Josephus’ version with the different accounts in Ezra and 1 Esdras. Josephus adds the reference to the malevolence (κακοήθεια) of enemies at this point. Compare Ezra 5:16//1 Esd 6:19.

Quotation marks are necessitated here by the switch to the second-person. In the biblical sources it is the officials who suggest in their letter to the king that Darius make a search in the royal archives concerning the truth of the Judeans’ account. Compare Ezra 5:17//1 Esd 6:20.

Greek Σισίννης. See note to “Sisines” at 11.12 above. Compare Ezra 5:5//1 Esd 6:5–6.

The Judeans’ fear is Josephus’ addition for dramatic effect. Greek Ἀγγαῖος. mt ‪חגי‬; lxx Αγγαιος; Haggai. Greek Ζαχαρίας. mt ‪זכריה‬; lxx Ζαχαριας; Zechariah. Josephus introduces Haggai and Zechariah slightly later than in the biblical narratives. Compare Ezra 5:1– 2//1 Esd 6:1–2. Marcus (1937: 360–61 n. c) notes that 1 Esdras and Ezra state only that the two prophets prophesied in the name of the Lord (Ezra 5:1–2//1 Esd 6:1–2), and suggests that Josephus’ reference to the content of their message is based on a reading of the eponymous prophetic books themselves. Josephus himself adds the effect of the prophets’ message on the Judeans. See previous note.

The biblical sources make no reference at all to a Samaritan letter at this point. Josephus may have justified its inclusion here on the basis of Ezra 4:6, which refers to a letter of “accusation” (שׂטנה) from the “people of land” to King Ahasuerus. Josephus repeats this description of the temple from Ant. 11.89 above. This phrase is Josephus’ addition on the basis of 1 Esd 2:18//Ezra 4:16 (cf. Ant. 11.25). Compare Ant. 11.26–28. In his earlier narrative Josephus refers to only one letter from Cambyses.

Greek Σισίννης. See note to “Sisines” at 11.12 above. See note to “resettlement” at 11.63 above.

Some of Josephus’ phrasing in this clause is identical to that of 1 Esd 6:22: καὶ εὑρέθη ἐν Ἐκβατάνοις τῇ βάρει τῇ ἐν Μηδίᾳ. Compare Ezra 6:3–5//1 Esd 6:23–33. Josephus has already given a version of this document in Ant. 11.12–17. In the present version he stays closer to his biblical text (apparently 1 Esdras here). Nevertheless, he once again combines the two documents of his source (one by Cyrus and one by Darius). See note to “letter” at 11.12 above. The altar is not specifically mentioned in the biblical narratives. See note to “altar” at 11.13 above. The text preferred by Niese here (βία τε ξεστῶν) is evidently corrupt. I have adopted the reading of the editio princeps, followed by Marcus (1937: 362). See next note. Josephus’ Greek here—διὰ δόμων λιθίνων [εὐξεστῶν] τριῶν καὶ ξυλίνου δόμου ἑνὸς ἐγχωρίου—is close to that of 1 Esd 6:24: διὰ δόμων λιθίνων ξυστῶν [2 Esd 6:4 has κραταιοί (“mighty”)] τριῶν καὶ δόμου ξυλίνου ἐγχωρίου καινοῦ ἑνός (“with three courses of hewn stone and one course of new native timber”). Josephus’ wording is slightly different at Ant. 11.13.

For the importance of these sacred vessels to Josephus, see note to “vessels” at 11.10 above. Josephus stays closer to the biblical sources here than he did in Ant. 11.14, in which the vessels are entrusted to Mithredath and Zerubbabel.

As with the version of the document given at Ant. 11.12–17, Josephus here includes in Cyrus’ edict what, in the biblical sources, is the beginning of Darius’ response to it. See note to “greeting” at 11.12 above. Greek Ἀναβάσσαρος. In the biblical texts the individual addressed at this point (though by Darius, not Cyrus; cf. previous note) is Tattenai/Sisinnes (Ezra 6:6//1 Esd 6:26). However, Josephus’ conflation of the two biblical edicts leaves him with a chronological dilemma: In his first version of the edict in Ant. 11.12–17, Josephus had Cyrus address Sisines and Sarabasanes. However, in the present context Josephus follows the biblical narrative in having officials write a letter asking for advice from Darius. The obvious ramification of this for Josephus is that he cannot now have these two also mentioned in Cyrus’ letter. Thus, he omits the names of Sisines and Sarabasanes and simply invents the name of an official to whom Cyrus ostensibly entrusted the task. Josephus’ copyists apparently found his narrative confusing, as is evidenced by the many variants for the name of Anabassar, and the apparent attempts in some cases to identify this individual with the biblical Sheshbazzar (Josephus’ Abessar; cf. Ant. 11.11). In stating that the imperial officials should keep away from the place (ἀφέξονται τοῦ τόπου), Josephus is following 1 Esd 6:26. Greek τοῖς ... δούλοις τοῦ θεοῦ. In 1 Esd 6:26 Zerubbabel is specifically referred to as “the servant of the Lord” (τὸν παῖδα τοῦ κυρίου). Josephus was apparently reluctant to include Zerubbabel in Cyrus’ edict on this occasion even though he had previously done so without biblical warrant at Ant. 11.13 and 14.

Josephus’ phrasing (ὅσα ἂν οἱ ἱερεῖς ὑπαγορεύσωσιν) is once again very similar to that of 1 Esd 6:29 (καθὼς ἂν οἱ ἱερεῖς οἱ ἐν Ιερουσαλημ ὑπαγορεύσωσιν). In Ant. 11.17 Josephus refers to the laws of Moses rather than to the priests. In Ant. 11.17 Josephus was closer to the biblical sources in specifying that the prayers were to be for “the well being both of the king and his family.” Compare Ezra 6:10//1 Esd 6:30.

Greek παραβαίνω. See note to “rejected” at 11.17 above. Greek ἀνασταυρόω. See note to “crucified” at 11.17 above. Greek εἰς τὴν βασιλικὴν καταταγῆναι κτῆσιν. See note to “property” at 11.17 above. Josephus did not include this final prayer in his first version of the decree. Josephus’ phrase “should attempt to hinder” (ἐπιχειρήσειε διακωλῦσαι) is an echo of 1 Esd 6:32: “shall stretch out their hand to hinder” (ἐκτενεῖ τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ κωλῦσαι).

Greek Σισίννης. See note to “Sisines” at 11.12 above. Greek Σισίννης. See note to “Sisines” at 11.12 above. Greek Σαραβαζάνης. See note to “Sarabasanes” at 11.12 above. The wording of this letter is a creative invention of Josephus (but see 1 Esd 6:33//Ezra 6:12) following from his incorporation of the biblical version into the decree of Cyrus. See note to “letter” at 11.12 above.

Greek Σισίννης. See note to “Sisines” at 11.12 above. Greek ἐπεστάτουν οὖν τῶν ἱερῶν ἔργων. The same wording, except for οὖν, appears in 1 Esd 7:2. Greek τῶν γερόντων ἄρχουσιν (literally, “the governors of the elders”). However, since Josephus uses two synonyms for “elders” in this sentence (οἱ πρεσβύτεροι and οἱ γέροντες), “council” was used for the second term on the basis of the related term γερουσία. The expression τῶν γερόντων ἄρχουσιν is also reminiscent of the term γερουσιάρχης, found in inscriptions in Diaspora contexts and referring, apparently, to some kind of synagogue official (cf. Schürer 1973–87: 3.98). The word used in 1 Esdras at this point, ἱεροστάται (“governors of the temple”) is a hapax in lxx.

Josephus omits the anachronistic reference to Artaxerxes in Ezra 6:14//1 Esd 7:5. According to Josephus’ chronology the temple construction was (re)started in the second year of King Darius (Ant. 11.30, 79; cf. 1 Esd 5:54). He also states, in Ant. 11.107, that the temple was completed in Darius’ ninth year. Thus the temple took seven years to complete. Apion 1.154 mistakenly states that the temple was completed in the second year of Darius.

Ezra 6:15//1 Esd 7:5 have “in the sixth year.” So 1 Esd 7:5. Ezra 6:15 has “third.” Josephus provides the information that Adar is the twelfth month. Josephus provides the correspondence of Adar and Dystros as at Ant. 4.327 and 12.412. Josephus regularly provides the Macedonian names of the months he refers to (e.g., Ant. 1.80; 2.311; 3.201, 239; 4.84, 327; 8.61, 100). On Josephus’ use of the Macedonian calendar, see Schürer 1973–87: 1.596–99. The artful adjective ἀνανεωτικός, which appears only here in Josephus, is unattested before his time and not found again until the fifth century ce. The cognate verb ἀνανεόω (“to restore, renew”) is much more common, particularly in Thucydides, Polybius, and the Hellenistic historians Diodorus and Dionysius. Later in the same sentence Josephus uses the synonym ἀνακαινίζω (“renew”). 1 Esd 7:7 uses the similar term ἐγκαινισμός (“consecration, dedication”). Josephus’ description of the celebration is slightly closer to the Book of Ezra than to 1 Esdras at this point (cf. Ezra 6:16–17). Compare Ezra 6:17//1 Esd 7:7–8.

1 Esd 7:9 refers to “the Book of Moses.” Josephus omits the earlier reference to Moses at 1 Esd 7:6, as does the Book of Ezra. The reference to gatekeepers (θυρωροί) reflects 1 Esd 7:9 rather than Ezra 6:18. The reference to porticoes around the sanctuary is Josephus’ addition based, presumably, on his knowledge of the temple in his own day.

Josephus seems to give prominence to the Festival of Unleavened Bread, with the Passover featuring as one aspect of the proceedings. In the biblical narratives the Passover is given preeminence (Ezra 6:19–22//1 Esd 7:10–15). On this matter, see further Colautti 2002. Josephus equates Nisan with Xanthicus also at Ant. 1.81; 2.311; 3.201 and 248. See note to “Macedonians” at 11.107 above. The picture of the villagers streaming to the city is Josephus’ colorful addition. Josephus adds the reference to the wives and the ancestral law. However, he omits the biblical description of those who participate as those who “had separated themselves from the abominations of the peoples of the land” (Ezra 6:21//1 Esd 7:13).

The references to the various sacrifices and to the extravagance of the celebrations are Josephus’ additions. The close association between the ancestral land and it laws, literally, “the ancestral land and the laws in it,” is Josephus’ addition to the narrative. The biblical basis for this theme is seen in passages like Lev 19:29, Num 29–34, Deut 21:6–9, 22–23, and 24:1–4. On the connection between the Torah and “the Land” in ancient Judaism, see Davies 1982. Josephus replaces the difficult reference to the Assyrian king in the biblical sources at this point (Ezra 6:22//1 Esd 7:15).

This paragraph and the next are Josephus’ editorial additions to the biblical narrative. Greek πολιτείᾳ … ἀριστοκρατικῇ μετὰ ὀλιγαρχίας. Josephus shows an interest in constitutional questions throughout his writings and reflects a knowledge of discussion by other authors, whether directly or indirectly. For example, in Herodotus (3.80–82) the three main types of government are identified as monarchy (μοναρχία), rule of the multitude (πλῆθος or δῆμος), and oligarchy (ὀλιγαρχία) (cf. Plato, Resp. 543a–576d; Aristotle, Pol. 1289a–1323b; Polybius 6.3.1–6.9.14). It is worth noting that in Herodotus as well, “oligarchy” and rule by “the best men” (οἱ ἄριστοι) are closely aligned. Josephus lists the three types of government again in Apion 2.164 as rule by one (μοναρχία), a few (δυναστεία ὀλίγων), and the masses (τὰ πλήθη). In another passage (Ant. 4.223), Josephus has Moses state: “Aristocracy [ἀριστοκρατία], and the way of living under it, is the best constitution: and may you never have any inclination to any other form of government; and may you always love that form, and have the laws for your governors, and govern all your actions according to them; for you need no supreme governor but God.” Further, in Apion Josephus coins the term “theocracy” (θεοκρατία) for the rule of God, a notion that Barclay argues applies to God’s providential rule of the universe in metaphysical terms, rather than to human polity as such (cf. note to “theocracy” at Apion 2.165 in bjp 10). On Josephus’ presentation of the various forms of government throughout Jewish history, see further Spilsbury 1996: 362–66, 1998b: 161–70, and Mason 2000; 2012. Greek πολιτεία. This is the term Josephus uses to refer to the Jews’ “constitution” or “way of life” as encoded in the Torah. For a discussion of the complexities of translating this term, see Ritter 2015: 92 and note to “constitution” at 11.140 below. With this statement Josephus identifies the essence of the kind of constitution he is talking about, though he is not always consistent in how he applies constitutional terms. In the present instance he associates an “aristocratic-cum-oligarchic” constitution with rule by the priests (cf. Ant. 20.251). Earlier in his biblical history Josephus applies the term “aristocracy” in a number of different ways. For example, in Ant. 4.223 aristocracy is associated with the rule of law—and specifically Moses’ law—while in Ant. 20.229 aristocracy is associated with the rule of Moses and, presumably, Joshua (cf. Ant. 11.112). In Ant. 6.84 Josephus uses the verb ἀριστοκρατέομαι (“live under an aristocratic form of government”) for life during the time of Moses and Joshua. However, in this context he extends the designation of “aristocracy” to the rule of the Judges, arguing that in this period, after a time of anarchy (ἀναρχία), authority was entrusted “to the one who seemed the best [ἄριστος] in warfare and courage” (Ant. 6.85). It should be noted, further, that for Josephus a key element of aristocratic government was the presence of a council of elders (γερουσία) as ordained by the laws (e.g., Ant. 5.135), a point which ties in with his use of the designation “aristocratic-cum-oligarchic” in the present passage, and perhaps also helps to explain why, in Ant. 20.234, he refers to the constitution of this period as “democratic” (δημοκρατικῶς). I.e., the Hasmoneans, whose dynasty extended from 152 to 37 bce, after which they were displaced by Herod the Great. Josephus treats this period in War 1.48– 357//Ant. 13.1–15.13. Josephus viewed the rule of kings as a decline from the ideal in which the priestly class governed the people. Greek βασιλεύω. On the significance of this designation, see note to “kings” in the next paragraph.

In Ant. 10.143 the period of the Davidic kings is said to have lasted 514 years, 6 months and 10 days (a discrepancy of 18 years). Marcus (1937: 368–69 n. b) notes that by including the 20-year reign of Saul in the calculation we may reduce the discrepancy to only 2 years. Things become more complicated, though, when we note that in Ant. 6.378 Saul’s reign is set at 40 years, not 20. Further, Marcus (1937: 236–37 n. b) has noted that the sum of years that Josephus ascribes to the Davidic kings collectively amounts to 507 years 6 months and 20 days. Josephus was most likely aware of the commonplace ancient notion of a cyclical rotation of political constitutions. For example, in Polybius the forms of government that rotate through history are: monarchy, kingship, tyranny, aristocracy, oligarchy, democracy, mob rule, monarchy, and so on down through the ages (6.3.1–6.9.14). In Ant. 20.229–234 Josephus indicates that the first and best Israelite constitution (under Moses and Joshua) was an aristocracy. This was followed by monarchic government, the rule of kings, and, after the exile, democracy. The Hasmonean period referenced in the present passage was a return to the rule of kings. It is unlikely, though, that Josephus held to a cyclical scheme as such. For a discussion of Josephus’ treatment of the progress of political constitutions, see Spilsbury 1998b: 161–70. This fits generally with the chronology given in Ant. 7.68, where Josephus indicates that the period from conquest till the founding of the city of David was 515 years. The same would seem to apply for Ant. 8.61, where the (longer) period from the Exodus till the building of the temple is set at 592 years, though that period is given as 612 years in Ant. 20.230 and Apion 2.19. I.e., Joshua.

This whole section (Ant. 11.114–119) is additional to the biblical narrative. In it Josephus returns to the theme of the opposition of the Samaritans. His narrative is loosely based on biblical materials he has used already (e.g., 1 Esd 2:12–18; 5:69–71). Greek Σαμαρεῖς. Josephus alternates between the term “Samaritans” (Σαμαρεῖται) and, as here, “Samarians.” Modern scholars often distinguish between the gentile population of Samaria (the Samarians), and the Israelite population of the north, from which the Samaritans later developed (e.g., Dexinger 1981: 92). Josephus, however, makes no such distinction, as can be seen from a survey of the ways he uses the terms throughout Book 11 (Samarians: 11.114, 117, 302, 341; Samaritans: 11.61, 84, 88, 97, 116, 118). Most telling of all is Ant. 11.302 in which Sanaballet is referred to as a Chuthean and a Samarian (cf. Ant. 11.84–85, 88). Greek ἀπεχθῶς πρὸς αὐτοὺς καὶ βασκάνως. The hatred of the Samaritans is a common theme for Josephus (e.g., Ant. 11.84, 88, 97). The foreign origin of the Samaritans is a key aspect of Josephus’ portrayal of them. See notes to “Chutheans” and “homeless” at 11.19 above.

This delegation to the king is not found in the biblical sources.

This letter is Josephus’ invention based on earlier correspondence from Darius (cf. Ezra 6:3–12; 1 Esd 6:27–30).

Josephus corrects the biblical chronology in which Artaxerxes follows Darius (Ezra 7:1//1 Esd 8:1). Feldman (2001: 224) speculates that Josephus may have acquired his knowledge of the Persian kings from Herodotus. For a discussion of the complex historical issues related to Ezra’s arrival in Jerusalem, see Williamson 1985: xxxix–xliv. Williamson’s view is that Ezra came to Jerusalem in the seventh year of Artaxerxes I (458 bce). Greek τὴν πρὸς τὸν θεὸν εὐσέβειάν τε καὶ τιμήν. This characterization of the king is Josephus’ addition. Greek πρὸς τοὺς Ἰουδαίους ἔσχεν φιλοτιμότατα. This characterization of the king is Josephus’ addition.

Greek Ἰωάκειμος. mt ‪יויקם‬; lxx Ιωακιμ; Joiakim (cf. Neh 12:10). This priest is not mentioned again until his death at Ant. 11.158. Greek δίκαιος ἀνὴρ καὶ δόξης ἀπολαύων ἀγαθῆς παρὰ τῷ πλήθει. This reference to Ezra’s reputation is Josephus’ addition in keeping with his tendency to emphasize the virtues of his major characters. See note to “virtue” at 11.90 above. Greek πρῶτος ἱερεὺς τοῦ λαοῦ. Variant: P, followed by Niese, reads τοῦ θεοῦ for τοῦ λαοῦ. The reading followed here and by Marcus (1937: 372) is supported by FLAVWE and the Latin (populi). The expression “first priest” is derived from 1 Esd 8:2, where it refers not to Ezra but to his distant ancestor Aaron (cf. Ezra 7:5: ‪הכהן הראשׁ‬). 1 Esd 9:39–40 refers to Ezra as “high priest” (ἀρχιερεύς). Josephus nowhere refers to Ezra as high priest, but at Ant. 11.123 and 127 (following 1 Esd 8:8, 9, 19, and 9:42), he has King Xerxes refer to Ezra as “priest and reader of the laws of God.” At Ant. 11.136 Josephus states that Ezra was of the priestly line and, in the next paragraph (11.137), has Ezra fulfilling priestly functions. On Ezra’s priestly status in the Book of Ezra, see Williamson 1985: 91–92. Greek Ἔζδρας (Variants: PE read Ἔζρας; FLAVW read Ἔσδρας; Lat reads Esdras). mt ‪עזרא‬; lxx Εσδρας; Ezra. Greek ἱκανῶς ἔμπειρος (cf. 1 Esd 8:7). 1 Esd 8:3 refers to Ezra as “a scribe skilled [γραμματεὺς εὐφυὴς] in the law of Moses” (cf. Ezra 7:6, 11, 12, 21). Josephus, however, never refers to Ezra as a scribe. Greek φίλος. 1 Esd 8:4 states that “the king showed him honor, for he found favor before the king in all his requests.” Ezra 7:6 states: “[A]nd the king granted him all that he asked, for the hand of the Lord his God was upon him.”

This whole sentence, explaining how Ezra came to receive a letter from the king, is Josephus’ addition to the narrative. It is based, perhaps, on the reference in the biblical accounts to the claim that Ezra received whatever he asked for from the king (Ezra 7:6//1 Esd 8:4). In the process of including this additional material Josephus omits the biblical narratives’ first reference to those who traveled with Ezra (Ezra 7:7–10//1 Esd 8:5–7).

The letter that follows is a very close paraphrase of 1 Esd 8:9–24, with numerous instances of verbatim quotation on Josephus’ part. In some instances, Josephus simply rearranges the order of the words in 1 Esdras. The letter in the biblical sources is addressed to Ezra rather than to the satraps. Greek βασιλεὺς βασιλέων. Josephus adds the king’s lofty title. On the use of the title by Persians, Parthians, Romans and others, see Griffiths 1953. Greek Ἔζδρᾳ ἱερεῖ καὶ ἀναγνώστῃ τῶν τοῦ θεοῦ νόμων χαίρειν. This line is very similar to 1 Esd 8:9. Greek φιλανθρωπία. The term is derived form 1 Esd 8:10, where the king also claims to be acting according to this virtue (φιλάνθρωπα). Josephus’ diction in this sentence is very close to that of 1 Esd 8:10.

1 Esd 8:11 has “the seven friends who are my councilors.” I.e., the Judeans. Josephus’ diction in this sentence is very close to that of 1 Esd 8:12–13.

421 Compare Ezra 7:15//1 Esd 8:14–15. Compare Ezra 7:18//1 Esd 8:16.

Greek τὰ … ἱερὰ σκεύη. For the importance of these sacred vessels to Josephus, see note to “vessels” at 11.10 above. Compare Ezra 7:19//1 Esd 8:17. Compare Ezra 7:20//1 Esd 8:18.

Compare Ezra 7:21//1 Esd 8:19. Compare Ezra 7:23/1 Esd 8:21. Compare Ezra 7:22//1 Esd 8:20. Josephus omits several of the king’s further provisions at this point: 100 talents of silver, 100 baths of wine and large quantities of salt.

Compare Ezra 7:24//1 Esd 8:22.

Compare Ezra 7:25//1 Esd 8:23.

Compare 1 Esd 8:24. The punishment options are more elaborate in Ezra 7:26.

After the closely paraphrased version of the king’s letter, this next section is a very brief summary of the subsequent chapter in the biblical sources. Josephus condenses Ezra’s prayer in 1 Esd 8:25– 26, which reads: “Blessed be the Lord alone, who put this into the heart of the king, to glorify his house that is in Jerusalem, and who honored me in the sight of the king and his counselors and all his Friends and nobles.” See also Ezra 7:27–28. The first-person address of the prayer continues in the biblical sources into the narration that follows. As is customary for Josephus, he substitutes indirect address for direct both in the prayer and in the subsequent narration (Ezra 7:28–9:15//1 Esd 8:27–8:87). The same is true of Josephus’ treatment of the Book of Nehemiah. See note at 11.159 below. Greek ὁμοεθνής. Josephus uses the same term at Ant. 11.183, and the synonym ὁμόφυλος at 11.162, 168, and 270.

The reading of the letter to the Judeans in Babylon, the sending of a copy of the letter to Media, and their enthusiastic response are all Josephus’ additions to the story.

Greek ὁ … πᾶς λαὸς τῶν Ἰσραηλιτῶν. This is a striking phrase, as it indicates that for Josephus the main body of the Jews remained in Persia. Greek κατὰ χώραν (literally, “in [that] country”). Writing from Rome, Josephus may have intended the narrow definition of the Roman province of Asia here rather than a more expansive definition. See next note. Asia (Ἀσία) and Europe (Εὐρώπη) were regarded in ancient Greek geography as the two main constituent parts of the habitable world, along with Africa. The boundary between them was marked by the river Don in Russia (Warmington and Hornblower 2003). It is striking that Josephus inserts a reference to the Roman Empire here. Apparently, he wants to assert the point that the majority of Jews in his own day do not fall under Roman hegemony (cf. Bird 2012: 244). Josephus here participates in the view that the ten tribes of the northern kingdom of Israel, exiled by the Assyrians in 722 bce, still persisted as discrete groups abroad. Instances of this view in the Hebrew Bible include 1 Chr 5:26, Isa 11:11, Jer 31:8, and Ezek 37:19–28. In Second Temple Jewish literature the view is stated or implied in Tob 1:1, 4 Ezra 13:34–45, and arguably in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs as a whole. In the New Testament, Acts 26:6 and Jas 1:1 appear to hold to a similar view. On the endurance of the legend into modern times, see Parfitt 2002. Feldman (2001: 225) notes that Josephus nowhere expresses hope of the return of the ten tribes to the land of Israel. This whole sentence, reflecting on the number of Judeans subject to the Romans and the multitudes of Judeans still living to the east of their empire, is Josephus’ comment. The reference to two tribes (Judah and Benjamin; cf. Ant. 11.8, 69, 84, 148) in Judea and the ten other tribes in Persia is artificial, though it has biblical foundations (Ezra 1:5; 4:1; 10:9). Josephus omits the point that Levites were also among the returnees (Ant. 11.8, 69; cf. Ezra 1:5, 2:40, 70; etc.).

Josephus omits the passage containing the list of names of those who gathered to Ezra (Ezra 8:1–20//1 Esd 8:28–48). In the process he neglects to narrate the detail that there were initially no Levites in the assembled group (Ezra 8:15). His reason for this may be that in the account in 1 Esd 8:42 both priests and Levites are lacking from the initial group. This detail would not have fit well with the picture he paints of Ezra’s support among the priestly classes. See note to “names” at 11.68 above. Greek εἰς τὸ πέραν τοῦ Εὐφράτου. In 1 Esd 8:41, Ezra states that he gathered the people together at the river called Theras (ἐπὶ τὸν λεγόμενον Θεραν ποταμόν). It has been suggested that Josephus confused Θεραν with πέραν here, though Marcus (1937: 378 n. b) finds this unlikely. In Ezra 8:15 it is said to be “the river that runs to Ahava.” Josephus combines the reference to the three-day sojourn of 1 Esd 8:41 with the fast of 8:49.

Compare Ezra 8:22//1 Esd 8:51–52. The biblical narratives state that Ezra was ashamed to ask the king for assistance. Josephus omits the reference in the biblical narratives to the entrusting of various precious items to the priests for safekeeping (Ezra 8:24–30//1 Esd 8:54–59). However, he does report in the next sentence the delivery of these items by Ezra himself to the temple in Jerusalem. Josephus includes the date of arrival from an earlier passage (Ezra 7:8//1 Esd 8:6). Josephus omits the statement in 1 Esdras that they arrived on the new moon.

Greek ἐκ τοῦ τῶν ἱερέων γένους. Ezra’s priestly pedigree, running all the way back to Aaron, is recorded in Ezra 7:1–5//1 Esd 8:1–2 (cf. note to “people” at 11.121 above). Josephus draws attention to Ezra’s priestly heritage at this particular point in the story to justify his handling of the sacred gifts for the temple. In the biblical narratives there is a delay of three days before the items are handed over. In the biblical narratives this task had been entrusted to the twelve leading priests. For the importance of the sacred vessels to Josephus, see note to “vessels” at 11.10 above. The list of items in the Book of Ezra is evidently corrupt, with one number missing and two of the numbers excessively high (650 talents of silver and 100 talents of gold; cf. discussion in Williamson 1985: 119). Josephus generally follows 1 Esdras, though he omits the 100 talents of gold and replaces the 20 golden bowls of 1 Esdras with “gold vessels weighing 20 talents.” The last item on the list is unclear in the biblical narratives, as it is in Josephus. Ezra has “two vessels of fine polished bronze as precious as gold” (see discussion in Williamson 1985: 119). 1 Esdras has “twelve bronze vessels of fine bronze that glittered like gold.”

Josephus highlights Ezra’s role as high priest, on which see note to “people” at 11.121 above. In the biblical narratives all the people offer the sacrifices, not Ezra alone (Ezra 8:35//1 Esd 8:63). 1 Esdras and Ezra have 96. So too 1 Esdras. Ezra has 77. Greek ἔριφοι. 1 Esdras has τράγοι (“male goats”). 2 Esdras has χιμάροι (“young male goats”). Greek εἰς παραίτησιν τῶν ἡμαρτημένων. This statement seems to follow Ezra 8:35 (“as a sin offering”) rather than 1 Esd 8:63, which has “as a thank offering” (ὑπὲρ σωτηρίου). 2 Esdras has περὶ ἁμαρτίας (“for sins”).

Josephus’ phrasing (ἐτίμησάν τε τὸ ἔθνος καὶ πρὸς πᾶσαν αὐτῷ χρείαν συνήργησαν) is a paraphrase of 1 Esd 8:64 (καὶ ἐδόξασαν τὸ ἔθνος καὶ τὸ ἱερὸν τοῦ κυρίου): “and these officials honored the people and the temple of the Lord.”

“I think” (οἶμαι) is Josephus’ standard way of introducing reflections on incursions of the Divine, Fate, or Destiny into human affairs (e.g., War 2.539; 4.323; 5.412; 6.297; Ant. 1.230; 2.145; 3.184; 8.216, 241, 251, 409; 9.199; 10.76, 215, 262; 11.237; 13.314; 20.166; Life 83). This sentence is Josephus’ editorial addition, emphasizing Ezra’s virtue, especially his χρηστότης and δικαιοσύνη. In Ant. 11.183 Josephus ascribes these same qualities to Nehemiah.

1 Esd 8:65 has, “After these things had been done.” So too, Ezra 9:1. Josephus’ statement probably reflects awareness of Ezra 10:9//1 Esd 9:5 in which it is made clear that the events in view here took place in the ninth month (cf. Ant. 11.148), whereas those that Josephus has just finished relating took place in the fifth month (Ant. 11.135). In 1 Esd 8:65 it is the leaders (οἱ ἡγούμενοι) who come to Ezra. Ezra 9:1 has “the officials” (השׂרים). On the identity of these individuals in the biblical texts, see Williamson 1985: 130. Josephus’ term here (κατηγορούντων) is stronger than that in the biblical sources, where those who approach Ezra simply report the situation to him. Greek πολιτεία. This is Josephus’ customary way of referring to the law of Moses, and more broadly to the Jews’ way of life (cf. Rajak 2001: 195–217; D. R. Schwartz 1983–84; Amir 1994; Mason 1998: 80–87; 2000: xxiv–xxix; Troiani 1994; Ritter 2015: 92–93). See note to “constitution” at 11.111 above. Josephus’ characterization of the sin of the people differs from that in the biblical narratives. For him it is clearly a matter of the integrity of the priestly line. However, in 1 Esdras, as in the Book of Ezra, the concern is that intermarriage with foreign peoples (characterized as Canaanites) will lead to religious apostasy among all the people, including the priests. Apparently, Josephus interpreted the reference to the “holy seed” (τὸ σπέρμα τὸ ἅγιον; זרע הקדשׁ) to mean the priesthood exclusively. Mosaic law did not forbid marriage with foreigners, even though there are numerous prohibitions against intermarriage with the Canaanites (e.g., Exod 34:11–16; Deut 7:1–4; 20:10–18).

The request that Ezra intervene on behalf of the laws is Josephus’ addition. The prospect of God’s wrath is Josephus’ addition. Josephus’ account, which is a close paraphrase of 1 Esdras, is slightly more dramatic than his source, in which Ezra merely sits down in anxiety and grief (Ezra 9:3//1 Esd 8:68). The emphasis on the leaders corresponds to 1 Esd 8:66. In Ezra 9:1, “the people of Israel” are included in the guilt.

The reasoning supplied here is Josephus’. Greek οἱ μέτριοι (cf. Demosthenes, Cor. 18.10). 1 Esd 8:69 describes those who gathered around Ezra as “all who were ever moved [ἐπεκινοῦντο] at the word of the Lord of Israel.” Ezra 9:4 refers to them as “all who trembled at the words of the God of Israel.” Josephus is more dramatic than either Ezra 9:4 or 1 Esd 8:69, which state that the people gathered around the grieving Ezra.

In the biblical narrative Ezra rises from his fast and then gets down on his knees to pray to God (Ezra 9:5//1 Esd 8:70). Josephus greatly condenses, and changes to indirect speech, Ezra’s eloquent prayer of confession in Ezra 9:6–15//1 Esd 8:71–87.

Greek ὂν δὲ ἐπὶ τῇ τοῦ θεοῦ χρηστότητι. I have followed Marcus’ (1937: 383) translation of this phrase. The biblical Ezra does not explicitly appeagl for forgiveness. In 1 Esd 8:87 he concludes the confession with, “See, we are now before you in our iniquities; for we can no longer stand in your presence because of these things” (cf. Ezra 9:15).

Greek Ἀχόνιος. mt ‪שׁכניה‬, though Schalit (1968: 22), following Schlatter, conjectures that the lxx form used by Josephus goes back to a text that read ‪יכניה‬; 1 Esdras Ιεχονιας; 2 Esdras Σεχενιας; Shecaniah. In 1 Esd 8:89 he is referred to simply as one of the men (literally, “sons”) of Israel. Compare Ezra 10:3//1 Esd 8:90.

480 Greek φυλάρχαι. So too 1 Esdras.

481 Greek Ἰωάννης. mt ‪יוחנן‬; lxx Ιωαναν; Jehohanan. 482 A common name, but possibly the future high priest. See notes to “Eliasib” at 11.158 and to “Eleasib” at 11.297 below. 1 Esdras has αὐλισθείς (“to lodge, to pass the night”).

So 1 Esdras. Ezra has “three days.” Greek ἀφιερόω (“to consecrate, to hallow”). Josephus uses this term instead of the similar ἀνιερόω (“to dedicate, to devote”) in 1 Esdras. In both cases the idea is that the offenders’ possessions will be confiscated by the temple authorities. The identification of months here is anomalous in that Xenios is not a Hebrew month. Rather, it is Kislev that would usually correspond to Apellaios, as in Ant. 12.248, 319. See note to “Macedonians” at 11.107 above.

Greek ὕπαιθρος (“under the sky, in the open air”). 1 Esdras uses the term εὐρύχωρος (“wide space”). In both cases the courtyard of the temple is in view. See note to “open-air” at 11.154 below. Ezra 10:9 states that the people were “trembling because of this matter and because of the heavy rain.” Josephus follows 1 Esd 9:6, which only mentions the bad weather. Greek οὐκ ἐξ ὁμοφύλων. 1 Esd 9:7 refers to the women as ἀλλογενεῖς (“foreign”). In 1 Esd 9:8 Ezra calls on the people to “make confession and give glory to the Lord the God of our ancestors.” See also Ezra 10:11.

Josephus closely paraphrases 1 Esd 9:10–11, omitting the additional phrase in 1 Esdras stating, “for we have sinned too much in these things.” This complicated sentence attempts to capture the essence of 1 Esd 9:12–13.

Both Ezra 10:17 and 1 Esd 9:17 state that the hearings were completed by the first month (i.e., of the following year).

The statement about these men thinking more highly of the law than of their own loved ones is Josephus’ addition, and contributes to the recurring theme in his writings of faithfulness to the laws no matter what the hardship. For example, in Apion 2.153 he writes: “it is the virtue of the people to remain faithful to all that has been approved and to make no alterations [to the Laws], either in favorable or in adverse circumstances;” while 2.183 claims that the Jews “have taken the sole expression of both wisdom and virtue to consist in doing or thinking absolutely nothing contrary to the laws as originally promulgated.” In 2.219 he goes even further when he states that Jews have often “nobly undertaken to suffer anything rather than utter even a single word in contravention of the law.” As Barclay (note to “law” at Apion 2.219 in bjp 10) has pointed out, Josephus was no doubt influenced by the Maccabean tradition, “where suffering for the law under persecution became a hallmark of Judean resilience” (e.g., 1 Macc 1–2; 2 Macc 6–7; 4 Macc). Josephus thus omits 1 Esd 9:18–35 (excluding v. 20)//Ezra 10:18–43 (excluding v. 19). See note to “names” at 11.68 above.

This editorializing sentence is Josephus’ addition to the narrative. The Book of Ezra in the Hebrew Bible ends at this point.

In this section (11.154–158) Josephus continues to follow 1 Esdras (9:37–55), which parallels Neh 7:73b–8:12. Neither 1 Esdras nor the Book of Nehemiah mentions the Festival of Booths at this point. Instead the emphasis in the biblical sources is on the reading of the Law. Josephus has apparently incorporated the reference to the festival from his earlier narrative (11.75–77) corresponding to Ezra 3:1–7//1 Esd 5:46–53. However, according to Neh 8:13–18 (not in 1 Esdras, and not followed by Josephus at this point) it was on the second day of the month that they discovered that the Feast of Booths was to be celebrated in the seventh month, resulting in hasty preparations and joyful celebrations. According to Mosaic stipulations, the Festival was to be observed on the fifteenth day of the seventh month (Lev 23:34; Num 29:12; cf. Ant. 3.244). Greek τὸ ἀνειμέμον. In Ant. 8.138 Josephus refers to the beauty of those parts of Solomon’s palace that were “open to the air” (τῶν ἀνειμένων εἰς ἀέρα). In the present context Josephus is paraphrasing the term used for the temple court in 1 Esd 9:38 (εὐρύχωρος). In Ant. 11.149 Josephus paraphrased the same term with ὕπαιθρος (“under the sky, in the open air”). So too 1 Esd 9:38 (cf. 1 Esd 5:46). In Neh 8:1 the gathering takes place before the Water Gate. According to Neh 3:26 this was on the east side of the city. Josephus dramatizes the request. Compare 1 Esd 9:39: “they told Ezra.”

Josephus does not include the statement from 1 Esdras that this took place on the new moon of the seventh month, perhaps because he has already stated that these events took place during the Festival of Booths, which only began on the fifteen day of the month (cf. note to “Festival of Booths” in previous paragraph). Josephus also omits 1 Esdras’ description of Ezra as the high priest (9:39–40). On this point, see note to “people” at 11.121 above. This clause replaces the matter of 1 Esd 9:42–48// Neh 8:4–8, in which Ezra reads the law from a wooden platform surrounded by community leaders whose names are listed, the people worship the Lord, and various individuals help explain the law. See note to “names” at 11.68 above. The explanation of why the people were saddened by the reading of the law is Josephus’ (cf. 1 Esd 9:50//Neh 8:9).

In 1 Esd 9:49 someone called Attharates (Ατταρατης) acts here. In Neh 8:9 it is Nehemiah “who was the governor” along with Ezra. Myers (1974: 91 n. z) points out, though, that “Attharates” in 1 Esdras is a transliteration of the term used for “governor” (התרשׁתא) in the Nehemiah passage. Josephus alters the statement of 1 Esd 9:50–52: “This day is holy to the Lord … so go your way, eat the fat and drink the sweet, and send portions to those who have none; for the day is holy to the Lord; and do not be sorrowful for the Lord will exalt you.” See also Neh 8:9–10.

Josephus omits the involvement of the Levites in the story (cf. 1 Esd 9:53//Neh 8:11). Josephus continues the theme of the Festival of Booths, which is not mentioned in 1 Esdras at this point. See note to “Booths” at 11.154 above. Greek χάριν εἰδότες. The expression is common in Greek prose (e.g., Herodotus 3.21.3; Lysias, Epit. 2.23). 1 Esd 9:55 states that the people were “inspired” (ἐνεφυσιώθησαν, from ἐμφυσιόω) by the words they had been taught. Josephus uses the term πολίτευμα here rather than πολιτεία, his more customary term for the Jews’ constitution. See notes to “constitution” at 11.111 and 11.140 above.

The biblical sources do not mention Ezra’s death. Greek Ἐλιάσιβος; mt ‪אלישׁיב‬; lxx Ελιασιβ; Eliashib (cf. Neh 12:10). Josephus notes his death at Ant. 11.297. See note to “Eliasib” at 11.147 above and to “Eleasib” at 11.297 below.

In contrast to all that has preceded this point in Book 11, in which Josephus closely paraphrased 1 Esdras, often adhering to the wording of his source verbatim, in the account of Nehemiah that follows here (11.159–183) Josephus diverges widely from the extant biblical sources and leaves out much. As in his treatment of the Book of Ezra (cf. note to “gratitude” at 11.131 above), Josephus replaces the first-person narration of the Nehemiah Memoir (Neh 1–7; parts of 12:27–43, and 13:4–31) with third-person narration. Josephus also omits the dates given at the beginning of the Book of Nehemiah (1:1 and 2:1). This is presumably because of the confusion caused by the fact that the date cited in chapter 1, namely Chislev (the ninth month) in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, falls after the date cited in chapter 2, namely Nisan (the first month) in the same year. Williamson (1985: 169–70) provides a useful summary of attempts that have been made to explain the problem, and sides with the suggestion that Nehemiah may have been following the regnal cycle of the king rather than the calendar year. If the king ascended the throne in the month of Ab, Chislev would be the fifth month and Nisan the ninth. Be that as it may, Josephus, who did not have recourse to modern scholarship, perhaps thought it best simply to omit the dates altogether. The office of royal cupbearer (οἰνοχόος, ‪משׁקה‬, Neh 1:11) was an important one in antiquity involving not only the selection and tasting of wine (in order to ensure that it was not poisoned), but also informal companionship to the king. The office could also be combined with other duties (cf. Tob 1:22; Williamson 1985: 174, Yamauchi 1980). The king in the Book of Nehemiah is Artaxerxes, though which king by this name is intended, either I (464–424 bce) or ii (404–359 bce), is a matter of debate (cf. Williamson 1985: 168–69 and the literature cited there). Josephus changes the king to Xerxes in order to fit his earlier chronological adjustments in Ant. 11.120 and throughout his account of the story of Ezra. By doing this Josephus ensures chronological continuity between the Ezra and Nehemiah stories. Greek Νεεμίας. mt ‪נחמיה‬; lxx Νεεμια; Nehemiah. Josephus omits the biblical reference to Nehemiah’s father, Hacaliah (Neh 1:1). In the Talmud Nehemiah is identified with Zerubbabel (b. Sanh. 38a). Greek μητρόπολις (literally, “mother-city”). Later in the paragraph Josephus uses the same term for Jerusalem. Neh 1:1 has בשׁושׁן הבירה (“in the fortress of Susa”). 2 Esd 11:1 has ἐν Σουσαν αβιρα (cf. Esth 1:2, 5; 2:3, 5, 8; 3:15; 8:14; 9:6, 11, 12; Dan 8:2). On Susa as the most important capital of the Persian Period, see de Miroschedji 1992. Josephus’ picture of a chance meeting between Nehemiah and some Judean strangers speaking Hebrew is different from that of the Book of Nehemiah, in which one of the travelers is identified by name (Hanani), and referred to by Nehemiah as “one of my brothers” (Neh 1:2; cf. 7:1).

Nehemiah’s question of the travelers is more specific in the biblical narrative: “I asked them about the Jews that survived, those who had escaped the captivity, and about Jerusalem” (Neh 1:2).

Josephus dramatizes the travelers’ account of Jerusalem’s troubles. See also Neh 1:3: “The survivors there in the province who escaped captivity are in great trouble and shame; the wall of Jerusalem is broken down, and its gates have been destroyed by fire.” Josephus’ simplified chronology implies that these devastating events would have taken place in the reign of Xerxes, making them events about which we have no other information. In the biblical sources, though, in which Nehemiah is set in the time of Artaxerxes, the events described by the travelers correspond to the aftermath of that king’s decree putting a halt to the construction of the city (Ezra 4:17–24). In Josephus’ account of this decree the king involved is the much earlier Cambyses ii, son of Cyrus the Great (cf. Ant. 11.21–30).

Greek ὁμόφυλος. Josephus uses the same term at Ant. 11.168 and 270, and the synonym ὁμοεθνής at 11.131 and 183. Josephus greatly reduces the length of Nehemiah’s prayer, which in the biblical narrative runs for 7 verses (Neh 1:5–11). In the process Josephus also alters the tone of the biblical prayer in which Nehemiah confesses the sins of his people and calls on God to remember his covenantal faithfulness.

This scene of Nehemiah’s being summoned to his duties is Josephus’ invention. The notion that Nehemiah went hastily and unwashed into the king’s presence immediately after hearing the news about Judea is part of Josephus’ creative addition. In the biblical narrative the scene of Nehemiah in the king’s presence occurs four months later (Neh 1:1; 2:1). On the difficulties associated with the chronology of Neh 2:1 (“In the month of Nisan, in the twentieth year of King Artaxerxes”), see note at 11.159 above.

The description of the king’s mood is Josephus’ addition. In the biblical narrative, Nehemiah indicates that he had never been sad in the king’s presence before (Neh 2:1).

This statement corresponds to Nehemiah’s statement in the biblical narrative: “Then I was very much afraid” (Neh 2:2). However, a few verses later (2:4) Nehemiah states that he prayed to God just before answering the king’s question, “What do you request?” The content of Josephus’ prayer (i.e., for persuasiveness), corresponds to the values of the Greco-Roman world (Feldman 1998b: 492). Nehemiah’s response here is similar to that in the biblical narrative, but there are no clear verbal correspondences. The biblical Nehemiah waits for the king to invite him to state what he wants (Neh 2:4). Nehemiah’s request in the biblical narrative focuses solely on rebuilding the city (Neh 2:5), though there is a reference to “the gates of the temple fortress” at Neh 2:8 (cf. 7:2), i.e., a forerunner to the fortress Antonia later built by Herod the Great.

In the biblical narrative Nehemiah requests letters to the governors of province Beyond the River, and a letter to Asaph the keeper of the king’s forest (Neh 2:7–8). This statement is Josephus’ addition to the narrative. Josephus omits the biblical arrangements regarding the proposed duration of Nehemiah’s absence from the king (Neh 2:6).

Nehemiah’s expression of thanks is Josephus’ addition. This sentence is Josephus’ addition. The summons on the following day is Josephus’ narrative addition. The biblical narrative refers to the governors (2 Esdras: “eparchs”) of the province Beyond the River, but does not name them. Marcus (1937: 394–95 n. d) suggests that the name Addaios is a corruption of the name Asaph in Neh 2:8, though this is by no means clear. Josephus omits the statement in Neh 2:9 that “When Sanballat the Horonite and Tobiah the Ammonite official heard this, it displeased them greatly that someone had come to seek the welfare of the people of Israel.”

Greek ὁμόφυλος. Josephus uses the same term at Ant. 11.162 and 270, and the synonym ὁμοεθνής at 11.131 and 183. Neh 2:9 states that the king sent army officers and cavalry with Nehemiah. Josephus’ assertion that those who accompanied Nehemiah did so of their own volition and were fellow Jews casts the expedition in a different light than in the biblical story. On the identity of this king, see note to “Xerxes” at 11.159 above. This picture of Nehemiah displaying the letters to God is not in the biblical sources. Feldman (1998: 493) notes that Josephus casts Nehemiah as a leader all the people of Jerusalem, rather than working selectively with certain elements of the population as in Neh 2:16. Josephus omits the account of Nehemiah’s secret inspection of the wall (Neh 2:11–16).

The content of this speech in Josephus’ version diverges considerably from the biblical source: “Then I said to them, ‘You see the trouble we are in, how Jerusalem lies in ruins with its gates burned. Come, let us rebuild the wall of Jerusalem, so that we may no longer suffer disgrace.’ I told them that the hand of my God had been gracious upon me, and also the words that the king had spoken to me’” (Neh 2:17–18a). Josephus’ reflection on God’s providence and its relation to the righteousness of the patriarchs is his own emphasis, inspired in the present context perhaps by the affirmation in Neh 4:20 that “Our God will fight for us.” On Josephus’ understanding of the relationship between God and the Jews, see Spilsbury 1998a.

While the biblical Nehemiah does not refer to the hostility of enemies in his speech, the narrative of the Book of Nehemiah does refer to the enmity of Sanballat and Tobiah (Neh 2:10, 19; 4:1–9).

After informing the Judeans of how God had helped him, the biblical Nehemiah simply states, “Let us start building!”

With this statement Josephus summarizes the detailed description of the various family groups and their tasks in Neh 3. Feldman (1998: 493) draws attention to a certain similarity to the description of Dido’s preparations for the defense of Carthage (cf. Vergil, Aen. 1.507–508). This last clause is Josephus’ addition, emphasizing Nehemiah’s qualities as a man of action and a man of the people, a trait earlier ascribed to Moses (Ant. 2.271; 3.212), on which see Spilsbury 2014: 474.

This editorial comment is Josephus’ addition to the narrative. Josephus has been using the term Ἰουδαῖοι throughout the Antiquities, and especially since the beginning of Book 11. The Book of Nehemiah makes frequent use of the term ‪יהודים‬ (1:2; 2:16; 4:1, 2, 12; 5:1, 8, 17; 6:6; 13:23), and it may have struck Josephus as he worked on this text that he needed to clarify the term’s origin. It may also be instructive to note that Neh 1:2 implies a similar definition to the one Josephus gives here when it refers to Hanani as one of Nehemiah’s brothers being “from Judah” before referencing the rest of the Judeans who had survived the exile. On Josephus’ use of the term Ἰουδαῖοι more generally, as well as the related terms of Ἑβραῖοι and Ἰσρηλῖται, see Spilsbury 1998b: 36–42. On the long-running scholarly debate on whether to translate Ἰουδαῖοι with “Jews” or “Judeans” see, e.g., Mason 2007 and D. R. Schwartz 2014. The view adopted in the present volume is that the term Ἰουδαῖος functioned for Josephus as an ethnic descriptor relating the people (this ἔθνος) to the laws and customs of the land with which they were customarily associated in antiquity (Mason 2007: 489–510).

The Judeans’ enemies in the Nehemiah narrative (Neh 4:7 [mt 4:1]) are specifically identified as Sanballat (the Horonite), Tobiah (the Ammonite), the Arabs (הערבים), the Ammonites (העמנים), and the Ashdodites (האשׁדודים). Josephus characteristically includes the Samaritans whenever there is a reference to the enemies of the Judeans. Josephus omits the mockery of the opposition, including their taunts that the rebuilding was being done with heaps of rubbish, and that “any fox going up on it would break it down” (Neh 4:1–3). The biblical Nehemiah’s response is to pray: “Hear, O our God, for we are despised; turn their taunt back on their own heads, and give them over as plunder in a land of captivity. Do not cover their guilt, and do not let their sin be blotted out from your sight; for they have hurled insults in the face of the builders” (Neh 4:4–5). Josephus embellishes the opposition to Nehemiah. Neh 4:7b–8 states that their enemies “were very angry and all plotted together to come and fight against Jerusalem and to cause confusion in it.” However, note the threat in Neh 4:11.

This description corresponds to Neh 4:11–12: “And our enemies said, ‘They will not know or see anything before we come upon them and kill them and stop the work.’ When the Jews who lived near them came, they said to us ten times, ‘From all the places where they live they will come up against us.’”

This statement is in place of Neh 4:13–14, in which Nehemiah takes measures to protect the most vulnerable parts of the wall, and gives a speech in which he states: “Do not be afraid of them. Remember the Lord, who is great and awesome, and fight for your kin, your sons, your daughters, your wives, and your homes.” Greek σῶμα (“body”). In the biblical story, rather than appointing a personal bodyguard, Nehemiah appoints half of the men to work, while the other half are armed with spears, shields, bows, and armor to protect the workers (Neh 4:16). Neh 4:15, referring to all the people, states: “When our enemies heard that their plot was known to us, and that God had frustrated it, we all returned to the wall, each to his work.” Josephus’ portrayal of Nehemiah as tireless is reminiscent of his presentation of Daniel and his friends (Ant. 10.190–194). See note to “necessity” at 11.178 below. Greek συντεταμένως καὶ προνοητικῶς. This characterization of Nehemiah is Josephus’ addition to the story in keeping with his general tendency to emphasize the virtues of his protagonists. See Feldman 1998 and note to “virtue” at 11.90 above. The reasoning provided here is Josephus’ addition, though the Greek text is somewhat unclear. I have followed the emended text proposed in Marcus 1937: 399 n. d.

The details are slightly different in Neh 4:17 “The burden bearers carried their loads in such a way that each labored on the work with one hand and with the other held a weapon. And each of the builders had his sword strapped at his side while he built.” This is an unscriptural detail. See next note. In Neh 4:18b–20 there appears to be only one trumpeter who was required to stay with Nehemiah himself at all times. Nehemiah instructs the men, “The work is great and widely spread out, and we are separated far from one another on the wall. Rally to us wherever you hear the sound of the trumpet. Our God will fight for us” (Neh 4:19–20). Josephus possibly thought the provision of just one trumpeter ineffective given the length of wall to be guarded.

The tirelessness of Nehemiah and all the workers is given in Neh 4:21–23. The sleeplessness in particular is perhaps implied in verse 23: “So neither I nor my brothers nor my servants nor the men of the guard who followed me ever took off our clothes; each kept his weapon in his right hand.” Compare Ant. 11.176. Josephus’ presentation of Nehemiah is reminiscent of his portrayal of Daniel and his friends in Ant. 10.190–194, on which see notes in bjp 5. In the present instance Josephus was perhaps inspired by Nehemiah’s statement in Neh 5:14–18 that he had never exercised his prerogative as governor to extract from the people forty shekels of silver in addition to food and wine. Rather, he says, “I did not demand the food allowance of the governor, because of the heavy burden of labor on the people” (Neh 5:18).

Josephus omits the entire episode related in Neh 5, in which Judean men and their wives raise an outcry because of the extortionate practices they are being subjected to by their compatriots. Josephus also omits most of the rest of the Book of Nehemiah. Josephus emphasizes the hardship borne by Nehemiah, whereas in the biblical text there is greater emphasis on the burdens borne by the people in general (e.g., Neh 5:15). By the biblical reckoning the project took just fifty-two days to complete (Neh 6:15). Marcus (1937: 400–1 n. b) points out that Josephus’ reckoning here seems to be off. The wall’s construction time given here (two years and four months), would put the beginning of construction in the fifth month of the twenty-sixth year of Xerxes. However, Ant. 11.168–169 puts the beginning of construction in the twenty-fifth year of Xerxes. Neh 6:15 states that the wall was completed on 25 Ellul, in fifty-two days.

This celebration is apparently the same one recounted in Ezra 6:19–22 (comprising the Passover and the seven days Unleavened Bread). Josephus has already related that story, though, at Ant. 11.157. Here Josephus summarizes in a sentence the hostilities and intrigues of an entire biblical chapter (Neh 6).

Neh 7:4 states: “The city was wide and large, but the people within it were few and no houses had been built.” This situation leads Nehemiah to assemble the nobles, the officials and the common people for registration. The details of the registration are given in the remainder of the chapter. In Neh 11:1–2 the leaders of the people settle in Jerusalem, though no mention is made of any requirement from Nehemiah to do so. For the rest of the people, lots are cast to identify one tenth of the populace to move to the city. Verses 4–19 identify the individuals and families that lived in the city, while verse 20 states: “And the rest of Israel, and of the priests and the Levites, were in all the towns of Judah, all of them in their inheritance.” This detail is Josephus’ addition. In the next paragraph Josephus will identify generosity as one of Nehemiah’s chief traits.

Arrangements for the tithe are mentioned in Neh 12:44 and 47. The growth of the city is not specifically mentioned in the Book of Nehemiah, though it is perhaps implied by the general narrative of events.

With this summary statement Josephus covers Nehemiah’s actions in chapter 13 including measures to cleanse the temple, protect the sanctity of the Sabbath, and uphold the integrity of marriage practices. The biblical sources do not mention the death of Nehemiah or his age. Greek ἀνὴρ δὲ ἐγένετο χρηστὸς τὴν φύσιν καὶ δίκαιος. In Ant. 11.139 Ezra is similarly described as kind and just. The same combination of virtues was applied earlier to Samuel (Ant. 6.294), Jehonadab (Ant. 9.133), Jehoiada (Ant. 9.166), Hezekiah (Ant. 9.260, which adds εὐσεβής), and Jehoiachin (Ant. 10.100). On the virtues in Josephus generally, see note to “virtue” at 11.90 above. Greek ὁμοεθνής. Josephus uses the same term at Ant. 11.131, and the similar ὁμόφυλος at 11.162, 168 and 270. Josephus’ statement about Nehemiah’s “memorial” (μνημεῖον) is reminiscent of Sir 49:13 “The memory [μνημόσυνον] of Nehemiah also is lasting; he raised our fallen walls, and set up gates and bars, and rebuilt our ruined houses.”

The opening paragraph sets the scene by accounting for how it was that the king came to be in need of a new queen—a need that Esther will soon fill. There is evidently some confusion here since Cyrus the Younger (c. 424/423–401 bce), if that is who Josephus has in mind, was the son of Darius ii (ruled 424–405 bce) and brother of Artaxerxes ii Memnon (ruled 404–358 bce). In any case, there does not seem to be any justification for Josephus’ identification of Cyrus with Artaxerxes. Marcus’ emendation of Josephus’ text to read “Ahasuerus” instead of Cyrus (1937: 402) would obviate the problem. See next note. Greek Ἀρταξέρξης. The king in the Hebrew Bible is called Ahasuerus (mt ‪אחשׁורושׁ‬; at Ἀσσυῆρος), on whom see Yamauchi 1992. Modern scholarship identifies this king with Xerxes I (ruled 485–465 bce), on whom see Cuyler Young 1992c. Josephus, however, follows lxx in identifying the king in this story as Artaxerxes I (ruled 465/4–424/3 bce). Hoschander (1923: 30–41) argued that the king in view is actually Artaxerxes ii (ruled 404–358 bce), though this proposal has not received widespread acceptance. On the Rabbis’ scathingly critical picture of Ahasuerus, not generally found in Josephus, see Feldman 1998: 500–3. Greek τὴν Περσῶν ἔχοντος ἡγεμονίαν (“when he held the Persian hegemony”). lxx Esth 1:1 states that he “controlled” (ἐκράτησεν) the 127 lands that made up his empire, while at Esth 1:1 says that they were “subject” (ὑπετάησαι) to him. On Josephus’ view of the cycling of supreme power among the nations, see Spilsbury 2003. Greek τὸ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἔθνος. Ethnic identity is an important theme throughout the Book of Esther. In the next paragraph Josephus will refer editorially to “our nation” (τὸ ἔθνος ἡμῶν), and to Esther as a “Judean woman” (Ἰουδαία γυνή). Haman, the Judeans’ mortal enemy, is an Amalekite by birth who accuses the Judeans of being an evil nation (Ant. 11.212; cf. 11.214, 279). For a discussion of ethnicity as it relates to ancient Judaism, see Barclay 1996: 402–13. Starting at 11.209.

See note to “lawfully” at 11.202 below. Greek Ἰουδαίαν γυναῖκα τοῦ γένους οὖσαν τοῦ βασιλικοῦ. The biblical story of Esther does not comment directly on Esther’s lineage, though it does identify her relative Mordecai as “son of Jair son of Shimei son of Kish, a Benjaminite” (Esth 2:5). Josephus and the Rabbis (cf. b. Meg. 13a; Tg. Esth. ii 2:5) took the reference to Kish to be an indication that Mordecai was of the line of Israel’s first king, Saul, whose father’s name was also Kish (Feldman 1998b: 513–14). See note to “Benjamin” at 11.198 below.

So too Esth 1:1, though Herodotus (3.89) states that the Persian Empire was divided into twenty provinces, on which see Briant 1992: 239–40. See also next note and note to “127” at 11.33 above. Greek σατραπεία (“the provinces of a satrap”). mt Esth 1:1 has מדינה (“provinces”), while lxx/at both have χῶραι (“lands, countries”). Herodotus (3.89) uses the term ἀρχαί (“governments”). The Hebrew word for satraps (אחשׁדרפנים) appears in mt Esth 3:12, 8:9, and 9:3 (cf. Ezra 8:36; Dan 3:2, 3, 27; 6:1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7). In the Greek versions σατραπεία occurs at lxx Esth 8:9 and Add Esth E 1 while σατράπης (“satrap”) appears in lxx Esth 1:3, 8:9, and 9:3 and in at Add Esth B 3:14, E 7:22 and 7:42. See note to “satrapies” at 11.287 and to “rulers” at 11.272 below. Compare Esth 1:1 and 8:9. “India” refers to the region along the northwestern part of the Indus River, counted by Herodotus (3.94–106) as the last of Darius’ twenty provinces. See also 1 Esd 3:2 and Ant. 11.33, 216, and 272. Josephus matches at Esth 1:1 in using Αἰθιοπία for mt’s כושׁ (“Cush”). See also Ant. 11.33 and 216. lxx has only ἀπὸ τῆς Ἰνδικῆς (“from India”). On the location and extent of Ethiopia/Cush in the Bible and the ancient world generally, see R. H. Smith 1992. Greek φίλος. So too lxx Esth 1:3, but neither mt nor at. at has ἄρχων (“ruler”). The king’s friends are an important group in the Esther story. In the present context the term applies to the group of individuals referred to in mt as “officials and ministers” (שׂרין ועבדין). Typically, in Persian court settings the “friends” of the king were his most loyal supporters, advisors, and confidants. As the story develops, the issue of who the king’s real friends are becomes a central aspect of the narrative. See note to “friends” at 11.251 below. Josephus drops the biblical reference to the Medes or Media throughout his account of Esther (cf. Esth 1:3, 14, 18, 19; 10:2). Greek ἑστιᾷ (present active indicative third-person singular of ἑσιάω, “to entertain, to feast”). mt Esth 1:3 has משׁתה (“a feast, a banquet”) while lxx has δοχή (“a reception”) in 1:3 and γάμος (“a wedding feast”) in 1:5. at has πότος (“a drinking party”) in both places. Greek τοῦ πλούτου παρασκευαζομένῳ τὴν ἐπίδειξιν ποιήσασθαι, ἐπὶ ἡμέρας ἑκατὸν ὀγδοήκοντα. As Motzo (1928: 88) has pointed out, Josephus’ wording here is closer to at Esth 1:4 (εἰς τὸ ἐπιδειχθῆναι τὸν πλοῦτον ... ἐπὶ ὀγδοήκοντα καὶ ἑκατὸν ἡμέρας) than to lxx. The kings’ wealth is a regular feature of Herodotus’ description of the Persians (e.g., 1.126; 3.96; 8.27, 95; 9.8).

Greek κατευωχέω (“feast sumptuously”). See note to “entertained” in previous paragraph. Greek τὰ ἔθνη. Josephus is closest here to lxx Esth 1:5 which refers to “the nations [τοῖς ἔθνεσιν] present in the city.” Also like lxx, Josephus omits the phrase found in both mt and at Esth 1:5 that those included among the guests were “both great and small.” Susa was the most important of four capital cities of the Persian Empire, and also functioned as the king’s winter residence. The other three capitals were Babylon, Ecbatana, and Persepolis. See de Miroschedji 1992 and Olmstead 1948: 163–71. So too mt and at Esth 1:5. lxx has six days. Greek συμπόσιον. lxx/at Esth 1:5 πότος; mt ‪משׁתה‬. Greek σκήνωμα. at Esth 1:6, similarly, has σκηνή: a point made more significant by the lack of anything corresponding in either mt or lxx (Motzo 1928: 89). The text of mt Esth 1:6 is difficult and likely corrupt (Moore 1971: 7). Greek πολλὰς μυριάδας. The reference, which is Josephus’ addition, creates the impression of a much larger event than is described in Scripture. Josephus’ description of the facilities and finery is markedly less detailed or descriptive than any of the three biblical texts (Esth 1:6–8).

mt Esth 1:7 refers to “golden goblets, goblets of different kinds,” which is followed closely by at: “And the golden goblets were each different.” lxx states, “The goblets were made of gold and silver, and a miniature cup made of ruby was on display that was worth thirty thousand talents.” The account of tents, couches and gold and silver cups is reminiscent of a quite different scene recounted in Herodotus 9.80. Josephus downplays the emphasis on drinking that characterizes the biblical description of the feasting in both the Hebrew and Greek versions, which accounts implicitly for the actions of the king and his courtiers in the scene that follows. mt Esth 1:8 reads, “Drinking was by flagons, without restraint.” A view similar to Josephus’ is expressed in rabbinic tradition (ag 11; pa 1.59; Tg. Esth. i–ii 1:8). Josephus was apparently concerned not to turn his tale into one of drunken debauchery, despite his desire to note the sumptuousness of the affair. It may be relevant that the Talmud (b. Meg. 7b) countenances excessive drinking in the celebration of the festival of Purim. See note to “banquet” at 11.190 and to “desired” at 11.262 below. Greek ὡς καὶ παρὰ Πέρσαις γίγνεται. Josephus’ reference to the king’s contravention of customary Persian practice is perhaps an echo of lxx Esth 1:8: ὁ δὲ πότος οὗτος οὐ κατὰ προσκείμενον νόμον (“this wine party was not by established law [or custom]”). at offers a different sense with καὶ πότος κατὰ τὸν νόμον (“and this wine party was according to law”). mt Esth 1:8: “for the king had given orders to all the officials of his palace to do as each one desired.” lxx: “and he ordered his stewards to do as he and his men wanted.” at: “for so the king had ordered that the will of the men be done.”

This sentence is Josephus’ addition, drawing apparently on the similar concession made on the occasion of Esther’s wedding (Esth 2:18).

Greek Ἄστη. mt ושׁתי, Vashti; lxx Αστιν; at Ουαστιν. In Herodotus (9.108–113) Xerxes’ queen is called Amestris. On the etymology of the name, see Moore 1971: 8. Greek συμπόσιον. So too at the end of the sentence. mt Esth 1:9 ‪משׁתה‬; lxx πότος; at δοχή. It should be noted that in at Esth 1:11 Vashti is summoned into “the assembled banquet” (εἰς τὸ συνεστηκὸς συμπόσιον), a phrase similar to Josephus’ εἰς τὸ συμπόσιον. Josephus’ phrase, ἐν τοῖς βασιλείοις, exactly matches lxx Esth 1:9 which, however, adds ὅπου ὁ βασιλεὺς Ἀρταξέρξης (“where king Artaxerxes was”), thus closely following mt. at has ἐν τῇ αὐλῇ τοῦ βασιλέως (“in the court of the king”). Greek κάλλει τὰς γυναῖκας ἁπάσας ὑπερβάλλουσαν. mt Esth 1:11 describes Vashti as טובת מראה (“fair to behold”), for which lxx reads simply, καλὴ ἦν (“because she was beautiful”). at omits the statement. Josephus habitually emphasizes the beauty of biblical heroines (Feldman 1998b: 517). See also Ant. 1.288 (Rachel), 5.276 (Samson’s mother), 7.130 (Bathsheba), 7.162 (Tamar), and 11.199 (Esther). Josephus omits the names of the king’s seven eunuchs provided here in mt/lxx Esth 1:10 (but not in at). See note to “names” at 11.68 above. See note to “banquet” earlier in this sentence. Josephus, unlike the Rabbis (b. Meg. 12b), omits the detail in the biblical accounts that the king was drunk (Esth 1:10; cf. Feldman 1998: 502, 504). See note to “continually” at 11.188 above and to “desired” at 11.262 below.

Josephus here demonstrates his characteristic concern for adherence to law (in the story of Esther alone, cf. Ant. 11.192, 193, 195, 205, 210, 212, 217, 228, 230, 231, 238, 239, 281). See next note and note to “law” at 11.195 below. Josephus supplies an explanation for the queen’s refusal not present in the Hebrew or Greek accounts, and thus presents Vashti as a law-abiding and modest person. He does not, however, explain why the experts of the law who were summoned by the king failed to recognize her adherence to the law. According to the Rabbis, the king had required the queen to appear naked (Esth. Rab. 3.13; b. Meg. 12b; Tg. Esth. i–ii 1:10, 12). Vashti is thus the opposite of Esther, who would later fail to stay away from the king despite the law governing approaches to the king. Josephus adds the detail that the king summoned Vashti many times. Feldman (1998: 505) suggests that by adding this detail Josephus was protecting the king’s reputation, though this seems unlikely. mt Esth 1:10 and lxx (but not at) indicate that seven named eunuchs were sent to call Vashti. In lxx the first of these (מהומן, Mehuman in mt) is called Αμαν, Haman.

This detail is an addition to Scripture. mt provides the names of these individuals. The Greek versions, unlike Josephus and mt, do not mention the number seven. A total of four are named in lxx (including Mouchaios, mentioned in 1:16) and only one in at (Bougaios in 1:16). Ezra 7:14 also mentions seven counselors of Artaxerxes (cf. Herodotus 3.84; Xenophon, Anab. 1.4, 6). mt Esth 1:13 refers to לחכמים ידעי העתים (“the sages who knew the times”), who are also called “the seven officials of Persia and Media, who had access to the king [literally, “who saw his face”] and sat first in the kingdom” (Esth 1:14). at’s description of these individuals (τοῖς σοφοῖς τοῖς εἰδόσι νόμον καὶ κρίσιν) bears a notional similarity to Josephus’ description (Motzo 1928: 89). In rabbinic tradition the seven stand for angels of confusion sent by God to punish the king for desecrating the temple vessels (a detail borrowed from the story of Belshazzar in Dan 5:2); see ag 1.14. On the possible astrological associations of the biblical sages, see Winitzer 2011: 207. The king’s charge that he had been “insulted” (ὑβρισθείη), which is repeated by the king’s advisor in the next paragraph, echoes the important theme of hubris in the Greek tragedies, in which it inevitably leads to disaster (Feldman 1998b: 505). See also Ant. 11.273.

Greek Μουχαίος. mt ממוכן, Memucan; lxx Μουχαιος; at Βουγαῖος. Tg. Esth. I 1:16 identifies this figure with Haman, enemy of Mordecai and the Jews, as does b. Meg. 12b. It is worth noting in this regard that lxx/at Esth 3:1 introduce Haman as Αμαδαθου Βουγαῖον (“son of Amadathos the Bougean”). However, Tg. Esth. ii 1:16, pa 2.61, and Pirqe R. El. 49 identify Memucan with Daniel. at Esth 1:16: “the rulers of the Persians and the Medes.” lxx, following mt, has “all the rulers and governors of the king.”

Greek διαγγεῖλαι τοῖς ἔθνεσιν. Josephus’ text is closer to at Esth 1:18 (γραφήτω εἰς πάσας τὰς χώρας καὶ πρὸς πάντα τὰ ἔθνη) than to lxx Esth 1:19 (following mt), which does not refer to the letter being sent to the nations. but rather that the decree should be written “according to the laws of the Medes and the Persians.” The biblical story gives no information on the fate on Vashti, while rabbinic tradition holds that she was executed: b. Meg. 12b; Pirqe R. El. 49; pa 2.61; Esth. Rab. 1.21; Tg. Esth. I 1:1, 19; Tg. Esth ii 2:1–2.

In this part of the story the king discovers Esther, falls in love with her, and takes her for his wife. We are also introduced to Mordecai who, in many ways, is the main hero of the story. Greek διακείμενος δὲ πρὸς αὐτὴν ἐρωτικῶς. See later the king’s love for Esther (11.202). The picture of the king pining for Vashti is an addition provided by Josephus. mt Esth 2:1 states simply that when the king’s anger had abated he nevertheless “remembered what she had done and what had been decreed against her.” While at omits this statement, lxx reads, “he no longer remembered Astin, recalling what she had said and how he condemned her.” In Josephus the king’s excessive erotic love and sexual insatiability (cf. note to “number” at 11.200 below) is contrasted with the filial love (ἔστεργεν) of Esther’s uncle Mordecai (11.204). On the novelistic elements in Josephus’ description of the king here, see Feldman 1998: 510. Compare Esth 1:19. The emphasis on the inviolability of the law is reminiscent of the episode of Daniel and the lions’ den (Dan 6:15). Throughout the present story Josephus shows his characteristic interest in matters of law and proper procedure. Elsewhere Josephus describes the Judeans as the most law-abiding of all people (Ant. 11.210, 230, 231, 281). See note to “laws” at 11.191 above. The king’s changeableness, reminiscent in some ways of Herod the Great’s tempestuous relationship with Mariamme (War 1.444), is Josephus’ addition to the story. Greek οἱ φίλοι. lxx Esth 2:2 has οἱ διάκονοι (“the ministers”), while at reads οἱ λειτουργοὶ (“the servants”) for mt’s נערי־המלך משׁרתיו (“the king’s servants who attended him”).

Josephus exaggerates the scope of the search. In Esth 2:3 it extends throughout the kingdom ruled by the king. The details of the advisors’ arguments are Josephus’ addition.

According to all three biblical accounts, Esther and Mordecai lived in Susa (Esth 2:5–7). Josephus may have wanted to strengthen the link between the protagonists of the present story with the original exiles (especially Daniel) who had been taken to Babylon (cf. Esth 2:6). In 11.204 Josephus realigns his narrative with the biblical geography by having Mordecai move from Babylon to Susa to be close to Esther after she is taken into the king’s palace. Like at, Josephus does not include any reference to the Esther’s father, who is identified in Esth 2:15 as Abihail (mt) or Aminadab (lxx). Mordecai is described in the biblical narrative as Esther’s cousin who adopted her as his own daughter (Esth 2:7). Rabbinic tradition elaborates on the care given Esther by Mordecai (b. Meg. 13a; Tg. Esth. i–ii; Esth. Rab. 2.7). Josephus states that Mordecai loved Esther as his own daughter (11.204), though lxx Esth 2:7 states that when her parents died, “[Mordecai] trained her for himself as a wife.” On this understanding see also b. Meg 13a. Greek Μαρδοχαῖος. mt מרדכי, Mordecai; lxx/at Μαρδοχαῖος. The original name was derived from Babylonian and associated with the god Marduk. mt Esth 2:5 introduces Mordecai as “son of Jair son of Shimei son of Kish, a Benjaminite.” Mordecai’s lineage is significant because it connects him to Israel’s first king, Saul, also a Benjaminite whose father’s name had been Kish (1 Sam 9:1–2), and who became embroiled in an ancient enmity with the Amalekites—an enmity that continues in the story of Esther and the Judeans. For rabbinic traditions in this regard, see b. Meg. 13a and Tg. Esth. ii 2:5. Like at, Josephus omits Esth 2:6, and thus avoids the chronological problem caused by the statement that Mordecai had been one of the captives carried away from Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. If that had been the case, Mordecai would be over a hundred years old in this story, and Esther would be of advanced age as well. For a discussion of the issues, see Moore 1971: 20, 26–27 and Paton 1908: 168–69. Greek τῶν δὲ πρώτων παρὰ τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις. The prominence of Mordecai is an addition to Scripture. Feldman (1998: 514 n. 2) notes that the prominence of Mordecai is a theme in the Rabbis (e.g., Esth. Rab. 6.2 and b. Menah. 65a). mt Esth 2:5 calls Mordecai אישׁ יהודי, which is rendered in lxx as ἄνθρωπος … Ιουδαῖος, while at reads ἀνὴρ Ἰουδαῖος. Since in the same sentence Mordecai is identified as a Benjaminite it is clear that יהודי means more than Judahite, and is closer to “Judean” (Paton 1908: 166–67). See note to “Judean” at 11.246 below.

Greek Ἐσθῆρα. mt אסתר, Esther; lxx/at Εσθηρ. mt Esth 2:7 introduces the heroine as “Hadassah [הדסה], that is Esther.” Josephus follows the Greek versions in mentioning only one name, but rabbinic traditions expand at some length on the meaning of both names, which were taken to point to her many virtues (b. Meg. 13a; pa 1.63; Esth. Rab. 2.7; Tg. Esth i–ii 2:7). The name Esther was derived either from the Persian for “star” (stâra), or from the Babylonian goddess of love, Ishtar. As with his depiction of Vashti and other biblical heroines (cf. note to “beauty” at 11.190 above), Josephus emphasizes Esther’s beauty. mt states that Esther was “fair and beautiful” (2:7), and that she was “was admired by all who saw her” (2:15). lxx states that “the girl was beautiful in appearance” (2:7) and “favored by all who saw her” (2:15), while at states that she was “beautiful in appearance and lovely to see” (3:7). The Rabbis, too, make a great deal of Esther’s exceptional beauty and grace (ag 1.18; Esth. Rab. 6.9; Ag. Esth. 23), though in one tradition she is already seventy-five years old (Gen. Rab. 39.13; Esth. Rab. 2.7), a point made necessary by the chronological reference in Esth 2:6. See note to “Benjamin” at 11.198 above.

Josephus omits the name of the eunuch; however, he follows lxx Esth 2:8, 14 in conflating the guard of the women and the king’s eunuch (cf. 2:15). In mt Esther is placed first in the custody of Hegai (הגי), “who had charge of the women” (2:8). Later in the story Hegai is referred to as “the king’s eunuch, who had charge of the women” (2:15). The person in charge of the second harem, to which the girls went after spending the night with the king, was called by mt Shaashgaz (שׁעשׁגז), “the king’s eunuch” (2:14). In at the two named individuals are Gogaios (Γωγαίος), “the eunuch, the guard of the women” (2:2), and Bougaios (Βουγαίος), “the eunuch who guarded” (2:8). Esth 2:9 states that “the girl pleased him and won his favor, and he quickly provided her with her cosmetic treatments and her portions of food … and advanced her … to the best place in the harem.” Greek κατάρδω (literally, “sprinkle”). Greek ἀρωμάτων ... τῶν ἀλειμμάτων. mt Esth 2:12, followed closely by lxx but not by at, describes the cosmetic treatment as consisting of six months with “oil of myrrh,” and six months with “perfume and cosmetics.” The number of women is not specified in the biblical accounts. Josephus’s extravagant figure emphasizes the sexual insatiability of the king, though the number would fit Plutarch’s claim (Art. 27.5) that Artaxerxes had 360 concubines. See notes to “love” at 11.195 above and at 11.202 and 11.204 below. The biblical accounts say twelve months (Esth 2:12). Josephus omits the statement in mt/lxx Esth 2:11 (but not at) that Mordecai would walk in front of the harem court each day to learn how Esther was faring.

Greek πλησιάζω (“come near”). The biblical sources at Esth 2:14 refer to the girls “going in” (mt באה, lxx εἰσπορεύεται) or “being led in” (at εἰσήγετο) to the king. Herodotus (3.69) presents a similar picture (cf. Feldman 1998b: 519). In the biblical accounts (mt/lxx Esth 2:14, but not at) after spending the night with the king the women are sent to a second harem, for concubines. Josephus makes no mention of the statement in Esth 2:15 that, while the women were entitled to take with them from the harem into the king’s palace (cf. Esth 2:13) whatever they wanted, Esther asked for nothing except what the king’s eunuch advised. Greek πεσὼν ... εἰς ἔρωτα. lxx Esth 2:17 has ἠράσθη (“loved passionately”) for mt’s יאהב (“loved”). Josephus plays up the erotic element of the story throughout. See note to “love” at 11.195 and to “number” at 11.200 above. It should be noted, though, that Josephus does not explicitly say that the king had sex with Esther. On the importance of this, see next note. Feldman (1998: 519–20) has shown that Josephus often heightens the element of romantic or erotic love in his biblical paraphrase (e.g., Ant. 1.162, 288, 327; 2.53, 252–253; 4.134; 5.136–137; 5.172–173, 277; 6.195, 215). Josephus goes beyond the biblical sources in emphasizing the point that the king “lawfully” (νομίμως) married Esther (cf. Ant. 11.185), though the sources assume a wedding. lxx Esth 2:18 states that the king “celebrated Esther’s wedding feast” (ὕψωσεν τοὺς γάμους Εσθηρ), while at states that the king “held a splendid wedding feast for Esther” (ἤγαγεν ... τὸν γάμον τῆς Εσθηρ ἐπιφανῶς). Greek Αδέρος. lxx Αδαρ; Adar (‪אדר‬; February/ March). According to mt Esth 2:16, Esther was taken in to the king in the tenth month, Tebeth (‪טבת‬; December/ January). Josephus follows lxx by referring to the twelfth month, but distinguishes the wedding date from the day on which Esther spent the night with the king.

Greek ἄγγαροι. A word borrowed from Persian indicating a mounted courier. On Cyrus’ postal system, see Herodotus (8.98; 3.126) and Xenophon (Cyr. 8.6.17). Josephus’ mention of the angaroi is an addition to Scripture. The biblical texts refer to the couriers several times throughout the narrative: mt Esth הרצים (“couriers”) (3:13, 15; 8:14) and הרצים בסוסים (“couriers on horses”) (8:10); lxx Esth βιβλιαφόρων (“couriers”) (3:13; 8:10) and οἱ ἱππεῖς (“the horsemen”) (8:14); at Esth τρεχόντων ἱππέων (“swift horsemen”) (3:13). Josephus adds the requirement that the whole empire celebrate the wedding. mt Esth 2:18 states that the king “granted a holiday [הנחה] to the provinces, and gave gifts with royal liberality.” lxx/at state that the king “gave rest to,” or “canceled debts of” (ἐποίησεν ἀφέσεις) his kingdom. Josephus lengthens the celebration from one week in lxx Esth 2:18. mt and at do not specify how long the wedding lasted. This detail is essential to the plot of the story since it explains the king’s willingness to go along with Haman’s wickedness. Josephus, however, does not include the point—repeated by mt/lxx Esth 2:10, 20, but not at—that it was Mordecai who had instructed Esther not to reveal her origins. In omitting this detail Josephus softens the biblical emphasis on Esther’s subservience to Mordecai: “for Esther obeyed Mordecai just as when she was brought up by him” (Esth 2:20). The Rabbis developed a number of speculative reasons for Esther’s secretiveness, including the desire to protect her people from harm should she suffer the same fate as the former queen (pa 2.64; Tg. Esth. ii 2:10). Josephus also omits the detail in lxx Esth 2:20 to the effect that Esther did not change her way of life, but rather feared God and kept his ordinances.

See note to “Babylon” at 11.198 above. mt Esth 2:19 speaks of Mordecai “sitting at the king’s gate” (cf. 2:21), while lxx states that he “was serving in the court.” Josephus, following the Greek versions, omits the confusing point made in mt Esth 2:19 to the effect that the king gathered virgins together a second time. Greek στέργω. Mordecai’s filial affection for Esther contrasts with the king’s excessive erotic passion throughout the story. See notes to “love” at 11.195 and 11.202 above. Another kind of love, that between the king and his subjects, is also explored later in the story. See note to “cherished” at 11.252 below.

Josephus introduces this law into the story long before it arises in the biblical story (cf. Esth 4:11). Presumably, he hoped to increase the sense of drama and anticipation by doing so. It is not entirely clear what Josephus means by “his own” (τῶν ἰδίων), a feature not found in the biblical texts. Apparently he took the prohibition from entering the royal presence to apply only to the king’s own family or household. Herodotus ascribes a similar security measure to Deioces the Mede (1.99; cf. 3.72, 77, 84, 118, 140), who did not allow himself to be seen by anyone, but only to be communicated with by specially appointed messengers. The men with axes (πελέκεις) are an addition to Scripture. Daube (1976: 143) suggested that Josephus is thinking here of Vespasian, who on one occasion was attended by a guard with an axe (War 4.629). For other possible reminiscences of Vespasian in Josephus’ Esther narrative, see note to “anger” at 11.236, to “think” at 11.237, and to “rod” at 11.239 below.

Greek λύγος. mt Esth 4:11 ‪שׁרביט‬; lxx/at ῥάβδος (“staff, rod”). In Ant. 11.226 Josephus uses the more familiar ῥάβδος, while in 11.239 he adds yet another term, σκῆπτρον (“rod, scepter”) to the scene. The requirement for supplicants to touch the king’s rod is a detail added by Josephus, though it is also alluded to in pa 2.71.

Greek Βαγαθώος. mt Esth 2:21 בגתן, Bigthan; lxx Αdd Esth A 12 Γαβαθα; at Add Esth A 11 Αστάος. Josephus’ use of this form of the name suggests that he did indeed have access to Addition A as found in the Greek versions even though he does not incorporate it into his account. See next note. Greek Θεοδοσίτος. mt Esth 2:21 תרשׁ, Teresh; lxx Add Esth A 12 Θαρρα; at Add Esth A 11 Θεδεύτος. Josephus’ use of this form of the name suggests that he did indeed have access to Addition A in the Greek versions, even though he does not incorporate it into his account. See previous note. Greek Βαρνάβαζος. The biblical accounts do not include this figure. In mt Esth 2:22 we are told only that “the matter became known to Mordecai,” while in lxx/ at Esth Add A 13/12 we are told that Mordecai himself overheard the plotters conspiring. Josephus uses his customary terminology (τὸ γένος ὢν Ἰουδαῖος) to indicate individuals of Judean descent. On this usage, see especially Cohen 1994. Josephus uses a similar construction a few lines later (Ant. 11.209) when he identifies Haman as “an Amalekite by birth” (τὸ γένος δὲ Ἀμαληκίτην).

Greek ἀνασταυρόω. mt Esth 2:23 states that the men were hanged on a tree (or gallows): ‪על־עץ‬ ... ‪ויתלו‬; lxx ἐκρέμασεν. See note to “crucified” at 11.17 above. Greek φίλος ἀναγκαιότατος (literally, “most necessary [i.e., most crucial, essential] friend”). Josephus’ use of ἀναγκαῖος to qualify φίλος (originally an adjective also, but used increasingly as a noun), sometimes in the superlative as here or to indicate a subset of all one’s friends, is characteristic of Antiquities-Life (Ant. 7.350; 10.5, 59, 229; 11.254–255; 13.224; 15.252; Life 223), but absent from War and not attested so frequently in other authors (e.g., Polybius 8.12.1; Philo, Agr. 88; Acts 10:44; cf. Antiphon, Nov. 29; Xenophon, Hell. 2.4.43). Josephus may have picked it up from Euripides (Andr. 671) or more likely from Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Ant. rom. 3.23.5; 5.31.2; 8.28.1), given the many similarities between their twenty-volume works on national “antiquities.” mt does not say anything about Mordecai receiving recognition at this point in the story. Indeed, the logic of the later narrative (Esth 6:3; Ant. 11.250) requires neglect. Nevertheless, Josephus seems to be following a text something like lxx Add Esth A 16, which states, “And the king ordered Mardochai to serve in the court and gave to him gifts for these things.” at has the king appoint Mordecai as a palace guard.

No sooner has Mordecai been appointed a friend of the king than he offfends another of the king’s close friends, Haman, by refusing to bow before him. Haman vows to take revenge not only on Mordecai, but on all the Judeans—the traditional enemies of his people—and gains royal permission to do so by falsely accusing them of being disloyal subjects. Greek Ἀμάνης. mt המן, Haman. lxx/at Αμαν. Greek Ἀμαδάθου. So too lxx/at. mt Esth 3:1 בן־ המדתא (“son of Hammedatha”). Greek τὸ γένος … Ἀμαληκίτην (cf. Ant. 11.211: τὸ γένος τῶν Ἀμαληκιτῶν, ἐξ ὧν ἦν αὐτός). mt Esth 3:1 האגגי (“the Agagite”). lxx/at both read Βουγαῖον (“the Bougean”). On the occurrence of Βουγαῖος earlier in the narrative, see note to “Mouchai” at 11.193 above. Later, in lxx Esth 9:24, Haman is identified as “the Macedonian” (ὁ Μακεδὼν) who had “warred” (ἐπολέμει) against the Jews, and “a Macedonian who was in truth a foreigner to the blood of the Persians” (lxx Add. Esth E 10). By calling him a Macedonian the implication of the lxx is that he was the enemy not only Jews, but of the Persians as well. lxx/at Add Esth E 14/7:26 both record the accusation that Haman was working to transfer the power of the Persians to the Macedonians (cf. Ant. 11.278). at identifies Haman as a Macedonian only at Add Esth A 17, where lxx identifies him as “a Bougean.” On the difficulties of determining the significance of this term, see Moore 1971: 35–36. More generally, in at Esth 7:11 when the king find’s Haman on Esther’s couch, pleading for his life, he retorts: “A crime against my kingdom is not enough for you?” Josephus identifies Haman as an Amalekite presumably because the biblical reference to Agag recalls the ancient king of the Amalekite nation in the time of Saul who was named Agag (1 Sam 15:1–9). On the significance of this connection, see note to “hated” at 11.211 below. The Rabbis also identified Haman as an Amalekite (b. Meg. 13a; Esth. Rab. 3.2; 7.4; cf. Feldman 1998: 525). Greek τὸ γένος δὲ Ἀμαληκίτην. See note to “birth” at 11.207 above. Josephus expands the scope of those doing obeisance to Haman. mt Esth 3:2 states that “all the king’s servants who were at the king’s gate bowed down and did obeisance to Haman,” while lxx refers to “all who were in the court.” at’s more inclusive reading says that “everyone would do obeisance to him.” Greek προσκυνέω. The Persians were noted for their practice of bowing down, or offering proskynēsis, to their kings (Herodotus 1.134). Already in ancient times Greeks viewed this practice as demeaning (Herodotus 7.136), and Josephus may have hoped that Roman readers would share Mordecai’s revulsion at the prospect of having to bow to a court official, no matter how important or well connected. See next note and p. 97 below.

Greek διὰ σοφίαν καὶ τὸν οἴκοθεν αὐτοῦ νόμον. The biblical story offers no reason for Mordecai’s refusal to bow to Haman other than that he was a Jew (Esth 3:2, 4). Josephus emphasizes Mordecai’s innate wisdom and his adherence to ancestral law—two key components of being a Jew. Readers of Herodotus might well recall the refusal of Spartan ambassadors to bow before Xerxes. There too the basis for refusal was that “it was not their custom [ἐν νόμῳ] … to do obeisance [προσκυνέειν] to mortal men” (7.136; cf. Godley 1922). Josephus does not mention that there are numerous instances in the Hebrew Bible of individuals bowing down to people without censure (e.g., Gen. 23:7; 43:28; Exod 18:7; 1 Kgs 1:23). At a later stage in his narrative, Josephus follows the Greek versions of the story by inserting a prayer in which Mordecai confesses to God that he would not bow to Haman because he could not abide the thought that “the honor that I habitually give to you should be given to this man” (Ant. 11.230; cf. lxx/at Add Esth C 7/4:15). Similar motives are provided in Tg. Esth. ii 3:3 and Esth. Rab. 7.8. Josephus shows no knowledge of the tradition found in the Rabbis to the effect that Haman fostered idol worship by having the image of an idol attached to his clothes (cf. Feldman 1998b: 531 and n. 29). In the biblical story it is the king’s servants who first notice Mordecai’s refusal to obey the royal command and it is they who then bring the matter to Haman’s notice (Esth 3:3, 4). Haman’s personal thoughts on Mordecai’s refusal to bow are Josephus’ addition.

The note that Haman regarded it too small a thing to ask for the punishment of Mordecai alone is a detail found in mt Esth 3:6 but in neither lxx nor at. This might suggest that Josephus was using a Greek text closer to the Hebrew here than our extant Greek versions or, alternatively, that he simply remembered this detail of the Hebrew text. Greek φύσις. Feldman (1998: 530) suggests that Josephus may be deliberately obscuring the fact that in the Greek versions (Add Esth A) Haman’s animosity is cast as a cosmic enmity between Jew and Gentile. However, it should be noted that in lxx/at Add Esth A 17/18, Haman’s hatred of the Jews is cast as a consequence of Mordecai’s exposure of the two eunuchs who were plotting against the king. See next note. Here Josephus explains what is left implicit in the biblical story, namely that Haman’s hatred of the Jews had ancient roots (though see previous note for a more immediate cause). According to Exod 17:8–16, the Amalekites had attacked the Israelites during their wilderness wanderings, but had been defeated by Joshua while Moses raised his hands in prayer. At the conclusion of the battle God had declared: “I will utterly blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven” (Exod 17:14; cf. Num 24:7; Deut 25:17–19). In the time of King Saul, the battle was renewed, but Saul angered God by sparing the life of their king, Agag, despite God’s command to destroy utterly their men, women, children, and animals. In the story of Esther, the ancient enmity is revived, as Haman the Agagite seeks to destroy Mordecai the descendant of Saul (cf. note to “Benjamin” at 11.198 above) along with the rest of the Judeans. Josephus uses the expression τὸ γένος τῶν Ἀμαληκιτῶν, on which see notes to “birth” at 11.207 and 209 above. Josephus does not explain how Haman can belong to a line that has been wiped out. In offering this extra-biblical explanation of the roots of Haman’s hatred, Josephus makes no effort to hide the ancient deeds perpetrated against the Amalekites by the Israelites.

Josephus omits the detail in the biblical narrative here (mt Esth 3:7) about “Pur—which means ‘the lot’” (פור הוא הגורל) being cast before Haman to determine the date for the massacre of the Jews, and thus in effect leaves out the biblical basis for the name of the feast of Purim. See note to “Phroureai” at 11.295 below. In at the reference to the lot is postponed until a bit later in the story (after 3:10), no doubt to make explicit the interpretation that the lot was used to determine an auspicious day for the planned atrocity (Winitzer 2011: 184). Greek ἔθνος … διεσπάρθαι. lxx ἔθνος διεσπαρμένον; at λαὸς διεσπαρμένος. The dispersal of the Judeans throughout the empire seems to be an element of Haman’s accusation in the biblical narrative (mt Esth 3:8), where they are said to be, “a certain people scattered and separated” (עם־אחד מפזר ומפרד). In Ant. 4.115–116 Josephus has the pagan seer Balaam predict the world-wide dispersal of the Jewish people as a positive aspect of Jewish experience (cf. Ant. 10.207). On Josephus’ attitude to dispersal in general, see Feldman 1997 and 2001. See note to “mixed” at 11.217 below. The specific accusation of wickedness or evil (πονηρόν) echoes at Esth 3:8 here: “they are known among all the nations because they are evil [πονηροί].” See note to “these wicked people” at 11.214 below. The charge is explicitly overturned at Ant. 11.279. Greek ἄμικτον. Feldman (1998: 529) notes that the refusal to mix with others, looked down on in antiquity, is a characteristic of the Centaurs and Cyclopes (cf. Sophocles, Trach. 1095; Euripides, Cycl. 429). Greek ἀσύμφυλον. Greek οὔτε θρησκείαν τὴν αὐτὴν τοῖς ἄλλοις ἔχον οὔτε νόμοις χρώμενον ὁμοίοις. mt Esth 3:8 דתיהם שׁנות מכל־ עם (“their laws are different from those of every other people”). lxx οἱ δὲ νόμοι αὐτῶν ἔξαλλοι παρὰ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη (“their laws are different from all the nations”) at ἔξαλλα νόμιμα ἔχων τοῖς δὲ νομίμοις σοῦ (“who have different laws from your laws”). See next two notes. The accusation of Jewish hostility (ἐχθρόν), albeit with a different emphasis, echoes an element found here in at Esth 3:8 (λαὸς πολέμου καὶ ἀπειθής; “a people of war and insubordinate”) but not in either mt or lxx. Later in the Antiquities Josephus cites Nicolaus of Damascus asserting that “there is nothing hostile to mankind in our [i.e., the Jews’] customs” (Ant. 16.42). On this theme in Josephus see next note. Haman’s accusation against the Judeans echoes the view expressed by Hecataeus of Abdera (cited in Diodorus 40.3.4) that Moses introduced “an unsocial and intolerant mode of life” (ἀπάνθρωπόν τινα καὶ μισόξενον βίον). Hecataeus also notes that Judean sacrifices “differ from those of other nations, as does their way of living.” During the course of his narrative on the wilderness wanderings, Josephus himself expanded on the accusations of the Midianite women who complained that the Israelites “make use of such customs and conduct of life as are entirely different from all other men, insomuch that your kinds of food are peculiar to yourselves, and your kinds of drink not common to others” (Ant. 4.137). The sinister conclusion in that context is that the Israelites must “either come into such methods of divine worship as all others came into, or else they must look out for another world, wherein they may live by themselves, according to their own laws” (Ant. 4.138). On this passage see further Spilsbury 1998b: 130–32. That Josephus was sensitive to this kind of anti-Jewish invective is shown by his responses to it in Apion (e.g., 2.121–124, 209–214). Later in the Esther story, as well as elsewhere in the Antiquities, Josephus expresses a positive desire for Jews to be able to live their lives distinct from others (cf. Ant. 11.281; 16.42).

Greek εὐεργεσίαν καταθέσθαι. Marcus (1937: 417 n.d) identifies this as a Thucydidean phrase (1.128.4). Greek πρόρριζον ἀπολέσθαι. Josephus uses the same phrase in Ant. 8.309 and 314 (cf. Ant. 8.127; 9.109). Josephus goes beyond the biblical accounts here by using language reminiscent of the ancient decree to exterminate the Amalekites, a decree that he puts at the heart of Haman’s hatred of the Jews (cf. Exod 17:14, 16; Deut 25:19; 1 Sam 15:3, 18).

The consideration of lost tribute revenue would seem to be Josephus’ interpretation of the reason for Haman’s offer, perhaps inspired by the reference in Esth 3:9 to the monies being paid into the king’s treasuries. Josephus inflates the biblical narrative’s 10,000 talents (Esth 3:9), possibly because of the link to tribute revenue (cf. previous note). The larger the sum, the greater the population of Jews in view. Josephus’ version, of course, also exaggerates Haman’s wealth, and therefore his power. Greek ἀπὸ τούτων ... τῶν κακῶν. Marcus (1937: 419) translates the phrase with “of this plague.” See note to “evil” at 11.212 above.

Haman’s offer to reimburse the king for lost revenue is thus apparently declined. In mt Esth 3:11 the king says to Haman, “The money is given to you, and the people as well, to do with them as it seems good to you.” Josephus, like at, omits the date for this event, which mt/lxx place on the thirteenth day of the first month (i.e., Nisan). mt has the royal letter under Haman’s influence written on 13 Nisan (first month), and authorizing a massacre of Judeans on 13 Adar (twelfth month) of the same year (3:12–13), with the Judeans saved by a countervailing royal letter authorizing the massacre of their enemies dated to 23 Sivan (third month) (8:9–12). lxx has the same opening scheme, but either an unspecified single day in Adar or the fourteenth of that month for the massacre (3:12–13; cf. at Add Esth B 3:18). Strangely, however, lxx dates the countermanding royal letter to 23 Nisan, which would leave just ten days for all of the intervening action in Esther before the countermanding letter, while retaining mt’s 13 Adar for the retaliatory massacre (8:9–12). Josephus may have omitted an opening date here to avoid this conflict in the dénouement. See note to “royal scribes” at 11.272 below. Esth 3:10 states that the king took off his signet ring and gave it to Haman, thus signifying royal authorization. In what follows Josephus provides a closer than usual paraphrase of the text of the letter provided in at Add Esth B 3:14–18. The texts of lxx/at are very similar to each other in this section. Josephus was apparently convinced of the authenticity of such letters. Elsewhere in the Antiquities three blocs of text provide more than thirty such documents (14.185–267, 305–322; 16.160–178), on which see, e.g., Pucci Ben Zeev 1998, Bickerman 1980: 24–43, Eilers 2004, and Rajak 2001: 301–33; 2007.

Greek μηδὲν ὑπὸ τῆς ἐξουσίας ὑπερήφανον μηδὲ σκαιὸν (literally, “by neither arrogant nor left-handed authority”). In lxx/at Add Esth B 2/3:15 the king claims never to have acted “high-mindedly with presumption of authority” (μὴ τῷ θράσει τῆς ἐξουσίας ἐπαιρόμενος). Greek ἐπιεικῆ καὶ πρᾷον. In lxx/at Add Esth B 2/3:15 the king claims always to have acted “in moderation and with kindness” (ἐπιεικέστερον δὲ καὶ μετὰ ἠπιότητος). Greek εἰρήνης καὶ εὐνομίας. In lxx/at Add Esth B 2/3:15 the king claims to be concerned with the people’s lasting “tranquility” (ἀκυμάτους/ἀταράχους) and the “peace” (εἰρήνην) desired by all. He also intends that the kingdom should be “peaceable” (ἥμερον) and “open to travel throughout its full extent.” Josephus’ term εὐνομία recalls Plato’s ideal in Resp. 425a (cf. Feldman 1998b: 507). Greek εἰς ἅπαντα (“to the limit, to the full extent”). Marcus (1937: 419) reads “forever.” Josephus is paraphrasing the king’s desire that his people be able to enjoy the full extent of his kingdom. See previous note.

Greek σωφροσύνην καὶ δικαιοσύνην. In lxx/at Add Esth B 3/3:16 Haman is credited with “sound judgment” (σωφροσύνῃ). Greek πίστιν καὶ βέβαιον εὔνοιαν. In lxx/at Add Esth B 3/3:16 Haman is praised for his “steadfast goodwill” (εὐνοίᾳ ἀπαραλλάκτως/ἀπαραλλάκτῳ) and “steadfast fidelity” (βεβαίᾳ πίστει). Greek δυσμενής. So too Add Esth B 4/3:16. On the accusation of hostility, see Ant.11.212 and notes there. Greek ἀναμεμῖχθαι. lxx Add Esth B 4 ἀναμεμεῖχθαι; at Add Esth B 3:16 ἀναμεμῖχθαι. See note to “scattered” at 11.212 above. Greek νόμοις ἀλλόκοτον. lxx Add Esth B 4 νόμοις ἀντίθετον πρὸς πᾶν ἔθνος (“laws contrary to those of every nation”); at Add Esth B 3:16 has ἀντιδικοῦντα (“opposed to”) for ἀντίθετον. Greek ἀνυπότακτον. lxx Add Esth B 4 states that this people “continually disregard the ordinances of kings so that the joint administration of the kingdom that we honorably intend cannot be achieved.” at Add Esth 3:16 states here that they “continually disregard the command of kings so that the kingdom can never attain stability.” The accusation of insubordination was particularly sensitive in Josephus’ Roman setting. Greek παρηλλαγμένον τοῖς ἔθεσι. The accusation of peculiar customs echoes the statements in lxx/at Add Esth B 5/3:17 in which both refer to the Jews being “in opposition” (ἐν ἀντιπαραγωγῇ) and of following an “estranging” (ξενίζουσαν) manner of life due to their laws. Greek τὴν μοναρχίαν μισοῦν. In at Add Esth 3:17 the king complains that his sole rule (μοναρχίᾳ) is being undermined by the Jews (cf. next note). Josephus does, in other places, indicate that monarchy is an inferior form of government (Ant. 4.223; 6.44; 11.111–112; 20.229, 261). On these passages and Josephus’ ideal form of constitution, see note to “constitution” at 11.111 above. The biblical Haman (lxx/at Add Esth B 5/3:17) declares that this people “is ill-disposed to our interests, doing the worst harm and in order that our kingdom (βασιλείαν) may not attain stability” (lxx) or “it perpetually does the worst harm, in order that we may never be established in the sole-rule (μοναρχίᾳ) directed by us” (at).

Greek τοῦ δευτέρου μου πατρὸς. See also Ant. 11.277. The phrase is a close echo of lxx/at Add Esth B 6/3:18 δευτέρου πατρὸς ἡμῶν. The reference heightens the contrast between Haman and Mordecai, who is in effect the second father of Esther, having raised her as his own daughter after the death of her parents (Ant. 11.198, 204). Greek σὺν γυναιξὶ καὶ τέκνοις. The phrase is matched exactly in lxx/at Add Esth B 6/3:18. Greek ἔλεος. lxx/at Add Esth B 6/3:18 state that the Jews should be destroyed by the daggers of their enemies “without any compassion and constraint” (ἄνευ παντὸς οἴκτου καὶ φειδοῦς).

Josephus follows lxx (Esth 3:7; Add Esth B 6) regarding this date. mt puts it on the thirteenth of the month (Esth 3:7, 13), while at uses both dates (Esth 3:7; Add Esth B 3:18). Greek οἱ πανταχόθεν ἡμῖν πολέμιοι. lxx Add Esth B 7 οἱ πάλαι καὶ νῦν δυσμενεῖς (“those who have long been hostile and so remain”). So too at Add Esth B 3:18, with a slight difference in the word order. Greek μιᾷ ἡμέρᾳ. lxx/at Add Esth B 7/3:18 ἐν ἡμέρᾳ μιᾷ. Both of the Greek versions speak of the murdered Jews going down to Hades. Josephus brings the letter to a close in a more succinct way than either of the Greek versions. lxx Add Esth B 7 speaks of the matters of state being rendered “completely tranquil and untroubled for us” while at Add Esth B 3:18 speaks of “a state of tranquility” and of the Jews never again being able to “furnish us with matters of concern.”

Josephus heightens the drama of the scene by having the people of the kingdom actually making preparations for the murder of the Jews (Feldman 1998b: 527). Josephus’ phrasing (ἕτοιμοι … ἐγίνοντο) echoes lxx Esth 3:14 here, which states that the nations were ordered “to be ready [ἑτοίμους εἶναι] for this day.” Greek ἐσπεύδετο δὲ τοῦτο καὶ ἐν τῇ Σούσῃ. ὁ μὲν οὖν βασιλεὺς καὶ ὁ Ἀμάνης πρὸς εὐωχίαις καὶ πότοις ἦσαν, ἐν ταραχῇ δ᾽ ἦν ἡ πόλις. These two sentences resume the biblical story as found in mt; and though not found in at, are very close to what we find in lxx Esth 3:15: ἐσπεύδετο δὲ τὸ πρᾶγμα καὶ εἰς Σουσαν· ὁ δὲ βασιλεὺς καὶ Αμαν ἐκωθωνίζοντο, ἐταράσσετο δὲ ἡ πόλις.

In this section Mordecai attracts Esther’s attention by dressing in mourners’ clothing and instructing her to appeal to the king despite the prohibition against entering his presence uninvited. Then, in another departure from the Hebrew narrative, Esther and Mordecai plead with God to save them from Haman’s plot. Greek τὸ γινόμενον. Josephus’ text here is closer to at Esth 4:1 (τὰ γεγονότα) than to lxx Esth 4:1, which reads, “Now when Mardochai learned the outcome” (τὸ συντελούμενον). Mordecai’s behavior is readily understandable as indicative of deep mourning and distress (e.g., Isa 58:5; Dan 9:3; Lk 10:13; Matt 11:21; T. Jos. 15:2; similarly Job 2:12). By tearing his clothes, putting on sackcloth, and covering his head with ashes, Mordecai was both demonstrating his grief and protesting the injustice of Haman’s plan. The despair of the Judeans in this scene is starkly contrasted with the frivolous merrymaking of the king and Haman in the previous paragraph (Ant. 11.220; Esth 3:15). Greek μηδὲν ἀδικῆσαν ἔθνος ἀναιρεῖται. Mordecai’s cry, not found in mt or at, echoes lxx Esth 4:1: Αἴρεται ἔθνος μηδὲν ἠδικηκός (“An innocent nation is being destroyed!”).

The mourning of the Jews in all the cities of the empire reflects mt/lxx Esth 4:3, while in at Esth 4:1 the action is confined to the city. Greek τινες. In lxx Esth 4:4 (following mt) they are female attendants and eunuchs (αἱ ἅβραι καὶ οἱ εὐνοῦχοι). at Esth 4:3 has Mordecai sending a eunuch to Esther.

Greek οὐ πεισθέντος δὲ. This echoes lxx Esth 4:4 (ὁ δὲ οὐκ ἐπείσθη). at Esth 4:4 reads ὃ δὲ οὐκ ἤθελεν (“But he did not want to”). The reason for Mordecai’s refusal is supplied by Josephus. Greek Ἀχράθεος. mt התך, Hathach; lxx Esth 4:5 (but not at) Αχραθαῖος. It was common in the Persian court for eunuchs (castrated males) to be placed in charge of the royal harem and other important aspects of the administration. Here the eunuch acts as a messenger carrying communications back and forth between Esther and Mordecai. Greek ἔτυχεν αὐτῇ παρών. lxx Esth 4:5, but not at (cf. previous note), refers to Hathach as the eunuch “who attended [παρειστήκει] her.” Greek προσκαλεσαμένη τὸν εὐνοῦχον Ἀχράθεον, καὶ γὰρ ἔτυχεν αὐτῇ παρών, ἀπέστειλεν Μαρδοχαίῳ γνωσόμενον, τίνος συμβεβηκότος. Josephus’ phrasing is a close paraphrase of lxx Esth 4:5: ἡ δὲ Εσθηρ προσεκαλέσατο Αχραθαῖον τὸν εὐνοῦχον αὐτῆς, ὃς παρειστήκει αὐτῇ, καὶ ἀπέστειλεν μαθεῖν αὐτῇ παρὰ τοῦ Μαρδοχαίου τὸ ἀκριβές (Motzo 1928: 93).

So too mt/lxx Esth 4:7. at does not recall the matter of Haman’s offer of payment at this point. Greek τὴν ἀπώλειαν τοῦ ἔθνους. lxx Esth 4:7 has ἵνα ἀπολέσῃ τοὺς Ιουδαίους.

Greek ἀντίγραφον. So too lxx Esth 4:8 for mt’s פתשׁגן. Greek ἐντέλλω. Josephus’ statement matches lxx Esth 4:8, where Mordecai also commands Esther to go to the king. See also mt: צוה (“to command, to charge”). Greek δέω. In lxx Esth 4:8 Mordecai instructs Esther to “entreat the king and to beg him” (παραιτήσασθαι τὸν βασιλέα καὶ ἀξιῶσαι). at Esth 4:5 has only, “speak about us to the king.” Josephus’ reference to humble clothing echoes Mordecai’s appeal in lxx Esth 4:8 and at Esth 4:4 that Esther “Remember your humble days when you were brought up by my hand.” As the story unfolds, though, Esther wears the most sumptuous clothes imaginable when she approaches the king. The repetition of Haman’s status as second to the king and his accusation against the Jews follows both versions of Greek Esther (lxx/at Esth 4:8/4). Mordecai’s whole answer to Esther’s inquiry here is a close paraphrase of lxx Esth 4:7–8, which is in turn, close to mt. at’s account is much shorter.

So too mt/lxx Esth 4:11, though Josephus omits the statement by Esther to the effect that she has not been summoned to the king for some thirty days (lxx/ at Esth 4:11/8), a point which might seem to throw doubt on Esther’s status as the king’s favorite. Greek ῥάβδος. See also Ant. 11.206 where Josephus uses a different term (λύγος) for the king’s rod, and Ant. 11.239 where he differentiates between the staff and the rod (σκῆπτρον). This sentence is an echo of lxx/at Esth 4:11/7.

at does not mention the instruction to the eunuch at this point, though it is present in mt/lxx Esth 4:13. Josephus is closer here to lxx (which follows mt) than to at which omits Esth 4:13. lxx reads in part: “Do not say to yourself that you alone of all the Judeans in the empire will be safe.” Greek βοήθεια. lxx Esth 4:14 has βοήθεια καὶ σκέπη (“help and protection”) while at Esth 4:9 reads, “βοηθὸς καὶ σωτηρία (“a helper and deliverance”). This is the first of thirteen references to God in Josephus’ retelling of the Esther story (Ant. 11.227, 229, 232 [twice], 234, 237, 247, 259, 279, 280, 282, 294). mt/lxx Esth 4:14 state that if Esther neglects her duty to her people help will arise from “another place” (‪ממקום אחר‬, ἄλλοθεν). However, it should be noted that Josephus’ statement echoes at Esth 4:9 here, which reads: “If you ignore your nation and do not help them, then surely God will be to them a helper and deliverance.” mt Esther is unique in that it contains no references to God, an omission the Greek versions were at some pains to correct both in the additional passages and in the translation of the canonical portions (e.g., Esth 2:20, 4:8, 14, 16, 6:1, 13; cf. Moore 1977: 157–59). Indeed, as commentators have long noted, mt Esther lacks most of the key religious elements or concepts that might be expected in a Jewish canonical text, including law, covenant, election, prayer, and so on. The practice of fasting is the one exception to this point, and indicates that divine help was being sought even in mt (Moore 1971: 50). Ginzberg (1928: 470 n. 139) suggests that Josephus’ “help … from God” might imply that he was familiar with the idea of מקום (“place”) as a name of God, a notion (with topos) already found in Philo (Somn. 1.63–67). See also Spanier (1922) on this topic in early Talmudic literature. Mordecai’s warning to Esther is even more strident in Josephus’ retelling than in the Hebrew and Greek versions. In the biblical story Mordecai tells Esther that if she ignores her people’s plight, help will come to them from elsewhere (cf. previous note), but that she and her household will not survive the crisis (lxx/at Esth 4:14/9). Josephus goes much farther by implying that the Judeans themselves would wreak vengeance on Esther for her dereliction of duty. Josephus omits the biblical line in which Mordecai says to Esther: “And who knows, perhaps you have attained to royal position for just such a crisis” (Esth 4:14). The idea of Esther having to face divine judgment is found also in Esth. Rab. 8.6. Feldman (1998: 531) suggests that Josephus was commenting indirectly on the lack of unity among the Jewish insurgents during the war against Rome.

Greek ἐπέστειλεν … τὸν αὐτὸν πέμψασα διάκονον. This detail is an echo of lxx Esth 4:15 (but not mt or at), which states that Esther sent back to Mordecai the messenger who had come to her (ἐξαπέστειλεν Εσθηρ τὸν ἥκοντα πρὸς αὐτὴν). Josephus seems to have forgotten that Esther and Mordecai are already in Susa (cf. Ant. 11.204, 220). mt/ lxx Esth 4:16 state, “Go, gather all the Jews to be found in Susa.” Esther is thus the opposite of Vashti, who refused to approach the king despite his direct command to do so (cf. Ant. 11.191). Greek κἂν ἀποθανεῖν δέῃ. Josephus’ text is closer here to at Esth 4:11, in which Esther declares that she will enter the king’s presence “even if it be necessary that I die” (εἰ δέοι καὶ ἀποθανεῖν; lxx ἀπολέσθαι). As in the biblical story, Esther accepts her fate including the possibility of death: “If I perish, I perish” (Esth 4:16).

In this section Josephus follows Add Esth C (1–30/4:12b–29), containing Mordecai’s and Esther’s petitions to God. Greek κατὰ τὰς Ἐσθῆρος ἐντολὰς. Josephus’ text echoes mt/lxx Esth 4:17, which say, “And Mardochai went and did what Esther commanded [ἐνετείλατο; צותה] him.” at Esth 4:12a states only, “And Mardochai did so.”

In lxx/at Add Esth C 17–18/4:21, Esther explicitly acknowledges that the Jews had indeed sinned, and have been delivered into the hands of their enemies because “we honored their gods.” In both Greek biblical versions of the story (lxx/ at Add Esth C 6–7/4:15), Mordecai states that though he would have been willing to kiss the soles of Haman’s feet to ensure Israel’s safety, he refused to bow to him so as not to set human glory above God’s. Greek δέσποτα. Josephus’ address to God is closest to at Add Esth 4:13: Δέσποτα παντοκράτορ. lxx Add Esth C 2 has Κύριε βασιλεῦ πάντων κρατῶν. The reference to obedience to God’s laws is Josephus’ addition. In the Greek biblical versions (lxx/at Add Esth C 8–10/4:16), Mordecai appeals to the story of the Exodus and the people’s status as the Lord’s portion redeemed from the land of Egypt. The emphasis on adherence to law is repeated in the next paragraph.

This is the only time the term Ἰσραηλῖται occurs in Josephus’ paraphrase of the Book of Esther. No doubt Josephus uses the term here under the influence of Greek Esther which uses Ισραηλ (“Israel”) numerous times in the added prayers of Mordecai and Esther (lxx Add Esth C 2, 6, 11, 14, 16//at Add Esth C 4:13, 14, 15, 20). Greek πρὸ ὀφθαλμῶν αὐτὴν εἶχον. lxx Add Esth C 11: ὅτι θάνατος αὐτῶν ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς αὐτῶν (“because their death was before their eyes”). The statement is not made in at. Once again Josephus inserts a reference to the law to enhance this aspect of his portrayal of the Judeans (cf. previous paragraph). Significantly, he omits from Esther’s prayer the confession that, “we have sinned before you … because we honored their gods” (lxx/at Add Esth C 17–18/4:21). The Greek versions do not say that Esther threw herself to the ground. lxx Add Esth C 13 states, “Taking off the garments of her glory, she put on the garments of distress and mourning, and instead of costly perfumes she covered her head with ashes and dung, and she utterly humbled her body; every part that she loved to adorn she covered with her tangled hair” (similarly at Add Esth 4:18).

The statement about three days of renunciation is Josephus’ addition. Marcus (1937: 427; cf. 426 n. d) punctuates the sentence differently, so that it reads: “… and for three days she begged God ...” In support of the present translation, see Ant. 11.228 where Esther calls for the three-day fast. lxx/at Add Esth D 1/5:1 does, however, seem to imply that Esther prayed for three days. Josephus adds this aspect of Esther’s prayer. In the Greek versions, which provide Esther’s prayer in direct discourse, she prays for courage and eloquence (lxx/ at Add Esth C 23–24/4:25) while also confessing the sins of the nation and affirming her trust in God. Esther also references the idol-worship of the Persians saying, “they have put their hands into the hands of their idols, to annul the stipulation of your mouth and to destroy your inheritance and to stop the mouths of those who praise you and to extinguish the glory of your house and your altar” (lxx/at Add Esth C 19–20/4:22). The critique of idolatry continues in lxx Add Esth C 22 when she prays, “O Lord, do not surrender your scepter to those who don’t exist [τοῖς μὴ οὖσιν].” at has “enemies [τοῖς μισοῦσί] who hate you”). Esther also insists that she hates “the bed of the uncircumcised and of any foreigner” and that she abhors “like a menstrual cloth” (ὡς ῥάκος καταμηνίων) the crown on her head, which she wears in public but never in private (lxx/at Add Esth C 26–27/4:26). Finally, she adds that she has neither eaten at Haman’s table nor “honored the king’s banquet nor drunk the wine of libations” (lxx/at Add Esth C 28/4:27). Josephus might well have regarded such statements as too inflammatory to include in his account. On Haman’s charges against the Jews, see note to “laws” at 11.212 above.

In the biblical Greek versions of the story Esther prays that God will turn Haman’s plan against him and make a public example of him (lxx/at Add Esth C 22/4:23). This sentence, which is very complicated in the Greek, summarizes a much longer prayer in lxx/at.

Josephus again follows the additional material in the Greek versions of the story in his description of the drama of Esther’s approach to the king (Add Esth D), including the clothes she was wearing and how she was attended by maids-in-waiting. The same applies to his description of the king, dressed in royal fĳinery and presenting such a fĳigure as to be terrifying to all who saw him. mt Esth 5:1 contains only a very brief description of Esther’s entrance: “Esther put on royal apparel and stood in the inner court of the king’s palace, while the king was sitting on his royal throne facing the entrance of the palace.” Greek Esther says she put on her “[garments of] glory” (lxx/at Add Esth D 1/5:1). Greek ἡ μὲν ἐπερειδομένην αὐτὴν κούφως ἔφερεν. lxx/at Add Esth D 3/5:2 have ἐπηρείδετο ὡς τρυφερευομένη (“she leaned gently for support”). Josephus’ description of the dress is more elaborate than the biblical versions. Greek προσηνὲς δὲ καὶ σεμνὸν ἐπικειμένη τὸ κάλλος. Josephus paraphrases lxx/at Add Esth D 5/5:3, which have αὐτὴ ἐρυθριῶσα ἀκμῇ κάλλους αὐτῆς, καὶ τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτῆς ἱλαρὸν ὡς προσφιλές (“She was radiant with the full flush of her beauty, and her face looked happy as if she were cheerful”).

The element of Esther’s fear, which Josephus derives from the Greek versions of the story, is also dwelt upon at length by the Rabbis, who interpret Ps. 22 (in which the psalmist cries out “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me”) as the prayer of Esther in her fear (b. Meg. 15b). The king’s attire is derived from the Greek versions (lxx/at Add Esth D 6/5:4).

The king’s demeanor is derived from the Greek versions (lxx/at Add Esth D 6–7/5:4–5). mt Esth 5:2 simply states, “As soon as the king saw Queen Esther standing in the court, she won his favor.” Josephus follows the Greek versions, which speak of the king’s initial anger followed by a change of heart. Daube (1976) has speculated that Josephus’ own perilous encounter with Vespasian soon after his capture at Jotapata gave him a special affinity for this scene (cf. War 3.403–404). Esther’s fainting spell is derived from the Greek versions (lxx/at Add Esth D 7/5:6).

While the Greek versions state simply that “God changed the spirit [μετέβαλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸ πνεῦμα] of the king to gentleness” (lxx/at Add Esth D 8/5:7), Josephus adds the verb οἶμαι (“I think”) to give the impression that this is his own interpretation or insight into what happened. Daube (1976) has argued that this editorial comment by Josephus suggests a sense of personal attachment to this story reflecting Josephus’ own life-threatening encounter with an all-powerful individual, the soon-to-be-emperor Vespasian (cf. War 3.392–408). It should be noted, however, that οἶμαι is Josephus’ standard way of introducing reflections on incursions of the Divine, Fate, or Destiny into human affairs. See note to “I think” at 11.139 above. In rabbinic interpretations the king is moved against his will by angels who force him to look at Esther and extend his hand toward her (b. Meg. 15b). Greek διάνοια. The Greek versions (lxx/at Add Esth D 8/5:8) say that God changed the king’s “spirit” (πνεῦμα). The king’s fear that Esther might suffer something worse because of her fear is Josephus’ embellishment of the story.

The picture of the king’s affectionate behavior in this scene is derived from the Greek versions (lxx/at Add Esth D 8/5:8). The Greek versions read: “He [i.e., the king] kept comforting her with soothing words and said to her, ‘What is it, Esther? I am your brother. Take heart! You shall not die, for our ordinance is only for the common person” (lxx/at Add Esth D 8–9/5:8–9). The reference to sharing the king’s rule is presumably taken from mt Esth 5:3 where the king states, “What is your request? It shall be given you, even to the half of my kingdom.” See further Ant. 11.241.

Greek σκῆπτρον. By introducing both a rod (or scepter) and a staff (ῥάβδος) Josephus seems to be following (or possibly misreading) a text like at this point. In that version the king states, “Look, the rod is in your hand” (at Add Esth D 5:9), and the narrator continues: “Then he lifted the rod and placed it on her neck” (at Add Esth D 5:10). On the terms used for the king’s rod see also Ant. 11.206, 226. If we follow Daube’s suggestions regarding the possibility that in this scene Josephus was recalling his encounter with Vespasian (cf. note to “anger” at 11.236 and to “think” at 11.237 above), then it may be worth noting that in the relevant scene in War 3.404 Josephus states that Vespasian’s thoughts had already begun to turn toward “empire” (τὴν ἡγεμονίαν) and “the rods” (τὰ σκῆπτρα). The plural in that case apparently indicates the bundle of rods (fasces) that accompanied high Roman officials (Drummond 2003). Another example of Josephus inserting a reference to law (cf. Ant. 11.191, 195, 202, 210, 230, 231).

Josephus avoids the statement found in both Greek biblical versions (lxx/at Add Esth D 13/5:11) that Esther saw the king “like an angel of God” (ὡς ἄγγελον θεοῦ). Josephus uses an interesting expression here when he has Esther say that her πνεῦμα recoiled and ψυχή abandoned her. lxx Add Esth D 13–14 reads: “my heart was shaken from fear of your glory. For you are marvelous, lord, and your face is full of grace.” at Add Esth 5:11 reads: “my heart melted from the glory of your rage, lord.”

In lxx Add Esth D 15, Esther faints a second time at this point, while at Add Esth 5:12 states: “And upon her face was a measure of sweat.” Greek τε ἀγωνία καὶ ταραχὴ. The king’s consternation at Esther’s weakened state is an embellishment of the statement in the Greek versions that “the king and all his servants were troubled [ἐταράσσετο]” (lxx/at Add Esth D 16/5:12).

The Rabbis speculate that Esther was hoping to provoke the king’s jealousy against Haman by including him in the invitation, even if this endangered her own life (b. Meg. 15b). So too lxx Esth 5:4. In at Esth 5:14, Esther asks the king and Haman to come to the banquet the following day. However, Josephus is closer to mt in omitting Esther’s statement found in both Greek versions to the effect that the day in question was a “special” (ἐπίσημος) day for her.

In having the king repeat the offer of half his kingdom Josephus is closer to at Esth 5:17 than to lxx Esth 5:6. The Rabbis speculate that Esther was following the example of Moses (Exod 17:9), who also desired an additional day of preparation before doing battle with Amalek, Haman’s ancestor (pa 1.71).

Haman plans to execute Mordecai, but God works to thwart him by having the king honor Mordecai. The biblical text states that Haman went out “happy and in good spirits” (Esth 5:9), but when he boasts to his wife and friends later on he states: “Even Queen Esther let no one but myself come with the king to the banquet that she prepared” (Esth 5:12). By adding Haman’s reflections on his unique honor Josephus heightens the irony of the scene (Feldman 1998b: 521). In at Esth 5:20 we read that Haman “marveled” at Esther’s invitation. Haman’s encounter with Mordecai here matches mt/lxx Esth 5:9 but not at, which omits the encounter at this stage. Josephus follows lxx in omitting the statement in mt Esth 5:9–10 to the effect that although Haman was infuriated by Mordecai’s behavior, he restrained himself. Such restraint would perhaps have seemed too positive a character trait to ascribe to Haman.

Greek παρελθὼν πρὸς αὑτὸν. Josephus’ text echoes lxx Esth 5:10 here, which has εἰσελθὼν εἰς τὰ ἴδια. Greek καλέω. So too lxx Esth 5:10. at Esth 5:21 has συνήγαγε (“gathered together”). Greek Γάζασα. mt זרשׁ, Zeresh; lxx Ζωσαρα; at Ζωσάρα. Josephus omits Haman’s recounting to his wife and friends of all his accomplishments and honors (mt/ lxx Esth 5:11).

Greek μὴ ἀρέσκεσθαι. Josephus’ wording here is closer to lxx Esth 5:13 (οὐκ ἀρέσκει) than to at 5:22, in which Haman states that Mordecai’s refusal to honor him “distresses me” (λυπεῖ με). Greek Μαρδοχαῖον … τὸν Ἰουδαῖον. So too lxx/at Esth 5:13/22 for mt מרדכי היהודי (cf. Esth 2:5). See note to “Judeans” at 11.198 and to “designation” at 11.173 above. Josephus, like at, excludes Haman’s friends from the giving of this advice (cf. lxx/at Esth 5:14/23), presumably to focus blame on Haman and his family (Feldman 1998b: 528 n. 27). Josephus exaggerates what is already an impossibly high gallows of fifty cubits in the Bible. Sixty cubits is approximately eighty feet, a ludicrously high structure to erect in the courtyard of a person’s home. The exaggerated dimension serves, perhaps, to heighten the foolishness and excess of Haman and his wife. Greek ἀνασταυρόω. Josephus uses terminology that would have been familiar to his Roman audience, since crucifixion was a common form of execution practiced by them. The terms used by the biblical sources (mt ‪תלה‬; lxx κρεμασθήτω; at κρέμασον) refer to hanging or impaling, which involved the public display of a person’s body on a pole after he had been killed. In Herodotus (9.78) another verb, ἀνασκολοπίζω, is sometimes used as a synonym for ἀνασταυρόω. In all cases the intention was to inflict the utmost dishonor on the body of the deceased. Examples of hanging on a tree or a wall occur in the Bible (Gen 40:19; Deut 21:22; Josh 8:29; 10:26; 1 Sam 31:10), but the practice was particularly associated with the Persians in antiquity (Herodotus 3.125, 7.238). See also note to “crucified” at 11.17 above.

This picture of God mocking Haman is Josephus’ contribution to the story based on his conviction that God knows the future before it happens and works to accomplish his own ends. The term “mocking” is reminiscent of Esther’s earlier prayer in the Greek version of the story, in which she pleads with God not to let their enemies “laugh at our downfall” (lxx Add Esth C 22; at 4:23 has “rejoice”). See note to “mocked” at 11.257 below. On Haman as evil see also 11.257, 264, 265. God’s delight at the prospect of Haman’s downfall is Josephus’ addition. Daube (1976: 144) suggests that Josephus projected his own spiteful feelings toward Jonathan of Cyrene, who in the aftermath of the Jewish revolt had tried to implicate Josephus in his (Jonathan’s) failed insurrection, but who had been proven a liar and was then tortured and burnt alive (War 7.437–50; Life 424–25). In the passage in Life Josephus refers to others as well who had accused him falsely because of envy at his good fortune. Josephus, however, “escaped by the provision of God” (Life 425). As in the Greek biblical texts, God is identified as the cause of the king’s sleepless night. The Hebrew version states simply that “sleep deserted the king” (Esth 6:1). The Rabbis speak of how God and all the heavenly host are roused to action by the fasting and prayers of the Judeans, especially the women, whose voice was heard “like the voice of young goats” (Tg. Esth. I 6:1; cf. Tg. Esth. ii). According to Esth. Rab. 10.1 the king’s sleep is disturbed by a dream of Haman seizing a sword to kill him.

Greek ἀγρυπνία. at Esth 6:1 states that the king “stayed awake” (ἦν ἀγρυπνῶν). The king’s diligence is Josephus’ addition. Greek τὰ ὑπομνήματα. mt Esth 6:1 refers to ספר הזכרנות דברי הימים (“the book of records, the annals”). lxx refers to “the written daily annals” (γράμματα μνημόσυνα τῶν ἡμερῶν), while at has “the book of the chronicles” (τὸ βιβλίον τῶν μνημοσυνῶν). Josephus expands considerably on the biblical version of this night scene, including details about other records besides the one concerning Mordecai.

Greek ἀριστεία (“excellence, prowess”). The discovery of the man who received land as a reward is Josephus’ addition. Greek πίστις. This detail, too, is an invention of Josephus. Earlier in the story Haman had been erroneously praised by the king for this virtue (Ant. 11.217). In at Esth 6:4 the king reflects deeply on the fact that Mordecai is a “loyal man” (πιστὸς ἀνήρ). Greek Γαβαταῖος and Θεοδέστης. The eunuchs are named Bigthana (בגתנא) and Teresh (תרשׁ) at this point in the biblical narrative (mt Esth 6:2; cf. 2:21). Josephus gives different forms of the names earlier in his narrative (cf. Ant. 11.207).

Josephus adds the narrative detail, presumably for dramatic effect, about the king’s stopping the reader in order to inquire what action had been taken. Feldman (1998: 522) cites the rabbinic tradition that the reader in the story was one of the sons of Haman (cf. pa 2.75; Yalqut 2.1057). Josephus overlooks the fact that in Ant. 11.208 he had stated that Mordecai had been appointed “friend” to the king in recognition of his service. The king’s query about the time is Josephus’ addition.

It was customary for a king’s “friends” (i.e., his important clients) to appear at the court early in the morning to greet him and to make themselves available for whatever he might need. In this story Haman is supposedly the king’s closest friend, but Mordecai more truly fulfills the role by being more concerned for the king’s well being than his own. See note to “friends” at 11.186 above. Josephus’ detail about Haman coming to the court earlier than usual because of his desire to kill Mordecai reflects a similar reference in at Esth 6:7, which states that Haman rose early (ὠρθρίκει) to speak to the king.

The king seems to be deliberately devious in Josephus’ version of the story, since he first tells Haman that he is his only true friend. Greek εὔνους. In lxx Esth 6:4 we read that the king was inquiring concerning Mordecai’s goodwill (εὔνοια) at just the time that Haman entered the court. The king’s reference to someone “well disposed” to him is Josephus’ addition to the story, and it heightens the irony of the situation because Haman thinks the king is talking about him. Greek τιμήσαιμι. In lxx Esth 6:3 the king had asked his servants, “What honor or distinction [δόξαν ἢ χάριν] have we bestowed on Mardochai?” Then, in lxx Esth 6:6 he asks Haman, “What should I do for the person whom I want to extol [δοξάσαι]?” See also mt/lxx Esth 6:7, 9, 11, and note to “glory” at 11.254 below. In at Esth 6:4 the king doesn’t so much ask a question as express remorse: “Mardochai is a loyal man for protecting my life, for he has kept me alive even until now, and I am sitting on my throne today and have done nothing for him.” Greek μεγαλοφροσύνη. This is a character quality used of Xerxes in Herodotus 7.136. Greek στέργω. This is a word used to express the mutual love of parents and children. In 11.204 Josephus uses the same verb to speak of Mordecai’s fatherly love for Esther. Throughout the present scene Josephus uses three synonyms for the love or affection of the king for his subjects: στέργω is used again in 11.258; while φιλέω is used at 11.253, and ἀγαπάω in 11.254. The Greek biblical texts do not emphasize love to the same degree. While ἀγαπάω appears at lxx Esth 6:9, the emphasis in the biblical story is on honor. See further the note to “honor” earlier in this paragraph.

Greek ὁ δὲ Ἀμάνης λογισάμενος. Josephus is closest here to at Esth 6:10, which reads ἐλογίσατο ὁ Αμαν λέγων (“Haman reasoned, saying”). lxx Esth 6:6 has εἶπεν δὲ ἐν ἑαυτῷ Αμαν (“And Haman said to himself”). Josephus relishes the irony of the scene in which Haman proposes a reward that he imagines will be given to himself. Later in the story Josephus inserts an editorial note in which he reflects on the opposite lesson: those who devise punishments for others should be careful that they do not rebound on themselves (Ant. 11.268). The Rabbis greatly embellish the account of the honors bestowed on Mordecai (Tg. Esth. i–ii 6:10; b. Meg. 16a). Greek φιλέω. See note to “cherished” at 11.252 above.

Greek δόξῃ περιβαλεῖν. The Greek versions speak throughout (lxx 6:6, 7, 9, 11//at 6:9, 10, 11, 13) of the person whom the king might wish to “extol” (δοξάσαι). Greek ἀγαπάω. This is used here as a synonym for στέργω. See also Ant. 11.258 and the note to “cherished” at 11.252 above. Greek περιαυχένιος χρύσεος. The golden necklace is an addition to Scripture, unless it is a substitution for the royal crown which, according to mt Esth 6:8, was worn by the royal horse. The Greek versions omit this aspect of the treatment altogether. Marcus (1937: 436 n. a) suggests that the necklace is reminiscent of the reward promised to Daniel in Dan 5:2 (cf. Ant. 10.240), while Daube (1976: 144) speculates somewhat unconvincingly that Josephus was thinking of the rewards that he himself had received for imperial service (cf. Life 422–423). Feldman (1998: 523) notes that a gold chain was one of the gifts bestowed on Joseph by Pharaoh in Gen 41:42. Josephus will insert a reference to Mordecai’s necklace again at Ant. 11.284; it also features as one of the gifts offered by King Darius in the Zerubbabel story (Ant. 11.35). Josephus uses ἀναγκαίων here for lxx/at Esth 6:9/11 ἐνδόξων (“most noble”). See also mt: הפרתמים (“most noble”). See note to “very close friend to the king” at 11.208 and to “close” at 11.255 above.

This repetition of Haman’s erroneous assumption is Josephus’ addition. Josephus seems to imply that the reward items are currently in Haman’s possession, and therefore that he now has to hand them over to Mordecai. Greek ἀναγκαῖος. This statement, which is an addition to Scripture, emphasizes the irony of the displacement of Haman. See note to “close” in the previous paragraph. The reference to saving the king’s life is an addition to Scripture at this point, though it echoes a similar reflection from slightly earlier in at Esth 6:4. Josephus repeats the point about saving the king’s life in 11.257.

Josephus’ embellished account of Haman’s stunned response to the king’s instructions echoes at Esth 6:13, which states that Haman’s “heart was utterly broken, and his spirit became feeble.” See note to “word” at 11.266 below. The Rabbis greatly embellish Haman’s humiliation by having him personally bathe Mordecai and act as his footstool when mounting the horse (b. Meg. 16a, Esth. Rab. 10.4; Tg. Esth. i–ii 6:11). The reference to Mordecai’s wearing sackcloth (σάκκος) in this scene echoes at Esth 6:15, in which Haman tells him to “tear off the sackcloth” (cf. v. 16).

The motif of mockery arises again, this time ironically since Mordecai thinks that he is being mocked by Haman and laughed at, but is not (cf. note to “mocking” at 11.247 above). Not ironic is Mordecai’s description of Haman as the “worst of all men.” See next note. Mordecai’s words to Haman are Josephus’ addition to the story. The description of Haman as the “worst of all men” (ὦ κάκιστε πάντων ἀνθρώπων) is repeated by the king at 11.265. Of the biblical versions, only at Esth 6:16 provides any account of Mordecai’s response to Haman’s arrival with the king’s rewards: “And Mardochai was distressed as one dying, and with anguish he took off the sackcloth and put on the garments of glory.” The text continues to relate that Mordecai “thought he saw a sign, and his heart was toward the Lord, and he was mystified in silent fear” (at Esth 6:17). Greek σωτηρία. Of the biblical versions, only at (and that only at an earlier point in the story; Esth 6:4) refers specifically to Mordecai’s saving the king’s life. See note to “life” at 11.255 above.

Greek ἐν κύκλῳ περιῄει τὴν πόλιν. mt Esth 6:11 states that Haman led him “through the open square of the city” (ברחוב העיר), for which lxx Esth 6:11 has διῆλθεν διὰ τῆς πλατείας τῆς πόλεως. at Esth 6:19 reads only that Haman led him “outside” (ἔξω). Josephus uses a somewhat different expression in the next sentence. Greek στέργω. See note to “cherished” at 11.252 above.

Greek ἐκπεριῆλθον τὴν πόλιν. See note to “circuit” in previous paragraph. mt Esth 6:12, followed by lxx, states that Haman went home “mourning and with his head covered.” at Esth 6:20 states that Mordecai went home “downhearted.” Two themes are important here. The first is the reversal of the role of mourner. While originally it was the Judeans who mourned while Haman rejoiced, now it is the other way round. The second important theme is that of honor and shame. Haman has been shamed— and more shame lies in store for him—while the one he hoped to shame has been greatly honored—and more honor awaits him and his people. Greek τὸν γὰρ θεὸν εἶναι σὺν αὐτῷ. Josephus derives this statement from the Greek versions. lxx Esth 6:13 states: ὅτι θεὸς ζῶν μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ (“because a living god is with him”) while at Esth 6:22 reads: ὅτι ὁ θεὸς ἐν αὐτοῖς (“because God is among them”). In mt Esth 6:13 Haman’s wife declares, “If Mordecai, before whom your downfall has begun, is of the Jewish people, you will not prevail against him, but will surely fall before him.” At this point in the story it is already clear that Haman’s plot to kill Mordecai has failed, and the events leading to the final downfall of Haman have been set in motion.

In this section the plot reaches its climax as Esther reveals Haman’s plot to the king, who summarily sentences him to death. Josephus takes the opportunity to reflect on the moral lesson of the story. No doubt Josephus hoped that gentile readers would learn from his story what dangers lie in store for those who plot to harm the Jews. In mt/lxx Esth 6:14 it is the king’s eunuchs who take Haman to the banquet. at Esth 6:23 says simply, “someone arrived.”

Greek Σαβουχάδας. mt חרבונה, Harbonah; lxx Βουγαθαν, Bugathan; at Αγαθας, Agathas. The eunuch is not mentioned at this point in the biblical story but only later, at mt/lxx Esth 7:9 and at Esth 7:12. See note to “being” at the end of this sentence. In the biblical story the truth about Mordecai’s relation to Esther is not known to the characters at this point. This whole sentence is an addition to Scripture. Josephus has the eunuch inquire about the cross here in order to account for his knowledge of it later in the story (mt/lxx Esth 7:9; at Esth 7:12; Ant. 11.266). The detail also serves to build suspense (Feldman 1998b: 525).

In mt/lxx Esth 7:2 (but not at) the king’s question comes on the second day of the feast. Josephus also omits the indication in all three biblical versions that this happened while they were drinking wine. On Josephus’ reduction of the emphasis on wine in the story, see note to “continually” at 11.188 and to “banquet” at 11.190 above.

Esther implies that only because a fate worse than slavery awaits the Judeans does she now trouble the king. Josephus’ version is, uncharacteristically, closer to mt here than to the Greek ones, in which Esther states that her people have indeed been sold into slavery (Esth 7:4). The last part of this verse (“no enemy can compensate for this damage to the king”), rendered variously by the Greek versions, is omitted.

Greek τοῦτον ὄντα πονηρὸν. mt Esth 7:6 reads: “A foe and enemy, this wicked Haman,” for which lxx has Ἄνθρωπος ἐχθρὸς Αμαν ὁ πονηρὸς οὗτος. at Esth 7:8’s more elaborate account reads: Αμαν ὁ φίλος σου ὁ ψευδὴς οὑτοσί, ὁ πονηρὸς ἄνθρωπος οὗτος (“Haman, your friend, is this liar, this evil man”). One of the themes of this story is the innate wickedness of Haman in contrast to the virtue of the falsely accused Judeans (cf. Ant. 11.212, 214, 247, 268).

869 Greek ταράσσω. The same word is used in both Greek versions to describe Haman’s terrified response to Esther’s accusation (lxx/at Esth 7:6/10). The king’s angry reaction echoes that described in mt Esth 7:7, חמה (“wrath”), and at Esth 7:9, ἔκθυμος δὲ γενόμενος ... καὶ πλησθεὶς ὀργῆς (“becoming angry and filled with rage”), while lxx states only that “the king rose from the banquet.” Josephus’ term, ἀναπηδάω, is found also in at Esth 7:9. The exit into the gardens, however, reflects mt/ lxx Esth 7:7. Greek ἐν κακοῖς ὤν. Josephus’ phrase is very close to lxx Esth 7:7’s ἐν κακοῖς ὄντα. The Rabbis state that it was the angel Gabriel who threw Haman onto Esther’s couch to make it look as if he was about to violate Esther. They also say that when the king went into the garden he saw angels disguised as Haman’s sons cutting down the trees (b. Meg. 16a; Tg. Esth. i–ii 7:7). Greek ὦ κάκιστε πάντων. These words, which are an addition to Scripture and an echo of Mordecai’s statement at 11.257, are based on a misunderstanding of Haman’s actions—he seems to the king to be making a violent advance on Esther. Nevertheless, despite his mistake, the king finally sees through Haman’s lies to the real character of the man. The irony is that the truth about Haman is uttered by characters who misunderstand Haman’s outward actions, but who nevertheless grasp the true nature of the man. On Haman’s wicked nature see note to “evil” at 11.268 below. Greek βιάζω. So too lxx Esth 7:8, while at Esth 7:11 has ἐκβιάζω. at also adds the further accusation: “A crime against my kingdom is not enough for you?”

Haman’s speechlessness here is in place of the statement in mt Esth 7:8 that “they covered Haman’s face,” or in lxx that “he [Haman] covered his face.” See note to “confused” at 11.256 above. See note to “Sabouchadas” and to “being” at 11.261 above. Greek σταυρός. lxx/at Esth 7:9/12 have ξύλον (“tree, pole, stake”). See note to “being” at 11.261 above. Scripture has fifty (mt/lxx Esth 7:9; at Esth 7:12). See note to “sixty” at 11.246 above.

Greek κρεμάννυμι. Josephus is close to at Esth 7:13 here. lxx Esth 7:9 has the king say Σταυρωθήτω ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῦ (“Let him be crucified on it”). The Rabbis greatly embellish the story of Haman’s shameful death along with his ten sons, who are said to have been crucified or impaled on the same pole (Tg. Esth. i–ii 9:13–14).

Greek πονηρία. Haman’s wickedness is asserted at numerous points throughout the story (cf. 11.247, 257, 264, 265). Haman, for his part, had (falsely) accused the Jews of being evil throughout the story as well (e.g., Ant. 11.212, 214)—a calumny that the king eventually refutes in writing (Ant. 11.279). This editorial comment seems to have been inspired at least in part by lxx Esth 9:25: “but as much evil as he [i.e., Haman] had devised to bring upon the Judeans came upon him, and he himself and his children were hanged.” Josephus can also draw this kind of moral from history, however. Earlier (Ant. 11.253), a reward that Haman had assumed was for him went to his enemy, just as here a punishment he had devised for his enemy rebounded on him. This is what Josephus means when he says that “God was mocking Haman’s wicked hopes” (Ant. 11.247). For other examples of Josephus’ moralistic editorializing, see Ant. 7.37–38; 8.251–252, 300–301, 418–419 and 10.277–280. In Ant. 1.14–16 he states that the main lesson to be learned from his history is that “those who comply with the will of God and do not venture to transgress laws that have been well enacted succeed in all things beyond belief and that happiness lies before them as a reward from God. But to the extent that they dissociate themselves from the scrupulous observance of these laws the practicable things become impracticable, and whatever seemingly good thing they pursue with zeal turns into irremediable misfortunes.” On the centrality of the reversal-of-fortune theme in the biblical Book of Esther, see Winitzer 2011.

The king reverses the ill fortune of the Judeans and they are saved. He also sends a letter reversing his earlier edict, and the Judeans commemorate their deliverance by establishing the annual holiday of Purim. Greek ἀμετρήτως. This reason for Haman’s fall is supplied by Josephus. The measure of this immoderation is expressed in the king’s complaint that Haman had acted with insolence or arrogance, not only to those who were his social inferiors, but to his benefactor the king as well (Ant. 11.273–274). This theme is familiar from Greek tragedy. See note to “reason” at 11.277 below. At this point in the biblical narrative (Esth 8:1) mt refers to Haman as צרר היהודים (“the enemy of the Jews”), while lxx calls him “Haman the slanderer [διάβολος].” So too mt/lxx Esth 8:1, while at Esth 7:15 has the king giving Haman’s possessions to Mordecai. at Esth 7:17 also states that the king entrusted the affairs of the kingdom to Mordecai. See note to “shared” at 11.295 below. This statement follows mt/lxx Esth 8:1. In at Esth 7:14 the king says of Haman, “Did he not know that Esther is of his [i.e., Mordecai’s] race?”

So too mt/lxx Esth 8:2, while in at Esth 7:15 Haman’s possessions are given to Mordecai by the king. In mt/lxx Esth 8:5, Esther asks the king to revoke Haman’s letter, but does not show it to the king. In at Esth 7:16, it is Mordecai who asks the king to revoke Haman’s letter. In mt/lxx Esth 8:3–4, Esther falls before the king and he again extends the golden rod to her.

In mt Esth 8:9–10, it is Mordecai who dictates the letter, while in lxx the king writes it with the aid of his secretaries. Josephus omits the date supplied in the biblical narratives (Esth 8:9). mt states that it was on the twenty-third day of the third month which is called Sivan, while lxx states that is was the twenty-third day of the first month (Nisan). Josephus may have judged lxx’s date to be too soon after the date given in mt/lxx Esth 3:12 and at Esth 3:7 for Haman’s edict, namely the thirteenth of Nisan. See note to “immediately” at 11.215 above. Greek οἰκονόμοις καὶ ἄρχουσιν. Josephus’ terminology is similar to lxx Esth 8:9 (τοῖς οἰκονόμοις καὶ τοῖς ἄρχουσιν), which reduces mt’s three groups (“the satraps and the governors and the officials of the provinces”) to two. On these kinds of titles, see notes to “satrapies” at 11.186 above and 11.287 below. Once again Josephus follows the Greek versions (Add Esth E 1–24/7:22–32) in supplying the text of the edict. Here Josephus omits the summary statement provided in mt Esth 8:11: “By these letters the king allowed the Jews who were in every city to assemble and defend their lives, to destroy, to kill, and to annihilate any armed force of any people or province that might attack them, with their children and women, and to plunder their goods.” lxx’s more irenic statement says: “he ordered them to live in accordance with their laws in every city, both to help themselves and to deal with their adversaries and their enemies as they wished.” In at Esth 7:18, Esther petitions the king: “Allow me to punish my enemies with bloodshed.”

Greek ἐξυβρίζω. The Greek versions (lxx/at Add Esth E 2–3/7:23) speak of Haman’s ambition (μεῖζον ἐφρόνησαν) and intent to do harm (κακοποιεῖν). Josephus often reflects on the calamitous outcome of insolence or hubris (e.g., Ant. 1.113, 188, 189; 5.200; 11.192, 193). See note to “prosperity” at 11.277 below.

Greek τὸ εὐχάριστον ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ἀναιροῦντες. The phrase in the Greek versions is τὴν εὐχαριστίαν … ἐκ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἀνταναιροῦντες (lxx/at Add Esth E 4/7:23). Josephus’ meaning is somewhat obscure here. Marcus (1937: 447) renders the sentence: “in their vulgar lack of appreciation of those blessings from unexpected sources.” Greek κόρος. This is a synonym for ὕβρις, on which see note to “insolence” at 11.273 above. lxx Add Esth E 4 reads: “they even presume to escape the evil-hating divine justice, who always observes everything.” Similarly at Add Esth 7:23, but with “the just Judge who rules all things.”

Greek μῖσος ἴδιον. The emphasis on personal hatred is Josephus’ addition. Greek ψευδέσιν αἰτίαις καὶ διαβολαῖς. The poisonous influence of false accusations and slander is a recurring theme for Josephus. On his own experience of being subject to malicious accusations, see Life 423, 425, 429. lxx Add Esth E 6 refers to “the malicious lie of an evil disposition,” while at Add Esth E 7:23 has “the lie of trickery.” See next note. Greek μηδὲν ἀδικούντων. lxx/at Add Esth E 5/7:23 refer to the near shedding of αἱμάτων ἀθῴων (“innocent blood”).

Greek διαβολαῖς μὲν καὶ κατηγορίαις. The king’s resolve to pay no attention to slanders and accusations is somewhat closer to at Add Esth E 7:24, which uses the word διαβολαῖς, than to lxx Add Esth E 9 at this point. Josephus was particularly concerned that the Romans in his own day should not listen to slander against the Jews either in Rome or throughout the empire (e.g., Apion 1.2–3).

See note to “Amalekite” at 11.209 above. Greek Ἀμαληκίτης δὲ τὸ γένος. On this expression see note to “birth” at 11.207 above. Greek ἀλλότριος ὢν τοῦ Περσῶν αἵματος. lxx Add Esth E 10 refers to Haman here as a Macedonian (cf. lxx Esth 9:24) who was “in truth a foreigner to the blood of the Persians” (ταῖς ἀληθείαις ἀλλότριος τοῦ τῶν Περσῶν αἵματος). In at Add Esth E 7:25 Haman is a Bougean who is “in truth a stranger to the thinking [φρονήματος] of the Persians.” See note to “others” at 11.278 below. Both Greek versions (lxx/at Add Esth E 10/7:25) add that Haman was “quite devoid of our kindness” (πολὺ διεστηκὼς [at: διεστὼς] τῆς ἡμετέρας χρηστότητος), a theme that Josephus echoes in his next phrase. Josephus’ version extends the king’s kindness to all people, while in the biblical texts the kindness is mentioned only in reference to the king’s clients or friends (lxx/at Add Esth E 2/7:23). Greek τὸ μέγεθος τῶν ἀγαθῶν ἐταμίευσεν. Marcus (1937: 448 n. a) points out that this phrase is reminiscent of ταμιεύεσθαι τὴν τύχην in Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 1.65. lxx/at Add Esth E 3/7:23 have τόν … κόρον οὐ δυνάμενοι φέρειν (“not being able to deal with prosperity”). The theme is familiar to readers of Greek tragedy in which good fortune leads ultimately to pride, insolence, and ruin (Feldman 1998b: 509). Earlier in the Antiquities Josephus reflects similarly on the downfall of Rehoboam, of whom he says, “A frequent cause, I think, of calamities and lawlessness for persons is the greatness of their affairs [τὸ τῶν πραγμάτων μέγεθος] and the turn for the better (Ant. 11.251). See next note. This too is a theme drawn from Greek tragedy and runs throughout Josephus’ retelling of the biblical story. In one place (Ant. 6.116) Josephus theorizes that Saul came to grief after losing his reason in the wake of great good fortune (cf. Ant. 8.251; 9.122).

Haman’s alleged plot against the king’s life is derived from lxx/at Add Esth E 12/7:26, which states that he made it his business to deprive us of “our rule and our breath” (τῆς ἀρχῆς … ἡμᾶς καὶ τοῦ πνεύματος). It should also be noted that in lxx/at Add Esth A 17/18 Haman is angry with Mordecai for thwarting the assassination plot of the two eunuchs. Greek κακούργως καὶ μετὰ ἀπάτης. This pair, though only here in Josephus, appears in Xenophon, Cyr. 1.6.28, Plato, Gorg. 465b, and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Is. 16. lxx Add Esth E 13 refers to “the crafty deceit of ruses” (πολυπλόκοις μεθόδων παραλογισμοῖς) while at Add Esth E 7:26 speaks similarly of the “crafty ruses” (πολυπλόκοις μεθοδείαις) employed to destroy Mordecai and Esther. The description of Mordecai as “my benefactor and savior” (τὸν εὐεργέτην μου καὶ σωτῆρα) echoes the text of lxx Add Esth E 13 (ἡμέτερον σωτῆρα καὶ διὰ παντὸς εὐεργέτην), while at Add Esth E 7:26’s slightly shorter description omits εὐεργέτην. Greek τὴν κοινωνὸν ἡμῖν τοῦ τε βίου καὶ τῆς ἀρχῆς. Josephus’ description of Esther more closely echoes lxx Add Esth E 13 (τὴν ἄμεμπτον τῆς βασιλείας κοινωνὸν) than at Add Esth E 7:26, in which Esther is described as “his [i.e., Mordecai’s] innocent partner.” The idea that Haman was plotting to overthrow the king is found also in the Greek versions, in which he is said to have been working for the Macedonians (lxx/ at Add Esth E 14/7:26). How the king might have come to this insight is never disclosed, though in lxx/at Add Esth A 17/18 he is said to have sympathized with the eunuchs whose assassination plot had been thwarted by Mordecai. On Haman as a Macedonian in the Greek versions (lxx Add Esth E 10; 9:24//at Add Esth A 17), see note to “Amalekite” at 11.209 above. See also at Esth 7:11.

See note to “evil” at 11.212 and to “wicked” at 11.214 above. Greek τὸν ἄριστον πολιτευομένους τρόπον. lxx/at Add Esth E 15/7:27 have δικαιοτάτοις δὲ πολιτευομένους νόμοις (“but are governed by most righteous laws”). Josephus’ reference to the “best kind of government” under which the Jews live may be a play on the word ἄριστος, since in other places he makes the point that the constitution (πολιτεία) under which the Jews live is an aristocracy (ἀριστοκρατία). On this subject see note to “constitution” at 11.111 above. Josephus omits the descriptions of God in lxx Add Esth E 16 as τοῦ ὑψίστου μεγίστου ζῶντος θεοῦ (“most high, most great, living God”) or in at Add Esth E 7:27 as τοῦ μόνου θεοῦ καὶ ἀληθινοῦ (“the only and true God”). The theme of God’s oversight of the fortunes of nations, found in the Greek versions here, is a particularly important one for Josephus, as is seen by his fascination with the Book of Daniel (cf. Ant. 10.208–210; 272–281), on which see Spilsbury 2003.

This clause is Josephus’ addition. Greek ἀνασταυρόω. See notes to “crucified” at 11.17 and 11.246 above. Greek μετὰ τῆς γενεᾶς. The phrase “with his whole household” (σὺν τῇ πανοικίᾳ) occurs in lxx Add Esth E 18, though not in at. It seems to be contradicted by Esther’s later request for the execution of Haman’s ten sons (Esth 9:13). Greek τοῦ πάντα ἐφορῶντος. Josephus’ sense is closer to at Add Esth E 7:28 (τὰ πάντα κατοπτεύοντος) than to lxx Add Esth E 18 (τὰ πάντα ἐπικρατοῦντος) here. Josephus elsewhere describes God in a similar way (e.g., War 5.413; Apion 2.181).

Greek ἀφεῖναι τοῖς ἰδίοις νόμοις χρωμένους ζῆν μετ᾽ εἰρήνης. This clause, the substance of which Josephus derives from the Greek versions (χρῆσθαι τοῖς ἑαυτῶν νομίμοις: lxx/at Add Esth E 19/7:29; cf. lxx Esth 8:11 χρῆσθαι τοῖς νόμοις αὐτῶν), touches on a significant theme in his later writings (cf. Ant. 16.4). So too lxx Add Esth E 20. at Add Esth E 7:30 has the fourteenth day of the month with a feast on the fifteenth. Greek τῇ αὐτῇ ἡμέρᾳ. The phrase occurs also in lxx Add Esth E 20, but not in at.

Josephus avoids lxx Add Esth E 21’s description of the Jews as God’s “chosen race” (τοῦ ἐκλεκτοῦ γένους). Greek ὑπόμνησις … κολάσεως. lxx/at Add Esth E 23/7:31 read μνημόσυνον τῆς ἀπωλείας (“a memorial of destruction”).

Greek καὶ πόλιν καὶ πᾶν ἔθνος. The Greek versions both refer to πόλις and χώρα (lxx/at Add Esth E 24/7:32). Greek δαπανηθήσεται. lxx/at Add Esth E 24/7:32 both read καταναλωθήσεται (“consumed, destroyed”). Greek πυρὶ καὶ σιδήρῳ. The Greek versions (lxx/ at Add Esth E 24/7:32) read δόρατι καὶ πυρὶ (“by spear and fire”). Josephus omits the last part of the verse in which the king states that disobedient cities “shall be made not only impassable for people, but also most hostile to wild animals and birds for all time” (lxx Add Esth E 24; similarly at Add Esth E 7:32). Josephus goes beyond the biblical texts, in which the king gives the Jews permission to defend themselves (lxx/at Add Esth E 20/7:29).

Greek στρεπτός. While the biblical story does not mention a necklace at this point, Josephus may have been thinking of the golden necklace that in his version of events was given to Mordecai at the time Haman was required to parade him through the streets of Susa (Ant. 11.254–256). mt Esth 8:15 states that Mordecai wore royal robes of blue and white, a great golden crown, and a mantle of fine linen and purple. lxx/at Esth 8:15/7:39 speak (somewhat confusingly) of “a royal robe, with a gold crown and a diadem of purple linen.” Josephus supplies his own interpretation of the people’s joy, namely that they saw the good fortune of Mordecai as their own. Perhaps Josephus wished that his own contemporaries would view his conspicuously good treatment at the hands of the Romans as a sign, not of treachery, but of better things ahead for the whole nation.

Greek χαρὰ δὲ καὶ σωτήριον φέγγος. lxx Esth 8:16, 17 has “light and joy” (φῶς καὶ εὐφροσύνη) in Susa, and “gladness and joy” (χαρὰ καὶ εὐφροσύνη) and “feasting and joy” (κώθων καὶ εὐφροσύνη) in the rest of the cities and countryside. at 7:40 states, “For the Judeans there was light, feasting, drinking” (φῶς, πότος, κώτων). mt Esth 8:17 states that “many of the peoples of the country professed to be Jews [מתיהדים], for the fear of the Jews had fallen upon them.” lxx Esth 8:17 states “many of the nations were circumcised and became Judeans”, while at 7:41 states, unexpectedly, that many of the Judeans were circumcised. That Josephus saw circumcision as a key aspect of Jewish identity is indicated in such passages as Ant. 1.192 where he editorializes to the effect that Abraham introduced the practice “because he wished his posterity to remain unmixed with others.” See note to “Judaize” at War 2.454 in bjp 1b (cf. Ant. 20.17–96).

Josephus makes the same equation between the months of Adar and Dystros at Ant. 4.327; 11.107 and 12.412.

Greek οἱ ... ἄρχοντες τῶν σατραπειῶν. The same circumlocution (instead of the simpler “satraps”) is used in lxx Esth at 1:3; 8:9 and 9:3. See note to “satrapies” at 11.186 and to “rulers” at 11.272 above. Greek εἶχον ἐν τιμῇ τοὺς Ἰουδαίους. lxx/at Esth 9:3/7:42 have ἐτίμων τοὺς Ιουδαίους.

Thus mt/lxx Esth 9:6–10, which include the ten named sons of Haman among the casualties. at Esth 7:44 has 700.

Greek ἀνασταυρόω. See notes to “crucified” at 11.17 and 11.246 above. In the biblical accounts Esther’s request is for the bodies of the sons of Haman, who had already been killed (mt/lxx Esth 9:7–10; at Esth 7:44), to be hanged on the gallows (mt/lxx Esth 9:13–14). Josephus omits the names of Haman’s sons which are provided in the biblical story at mt/lxx Esth 9:7–9; at Esth 7:44. See note to “names” at 11.68 above.

Scripture has Adar. See note to “Dystros” at 11.286 above. This point is found in mt Esth (9:10, 15, 16), and in two places in lxx Esth (9:15, 16). However, at Esth 9:10/7:44, lxx/at assert that the Jews did indeed plunder the possessions of their enemies. The significance of this point in mt seems to be a connection to the ancient story of enmity between King Saul and the Amalekite king Agag. Saul had disobeyed God by plundering Agag’s possessions when he had been explicitly commanded not to (1 Sam 15). It is as if in this re-run of the battle between the houses of Saul (Mordecai) and Amalek (Haman), the wrong is finally put right.

So too mt. lxx Esth 9:16 has 15,000 and at Esth 7:46 70,100.

So too mt and the Greek versions (lxx/at Esth 9:21/7:47). Josephus omits the biblical statement that inhabitants of Susa had a day of celebration on the fifteenth of the month, while those in the villages were to celebrate on the fourteenth of the month (mt/lxx Esth 9:18, 19; cf. mt/lxx Esth 9:20–21; at Esth 7:47). On the conflicting dates in the biblical texts, see Moore 1971: 91 and Paton 1908: 288–91. Greek μερίς. So too lxx/at Esth 9:19/7:48. mt מנות. So too mt Esth 9:19, while in lxx they are sent to “those nearby.” mt Esth 9:22 has “portions to one another and presents to the poor,” while lxx has “portions to their friends and to the poor.” In at Esth 7:48 the portions are sent only to the poor.

This element of thanksgiving (εὐχαριστοῦντες τῷ θεῷ), though possibly implied in the biblical texts, is not actually stated there. Like the Greek versions, Josephus omits the reference in mt Esth 9:29 to Esther’s “second letter about Purim.”

Greek φρουρέαι. μτ ‪פורים‬, ‪פרים‬, Purim. lxx Φρουραι (“guards”); at Φουρδαια. In the biblical narrative the term פור (Greek ὁ κλῆρος) refers to the lot that Haman cast to determine the day on which the Jews should be killed (mt/lxx/at Esth 3:7; mt/lxx 9:24–26//at Esth 7:49). Josephus omits any reference to the casting of lots, and so offers no account of the meaning of the term here. He may have wanted to avoid mention of a practice condemned in Scripture (e.g., Deut 18:9–15; Jer 10:2), or the implication that the gods of Persia were in favor of the extermination of the Jews. On the association of “lots” with Ancient Near Eastern divination practices, see (Winitzer 2011: 196–98). Additionally, it is possible that Josephus found the biblical etymology of the word Purim, the name of the feast associated with this story, strained or unconvincing. On the etymology of the biblical term, and the likely non-Jewish origins of the festival of Purim, see Moore 1971: xlvi–xlix. Greek συνδιεῖπεν αὐτῷ τὴν ἀρχὴν. mt Esth 10:3 states that Mordecai was next in rank to the king, while the Greek versions (lxx/at Esth 10:3/7:52) state that Mordecai was successor (διεδέχετο) to the king. at Esth 7:17 says that “the king entrusted to him [i.e., Mordecai] the affairs of the kingdom.” Josephus omits the notice in mt/lxx Esth 10:1// at Esth 7:50 that the king “laid tribute on the land and on the islands of the sea.”

Josephus does not follow the Greek versions in including the final additional passage (Add Esth F 1–11/7:53–59). This contains, along with a final postscript, a retrospective on Mordecai’s dream (also omitted by Josephus), which is related at the very beginning of the Greek versions of Esther. Josephus also does not comment on the transition from biblical to post-biblical history here.

Greek Ἐλεασίβος (Variants: P reads Ἐλεσίβος; LV read Ἐλιασίβος). Hebrew אלישׁיב. Josephus mentioned Eliasib’s—note the orthographic variation—assumption of high priestly office at the transition point between his Ezra and Nehemiah narratives (11.158). Having concluded his retelling of the Esther story, Josephus now resumes his account of affairs in Judea. Greek Ἰώδας (Variants: P reads Ἰωάχας; V reads Ἰούδας; W reads Ἰοχάς; E reads Ἰωάδας; Lat reads Iudas). Hebrew יוידע. This succession notice appears to be drawn from Neh 13:28, which identifies Jehoiada (lxx Ἰωαδά) as “son of Eliashib, the high priest” (cf. Neh 12:10–11, 22). Greek Ἰωάννης. Hebrew יוחנן. Josephus’ sequence of high priests follows the order implied by Neh 12:22–23. Greek τιμή. Josephus frequently refers to the high priestly office as an “honor” (e.g., Ant. 4.66; 19.297; 20.16), a reccuring motif in the concluding stories of Book 11 (cf. 11.310, 312, 324, 333, 336). Greek Βαγώσης (Variants: F reads Βαγόσης; LA read Βαγώας; V reads Μαγώσης; Zon reads Βαγώα). Old Iranian *Bagavahya, a name indirectly attested in Elamite, Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek sources (Tavernier 2007: 141). The historical identity of this individual—assuming the incident Josephus reports has an historical basis—is as yet unresolved (Grabbe 1992). This is due in part to uncertainty over which Artaxerxes Bagoses is being associated with (cf. note to “the other” in this sentence). Three papyri from Elephantine mention a Bagohi who was the Persian governor of Judea in 407 bce (tad 4.7.1; 4.8.1; 4.9.1). Two of these documents also name Yehohanan (i.e., Joannes) as high priest in Jerusalem at that time (tad 4.7.18; 4.8.17). The date of this correspondence places it during the reign of Darius ii (423–404 bce), but this would not preclude the possibility that the same governor continued to serve under Darius’ successor, Artaxerxes ii (404–358 bce). Another candidate, whose name later Greek and Latin sources render Bagoas, was a high-ranking Persian officer who distinguished himself during Artaxerxes iii’s reconquest of Egypt in 343 bce (Diodorus 16.46–51). Greek ὁ στρατηγός. In his account of Darius I’s reign, Josephus (following 1 Esdras) distinguishes generals from other types of Persian officials: governors, satraps, toparchs (e.g., Ant. 11.33). Given the elasticity of the term στρατηγός in Greco-Roman usage, however, Bagoses’ titulature by itself cannot clarify his role or rank. More significant may be Josephus’ use of the definite article (repeated in 11.300), suggesting a personage of singular stature or notoriety within Artaxerxes’ government. Variant: The word “other” (ἄλλου), attested only in M and the Latin (alterius), is omitted by PAW. The rest of the codices and the Epitome read λαοῦ (“people”). Because Josephus has already identified Artaxerxes I with the biblical Ahasuerus (11.184), ἄλλου alerts the reader that the events involving Bagoses belong to the reign of a different monarch. Since, however, there were two further Persian kings who consecutively bore this name—Artaxerxes ii Memnon (ruled 404–358 bce) and Artaxerxes iii Ochus (ruled 357–338 bce)—“the other Artaxerxes” does little to clarify matters. The repetition of Bagoses’ designation as “the general of Artaxerxes”—without ἄλλου—later in the story (11.300) raises the possibility that its presence here may be the result of an interpolation by a later tradent. On the other hand, Josephus himself may have employed ἄλλου in order to avoid confusing Bagoses’ master with the Artaxerxes of the Esther story (11.296). This does not ameliorate the historical problem posed by the existence of three—rather than two—royal bearers of that name, but as this is the only other Artaxerxes mentioned by Josephus (who may well have been ignorant of the existence of a third), the problem resides outside the narrative world of the Antiquities. The variant λαοῦ has little to recommend it, as it yields a contextually awkward—and syntactically unparalleled—expression: “the general of the people of [king x].” It is best explained as a scribal error generated by metathesis of the initial letters. Even less attractive is Scaliger’s conjectural emendation, Ἄχου, a rather desperate attempt to resolve the king’s identity in favor of Artaxerxes iii Ochus (apparently on the presumption that the hypothetical Ἄχου was itself a misspelling of Ὤχου). Even were this emendation to be sustained, it would generate only more syntactical infelicity (“the Ochus Artaxerxes”). The expression “pollute the sanctuary” (μιαίνω τὸν ναόν) is unique to Josephus and is a significant theme of the War (cf. note to “shrine” at War 2.424 in bjp 1b). It also features prominently in the Antiquities: in 7.92, God refuses David the honor of constructing a sanctuary for him because David has “fought with many enemies and … was defiled [μεμιασμένῳ] by the slaughter of numerous foes;” in 9.151, the high priest Jehoiada orders Athalia executed outside Jerusalem, “for he did not wish to defile the sacred precinct [μιᾶναι τὸ ἱερόν] by punishing the reprobate on the spot;” in 18.271, Judean multitudes entreat the Roman legate Petronius not “to pollute the city” [μιαίνειν ... τὴν πόλιν] by the statue which the emperor Gaius has commanded him to set up “in the sanctuary of God” (18.261). The present episode is the only one in which the phrase is emphatically repeated (cf. 11.300). Josephus uses a variety of expressions to describe revenue collection. The formula employed here, ἐπιτάσσω φόρους/φόρον, occurs a total of 12 times in his writings. In all but two of these instances, the phrase is used in the context of military conquest: those defeated pay tribute as a consequence of their subjection (War 1.89, 154; Ant. 1.172–173; 5.181, 186, 199; 7.99; 9.259; 10.155). Although the military scenario is lacking here, the punitive symbolism is highlighted by the idiom. This implication is reinforced by Josephus’ preceding narrative of Persian rule. Among his benefactions to Zerubbabel, King Darius decreed “that all of the captives who had departed for Judea were free,” forbidding his officials “to impose the royal services [ἐπιτάττειν τὰς βασιλικὰς χρείας],” permitting the Judeans instead “to live free of tribute [ἀτελῆ φόρων] in however much of the region they were able to possess” (11.60–61). In conjunction with Ezra’s mission, Xerxes explicitly reaffirmed freedom from tribute imposition (μήτε φόρους ἐπιτάξητε) for all temple personnel (11.128). Haman’s reference to the collection of φόροι from all Judeans under Artaxerxes I notwithstanding (11.214), the effect of Bagoses’ imposition is to unravel the gains of the previous two centuries, reversing the Judeans’ favored status to that of a “captive” people. This symbolism is confirmed by Josephus’ characterization of Bagoses’ imposition as an act of enslavement (cf. note to “enslaved” at 11.300 below). Josephus refers to cultic legislation found in Num 28:3–8, which he summarizes in his account of the Mosaic constitution: “There is a law that at public expense a year-old lamb should be slaughtered each day both at the beginning and at the end of the day” (Ant. 3.237). Josephus employs the adjective “daily” (καθημεριναί) 6 times in the Antiquities, always in reference to these sacrifices. In two of these passages, he emphasizes that the sacrifices were performed “in accordance with the law” (κατὰ τὸν νόμον; 9.273; 12.251), thus amplifying the gravity of any threat to their uninterrupted observance (14.477). See also Exod 29:38–42; 1 Chr 15:40; and 2 Chr 8:11; 31:3. The Mosaic legislation specifies a daily burnt offering of two yearling lambs, accompanied by a grain offering and a libation (Num 28:3–8). The number of victims is doubled every Sabbath (Num 28:9–10) and raised to seven—along with other victims—during new moons and special festivals (Num 28:11–31). Josephus does not specify whether Bagoses’ imposition applied to all mandatory daily offerings (the “lamb” standing metonymically for the whole sacrificial regime) or only to the regular, twice-daily burnt offering. Greek δημοσία. According to Josephus, the Mosaic law concerning daily sacrifices already stipulated that victims were to be supplied “at public expense” (Ant. 3.237; cf. note to “daily sacrifices” in this sentence). The “tribute” imposed by Bagoses would thus amount to an additional tax levied on the use of public subsidies for cultic purposes.

Greek Ἰησοῦς. Hebrew: ישׁוע.

Greek διενεχθείς. Although διαφέρω is a relatively common verb in Josephus (136 occurrences: 79 in Antiquities; 33 in War; 5 in Life; 19 in Apion), rarely does he use it with the meaning of “to quarrel” (14 times in all: 6 in Antiquities; 8 in War). Since this verb is not part of his usual lexicon for describing strife, Josephus’ decision to use it here may have special significance. Excluding Ant. 12.359, which applies it to a dispute outside the narrative, all of the remaining occurrences of this verb in the Antiquities refer to situations that parallel the present episode. In 7.182, Joab seeks to sway David to reconcile with his fratricidal son by having a bereaved mother solicit the king’s pity “that her sons, while quarrelling [διενεχθέντων] in the countryside had recourse to acts of violence … One was struck dead by the other and died.” In 13.302, Aristobulus I murders his own mother through starvation because she had disputed (διενεχθεῖσαν) his claim to rule. In 14.41, the belligerent brothers, Aristobulus ii and Hyrcanus ii, quarrel with one another (διεφέροντο) before Pompey over their rival claims to kingship, while the Judean nation itself disputes both Hasmoneans’ right to exercise royal power. Finally, in 14.438, Herod entrusts his brother Joseph to the company of the Roman commander Machaeras on the condition that they not quarrel (διαφέρεσθαι) with one another in prosecuting the war against Antigonus. While the two do not, in fact, quarrel, Machaeras, like Jesus in the present story, enjoys a clandestine partnership with a third party bent on subverting the status quo (for Jesus, Bagoses; for Machaeras, Antigonus). All of these episodes involve direct or indirect tension between family members—with the exception of the first, over positions of power, and in the two Hasmonean cases, implicitly over the high priesthood (a dignity now embedded in the royal office). The Hasmonean dispute is of particular pertinence to the present passage because its observer, the Roman general Pompey, will go on to emulate Bagoses by entering the sanctuary and imposing tribute on the Judeans (Ant. 14.71–74). The setting of the story alternates between “the sanctuary” (ὁ νάος) and “the temple” (τὸ ἱερόν). This verbal distinction may simply reflect stylistic variation on Josephus’ part (cf. note to “sanctuary” at 11.2 above). Variant: FLAOVW omit ὡς. Josephus uses a similar expression to characterize manslaughter in Ant. 4.222 (τοιοῦτον δεινὸν συμβῆναι). See also Ant. 11.298 (τὴν αἰτίαν τοιαύτην συνέβην). Greek καὶ διὰ τὴν ὀργὴν. Variant: FOV omit καί and add δέ after τηλικοῦτο(ν), indicating a preference for reading “on account of anger” with the preceding clause. Greek τηλικοῦτο ἀσέβημα. This pairing occurs only twice in Josephus. Its other referent is the Zealots’ appointment of a high priest by lot during the First Revolt (War 4.157). Josephus employs the neuter ἀσέβημα less frequently than the feminine ἀσέβεια or the adjective ἀσεβής, but all three forms carry identical connotations of sacrilege when pertaining to sacred space (e.g., Ant. 8.266; War 4.150, 242). Variant: FOV read ἱερώμενον (“while serving as a priest”). Though contextually viable, this reading seems less likely because the majority reading—ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ (“in the temple”)—mirrors the charge Bagoses makes later in the story (cf. note to “temple” at 11.301 below). The latter finds additional support from E, which reads ἐν τῷ ναῷ (“in the sanctuary”). Variant: The majority reading (LAOVW: τὸ δεινότερον) construes the second half of the sentence as a comparative crescendo (“it was terrible that … and it was more terrible that”). PF, on the other hand, read πρότερον (“formerly”), also reflected in the Latin (prius). This reading appears to understand the second clause as a contextualization of the first. The rhetorical pairing of Greek and Barbarian serves as a merism for “all humanity” (e.g., Thucydides 1.1; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 2.63.2; cf. Ant. 16.177). Josephus employs this figure of speech 13 times in his writings. As in the present passage, it often underscores the superlative gravity or unprecedented nature of an event: Korah’s rebellion against Moses (Ant. 4.12), Abijah’s epic slaughter of Jeroboam ii’s army in battle (Ant. 8.284); cannibalism during the Roman siege of Jerusalem (War 6.199). In the case of Korah’s sedition and Joannes’ murder of Jesus, the extreme impiety of the deed elicits a punitive divine response (cf. note to “retribution” at 11.301 below). Greek ὦμος. Together with its abstract cognate, ὠμότης, this is one of Josephus’ favorite descriptors for the breakdown of law and order. Statistically, these forms gravitate around figures and events Josephus associates with tyranny: Saul (Ant. 6.262); Menahem (Ant. 9.231–232); Manasseh (Ant.10.38); Aristobulus I (Ant. 13.302); Alexander Jannaeus (Ant. 13.380–383); Herod (Ant. 16.404); Archelaus (Ant. 17.191, 313, 342); Gaius (Ant. 19.196); Florus (War 2.278, 308, 336, 340); the rebel leaders (War 1.27; 4.381, 566; 5.441; 6.230, 365). Savagery and impiety are commonly paired in Josephus (e.g., Ant. 9.233; War 2.483).

Greek τὸ θεῖον. In all of his writings, Josephus’ default designation for God is ὁ θεός (1,801 occurrences); he employs the neuter substantive form far less frequently (129 occurrences, only 4 of which appear in the present volume of the Antiquities). No consistent pattern or motive is discernible in this distribution. However, the more abstract τὸ θεῖον often surfaces when Josephus is addressing—as he is here—the theme of divine providence. In Ant. 5.31, Josephus comments that the Deity “did not neglect” (οὐκ ἠμέλησεν) Joshua’s curse upon the one who would rebuild the walls of Jericho. In Ant. 7.45, David declares his certitude that Abner’s murder will be requited because God, “who is concerned with everything [ᾧ μέλει πάντων], will not allow this thing to go unavenged … The Deity will, however, repay them for their brazen deeds [ὑπὲρ τῶν τετολμημένων αὐτοῖς].” Greek οὐκ ἠμέλησεν. Josephus uses litotes to emphasize divine attentiveness (cf. Ant. 4.13; 5.31; 9.195). Conversely, human indifference toward divine law provokes God to withdraw his providential care (Ant. 1.14; 4.319; 6.150; 7.384). On the theme of providence in the first half of the Antiquities, see Attridge 1976: 71–107. Greek ἐδουλώθη. Here Josephus highlights the equation of tribute-imposition with slavery that permeates the Antiquities (e.g., 1.173; 13.213; 18.4; cf. note to “tribute” at 11.297 above). Enslavement of the people is an especially charged image in the context of Persian rule because Josephus has hitherto associated the Persians with the Judeans’ liberation from slavery (Ant. 10.112–113; 11.1–7; cf. War 1.17; 5.389). The premise of freedom is itself tendentious; whatever privileges Judeans may have enjoyed under Persian rule, they remained “slaves” (Ant. 15.386; cf. Ezra 9:8–9). Josephus’ construal of Bagoses’ imposition therefore needs to be understood not only against the backdrop of his overall account of Persian rule, but as a reflex of his retributive theodicy, in which enslavement is the paradigmatic divine punishment for transgression of God’s laws in general (Ant. 3.282; 4.312– 314; cf. 1.14) and for impious acts of murder in the temple in particular (Ant. 20.166; cf. War 5.395–397). The use of the indefinite plural (“Persians”) is curious, since only one Persian (Bagoses) is said to have polluted the sanctuary by entering it (11.297, 301). He is, of course, a representative of the Persian government, but in that case we might have expected the definite article (τῶν Περσῶν; cf. Ant. 11.31, 96, 159, 192). The unexpected intrusion of a collective polluter into the story anticipates Bagoses’ equally unexpected indictment of the Judeans as a collective culprit (cf. note to “dared” at 11.301 below). The identification of Bagoses as “the general of Artaxerxes” and of Joannes as “the high priest of the Judeans” seems gratuitous, since we have already been introduced to their titulature in 11.297. The redundancy could be explained source-critically (cf. pp. 97–98 above), but regardless of how one accounts for it, the repetition frames what follows as a confrontation between foreign overlord and native subject. The juxtaposition also emphasizes the metonymic function of the actors: just as Bagoses “stands” for the Persian king, so Joannes “represents” his nation (cf. next note). In the context of Josephus’ notice that the Deity was emphatically attentive to the murder, one may also say that Bagoses, in some sense, stands in for God, giving voice to divine displeasure and carrying out retributive justice. Although the term ἀρχιερεύς (“high priest”) appears throughout the Antiquities, this is the first of 21 instances in which it is joined to the genitive τῶν Ἰουδαίων (“of the Judeans”), the other cases occurring exclusively within Josephus’ account of the Hellenistic period: 4 times in the story of Alexander the Great (11.317, 319, 322, 333), 3 times in Josephus’ paraphrase of the Letter of Aristeas (12.16, 39, 40), 2 times in his paraphrase of 1 Maccabees (13.166, 223), 1 time in a quotation of Strabo (14.139) and 9 times in quotations of official documents relating to the high priesthood of Hyrcanus ii (14.151, 191, 197, 200, 211, 212, 226, 241, 248). The final occurrence is in Josephus’ obituary of Hyrcanus (15.179). What all these passages share in common is the presumption of the high priest’s role as political—not merely cultic—representative of the Judean nation to the world at large (emphasized especially in the Hyrcanus dossier, where ἀρχιερεύς is often paired with ἐθνάρχης [“ruler of the nation”]). While the high priest enjoys preeminence in Josephus’ idealized representations of the Judean constitution (Ant. 11.111; 20.251; Apion 2.185), it is during the Hellenistic era that this model of leadership seems to have been most fully actualized (cf. Brutti 2006; Fried 2004; Goodblatt 1994; Rooke 2000; VanderKam 2004). Greek εὐθὺς ἐπιστὰς τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις. The basic meaning of ἐφίστημι in the active voice is to stand upon, over, or against (cf. Ant. 2.260; 6.190; 10.131), sometimes in the sense of coming upon or appearing before someone suddenly (e.g., Herodotus 4.203; Thucydides 8.69.4; Isocrates, De pace 8.41; Demosthenes, 2 Philip. 6.5). Inasmuch as Bagoses acts as a mouthpiece for divine judgment (cf. previous note), it may be significant that Josephus employs an identical idiom (ἐφίστημι + τινι) for revelatory visions throughout his writings (e.g., Ant. 1.313; 2.172, 212; 5.215; 17.351; War 7.452–453; Life 208). That this formula is not limited to nocturnal visions is confirmed by its appearance in contexts in which the recipient is awake (Ant. 3.188; 18.197–199). The common denominator of such revelations is that they demonstrate God’s providential involvement in human affairs (cf. Ant. 1.14). Greek μετὰ θυμοῦ. The position of this prepositional phrase makes it unclear which clause (“immediately came upon the Judeans” or “began to speak”) it is intended to qualify; it works equally well with both. Rage (θυμός) is a dangerous emotion in Josephus. It can deprive human beings of self-mastery, driving them to actions that have disastrous consequences (e.g., Ant. 1.313; 6.302–306; 16.268, 363; cf. War 2.199, 401, 518; 6.138, 204). This negative coding of θυμός may be one reason Josephus never explicitly attributes it to God, who is often “angered” (ὀργή; ὀργίζω) but never “enraged” (θυμός; θυμόω) at human misconduct (e.g., Ant. 2.293; 5.180; 9.103). In Josephus, “righteous” rage frequently accompanies violation of the sanctity of the temple or its cult (Ant. 12.270; 20.108–112; War 4.202).

Greek ἐτολμήσατε. Bagoses’ use of the second-person plural is surprising since he himself knew (γνούς) that it was Joannes alone who had committed the crime. Josephus employs the verb τολμάω in both positive and negative contexts in his writings. In its negative sense, “to dare” implies hubris, a “contempt of things human and divine” (Ant. 6.264; cf. 8.345; 17.352). A concern to demonstrate the futility of such behavior is a central goal of the Antiquities (1.14). Variant: FLAOVWE and the Latin read ὑμετέρῳ ναῷ. This accentuates the ironic inversion of the situation (cf. note to “sanctuary” at 11.301 below). The lack of explanation for Bagoses’ behavior is conspicuous because the actual punitive measure he imposes on the Judeans (tribute for daily sacrifices) would not require the general’s physical presence within the sanctum. His motive is less important than the topos in which it participates. Penetration of the holy place by a foreign ruler as a manifestation of divine retribution—and, conversely, the thwarting of such attempts as evidence of divine protection—is a common feature of Josephus’ narratives (e.g., Ant. 10.21, 112; 12.250; 14.72; 18.308–309; War 6.316). Greek ἀνῃρημένου. Variant: In place of the passive participle, P2LE read ἀνηρηκότος (“the one who has killed”; i.e., Joannes). Either way, the irony of the situation is underscored. On the passive construction, Bagoses would be comparing his ritual status as a foreigner favorably with the ritual impurity emanating from a corpse (cf. Num 19). On the active construction, Bagoses would be contrasting his rectitude with Joannes’ bloodguilt, thus impugning the latter’s sacerdotal fitness (cf. Ant. 3.278). In support of the latter reading, the logic of the comparison corresponds more closely to Josephus’ analysis of the First Revolt (e.g., War 2.210). I am indebted to David Levenson for this observation. Greek μετῆλθεν. The basic meaning of μετέρχομαι is to go from one place to another; hence, among other shades of meaning, “to pursue,” from which comes the judicial sense of prosecute, punish, or avenge. Josephus frequently uses this verb to describe God’s retributive punishment (Ant. 2.304; 3.299; 4.47; 8.115; 13.105).

Greek Ἰαδδοῦς (Variants: LAWE read Ἰωαδδους; Lat reads Hiaddus). Hebrew ידוע. This name concludes Nehemiah’s lists of high priests during the Persian period (12:10–11, 22), but in verse 11 his father is named Jonathan, while in verse 22 his name follows Johanan (without specifying their familial relationship). The name Jaddus also appears on a coin of disputed provenance (Spaer 1988–89; cf. Meshorer and Qedar 1999: 23–24). The adverbial καί may be drawing attention to the fact that fraternal tension is a central theme to both Jaddus’ and Joannes’ high priesthoods. Greek Μανασσῆς (Variant: P reads Μαννασῆς). Hebrew מנשׁה. One wonders whether it is mere coincidence that the founding figure of a schismatic Judean community should happen to bear the name of the biblical king whose superlative defiance of the Torah sealed divine judgment against his people (2 Kgs 21:10–15). The name’s only other bearers in the Bible—apart from the eponymous ancestor of the Manassite tribe—are a pair of violators of Ezra’s intermarriage ban (1 Esd 9:31, 33; not reproduced in Josephus’ paraphrase). In Greco-Roman times, “Manasseh” was a term of opprobrium reserved by the Qumranites for their sectarian opponents (4Q169 [4QpNah] 3–4 iii, 7–9; 3–4 iv, 1–4). Greek Σαναβαλλέτης. Aramaic סנאבלט (reflecting Akkadian Sin’uballit). A governor of Samaria bearing this name is attested in sources that predate the time frame of Josephus’ story: a papyrus from Wadi Daliyeh, paleographically dated to c. 350 bce (wdsp 11r.3; Dušek 2007: 474–75), an inscribed seal impression (wd 22) affixed to another Wadi Daliyeh document, paleographically dated to the first half of the fourth century bce (wdsp 16; Dušek 2007: 480); two papyri from Egypt penned in 407 bce (tad 4.7.29; 4.8.28), and, although he is never explicitly identified as Samaria’s governor, “Sanballat the Horonite,” a contemporary of Nehemiah in 445 bce (Neh 1:10, 19; 4:1, 7; 6:1, 2, 5, 12, 14; 13:28). There is also a series of undated Samarian coins bearing abbreviated forms of a name that might be Sanballat (Meshorer and Qedar 1999: 26–27; cf. Dušek 2012: 128–29). The chronological breadth of these data, compounded with the uncertainty as to the historicity of Josephus’ account, has led to sharp disagreement among modern scholars over whether there was more than one Samarian governor named Sanballat—and, if so, which one Josephus is referring to (Cross 1963; Crown 1995; Eshel 2007; Dušek 2007). Perceived parallels with Neh 13:28 (“one of the sons of Jehoiada, son of the high priest Eliashib, was the son-in-law of Sanballat the Horonite; I chased him away from me”) have prompted debate over whether Josephus’ tale might be a creative expansion of an earlier incident rather than testimony to an independent event (D. R. Schwartz 1990; Pummer 2009: 112–18). It is curious that Josephus makes no mention of Sanballat the Horonite in his paraphrase of Nehemiah’s career (Ant. 11.159–183; cf. notes to “159” at 11.159 and to “praise” at 11.183 above). This might indicate that Josephus drew upon a different version of the Nehemiah tradition, which failed to reference Samaria’s governor (Grabbe 1987: 237). Alternatively, Josephus may have regarded the apparent duplication of names and events as potentially confusing for his audience and so chose to omit the earlier material from his paraphrase (Marcus 1937: 510–11). The historical Sanballat was not a satrap but a governor (cf. previous note). Samaria was but one regional subdivision within the satrapy of Abar-Naharah (“Beyond the River”), which included all lands west of the Euphrates as far as the borders of Egypt and Cilicia (Herodotus 3.90–94; cf. Tuplin 1987: 114, 122–23). The satrap of Abar-Naharah from 345/344–333 bce was a Persian named Mazdaya (Head 1911: 796; Leuze 1935: 392– 96). Nevertheless, it is not surprising that Josephus calls Sanaballet a satrap, given his penchant for utilizing this term in a non-technical sense to designate Persian officials in general (Ant. 11.12, 19, 88, 122, 123, 166). Illustrative of this imprecision is the fact that Josephus will later go on to label Sanaballet a governor (στρατηγός; Ant. 13.256). See also Ant. 9.279, 288 and 290. By identifying Sanaballet in this way, Josephus codes the satrap as an antagonist to the Judean community. See notes to “Chutheans” and “homeless” at 11.69 above. Samaria (Hebrew שׁמרין) was the name of both the province and its administrative seat, as attested in the formulary of official documents emanating from there during the Persian period (Gropp 2001: 8). Greek τοῦ τελευταίου βασιλέως. Darius iii Codomannus (ruled 336–330 bce). Josephus is the first author in Greek literature to distinguish him from his predecessors by the epithet “last.” The Latin translation of Antiquities omits this phrase.

Greek λαμπρός. The basic meaning of this adjective is “bright” or “brilliant,” with the extended sense of “well-known.” In the present passage, Jerusalem’s reputation stems from the martial prowess of its bygone kings (cf. Ant. 1.5, 13, and next note for Josephus’ connection between war-fighting and virtue). A parallel depiction can be found in an oration of Demosthenes, who extols Athens’ military might as the means by which the city had been established as “both revered and illustrious [καὶ σεμνὴ καὶ λαμπρά] by all” (Timocr. 24.95). Josephus deploys similar language in his obituary of Jerusalem following its demolition by the Romans: “an illustrious city and celebrated [λαμπρὰ καὶ διαβοηθείσῃ] by all human beings” (War 7.4; cf. Strabo 5.2.3). Jerusalem’s belligerent reputation echoes allegations brought against it by earlier Samaritan antagonists (Ant. 11.22–25, 27, 97–98). Greek Νικασώ. The etymology of this name (found in no other ancient source) is uncertain. If it is of Greek origin, it may represent a variant spelling of the attested form Νεικασώ/Νικήσω (Pape 1863–70: 983, 1002) and thus contain the theophoric element, Nike, a goddess whose iconography is represented in the Wadi Daliyeh seal impressions (wd 46; cf. I.3.22B). For an alternative, Semitic derivation, see Marcus 1937: 461 n. e. Greek ἐπιγαμία. This compound emphasizes the unitive effect of marriage on previously unrelated individuals or groups, who thereby acquire a commonality of interests, and sometimes even a new civic or ethnic identity (Aristotle, Pol. 1280b). During and prior to the time of Josephus, the term was applied to two kinds of political relationship. On the one hand, it could describe situations in which members of two or more states possessed a legally-defined right to intermarry, usually as part of a broader package of shared privileges (Isocrates, Plat. 14.51; Xenophon, Hell. 5.2.19; Lysias, Subv. 34.3; Demosthenes, Cor. 18.91, 187; Diodorus 5.33.1; 8.25.4; 20.55.4; 32.4.4; 37.15.2). Alternatively, it could characterize marriages that enacted and expressed personal alliances, most often between dynasts but sometimes between a ruler and an allied community (Herodotus 2.147; Polybius 15.25.13; Diodorus 12.51.2; 31.19.6; Strabo 11.13.1; 14.5.10). The present passage clearly belongs to the latter category (pace Goldstein 1993: 81; cf. War 1.240, 508, 567; Ant. 17.9, 15; 18.357). An especially instructive parallel is Dionysius I of Syracuse (ruled 405–367 bce), who, in his bid to wrest Sicily from Punic hegemony, wooed potential allies of Carthage to his side through promises of territory. In each case, the proposed pact was to be sealed by Dionysius’ ἐπιγαμία to the daughter of the most prominent citizen of the allied city (Diodorus 14.44.4–6; 14.107.2–3; cf. 14.44.8). A similar type of ἐπιγαμία-based relationship surfaces a century later between Athens and the Cyrenean strongman Ophellas (Diodorus 20.40.5–6; cf. Plutarch, Dem. 14). What is noteworthy about Josephus’ story is its role-reversal: rather than seeking to marry a Jerusalemite woman to get his way, the Samarian satrap must surrender his own daughter in order to secure greater prestige for her offspring (11.324). The plot-twist advances Josephus’ aim of advertising Judean prestige at Samaritan expense. Greek ὅμηρος. Every other occurrence of this word in Josephus clearly means “hostage” (War 2.379; 3.6; Ant. 13.17, 38, 40, 153, 204, 247; 18.103). One wonders whether it is being used ironically here, the more powerful party behaving as though he were the junior partner in the alliance. On foreign rulers going to exaggerated lengths to court Judean subjects, see Johnson 2004: 71 n. 31. On the further development of this topos with respect to Sanaballet, see 11.312 and 324 below. Like Dionysius of Syracuse (cf. note to “marriage alliance” in this sentence), Sanaballet seeks to secure the εὔνοια (“goodwill”) of his hoped-for allies (Diodorus 14.44.3).

A striking feature of the concluding events of Book 11 is Josephus’ sustained alternation between and eventual unification of multiple plotlines. The many— and, in places, disjunctive—narrative transitions among these sub-plots have prompted speculation that Josephus has combined originally independent sources in order to achieve this interlacing effect (Büchler 1898; Pummer 2009: 129–34). On the phrase κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν καιρόν as a signal for such source-switching, see D. R. Schwartz 1982: 246–54. For an alternative view, see note to “At about this time” at Life 112 in bjp 9. Philip ii (ruled 359–336 bce) was the most successful scion of the Argead dynasty, which had dominated Macedon since the late sixth century. Philip asserted Macedonian hegemony throughout the Balkans, including most of mainland Greece. Greek Αἰγαί. Aegae was the ancestral residence of the Argead dynasty (cf. previous note). Philip was assassinated in October of 336 bce on the occasion of his daughter’s wedding, which took place there (Diodorus 16.92.1). The Alexander historians identify Pausanias as a royal bodyguard who harbored animosity toward his sovereign for failing to avenge a wrong suffered at the hands of a rival courtier. This tale of personal vendetta was overlaid with insinuations that Philip’s wife Olympias and Alexander himself had suborned Pausanias for their own motives (Diodorus 16.93.3–94.2; Justin, 9.6.4–7.14; Plutarch, Alex. 10.4). Greek Κεράστης. This is the sole surviving attestation of the name of Pausanias’ father. Its appearance need not imply that Josephus had access to some special source of information. There were many histories of Alexander the Great in antiquity, most of which have not survived (Bosworth 1988: 295–300). Greek Ὀρέσται. The Orestae were a tribal group whose homeland (Orestis) lay within the mountainous interior of northwestern Greece. Philip absorbed the Orestae and other neighboring peoples into the Macedonian realm c. 357 bce and many of its nobility thereafter came to serve in the royal court.

Alexander iii “the Great” (ruled 336–323 bce). Born in 356 bce, Alexander was twenty years old at the time of his father’s death. This brief succession notice smooths over a far more violent power transition that involved purges of potential challengers and punitive expeditions to ensure that Philip’s Balkan empire did not fragment. These tasks occupied Alexander for the better part of two and a half years (Bosworth 1988: 25–35). The narrow strait separating Europe from Asia Minor. In 337 bce, as hegemon of the Corinthian League, Alexander’s father had declared a war of vengeance against the Persian Empire, invoking Panhellenic rhetoric in the service of his own territorial aspirations (Bosworth 1988: 17–19). The expedition began before Philip’s death in 336 bce; as his successor, Alexander inherited leadership of this military venture. The fact that Josephus feels no need to explain this underscores how much the career of Alexander the Great was common knowledge to Josephus’ intended audience. Alexander and his army crossed the Hellespont early in the spring of 334 bce. Greek Γράνικος. A river which ran some 50 miles northeast of Alexander’s Asian beachhead, the Granicus was the site of the king’s first engagement with Persian forces, whose total defeat at his hands crippled their capacity to defend Asia Minor by land against the Macedonian advance (Bosworth 1988: 35–44). The fame of this battle was such that Josephus, like many ancient writers, felt no need to specify that the Granicus was a river, nor even to write its name with the definite article (cf. Strabo 13.1.26; Memnon, frag. 4; Plutarch, Cam. 19.7; Aelian, Var. hist. 23). The second half of this elaborate μὲν—δέ clause dramatically sums up Alexander’s counter-clockwise advance (northwest to southeast) across the coastal regions of Anatolia until the winter of 334/333 bce (Bosworth 1988: 44–51). The pairing of a different verb of conquest with each pacified region vividly projects the image of Alexander’s invincibility on the battlefield but obscures some important nuances. For example, far from overtly “enslaving” (δουλωσάμενος) Ionia, Alexander made a point of liberating its cities from Persian-backed oligarchies, restoring traditional laws and remitting tribute (Arrian, Anab. 1.18.2). Even the citizens of Miletus, who had tenaciously resisted Alexander, did not suffer enslavement following their eventual capitulation (Arrian, Anab. 1.19.6). This is the first of eleven instances in the Antiquities in which Josephus alerts the reader to sources of historical information outside his own writings—all referencing post-biblical events (12.391; 13.186, 253, 371; 14.99, 119, 122, 270, 301; 18.54; cf. D. R. Schwartz 1982). The format of these external citations, employing the third-person perfect passive form δεδήλωται (“it has been related”), resembles Josephus’ internal cross-references, in which he directs the reader to another place where he has addressed a given topic (Ant. 1.135; 3.201; 10.150; 13.155, 298; 19.29; Apion 1.127). Josephus’ external citations differ from these cross-references in their failure to identify the author or authors to whom he is alluding (ἐν ἄλλοις, παρ’ ἄλλοις, ὑπ’ ἄλλων, ἐν ἄλλῳ). Apart from a stray occurrence in Aristotle (Metaph. 1043b.16), prior to the second century ce this particular citation formula is found only in Josephus’ writings. At the time Josephus composed the Antiquities, there were numerous accounts of Alexander’s exploits in circulation (Bosworth 1988: 295–300).

On Josephus’ interlacing of the Alexander and Manasses stories, see note to “also” at 11.304 above. In biblical (and, more broadly, Near Eastern) parlance, the plural “elders” (Greek πρεσβύτεροι; Hebrew זקנים) designates not an age-set but a body of community leaders, whether at a national or local level (Reviv 1989: 7; Willis 2001: 8–13). The expression is rare in Josephus (Ant. 7.28; 8.99; 11.105; 13.428), and only in the present passage is it collocated with τῶν Ἱεροσολυμίτων (cf. 2 Kgs 23:1; 2 Chr 34:29; 2 Macc 14:37; Jdt 15:8). However, the terminology used to identify Jerusalem’s leaders is variable. In describing the Jerusalemite community of his own day, Josephus frequently refers to “the first men” (οἱ πρῶτοι) of the city (Ant. 20.6, 53, 123, 180, 191 [οἱ προΰχοντες]; Life 28, 310; cf. Ant. 11.145). In his biblical paraphrase, Josephus’ preferred term is “council of elders” (γερουσία), which he aligns with the high priest in his depiction of Israel’s ideal “aristocratic” constitution (e.g., Ant. 4.186, 224; 5.55, 353; cf. 12.138, 142). Whatever the nomenclature, the elders’ function is to express and embody the norms of the community. On the shift from πρεσβύτεροι to λαός, see note to “people’s” at 11.309 below. Greek δεινοπαθοῦντες. The verb δεινοπαθέω often appears in accounts of legal disputes (Demosthenes, 2 Boeot. 40.53; Polybius 12.16.9; Diodorus 12.24.4; 32.10.6) or situations in which some fundamental trust has been betrayed (Diodorus 19.75.3; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 5.11.1). Both scenarios may be operative in the present passage if the elders’ words carry judicial force as well as being a barometer of community sentiment (cf. previous note). Greek μετέχειν τῆς ἀρχιερωσύνης (“to share the high priestly office”) is a hapax. At first glance, it seems counter-intuitive, given that only one person at a time could be high priest. There is evidence, however, for high priests of the Second Temple period deputizing a fellow priest to serve as a substitute or concelebrant. Qumran texts refer to this figure variously as “the second priest” (11qt xxxi, 4: הכהן המשׁנה), “his second” (1qm ii, 1: משׁנהו) and “[the seco]nd of the anointed priest” (4Q376apocrMosesb I, 1: ‪ני הכהן המשׁיח‬[‪משׁ‬]). The role may also be attested in Greek, where the term διάδοχος is used (2 Macc 4:29; 14:26; cf. Brutti 2006: 71–74; Babota 2013: 98–101). It is less clear whether there is any connection between this position and that of the “temple captain” (סגן) of later rabbinic texts (Schürer 1973–86: 2.277–78). The elders’ objection to Manasses’ marriage to a foreigner while seconding Jaddus probably stems from the Holiness Code of Leviticus, which prescribes that the anointed priest—in later understanding, the high priest—shall take to wife no woman except “a virgin of his own kin” (21:14). Josephus articulates this concern more explicitly in Apion, where he boasts about priestly genealogical purity: “anyone who takes a share in the priesthood [μετέχοντα τῆς ἱερωσύνης] must father children by a woman of the same nation” (1.31); “to those [high priests] who break any of the above rules, it is forbidden to approach the altars or share [μετέχειν] in any other rite” (1.36). On the contamination of priestly bloodlines as a special concern of Josephus, see note to “priestly line” at 11.140 above. On high priestly marriage, see Philo, Spec. 1.110. Greek ἐστασίαζον πρὸς αὐτόν. The motif of στάσις (“factional strife”) permeates the Josephan corpus, reflecting the historian’s preoccupation with the First Revolt (War 1.10). The verb στασιάζω has a broad semantic range, encompassing both verbal disputation (Ant. 1.157) and violent confrontation (Ant. 19.278), insurgency against an established authority (Ant. 9.282) as well as anarchic power struggles where no recognized authority exists (Ant. 12.3). “Agitation” best captures its sense in the present passage because the elders’ aim is deterrence: they present Manasses with an ultimatum in hopes that he will do the right thing. Josephus’ description of the elders’ reaction taps into a long-standing Greek topos; namely, that factional strife is often the cause for the founding of a new colony by a mother-city (Herodotus 4.145–167; 5.42; Bacchylides 11.58–84; Diodorus 4.67.2–6; Strabo 6.1.6; 6.3.2; cf. Dougherty 1993: 17). As a colonization narrative, Josephus’ account of the defection of Manasses and his faction to Samaria participates in this pattern. See note to “Sanaballet” at 11.309, to “colonization” at 11.312, and to “colonized” at 11.340 below.

Greek γενέσθαι. Variant: AW read γενήσεσθαι. Greek ἐπιβάθρα. This term is well represented in the lexicon of ancient warfare, where it can refer concretely to a wooden plank that is thrown down in order to bridge the gap between a siege tower and a fortification so that the invader may gain entry (Diodorus 14.51.7; 17.43.7–46.3) or, more abstractly, to a strategy for conquest (Polybius 3.24.14; 16.29.1–2; Diodorus 22.10.1; Plutarch, Alc. 17.1; Dem. 8.3). Transferred to the realm of moral discourse, Philo can speak of the bodily senses as an ἐπιβάθρα for vice (Somn. 2.51; cf. Agr. 107.1). At root, then, the term implies a hostile force seeking to breach a barrier. Greek βουλησομένοις. The future tense of this participle suggests that no such transgression of the law (other than Manasses’) had yet taken place, an impression strengthened by the appearance of the future infinitive (ἔσεσθαι) in the next clause. The elders’ concern to preempt intermarriage stands in tension with the “many” intermarriages that Josephus later claims had already taken place (11.312). Egger (1986: 68) attempts to reconcile this incongruity by positing a different regional setting for each passage. Josephus alludes to the biblical prohibition against intermarriage with the indigenous peoples of Canaan (Deut 7:3–4), a law he fails to cite or discuss in his surveys of Mosaic marriage laws (Ant. 4.244–259; Apion 2.199–203) but which he references at various points in his history (Ant. 4.129–155; 8.191–192, 11.140–153; 12.187; 18.340–352; 20.141–143). A juridical climax was reached, according to Josephus, when Ezra “cleansed the practice” for annulling unions with foreign women (Ant. 11.153). Josephus highlights κοινωνία (“fellowship”) as one of the core virtues fostered by the Judean constitution (Apion 2.146, 291), associating the term with commitment to one’s own family (Ant. 2.27) as well as to the general welfare (Apion 2.196). In addition to citing the Torah’s moral commandments (Apion 2.208), Josephus adduces Moses’ regulation of religious life, with its accompanying beliefs and observances, as vital to Judean κοινωνία (Ant. 4.204). It is for this reason, he says, that Judeans rightly shun intercourse with foreigners who do not wholeheartedly embrace their mode of life (Apion 2.210, 258). With the exception of their disagreement over the proper place of sacrifice, however, the Samaritans observed the same ancestral laws as Judeans and claimed to be fellow Israelites (11.343). In order to discredit these claims to κοινωνία, Josephus supplies the Samaritans with a foreign genealogy and links the founding of their temple to Judean apostates. The second prong of Josephus’ polemical strategy is to impute insincerity of motive: Samaritans seek κοινωνία with Judeans only for personal advantage, abandoning all pretense of solidarity when the going gets rough. They act as opportunists, not as true kinsfolk who share a common destiny (Ant. 9.291; 11.341). Josephus foreshadows Judean repudiation of Samaritan pseudo-fellowship when the latter petition the post-exilic Judean community to share (κοινωνῆσαι) in the temple’s rebuilding, only to be rebuffed. The only thing they might have in common (τοῦτο μόνον εἶναι κοινόν) with the Judeans is the right to worship there (Ant. 11.84, 87; cf. notes to “all people” and “temple” at 11.87 above)—which, in the present story, turns out to be the one opportunity for κοινωνία the Samaritans reject.

Collocation of the noun αἰχμαλωσία (“captivity”) with the neuter plural substantive adjective κακά (literally, “bad things”) also appears in Josephus’ narratorial evaluation of King Jeroboam I’s apostasy: “This was the beginning of calamities for the Hebrews, who, having been defeated in war by other peoples, fell into captivity” (Ant. 8.229). The same combination recurs in Josephus’ summary of Judean constitutional history earlier in Book 11, which he immediately follows up with an account of the “many evil deeds” (πόλλα κακά) perpetrated against the returned exiles by the Samaritans (11.113–114). The motif of intermarriage as cause of national catastrophe originates in the Ezra tradition (Ezra 9:13–15; 1 Esd 8:79–87). Josephus himself does not develop this premise elsewhere in his writings. He neither includes it in his paraphrase of 1 Esdras (Ant. 11.141) nor inserts it into his paraphrase of 2 Kings (Ant. 9.281–282; 10.37–40). This lends support to the view that Josephus did not invent the Manasses story but instead drew upon an already existing tradition. The force of the verb κελεύω varies according to context, meaning “to order,” “to direct,” or “to urge.” The last sense most accurately reflects the situation Josephus pictures: whereas the elders “complain” and “agitate” against Manasses’ marriage (11.306), it is the high priest who implements the sanction (11.309). Had the elders been independently capable of commanding Manasses, their recourse to persuasion would have been unnecessary. In the passive voice, διαζεύγνυσθαι can mean “to divorce” (cf. Ant. 4.253), but its more basic sense of spatial separation is pertinent to the nature of the ultimatum presented to Manasses. See note to “sharing the high priestly office” at 11.306 above.

Note the shift from “elders” (πρεσβύτεροι) to “people” (λαός). The change of subject is not surprising, given the elders’ role of representing the people. Josephus’ alternation between “sacrificial altar” (θυσιαστήριον) in 11.308 and “altar” (βωμός) in 11.309 does not imply that Manasses was excluded from two different altars. In his encomium for the high priest Simon, Jesus ben Sira displays a similar stylistic variation in vocabulary (Sir 50:11, 14). Greek colonization narratives (cf. note to “agitating against him” at 11.306 above) invariably involve an oracular consultation, in which the future founder, refusing to accept a sanction imposed on him by his community, seeks guidance from the gods (Dougherty 1993: 18–21). Sanaballet is no oracle, but his role in the story is similar in that he addresses Manasses’ grievances by means of a counter-proposal: not simply by enabling him to have his cake and eat it too, but by supporting him in establishing a new community (11.310–312). Greek μέντοι γε. Variant: FLAVWE omit γε. Manasses’ statement is consonant with Josephus’ exaltation of the priesthood elsewhere in his writings (Life 1; Apion 2.184–194; cf. Ant. 8.11; 14.490). See also Apion 1.30–31.

Greek τὴν ἀρχιερατικὴν παρέξειν δύναμιν καὶ τιμὴν ὑπισχνουμένου. Sanaballet’s words echo Bagoses’ promise to Jesus in 11.298 (ὑπέσχετο τὴν ἀρχιερωσύνην παρέξειν). Both stories depict Persian officials attempting to interfere in the high priestly succession by driving a wedge between two brothers. Samaritan sources preserve no memory of Manasses as the first high priest of the Gerizim temple (Pummer 2009: 116–17). It was a common practice for Persian officials to groom their children as potential successors, even if the ultimate power to confirm or reject a candidate resided with the king (Briant 2002: 338–40). That a governor’s son could act as an associate of his father is seen in the Elephantine Papyri, which speak of the sons of Sanballat receiving—and presumably responding to—official correspondence (tad 4.7.29; 4.8.28). Greek αὐτοῦ. Variant: PFLAW and the Latin read αὐτόν. See Ant. 13.256 and War 1.62–63. As a Judean priest, Josephus was committed to Zion as the sole legitimate site of sacrifice (Ant. 4.200; Apion 2.193). By drawing attention to the “likeness” of the Gerizim sanctuary to its Jerusalem archetype, Josephus highlights its derivative— and therefore heterodox—character. An identical strategy colors Josephus’ references to the later Oniad shrine in Egypt (Ant. 12.388; 13.63, 67, 72, 285; 20.236; War 1.33; cf. 7.427–428). Architectural resemblance of the Gerizim and Jerusalem temples was not, however, a figment of Josephus’ polemical imagination, as archaeological excavation now confirms (Magen 2008: 141–49). Greek Ἱεροσολύμοις. It is common in Josephus’ writings for the spelling of Jerusalem to alternate between singular and plural forms: 11.303, 329 (singular); 11.340, 342 (plural). Greek Γαριζείν. Variant: FVE and Syncellus read Γαριζίν (possibly influenced by lxx). Hebrew גרזים. This toponym appears a total of 17 times in Josephus—in all but one instance (Ant. 5.69), as an indeclinable noun (cf. War 1.63). In the Bible, Gerizim was the mountain where Israel was to renew its covenant once it had entered and taken possession of the Promised Land (Deut 11:29–31; 27:11–26; cf. Josh 8:33). The Samaritans identified this as the place where God had chosen to cause his name to dwell (sp Deut 12:5, 11, 14, 18, 21, 26), thus preempting rival Judean claims for Zion. Josephus’ statement is not strictly accurate. Mount Gerizim rises 886 meters above sea level; its northern counterpart, Mount Ebal, reaches 938 meters. Both summits are, however, the tallest in the region. It is not unusual for sacred mountains to be described with superlative imagery (cf. Mic 4:1; Isa 2:2; Pummer 1987: 8).

Greek παρέμενεν. Variant: AWE read κατέμενε παρά. Greek οἰόμενος. The verb οἴομαι often connotes mistaken or misplaced conviction. Because the high priesthood was a gift from God himself (Ant. 4.14–66), Sanaballet’s scheme to transfer this prerogative to Darius would be regarded as sacrilegious. On the possible function of this aside, apart from its proleptic relationship to the report of Sanaballet’s death in 11.325, see Pummer 2009: 112.

“Priests and Israelites” is a locution for the Judean nation organized as a cultic community. While the differentiation of priests from non-priests is attested throughout the Bible, this specific pairing, usually further differentiating the Levites, is found only within the Ezra-Nehemiah tradition (Ezra 2:2–39; 6:16; 7:7, 13; 9:1; 10:5, 18–43; Neh 7:7–42; 11:20; cf. Ant. 11.146, 151). Its appearance at the precise point in the Ezra narrative at which the intermarriage crisis is first announced (Ezra 9:1–2; 1 Esd 8:65–67) suggests that the present passage may have been modelled on it. Greek ἐπιπεπλεγμένων. Significantly, the only other occurrence of ἐπιπλέκω in the Antiquities accompanies Josephus’ censure of King Solomon’s marriages with foreign women, saying that Moses had forbidden such unions lest Israel “become entangled in foreign ways of life and leave the ancestral ones aside, and while worshipping those gods, fail to honor their own” (8.192). “Defect,” in the sense of switching sides in a conflict, is a common meaning for the verb ἀφίστημι in Josephus (e.g., Ant. 7.24, 27; War 1.153, Life 87–88). In the present passage it also combines the nuances of physical withdrawal and abandonment of the Mosaic constitution (cf. Ant. 1.14; 8.192, 229, 313; 13.4). Josephus plays up all three of these connotations in 11.340 and 11.347 below. Both money and land were standard incentives for Persian colonization efforts, which could be initiated by satraps as well as by the king. Although most of the evidence for such practices concerns military colonies, civilians could also be beneficiaries of Achaemenid largesse (Briant 2002: 417–18, 561–63). The basic meaning of the abstract noun κατοίκησις is “the act (or fact) of settlement.” While Josephus frequently employs the cognate verb κατοικέω to designate habitation in a general, non-technical sense, he almost always reserves the noun for acts of deliberate colonization on the part of a ruler (Ant. 6.321; 9.9; 17.25; War 7.217; Apion 2.35). Josephus will go on to describe the city of Shechem as being “colonized [κατῳκημένην] by defectors from the Judean nation” (11.340). The present passage does not specify the location of Sanaballet’s land grant. Greek συμφιλοκαλοῦντος. The rare compound συμφιλοκαλέω, which combines the preposition σύν (“with”), the verb φιλέω (“to love”), and the adjective καλός, -ή, -όν (“beautiful”)—hence, literally, “to love what is beautiful with [someone else]”—is attested only eight times in all of ancient literature: once prior to Josephus (Diodorus 3.59.8), three times in his own writings (cf. Ant. 1.9; 19.209), twice in his contemporary Plutarch (Sert. 14.2; Adul. amic. 53c), once in the second-century ce Tetrabiblos of Claudius Ptolemy (1.2.20), and once in a Byzantine excerpt of Ant. 19.209 (Constantine Porphyrogenitus, Virt. Α.55). With the exception of Diodorus, then, all original attestations of the form fall within the chronological limits of the “Second Sophistic,” a Greek cultural revival noted for its glorification of Attic literary style and moral-aesthetic ideals (Swaine 1996; Whitmarsh 2005). This context may be pertinent to parsing Josephus’ employment of συμφιλοκαλέω because the verb’s disaggregated cognates—φιλοκαλέω, φιλοκάλια, φιλόκαλος—were commonplace in classical Attic prose (e.g., Thucydides 2.40.1; Aristoxenus, frag. 40; Isocrates, Demon. 1.10; Plato, Phaedr. 248d; Aristotle, Eth. nic. 1099a) and seem to have been quite popular among writers associated with the Second Sophistic (e.g., Plutarch, Stoic. Rep. 21c; Comp. Ths. Rom. 1.7; Arat. 1.6; Dio Chrysostom, 4 Regn. 4.129; Dic. exercit. 18.1; Cor. 37.24; Lucian, Dom. 2; Pisc. 20; Scyth. 1; Aelius Aristides, Plat. 3.678; Cap. 4.2; Rhod. 25.55). The literal rendition of συμφιλοκαλέω does not transparently convey the nuance of Josephus’ narrative, since “beauty” as such is not the object of Sanaballet’s actions: he seeks to enhance the prestige of his daughter’s descendants by an infusion of Aaronid lineage (11.324; cf. 309), just as Manasses is eager to enhance his own prestige as future governor of Samaria and high priest of the Gerizim sanctuary (11.311). The boundary between social status and aesthetic valuation was, however, quite permeable in antiquity, as illustrated by the famous slogan καλοκαγαθία (“beauty and goodness”), which summed-up the ideal of aristocratic behavior (Isocrates, Demon. 1.6; Xenophon, Mem. 1.6.14; Demosthenes, Cor. 18.93; Aristotle, Eth. nic. 1124a; Polybius 2.39.10; cf. Jaeger 1945: 13). In light of this, it is unsurprising that φιλοκαλ- (“beauty-loving”) words are often associated with φιλοτιμ- (“honor-loving”) words in classical Attic writers and their Second Sophistic emulators (e.g., Xenophon, Cyr. 1.3.3; Aristotle, Eth. nic. 1125b; Plutarch, Adol. poet. Aud. 11; Vit. Pud. 17; Gen. Socr. 1; Praec. ger. rei publ. 12; Galen, Propr. 5.39; Sanit. 6.310; Ther. Pis. 14.218). Josephus appears to have been very much attuned to this semantic overlap, as can be seen from other contexts in which he uses φιλοκαλ-words (e.g., Ant. 4.154; 8.187; 12.59; 15.298). In fact, when read against the backdrop of the whole Josephan corpus, a strong case can be made for understanding Josephus’ application of συμφιλοκαλέω to Sanaballet and Manasses as ironic. One of Josephus’ signature responses to the question “What is beautiful?” is “the Mosaic constitution,” variously described as “the things that are beautiful” (Ant. 1.11; τὰ καλά), “the most beautiful gift” (Ant. 4.318: δώρημα κάλλιστον), and “the most beautiful of our doctrines” (Ant. 15.136: τὰ κάλλιστα τῶν δογμάτων). The very act of paraphrasing the Pentateuch is, for Josephus, to be numbered among “the most beautiful undertakings” (Ant. 1.9: τὰ κάλλιστα) patronized by Epaphroditus, “one who is always joining in love of the beautiful” (Ant. 1.9: συμφιλοκαλῶν). According to Moses himself, learning the laws is “the lesson most beautiful” (Ant. 4.211: μάθημα κάλλιστον; cf. Apion 2.175). Adhering to the theology and life-ways they foster “produces a very beautiful harmony in [people’s] character” (Apion 2.179: καλλίστη συμφωνία; cf. 2.293). Beautiful too is the readiness to suffer and even die in defense of the laws (Ant. 15.288; 18.278–280; War 1.650; Apion 1.190). Josephus elsewhere ridicules those who consider it beautiful not to maintain fidelity to their ancestral customs but who instead valorize innovation— in contrast to “true” Judeans, who pride themselves on constitutional inertia (Apion 2.182–184). Through his forbidden love for Nikaso and the divisive blandishments of his father-in-law, Manasses abandons what is truly beautiful. Josephus exposes a similar disconnect between Herod the Great’s obsession with political prestige (τὸ κάλλιστον) and his subjects’ Mosaic preference for what is just (τὸ δίκαιον; cf. Ant. 16.150–159).

See note to “At this very time also” at 11.304 above. See note to “Granicus” at 11.304 above. The wording and syntax of this sentence parallel that of 11.305. Darius assembled his army at Babylon during the spring and early summer of 333 bce (Bosworth 1988: 57). At the time Darius began mobilizing (cf. previous note), Alexander’s hold on Anatolia was incomplete and tenuous. In this context, “all Asia” might therefore simply mean “all Asia Minor” (Bosworth 1988: 53–54). But Josephus, like the tradition he draws upon, writes with hindsight of the Macedonian conquest of the Persian Empire (Ant. 10.273; 11.333–337; cf. Curtius 3.3.5). Within the narrative framework of the Antiquities, Macedonian gains in Anatolia already presage the loss of Darius’ dominion. On the use of “Asia” as shorthand for the Persian Empire as a whole, see note to “all Asia” at 11.3 above. On the retrospective, Hellenocentric character of ancient Greek historiography concerning the Persian response to Alexander’s initial victories in Anatolia, see Briant (2002: 823–28).

Strabo differentiated the Taurus Mountains according to the regions they abutted. Hence, “Cilician Taurus” was that stretch of the range that divided the coastal plain of Cilicia from the rest of Anatolia (12.1.1, 12.2.2, 12.4.10). Although Issus was located in Cilicia, Josephus’ claim that Darius traversed the Taurus to get there is inaccurate. The Persian army reached Issus not by crossing the Taurus (which bounds Cilicia on the north) but instead by crossing the Amanus range that separates Cilicia from Syria on the east (Polybius 12.17.2; Curtius 3.8.13; Arrian, Anab. 2.7.1). Strabo notes the contiguity of the two ranges, speaking of the Amanus as a “branch” (ἀπόσπασμα) that “splits away” (σχίζεται) from the Taurus (11.12.2; 12.2.2; cf. 14.5.18). Nonetheless, he insists that they are distinct formations with separate names (16.1.2). This convention of distinguishing the Amanus from the Taurus is also found in the works of Diodorus (14.21.4), Pliny the Elder (5.22), Suetonius (Jul. 3), and Plutarch (Dem. 48.4). The confusion in the present passage is doubly curious because Josephus elsewhere demonstrates knowledge of the Amanus and awareness of its nonequivalence with the Taurus (Ant. 1.122, 130). Perhaps he is here simply reproducing a source that was in error on this detail, or perhaps we should not expect him to be consistent with his nomenclature ten volumes later. While it is true that Darius assumed a defensive posture on the battlefield, allowing the Macedonians to make the first move (Arrian, Anab. 2.8.5–11), the compressed nature of Josephus’ account gives the false impression that Darius had reached Issus before Alexander and was waiting for him to arrive. The reverse was the case (cf. note to “there” at 11.314 below). Issus was the easternmost city of the Cilician coast, an important staging ground for Persian military operations (Briant 2002: 709–13). The battle, fought sometime between October and December of 333 bce, took place not at the city itself but amid the coastal defiles of the nearby River Pinarus (Arrian, Anab. 2.8.1–4; cf. 6.11.5). The premise that Darius wished to engage the Macedonian invaders at Issus is questionable. Initially, Darius had encamped his forces on the open plains of northern Syria, whose topography was tactically more favorable to the Persian cavalry. Alexander, however, refused to take the bait; he occupied Issus and remained in Cilicia, compelling the king to face him on more cramped terrain, which prevented the Persians from taking full advantage of their numerical superiority (Curtius 3.7.8–10; cf. Bosworth 1988: 59–60).

Although his passage of the Taurus (Amanus) mountain range obviously involved a change in altitude, “descent” here refers to the king’s march from Babylon to Issus in its entirety. Since at least the fifth century bce, Greek writers conceptually divided Asia into two geographical zones, designated by the spatial adverbs ἄνω (“upper”), meaning the interior of the continent, and κάτω (“lower”), meaning its western coastal regions (Herodotus 1.72.3; 1.95.2; 1.177.1; 4.1.5; cf. Diodorus 4.55.7; Strabo 11.7.4; Arrian, Anab. 1.20.3). Movement between the two zones could therefore be described, respectively, as “ascent” (ἀνάβασις) or “descent” (κατάβασις). Both terms acquired powerful Panhellenic resonances as a result of Xenophon’s stirring tale of a Greek mercenary army stranded at the heart of the Persian Empire and the perils it faced during its long journey home (Anab. 5.5.4; 7.8.26; cf. Arrian, Anab. 1.12.3). Diodorus applies the same terminology to the satrap Tissaphernes’ belligerent onslaught against the Greek cities of Asia (14.35.6). Darius’ κατάβασις sets the Battle of Issus within this larger narrative of Greco-Persian conflict. Greek εἰς χεῖρας ἥξειν (literally, “come to hands with”). This figure of speech conjures up images of hand-to-hand combat. Arrian has Alexander employ this very expression in his pre-battle speech at Issus. Boasting of the superiority of battle-hardened Greek bodies and minds over Medo-Persian luxury and slavery, the king encourages his troops to be confident of victory: “for it is with Persians and Medes that Macedonians are to come to blows” (Anab. 2.7.4). Josephus’ narrative thus plays upon a characteristically Greek rhetorical topos that martial valor (ἀρετή) trumps numerical superiority (πλῆθος) as the deciding factor in battle (e.g., Diodorus 10.34.10). Alexander’s army was significantly outnumbered at Issus, though reliable figures are lacking (cf. Bosworth 1988: 57; Briant 2002: 783–800).

The unexpected outcome at Issus parallels Alexander’s unexpected about-face concerning Jerusalem (11.330); both events focalize a dramatic reversal of fortune through a group of spectators. It was customary for the royal household to accompany the Persian king on campaign (Brosius 1996: 87–93). The Greco-Roman tradition dwells at length on Alexander’s clemency toward the women and children, whom he treated with honor and respect (Diodorus 17.35–36; Curtius 3.7; Arrian, Anab. 2.12.3–8; Plutarch, Alex. 21–23; Justin 11.9.12–16). Josephus’ schematic account mentions them only incidentally in order to underscore the ignominy of Darius’ defeat. On the Persian casualties, see Bosworth 1988: 62. The fugitive king’s destination was not Persia but Babylon, where he immediately began mustering an even greater army with which to defend his realm (Diodorus 17.39.1; Curtius 4.9.1–2). In claiming that the king fled to Persia, Josephus contemporizes later developments that do not fall within the purview of his story. By emphasizing Darius’ impotence, Josephus also makes Jaddus’ decision to maintain fealty to him in the face of Alexander’s threats (11.318) all the more praiseworthy.

Rather than pursuing Darius immediately into the heart of the Persian Empire, Alexander opted to complete his reduction of its Mediterranean periphery: Syria and Egypt. Securing the seaboard was critical because the formidable Persian fleet was still at large. Failure to defeat it—or at the least to deny its ships harborage— would have left the Macedonian army vulnerable to counter-attack from the rear and loss of vital supply lines (Arrian, Anab. 2.17). Damascus was captured not by Alexander but by his field marshal, Parmenion (cf. 11.333), whom the king dispatched there with an advance cavalry force (Arrian, Anab. 2.11.10; Curtius 3.12.27; Plutarch, Alex. 24.1). Parmenion’s mission was to secure Darius’ war chest and baggage train, which had been diverted to that city prior to the engagement at Issus (Diodorus 17.32.3; Arrian, Anab. 2.11.9–10; Plutarch, Alex. 20.6). The city surrendered without a fight (Curtius 3.13). Curtius claims that Alexander himself made for Damascus (3.12.27). This, however, seems unlikely. A visit to Damascus would have taken Alexander far from the Phoenician coast, whose pacification was his primary objective (cf. previous note). It is also countered by Arrian, who says that Alexander never set foot in the city (Anab. 2.15.1–2). In spite of its marginality to his main storyline, Josephus (or his source) may have decided to report this incident because Damascus was probably the satrapal capital of Abar-Naharah (Briant 2002: 951, 1014; cf. note to “satrap” at 11.302 above). Mention of its seizure underscores the inexorable erosion of Darius’ power in the face of Alexander’s onslaught. Sidon was not the only Phoenician city whose inhabitants opened their gates to Alexander. The Alexander historians also mention Aradus and its coastal dependencies along with neighboring Byblos (Arrian, Anab. 2.13.7–8; 2.15.6; Curtius 4.1.5–6, 16). These omissions are typical of Antiquities’ compression of Alexander’s career (cf. notes to “kingdom” and “Pamphylia” at 11.305, to “enemy” at 11.314, to “Persia” at 11.316 above, and to “Damascus” in the present paragraph). Although Tyre is the only town that plays a substantial role in Josephus’ narrative, his passing mention of Sidon may be a reflex of that city’s international fame (Curtius 4.1.15). In biblical texts, the pairing of “Tyre and Sidon” functions as a metonym for Phoenicia as a whole (e.g., Jer 25:22; 27:3; 47:4; Joel 3:4; Zech 9:2; cf. Matt 11:21). The mention of Sidon here may also serve to anticipate Josephus’ introduction of the “Sidonians in Shechem” at the conclusion of the Alexander story (11.344). Apart from Gaza (11.320), Tyre was the only Levantine city to resist the Macedonian army (Arrian, Anab. 2.25.4; Curtius 4.2.1). Alexander’s spectacular siege of the fortified island, which involved joining it to the mainland by a massive earthen causeway, became one of the signal achievements of his career—in the words of Arrian, a “great work” (μέγα ἔργον) worthy of his superhuman ancestor, Heracles (Anab. 2.18.2). The siege of Tyre performs an important chronological function within Josephus’ narrative, aligning the Judean-Samaritan quarrel with events of global significance. There are also thematic parallels between the Tyrian and Jerusalemite dramas: (1) conflict is provoked by the defenders’ persistent loyalty to Darius (11.318; cf. Diodorus 17.40.3); (2) Alexander intends to subjugate the recalcitrant city at all costs in order to broadcast his invincibility to the world (11.319; cf. Arrian, Anab. 2.26.3); (3) Alexander’s decision to attack the city—or not—is dictated by a portentous dream (11.334; cf. Arrian, Anab. 2.18.1–2); (4) conflict is resolved by Alexander sacrificing to the god of the city (11.336; cf. Arrian, Anab. 2.24.6). Josephus’ story selectively appropriates these elements for Jerusalem while retaining the Tyrian siege as a backdrop. On this formula, see note to “high priest of the Judeans” at 11.300 above. Greek συμμαχίαν πέμπειν (literally, “to send an alliance”). Since alliances involved mutual assistance in war, the construction often means “to send troops” (Ant. 13.134; 14.269; Life 203; War 1.329; cf. Xenophon, Hell. 4.8.24; 6.1.13; Polybius 29.24.9; Diodorus 2.22.1; 11.79.3; 16.34.1). This rendering coheres with the appearance of Sanaballet’s own troops later in the story (11.321, 345) as well as Alexander’s invitation to the Jerusalemites to join his army (11.339). Tcherikover argued that these details are anachronistic, on the premise that Alexander did not induct native troops into his army until a much later stage of his expedition (1959: 420 n. 13). During the siege of Tyre, however, Alexander relied heavily on the naval support of his Phoenician and Cypriot allies (Bosworth 1988: 65–66). This is the sole occurrence of the idiom ἀγορὰν παρέχειν (“provide a market”) in Josephus. Provisioning was—and is—a perennial challenge for commanders in the field, especially when the forces involved are numerous and the campaign time-consuming. Once an army’s baggage train became insufficient for supplying the troops, reliance on local resources became imperative. In lieu of foraging or outright pillaging, organized provisioning could take a variety of forms, depending on the circumstances and dispositions of the parties involved: compulsory requisition, “gifts,” or market exchange (Engels 1978: 41). The last of these entailed members of a community selling food to soldiers on a commercial basis. Such ad hoc arrangements are attested in Greek literature as far back as Thucydides (6.44.3; 6.50.1) and are a leitmotif of Xenophon’s Anabasis (2.3.24–27; 3.1.2; 3.2.20–21; 4.8.8). Xenophon highlights access to an ἀγορά as evidence of “friendship” between an itinerant army and the indigenous communities it encounters (Ages. 2.31). Historically, it is difficult to imagine Alexander requesting that Jaddus provide a market for his troops, since this only made sense when the providers resided close at hand. Prior to the Hasmonean expansion of the late second century bce, land-locked Judea was impracticably distant from the Phoenician coast. Greek δῶρα. “Gifts” were a major source of revenue for the Achaemenid dynasty (Briant 2002: 67–70). Unlike tribute (φόρος), which was invariably conveyed in the form of precious metal, gifts could take many forms, normally a specified quantity of some raw material or valued commodity emblematic of the region from which it came (Briant 2002: 174–75, 394). Subject peoples regularly gave gifts as ritualized acknowledgments of their submission to the Great King; refusal to render them signaled rebellion (Briant 2002: 193–94). Although Josephus applies the terminology of gift-giving to similar political situations in the Antiquities (5.190; 6.67; 7.129; 13.134, 149, 353, 419; 14.34–36), only in the present passage does he employ the phrase, τελέω δῶρα (“render gifts [in payment of an obligation]”), a rare expression of archaic origin (Homer, Il. 9.598; 10.303; Homeric Hymn, Dem. 2.369; cf. Plato, Alc. 2.149e). By requiring the same “gifts” as Darius, Alexander was laying claim to Darius’ kingship (cf. Arrian, Anab. 2.14.7). Josephus does not mention whether the Judeans rendered gifts to the Persian kings—only that they were “free of tribute” (ἀτελῆ φόρων) from the time of Darius I (11.61; cf. 11.279). Greek φιλία. “Friendship” belongs to the standard lexicon of interstate relations within the Greek world (Adcock and Mosley 1975: 205–9; Bauslaugh 1991: 56–64). It is often paired—as here—with the term “alliance” (συμμαχία) as shorthand for collaboration in war (cf. note to “market” in this sentence). Friendship was not incompatible with political submission (Arrian, Anab. 1.4.6, 7.10; cf. Strabo 16.2.14). Nor was the phenomenon unique to Greece; identical dynamics drove relations between the Great King and the lesser potentates that populated his realm (Arrian, Anab. 1.47.1; cf. Briant 2002: 766–68).

Nowhere else in the Antiquities does Josephus mention the high priest (or any other Judean leader) pledging personal fealty to the Persian monarch. The practice itself is well-attested under the Achaemenids (e.g., Xenophon, Anab. 1.6.7). A man who bound himself to the Great King by oaths was designated bandaka, an Old Iranian term for servant, literally “one who is bound” (Briant 2002: 324–26; Tavernier 2007: 549). The consequences of Jaddus’ commitment are far-reaching, not only for the Judeans of Jerusalem but also, subsequently, for those in Egypt. In Josephus’ paraphrase of the Letter of Aristeas, Jerusalemite fidelity in the face of Alexander’s threats is cited as the reason Ptolemy I entrusted the security of his own realm to Judean garrisons and made Judeans in Alexandria “equal citizens” (ἰσοπολῖται) with the Macedonians (Ant. 12.7–8; cf. Let. Aris. 13). The theme of keeping oaths at all costs is not unique to the Jaddus story or its sequel. Already in his biblical paraphrase, Josephus develops the motif as a characteristically Judean virtue (Ant. 5.169–170; 6.126–127; cf. War 2.143).

Greek δι’ αὐτοῦ. Variant: PV omit this phrase.

Greek πονικώτερον. This comparative adverbial form of the adjective πονικός is a hapax, found only in this Josephan passage. The motif of toil (πόνος) itself, however, is virtually synonymous with Alexander’s persona (Arrian, Anab. 5.25–29). Taking a page from the superhuman exploits of his ancestor Heracles, Alexander embraced toils and dangers as the price of great deeds (Arrian, Anab. 5.26.1–5). The siege of Tyre was emblematic of this maxim, not only because of the city’s seeming impregnability, but also on account of its association with Heracles (Arrian, Anab. 2.16; cf. 2.18.1–2). Tyre fell to the besiegers in late July or August of 332 bce (Arrian, Anab. 2.24.6; cf. Bosworth 1980: 255). By making Jaddus’ defiance the motivating force behind one of Alexander’s most celebrated exploits, Josephus (or his source) “writes” Judeans—and Judean virtue—into the foundational events of the Hellenistic world. Josephus’ placement of Alexander’s two-month assault on Gaza is surprising, given the king’s vow to subjugate Jerusalem as soon as the siege of Tyre had been concluded (11.319). This discrepancy is often cited by scholars who take the position that Josephus has combined (or inherited) disparate sources (e.g., Büchler 1898: 5–6; Cohen 1982–83: 43). Goldstein strains to resolve the narrative’s “intolerable contradiction” by postulating a missing emphatic καί before “against the city of the Gazeans,” thus treating the king’s detour as serving a dramatic function; namely, to conjure up a “growing heap of intimidations confronting” the high priest (1993: 85–86). A third alternative would be to adjust our assumptions about what Josephus might consider “intolerable.” As a conscientious historian, Josephus may well have regarded it as his duty to preserve Alexander’s well-known Gazean adventure, even if its inclusion complicated the storyline. Greek φρούραρχος. In order to counter-balance the regional power of his satraps, the Persian monarch directly appointed the commanding officer of each garrisoned city (Xenophon, Cyr. 8.6.1–9; Oec. 4.5–7; cf. Tuplin 1987: 131–33). The direct bond of loyalty between king and garrison commander explains why Gaza continued to hold out against the Macedonians even when the rest of Syria had capitulated to Alexander. This is the first appearance of a φρούραρχος in the Antiquities; it is also the only occasion on which Josephus uses this term to designate a military-administrative arrangement outside Judea. Greek Βαβημάσις (Variants: F reads Βαβιμίσις; LVW read Βαβημήσης; A reads Βαβημήσις; O reads Βαβιμίσης; Lat reads Babymasis). The Alexander historians transmit the name of Gaza’s commanding officer as Βάτις (Arrian, Anab. 2.25.4) or Betis (Curtius 4.6.7), possibly reflecting Old Iranian bata (“wine”), an onomastic element indirectly attested in an Aramaic document from Persepolis (Bowman 1970: 161 [No. 110.3]). In spite of Marcus’ efforts to salvage Babemasis as the textual corruption of a genuine Iranian name (1937: 468–69 n. c), Tavernier (2007) does not include it in his lexicon. Justi (1895: 65) judged Babemasis to be a Semitic name, but proposed no etymology for it. Whatever its origin, the form as it appears in Josephus is garbled beyond recognition.

Greek ἐπιβολῆς. Variant: LW read ἐπιβουλῆς. The original plan was to gain Darius’ permission on the assumption that he would prevail over Alexander at Issus (cf. 11.315). Greek ἀπέγνω. Josephus most often employs the verb ἀπογιγνώσκω in situations of despair or failure (e.g., Ant. 15.250; Apion 1.88; War 6.392). In the present passage, by contrast, self-interest and hope for success impel the Chuthean governor to renounce his sovereign. This contributes to Josephus’ antithetical portrayal of Sanaballet and Jaddus (cf. note to “Tyre” at 11.321 below). Greek λαβὼν δὲ ὀκτακισχιλίους. Variant: PFO(V) read καὶ λαβὼν δίς ὀκτακισχιλίους. Without secure information about the size of the military force at the beck and call of Samaria’s governor, it is difficult to decide between these figures (8,000 or 16,000). The δίς could be a simple misspelling of δέ. The jarring asynchronism of Josephus’ narrative, recounting—without advance warning—an event that took place at the beginning of the siege (11.317) after having already described the siege’s conclusion (11.320), might indicate the combination of originally independent stories. On the other hand, the resequencing could be deliberate. By presenting the actions of Sanaballet and Jaddus in reverse order, Josephus more vividly foregrounds the thematic contrast between Judean constancy and Samaritan opportunism (Johnson 2004: 72–74). In evaluating these possibilities, one should not forget the logistical challenges confronting any historian who is attempting to manage parallel sequences of events: whether to constantly cut from one scene to keep everything up to date, or to finish a given situation, to some extent, before returning to the others.

Greek προσδεξαμένου. Variants: FLAW read προσδεξαμένος; P reads προσδεξαμένους; OV read προσδεξάμενοι. See note to “high priest of the Judeans” at 11.300 above. Greek ὑπ’ ἐκείνῳ. The antecedent of the demonstrative pronoun is unclear. Sanaballet has just spoken of “the places over which he ruled” (11.321). Earlier on, however, the Chuthean had promised to appoint Manasses governor of those very same places (11.310) and had already provided his son-in-law’s followers with money and land (11.317). So depending on how it is contextualized, “that man” might refer to either Sanaballet or Manasses.

Greek ἵνα μὴ ὁμογνωμονοῦν. This is the only occurrence of the verb ὁμογνωμονέω in Josephus. In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle associates unanimity with successful political communities, in contrast to those riven by factionalism (1167a–b). Philo characterizes the Judean nation as being “of one mind” with all who demonstrate a commitment to justice (Spec. 4.224; cf. Her. 246). On the pretense of safeguarding Macedonian interests, Sanaballet and Alexander collude to undermine Judean concord by reinforcing factional strife (cf. note to “agitating against him” at 11.306 above). Given Alexander’s aspiration to sole lordship over Asia, it is not immediately obvious to which “kings” (plural) Sanaballet is referring here. The subsequent appearance of “the kings of Syria” (11.332) as Alexander’s allies, eager for the despoliation of Jerusalem, may be the group that is meant (cf. note to “the kings of Syria and the rest” at 11.332 below). Reviving the trope of Jerusalem’s rebelliousness (cf. note to “the inhabitants in Coele-Syria” at 11.303 above).

Excavated remains of the Samaritan temple on Mount Gerizim render this statement historically suspect. The precise chronology remains disputed (Mor 2003: 93–94; Dušek 2007: 546–47; Tal 2008: 168), but the material evidence seems to indicate an initial building phase a century or more before Alexander’s arrival (Magen 2008: 167–69). Even were Josephus’ timeline to be vindicated, the sheer scale of the sacred precinct (96m × 98m) would not have allowed so narrow a chronological window—nine months or less (11.321, 325)—for the sanctuary’s completion. Sanaballet’s valuation of the prestige attaching to priestly lineage mirrors Manasses’ own earlier statement that “the priesthood was the greatest honor [τιμὴ μεγίστη] in the nation” (11.309). In addition to associating τιμή (“honor”) with γέρας (“reward, prize, privilege”) in other contexts (Ant. 5.339; 7.63; 10.240; 19.324), Josephus also applies it to the superlative dignity of high priestly office (Ant. 4.30–33; 19.314–315)—another item promised to Manasses in his previous encounter with Sanaballet (11.310).

Alexander concluded the siege of Gaza in November of 332 bce (cf. note to “Tyre” at 11.320 above). The two-month duration of Gaza’s siege is also attested by Diodorus (17.48.7). Foreshadowed by Josephus’ earlier reference to Sanaballet’s advanced age (11.311). If we assume the Sanaballet-Manasses story was originally independent of the story of Alexander’s visit to Jerusalem and its sequel, the obituary supplies an explanation for the satrap’s absence from the remainder of the narrative (Johnson 2004: 74). In contradiction to Josephus, the Alexander historians claim that the king proceeded directly from Gaza to Egypt (Diodorus 17.49.1; Curtius 4.6.30; Arrian, Anab. 3.1.1; cf. Plutarch, Alex. 25–26). He did not linger in Palestine because its inhabitants had already submitted to him (Arrian, Anab. 2.25.4; Curtius 4.2.1). The omission of a visit to Jerusalem may result from selectivity or ignorance on the part of Greco-Roman authors (Amitay 2010). In any case, Josephus’ narrative clearly co-opts the Alexander tradition in the service of Judeocentrism. Just as Alexander’s victory over Tyre is propelled by his eagerness to confront Jaddus (11.319), so Egypt’s taking a backseat to Jerusalem in the Macedonian itinerary broadcasts the preeminence of the Judeans within the new world order.

Greek ἀγωνίᾳ καὶ δέει. Josephus often uses ἀγωνία (“anguish”)—sometimes in tandem with a “fear”-word— to describe the emotional state of those threatened by the approach of a hostile army (Ant. 6.107; 8.373; 13.87; cf. 10.22). A similar application of such language to the high priest is found in 2 Macc 3:14, 16. See note to “meeting” at 11.327 below. Jaddus’ situation closely parallels that of Herod the Great in the aftermath of the Battle of Actium (cf. War 1.386; Ant. 15.161–162). In both cases, the Judean protagonist’s emphatic allegiance to the losing side in a decisive contest for empire places his life in jeopardy. In both cases, the protagonist resolves to approach the victor boldly but peaceably and, contrary to expectations, is confirmed in his position (cf. War 1.391–392; Ant. 15.194–195). In the present narrative, the topos of Judean constancy is juxtaposed with Samaritan opportunism (cf. note to “Tyre” at 11.321 above). Compare with 2 Macc 3:18. Greek ὑπερασπίσαι. The hope that God will shield his elect from the threat of annihilation is frequently expressed in the Bible (lxx Deut 33:29; 4 Kgdms 19:34; 20:6; Jdt 5:21; 6:2; 9:14; lxx Ps 19:2; lxx Zech 12:8).

On the incubatory aspect of Jaddus’ dream, see Gnuse 1996: 185–87. Jaddus’ incubation parallels Greco-Roman stories involving beleaguered cities in which a deity delivers the city from danger by an oracular instruction conveyed through the medium of dream (Cohen 1982: 49–52; cf. Kim 2003). An alternative model for this episode may be Daniel 2, in which a Judean protagonist receives a vision that leads to the exposition of a prior, cryptic vision received by a foreign king who threatens the Judean protagonist; exposition of the prior vision results in the king prostrating himself before the Judean protagonist and lavishing him and his compatriots with rewards (Tropper 2013: 132–33). Greek στεφανοῦντας τὴν πόλιν. The image of a city adorned with garlands as indicative of the inhabitants’ goodwill towards an approaching army recurs in War 4.273 (cf. Cassius Dio 63.20.4). Greek ποιεῖσθαι τὴν ὑπάντησιν (literally, “to make a meeting”). This idiom is rare before Josephus, found only in Polybius (3.95.5; 5.63.8; 8.3.5; 16.22.2) and Diodorus (18.59.3), both of whom employ the synonym ἀπάντησις. Both verbal cognates (ἀπαντάω and ὑπαντάω) are common to Josephus’ writings. The present episode is the first of six in which he utilizes one or the other verb to describe the ceremonial reception of a foreign ruler or plenipotentiary by the inhabitants of Jerusalem (Ant. 12.138, 406; 16.14; 18.123; War 2.297–325). This protocol, known in Latin by the term adventus, was practiced throughout Mediterranean antiquity (Cohen 1982: 45–49; for additional Josephan examples, cf. War 3.30, 460; 7.101, 119; Ant. 7.263–276; 13.101, 149; 14.301; 19.340; Life 411). I.e., the laity. Priestly robes prescribed by Moses (Ant. 3.153, 159–161). The instruction to the priests to don their vestments outside the sanctuary directly countermands a biblical prohibition (Ezek 42:14; 44:19; cf. Lev 21:12). This signals to the reader/hearer that something extraordinary—indeed, theophanic—is about to take place (Fletcher-Louis 2004: 96; cf. notes to “other nations” and “from there” at 11.329, to “first” at 11.331, and to “high priesthood” at 11.333 below). Greek προνοουμένου τοῦ θεοῦ. Josephus sometimes appends reminders of divine providence in the genitive absolute (Ant. 2.280; 4.194; 7.65; Life 301). The syntax of this sentence recalls the earlier prophetic assurances of Haggai and Zechariah, who “kept urging [the Judeans] to be courageous and to expect nothing troublesome from the Persians, as God was predicting these things” (11.96). On the martial symbolism of the high priest leading his fellow priests—armed with divine providence rather than man-made weapons—to an encounter with a hostile army, see Fletcher-Louis 2004: 87. On the providential resolution of the encounter with Alexander, and the theme of providence in the conclusion of Book 11 in general, see Tropper 2013: 135.

Note the repetition of verbs from 11.327.

Greek ἱεροπρεπῆ. The “suitably sacred” character of the Jerusalemite procession may allude to the priests’ unusual donning of their liturgical vestments outside the sanctuary (cf. note to “tunics” at 11.327 above). What makes it qualitatively “different” (διαφέρουσαν) from those of other nations may be the absence of the cult statues of the community’s gods—substituted for by the person and regalia of the high priest himself (Fletcher-Louis 2004: 90). Narratively speaking, the differentiating factor is also the role-reversal that will take place when the two parties meet (cf. note to “first” at 11.331 below). Greek Σαφειν (Variants: FLE read Σαφίν; AV read Σαφάν; W reads Σαφᾶν; A i. marg. γρ reads Σαφεῖν; Lat reads Saphin). This is a transliteration of Hebrew צופים, masculine plural Qal participle of the verb צפה (“keep watch”) used substantively (literally, “lookouts”). A parallel use of the plural to designate a singular location occurs in Num 23:14. The Hebrew form of this toponym is first attested in m. Pesah. 3.8. Greek Σκοπόν (Variants: FL1AVW read Σκοπήν; L2 reads Σκοπεῖν; A i. marg. γρ reads Σκοπίαν; Lat reads Scopulum). Mount Scopus is the northernmost peak of the Olivet Ridge that forms the eastern side of the Kidron Valley. The name Saphein/Scopus derives from the mountain’s commanding view of the surrounding terrain, which makes it an ideal place from which to launch—or repulse—an attack on Jerusalem. Josephus offers a similar topographical aside about this landmark in War 5.67. Its function in the present story may be twofold: (1) to further develop the martial symbolism of the priestly procession (cf. note to “providing for them” at 11.327 above), with Mount Scopus as a strategic position from which to engage the enemy (cf. previous note and Zech 14:1–5); (2) to anticipate the epiphany scene that follows (11.331): Alexander “sees” the earthly representative of the Deity at the same instant that he “sees” the Deity’s earthly domicile.

Greek Χαλδαῖοι. Aramaic כלדאה (reflecting Akkadian Kaldu). In Josephus’ writings, “Chaldean” can designate either a Mesopotamian ethnic group (Ant. 1.93, 144, 157)—more specifically the tribe that produced the ruling dynasty of Babylon prior to the advent of Persian rule (Ant. 10.40, 183, 223; 11.91)—or a class of Babylonian priests renowned for their astrological expertise (Ant. 1.168; 10.187, 194–203, 234–235; Apion 1.128–160; War 2.112). The latter figure prominently in the Alexander historians’ account of the conqueror’s dealings with Babylon (Diodorus 17.112.2–5, 17.116.4; Curtius 5.1.22; 10.4.3, 10.6.13; Plutarch, Alex. 73.1; Arrian, Anab. 3.16.5; 7.16.5–6, 7.17.1–4, 7.22.1). If Chaldean is to be understood in this esoteric sense, their presence might be a typological reflex of Daniel 2 (cf. note to “dreams” at 11.327 above), in which Chaldeans play a central role (Dan 2:2, 4, 5, 10). The appearance of the Book of Daniel itself a few pericopes later (11.337) strengthens this possibility, underscoring the superiority of Judean prophecy over its Babylonian competitors. On the other hand, a strong argument can be made for taking Chaldean in its ethnic sense: (1) the context is one of plunder, not divination (cf. next note); (2) the expectation of plunder derives not from any esoteric insight but from common sense observation; (3) the Chaldeans’ counterparts are members of an ethnic group (Phoenicians/Syrians), not another class of diviners. On either reading, the Chaldeans’ presence is anachronistic, since Alexander had not yet reached Babylonia and so would not have had occasion to encounter Mesopotamian ethnics or intellectuals in appreciable numbers. A more plausible explanation for their appearance alongside the king’s Levantine cohorts is the Chaldeans’ historical role as the destroyers of Jerusalem, the very agents of the Judeans’ “former captivity and calamities” (11.308), recollection of which had provoked such bitter opposition to Manasses’ marriage at the beginning of the narrative (11.306–309). The Chaldeans’ presence serves to intensify the crisis of the story’s climax: in a stark reversal of expectations, Jerusalemite resistance to “fellowship with foreigners” (11.307), far from safeguarding the city from further misfortunes, has seemingly brought it back full circle to the brink of destruction. The epiphany that impels Alexander to call off the attack (11.331) thus forms a fitting inclusio with the beginning of Book 11, which commences with a flashback to the Babylonian captivity and its dramatic cancellation by Cyrus (11.1–2). The expectation of plunder suggests that those “following” the king (τῶν ἀκολουθούντων) are auxiliary forces sent—and evidently also led (11.332)—by local dynasts who submitted to Alexander upon his arrival in Syria (11.317, 321; cf. Justin 11.10.6–7). See note to “expecting” at 11.316 above.

Greek βυσσίναις. See also Ant. 3.153. For a parallel account of the high priest’s vestments, see Ant. 3.159–178. Note Josephus’ ascending description, climaxing with the name of God. I.e., alone of all the Macedonians and their entourage. Greek προσεκύνησεν. Josephus commonly uses the verb προσκυνέω to describe worship, reverence or submission (e.g., Ant. 1.335; 3.91; 6.240; 10.211; 11.277; War 2.360; 4.262; 6.123). The act of προσκύνησις, which could range in form from complete bodily prostration to a deferential bow (cf. notes to “prone” at War 2.171 and to “obeisance” at War 2.341, 360 in bjp 1b), held special significance for Alexander the Great (cf. note to “before him” at 11.331 below). Greek πρῶτος. I.e., before the high priest could greet him, reinforcing the surprising reversal of expectations. In the context of Jaddus’ theophoric headdress, Alexander’s “greeting” may signify more than just cordiality. In his lament at the desecration of the temple by the rebels during the First Revolt, the high priest Ananus sums up his dignity in terms of “being clad in the high priestly raiment and being called the most honored of revered names” (War 4.164). On the possibility that “the most honored of revered names” alludes to the name of God, see Fletcher-Louis 2004: 88–89.

In 11.330 the onlookers were described as “Phoenicians and Chaldeans.” The shift in verbiage to “the kings of Syria and the rest” need not entail a change in identity. “Syria” is an elastic term, equally capable of designating the Levantine region as a whole (inclusive of Phoenicia) or of distinguishing the interior from the Phoenician coast. This is one of several instances in Josephus’ writings in which Syrian dynasts appear as leaders of auxiliary units (σύμμαχοι; ἐπίκουροι) in a military force bent on Jerusalem’s subjugation (Ant. 17.286; War 3.8, 66; 5.42; cf. Ant. 14.129). Apart from Sanaballet’s remark that the Judeans might cause trouble for “the kings” (11.323), the only context Josephus supplies within the narrative that might account for their destructive impulses toward Jerusalem and its high priest are his earlier statements— all amplifications of the Ezra-Nehemiah tradition—that the nations of Syria actively sought to undermine the rebuilding of Jerusalem’s walls and temple (11.88, 174, 180). Greek διεφθάρθαι τῷ βασιλεῖ τὴν διάνοιαν. This expression, attested as early as Isocrates (Demon. 1.32), is also used by Josephus at Ant. 9.222 and 9.261 (cf. Plutarch, Alex. 77).

Greek Παρμένιον. Parmenion son of Philotas was one of Alexander’s foremost generals during the initial stages of the expedition (Heckel 1992: 13–23). Having commanded the left wing of the Macedonian army at both Granicus and Issus, Parmenion was dispatched by Alexander to Damascus in order to seize Darius’ war chest (cf. note to “Damascus” at 11.317 above), after which he assumed military oversight of Coele-Syria (Curtius 4.1.4–5). His appearance in Josephus’ story aligns with a tradition that he rejoined the king during the siege of Tyre (Polyaenus 4.3.4; cf. Bosworth 1974). Greek τί δήποτε. The intensifying particle δή conveys Parmenion’s perplexity more vividly. This parallels Plutarch, Alex. 32.1 (τί δή), on which, see note to “high priest of the Judeans” at 11.333 below. For Greeks, “obeisance” (προσκύνησις) was a cultic act reserved for the gods (Bosworth 1988: 284) therefore generally assuming something demonstrative and close to prostration, in contrast to the many possible verbs for a mere nod or bow or bend. Throughout the Near East, however, it also encompassed customary gestures of deference to social superiors (Ant. 6.285; 20.28, 56; cf. Herodotus 1.134). Because performance of obeisance was a central expression of submission to the Persian monarch (Frye 1972; Briant 2002: 222–23), Alexander attempted to absorb it into his own court ritual, thereby contributing to his public persona as Darius’ legitimate successor. While Alexander’s non-Greek subjects made obeisance to him as a matter of course (Diodorus 17.37.5; Curtius 3.12.17; Arrian, Anab. 2.12.6), the innovation met with resistance from his Macedonian companions (Arrian, Anab. 4.10.5–12.7; Curtius 8.5.5–24; Justin, 12.7.1–3; Plutarch, Alex. 45.1; 51.3; 54.2–3; 55.1; 74.1–2). Possibly near the end of his life, and certainly after his death, Alexander also received divine honors within the Greek world (Bosworth 1988: 288–90). Parmenion’s statement anachronistically alludes to this later state of affairs, in which “all” (ἅπαντοι)—Greeks and non-Greeks alike— venerate him. Josephus’ appropriation of this motif is none too subtle: by making obeisance before the divine name, Alexander’s conquest of the Persian Empire and all the honors deriving therefrom are credited to the god of Jerusalem (11.334–335; cf. Gruen 1998: 196–97; Fletcher-Louis 2004: 91–94). On a possible Danielic typology for this event, see note to “dreams” at 11.327 above. On the influence of the Book of Daniel on Josephus’ narrative of foreign rule as a whole, see Mason 1994. The Alexander historians report numerous verbal exchanges between Parmenion and Alexander, most of which involve the seasoned campaigner counseling a conservative course of action to the impetuous young king—who usually ignores the advice and throws caution to the wind, only to triumph anyway (e.g., Plutarch, Alex. 16.2–3; 19.3; 29.4; 31.5–8; 32.3–4; cf. Heckel 1992: 20–21). On one occasion Parmenion also performs—as in Josephus’ tale—the role of a bewildered questioner (Plutarch, Alex. 32.1–2; cf. note to “why ever” at 11.333 above). By means of this Parmenion-Alexander type scene, the present story appropriates Alexander’s aura for the glorification of the Judean high priesthood and the Deity it serves. Although the motif of the high priesthood’s superlative honor pervades the conclusion of Book 11 (cf. 11.297, 310, 312, 324, 336), Alexander’s performance of προσκύνησις before the divine name moves this theme decisively into the realm of biblical anthropology, in which humanity—and especially the high priest—is God’s visible icon (Gen 1:26–27; cf. Fletcher-Louis 2001). On the significance of Alexander’s distinguishing between Jaddus as an individual and the high priesthood as a theophoric office, see Fletcher-Louis 2004: 94–97.

Josephus’ use of anaphora (οὐ τοῦτον ... τοῦτον γάρ) communicates Alexander’s moment of recognition more vividly. Greek Δίον. A town situated beneath Mount Olympus in Pieria on the border between Macedon and northern Greece (Thucydides 5.78.6; Strabo 7, frag. 17–18). As its name and location intimate, Dium was a cult center for Olympian Zeus. Under Alexander’s ancestor Archelaus (ruled 413–399 bce), Dium became the national shrine of the Macedonians, serving as a venue for a festival to the Muses (Polybius 4.62.2; Diodorus 17.16.4; Dio Chrysostom, 2 Regn. 2.2; cf. Arrian, Anab. 1.11.1, who misidentifies Dium as Aegae). Dium was closely associated with the military achievements of the Argead dynasty, who made numerous dedications there (Polybius 4.62.2; 5.9.3; Diodorus 30.11.2; Arrian, Anab. 1.16.4; Livy 44.7.3). It was at Dium in the autumn of 335 bce that Alexander conferred with his senior officers—including Parmenion—concerning the impending expedition against the Persians (Diodorus 17.16.1–4). The conference coincided with the Olympian festival to the Muses (cf. previous note) and was said to have been accompanied by omens (Plutarch, Alex. 14.5; Arrian, Anab. 1.11.2). Josephus’ tale of a prophetic dream, though not attested elsewhere, participates in the portentous atmosphere conveyed by the Alexander historians. On a possible Danielic typology for this dream, see note to “dreams” at 11.327 above. From Europe to Asia. See 11.305, 313.

Greek θείᾳ πομπῇ. An expression of divine providence, before Josephus attested only in Herodotus (1.62.4; 3.77.1; 4.152.2; 8.94.2), in the third-century bce grammarian Aristophanes (Epit. 2.465), and in Philo (Spec. 2.158; qe 2.24). For an analysis of Alexander’s dream, see Kim 2003 and Koet 2003.

Greek δεξιωσάμενος. A gesture of goodwill. See also Ant. 14.446; 15.357, 378; and 16.18. On a possible Danielic typology for Alexander’s honoring of Jaddus and his fellow priests, see note to “dreams” at 11.327 above. On the possibility that these honors are an extension of Alexander’s obeisance to the high priest in 11.331, see Fletcher-Louis 2004: 93.

In contrast to modern scholars who maintain that the apocalyptic sections of Daniel postdate Alexander’s conquests by more than a century (e.g., Collins 1993), Josephus took it for granted that the book had been penned by Daniel himself in the sixth century bce and so would have been available for Alexander to read. The motif of the foreign king encountering the prophetic text that confers divine sanction on his rule is first introduced by Cyrus’ reading the Book of Isaiah (Ant. 11.5–6; cf. note to “reading” at 11.5 above). Alexander’s discovery of Daniel thus forms an inclusio with the beginning of Book 11. Moreover, if a Danielic typology is at work in this story (cf. note to “dreams” at 11.327 above), an allusion to that seer’s writing would sharpen the parallel (cf. note to “Chaldeans” at 11.330 above). In the context of the Antiquities, an allusion to Dan 8:1–21. See Ant. 10.269–273; Mason 1994: 174, 176.

Greek τοῖς πάτριοις νόμοις. Josephus frequently uses this expression when speaking of the Torah (11.110, 140, 224; cf. Schröder 1996). On the privilege of “using” one’s ancestral laws, see note to “laws” at 11.338 below. On Josephus’ alternation between singular and plural subjects in episodes involving the high priest, see note to “high priest of the Judeans” at 11.300 above. “Babylon and Media” is Josephan shorthand for the two historical zones of Israelite settlement resulting, respectively, from the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities (cf. 11.131). The right to “use one’s own laws” (τοῖς ἰδίοις νόμοις χρῆσθαι), first granted under Persian rule (Ant. 11.281), will be renewed by Alexander’s Successors (Ant. 12.150). By employing the same expression in all three instances, Josephus emphasizes the uninterrupted continuation of Judean privilege under foreign rule.

Alexander’s promise of accommodation is fulfilled—albeit in the breach—in Pseudo-Hecataeus, who recounts an episode of the king’s exempting his Judean recruits from having to assist their cohorts in renovating a pagan temple in Babylon (cited in Apion 1.192; cf. Ant. 13.251). On the anachronism of Alexander’s recruiting native troops into the Macedonian army at this stage of his campaign, see note to “auxiliary force” at 11.317 above. Regardless of its historical plausibility, Alexander’s invitation trades on the topos of Judean martial prowess, a theme introduced earlier in the narrative (11.303, 323; cf. note to “illustrious” at 11.303 above).

Greek Ἱεροσόλυμοι. On the spelling, see note to “Hierosolyma” at 11.310 above. According to the Alexander historians, the king had already received the submission of all the Levantine cities (other than Gaza) by the conclusion of the siege of Tyre (cf. note to “Tyre” at 11.317 above). Greek Σαμαρεῖται. This is the first occurrence of this form of the name since Josephus’ account of the rebuilding of Jerusalem in 11.174. On Josephus’ alternation between Σαμαρεῖς and Σαμαρεῖται, see note to “Samarians” at 11.114 above. Greek τότε. Josephus’ use of the temporal adverb may imply a future in which Shechem would no longer function as a capital city (cf. next note). If so, the allusion may be to the Hasmonean destruction of that town along with the Gerizim temple near the end of the second century bce (Ant. 13.255; War 1.63; cf. Finkielsztejn 1998; Barag 1992–93). The historical value of Josephus’ assertion that Shechem, rather than Samaria, was the center of Samaritan settlement at the time of Alexander the Great’s invasion is uncertain (cf. Pummer 2009: 143–46). Greek μητρόπολις. In classical usage, “mother-city” can designate either a city that sends out colonies (e.g., Herodotus 7.51; Thucydides 6.82) or a capital city (e.g., Xenophon, Anab. 5.2.3). The latter meaning better comports with the Josephan context since the story makes no mention of Samaritan colonizers—on the contrary, it is Shechem that is being portrayed as the recipient of a colonizing effort. On the other hand, Shechem is patently not a capital city in an administrative sense; Samaria alone enjoyed that distinction (cf. note to “Samaria” at 11.302 above). Indeed, not until this passage has Josephus ever associated Shechem with the Samaritans, and only here (11.340–347) and in Ant. 12.10 does he label them “Shechemites” (cf. Ant. 12.258, 262; 13.255; War 1.63). What warrants the label of μητρόπολις in Josephus’ mind may be Shechem’s connection with Mount Gerizim and its sanctuary (cf. note to “Mount Garizein” at 11.340 below). Elsewhere in his writings, Josephus calls Jerusalem the mother-city of the Judeans—again, not simply because it is the geographical epicenter of a nation but because of its proximity to the sanctuary on Mount Zion (Ant. 3.245; War 2.400, 421; 4.181, 242–243, 279; cf. Philo, Flacc. 46; Legat. 281, 294–297). Although no contemporary Samaritan source applies the term μητρόπολις to Shechem, a pair of honorific inscriptions dating to the third through first centuries bce substantiates Samaritan cultic allegiance to Gerizim. The dedicators of these inscriptions identify themselves as “the Israelites on Delos who make first-fruit offerings to holy Argarizein” [οἱ ἐν Δήλῳ Ἰσραελεῖται οἱ ἀπαρχόμενοι εἰς ἱερὸν Ἀργαριζείν] (Bruneau 1982; cf. Ant. 13.74–79). Greek τὴν Σίκειμαν (Variants: FLAWE read Σίκιμαν; V reads Σίκιμα). Hebrew שׁכם. Orthographic variation in the manuscript tradition indicates uncertainty over whether to treat the city’s transcribed name as a feminine singular (ἡ Σίκιμα) or neuter plural (τὰ Σίκιμα). With one other exception (Ant. 8.225), Josephus shows a clear preference for the latter (Ant. 1.342; 2.18; 5.69, 115, 233, 235; 8.212; 11.344; 12.258, 262; 13.255, 377; War 1.63, 92; cf. Ant. 1.337 [neuter singular]). The majority spelling in the present passage (Σίκειμαν) is a hapax. Greek πρὸς τῷ Γαριζεὶν ὄρει. See also Ant. 5.235; War 1.63. The town of Shechem (archaeologically identified with Tell Balatah near modern Nablus) was situated in the valley between Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal. Greek κατῳκημένην. This recalls Josephus’ earlier account of Sanaballet’s benefactions to Manasses and his followers, which included land allotments “for cultivation and colonization” (κατοίκησις; 11.312). It is unclear, however, whether the colonized land in question should be understood as including Shechem, and thus whether Josephus is here implying that the town itself was (re) founded by Manasses’ faction (Pummer 2009: 124–25), or whether, at this juncture in the narrative, Josephus is presenting “the Samaritans” and “defectors of the Judean nation” as two distinct groups (Egger 1986: 78; Nodet 1997: 147). On the theme of defection, see note to “defecting” at 11.311 above. Greek αὑτοὺς Ἰουδαίους ὁμολογεῖν. The duplicity Josephus ascribes to the Samaritans is unparalleled. No other group in his (or any other ancient author’s) writings habitually forges its identity, only to abandon the façade when it becomes disadvantageous. The nearest contender in Josephus’ biblical paraphrase are the Gibeonites, who save themselves from extermination at the hands of the Israelite invaders under Joshua by disavowing their ethno-geographic ties to the land of Canaan (Ant. 5.52). Like the Samaritans, the Gibeonites seek affiliation with Israel (in Josephus’ parlance, they seek to become συμπολῖται), but they do not go so far as to assert genealogical ties. Also like the Samaritans, when their ruse is discovered, they confess the truth. But for the Gibeonites, this is a one-time event, not a repeated pattern. By contrast, Josephus is emphatic that ethnic deception is an indelible Samaritan trait (cf. Ant. 11.341; 12.257). Moreover, whereas the Gibeonites engage in identity theft out of an understandable desire for self-preservation, the Samaritans—like Sanaballet and Manasses— are driven solely by the misguided pursuit of prestige (cf. note to “prestige” at 11.312 above). The expression αὑτοὺς Ἰουδαίους ὁμολογεῖν is also found in 2 Macc 6:6.

On the change of gentilic from Σαμαρεῖται to Σαμαρεῖς, see note to “Samarians” at 11.114 above. Greek [κατὰ] τὴν φύσιν. Samaritans are not the only group subjected to ethnic stereotyping in Josephus’ writings (cf. Ant. 18.47; Apion 1.224; War 1.255; 2.92; 4.310; 5.372; 7.77). But whereas the stereotypes applied to other groups are derived from literary and cultural conventions known outside the Josephan corpus, his assertion that habitual deception is a Samaritan trait finds no parallel in any other ancient source. See 11.341. Greek συγγενεῖς ἒχειν. Variant: V omits the remainder. Greek ἐξαίφνης. Variant: PFLE omit this word. For the mischievous connotations of γενεαλογέω, see War 1.476, its other occurrence in Josephus. See Ant. 9.291 for a similar formulation.

Greek μικροῦ δεῖν ἐγγὺς. A note of sarcasm may lurk behind Josephus’ locating this encounter “still very near” Jerusalem. The Samaritans, who usually want nothing to do with the Judeans, now have to come very close to their city—all but on its doorstep—in order to meet their new idol Alexander because he likes Jerusalem and not their place, which he has no intention of visiting. I am indebted to Steve Mason for this observation. Greek Ἱεροσόλυμοι. On the spelling, see note to “Hierosolyma” at 11.310 above. Tying up a loose end from 11.321, Josephus reintroduces Sanaballet’s soldiers—doubtless, in part, to explain how it happened that they would eventually end up in Egypt (11.345). Their presence in the company of the Shechemites is, however, somewhat awkward. It is unclear why, since Sanaballet had sent these auxiliaries to Alexander, they were not already with the king (who had presumably been employing their services up until this point). Since they were not already in Alexander’s train, why did the Shechemites feel the need to bring them along? That Alexander’s recollection of their recent military service would make him more amenable to their requests?

Greek ἰδεῖν. Variants: FVE read ἥξειν; LAO read παρέξειν; W reads ἕξειν. Greek ἐκεῖνο. Variant: V reads ἐκεῖνοις. At first glance, Alexander’s question seems like a memory lapse, given that (in Josephus’ telling) he himself was the one who had authorized the building of the Samaritan temple less than a year before (11.324). This apparent incongruity may reflect an imperfect integration of disparate sources on Josephus’ part (Tcherikover 1977: 44). Alternatively, the king’s question could be taken as an expression of indignation: “Who are you to presume to ask for remission of tribute?” (Kasher 2001: 148; cf. Johnson 2004: 75). In Josephus, “Hebrew” is synonymous with “Israelite” (e.g., Ant. 2.201–202).

Greek χρηματίζειν. Used with reference to identity, this verb entails not simply taking a name but also being formally recognized by it (Ant. 8.157; 13.318; War 2.27, 488). Greek οἱ ἐν Σικίμοις Σιδώνιοι. An identical formula (gentilic localized by ἐν + place name) appears on a second-century bce inscription concerning a Sidonian community at Maresha in Idumea (τῶν ἐν Μαρίσει Σιδωνίων; ogis 593) and has been reconstructed for a similar inscription concerning the coastal town of Jamnia (seg xli.1556). These epigraphic parallels suggest the presence of a Sidonian enclave among the Samaritan population of Shechem. The Sidonians in Shechem reappear in a pair of documents dating to 167 bce preserved in Ant. 12.258–264. While mere stylistic variation might account for the shift from “to be” (ὄντες) in the previous sentence to “to happen to be” (τυγχάνουσιν), the change in verb could also convey sarcasm on Alexander’s part (cf. note to “these appeals” at 11.343 above). This is an artfully crafted exchange. Presuming to fool the conqueror of the world, the Samaritans succeed only in making themselves look foolish by verbally excluding themselves from the very status they had set out to seize.

Egypt was Alexander’s next destination following his subjugation of Syria (Bosworth 1988: 68–74). Being the last unconquered Persian satrapy abutting the Mediterranean, Egypt’s submission would conclude Alexander’s strategy of securing the coast before advancing into Mesopotamia. Greek κλήρους γῆς. Land allotment was a common means of compensating soldiery under Alexander’s Successors (Billows 1995: 160–68). Although no such allotments are attested in other sources concerning the Egyptian segment of Alexander’s expedition, evidence for Ptolemaic reliance on cleruchies for the support of Egypt’s armed forces is extensive (Uebel 1968). Greek ἐν τῇ Θηβαΐδι. Taking its name from the Pharaonic city of Thebes (Waset), the Thebaid encompassed the heartland of Upper Egypt, from Syene in the south to Abydus in the north (Herodotus 2.28.2; Diodorus 1.22.6; Strabo 17.1.3, 17.1.42). Curtius reports that Alexander, having accepted the Egyptian satrap’s formal surrender at Memphis, sailed up the Nile in order to settle the country’s affairs (4.5.7; cf. Arrian, Anab. 3.1.4). Although Curtius is vague on the king’s itinerary (ad interior Aegypti penetrat), a visitation of the Thebaid may well be implied (Bosworth 1988: 71–72 n. 147). Josephus’ claim that the king garrisoned the region with Sanaballet’s troops at this time is more difficult to assess. Curtius says only that Alexander arranged matters so as not to disrupt the status quo (compositisque rebus ita ut nihil ex patrio Aegyptiorum more mutaret). Moreover, Alexander’s security needs in Egypt were minimal, given its inhabitants’ clear preference for Macedonian rule (Diodorus 17.49.1–2; Curtius 4.7.1). Documentary evidence for cleruchic settlement of the Thebaid does not predate the period of Ptolemaic rule (cf. note to “land” at 11.345 above).

June 10, 323 bce (Bosworth 1988: 172). Greek τοὺς διαδόχους. Alexander died without designating an heir and left no viable candidates to fill the ensuing power vacuum. This condemned the lands of the Mediterranean and Near East to decades of political chaos as Alexander’s officers fought one another for supremacy. Out of these bloody contests a relatively stable partition of his empire eventually emerged, each sector of which was ruled by the descendants of a different field marshal. Although these warlords claimed kingship on the basis of their personal achievements rather than their association with Alexander (Gruen 1985), it became conventional among ancient writers to refer to them as the Diadochoi (e.g., Diodorus 1.3.3; 18.42.1; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 1.2.3; 1.49.4; cf. Rosen 2004). Josephus follows this practice (cf. Ant. 12.5; Apion 1.200, 213; 2.39). While permutations of the phrase “to eat what is common” are found in texts prior to and contemporary with Josephus (Tob 2:2; 1 Macc 1:62; Acts 10:14), the abstract compound used here (κοινοφαγία) is a hapax. Greek ἐν σαββάτοις παρανομίας. This expression too is a hapax. See previous note. Wrongful banishment, usually resulting from civil strife, is a prominent theme in Greek history. The specific expression used here (ἀδίκως ἐκβάλλειν) is also found in Demosthenes (Mid. 21.109; Pro Phorm. 36.49) and Plutarch (Cor. 27.4).

Greek Ὀνίας. Hebrew חוניה. Josephus refers to Onias I, whose descendants would continue to hold the high priestly office in unbroken succession until the mid-second century bce (Ant. 20.234–235). Josephus mentions Onias I again in Ant. 12.43, where he identifies him as the father of Simon the Just (cf. pp. 130–137 below) and grandfather of Eleazar, the high priest featured in the Letter of Aristeas. The Oniad high priests figure prominently in Josephus’ account of Judea during the early Hellenistic period, so his mention of Onias here serves to link the narratives of Book 11 to those of Book 12. Josephus closes Book 11 with a formula he often uses to signal the end of discussion on a specifĳic topic: τὰ μὲν περί + [topic] + ἐν τούτοις + [verb] (cf. Ant. 8.298, 393; 9.139, 235; 11.113; 13.132, 212, 267; 18.204, 288; War 2.654; 4.587; 6.192). Because Josephus has already employed this formula to conclude his account of the restored Judean community under Cyrus and Darius I (11.113), “these times” in the present passage probably refer not to the Persian period as a whole but more restrictively to the events involving Manasses and Alexander (11.302–347) and perhaps the Bagoses episode as well (11.297–301).

The manuscripts mention Sossius (Σόσσιος), but Josephus no doubt refers to Gaius Sosius, one of Mark Antony’s commanders. He assisted Herod in the siege of Jerusalem (37 or perhaps 36 BCE), as Josephus narrates in book 14 (Ant. 14.468-488). One wonders whether the order of the names is deliberate here, implying that Herod helped Sosius and not the other way around, as the War report suggests (but cf. War 1.353-357; 5.408-409 and esp. 6.436; see Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a 1.327, noting that Seneca the Elder and Tacitus suggest that Sosius captured Jerusalem and received the honor for it). Ant. 14.447 states that Antony ordered Sosius to assist Herod; Ant. 15.5 only mentions Herod in connection with the capture of Jerusalem. Sosius celebrated a triumph for this victory (see 15.8 with the note to “triumphant procession”).Sosius was consul designatus in 36 BCE but could not take up his office because of his military service in the East as Mark Antony’s lieutenant. He became consul in 32 BCE (Huzar 1978: 140, 142-43, 164, 175, 206). See also War 1.19; Ant. 14.176; Broughton 1951-1986: 2.393, 397-398, 402; 3.200; Bartels 2001. Herod is the main character of Ant. 15.1-17.199 (Landau 2006: 115-85), which narrative is part of a long section that starts in 14.158, with the note about Herod’s appointment as commander of Galilee by his father Antipater. The Herod narrative of Antiquities is not only much more elaborate than the parallel section in War but frequently also more negative about Herod. This already becomes apparent in the first episode in Galilee (Ant. 14.158-184; cf. War 1.203-215), during which Herod crushed Ezekias and his fellow brigands. Antiquities suggests that Herod had a violent and bold character and that he had the ambition to rule as a tyrant (14.165). This motif is absent from War (see the excursus on Herod’s image at the end of the Herod narrative of Antiquities). Literally “Hierosolyma.” Josephus almost always uses the name Ἱεροσόλυμα instead of Ἱερουσαλήμ (“Jerusalem”; but see Apion 1.179 with Barclay’s comments in BJP 10 1.179), contrary to the LXX, which uses the second name predominantly. In the New Testament both names are common. The successful siege of Jerusalem by Herod and Sosius is described in Ant. 14.468-488. On the date of the capture, see 15.7 with notes. Antigonus was of Hasmonean descent and a son of Aristobulus II (Schürer-Vermes 1.281-86). He was Herod’s major competitor for the throne. The struggle between the Hasmoneans and Herod’s family starts in Antiquities in 14.140 with the report of Antigonus’ appeal to Julius Caesar about Hyrcanus II and Antipater’s usurpation. Subsequently, Antigonus assembled an army and invaded Judea but was driven out by Herod (14.297-300). Antigonus struck back by making an agreement with the Parthians, who then held sway over the area. Several skirmishes between Antigonus and Herod followed, but in the end the Parthians gained control over Jerusalem. They captured Hyrcanus and Phasael, handed them over to Antigonus, and also delivered the city to him (14.330-369). Herod went to Rome to gain support, where he was appointed king and Antigonus declared an enemy of Rome (14.379-389). In the meantime Antigonus was besieging Herod’s relatives at Masada (14.390). Herod rescued them, captured Joppa, and afterwards marched against Antigonus in Jerusalem (14.394-401). Antigonus’ surrender to Sosius is described in 14.481. This refers to book 14 and very briefly summarizes the last events narrated there (see the notes to Ant. 15.1; for a list of other internal cross-references in Josephus, see Drüner 1896: 82-94). With the cross-reference here Josephus highlights Sosius and Herod’s capture of Jerusalem as a caesura. The capture in combination with the transition to book 15 suggests that from now on Herod was in control of Judea (as already implied in Ant. 15.2-3), which matches the contents of books 15-17, describing Herod’s actual rule. Josephus basically presents the Herod story in a chronological order (van Henten and Huitink: 2007). The reading of MSS PVF (τὰ δ’ ἐκείνης συνεχῆ, Niese 333) implies “the main issues of that book” instead of “the things that followed those events,” which hardly makes sense. Josephus not only refers back in Ant. 15.1 to events narrated in book 14, but he also announces a report about subsequent events (see Rengstorf s.v. συνεχής and the preceding note).

An alternative literal translation would be “When Herod had been granted …,” which would emphasize that Herod’s power was dependent on the Romans and match the situation after Herod’s appointment as king in 40 BCE (see the next note). The context implies, however, that Josephus refers to the situation after the capture of Jerusalem. “All Judea” implies that with the capture of Jerusalem and the knocking out of his competitor Antigonus (cf. Ant. 14.469) Herod had become ruler over the entire region. Herod’s Judean territory comprised the ethnarchy of Hyrcanus II, to which other areas were added later. It consisted roughly of the territories west from the Jordan and the Dead Sea, consisting of the coastal area from around Jamnia and Joppa to the fortress of Alexandrium in the northeast and the fortress of Herodium in the southeast. It was bordered by Samaria in the north and by Idumea in the south (Buchheim 1960: 66-67; Stern 1974b: 221 with n. 2; Möller and Schmitt 1976: 202-03; see for maps Avi-Yonah in Stern 1974b: 228-29; Mittmann and Schmitt 2001: map B V 16.2). On the name Judea, see Goodblatt 1998: 12.In addition to Judea, Herod’s kingdom bestowed upon him by the Romans in 40 BCE (War 1.281-285; Ant. 14.379-389) comprised Idumea, Perea, and Galilee. Richardson [1996: 131-52] offers a convenient survey of the expansion of Herod’s kingdom. The Greek combination of κατὰ τὴν πόλιν and πλῆθος echoes vocabulary in War 1.358. Schalit (2001: 491 n. 1129) interprets “gave prominence to” to mean that Herod literally bought the support of the population. The reward for Herod’s supporters is, however, only indicated in general terms (see also the next note). Cohen (1979: 53-58) offers a survey of the correspondences between War 1 and Ant. 15-16 as well as their dependence on possible sources. In the Herod narrative of Antiquities τὸ πλῆθος (“the population”) frequently refers to the Jewish population of Herod’s kingdom or to the Jewish people (e.g., 15.50, 52, 183, 263-264, 280, 284, 368). Sometimes τὸ πλῆθος, which occurs more than 500 times in Josephus, has a depreciatory meaning (“mob, multitude, horde, throng, rabble,” more or less equivalent to the Latin vulgus; see Mason in BJP 1b on 2.1, 9, also 15.183 with the note to “cause the rabble to revolt” and 15.231 with the note to “disturbances of the masses”). The translation is based on the reading ἰδιωτεύοντος of E. The reading of most of the Greek MSS (ἰδιωτεύοντες) implies a different translation: “he promoted all of the city’s population, who were commoners and still loyal to him.” The genitive singular reading of E makes more sense: Josephus refers to Herod as a commoner (ἰδιώτης, Rengstorf s.v.) in War 1.209, 387, 432, 665; Ant. 14.169, 403, 489, 491; 15.367, 374; 16.78; 17.20 (according to the editio princeps); 17.192 (cf. ἰδιωτεύω [“be a commoner”] in Ant. 15.17; 16.78).Depending on the preferred reading, the passage either refers to the group of commoners in Jerusalem that remained loyal to Herod while he was competing with Antigonus (cf. the references to Pollio and Samaias in Ant. 15.3 and to the people’s loyalty to Antigonus in 15.8), or to a period before Herod’s appointment as king by the Romans. The first interpretation implies that the passage highlights the role of Jerusalem’s commoners during Herod’s struggle for power. They can be contrasted with the Hasmoneans and their supporters, who must have objected against the transfer of the kingdom to somebody outside of the royal family (and even of Idumean descent). The reading of E (also followed by Marcus-Wikgren 2; Richardson 1996: 161) focuses on Herod’s attitude towards those persons who had supported him in his early years. It is plausible that Herod rewarded them generously (see also Ant. 15.3 and War 1.358, which state that Herod conferred honors upon them). Schalit (2001: 315-16, 479-81) identifies this group of Herod’s supporters with the “Herodians” mentioned in the New Testament (Matt 22:16; Mark 3:6; 12:13), arguing that they belonged to various social groups. Josephus elsewhere suggests that Herod’s initial generous attitude changed during his rule. Later Herod would have acted more and more like a tyrant capable of executing persons, whether loyal to him or not, at random (Ant. 16.4; 17.159; cf. War 2.86; van Henten 2011b). I.e., those who had taken the side of Antigonus, who is mentioned in Ant. 15.1. Josephus does not specify who Antigonus’ supporters were. They are Herod’s major enemies in the last part of book 14 (see the commentary on 15.1). Ant. 15.6 also concerns their punishment. The parallel passage of War (1.358) briefly reports that Antigonus’ supporters were executed. The flashbacks in Ant. 15.3-4 suggest that Herod would have all the members of the council (Greek συνέδριον; see 15.173 with the note about Herod’s council)—except Samaias/Pollio—killed. Schalit (2001: 98-100) takes the connection between 15.2 and 15.3-4 as a starting point and argues that Herod’s enemies included the remaining members of the Hasmonean family, most members of the council, the greatest part of the Jerusalem aristocracy, and a section of the common people, which, in his view, was strongly influenced by the Pharisees (cf. Schürer-Vermes 1.296). The note about the punishment of Antigonus’ supporters may anticipate—in combination with other information in the introduction of book 15—later (severe) punishments of enemies. In that case the passage would refer to the execution of Antigonus’ group as well as later opponents, whose execution is reported in the subsequent narrative. This reading would match the narrative function of 15.1-4 (see the end of the summary of Antiquities 15 above). Later punishments are reported in 15.164-179, 365-366, 368-369.The phrase ὅσοι … τἀκείνου φρονοῦντες (“all those who had taken his side”; φρονέω plus a personal pronoun in the genitive means “stand on someone’s side,” Rengstorf s.v.) is reminiscent of War 1.358 (τοὺς τὰ αὐτοῦ φρονήσαντας; cf. Ant. 13.28), also referring to supporters of Antigonus. War 1.319, 358 call Antigonus’ group ’Αντιγόνειοι. The punishment “day after day” characterizes Herod as a severe ruler for his own subjects. Schalit (2001: 99-100, 258-60) argues that Herod’s enemies lost their possessions, including their lands (which is suggested by a concluding remark in Ant. 17.305; see its commentary). Herod’s punishment may have been severe, but several reports are transmitted about rulers who captured a city and destroyed all, or at least a part, of the leadership and/or the population. Striking examples concern Rome, first with the proscriptions of Sulla in 82-81 BCE (Cassius Dio 33.109.12-21) and later in 43-42 BCE, when Octavian, Mark Antony, and Lepidus were consolidating their triumvirate (Plutarch, Sull. 31.1-33.2; Suetonius, Aug. 27; Appian, Bell. civ. 4.1-51; Cassius Dio 47.1-13). Cases outside Rome include the bloody fate of Corinth in 146 BCE, when the entire adult male population was killed by the Romans (Pausanias 7.16.8; for other examples, see Harris 1979: 52, 263-64).

Pollio is also mentioned in Ant. 15.4, 370; Samaias in 14.172, 175; 15.370 (Schalit 1968: 98, 105, and 2001: 768-71). Samaias is mentioned alone, as a member of the council, in Ant. 14.172, 175. Pollio does not occur in book 14; he is mentioned here for the first time, and this together with Samaias (as in 15.370; Mason 1991: 261-63). In both passages Pollio is identified as a Pharisee (for Josephus’ references to the Pharisees, see Mason 1991). Samaias is consistently presented as Pollio’s student: Ant. 15.4 focuses upon Pollio as the more important scholar, and when the two appear as a duo in Josephus’ narrative Pollio is mentioned first (here as well as in 15.370). A combination of the references to Samaias in book 14 and the information about Pollio and Samaias in book 15 implies that prominent Pharisees supported Herod despite their criticism (see also the last note to this paragraph). Sievers (1997) questions whether Samaias was a Pharisee; being a student of a Pharisee doesn’t necessarily mean being a Pharisee.Samaias/Pollio’s motive for supporting Herod is apparently that Herod acted as leader of the Jews with God’s consent (see 15.4 and the next notes; cf. Mason 1991: 262-63). Scholars have often assumed that both were Pharisees and identified them with one of the famous pairs of rabbinic sages: Shemaya and Avtalyon (m. ’Abot 1.10-11), or Shammai and Hillel (m. ’Abot 1.12-15; Schürer-Vermes 1.296; 2.262-67; Mason 1991: 262 n. 18; Schalit 2001: 768-71).The reference to Pollio and Samaias in Ant. 15.3 is part of a flashback to events narrated in book 14. Jewish leaders were opposing Herod (or more precisely Antipater and his sons, Herod being one of them) and warned Hyrcanus II against Herod (14.163-167). These opponents recalled Herod’s unlawful execution of Ezekias and his fellow bandits without permission from the council and Hyrcanus (14.167). Their accusations (14.165, 167-168, 171) and the daily appeals in the Temple by the mothers of the murdered men made Hyrcanus put Herod on trial (14.168-178). In 14.177 Josephus notes that the members of the council intended to execute Herod, which implies that they agreed with the Jewish leaders. This trial is the context of Samaias’ prediction about Herod killing all members of the council, including Hyrcanus but except himself (14.174-175). Samaias’ prediction is taken up in 15.4. It did come true according to a proleptic remark in 14.175 referring to the time when Herod had assumed royal power (see also the next notes). Hyrcanus’ end is described in 15.164-179. The deaths of the council members are not mentioned explicitly but are probably implied in 15.2-4. The Greek echoes Ant. 14.176, concerning Samaias (see the next note). The analeptic remark refers to the episode of Herod’s trial in Jerusalem (see the note to Samaias and Pollio at the beginning of the paragraph). Josephus’ description of the trial includes a brief passage in which he notes that Samaias was the only member of the council standing in Herod’s favor (Ant. 14.176). Ant. 14.176 refers to the siege of Jerusalem by Sosius and Herod, reported later in book 14 (see 15.1 with the note to “captured Jerusalem”), during which Samaias—and not Pollio and Samaias as stated here—would have advised Jerusalem’s population to admit Herod. The Greek vocabulary of 14.176 is partly echoed here, but Josephus does not repeat Herod’s role of executing the divine punishment for the people’s sins as motive for Samaias’ advice (Schalit 2001: 96-97). Ant. 15.3 (like War 1.293, 358) indicates that not all Jerusalemites opposed Herod, contrary to what Josephus sometimes suggests (see the commentary on 15.274). Stern (1974b: 226) suggests that Samaias/Pollio’s motive was to prevent a useless bloodshed after the situation had become desperate for Herod’s opponents. Obviously, Herod’s capture of Jerusalem is the moment to reward Pollio and Samaias for their advice; Herod was finally in the position to offer such a reward. Josephus does not elaborate on what the reward included. Mason (1991: 263-64) argues that Pollio and Samaias belong to the enemy camp in Josephus’ narrative despite Herod’s reward (see also Ant. 15.370).

The brief excursus about Pollio in Ant. 15.4 is an implicit flashback of Herod’s trial (14.168-177) despite the fact that Samaias is mentioned there instead of Pollio (parallel account in War 1.210-211; references to Samaias in Ant. 14.172, 175, and to Herod in War 1.210-211; Ant. 14.173-174; note the occurrence of the key phrase κρίνομαι [“be on trial”] in Ant. 14.172; 15.4; cf. War 1.210). The discrepancy concerning Samaias being mentioned alone in Ant. 14.172-176 and together with Pollio in 15.3-4 remains a problem; it might be explained by the assumption that the reference to both of them in 15.370 caused Josephus to incorporate a double reference in 15.3-4.Josephus seems to hint here at Samaias’ speech during Herod’s trial (Ant. 14.172-174). Samaias criticized Herod for appearing at the court with his soldiers, clothed in purple, and for showing contempt for the Law, but he also blamed Hyrcanus and the council members for allowing Herod such a great freedom. The Greek Epitome (E) and the Latin version read Σαμαῖος (“Samaias”), Σαμέας or Sameas (“Sameas,” Niese 333). This is probably a correction because it harmonizes the text with the report of Ant. 14.172-176, focusing upon Samaias only. The major Greek MSS read Πολλίων (“Pollio”), which is the lectio difficilior and is also supported by Josephus’ note in 15.370, again indicating that Pollio was more prominent than Samaias (Marcus-Wikgren 3 n. b; Mason 1991: 262 n. 19; differently Schalit 2001: 768). I.e., Hyrcanus II (see Ant. 15.11 with commentary). This line also refers to Samaias’ speech during Herod’s trial (Ant. 14.174). The speech included a prediction of the future punishment of Hyrcanus and the council members: “Be assured, however, that God is great, and this man [i.e., Herod] whom you now wish to release for Hyrcanus’ sake, will one day punish you [i.e., the members of the council] and the king [i.e., Hyrcanus] as well” (Ant. 14.174, transl. Marcus). The verb ἐπεξέρχομαι can mean “proceed against, attack, prosecute, punish” (Plutarch, Caes. 69; LSJ s.v. 2). Josephus’ reference to the statement of Samaias/Pollio is ambiguous because Hyrcanus and the council are criticized (“He reproached Hyrcanus …”), implying that they should have convicted and executed Herod. At the same time Josephus suggests in Ant. 14.174 (“And he was not mistaken in either part of his prediction,” transl. Marcus) and here (“And this happened after some time, because God fulfilled his words”) that God made Samaias/Pollio’s prediction come true. Schalit (2001: 99-100) takes Josephus’ note that all members of the council were killed as an overstatement and concludes that Herod executed those who were part of the Jerusalem aristocracy. He further assumes that the 45 prominent members of Antigonus’ party (Ant. 15.6) belonged to the council but warns against calculations of the actual number of the council members. This concerns the punishment of Herod’s opponents and confirms the prediction by Samaias/Pollio (see the previous note). This phrase and Ant. 14.174 (see the note to “he would punish all of them” in this paragraph) suggest that the chain of events was in accordance with God’s will: Herod could act as leader of the Jews because of God’s support. Josephus states this explicitly in the brief story about the Essene Manaemus, who predicted Herod’s future (15.373-378). God’s fulfillment of Samaias/Pollio’s statement also indicates a special bond between God and these two men as persons entitled to receive divine revelations.

This somewhat unusual chronological marker (ἐν δὲ τῷ τότε) occurs six times in Josephus. All occurrences fall in books 15-16 of Antiquities (15.5, 220; 16.134, 160, 180, 359). Elsewhere in Greek literature the expression occurs rarely without a corresponding noun (but see, e.g., Andocides, Red. 14.5; Plutarch, Arat. 9.7). In other passages a noun like χρόνῳ is added (e.g. Plutarch, Cam. 2.7; Alex. 49.3; see also Plato, Leg. 699c; Menex. 237e; Phaedr. 241a; Philo, Prob. 142). The chronological marker introduces Josephus’ list of Herod’s first measures in Jerusalem (Ant. 15.5-7), which clearly presents the king from a negative perspective, like the introduction of the book (15.1-4). The word κόσμος, here translated with “precious items,” has many different meanings in Josephus, ranging from “orderly state” (e.g., communities, armies) to “fancy dress” (e.g., jewelry, official robes; Rengstorf s.v.). Richardson (1996: 161) and Schalit (2001: 100) argue that Herod collected money and possessions from his wealthy Jerusalem opponents. Marcus-Wikgren 4-5 n. b) suggest that κόσμος refers here to equipment or (military) gear, which might be supported by other passages (e.g., Ant. 13.308; 17.198). However, this is improbable for 15.5 because of the context, which refers to silver and gold as well as to a gift to Mark Antony and his friends, who would not have been pleased with used gear. The word is used with a similar meaning in the parallel passage of War (1.358). Josephus’ report (paralleled by War 1.358) here and elsewhere implies that Herod was always in great need of money owing to his lavish gifts to patrons, military expeditions, building activities, and donations to foreign states. On Herod’s opening of David’s tomb to take money stored there, see Ant. 7.394; 16.179-181; on his buildings in cities outside the kingdom, War 1.422-425; about the expropriations conducted by Herod to fund these gifts, Ant. 17.305-308. There is no doubt that Herod’s financial needs were great (surveys in Gabba 1990; Udoh 2005: 113-206). The question remains whether Herod actually exploited his Jewish subjects in order to finance his ambitious projects, as several scholars have argued (for a critical discussion and further references, see Pastor 2003). Josephus’ information about Herod may well be biased in this respect. His note here that even those with many resources became destitute emphasizes the harshness of Herod’s actions in collecting valuables and may indeed suggest that Herod exploited the Judeans (see also Ant. 15.7). However, Josephus usually ignores the benefits of Herod’s activities for the Jews, although his enthusiastic description of Herod’s activities in Antiquities and War 1, often without his complaint as narrator, might give the impression that Herod was a great anchor of Jewish stability, and therefore good for Judea. Most of his building projects concerned Jewish areas and must have provided work for thousands of craftsmen (Pastor 2003: 162-63). A verdict concerning Herod’s harshness as a ruler depends much on one’s criteria about good rulership and one’s values in general, because Josephus’ evidence does not tell us much about the nitty gritty of Herod’s dealings with his people. See also Ant. 17.305, 307, with commentaries. Several scholars conclude that Herod also confiscated land from Jewish landowners and turned it into royal land or re-allocated it to Gentiles (Freyne 1980: 164; Gabba 1990: 162; Schalit 2001: 258-60). Pastor (2003: 154-160) counters this view and argues (1) that Herod took over the royal land from the Hasmoneans (including the areas of Jericho, Ein Gedi, and other portions of the Jordan Valley), (2) that he allocated land to loyal Jewish and non-Jewish supporters, family members, and military settlers (War 1.403, 485; 2.69; 3.36; Ant. 15.294, 296; 16.285; 17.23-25, 147, 289), (3) that Jewish freeholders continued to exist in Judea, and (4) that Herod allotted to Jews sections of royal land outside the Jewish areas (e.g., in Trachonitis and Batanea; see Ant. 15.343). Herod’s second deed after capturing Jerusalem was to reward his patron (similarly in the parallel passage of War [1.358]). Other gifts to Mark Antony are reported in Ant. 14.490; 15.75, 132 (see also War 1.242; Ant. 14.303, 326-327, 381-382; 15.19 with notes; Udoh 2005: 143). Mark Antony, one of the triumvirs after Julius Caesar’s death and the most powerful Roman official in the East in this period (Buchheim 1960; Huzar 1978; Halfmann 2011), was Herod’s main patron from Ant. 14.303 onward (Halfmann 2011: 120), in which passage he decided, in Rome, to support Herod’s cause. Herod moved over to Octavian after Mark Antony and Cleopatra had lost the Battle of Actium in 31 BCE (Ant. 15.161, 183–201). The mutually beneficial relationship between Herod and Mark Antony corresponded in several ways to the king’s later relationship with Marcus Agrippa (Braund 1984: 82-83).Mark Antony is mainly mentioned in War and Antiquities in connection with Herod, who was one of the major friendly kings of the Romans. In both works Josephus emphasizes, in different tones, that Antony subjected himself to Cleopatra (e.g., War 1.359-363; Ant. 15.63-65). Josephus implies, therefore, that Herod had to compete with Cleopatra for Antony’s favors (van Henten 2005a). The first reference to Mark Antony in War is 1.118 (for further references, see Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a 1.162; Huzar 1978: 162-68, 213).Herod’s official status was rex sociusque et amicus (“king, ally, and friend”) of the Romans, as is apparent from Josephus’ report of Herod’s appointment as king (Ant. 14.379-389; Braund 1984: 23-25). As a friendly king of the Romans, Herod’s power was largely based on Mark Antony’s policy and support (see also Livy, Epit. 128; Tacitus, Hist. 5.9; Appian, Bell. civ. 5.75; Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 1.7.12; Orosius 6.18.24, and in general, Braund 1984; Braund 1988; Jacobson 2001b). There are important parallels between Herod and other friendly kings of the Romans: he was a commoner who took over the power from a well-established local royal dynasty, as King Polemon of Pontus, King Amyntas of Galatia, and King Archelaus of Cappadocia did. Like Herod, these kings were supported by Mark Antony because of their outstanding qualities as leaders and organizers (Buchheim 1960: 51-53, 56, 58-59). The relationship between Antony and local client rulers was mutually beneficial (Braund 1984: 82). Braund also emphasizes that “the exchange of gifts and favors was at the very heart of friendly relationships in antiquity” (p. 59). Antony benefited from his clients’ financial, material, and military support during his campaigns against the Parthians. Friendly kings usually did not pay tribute to Rome, but they were to contribute troops and resources when Rome required. Their kingdoms functioned as buffers against external enemies and as a protection against pirates and bandits (cf. War 1.204-205, 389-390; Ant. 14.159-160; 15.344-348; Braund 1984: 66, 91, 184; for Antony’s policy in the East and his relations with client rulers, see Syme 1939: 259-75; Magie 1950: 1.433-36; Buchheim 1960: 11-83; Huzar 1978: 148-68, and for further references, Kienast 1999: 455 n. 12). The passages about Herod’s journey to Octavian after the Battle of Actium (War 1.386-397; Ant. 15.187-201) also provide information about Herod’s relationships with Antony and Octavian. “The friends” (οἱ περὶ αὐτὸν φίλοι and similar expressions) of a ruler or an official is a formulaic expression, which is also found in the LXX (e.g., 1 Macc 10:20; cf. 1 Chr 27:33; Esth 6:13; 4 Macc. 12.8; Stählin 1974: 147-48, 154-55). Hellenistic rulers had a close circle of “friends” around them, who were not necessarily officials; they had a personal relationship with the ruler and enjoyed a privileged status. They also provided services on behalf of the ruler (Bickerman 1938: 40-48; Herman 1980-81; Badian 1996; Jacobson 2001b: 31; Schalit 2001: 405). Roman administrators used to be accompanied already in the Republican period by their “friends” on missions and during their terms in the provinces (Kienast 1999: 308). In Ant. 17.301 Josephus reports that Augustus assembled a council of his friends and prominent Romans in the Temple of Apollo in Rome to decide about the rule of the Herodians. Most amici of Roman rulers were magistrates or pro-magistrates belonging to the senatorial or equestrian orders (Kienast 1999: 180-81, 308-09).Several passages in Josephus refer to a circle of “friends” of Herod (see Ant. 15.31, about Herod convening a meeting of friends in order to accuse Alexandra; cf. 15.98, 100, 173; 17.46). Shaw (1993: 196-98) argues that Josephus presents Herod’s family as those expected to be his most important circle of support (on the political significance of personal relationships, see Shaw 1995: 357-90).

For Antigonus taken captive see Ant. 15.1 with the note to “they took Antigonus captive.” The reference to a party or group (αἵρεσις) of Antigonus is without parallels. Josephus uses the same word for the “philosophical” groups described by him (Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and The Fourth Philosophy; e.g., War 2.119, 162; Mason in BJP 1b on 2.118-119). The parallel passage of War (1.358) simply states that Antigonus’ group was killed. The information here that only 45 of the most prominent supporters were killed is more plausible. There is no compelling argument for identifying these persons with the council members referred to in Ant. 15.4, though it is possible that both passages concern the same persons. The context shows that these guards at the city gates mainly have an economic function. Jewish burial customs implied that corpses had to be brought outside of the town or its walls (Hachlili 2005: 1). M. B. Bat. 2.9 defines the minimum distance between the cemetery and the last house of the town as 50 cubits. The complex verb συνεκκομίζω (one further occurrence in Josephus in Ant. 6.5) here means “carry outside together with a corpse.” Josephus uses ἐκκομίζω once in a funerary context with the meaning “carry a corpse outside”: in War 5.567 (LSJ s.v. 2; cf. Luke 7:12). The transport of corpses outside of a city was a well-known escape route for people (cf. Ant. 15.46) as well as valuables, as Herod’s measure here implies. This stock phrase functions as introduction of Josephus’ comment that concludes the list of Herod’s first deeds in Jerusalem (Ant. 15.5-7). For similar phrases with πέρας plus κακῶν or κινδύνων and a negation in Josephus, see 15.208; 16.237, and especially 16.299 (cf. War 7.157; Ant. 16.161). Josephus echoes vocabulary from Greek tragedies (see, e.g., Euripides, Andr. 1216 ἄτεκνος ἔρημος οὐκ ἔχων πέρας κακῶν [“Childless and bereft, with no limit set to misfortune …,” expressed by Peleus after the death of his grandson Neoptolemus], also Aeschylus, Pers. 632; Orest. 511; cf. Dionysius, Ant. rom. 7.14.4; Plutarch, Sull. 31.1-2; Synesius, Catast. 2.6; Suda s.v.).

The greed of rulers (cf. War 1.358) is a topos of wicked tyrants (van Henten 2011b). Josephus’ comments in Ant. 15.6-7 combine three hints associating Herod with tyrants: his tyrannical behavior, his greed, and the transgression of the Law. Landau (2006: 165) also connects “greediness” to the perverted exercise of power, which is exemplified by the image of Cleopatra in Antiquities (see the commentary on 15.88-93). This general statement explains the continuous disasters mentioned in the previous sentence and links up with Josephus’ more precise information in Ant. 15.5. Josephus suggests that the effects of Herod’s supposed greed were enhanced by the fact that the king’s capture of Jerusalem coincided with a sabbatical year, as already stated in Ant. 14.475 (see the commentary on that passage). In 3.281 he explains this Jewish custom, based on biblical Law (Exod 23:11; Lev 25:4-7), of leaving agricultural land fallow every 7 years (Feldman in BJP 3 on 3.281; see also War 1.60; Ant. 11.343). Tacitus mentions this custom in one of his well-known anti-Jewish passages: “They say that they first chose to rest on the seventh day because that day ended their toils; but after time they were led by the charms of indolence to give over the seventh year as well to inactivity. (Hist. 5.4, transl. Moore).” Josephus’ references to sabbatical years imply that the Judeans observed this custom during Herod’s rule and sometimes suffered severely as a consequence (see Ant. 14.475; Richardson 1996: 222, 236). This links up with Josephus’ reference to the sabbatical year in Ant. 14.475 (see the previous note). Both references are missing in the parallel report of War. Most scholars conclude that the siege of Jerusalem took place in the summer of 37 BCE (e.g., Otto 1913: 31; van Bruggen 1978: 13-14; Schürer-Vermes 1.284-87; Schalit 2001: 766-68). The most important reasons for that date are Josephus’ notes that the capture of Jerusalem took place in the third year after Herod’s appointment as king in Rome (War 1.343; Ant. 14.465) and during the consulship of Marcus Agrippa and Caninius Gallus (Ant. 14.487, in 37 BCE). This date of summer 37 BCE is problematic in combination with the reference to the sabbatical year, which ran from the month of Tishri (September/October) in one year to the same month in the next (see m. Roš Haš. 1.1; Zuckerman 1866). Dating the capture to the summer of 37 BCE implies a sabbatical year running from the autumn of 38 BCE to the autumn of 37 BCE, while the sabbatical year probably ran from 37 to 36 BCE (see the calculations by Wacholder 1973: 189; Richardson 1996: 236 n. 69; the sabbatical years during Herod’s rule were 37/36, 30/29, 23/22 BCE, etc.). Mahieu (2012: 60-99) concludes that the capture took place in 36 BCE, which is plausible to her because she assumes that Herod took advantage of the food shortages caused by the sabbatical year (p. 62). Marcus (196-97 n. a, concerning Ant. 12.378, 694-695) and Marcus-Wikgren (5 n. e) argue that Josephus is making only a loose connection between the siege and the sabbatical year. Schürer-Vermes (1.18-19, following North) call for caution concerning Josephus’ references to sabbatical years because they do not always match other chronological data. It is difficult to decide between the years 37 and 36 BCE because there is conflicting evidence and the danger of a circular argument: Josephus has been used heavily for calculating the sabbatical cycles.

Although Josephus’ formulation is ambiguous and could be interpreted to mean that Mark Antony had personally taken Antigonus captive, Josephus elsewhere explains that Antigonus surrendered to Sosius (Ant. 14.481; 15.1 notes that he was taken captive by Sosius and Herod). War 1.357 and Ant. 14.488 report that Sosius brought Antigonus as a prisoner to Antony (in the winter of 37 BCE, Marcus 701 n. c), and Ant. 15.8 may refer back to 14.488. This triumphal procession (Latin triumphus, which is taken over from the Greek θρίαμβος, LSJ s.v. II) by Mark Antony remains unspecified. Josephus probably refers to a triumphal march in Rome that Antony had planned for the future. Halfmann (2011: 144 with n. 6) connects it with Sosius’ triumphant procession in Rome on September 3, 34 BCE (Inscr. It. 13 no. 1 ll. 86-87, 342-343 in Degrassi 1954: 110). It might refer to Antony’s celebration in Athens in 38 BCE, which commemorated the victory of his commander Publius Ventidius Bassus over the Parthians (Huzar 1978: 174; Fündling 2003 with references), though this predates the capture of Antigonus and was not a triumph. Displaying representatives of a defeated people, or leaders of an opposing force, during a triumphal procession was common practice, as Titus’ triumphal arch in Rome shows (War 6.418, 434; 7.36, 118, 138, 147, 154; Braund 1984: 169-171 with n. 59; Künzl 1988: 42-44, 75-77). The captive leaders of the opponents were usually executed during the ritual of the procession (War 7.153-154; Versnel 1970: 95). See Ant. 15.15 with the note to “the Jewish nation” (ἔθνος) and 15.179. The verb νεωτερίζω (“make innovations, rebel”) and the related noun νεωτερισμός (“attempt to change, rebellion”) occur frequently in Josephus, always with a negative connotation (e.g., War 1.4, 202, 224, 320; 2.5, 8, 224-225; Ant. 11.323; 14.157, 450; Ant. 15.30, 291; 16.135; 18.92; 20.7, 117, 133). There are several further hints in Antiquities at possible revolts of the Jewish people against Herod (e.g. 15.424; cf. War 1.303; see van Henten 2011d).The motive for executing Antigonus according to the report in Ant. 14 is far more plausible than Josephus’ note here (with Schalit 2001: 692), which perhaps echoes Josephus’ previous hint at a revolt in Judea (Ant. 14.450). The note does, however, anticipate the information found in Strabo’s quotation (15.9-10; cf. also 15.30, which mentions both the possibility of revolt and the hope for a Hasmonean king—in connection with Aristobulus III). The Latin version of Antiquities includes an addition to 15.8, referring to Herod’s bribing of Mark Antony.The parallel passage of War (1.358) does not mention a rebellion of the Jewish people, and the previous passage about Antigonus’ capture attests a different motive: Herod feared that Antigonus would plead his own cause, or that of his sons, before the Senate and therefore offered a large sum to Mark Antony for executing his competitor (Ant. 14.489-490). The people’s hatred for Herod makes sense in the light of Josephus’ information in Ant. 15.1-7, mentioning Herod’s severe punishment of opponents (15.2, 6) and his greed (15.7); yet the parallel report of War lacks a reference to this hatred (see War 1.357-358). Antiquities refers once again to the hatred in 15.10 (see also 15.286). These two nearby references, without parallels in War, suggest that Herod’s portrait is more complex in Antiquities. They tie in with other small details that together create an image of Herod as a wicked tyrant (see also the notes concerning Herod at 15.1-2, 7). Antigonus’ execution with an axe (see also Ant. 15.9) seems very severe for a royal person. Nevertheless, Plutarch, Ant. 36 confirms it (Pelling 1988: 219; cf. also Cassius Dio 49.22.6). The harsh punishment may be explained by Antigonus’ taking the side of the Parthians, Rome’s arch-enemies (though Ant. 15.9-10 offers another explanation). The parallel account of War (1.357) mentions the same punishment for Antigonus (without Antioch as its location). It offers a similar explanation for the execution and adds depreciating information about Antigonus’ character: “Befitting his meanness (ἀγέννεια), it was an axe that felled this man [i.e., Antigonus], who clung to life up to the end with a vain hope” (trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a 1.357). The “vain hope” probably hints at a kingship under Parthian suzerainty. Stern (1974-84: 1.285) assumes that the addition is dependent on Nicolaus of Damascus’ pro-Herod report. Ant. 14.490 describes Antigonus’ death at Mark Antony’s orders in very general terms. Cassius Dio 49.22.6 reports Antigonus’ death differently: “… but Antigonus he [i.e., Antony] bound to a cross and flogged—a punishment no other king had suffered at the hand of the Romans—and afterwards he slew him” (trans. Cary). For further references concerning Antigonus’ death, see Stern 1974-84: 1.285, and for details about capital punishment through beheading with an axe, the commentary by Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a on 1.185, 357. The verb πελεκίζω (“behead with an axe,” Rengstorf s.v.) also occurs in Ant. 14.39; 15.9; 20.117 (cf. Polybius 1.7.12; 11.30.2; Diodorus 19.101; 32.26; 36.2; 38/39.8; Strabo, 16.2.18; Josephus, War 1.185; Plutarch, Ant. 67; Publ. 7.6; Rev 20:4). Antioch on the Orontes was a temporary residence for Mark Antony. Cassius Dio (48.54.7) reports that Antony, after parting from his wife Octavia and his children in Corfu, returned to Syria in the autumn of 37 BCE and spent the winter with Cleopatra in Antioch (Huzar 1978: 160-64; Halfmann 2011: 147). Antioch had been Syria’s capital since 64 BCE, when Pompey organized the new province of Syria and settled the fate of the city (Downey 1961: 144). War 1.243 reports that the unsuccessful Jewish delegation that protested before Antony against Herod and his brother Phasael in 41 BCE had a hearing at Daphne near Antioch (cf. Ant. 14.324-325).

The explanation indicates that Mark Antony executed Antigonus to set an example to the Jews, which links up with the hint at a rebellion of the Jews given in Ant. 15.8. The passage further suggests that Antigonus, as a member of the Hasmonean dynasty, still enjoyed strong support from the Judeans (cf. 14.450). It also implies that the brutal execution of Antigonus was effective. Nevertheless, the narrative informs us later that remaining Hasmoneans, as well as part of the Judean population, kept hoping for a change of rule (e.g., 15.30). Josephus uses a quotation of Strabo (see below) as confirmation of his own report (Landau 2006: 165). This is remarkable if we assume (with Stern 1974-84: 1.284) that Josephus’ note in Ant. 15.8 is a paraphrase of Strabo’s information in 15.9-10. Strabo’s quote is missing in the parallel account of War, apart from a reference to Antigonus’ execution by an axe (1.357). Josephus’ use of Strabo as corroboration adds emphasis to the Jews’ great dislike of Herod, which is the main point of Strabo’s explanation for Antigonus’ execution (see the notes to Ant. 15.9-10).Strabo of Amaseia (64/63 BCE-after 23 CE) was a famous polymath and writer, who is paraphrased and quoted explicitly by Josephus (Ant. 13.284-287, 319, 345; 14.34-36, 66-68, 104, 111-118, 138-139; 15.8-10; Apion 2.83-84; Stern 1974-84: 1.261-85). Josephus usually introduces him as simply “Strabo” or as “Strabo the Cappadocian” (Στράβων ὁ Καππάδοξ, Ant. 13.286; 14.35, 104, 111; 15.9; Apion 2.84). Josephus’ quotation in Ant. 15.9-10 (see FGH 91 F 18; Stern 1974-84: 1.283-85) is one of the 19 fragments that remain from Strabo’s Historica hypomnemata, intended as a continuation of Polybius’ history, with a survey of the history of the Greeks until 145/144 BCE, and an extensive history of the Graeco-Roman world up to Octavian’s capture of Alexandria in 30 BCE. This matches the information in Ant. 15.8. See Ant. 15.8 with the note to “axe.” The formulation here implies that Strabo says that Antony seems to have been the first who executed someone with an axe (cf. Plutarch, Ant. 36.4, who states that he was the first). Strabo and Josephus focus on the innovation of this type of execution and the main point of the passage seems to be that this brutal form of execution was both unprecedented and an unmistakable signal by Mark Antony for the Judean Jews (as the continuation of the narrative suggests): they should be sensible and accept Herod as their ruler. Antigonus’ brother Alexander faced the same form of execution, also in Antioch (see also the note to “Alexander” at Ant. 15.23). He was executed in 49/48 BCE by the proconsul and governor of Syria, Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio Nasica, whose son-in-law Pompey had ordered the execution (War 1.185; Ant. 14.125; cf. Ant. 14.73; Cassius Dio 41.18.1). Strabo’s explanation for Antigonus’ execution (see the preceding notes) further clarifies Josephus’ information in Ant. 15.8. Stern (1976: 1131) argues, referring to 14.481, that Josephus’ main Herod narrative is based upon Nicolaus of Damascus, who attempted to belittle Antigonus (for a survey of the discussion about Josephus’ use of Nicolaus, see Landau 2006: 23-28). In Stern’s opinion, Strabo presented Antigonus as a leader who was well-respected by the Jews and much preferred to Herod. Schalit (2001: 692) argues that Strabo’s fragment puts more responsibility on Mark Antony for the execution, with the result that Herod could be blamed less. There seems indeed to be a shift in Josephus’ information about who was responsible for Antigonus’ death: if we connect the execution with Herod’s gift of money (Ant. 15.5), Antony may have beheaded Antigonus as a favor to Herod; Ant. 15.9 suggests that Antony himself decided to execute Antigonus (because of the risk of a Jewish rebellion and the great support for Antigonus). Schalit also suggests that Strabo’s fragment originally derived from Octavian’s circle, which had a keen interest in blackening Antony and demonstrating his barbarian character (see also Syme 1939: 104-05). However, Antigonus was an enemy of the state, which implies that Antony’s reputation hardly suffered from the Hasmonean’s execution.Antigonus’ execution served Herod well; the continuation of the narrative describes how Herod himself succeeded in eliminating Alexandra’s son Aristobulus, another Hasmonean who could have claimed the throne because of his royal descent (Ant. 15.49-56). This implies that Herod’s plan was to have possible Hasmonean rivals killed. Herod’s appointment as king by the Romans is described in War 1.281-285; Ant. 14.379-389. The statement is clearly an exaggeration, which, however, legitimates the harsh action against Antigonus and suggests at the same time that the Judeans were strongly against Herod as their ruler. It links up with the double references to the hatred that they felt for Herod (Ant. 15.8, 10). The Greek vocabulary (βασανιζόμενοι … ὑπέμειναν) associates the attitude of the Judean Jews with noble death, which is a common motif in Josephus (van Henten 2007a; for similar vocabulary, cf. 4 Macc. 9.6; 16.1; 17.7, 10, 23; Acts Eupl. 2.2; Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 4.15; John Chrysostom, Hom. Gal. [PG 61.629]). The extremely negative image of Herod in Strabo’s quotation matches Josephus’ negative portrayal of the king in Antiquities, which casts doubt on the reliability of the quotation. Richardson (1996: 161) suggests that Josephus refrains from using the title King for Herod until Ant. 15.39, whereas he would use this title in War already in an earlier period, i.e., starting from the moment Herod took a bath at Isana (1.340-341). This is not entirely correct since Josephus already calls Herod a king in isolated references that anticipate the Herod narrative of Antiquities (7.394; 13.357; 14.9, 121) as well as in the first part of that narrative (14.280, 382, 385, 430, 442, 455, 465, 469). Similarly, War already calls Herod a king before 1.340-341 (see 1.64, 87, 156, 181, 225, 282, 284, 320; I owe these references to Prof. Joseph Sievers [Rome]).

Josephus also uses this vocabulary (μέγα φρονέω) in War 7.383; Ant. 3.83; 4.100; 6.298; 7.301; 17.41; 20.176; Life 17, 43, 52; Apion 1.99; 2.136, 286 (see also μεγαλοφρονέω with the meaning “be high-minded” in Ant. 5.221; 19.219; Apion 2.30, or “be confident, think highly of” in Ant. 5.221; 19.219, 328; Apion 2.30; Rengstorf s.v. μεγαλοφρονέω and φρονέω). This confirms the very positive image of Antigonus in Strabo’s quotation, which is almost the opposite of the last lines about Antigonus in War (1.357; see Ant. 15.8 with the note to “prisoner”; Stern 1974b: 226). From the Roman perspective Antigonus did not deserve any respect because he had rejected the Senate’s appointment of Herod and formed a pact with the Parthians (Ant. 14.403-404, 469, 489). The transmitted text is corrupt. Niese (334) notes that there is a lacuna and suggests to read μὲν τὴν ἀξίωσιν (“[the memory of] his reputation …”). The addition of τι by Gutschmid or μέν τι by Richards and Shutt (followed by Marcus-Wikgren 6; see also Rengstorf s.v. ἀξίωσις) implies the addition of “somewhat” in the translation and seems to be the easiest solution for creating an acceptable Greek text (cf. Ant. 4.62 μειῶσαι τι τῆς Μωυσέος μεγαλαυχίας “moderate somewhat the arrogance of Moyses,” trans. Feldman in BJP 3 4.62). In line with the “honor and shame” values of ancient society (Knoche 1934; Neyrey 1998), Antigonus’ shameful execution must have had a devastating effect upon his memory for anybody, apart from, perhaps, his supporters. See Ant. 15.8 with the note to “hatred for Herod” and 15.10 with the note to “torture.”

Josephus’ narrative now switches to a new section (Ant. 15.12-22, without a parallel report in War) about another Hasmonean, Hyrcanus II, who was—with interruptions (see 15.12 with the note to “Parthians”)—High Priest from ca. 76 until 40 BCE, when he became unfit for the office because of a mutilation (War 1.269-270; Ant. 14.365-366; 15.181). His mother, Salome Alexandra, appointed him High Priest after the death of her husband Alexander Janneus (War 1.109; Ant. 13.408). Pompey re-appointed him as High Priest in 63 BCE and also made him the ruler of the Jewish people (War 1.153; Ant. 14.73; 20.244). In reward for his support against Pompey, Julius Caesar confirmed his High Priesthood and appointed him ethnarch in 47 BCE (War 1.194; Ant. 14.137, 143-144, 190-195; Schürer-Vermes 1.271-72). Hyrcanus II is a key person from Ant. 14.4 onward. For further discussions of Hyrcanus, see Schürer-Vermes 1.229, 232-42, 267-86, 297, 301; Kasher 1988: 108-25. This introductory remark is taken up again a few lines later. Hyrcanus was living in exile in Babylon after his capture by the Parthians in 40 BCE (see 15.12). The Parthian kings were the only rulers who could withstand the Romans in that period. They countered Crassus’ attack at the Battle of Carrhae in 53 BCE and not only defeated him, but also captured the Roman standards and took many prisoners (Mattern-Parkes 2003). Augustus managed to retrieve the standards and the remaining prisoners in 20 BCE, following a peace treaty with Phraates IV. When the balance of power in the East changed after the murder of Julius Caesar, the Parthians undertook a campaign against Mark Antony and Octavian. They managed to capture Syria (in 40 BCE) and large parts of Asia Minor (Cassius Dio 48.24; Buchheim 1960: 11, 74-79; Ziegler 1964: 34-47; Colledge 1967: 37-46; Schürer-Vermes 1.278-79). While Herod may have considered Hyrcanus II, despite his old age, a competitor because of his Hasmonean lineage (see Ant. 15.20), Hyrcanus may have had good reasons to assume that he would be treated well by Herod (as Josephus points out in 15.16): Antigonus was their mutual enemy, Hyrcanus had previously formed a pact with Herod’s father Antipater, and Herod was married to Hyrcanus’ granddaughter Mariamme (Schürer 1973-1987: 1.234-35). The formula concludes the transitional passage of Ant. 15.11 and leads up to the story of Hyrcanus’ return to Jerusalem (15.12-22), which is partly based on information already narrated in book 14. For the expression τρόπῳ τοιούτῳ (“in the following way”) in similar introductions of a new section focusing upon a different character, see Ant. 9.141; 14.448.

The story about Hyrcanus II’s return starts with a flashback (which becomes explicit in Ant. 15.13) about the Parthian interference in Judea in 40 BCE. The technique of starting a report of a new episode with a flashback of a related former event can already be observed in Herodotus (Rood 2007: 126). This previous episode is described in detail in Ant. 14.330-369 (paralleled by War 1.248-273). Barzaphanes and Pacorus are mentioned together in Ant. 14.330, in which passage Pacorus is identified as a son of the Parthian king (i.e., King Orodes, who was a son of Phraates III and Parthian king in 57-37 BCE; Orodes is not named in 14.330) and Barzaphanes as a Parthian satrap. Niese (334) reads Βαζαφράνης (as in 14.330), but the reading Βαρζαφράνης is to be preferred (Schürer-Vermes 1.279 n. 46). Pacorus fell in Syria in 38 BCE during a battle against Mark Antony’s general P. Ventidius (for further details, see Strabo 16.1.28; Justin Epit. 42 prol.; 42.4.5-13; Ziegler 1964: 34-35; Colledge 1967: 43-44; Huzar 1978: 138-39, 162-64, 173-74; Rajak 2001: 273-297; and the commentary on Ant. 14.330). Josephus’ double narrative of the Parthian interference with the Judeans, however, mentions a different Pacorus, a royal cupbearer who was in charge of the Parthian detachment sent to Judea (War 1.249; Ant. 14.333, 339). Since Josephus calls both Barzaphranes and Pacorus commanders, Pacorus the cupbearer is most probably meant here. For references about Hyrcanus’ High Priesthood, see the first note to Ant. 15.11. When Queen Salome Alexandra died in 67 BCE, Hyrcanus was, as her eldest son, the legitimate successor (14.11, 42). A struggle for the political power arose between Hyrcanus (supported by Herod’s father Antipater) and Hyrcanus’ younger brother Aristobulus II, soon after the queen’s death (Schürer-Vermes 1.233-42). It is uncertain whether Hyrcanus remained High Priest between 67 and 63 BCE (cf. Ant. 14.6-7 with 14.41, 97; 20.244). His High Priesthood was confirmed after Pompey’s intervention in 63 BCE, on which occasion he also became the political leader of the Jewish people (War 1.153; Ant. 14.73; 20.244). Gabinius apparently deprived Hyrcanus of his political powers when he divided the Jewish territory into five districts (War 1.169-170; Ant. 14.90-91; Schürer-Vermes 1.267-68). Julius Caesar confirmed his High Priesthood in 47 BCE (Ant. 14.143-144). In spite of the fact that Hyrcanus was officially not a king (Ant. 20.244), the Judean Jews may have considered him to be so (see Ant. 14.157, 172; Marcus 523 n. f, 532 n. a). Josephus reports that Hyrcanus II and Phasael went to the camp of Barzaphanes on a diplomatic mission after Antigonus had proposed to engage Pacorus (the royal cupbearer and commander, see Ant. 15.12 with the note to “Parthians”) to end the combat over Jerusalem (War 1.254-255; Ant. 14.337-342). The proposal turned out to be a trap, and Hyrcanus and Phasael ended up as prisoners in the Parthian camp (War 1.254, 256-260; Ant. 14.340, 342-348). The imperfect ἀνῆγον (“they wanted to bring …”) here is taken as conative leading up to the brief reference to Phasael’s noble death in Ant. 15.13. Only Hyrcanus was taken to Parthia (War 1.273).

Here begins a short, explicit flashback (see the last part of the paragraph) about the heroic death of Herod’s brother Phasael, narrated in War 1.271-272; Ant. 14.367-369. Both passages use noble-death vocabulary (van Henten 2007a) and report two versions: according to the first version Phasael killed himself by dashing his head against a rock; according to the second he only wounded himself by this act, after which a physician killed him. Phasael’s act must have appealed to many Roman readers, who admired a self-chosen death in order to escape the enemy. Velleius Paterculus praises such a self-killing in connection with the defeat of the Romans in the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest against the Germans in 9 CE. He writes: “When the Germans were venting their rage upon their captives, an heroic act was performed by Caldus Caelius, a young man worthy in every way of his long line of ancestors, who, seizing a section of the chain with which he was bound, brought it down with such force upon his own head as to cause his instant death, both his brains and his blood gushing from the wound” (2.120, transl. Shipley). Publius Quintilius Varus, the Roman general, also committed suicide, by running himself through with his sword (2.119). Julius Africanus reports (in Georgius Syncellus [ed. Dindorf 1.581]) that Phasael died during a combat (ἐν τῇ μάχῃ ἀναιρεῖται). Kokkinos (1998: 159 n. 19) argues that this note derives from Justus of Tiberias. Phasael’s choice to prefer death to a shameful execution by the enemy links up with other self-chosen deaths in Josephus in order to escape slavery or execution (see War 7.334, 336, 341, 372, 386, as well as War 1.311; 2.475; 5.458; 6.186-187, 280; Ant. 14.429; cf. also War 3.380; Life 137-138 for the opposite view). Similar expressions about the shame of being in chains can be found in John Chrysostom, Hom. 2 Tim. (PG 62.607-608). The noble-death vocabulary echoes Josephus’ two reports of Phasael’s death, but with a different touch. Josephus here uses an explicit formula that Phasael opted for a glorious death (πάσης δὲ ζωῆς κρείττονα τὸν μετὰ δόξης ἡγούμενος θάνατον), which reminds one of the self-chosen death of the old Maccabean martyr Eleazar, who refused Antiochus IV’s order to eat swine’s flesh (although there are no close correspondences with Josephus’ vocabulary): “But he [i.e., Eleazar] preferred a glorious death to a life of defilement and walked out of his own accord towards the drum” (2 Macc 6:19; cf. 2 Macc 7:2; 4 Macc. 9.1; 16.24; Philo, Virt. 32; Josephus, Ant. 18.59; van Henten 1997: 97-108). For similar phrases with a hint at immortality (ἀθανασία)—which word is missing here, but the notion is implied by the glory for Phasael after his death— cf. War 1.58; 2.151 (see Mason in BJP 1b on War 2.151). The formulation is unique in Josephus. The combination of the verb φονεύω and a reflexive pronoun indicating “self-murdering” further occurs in Justin, Apol. 2.4.1, 3; Lucian, Dial. mort. 23.1; Cassius Dio 2.11.19. It focuses upon Phasael murdering himself and perhaps conveys the narrator’s veiled criticism of Phasael’s act. Josephus is ambiguous about self-killings by Jews, even if they are heroic (van Henten 2007a). See Ant. 7.228-230, concerning David’s councillor Achitophel’s self-killing: Josephus comments that Achitophel had become his own judge (δικαστὴν αὑτῷ γενόμενον, 7.229), which is explained by the context: Achitophel did not wait for David’s punishment. The comment may also suggest that Achitophel disregarded God’s judgment (cf. War 3.369-379). Josephus also comments upon the self-sacrifice of Eleazar Avaran (War 1.41-45; Ant. 12.373-374), one of the five Maccabean brothers who tried to kill the Seleucid king, seated on an elephant, in the Battle of Beth-Zechariah (in 162 BCE), south of Jerusalem. The report in War is quite critical about Eleazar’s attempt, despite the noble-death vocabulary (1.43 θέμενος εὐκλείας ἐν δευτέρῳ τὸ ζῆν; 1.44 λάμπροῦ κατορθώματος). In 1.44 Josephus highlights the negative result of the audacious act: “In fact, the elephant driver was a commoner; yet even if he had happened to be Antiochus, the daring fighter would have accomplished nothing more than to appear to have chosen death for the single prospect of a brilliant heroic action” (trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a on War 1.44). See also Josephus’ criticism of killing oneself in War 3.362, at the beginning of his famous speech at Jotapata-Yodfat (War 3.361-382). The formula (cf. Ant. 9.112; 12.158) makes the preceding narratorial analepsis explicit (van Henten and Huitink 2007).

This is the first reference in Antiquities to Phraates, King of the Parthians (see also Ant. 15.18-19; 18.39-42; Schalit 1968: 125). It must concern Phraates IV, who murdered his father Orodes and his 29 brothers in 37 BCE and was king of Parthia in 37-2 BCE. Mark Antony occupied the Parthian city of Phraaspa as a base for his actions against him in 36-34 BCE. Phraates had to flee to the Scythians soon thereafter because the usurper Tiridates had conquered the throne. Phraates retrieved the throne in 25 BCE and established a peaceful co-existence with the Romans in 20 BCE (Justin, Epit. 42.5.11). Augustus sent to Phraates a slave woman called Musa, who married the king and gave birth to Phraatakes (“Little Phraates”). She had her husband killed in 2 BCE and put her son on the throne (Colledge 1967: 46-47; Dabrowa 1989: 311-14; Schottky 2000: 960). Josephus pays no attention to the change of rule in Parthia or to the consequences for Parthia of Herod’s victory over Antigonus, whose regime had been restored by the Parthians (War 1.269; Ant. 14.340, 365). The passage about Hyrcanus II’s stay in Parthian territory (Ant. 15.14-20) may be partly based upon a separate tradition. It echoes Josephus’ description of the Judean king Jehoiachin-Jechoniah’s release in Babylon by King Evil-Merodach (562-560 BCE) in the 37th year of Jehoiachin’s exile (Ant. 10.229-230; cf. 2 Kgs 25:27-30; Jer 52:31-34). Josephus also refers to the noble (and royal) descent (εὐγένεια) of the Hasmoneans in War 1.435, 449, 458, 468, 522; Ant. 15.73, 210, 236; 16.192; Life 2 (with respect to his own Hasmonean descent) (Mason in BJP 9 on 6). Similar vocabulary appears in Ant. 10.229 (’Ιεχονίαν τῶν δεσμῶν ἀφείς) and 17.145. The first of these passages is significant because it concerns the Judean king Jehoiachin (see the note to “reasonably” at this paragraph). The brief note about Hyrcanus’ period spent among the Parthians shows a striking analogy to the fate of King Jehoiachin: Jehoiachin was taken to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar in 597 BCE, with the royal family and the elite (2 Kgs 24:1-17; 2 Chr 36:9-10; Josephus, Ant. 10.97-102), kept into custody (Ant. 10.102), and released after 37 years of exile (Begg 2000: 523-31). Josephus states that Jehoiachin had a kind and just character (Ant. 10.100). Biblical passages indicate that King Evil-Merodach (Akkadian name: Amel-Marduk) considered Jehoiachin as one of his closest friends. He gave him many presents and positioned him above the other kings in Babylonia (Ant. 10.229, which is based upon 2 Kgs 25:28; Jer 52:32 “He [i.e., Evil-Merodach] spoke kindly to him, and gave him a seat above the other seats of the kings who were with him in Babylon”).War 1.434 adds to the information in Ant. 15.14 by stating that Hyrcanus’ fellow Jews had asked to release him (Rajak 2001: 277). Ziegler (1964: 17-18) states that the Parthian kings treated foreign rulers with respect and friendliness even after having defeated them. Babylon (Βαβυλών) is here the name of the region equivalent to Babylonia (Βαβυλωνία; cf. Diodorus 17.67.3; Schalit 1968: 23). Josephus probably refers to the fertile plain along and between the Euphrates and Tigris south of present-day Baghdad. The area included the cities of Babylon, Seleucia on the Tigris, and Ctesiphon. The Babylonians lived together there with, among others, Syrians, Arabs, Macedonians, Greeks, Armenians, and Jews (Neusner 1969: 1-3; Stern 1974a: 170). Marcus-Wikgren (9 n. c) suggest that the precise location was not far from Seleucia on the Tigris, where a large Jewish community lived (Ant. 18.372-377; see also the next note).Ancient authors refer to various regions with the name Babylon, including the territory of the Achaemenid satrapy of Babylonia. Herodotus included the Assyrian lowland in “Babylonia” (e.g., 1.178). During the Seleucid and Parthian rules Babylonia continued to be an administrative unit. From the Babylonian captivity onward Jews were living in Babylonia (see Ant. 11.22, 74, 122, 388; 12.149; 15.39; 17.24, 26; 18.310-379; 20.34). Josephus mentions Seleucia on the Tigris (see the previous note), Ctesiphon, a city near Seleucia (18.377-378), Nehardea (18.310-313, 379), Nisibis (18.379), and Charax Spasini (20.34) as locations where Jews were living. Nehardea on the Euphrates was a major Jewish centre in the rabbinic period (Neusner 1969: 10-15; Stern 1974a: 170-79; Oppenheimer 1983; Schürer-Vermes 3.5-9; see also Gafni 1997: 52-57, about how the ancient local roots became an identity marker for the Babylonian Jews in late antiquity). See also Ant. 11.132-133; 15.39.

Hyrcanus had held both offices in the past (see Ant. 15.12 with notes). He had become unfit for the High Priesthood after his mutilation by Antigonus (15.17). Josephus implies that the Jews east of the Jordan treated Hyrcanus as if he were a king and High Priest (cf. 14.162, about Antipater being honored as a king by the Jewish people). Josephus does not inform us why the Babylonian Jews did so, apart from the remark at the beginning of the paragraph that they liked Hyrcanus very much. Hyrcanus may still have had considerable resources and it is plausible that there was some sort of a patron-client relation between Hyrcanus and the Babylonian Jews. If so, there were several reasons to treat him as the leader of the Jewish community in Babylonia since he could act as a trait d’union between the community and the Parthian administration. Hyrcanus was a representative person of royal descent, and apparently well-received at the Parthian court (see the previous notes). The term τὸ ’Ιουδαίων ἔθνος (“the nation of the Jews”; also War 2.197; 7.423; Ant. 11.123, 184, 270, 303, 340; 12.6, 136, 357, 412, 417; 13.1, 48, 127, 143, 166; 14.196, 212, 248, 306, 320; 15.179, 384; 16.56, 158; 17.162, 330; 19.278, 284, 309) is an ethnic identity marker (Rengstorf s.v.; cf. 2 Macc 10:8; 11:25, 27). The word ἔθνος is, among other things, a common formal political designation of a nation in Classical and Hellenistic Greek passages (Bickerman 1938: 164), which was also used for Jews living in Judea-Israel and the Diaspora (see, e.g., Philo, Spec. 2.163; Virt. 212). Piattelli (1971: 251, 304) states on the basis of Josephus (Ant. 14.114, 117-118) that neither the internal organization nor the territory of Judea determined the identity of the Jewish ἔθνος. The term refers to a nation—with its own practices and values—which was recognized by other states. Apparently, Hyrcanus acted as leader of the Jewish communities in Babylonia and in the region between the Jordan and the Euphrates. The second area included the Jews of Dura-Europos on the Euphrates (Schürer-Vermes 3.10-13 with references). The brief note about Hyrcanus’ view of his own position matches Josephus’ characterization of him as naive, unambitious, and indecisive (Ant. 14.165; 15.165; cf. War 1.109, 203, 210-213, 234, 433-434; Ant. 13.407-408; 14.13, 158, 179-180; 15.182). The continuation of the narrative matches this picture: Hyrcanus falls for vague expectations of an improvement in his position with Herod’s assistance (Ant. 15.16). A clever politician would surely have been suspicious about Herod’s promises of a shared kingdom (15.18) and about his gifts (15.19). The expression ἀγαπητός with ἐστι and a dative referring to a person means “be content” (LSJ s.v. ἀγαπητός I.2, with a reference to War 5.438 offering the meaning “be acquiesced in [as the least in a choice of evils]”). For similar vocabulary, see Josephus, War 2.54; Hyperides, Eux. 30; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 8.71.5; Basil of Caesarea, Hom. Ps. (PG 29.485).

See Ant. 15.2 with notes. For the fixed expression of παραλαμβάνω with τὴν βασιλείαν (“take over the throne”), see 15.254. The narrative about Hyrcanus’ return to Judea first focuses upon Hyrcanus’ perspective and then switches to Herod’s (15.18). This statement as well as Ant. 15.18 (“he yearned to leave”) does not match the image of Hyrcanus as an indecisive person that Josephus presents elsewhere (see the last note at 15.16). The verb ἀντιμεταχωρέω (meaning literally “go away to the other side”) is usually interpreted metaphorically (LSJ s.v. here suggests “make room for new [hope]”). The literal meaning of the verb would make sense as well, although it makes the continuation of the sentence more difficult. An alternative translation would be “he attempted to change his location in hopes (of a better situation),” as suggested to me by Prof. Steve Mason. The rare verb is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. It further occurs in Heron, Pneum. 2.26 (1st cent. CE) and several times in Eustathius of Thessalonica (12th cent. CE). The phrase φιλοστόργως διακείμενος (“he was close with …”) is elliptic. Combinations of διάκειμαι and φιλοστόργως usually go with πρός plus a person in the accusative (see Josephus, Ant. 7.43 πρὸς τὸν ’Αβεννῆρον φιλοστόργως διακείμενον; Plutarch, Fab. 21.2 φιλοστόργως διακειμένην πρὸς αὐτόν; for similar vocabulary, see Diodorus 19.33.1; John Chrysostom, Hom. Matt. [PG 58.471]). Hyrcanus’ first encounter with Herod in both War and Antiquities concerns Herod’s trial in Jerusalem. The details about Hyrcanus’ treatment of Herod during this trial vary (see War 1.210-211; Ant. 14.168-178), and both reports are ambiguous. According to War, Hyrcanus took the initiative to bring Herod to trial but released him after messengers from Sextus Julius Caesar had arrived. The brief report ends with “But he [i.e., Hyrcanus], eager for other reasons, namely that he loved Herod (ἠγάπα γὰρ Ἡρώδην), acquitted him” (trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a 1.211). Antiquities notes that prominent Jews persuaded Hyrcanus to bring Herod to court (14.168), but that a letter from Sextus Caesar gave him a pretext to let Herod go “because he loved him as a son” (14.170). Ant. 14.177 adds that Hyrcanus postponed the trial by a day in order to let Herod escape. It seems that Josephus’ statements about Hyrcanus’ role contradict each other: War 1.211 and Ant. 14.170 (cf. 14.182) imply that Hyrcanus acquitted Herod, possibly at the order of Sextus Caesar; Ant. 14.177 suggests that Hyrcanus only had the trial adjourned. Buchheim (1960: 62) argues that the pro-Roman Herod survived the trial only because of Sextus Caesar’s intervention (see also Sullivan 1977: 296-354). The phrase leads up to the reason given in the continuation of the narrative and also evokes the curiosity of the reader as to whether or not Herod is going to reward Hyrcanus. The noun χάρις (“grace, favor”) is the key word in this passage. It is repeated in Ant. 15.17-18. On returning favors, see also 15.19. Marcus-Wikgren (9 n. d) note that χάριτος ἀπομνησθήσεσθαι echoes Thucydides 1.137.2 (χάριν ἀπομνήσεσθαι). This vocabulary, however, is not restricted to Josephus (see also Ant. 19.225) and Thucydides (e.g., Euripides, Alc. 299; Plutarch, Fragm. 157 line 51 [ed. Sandbach 96]; Aelius Aristides, Leuctr. 2.43 [ed. Dindorf 1.659]; Aelian, Nat. an. 8.22 χάριτος ἀπομνησθῆναι; Libanius, Ep. 99.3). The present formula is also found in Antony’s letter to Tyre (Josephus, Ant. 14.315). Herod’s trial, described in book 14, has already been referred to in Ant. 15.4 (see the relevant notes to that paragraph and 15.16 with the note to “from the beginning onward”). This also refers to Herod’s trial. The vocabulary of Ant. 15.16 echoes that of 15.4 and that of the report of the trial in book 14 (cf. κρινόμενον in 15.16 with κατακρίνωμεν in 14.173 and κρινομένου in 15.4; θανάτῳ in 15.16 with θανάτῳ in 15.4; τοῦ κινδύνου in 15.16 with τὸν κίνδυνον in 14.177). Phrases with προσφέρω plus λόγους as object (“address,” Rengstorf s.v. προσφέρω) also occur in War 7.301; Ant. 2.42, 45; 6.209; 11.322; 14.60; 15.249; 16.210, 224, 323-324 (cf. Ant. 15.175, and see also Thucydides 1.57.5; 3.4.2; Philo, Ios. 40; Plutarch, Brut. 52). I.e., the Jews in Babylon (see Ant. 15.15). Hyrcanus apparently had high hopes for Herod’s support, but Josephus’ formulation (“[he] expected that his favor would be remembered …”) indicates that it was uncertain whether Hyrcanus’ expectations would be fulfilled. The end of Ant. 15.17 also suggests to the reader that the outcome could be very different from what Hyrcanus expected.

An alternative translation would be “they were fond (of him)” (LSJ s.v. περιέχω III.2). Rengstorf (s.v.) offers “want to keep” as meaning for the passage. The imperfect (περιείχοντο) may be interpreted as a conative. The negative response to Hyrcanus’ speech by the Babylonian Jews is elaborated in the subsequent lines, which imply that Hyrcanus had to be satisfied with the position he was enjoying among the Babylonian Jews and that they were skeptical about his prospects. The latter point is argued with a general statement about the changeability of the attitude of kings towards their subjects, especially if they are of common descent, as Herod was. The narrative may hint at Hyrcanus’ sad fate in Jerusalem (Ant. 15.165-178) and it implies that Hyrcanus was naive in deciding to return to Jerusalem (see also 15.18). War 1.434 states in plain language that Hyrcanus would not have been executed if he had listened to his Babylonian fellow-Jews. The Babylonian Jews apparently provided Hyrcanus with unspecified services and honored him as a king and High Priest (as already stated in Ant. 15.15), although he was no longer qualified for the High Priesthood because of his mutilation, as the continuation of the narrative indicates (see also 15.11 with the note to “Hyrcanus the High Priest”). See Ant. 15.15. I.e., in Judea (see Ant. 15.16). Antigonus mutilated Hyrcanus when the latter was in Jerusalem as a captive of the Parthians. According to War 1.270 Antigonus bit off Hyrcanus’ ears, but Ant. 14.366 tells that he cut them off. The phrase κατὰ λώβην (“because of the mutilation”) echoes the verb λωβάομαι (“mutilate”) used in War 1.270; Ant. 14.366. Lev 21:17-18 states that mutilated priests (including mutilation of their faces) are unfit for fulfilling the priestly duties. See the previous note as well as Ant. 15.1 with the note to Antigonus. The truism expressed in the last part of Ant. 15.17 anticipates in a veiled way Herod’s reaction to Hyrcanus’ return. Landau (2006: 165) notes that the passage includes a recurring theme in the Antiquities narrative about Herod: that change of fortune is inevitable and has grave consequences (see also Ant. 17.192). The phrase χάριν/ χάριτας ἀποδίδωμι (see also 19.225) is common (e.g., Isocrates, Phil. 36.1; Plat. 1.3; Demosthenes, Or. 45.78; 53.13; Plutarch, Flam. 12.7). See Ant. 15.2 with the note to “commoner.” The Greek word τύχη can mean, among other things, “fortune, fate, deity” (Rengstorf s.v.). It is often ambiguous in Josephus because God determines humankind’s fate in Josephus’ opinion. Eleazar ben Yair, e.g., argues that the Masada suicide was the fate destined by God for the remaining rebels (War 7.324-325, 330-336; cf. 7.358-359; Brighton 2009: 105-31). Josephus explicitly states that God is responsible for the successive events in Herod’s life (see Ant. 15.4 with the note to “God fulfilled [Pollio’s] words”; about τύχη in Josephus, see Lindner 1974: 46-47, 89-94; Landau 2006: 165, 175-76). Cf. Thucydides, who refers to fortune (τυχή) in a rather loose way; it means hardly more than good luck in several passages (2.87.2-3; 7.67.4; 7.68.1). The noun τυχή also occurs frequently in Polybius (e.g., 3.63.4; 15.10.5; Pédech 1964: 278), who influenced Josephus heavily (Eckstein 1990). The translation is based on the reading οὐκ ὀλίγως of MSS PFA1V and Marcus-Wikgren (10). Niese (335) reads with MSS LA2M οὐκ ἀλόγως (“not unaccountably”). The idea that ancient rulers repaid those who had helped them achieve power is common, and Josephus implies that Claudius repaid Agrippa I for his indispensable aid in Claudius’ accession by making him king (see Mason in BJP 1b on War 2.206-215). Nevertheless, I have found no close ancient parallels for the vocabulary of Josephus’ generalizing statement about kings returning favors they had received before becoming a king.

The statement is surprising in the light of Hyrcanus’ image elsewhere in Josephus (see Ant. 15.15 with the note to “He was content with these things”). The reason for Hyrcanus’ yearning must be the hopes expressed in 15.16. The phrase πόθον ἔχω (“yearn,” also 10.75) is common in Greek literature (Herodotus 3.67; Euripides, Iph. aul. 431; Orest. 189; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 5.36.3; 10.19.1; Philo, Somn. 2.150; Plutarch, Ant. 68.4). On the basis of the information in Ant. 15.16 one would expect that Hyrcanus would have written to Herod with a request to be allowed to return to Jerusalem, but that is not what Josephus reports. Herod apparently had heard of Hyrcanus’ wish and seized the occasion by writing to the former High Priest.The focus of the narrative switches to Herod, and the letter to Hyrcanus referred to (see also 15.19) prepares Phraates and the Babylonian Jews for Hyrcanus’ departure and motivates why it would be important for Hyrcanus to return to Judea. The continuation of the narrative points out that Herod’s actual motives for persuading Hyrcanus to return were very different from what the letter mentioned implies. Ant. 15.20 explains that Herod considered Hyrcanus a competitor for the throne, and thus had to be eliminated or at least put under his direct control (Schalit 2001: 696). Otto (1913: 36) and Stern (1974b: 230) suggest an additional motive: Mark Antony may have urged Herod to bring over Hyrcanus because the former High Priest’s presence in the Parthian territory was a potential danger to Roman interests. In case of a new conflict with Rome, the Parthians could have used Hyrcanus for raising Jewish support. The “him” (i.e., Hyrcanus) remains implicit in the Greek text. The verb φθονέω plus a personal dative means “envy, resent, deny” (LSJ s.v. I.2-3; Rengstorf s.v.; see Josephus, War 1.463; Ant. 1.248; 4.41, 131). The passage implies some form of participation in the rule of the kingdom, not necessarily sharing the rule, as a related passage about Herod’s brother Pheroras shows (Ant. 16.195, with similar vocabulary: “[Herod …] had given him a share in the power of the kingdom [δυνάμει δὲ καὶ κοινωνὸν ἔχειν τῆς βασιλείας] …”). This interpretation is confirmed by a parallel passage of War (1.483), which states that Pheroras shared all the royal honors with Herod except the diadem (ὃς πάσης μὲν ἐκοινώνει τῆς βασιλείας πλὴν διαδήματος). The Greek (εἶναι καιρὸν αὐτῷ μὲν ... ἐκείνῳ δὲ) implies that it was time for both Herod (αὐτῷ) and Hyrcanus (ἐκείνῳ) to act. This links up with Ant. 15.16, concerning Hyrcanus’ expectation to be rewarded for his favors to Herod. The fixed expression for returning favors (ἐκτίνω χάριν/ χάριτας) also occurs in Euripides, Orest. 453; Plato, Menex. 242c; Resp. 338b; Josephus, Ant. 2.262; Dio Chrysostom 75.6; Pausanias 5.16.4; 9.11.4; Plutarch, Phoc. 7.5; Sull. 32.2. The phrase again refers to Hyrcanus’ role during Herod’s trial, which is here formulated in unambiguously positive terms. See Ant. 15.4, 16 with notes. Herod plays the game well and anticipates Hyrcanus’ expectation that his previous favors to Herod would be returned.

This is probably the Saramallas mentioned in War 1.259; Ant. 14.345. He is characterized as the richest person of the Syrians and was the man who informed Ophellius of the Parthians’ plan about Phasael (War 1.259; Ant. 14.345). The fact that Herod chose him as an envoy to Phraates implies that Saramallas had a good relationship with the Parthians.Buchheim (1960: 65-66) suggests that Saramallas came from the coastal city of Tyre or had, at least, close connections with that city. Tyre was friendly to the Parthians and preferred the Jews to be under foreign rule, which would explain why Saramallas assisted Phasael only to a certain extent. Schalit (2001: 78, 687-89) argues that Saramallas was a Nabatean because his name was Nabatean, deriving from an expression meaning “Shara (= Dushara) is god.” Dushara was the supreme Nabatean god. It is plausible that there were close connections between Herod’s Idumean family and the Nabatean elite. Stern (1974b: 230) states that Saramallas was a friend of Herod’s family. The Greek of the passage includes several phrases commonly used in connection with the practice of benefaction (see the next notes). Bestowing gifts upon (future) benefactors was common practice in ancient society (see Ant. 15.5 with the note to “gift to Antony”; Danker 1982; Joubert 2000). It demonstrated one’s loyalty to the benefactor. Returning an important favor is also what one would expect in the patronage system at the court of a friendly king (see Ant. 12.206; 15.233). Herod frequently applied this practice (War 1.238, 274, 356, 393, 423, 425, 456, 483, 511-512, 530, 646; 2.100; Ant. 14.486; 15.5, 103, 196, 271, 327; 16.16, 18, 128, 132, 269, 301, 309, 355; 17.53, 173). He also presented himself as a great benefactor (see, e.g., Ant. 15.196). I.e., Hyrcanus. The noun εὐεργέτης (“benefactor”) also occurs in War 1.215, 388 (Antony as Herod’s benefactor), 530; 2.538, 607; 3.459; 4.113; 5.536; 7.71; Ant. 2.136 (Joseph as his brothers’ benefactor); 4.187; 11.278 (Mordecai as the king’s benefactor and savior); 12.206, 261; 13.214 (the Hasmonean Simon as the Jews’ benefactor); 14.253 (Hyrcanus II as benefactor of everybody), 257 (the Romans as benefactors of humankind); 15.190, 233; 16.98 (Augustus as benefactor of Herod and his sons), 212 (Herod as Pheroras’ benefactor); 17.45, 243; 20.254; Life 244, 259 (both concerning Josephus himself; on euergetism in general and in Jewish contexts, see Sorek 2010). I.e., Herod. Josephus’ phrase suggests that a favor and the response to it would ideally match each other (Berthelot 2003: 330). The verb φιλανθρωπεύομαι (“do someone a kindness, show oneself humane in something,” Rengstorf s.v.) occurs once elsewhere in Josephus (Ant. 13.47).

The plural of μεταβολή (“change”) can have a political connotation (LSJ s.v. II.3; Rengstorf s.v.; cf. War 1.23; 2.113; 4.231; 7.65; Ant. 1.13; 15.264; Life 87), as it probably does here. The context implies that the word hints at political changes. The translation follows the reading εὐλόγων of the Greek MSS, which is confirmed by E and the Latin version (with Marcus-Wikgren 10). Rengstorf (s.v.) further offers “according to reason, plausibly” as meanings for εὔλογος. Niese (336) proposes to read ἀλόγων (“out of irrational grounds”; cf. his reading οὐκ ἀλόγως in Ant. 15.17; see the last note at 15.17). This conjecture is unnecessary. The phrase μὴ κατ’ ἀξίαν can have several nuances, including “not rightfully” (Rengstorf s.v.) and “undeservedly” (LSJ s.v. ἀξία 3). This motive is highly implausible because Herod was the legal king of the Jews, appointed by the Romans (see Ant. 15.1 with the note to “captive”), and at this stage in full control of the country. Josephus’ remark perhaps discloses his own view that Herod was not the legitimate king and that the Judean Jews continually tried to revolt against Herod (for this motif, which is especially important in Antiquities, see van Henten 2011d). The paragraph suggests that controlling or even eliminating Hyrcanus as a possible competitor was Herod’s real motive for inviting the former High Priest over (see also Ant. 15.21). Neusner (1969: 37-38) argues that Hyrcanus’ claim to the throne could only have been endorsed with the military help of the Parthians. For the phrase ὑποχείριον ἔχω referring to a person (“get someone into/have someone in one’s power,” Rengstorf s.v.), see Ant. 15.98, 248; Life 387, also Thucydides 3.11; Lycurgus of Athens 115; Polybius 1.21.8; Plutarch, Mor. 475a [Tranq. an.]. The fixed expression ἐκποδὼν ποιεῖσθαι plus a personal object (“get someone out of the way”) occurs 15 times in Josephus and—apart from one exception (Life 189)—only in Antiquities (6.63; 10.94, 252; 13.187, 335; 14.12, 281; 15.20, 49, 77, 183, 231, 369; 16.257). Seven occurrences are part of the Herod narrative. The continuation of that narrative implies that the phrase functions as a euphemism for having someone murdered (see also 13.187; 14.281; 15.49, 77, 183, 231, 369; 16.257). In 15.183 the same phrase is used in a reference to Hyrcanus’ death, reported in the preceding narrative. Josephus briefly anticipates his report about Hyrcanus’ death (Ant. 15.164-182).

The note is surprising since the previous information about Hyrcanus suggests that he was eager to go to Jerusalem. The continuation of the narrative also differs from the preceding paragraphs about Hyrcanus and presents Herod in a much more positive light if one focuses upon his actions only. These apparent contradictions may be explained by Josephus’ tendency to create complex and rounded characters in Ant. as well as War. He presents Saul, for example, as an extreme sinner—deserving of divine punishment—and at the same time as the greatest, toughest and most virtuous man whoever lived (further examples in Mason’s introductory essay to BJP 3 [p. xxxii].Several details suggest that Herod really did his best to return Hyrcanus’ favors to him. Nevertheless, the verb ἐξαπατάω (“deceive”) and the end of Ant. 15.21 match the picture of Herod presented in 15.16-20: Herod’s intention was to eliminate Hyrcanus. The ambiguity may be explained by assuming that Josephus adapted and expanded the information found in his source (possibly Nicolaus of Damascus; see the note to “Herod” at 15.9); yet Josephus’ rewriting of the data prevents us from pointing out where this source appears in the relevant paragraphs. Cf. also Ant. 15.370, about Herod trying to persuade the group around Pollio and Samaias to take an oath of loyalty to him.The reading συμπεπεισμένος (“after he had allowed himself to be persuaded”) of MSS LAMWE is, as lectio difficilior, to be preferred to πεπεισμένος (“after he had been persuaded”), which Niese (336) reads with MSS PFV (Marcus-Wikgren [10] read συμπεπεισμένος). The simplex πεπεισμένος occurs frequently in Josephus (e.g., Ant. 16.304; Rengstorf s.v.), which may have caused a copyist to omit the συμ–. Josephus does not explain the purpose of the money. One could think of a sum to pay the transfer to Jerusalem or to compensate Phraates. The detail that Babylonian Jews provided the money is confusing in the light of Josephus’ information in Ant. 15.17 that they advised Hyrcanus against travelling to Jerusalem. One wonders why they would have provided money if they were urging Hyrcanus to stay. Moreover, the previous paragraph clearly states that Herod provided Phraates with gifts, which may imply that he gave the money. Nevertheless, it is certainly imaginable that the Babylonian Jews provided the money out of respect for Hyrcanus in spite of the fact that they wanted him to stay. Ant. 15.31 mentions a council of Herod’s friends, and Ant. 16.305 refers to assemblies of Herod (without specification). The context implies political gatherings, to which assemblies of Herod’s friends certainly belonged (see the last note at 15.5). Hyrcanus’ status apparently was that of Herod’s most important friend (cf. War 1.515, 532; Ant. 12.17; 13.85, 146). This perhaps already anticipates the questions that would lead up to Herod’s accusation against Hyrcanus II during a banquet (Ant. 15.175-176; for references to banquets at Herod’s court, see 15.175; 16.305, and for a description of lavish banquets [sumposia] for the elite, Garnsey 1999: 113-31). Banquets belonged to the usual social activities at the courts of Hellenistic rulers (Garnsey 1999: 131; Vössing 2004: 92-186). Herod apparently gave Hyrcanus the first place during banquets, which must have been a great honor, although it remains unclear whether it concerns the very first place (i.e. the place before Herod himself) or the first place after the king (see Vössing 2004: 126, who prefers the first interpretation). The verb προκατακλίνω (“assign the first place on the reclining couch [during a banquet]”) occurs once elsewhere in Josephus, concerning Samuel sitting in front of his guests (Ant. 6.48; cf. also 20.61, which together with ἑστίασις [“banquet”] refers to the Parthian king Artabanus’ receiving the highest honors at the court of Izates, the king of Adiabene). Cf. the verb verb ὑποκατακλίνω “to have one’s place at the foot of the table” (Rengstorf s.v.) in 12.210 and ἡ πρώτη ἀνάκλισις “the first couch, the first place at the table” in Let. Aris. 187. “Father” is here an honorary title that may be connected to Hyrcanus’ favors to Herod (for similar honorary titles in Josephus, see Ant. 12.148; 13.127, which latter passage is based on 1 Macc 11:32). The elder Razis, who killed himself in Jerusalem in a heroic way (2 Macc 14:37-46), is called “father of the Jews” (πατὴρ τῶν Ιουδαῖων) because of his goodwill to his fellow Jews (van Henten 1997: 205-07). The title father is also common in non-Jewish contexts (e.g., Dionysius, Ant. rom. 12.1.8; Plutarch, Cam. 10.6; Pel. 33.1; Sull. 34.1; Herodian 2.2.9.3). Roman readers were familiar with honorary titles consisting of “father” and various additions, such as parens/pater patriae. They were honorary rewards for military persons who had saved others (though they were later applied in other contexts as well). M. Manlius Capitolinus received the title parens plebis romanae (“father of the Roman people”) for paying the debt of a centurio (Livy 6.14.5). Cicero attributes the titles pater patriae (“father of the fatherland”) and parens rei publicae (“father of the republic”) to Gaius Marius (Rab. Perd. 10.27). Julius Caesar styled himself as pater patriae (Suetonius, Jul. 76.1), a title which was first given to Cicero by the Roman people at the instigation of Cato (Plutarch, Cic. 23.5; Cicero himself mentions that the title was attributed to him by Q. Lutatius Catulus in the Senate: Pis. 3.6; Alföldi 1978: 47, 81-82). Similar titles in Greek are transmitted from the 1st cent. CE onward (Mason 1974: 74). Jewish inscriptions (e.g., CIJ nos. 88, 93, 319, 494, 508-510, 535, 537) attest to the honorary title πατὴρ συναγωγῆς (“father of the synagogue,” Lüderitz 1983: 142; van der Horst 1991: 93-94). This second hint at Herod’s murderous intention concerning Hyrcanus (see also Ant. 15.20) emphasizes Herod’s wickedness and is keeping the reader in suspense. Only much later in the narrative does Herod succeed in removing Hyrcanus from the court (15.164-182). Josephus uses similar vocabulary (τὸ ἀνύποπτον τῆς ἐπιβουλῆς … πράγμασιν … ἀτόποις) in connection with Joab’s treacherous murder of Abner (7.34).

This paragraph forms the transition between the section about Herod’s dealings with Hyrcanus (Ant. 15.11-22) and the section in which his mother-in-law Alexandra is a prominent character (15.23-49). Josephus does not specify the arrangements made by Herod, but one can easily think of all kinds of projects that would strengthen Herod’s rule, including strategic appointments. The Greek may, however, hint at secret actions. Niese (336) reads ὑποκαθίστατο with the majority of the Greek MSS. E reads ἀποκαθίσταται (“restored”). The Latin version attests disponebat (“put in order,” fol. 164 recto of the Cologne edition of 1524). The verb ὑποκαθίσταμαι is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. Rengstorf (s.v.) suggests as possible translations “set in motion, practice.” The prefix ὑπό can express a notion of secrecy (LSJ s.v. F.III), which fits the context very well. In that case the Greek phrase can be translated as “made other secret arrangements ….” This interpretation was suggested to me by Omert J. Schrier (Amsterdam). Conflicts within Herod’s household are a recurring motif in the Herod section of Antiquities (van Henten 2011d: 243-50). Josephus refers to disagreements or even rebellions within Herod’s family (Ant. 16.66, 84) as well as to disorders (15.40, 202; 16.75, 229, 300; see also War 1.483, 488, 516, 530; Ant. 15.42, 218; 16.188-189, 209; 17.142, and Ant. 14.491 about the decline of the Hasmonean family). After Hyrcanus II’s return from Babylonia, all remaining members of the Hasmonean family were living at Herod’s court: Hyrcanus II, his daughter Alexandra, his granddaughter Mariamme, and his grandson Aristobulus III. These Hasmoneans figure prominently in the subsequent narrative and are all killed under Herod’s orders (Ant. 15.55, 173, 176, 229-236, 251). Herod’s two sons by Mariamme, Alexander and Aristobulus, suffer a similar fate, as book 16 describes in detail. Josephus contrasts Herod’s success in his administration and external affairs with the very unfortunate events in his family (e.g., 16.75-77). War 1.431-673 offers a coherent description of the disastrous history of Herod’s family, including the execution of Mariamme’s sons Alexander and Aristobulus as well as Antipater. War highlights Herod’s misfortune in connection with the disastrous fate of his sons (1.622, 646-647, 665; cf. Ant. 17.94-95). The Herod narrative of Antiquities intermingles the events of Herod’s rule with the history of his family. The conflict described in the following section focuses upon Herod’s mother-in-law Alexandra (15.23-87). The translation follows the reading τινα τῶν ἐπισήμων … ἀρχιερέα of Niese (336). The reading τῶν οἰκείων τινά … ἀρχιερέα of MSS LAMWE implies a local person as High Priest and may anticipate the reference to Aristobulus III in Ant. 15.23. Before Ananel’s appointment (see below), the office of High Priest had been held by a member of the Hasmonean family, starting with Alexander Balas’ appointment of Jonathan in the autumn of 153/152 BCE (1 Macc 10:15-21; Josephus, Ant. 13.43-46). Herod’s change of policy is conspicuous, and Josephus tells us of Herod’s motive, to avoid appointing a distinguished Jerusalemite, but he does not spell out the significance of this choice. It is plausible that Herod’s fear of possible competitors for the throne (see Ant. 15.1-2, 18-19 with notes) was the main reason. The High Priest could easily be considered to be the leader of the Jewish people, as the passages about Jonathan’s appointment imply. This note about the relatively humble origin (ἱερέα τῶν ἀσημοτέρων, which contrasts τινα τῶν ἐπισήμων … ἀρχιερέα; see the previous note) of Ananel (see the next note) does not evoke his descent from a family of High Priests, which is mentioned in the subsequent reference to him (Ant. 15.40-41). Josephus’ information about Ananel’s origin here is connected with a distinction between local, distinguished High Priests (i.e., Hasmoneans) and foreign, less distinguished High Priests (cf. the contrast ἀσημοτέρων/ἐπισήμων). This is in any case part of Alexandra’s criticism about Herod’s appointment (15.23-24). From Alexandra’s perspective any candidate other than her son Aristobulus III was of humble origin. Josephus’ remarks about Ananel’s descent in 15.40-41 seem more plausible than the note here because the credits of a non-Hasmonean High Priest should have been convincing for Herod’s subjects (Richardson 1996: 162 n. 45; differently Otto 1913: 38; Schürer-Vermes 1.297; cf. Schalit 2001: 101, 694; Rajak 2001: 274). See Ant. 15.14 with notes for references about the Babylonian Jews, and 15.40 about Ananel’s family. Ananel (’Ανάνηλος) is mentioned again in Ant. 15.34, 40-41, 56. 15.56 reports that he was re-installed as High Priest after the death of Aristobulus III. There is no reference to him in War. M. Parah 3.5 mentions “Hanamel the Egyptian” as one of the three post-Hasmonean High Priests during whose office a red heifer was burned (cf. Num 19). He may be identical with Ananel in Ant. 15. In that case Hanamel’s surname “the Egyptian” is probably a mistake, which may have been caused by the fact that other Herodian High Priests were of Egyptian origin (Neusner 1969: 37-38 with n. 2; Schürer-Vermes 2.229; Schalit 2001: 101, 693-95, who argues that Ananel was living in Jerusalem before his appointment). Richardson (1996: 243 with n. 13) argues on the basis of the co-incidence of the end of Ananel’s second term as High Priest and the death of Hyrcanus II in 30 BCE that Ananel would have been a friend and “client” of Hyrcanus II.

The paragraph introduces Alexandra II, Herod’s mother-in-law, in the Antiquities narrative. Three Hasmonean women with the name Alexandra figure in Josephus: Alexander Janneus’ wife Salome Alexandra, who succeeded her husband on the throne (War 1.107; Ant. 13.320); Alexandra II, the daughter of Hyrcanus II; and Alexandra III, a sister of Antigonus II, who married Philippion, the son of Ptolemy, King of Chalcis, who became king himself after murdering his father (War 1.186; Ant. 14.126; Kokkinos 1998: 114-15).Alexandra II is one of the key persons in Ant. 15, until her execution (15.247-252). She figures as one of Herod’s major opponents at the court, who is continuously scheming against the king. She acts as a lobbyist for her son Aristobulus III and hopes, at a certain stage, even to take over the throne herself (15.23-38, 42, 45-46, 247-249). After Aristobulus’ death she aims at arranging the throne for her daughter, father, grandchildren (15.73, 87, 167-170). Schalit (2001: 131) considers Alexandra to have been Herod’s most determined enemy within the Hasmonean family. For explicit references to her, see 15.23, 25, 27, 31, 42, 47, 53, 58, 62-63, 69, 72, 80, 87, 166, 169, 183, 185, 202, 232, 247, 249, 250-251. She is not mentioned at all in War (Ilan 1999: 108). This remark can be interpreted in two ways: Herod intended to treat Alexandra in an insulting way, or his treatment was insulting in Alexandra’s opinion. The second interpretation seems to be supported by Alexandra’s statement in Ant. 15.36.For similar phrases of φέρω with ἐπήρεια as object, see Diodorus 16.41 and especially John Chrysostom (e.g., Hom. Gen. [PG 54.491.43; 54.516.66]; Hom. Matt. [PG 58.594.52]; Stag. [PG 47.451, 466]). Josephus introduces Alexandra before describing her anger in detail. Ant. 15.166 notes in passing that she was Hyrcanus II’s daughter (see also War 1.241). Alexandra was a widow; her husband Alexander, a brother of Antigonus II, was executed by Pompey in 49/48 BCE (see Ant. 15.9 with the note to “axe”). When Pompey, after his intervention in Judea in 63 BCE, was bringing Aristobulus II and his children (including Alexander; see the next notes) to Rome as prisoners of war, Alexander escaped (War 1.157-158; Ant. 14.77-79). His unsuccessful attempts to take over Hyrcanus’ power by force were countered by the Romans (War 1.160-168, 175-178; Ant. 14.82-89, 98-102; Schürer-Vermes 1.267-270). Alexander’s father was Aristobulus II (War 1.158, 160, 176, 241, 344, 432), who took over the throne and the High Priesthood from his brother Hyrcanus II in 67 BCE (references in Schürer-Vermes 1.233-42). Kokkinos (1998: 114 n. 98) argues that Alexandra and Alexander married in 55 BCE in Ascalon. They had 3 children: Mariamme I, an unnamed daughter who married Herod’s brother Pheroras (War 1.483), and Jonathan-Aristobulus III (see the next notes). The meaning “spring time” of the noun ὥρα (also “[youthful] beauty, elegance”) developed into “bloom of youth, beauty” (LSJ s.v. B.II; see also Ant. 15.29). Josephus mentions Aristobulus III’s age twice: according to Ant. 15.29 he was 16 before he became High Priest, while Ant. 15.51 notes that he was 17 when he was installed as High Priest (see also Ant. 15.56 about Aristobulus’ age when he died: “… being not entirely eighteen years old”). Kokkinos (1998: 114 n. 98) calculates that Aristobulus was born in 52/51 BCE. Aristobulus is called Jonathan in War 1.437. Herod married Mariamme I in Samaria in 37 BCE during an interval in his siege of Jerusalem (War 1.344; Ant. 14.467), when she was about 17 (assuming that Mariamme was born in 54 BCE; Schürer-Vermes 1.283-84; Schalit 2001: 566 n. 4; Kokkinos 1998: 114 nn. 98-99 argues that Mariamme was born in 53 BCE). She had been betrothed to Herod in 42 BCE (War 1.241; Ant. 14.300; further discussion and references in Ilan 1999: 105-15). The expression εὐμορφίᾳ διάσημον (“strikingly beautiful”) is without parallels in ancient sources and emphasizes Mariamme’s exceptional beauty. Josephus stresses her beauty in Antiquities (see also 15.25, 67, 237), but he hardly does this in the parallel narratives of War. The motif was perhaps added to enhance the novelistic character.The Greek noun εὐμορφία (“[physical] beauty,” Rengstorf s.v.) occurs 14 times elsewhere in Antiquities. It refers mostly to biblical persons: 1.162 (Sara); 2.41 (Joseph), 231 (Moses); 4.129 (the daughters of Madian); 5.276 (Manoah’s wife); 6.158 and 160 (Samuel), 167 (David); 10.186 (Daniel and his companions); 11.197 (the young women brought to the Persian king). In 4 cases it does not: 8.184 (Solomon’s horses); 15.66-67 (Mariamme); 18.40 (the wife of the Parthian king Phraates IV). It occurs only twice in War: 1.477 (referring to all of Herod’s wives) and 2.57 (about the royal slave Simon).

Alexandra’s anger is understandable given that her son, Aristobulus III, was the logical candidate for the succession of his grandfather Hyrcanus II as High Priest (see the next note). The section of Ant. 15.23-41 revealingly describes the role of a mother at a royal court as a broker of a son’s interest. Alexandra’s trouble about her son’s disgrace (τὴν ἀτιμίαν τοῦ παιδός) echoes Aeschylus, Pers. 847, in which passage Xerxes’ mother Atossa laments her son’s disgrace following his defeats in Greece. Josephus’ phrase is ironic if it is read as an anticipation of the proposal that Dellius is making to Alexandra in Ant. 15.26 because παῖς (“boy”) is the common term for the junior partner in a homosexual relationship (see 15.29 with the note to “sixteen”).The combination of φέρω with χαλεπῶς (“take badly”) is quite common in Josephus (but only in Antiquities: 2.210; 5.58, 137; 6.35; 7.5, 300; 9.231; 11.174; 13.77; 15.203, 210, 223, 365; 16.342; 18.202; Rengstorf [s.v. χαλεπός] gives “be ill humored/annoyed/displeased/troubled” as meanings). Whether Herod’s appointment of Ananel as High Priest was really a disgrace with respect to the members of the Hasmonean family is debatable given that Aristobulus was still very young at the time: he was probably born in 52/51 BCE (see Ant. 15.23 with the note to “Aristobulus”) and appointed High Priest in 36 or 35 BCE (see 15.39-41 with notes). Ant. 15.29, which is chronologically set before Aristobulus’ appointment as High Priest, mentions in passing that he was 16. There was no official minimum age in the Hellenistic period for acting as High Priest, but it is highly probable that the age limit for priestly service in the Temple also applied to High Priests. The lowest limit mentioned in the Bible is 20 years (1 Chr 23:24, 27; 31:17; Ezra 3:8), with 25 (Num 8:24) or 30 years (Num 4:3, 23, 30, 35, 39, 43, 47; 1 Chr 23:3) as alternatives. Rabbinic passages (t. Zebaḥ. 11.6; b. Ḥul. 24ab) mention having reached manhood as criterion. Qumran passages imply that the age of 30 was the lowest limit for holding major priestly offices (1Q28a 1.8-15; CD 14.6-9; Schürer-Vermes 2.243-44; Schalit 2001: 101-02 with n. 18). Several scholars argue that priests under the age of 20 did not participate in the sacrificial services in the Temple (Baumann 1983: 169; Schalit l.c.). If the biblical miminum age of 20 was taken seriously in Herod’s time, the king must have faced a dilemma: he could not appoint Aristobulus, but he could not leave the High Priesthood vacant either. A realistic wish from Alexandra’s perspective would have been the appointment of an elderly priest as a transitory figure. For the combination ἀξιοῦμαι τῆς ἀρχιερωσύνης (“be thought worthy of the High Priesthood”), cf. War 1.199; Ant. 19.314. Cleopatra apparently functioned as a contact person for Alexandra in order to get access to Antony. This is the first reference to Cleopatra in Ant. 15. Cleopatra VII (70/69-30 BCE) was the last Ptolemaic ruler of Egypt (51-30 BCE). She partly restored the immense territory of the Ptolemaic empire of the 3rd cent. BCE by using unorthodox partnerships with 2 powerful Romans, Julius Caesar and Mark Antony (Huzar 1978: 167; Hölbl 1994: 217-18). Josephus renders the opinion of Herod’s friends that Cleopatra was the woman with the highest status (ἀξίωμα) in this period (Ant. 15.101), which may well have been true (Mayer-Schärtel 1995: 86). Roman authors murdered her character from the year 33 BCE onward (when the split between Antony and Octavian had become definitive) and even more so after her and Antony’s defeat at Actium in 31 BCE. Appian (Bell. civ. 5.9) reports how Cleopatra winded Antony around her little finger and had her way “regardless of laws, human or divine” (trans. White), including having her sister Arsinoe killed secretly (Mayer-Schärtel 1995: 76-77).Josephus is one of the most negative ancient sources about Cleopatra. In—mainly brief—references to the queen in War he suggests that Cleopatra ruined Antony, which is very much in line with her portrait in the Roman sources. Cleopatra and Herod appear as natural enemies in War; both were strongly dependent on Antony’s favors (cf. Ant. 15.75; Grant 1972: 139-41, 158-60; Huzar 1978: 167-68). In Antiquities Josephus goes beyond the usual contempt for Cleopatra’s sexual immorality, greed, and perverted hunger for power, and in Apion 2.56-61 he offers a condensed list of Cleopatra’s crimes and portrays her as the ultimately wicked foreign ruler (for further references and a discussion of the differences between Cleopatra’s image in War and Antiquities, see van Henten 2005a). Huzar (1978: 244) argues that Josephus’ very negative portrayal of the queen was influenced by Nicolaus of Damascus. War 1.243 notes that Antony was already “enslaved by his love for Cleopatra” (Ἀντώνιον ἤδη τῷ Κλεοπάτρας ἔρωτι δεδουλωμένον, trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a 1.243; cf. Ant. 14.324 “she laid her hands on him by love [δι’ ἔρωτος αὐτὸν ἐκεχείρωτο],” trans. Marcus) when he met her in Cilicia (Southeast Turkey). Josephus is not very specific about the time and location of this meeting (it took place at Tarsus in 41 BCE on Antony’s initiative). Plutarch (Ant. 26) describes it as an impressive and very successful seduction of Antony by Cleopatra on her golden barge (cf. Appian, Bell.civ. 5.8; Cassius Dio 48.24.2). Buchheim (1960: 23, 25) argues convincingly that Antony considered it crucial to secure the indispensable support of the queen before implementing his policy for Syria, a region that was looked upon by the Egyptians as their hinterland. It was wise to do that in Asia Minor, i.e., before entering Syrian territory. This implies that his motives to meet in Tarsus were strategic and political. Roman authors indicate that Antony fell in love with the queen only several years later, in 36 BCE (Livy, Epit. 130) or 34 BCE (Velleius Paterculus 2.82.3-4), though Huzar (1978: 32) suggests that Antony may already have fallen in love with her during Gabinius’ campaign against the Alexandrians in support of Ptolemy XI Auletes (in 56 BCE), when she was only 14 years old (Cicero, Phil. 2.48; Strabo 12.3.34; 17.1.11; Plutarch, Ant. 3.5-6; Appian, Bell. civ. 5.8; Cassius Dio 39.58). Other authors (such as Josephus) suggest that Antony became Cleopatra’s slave (Florus 21.11; Plutarch, Ant. 25.1; 28.1; 36.1; 37.4; Appian, Bell. civ. 4.38; Cassius Dio 48.22-27; Becher 1966: 64-65); yet Huzar (1978: 155) concludes: “… despite the tales of illicit passion told by his contractors, Antony was ruled by his head, not his heart.”In the light of Josephus’ suggestion that Antony was strongly dependent on Cleopatra, Alexandra’s attempt to use Cleopatra as an intermediary to influence Antony was a very smart move. There was no postal service for private individuals in antiquity; the transport of letters depended on the assistance of relatives and acquaintances, and—especially for confidential messages—of trusted slaves (White 1986: 214-16; Bagnall and Cribiore 2006: 37-40). Augustus founded a postal service for messages that concerned the Roman state, the cursus publicus (Suetonius, Aug. 49; Pflaum 1940: 210-45; Eck 1995: 88-110). The couriers (tabellarii) could also carry messages that were strictly speaking no state post and sometimes take private letters for a fee. Businessmen and passing strangers—like musicians and other artists (in order to perform at courts and during festivals; see Ant. 15.269-270)—were also convenient persons for delivering letters since they were traveling a lot. For other references to the secret correspondence between Alexandra and Cleopatra, see 15.31, 45-46, 62-63, and for Josephus’ vocabulary concerning letters (besides γράμματα also ἐπιστολή), Olson 2010: 74, 173. Antony’s presence in Egypt implies that Alexandra’s request was made at the end of 36 BCE at the earliest (Buchheim 1960: 84; Schürer-Vermes 1.252). Josephus’ description suggests the existence of a complicated web of competing aristocratic persons, who were all dependent on Antony as the ultimate patronus. They could use Cleopatra as broker by entering into a client relationship with her. Costobar used such a strategy when he defected from Herod (Ant. 15.256-258; Huzar 1978: 156-57).

The brief section Ant. 15.25-31, introduced by this note, presupposes that the reader knows about Antony’s bad reputation concerning love affairs and sex (see the notes at 15.28-29). Several Greek MSS read here and in Ant. 15.27 Γελλαῖος; the Latin version offers Gellius. The reading Δέλλιος (“Dellius”) is certain, though. Dellius is mentioned in War 1.290 as Antony’s representative (parallel report in Ant. 14.394, in which passage his name is given as Bdel[l]ius). Quintus Dellius was famous for switching patrons at the right moment. He became close with Antony in 42 BCE but went over to Octavian shortly before the Battle of Actium in 31 BCE. He fulfilled several confidential missions for Antony and delivered Antony’s invitation to Cleopatra to meet at Tarsus (in 41 BCE). Cassius Dio (49.39) calls Dellius a favorite (παιδικά) of Antony, which could imply a sexual relationship (Marcus-Wikgren 14 n. a; Dover 1978: 16, 85). Richardson (1996: 162) takes Josephus’ account to be “almost farcical” because Dellius would have been Antony’s lover while Antony did not act because he was afraid of Cleopatra (further references and discussions in Broughton 1951-86: 2.559; Buchheim 1960: 23-24, 90-91; Huzar 1978: 153, 165, 182, 201-02, 217, 228, 243-44; Sievers 1989). Josephus does not specify Dellius’ business in Judea and there is no parallel report in War. It is plausible, though, that it concerned a diplomatic mission ordered by Antony (see the preceding note). Mahieu (2012: 347-348) argues that Dellius’ visit took place in the post-Sabbatical year Tishri 36/35 BC and that it was connected with a tax which the Jews were expected to pay to Antony. The Greek phrase ἠγάσθη τῆς ὥρας echoes the vocabulary of Ant. 15.23 (see the note to “very handsome”). Codex V reads ἠράσθη instead of ἠγάσθη, which suggests that Dellius passionately desired the beauty of Aristobulus, implying a much more active role. Josephus’ phrase is rare, although it does occur elsewhere (Pseudo-Lucian, Charid. 16.4-5; Philostratus, Imag. 1.17.2). The phrase repeats Josephus’ information of Ant. 15.23 about Herod’s marriage with Mariamme I. The repetition emphasizes that it would have been problematic for Antony to start an affair with Mariamme, which anticipates Antony’s response to Dellius’ proposal (15.28). The noun καλλίπαις (“blessed with beautiful children”) occurs only once in Josephus (for other occurrences, see Aeschylus, Ag. 762; Euripides, Heracl. 839; Plato, Phaedr. 261a; Philodamus 7; 4 Macc 16:10; Plutarch, Mor. [Quaest. plat.] 1001a; Galen, Hipp. epid. 6 [ed. Kühn 17b.145.14]). The phrase links up with the mention of the exceptional beauty of Aristobulus and Mariamme (Ant. 15.23, 27). It may also hint at the tragic fates of Alexandra and her children narrated later in Ant. 15: Alexandra and her children all died at Herod’s order. Several parallel occurrences of καλλίπαις highlight the misfortunes of parents with beautiful children: e.g., Euripides (Heracl. 830-842) dramatically depicts the misfortune of Heracles, who killed his own children. 4 Maccabees’ praise for the mother of the Maccabean martyrs, who watched her 7 sons dying during horrible tortures, includes a passage that formulates what the mother could have thought: “Alas, I who had so many and beautiful children (ὦ ἡ πολύπαις καὶ καλλίπαις ἐγώ) am a widow and alone, with many sorrows” (4 Macc 16:10, trans. NRSV).

War 1.439 does not mention Alexandra and reports that Herod’s mother and sister accused Mariamme of sending her portrait to Antony in Egypt. Schalit (2001: 104-07) argues that the Antiquities version of the “portrait story” (cf. War 1.439-440) is highly improbable. A famous papyrus text from the 2nd cent. CE implies that sending over portraits was a rather common practice in antiquity: BGU (2 no. 423) transmits a letter for the home front from an Egyptian sailor called Apion. He writes from Misenum (near Naples, Italy) to his father Epimachus in Philadelphia (Fayum, Egypt) and states: “I have sent through Euctemon a portrait of myself” (ll. 21-22). This also presupposes that artists skilled to make such portraits were readily available at Misenum (for an English translation of the papyrus and references, see White 1986: 159-60). It is significant that Alexandra apparently did not bother about the 2nd commandment, which forbids Jews to make images of living creatures (see Ant. 15.276 with the note to “images [of human persons]”). The reading οὐδενὸς ἀθετήσειν of MSS FV (Niese 337) implies a slightly different meaning: “would not be denied anything.” Ernesti’s conjecture οὐδενὸς ἀτυχήσειν (“would not fail anything”) is supported by many parallel phrases (e.g., Xenophon, Hell. 3.1.22; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 6.40.1; Plutarch, Alex. 29.9; Lys. 5.4) but is unnecessary. The passage may be ambiguous. Josephus presents Dellius’ plan as the means to realize Alexandra’s strategy, but the reader may wonder whether Dellius himself had different things in mind when he did his proposal to Alexandra. This may be implied by Ant. 15.27 (see the note to “sexual pleasures”).

Ant. 15.28 presupposes that Dellius was still in Judea, which implies that he sent a message to Antony together with the portraits. Letters frequently accompanied the sending of goods (Bagnall and Cribiore 2006: 39). Josephus emphasizes that Dellius is exaggerating the beauty of Mariamme and Aristobulus with, possibly, a depreciating tone.The verb τερατεύομαι (“talk marvels,” LSJ s.v.; “assert something extravagant,” Rengstorf s.v.) occurs twice elsewhere in Josephus, with a negative connotation (War 1.526; 6.200; cf. 3 Macc 1:14). The noun τερατεία can also have a pejorative meaning in Josephus: “trickery, imposture” (War 1.495, 630, Rengstorf s.v.; cf. 6.297). Dellius’ statement reads like a conventional statement presenting beautiful children as potential attractive sexual partners by hinting at their divine origin, though close literary parallels are rare. A fragment from Sappho expresses the feelings of a woman observing a man and a woman in love with that man: “He seems to me to be equal to gods, that man who is sitting facing you and hearing your sweet voice close by, and your lovely laugh. That, I swear, set my heart fluttering in my breast …” (Sappho 31, trans. Dover 1978: 177). The equation to the gods probably indicates great beauty and strength, which implies that the statement of the woman expresses despair: she cannot compete with the man (Dover 1978: 178). The exceptional beauty of Mariamme and Aristobulus added to their attractiveness as sexual partners (Dover 1978: 69-70).The motif of a divine origin of a human child is rare in a Jewish context, but it does occur in Isaiah’s famous prophecy in 9:6 (“For a child has been born for us, a son is given to us; authority rests upon his shoulders; and he is named Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace), which is alluded to in Luke’s story of the annunciation (Luke 1:32). Several early Jewish writings attribute divine properties to Moses (Meeks 1968; van Henten 2006). The motif is prominent in Virgil’s famous fourth Ecloge: “… now a new generation descends from heaven on high. Only do you, pure Lucina, smile on the birth of the child, under whom the iron brood shall at last cease and a golden race spring up throughout the world! Your own Apollo now is king!” (ll. 7-10); “… dear offspring of the gods, mighty seed of a Jupiter to be!” (l. 49; transl. Fairclough). These lines have frequently been interpreted as a veiled reference to the later emperor Augustus (Beaujeu 1982: 191-93), but Slater (1912) already argued convincingly that Virgil composed the poem in ca. 40 BCE in honor of the marriage between Antony and Octavia. Sexual relationships between high Roman officials and members of the family of a client king were a commonplace (Braund 1984: 179 with references; cf. also Ant. 15.97, about Herod and Cleopatra). Josephus makes Dellius’ motive explicit here, although the benefit for Dellius himself is not indicated. It is plausible, though, that providing Antony with one or even two junior lovers would bring some profit to him. Josephus frequently uses the verb πραγματεύομαι (“undertake, bring about,” Rengstorf s.v.) for bringing about something bad or objectionable: poisoning (War 1.583), rebellion (War 2.259, 283, 318; Ant. 11.27), or transgression of the Jewish laws (Ant. 17.151; see also War 2.594; Ant. 15.33). The passage presupposes Antony’s bad reputation concerning love affairs. He was known for his fondness of love affairs with men and women, drinking bouts, gambling and for having huge debts (Cicero, Phil. 2.18, 56, 58, 63, 67-68, 76-77; Plutarch, Ant. 2.3; 4.4; 29.1; 33.3; Dem. 1.7; Mor. [Fort. Rom.] 319f; Huzar 1978: 24, 55-56, 65-66, 99, 154, 168, 190-91, 237, 246, 254; Buchheim 1960: 56, 103; Langlands 2006: 305-15).Josephus must have abhorred Dellius’ plan since he claimed not to seek sexual pleasures, as other passages imply. He was very much against extramarital sexual relationships, in line with the biblical laws (e.g., Apion 2.199-204). Like Philo and several other Jewish authors from the Second Temple period he supported the view that a marriage has to be focused upon running the household and upon procreation (Ant. 1.247; 3.274; Apion 2.199; Satlow 2001: 14-16). The famous story about Joseph and Mrs. Potiphar (Gen 39) sets the example (Ant. 2.39-61). Joseph functions as a model figure, who exemplifies the virtue of self-control (σωφροσύνη). In one of his responses to Mrs. Potiphar he argues that marital fidelity is much more important than the temporary pleasure of satisfying one’s lust (Ant. 2.51-52; Feldman in BJP 3 on Ant. 2.51-52).

Josephus does not inform us of Antony’s response to the portraits, but the episode presupposes the extraordinary beauty of Alexandra’s children. There were obvious reasons for Antony not to summon Mariamme to Egypt, which had to do with Herod as much as with Cleopatra (see the next note). Mariamme was a Hasmonean princess married to the current king of Judea (see Ant. 15.23), who was one of Antony’s most important friends (see 15.5 with the note to “Antony” and 15.77). Starting an affair with Mariamme would have taxed Herod’s loyalty if not turned him into an enemy. Cleopatra’s response to Antony’s advances to Mariamme would be rather predictable: she would surely not tolerate a lover of Antony as competitor. Other passages in Josephus suggest that slander transmitted to Cleopatra was a powerful tool for eliminating an opponent of her. Ant. 15.77 reports about a letter from Herod to his home front, in which he refers to Cleopatra’s accusations against him (which were motivated by her strategy to take over his kingdom). War 1.359-361, 365 suggest in more general terms that Cleopatra applied this strategy to high-ranking officials in Syria as well as to the kings of Judea and Arabia (see also 1.439-440, on Cleopatra’s involvement in the deaths of King Lysanias of Chalcis and the Nabatean king Malichus I [cf. Ant. 15.92], and 15.48, 65, 97). Malichus of Nabatea was also one of Antony’s client kings, but he had been previously punished by Ventidius for siding with the Parthians and was later punished again for his hostile attitude towards Herod. Cassius Dio (49.32.5) confirms that Antony gave portions of Malichus’ land to Cleopatra and her children (Huzar 1978: 160). The expression is almost comical (for a close parallel, see Olympiodorus the Younger, Alcib. 61.23: εἰ μὴ εἲη τοῦτο βαρύ [ed. Westerink 41]). The phrase perhaps hints at Dellius’ dependence on Antony as patronus and ridicules this relationship, or, more plausibly, at Dellius’ delight in accompanying the handsome Aristobulus to Egypt.

Josephus does not inform us directly how Herod got to know this. One can think of spies at Herod’s court, whose role is highlighted elsewhere in Josephus (War 1.492; Ant. 16.236), or of some sort of correspondence between Herod and Dellius or Antony. The latter possibility is confirmed by Ant. 15.30, which passage mentions a response by Herod to Antony. At first glance there seems to be a discrepancy between this statement and other indications that Herod would be glad when Aristobulus—as one of his possible competitors—would be out of his way (cf. Ant. 15.23-38, 42, 45-46). Nevertheless, Josephus’ narrative shows that there were important reasons for Herod to prevent Aristobulus’ trip to Egypt. Aristobulus was Herod’s brother-in-law and of royal descent. It would have been a big shame for Herod’s family if this young man became a lover of Antony (see 15.27 with the note to “sexual pleasures”), or even of Antony and Dellius. Parents tried to protect young men from relationships with senior men (Plato, Symp. 183cd; cf. Aristophanes, Av. 137-142). The phrase ὥρᾳ κάλλιστον ὄντα (“very handsome”) repeats the vocabulary of Ant. 15.23, also referring to Aristobulus (similar vocabulary is found in Aristophanes, Av. 1724; Xenophon, Anab. 4.6.8; Aeschines, Tim. 134.6; 158.11-12; Plutarch, Cleom. 37.7). Aristobulus’ young age was an additional reason for not letting him go: he could not protect himself well enough and was all the more attractive as a junior sexual partner. The noun παῖς (“boy”) is the common word for the ‘passive’ partner in such a relationship. Xenophon (Anab. 7.4.7) refers to such a “boy” who had just reached maturity (Dover 1978: 86): “There was a certain Episthenes of Olynthus who was a lover of boys (παιδεραστής), and upon seeing a handsome boy (παῖδα καλὸν), just in the bloom of youth and carrying a light shield, on the point of being put to death, he ran up to Xenophon and besought him to come to the rescue of a handsome lad” (trans. Brownson). Antony formed with Lepidus and Octavian the 2nd triumvirate, which basically ruled the Roman state in 42-37 BCE. He was the most powerful Roman administrator in the East in the period from the division of the Roman territory at the Treaty of Brundisium in 40 BCE until Octavian’s victory at the Battle of Actium in 31 BCE (Huzar 1978: 138). The passage explicitly states Antony’s lively interest in sexual entertainment, which was already presupposed in Ant. 15.25-27 (for his reputation in sexual contacts with males and females, see 15.27 with the note to “sexual pleasures”). Josephus’ comments about Antony’s relationship with Cleopatra suggest that sexual love (ἔρως) was important from the very beginning and that Antony was enslaved by the queen (see 15.24 with the note to “Cleopatra” and 15.93, 101). An alternative translation of ἀπαρακάλυπτος would be “without feeling shame” (Rengstorf s.v.). The phrase also occurs in Ant. 15.97 (referring to Cleopatra) and in 16.375. Elite men apparently had the privilege to indulge in sexual relationships that were not openly acceptable for others. They could also afford to choose the female partners they wanted, as is apparent from the passage that describes Herod’s marriage with Mariamme II. After the death of Mariamme I, Herod managed to arrange another marriage with the most beautiful woman that lived in Judea in those days (Ant. 15.319-322). Her name was also Mariamme. Interestingly, Josephus connects this arrangement to Herod’s power: he indicates that Herod was capable of simply forcing the woman to live with him, but reports at the same time that Herod decided to strike a deal with her father, appointing him High Priest. Josephus writes: “Yet, he [i.e., Herod] rejected the thought of accomplishing everything by using his power, suspecting, which was true, that he would be accused of using force as well as tyrannical behavior, and considered it better to marry the maiden” (15.321, italics added).Some women could afford to withstand elite men or even take the initiative in finding sexual partners. Cleopatra was one of the very few women who may have allowed themselves a liberal attitude in finding sexual partners (see 15.96-103), although it is not certain that she actually took this liberty. The relationship between Antony and Cleopatra, which started with Antony’s invitation of her to Tarsus in 41 BCE, must have been wanted by Cleopatra as well. It lasted for about 10 years (Cicero, Att. 14.20.2; Strabo 17.1.11; Josephus, War 1.243; Ant. 14.324; Plutarch, Ant. 25-28; Suetonius, Aug. 17.5; Jul. 50.1-2; 52.1-3; Appian, Bell. civ. 5.8; Cassius Dio 48.24.2; Socrates of Rhodes in Athenaeus 4.29; Huzar 1978: 153-54; van Henten 2005a: 114) and Cleopatra married Antony according to Egyptian customs in 35 BCE or somewhat later (Buchheim 1960: 88 with n. 213).

This suggests that Antony put a request to Herod (directly or through Dellius). It implies that Herod was in a position that forced him to balance on the tight rope: although he may have liked that Aristobulus was out of the way, he could not allow Alexandra to proceed with her plan because the risk that the boy would become Antony’s sexual partner was unacceptable (see Ant. 15.29 with the note to “unsafe”). He could not afford either to endanger his relationship with Antony, and had to find an excuse that was acceptable. Reading ἀναπλησθήσεται (“be filled with,” perhaps “be infected with,” LSJ s.v. ἀναπίμπλημι II.2) with Niese (337). Other Josephan passages referring to Judea filled with war and/or rebellion include War 2.65, 265; Ant. 18.9. Rebellion (ταραχή), whether internal or external, is a leitmotiv in War and is presented as an important cause of the war against Rome (e.g., 4.137, 318; 5.356-357). The theme is also prominent in Antiquities, already in the report about the revolt of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram (Num 16; Ant. 4.11-62; see also War 1.245; 2.29, 170, 175-176; 3.308; Ant. 3.43; 14.100; 15.33, 231, 286, 293-295, 326, 353; Life 422). Josephus suggests that Herod used the Jews’ reputation of being a rebellious people to avoid Aristobulus’ journey to Antony, which implies that Herod highlighted his peacekeeping task as Rome’s friendly king, which role Antony could not question. For μεταβολή with the meaning “political change” (Rengstorf s.v.), see, e.g., War 1.5, 171, 270; 2.113; Ant. 1.13; 15.163, 166, 264; 17.346-347; 18.9; Life 36. For the rebellion motif, see Ant. 15.8 with the note to “rebelling.” For νεωτερισμός (“uprising, revolutionary intention,” Rengstorf s.v.), see War 2.259; Ant. 15.353, 424; 17.289, 314; 19.327; 20.106, 113, 133; Life 17, 23, 56, 184. War 1.171, 335; 2.224-225 and Ant. 20.106-107 suggest in several ways that the Jews were inclined to rebel. Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus III were both of Hasmonean descent and obvious candidates for replacing Herod. Although Herod’s motive as described by Josephus is pragmatic, it implies that Herod was at least thinking about potential competitors. Elsewhere Josephus is much more explicit about this and indicates that Herod aimed at having his possible competitors killed (see Ant. 15.49; about Hyrcanus II, see 15.20, 164). That Herod refers to competitors in his correspondence with Antony is ironical, but it matches his role as Rome’s friendly king who had to keep peace in Judea.

The verb ἀτιμάζω (“exclude from honor,” Rengstorf s.v.) echoes the noun ἀτιμία (“disgrace”) in Ant. 15.24 (cf. 16.84, 195). See Ant. 15.23 with the note to “Mariamme.” The combination of ἔγκειμαι (“press”) with λιπαρῶς (“slickly, oily, brilliantly, easily,” LSJ s.v.; Rengstorf s.v.) is quite rare in ancient literature, but it occurs 4 times in Josephus (War 7.108; Ant. 1.56; 16.13; cf. Ant. 4.107; see also Philo, Cher. 48; QG 4.202; Petit 1978: 205). Rengstorf (s.v.) suggests another meaning: “beseeching persistently/constantly/earnestly.” See also Ant. 15.205 about Mariamme and Alexandra’s paying court to Soemus in order to find out about Herod’s secret instructions. Aristobulus III was the obvious candidate for the High Priesthood—also because his grandfather Hyrcanus II had become unfit for it—though he was very young (see Ant. 15.23 with the note to “Aristobulus”; 15.24 with the note to “around”; and 15.11 with the note to “High Priest”). The combination of ἀποδίδωμι and τὴν ἀρχιερωσύνην (“offer the High Priesthood”) also occurs in 20.244, concerning Hyrcanus II. The obvious advantage for Herod was that the High Priesthood would be a very good reason to stop Antony, or Dellius, from trying to get Aristobulus to Egypt (Stern 1974b: 231). An additional advantage was that the office implied that the boy would basically stay in Jerusalem, i.e., in Herod’s environment (although occasional trips outside of Judea of a High Priest are attested in primary sources; Schalit 2001: 109 with n. 43). Schalit (2001: 108-09, 771-72) argues that Herod aimed from the beginning at removing Aristobulus as a possible competitor. The appointment as High Priest would have been part of this long-term strategy. About the friends of a ruler, see Ant. 15.5 with the note to “friends.” Possibly, Herod’s council of friends was partly similar to an emperor’s council, which was a flexible group: it consisted of members from the senatorial and equestrian classes; the specific membership depended on the occasion (Kienast 1999: 181). Such councils were also involved in Augustus’ decision to divide Herod’s kingdom in 3 regions following the king’s death (War 2.25, 85, 93; Ant. 17.229, 301, 318). The meeting of the king’s friends allowed Herod to consult them, but it also made Herod’s accusation of Alexandra official and hence obviously functioned as legitimation of the king’s future dealings with his mother-in-law. Herod used to organize meetings with officials when he was accusing someone of a capital crime (see Ant. 15.174-178 on Hyrcanus’ accusation; 15.229 on Mariamme’s; 16.361-369 on Alexander and Aristobulus’; 16.393 on that of military commanders; 17.93 on Antipater’s trial; and 17.161-167 on a meeting of Jewish officials, which led to the execution of Mathias and several of his companions; see also Schalit 2001: 405). The line functions as introduction of Josephus’ report about a meeting of Herod with his friends (Ant. 15.32-38), which opens with Herod accusing Alexandra (15.31-34). Alexandra defends herself directly after the accusation (15.35-38). Herod then drops the accusation and offers Aristobulus the High Priesthood, and the meeting ultimately leads to a reconciliation between Herod and Alexandra (15.38).

With this general first point Herod’s accusation of Alexandra before the king’s friends starts. The next points specify the accusation, which is presented in indirect speech. The issue of Alexandra’s secretly plotting (κρύφα ἐπιβουλεῦσαι; cf. War 1.263) against the throne seems to be an exaggeration at first glance; yet her interference with Herod’s appointment of the High Priest (Ant. 15.22, 24) concerned a matter of crucial importance for the Jewish state. Although the continuation of the narrative specifies Herod’s accusation of Alexandra, this general charge already implies that Alexandra committed high treason, which no doubt meant that she deserved the death penalty. Alexandra’s choice of Cleopatra as her secret lobbyist was really dangerous for Herod since Cleopatra was his most powerful opponent. Cleopatra and Herod were natural enemies because both of them were dependent on Antony and had to compete for his favors (see Ant. 15.24 with the note to “Cleopatra”). Cleopatra tried many times to get favors from Antony, who was extremely generous to her. He did not always give in, especially if her wishes did not match his or Rome’s interests (15.76; Huzar 1978: 254; Schalit 2001: 120). She did, however, receive several grants, and both War and Antiquities suggest that one of her strategies was to have kings who were dependent on Rome removed and take over their territories (War 1.359-362, 365; Ant. 15.75-79, 88-103, 110 with notes). Here Herod’s accusation goes much further than Alexandra’s arranging the High Priesthood for her son (Ant. 15.24). Herod himself may have exaggerated the scope of Alexandra’s rebellious attempt during the interrogation, or Josephus may have made it up. It is nonetheless conceivable that Alexandra aimed for a restoration of Hasmonean rule, with her son as the new king, despite the fact that her daughter was married with Herod. Further on Josephus notes that Alexandra hoped for a change of government (15.42, 73, 166, 183). The plural τὰ πράγματα (“the matters,” here translated with “the government”) frequently has a political meaning in Josephus and sometimes refers to the government or administration of Judea (e.g., War 1.50, 85, 209; Ant. 15.68, 183-184, 264, 323; Rengstorf s.v.; see also Ant. 15.109, 189, in which similar phrases refer to the government of the Roman Republic; cf. Latin res publica). Cleopatra could only realize Alexandra’s plan if Antony granted it to her as a favor.

Reading βούλεσθαι with Niese (338). Several MSS read βεβουλεῦσθαι (“had planned”). The first section of the paragraph fits well the indirect speech in which Herod’s accusation is formulated, though there are no close parallels in other discourses in Josephus (but cf. Ant. 16.94) or other sources. The rare verb συναποστερέω (“[help to] strip/cheat,” LSJ s.v.; Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. Alexandra’s daughter Mariamme was the queen (see Ant. 15.23), and Herod would most probably have ended his marriage with her if Alexandra was successful with her plan. Marriages of kings and high officials frequently extended and strengthened networks of useful relations among the powerful; a change of the political situation could lead to the dissolution of such marriages. For the motif of disorder, see Ant. 15.22 with the note to “within his household” and van Henten 2011d. Note the alliteration in the phrase πολλὰ πονήσαντος. The combination of the adverbial πολλά (“a lot”) and the verb πονέω (“work hard, suffer”) also occurs in Life 11 (Mason in BJP 9 on 11). It is a conventional phrase in non-Jewish Greek literature (e.g., Homer, Il. 9.348; Ctesias FGH 688 1b.2.4; Aristophanes, Vesp. 685; Xenophon, Cyr. 7.2.11; Oec. 8.21; Aristotle, Rhet. 1363 a3; Diodorus 2.2.4; 17.99.6; Plutarch, Cam. 8.1; Pomp. 29.5; Diogenes Laertius 5.72). This is a further conventional motif in Greek literature (Lysias 2.43). In Ant. 16.94 Herod uses a similar argument during the accusation of his sons before Caesar: “How was it possible and right that they did not allow him to be master over a realm that he had acquired after many hardships and dangers?” The combination of references to hardships as well as dangers is conventional too in Greek literature, from the late 1st cent. BCE onward (see, e.g., Dionysius, Ant. rom. 3.9.4).Josephus elsewhere uses the aorist participle of τυγχάνω (“happen to be at”) with the negation οὐ and the article to highlight the extraordinary character of persons, things, or events (see War 4.90; Ant. 2.120; 6.292; 7.44; 15.380; Apion 2.46; LSJ s.v. A.I.2b; Rengstorf s.v.).

By stating that he was not going to talk about Alexandra’s deeds, Herod drew attention to them. Although Josephus does not present Herod’s statement in direct speech, the passage is related to a well-known figure of speech, praeteritio (i.e., stating something by saying that one is not going to mention it), which is sometimes used in an ironic way (Lausberg 1998: 393-94; see also the next note). Herod presents himself as a just person, which is ironic in the perspective of other Josephan passages, especially in Antiquities, which emphasize his lack of justice: 15.375-376 (Manaemus’ prediction); 16.376 (the soldier Tiro’s criticism of Herod; cf. War 1.544); and 16.404 (with Josephus’ own comment concluding the narrative of book 16: “In his later [period] he also showed that he did not even keep away from all those remaining behind whom he considered his dearest. In their case justice caused that those who perished were less pitied for, but his cruelty remained the same because he did not even spare them. But we shall deal with them in detail when we relate the next section [of our report],” my trans.).The continuation of the narrative in book 15 suggests that Herod was considerate of Alexandra and Aristobulus’ honor, but it is doubtful whether that was a matter of justice: Alexandra had behaved very badly, as she herself admits (15.35), but Herod tempers justice with mercy. For the verb προκαθίστημι (“appoint previously, etc.”), see Ant. 15.381 with the note to “preparing them beforehand.” The statement concludes Josephus’ rendering of Herod’s speech. For Ananel’s appointment, see Ant. 15.22; on Herod’s possible motives for this appointment and Aristobulus’ age—also in connection with the High Priesthood—15.24 with the note to “he was around” and 15.29, 51 with notes. Strikingly, the accusation of Alexandra leads, in fact, to Herod’s decision to let her have her way, which implies that there were limits to his power. Alexandra and Aristobulus’ sister, Mariamme, exerted considerable pressure on Herod (see 15.31 and 15.35 with the plural “the women”; cf. also 15.202).

Josephus’ own comment follows upon Herod’s speech and suggests that the king manipulated the chain of the events in detail. This remark suggests that Herod was clever as well as perfidious, and very much capable of working on a long-term strategy, all the more so because one of these women was his spouse. Josephus, whose statements are often not really flattering for women (Sievers 1989; Mayer-Schärtel 1995; Ilan 1999: 85-97; Brenner 2003), sometimes portrays women deceiving men (e.g., War 2.249; Ant. 8.211). The passage indicates that Alexandra and Mariamme were capable of forming a faction at the court that included “friends”—which term probably has the technical meaning of “friends of the king,” i.e., influential persons at the court (see Ant. 15.5 with the note to “the friends around him” and 15.185, 202-203, 206, 213, 231). The passage attributes mixed feelings to Alexandra during her accusation. Being under Herod’s suspicion (ὑποψία) was a dangerous position (War 1.493; Ant. 16.108, 236, 315; cf. War 1.538, 561, 584, 612; Ant. 15.42, 44, 221, 265; 16.11, 125, 210, 251). Antiquities highlights Herod’s boundless suspicion as one of his tyrannical traits (van Henten 2011b). Josephus’ note in the introduction of Alexandra’s defense—like Herod’s given in indirect speech—that she was in tears underlines this dramatic moment in the narrative and may also characterize her as a woman who knows the impact of an appeal to the audience’s emotions. Her emotional behavior immediately before her daughter Mariamme’s execution (Ant. 15.232-234) was counter-productive (cf. 15.58).

Alexandra sticks to her claim that her son Aristobulus was entitled to receive the high priestly office (Ant. 15.24) and presents it twice in this passage as a matter of honor (cf. 15.23), which is in keeping with the cultural code of “honor and shame” in ancient society (Neyrey 1998). The noun ἀδοξία (“disgrace, disdain,” Rengstorf s.v.) also occurs in 15.210, referring to Mariamme I. This counters Herod’s accusation of Alexandra as reported in Ant. 15.32 (cf. 15.42). It would have been suicide, of course, if Alexandra admitted in public that her strategy was to have her son on the throne instead of Herod. Cf. 15.73, where Josephus suggests that she was aiming for the throne even after the death of her son. This detail is ironic in light of Alexandra’s attempts to revolt and to take over the throne (see Ant. 15.23 with the note to “Alexandra”). The statement is perfectly understandable since it is coming from a proud mother, but it is highly ironic in the larger context of the narrative because Aristobulus would soon die, being still young. He even died (Ant. 15.50-56) before Mariamme, Hyrcanus, and Alexandra herself were executed (15.172-182, 231-237, 251).

This is again ironic since Alexandra got her objectives from Herod and not from Antony (see Ant. 15.24). At the same time these almost ridiculously polite words reflect what one would expect to hear from a civilized and important person at the court. In the light of the context there may even be some reason for gratitude on the part of Alexandra since she had asked Herod’s rival Cleopatra for help. From this perspective Herod’s decision not to punish her as well as his transfer of the High Priesthood to Alexandra’s son were benevolent acts. For other benefactions of Herod, see War 1.284, 293, 632; Ant. 16.24-25, 140, 146, 150, 159. This statement is ironic because Alexandra’s actual behavior is far from being obedient in every respect (see Ant. 15.23 with the note to “Alexandra”). She calls on Cleopatra for help on 2 further occasions (15.45, 62). These words express a remarkable amount of self-knowledge in the light of the comments by others, including the narrator, that Alexandra (as well as her daughter Mariamme; see Ant. 15.238) acted as an arrogant woman, who allowed herself great liberties and freedom of speech (παρρησία), which were legitimated in her view because of her Hasmonean descent (War 1.437; cf. Ant. 15.44, 85, 210, 212, 236, 238). Mariamme’s sons Alexander and Aristobulus IV (War 1.445-449, 468, 522; Ant. 16.192, 399) displayed similar behavior (see especially War 1.468: “They, however, given their high birth, said whatever was on their mind,” trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a 1.468). Alexander’s spouse Glaphyra, the daughter of King Archelaus of Cappadocia, measures up to Alexandra and Mariamme’s haughtiness (War 1.476; Ant. 16.193). The noun ἀναξιοπάθεια is rare in Josephus. LSJ (s.v.) mention the passage and offer “unworthy treatment” or “indignation (about such treatment)” as meanings. Rengstorf (s.v.) gives “indignation (at unreasonable demands)” (see also Ant. 15.283; 18.47). In 15.44 the verb ἀναξιοπαθέω (“be/grow indignant about/at”) again refers to Alexandra. The verb occurs once elsewhere in Josephus, referring to Glaphyra (16.193; see also the preceding note and 15.23-24, 36 about “honor” as Alexandra’s main motive).

With this note Josephus starts his conclusion of the brief trial scene (consisting of speeches by Herod and Alexandra). The verb ὁμιλέω can mean “converse with, speak” (e.g., Ant. 11.159, 260) but has in this forensic context the more official meaning of “address” (LSJ s.v. III.3). The phrase ἐν δεξιαῖς is highly unusual in Greek literature. Niese (339) reads ἐπί instead of ἐν and proposes to add a verbal form (γενόμενοι), which makes sense, although it is not strictly necessary since Josephus uses the plural δεξιαῖς with the preposition ἐπί without a verbal form in Ant. 17.284: “He [i.e., one of Athronges’ brothers] surrendered to Archelaus, after making a pledge (ἐπὶ δεξιαῖς) and receiving a guarantee of his personal safety in the name of God” (my trans.). The plural δεξιαί from δεξιά (“right hand”) can mean “assurances, pledges” (LSJ s.v. 2; see also War 4.96; Ant. 14.7). The expression σπουδαιότερον ἢ θᾶττον (“more eagerly than quickly” [implying they were keen but it took some time] or “more carefully than quickly”) has no parallels in ancient Greek literature. Niese (339) conjectures that the word order should be changed: “more quickly than carefully,” which suits the context well because the continuation of the paragraph already raises doubt whether the settlement will last for long. Several other translators propose “with greater enthusiasm than before” (Marcus-Wikgren 18 n. b; Meijer-Wes 3.156; see also the next note). The translation is supported by the Latin version (Niese 339; see also Thackeray and Marcus 1930-55: 8). The imperfect διελύοντο can also be interpreted as an imperfectum de conatu: “they tried to reconcile themselves” (cf. Theophrastus, Char. 12.13). An alternative translation would be “and broke up their meeting.” With this brief note Josephus focuses the attention on the issue of Alexandra and Herod’s suspicion of each other, anticipating further occasions on which this suspicion would crop up again (see Ant. 15.42 with the note to “suspicion”).

This decision was taken at the beginning of 35 BCE at the earliest (Schürer-Vermes 1.288 n. 3, 297). Cross-references in Josephus frequently do not specify the previous passages. Here it concerns Ant. 15.22, about Ananel’s appointment. For similar expressions that indicate cross-references, see, e.g., War 7.253; Ant. 1.135, 203; 4.311; 9.28; 10.150; 13.62, 256; 14.467; 15.240. Concerning the Jews living in Babylonia, see Ant. 15.14 with notes. Literally Josephus writes “not a few tens of thousands.” He frequently applies the figure of litotes, i.e., making a statement by indicating the negative of its opposite, which emphasizes something by understating it (e.g., “not small” = “quite big”). See, e.g., Ant. 3.299; 8.378; 9.165; 11.312; 13.60; 15.150-151, 169, 171, 271, 307.

A previous passage about Ananel (Ant. 15.22) suggests a quite different status of his family (“a rather obscure priest from Babylon”). The information given here seems more plausible. The phrase κατὰ συνήθειαν (“according to custom”) probably refers to the normal way (cf. Ant. 2.11) of treating people of high priestly ancestry, which was quickly nullified by the fact that when Herod’s personal family situation imposed itself he had no qualms about violating these customary manners. Another but less plausible interpretation, translating “according to his [Herod’s] habit,” focuses on Herod’s way of dealing with persons of high priestly ancestry. This reading would be remarkable in the light of Josephus’ usually negative portrayal of the king and draws attention to the possibility that Herod’s image in Antiquities is the result of Josephus’ own negative interpretation of the person Herod as well as of his rule (van Henten 2011b). For τιμάω (“honor, esteem highly”) with Herod as subject, see Ant. 15.372 with the note to “honor.” The disorder in Herod’s household is a recurring motif in the Herod section of Antiquities (see 15.22 with the note to “within his household”). The remark links up with the earlier information about Alexandra and Mariamme’s efforts to have Aristobulus appointed High Priest (see 15.23-24, 31). The comment must reflect Josephus’ own voice as narrator because Alexandra, Mariamme, and Aristobulus clearly did not bother about Ananel’s dismissal. Josephus points out several times that Herod transgressed the Jewish laws with particular decisions (e.g., Ant. 15.272-290; 17.148-164, 304). The continuation of the narrative elaborates this accusation. Josephus presents the removal as an unlawful deed because the High Priesthood was apparently an appointment for life (Schürer-Vermes 1.297). The exceptions mentioned in Ant. 15.41, however, show that similar decisions had already been taken. They suggest that the power of the ruler was the decisive factor. Josephus does not mention any biblical passage that indicates that the High Priesthood was an office to be held until death. Yet a lifelong appointment seems self-evident because of the hereditary character of the High Priesthood, which was adopted by the Hasmoneans. Herod put this tradition to an end: he, his successor Archelaus, as well as the Roman governors dismissed several High Priests and clearly did not consider an appointment for life as standard practice (Schürer-Vermes 2.228, 232-33). Richardson (1996: 163 n. 50) argues that the degree of Herod’s offense depends on the legitimacy of Ananel’s appointment (whether or not he was from a high priestly family) and the validity of Aristobulus (he may have been too young for the High Priesthood; see 15.24 with the note to “he was around”).

The Seleucid king Antiochus IV (175-164 BCE) is presented as the archenemy of the Jewish people in 1, 2, and 4 Maccabees (1 Macc 1; 2 Macc 4:7-9:29; 4 Macc 4:15-17:24) as well as in other ancient Jewish sources (see, e.g., Dan 7:8, 11, 20-21, 24-26; 8:9-12, 23-25; 11:21-45; Josephus, Ant. 12.234-361; Mörkholm 1966; Lebram 1975; van Henten 1993). For concise surveys of Antiochus’ policy in Judea, see Schürer-Vermes 1.146-62; Gera 1998: 141-61. That Antiochus was a forerunner of Herod in connection with the dismissal of High Priests adds to the negative appreciation of Herod in Antiquities. Jesus is named Jason in 2 Maccabees, which is the primary source about this High Priest (2 Macc 4:7-5:10). He received the high priestly office from Antiochus IV shortly after Antiochus had succeeded his brother Seleucus IV in 175 BCE. He had promised the king 440 talents of silver (2 Macc 4:8) in order to take over the office from his brother Onias III (Schürer-Vermes 1.148-50). Josephus (Ant. 12.237) states that Jason received the High Priesthood from Antiochus after Onias had died, which does not match the information given in 2 Macc 4. Onias is identical with the High Priest Menelaus mentioned in 2 Macc 4:23-5:15; 11:29; 13:1-8. He could take over the High Priesthood from Jason because he offered 300 talents of silver more than Jason did (2 Macc 4:23-24). Josephus states that he was a brother of Jason and another Onias (Onias III), and that he changed his name to Menelaus (Ant. 12.238-239; 20.235). This refers to Aristobulus II, who was involved in a power-struggle with his elder brother Hyrcanus II. The latter had been appointed High Priest by their mother, Queen Salome Alexandra (see Ant. 15.12 with the note to “High Priest and then king”). I.e., Aristobulus III (see Ant. 15.34, 39-40, and cf. War 1.437). The year of his appointment was 37/36 or 36/35 BCE. If Josephus’ order of the events is correct and we assume that Dellius’ proposal to Alexandra (Ant. 15.25-28) made sense only when Antony was in Egypt, then the appointment took place after the end of 36 BCE, which implies that the Festival of Tabernacles (celebrated in the month of Tishri) during which Aristobulus acted as High Priest (15.50-51) was the festival of 35 BCE. Buchheim (1960: 116-17) assumes, however, that Josephus was not well informed about Antony’s periods in Egypt and opts for (Tishri) 36 BCE on the basis of the chronological framework of Antiquities, which is reliable in his opinion (contrary to the presentation in War). Schalit (2001: 111-12 with n. 48) argues for the turn of the Jewish year 37/36 BCE, which is the early fall of 36 BCE, i.e., about the same period as the one argued for by Buchheim.

For the motif of disturbances within Herod’s family (cf. Ant. 15.40), see 15.22 with the note to “household.” Herod’s suspicion (ὑποψία) is a recurring motif in the Antiquities narrative about his reign (see 15.35 with the note to “suspicion” as well as 15.183 concerning Alexandra; 15.210 concerning Mariamme; 15.258 concerning Costobar; 16.223 concerning Syllaeus and Salome; and last but not least 16.90, 108, 119, 324, 334 concerning Herod’s sons). For ἀνύποπτος (“unsuspected, without suspicion,” Rengstorf s.v.) in the Herod narrative of Antiquities, see 15.21, 258; 16.82, 119 (cf. War 1.604). Josephus’ note may reflect a truism (“people remain suspicious after a reconciliation”; for other truisms, see Ant. 15.353 with the note to “rejoice most”), although it also makes sense in connection with the continuing story of Herod’s relationships with his mother-in-law and with his wife (van Henten 2010). The noun διαλλαγή (“change, reconciliation,” LSJ s.v.) occurs in 15.211 in connection with Herod’s relationship with Mariamme, highlighting the short duration of Herod’s reconciliation with her (see also War 1.454, 456, 465, 511, 513; Ant. 16.128, 131, 309, 367 about Herod’s reconciliations with his sons Alexander and Aristobulus IV). For the rare combination of the verb ἀξιόω (“expect, etc.”) and the infinitive δεδοικέναι (“fear”), see Heliodorus, Aeth. 8.11.4; Libanius, Decl. 48.1.39; Prog. 9.7.28. The Greek νεώτερα πράγματα implies that Herod feared that Alexandra would aim for a rebellion when she had the opportunity (cf. War 5.152; Ant. 14.327; 15.8 [with the note to “rebelling”], 30 [with notes]; 17.2; 19.91; 20.109; Life 36, 70, 87, 391). For the vocabulary, see Xenophon, Hell. 5.2.9; Isocrates, Areop. 59; Diodorus 15.77; LSJ s.v. νεώτερος II.2. The phrase καιρὸν λαμβάνω (“seize the occasion, receive the opportunity”) is common in Classical and Hellenistic Greek (see, e.g., Euripides, Ion 659; Thucydides 6.86.4; 2 Macc 14:5; Josephus, War 1.527; Ant. 4.10; 13.135; 15.213; Plutarch, Arat. 33.3).

Josephus does not specify the palace. One could also translate “her palace,” but a special palace for Alexandra is nowhere mentioned. The phrase could refer to any of the Herodian palaces or fortresses, though the Hasmonean palace in Jerusalem used by Herod (see Ant. 15.71 with the note to “the palace”) or one of the Herodian palaces at Jericho would be most plausible (descriptions and references in Netzer 2001). In these cases Alexandra would have been staying close to Herod most of the time. For a similar expression of the verb λανθάνω (“escape [notice],” Rengstorf s.v.) followed by the negation οὐδέ, see Ant. 15.277, in which passage Herod is the object (“it did not escape Herod’s notice”). The information is remarkable in connection with the previous sentences. Alexandra’s situation comes close to house arrest, which puts Josephus’ description of the reconciliation between Herod and his mother-in-law in a different perspective. The passage suggests that there was some punishment of her, and that Herod’s treatment shows the king’s serious suspicion that she would undermine his rule. At the same time Josephus’ characterization of Alexandra as a determined and independent aristocratic woman (see the next paragraph and Schalit 2001: 110) implies that the treatment was asking for trouble, as the continuation of the narrative shows.

Josephus also uses the verb ἐξαγριόω (“make/be wild”) in the description of Herod at the end of his life (see Ant. 17.148 with notes). With Niese (340), who reads ἐπέφυετο (“originated …,” Rengstorf s.v.) with MSS PFV. MSS LAMWE read ὑπέφυετο (“caused [hatred] to grow in secret,” Marcus-Wikgren 22 n. a). Josephus’ vocabulary suggests his view that women had a special mindset (φρόνημα γυναικεῖον), which caused Alexandra to be incapable of controlling her emotions (cf., however, Ant. 15.59-60). See also 15.69, 168, 218 and 15.235-237 with notes, and on Josephus’ not always favorable portrayal of women in general, 15.35 with the note to “deceiving the women.” See Ant. 15.37 with the note to “unworthy treatment.” The noun ἐπιμέλεια (“care, supervision,” Rengstorf s.v.) can have a negative connotation, as it does here. Ironically, Ant. 15.44 links up with Alexandra’s excuse offered to Herod in 15.37 for acting rashly out of indignation. See Ant. 15.35, 42 with the notes to “suspicion.” The phrase τῆς παρρησίας στερομένη also recalls Ant. 15.37 (see the note to “frankness”), which contains the noun παρρησία (“freedom [of speech/to act]”). For similar phrases, see Demosthenes, Or. 3.32; 7.1; 45.79; 59.28; Diodorus 1.78.2, 9; 34-35.26.1. For honor and shame as important motives for Alexandra’s acts, see Ant. 15.23-24, 31, 36.

History repeats itself: Alexandra wrote for the first time to Cleopatra in Ant. 15.24. Josephus does not inform us about Cleopatra’s motive for the advice. It would have ended up in a similar result as Dellius’ earlier plan (Ant. 15.27): a transfer of the young Aristobulus to Egypt. In light of Josephus’ depiction of Cleopatra’s behavior in Antiquities (see van Henten 2005a) one can easily imagine that the queen’s purpose was to weaken Herod’s position. Even if the plan failed, the outcome would plausibly be that Herod had become further alienated from his mother-in-law and brother-in-law, which would enhance the dissension within the family.

Alexandra’s decision does not seem plausible, which raises doubt about the reliability of the whole story about her attempt to escape. The flight of Alexandra and her son would no doubt jeopardize Aristobulus’ role as High Priest. Had the plan succeeded, she and her son would have lived as exiles in Egypt without much prospect of a return to Jerusalem. Perhaps Alexandra thought that Cleopatra could work something out for her, but the larger context implies that Cleopatra mainly pursued her own interests. The plan would also have made Mariamme’s position complicated: she would have ended up in a loyalty conflict between faithfulness to her husband on the one hand and to her mother and brother on the other hand. Alexandra’s decision only makes sense if she also arranged for Herod’s murder, but Josephus does not inform us of such a plan. Schalit (2001: 110) considers the core of the story to be historical. The rare verb τεχνάζω (“use art/cunning,” LSJ s.v. II; Rengstorf s.v.) also has a negative connotation in Ant. 18.85. Josephus’ report about Alexandra’s plan to leave with her son for Egypt in 2 coffins recalls the Jewish funerary custom of burying outside a town or city (see Ant. 15.6 with the note to “with the corpses”). The plan resembles the famous tradition about Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai leaving Jerusalem in a coffin during the war against Rome. The story is found in the 2 versions of the Avot of Rabbi Nathan (’Abot R. Nat. a 4.1.2 and ’Abot R. Nat. b 6), in the Babylonian Talmud (b. Giṭ. 56b), and in Lam. Rab. 1.5 (detailed discussion and further references in Neusner 1962; 1970). Josephus’ geographical information is rather vague; the obvious route was to travel to the harbor city of Joppa-Jafo and embark there.

The name Aesopus (Αἴσωπος) occurs only once in Josephus (Schalit 1968: 6). It is a well-known Greek name; a collection of fables was attributed to a slave with that name (see already Herodotus 2.134; further references in Luzzato and Wittenburg 1996). It is unclear whether Aesopus was a Jewish servant. His name is not incorporated by Ilan 2002. The rare Greek name Sabbion (Σαββίων) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus (Schalit 1968: 104; Fraser and Matthews 1987-2010: 1.400). A variant of this name (i.e., Σαβ[β]ίωνος) is transmitted in an inscription on a sarcophagus from Nablus (probably 2nd cent. CE, Ilan 2002: 305). “Friend” here probably has the social-political meaning of somebody belonging to the inner circle of influential persons of a ruler or high official (see Ant. 15.5 with the note to “the friends around him”), which is confirmed by the context and implies that Sabbion belonged to Alexandra’s faction before he took Herod’s side. The translation follows LSJ (s.v. προπίπτω II.2). Rengstorf (s.v.) proposes to translate “when he met him accidentally.” This is a flashback that refers to the murder of Herod’s father Antipater at the instigation of a Nabatean called Malichus, who acts as Antipater’s main opponent in War 1.220-237. Herod’s father was poisoned (War 1.226; Ant. 14.281; Schürer-Vermes 1.277). The Greek of Josephus’ phrase echoes, with ἐπιβουλευσάντων (“those who plotted against”) and φαρμακείαν (“poison”), the vocabulary of War 1.223, 226; Ant. 14.277, 281. Sabbion is not mentioned in War 1.226; Ant. 14.281. The continuation of the narrative suggests that Herod considered Sabbion to have been part of the plot against his father. Josephus reports in Ant. 15.170 about Dositheus’ betrayal of Hyrcanus II to Herod; Dositheus would also have hoped that the king would reward him (Kokkinos 1998: 151). Stern (1974b: 271) argues that important supporters of the Hasmonean cause went over to Herod because he had become much more powerful.

Cf. Ant. 16.213, concerning Pheroras. For vocabulary similar to ἐπ’ αὐτοφώρῳ (“in the act”) combined with λαμβάνω or complex forms of that verb, see Euripides, Ion 1214; Plato, Resp. 359c; Lysias 13.85; Isocrates, Callim. 53; Demosthenes, Or. 19.132; 45.59, 70; Dinarchus, Demosth. 77; Achilles Tatius 7.11.1. Josephus distinguishes between Herod’s personal thoughts and his actual behavior towards Alexandra and Aristobulus, which highlights the king’s shrewdness (see also Ant. 15.49). Niese (340) reads βουλομένῳ ἦν αὐτῷ, following Hudson’s conjecture. Marcus-Wikgren (24 n. a) state that the expression was already used by Thucydides (2.3.2). However, the reading βουλόμενον ἦν αὐτῷ transmitted by the MSS and E is also supported by a parallel in Thucydides (5.65.3; see also Athenaeus 2.10.100; 9.56.31). Fear for Cleopatra’s hatred is also mentioned as Herod’s motive in Ant. 15.106. Otto (1913: 42) and Schalit (2001: 110 n. 47) argue that such a fear cannot have been the reason for pardoning Alexandra. Schalit suggests that killing mother and son simultaneously would have been counter-productive for Herod. Richardson (1996: 163 n. 52) states that Josephus’ note suggests a serious breach in the relationship between Herod and Cleopatra. However, it is plausible that Herod and Cleopatra had become enemies starting from the moment Herod’s position as King of Judea was secure (see 15.24 with the note to “Cleopatra”). The noun μεγαλοψυχία can have several nuances: “greatness of mind, magnanimity, generosity, liberality” (Rengstorf s.v.). The word occurs several times in the Herod narrative of Antiquities (and not at all in War), and most of the passages highlight it as an important feature of Herod’s character: Ant. 15.48 (referring to Herod’s magnanimity towards Alexandra); 15.196 (concerning Herod’s very generous reception of Octavian and his army); 15.237 (referring to Mariamme); and 16.140-141 (concerning Herod’s generosity towards Octavian and Marcus Agrippa). In 16.153 Josephus mentions μεγαλοψυχία as one of Herod’s central characteristics (cf. War 1.554; Ant. 15.316). See also the related adjective μεγαλόψυχος (“high-minded, magnanimous, liberal,” Rengstorf s.v.), which is used in War 1.422 in connection with Herod’s building activities and in 1.554 in connection with Antipater’s generosity (interpreted negatively) towards Octavian’s friends. It occurs several times in the Herod narrative of Antiquities: in 15.316 it concerns Herod’s character; in 15.326-328 his generosity towards foreign cities and his Roman patrons, as well as his behavior as king; and in 15.356 his magnanimity towards foreigners (cf. 16.25 concerning Marcus Agrippa). For the combination of ἐμφαίνω and μεγαλοψυχία as object (“show magnanimity”), see 15.196 and Polybius 30.17.4. Having made up his mind, Herod apparently realized that the only serious option was to pardon both, which he did in a large-hearted way according to Josephus’ description (cf. Hyrcanus II, who’s reasonableness or kindness [ἐπιείκεια] is emphasized several times by Josephus: Ant. 14.13; 15.165, 177, 182).

The statement anticipates the murder of Aristobulus, which is narrated in Ant. 15.50-56. The phrase ἐκποδὼν ποιεῖσθαι (“get [someone] out of one’s way,” meaning “have someone murdered”) also occurs in 15.20, concerning Hyrcanus II, who was ultimately executed at Herod’s orders (see 15.20 with the note to “get him out of the way” at 15.20). For similar vocabulary, see Xenophon, Anab. 1.6.9; Hell. 2.3.16; Isocrates, Antid. 175; Arrian, Anab. 1.25.5; Cassius Dio 61.7.2. The association with the passage about Hyrcanus II in Ant. 15.20 is strengthened by the repetition of παντάπασιν (“in any possible way”). Josephus’ vocabulary is rather vague here, but the implication is clear: Herod apparently realized that having Aristobulus murdered immediately after the attempt to escape for Egypt would make it obvious that he was behind the young man’s death (Schalit 2001: 113). Nevertheless, Josephus’ sequence of the events suggests that Aristobulus was murdered soon afterwards (see Ant. 15.50-56). The brief report about Aristobulus’ death in War 1.437 strongly suggests that he was killed directly after his installation as High Priest.

The Festival of Tabernacles (further references in War 2.515; Ant. 4.209; 8.100, 123; 11.77, 154; 13.46, 241, 304, 372) is one of the main Jewish holidays and is described in the Bible (Exod 23:16; 34:22; Lev 23:41-43). It is celebrated during 8 days in the month of Tishri (15-22 Tishri), in the autumn. In the periods of the First and Second Temples it functioned as a festival of pilgrimage during which the Jews from abroad were coming to Jerusalem. The crowds gathered in the Temple precinct in order to participate in the festivities (Safrai 1976: 875). Characteristic practices are the setting up of booths as temporary residences and carrying palm-fronds (as described in Ant. 13.372). If Aristobulus was appointed in 35 BCE (see 15.41 with the note to “Aristobulus”), it concerns the Festival of Tabernacles of the year 35 BCE (with Schürer-Vermes 1.297; Buchheim [1960: 116-17] argues for 36 BCE). The translation follows the reading ἐνστάσης of MSS LAMWE, which is confirmed by 2 parallel passages (Ant. 4.209; 13.46; cf. 13.304). Niese (341) reads ἐπεχούσης (“was being celebrated”) with MS P. When a Jewish festival or another Jewish practice is mentioned, Josephus frequently interrupts his narrative with a parenthesis in which he briefly explains the relevant festival or practice (see, e.g., Ant. 14.25; 17.254; 20.106). This habit indicates that non-Jewish readers were important for Josephus (further discussion in Mason 1998). Here Josephus merely notes that the Festival of Tabernacles was well observed by the Jews (cf. 8.100). This remark is ironic in the light of the information in Ant. 15.49 that Herod’s strategy was to wait long enough with his measures against Aristobulus in order that the public would not connect the High Priest’s death with the attempt to escape to Egypt (related in 15.45-48). Herod was apparently impatient. This detail confirms that Herod observed Jewish religious practices, at least when he was in Jerusalem (van Henten 2008b)—although the continuation of the narrative immediately blackens the king again. The next paragraphs indicate that Herod was envious of Aristobulus for several reasons. The king’s jealousy is a recurring motif in both of Josephus’ Herod narratives (War 1.463, 633-634; Ant. 15.66-67, 82, 164; 16.248).

Aristobulus is also called a young man (μειράκιον) in Ant. 15.30, 32, 49, 53, 55. The same noun is frequently used for Herod and Mariamme’s 2 sons, Alexander and Aristobulus IV (see 16.7, 68-69, 71, 78, etc.). That Aristobulus was 17 when he received the high priestly office is confirmed by the parallel passage of War (1.437). The transfer of the High Priesthood to Aristobulus probably took place in the fall of 35 BCE (see Ant. 15.41 with the note to “Aristobulus” and 15.50 with the note to “Festival of Tabernacles”). This phrase introduces the report about Aristobulus’ first actual performance as High Priest (Schalit 2001: 111). The parallel passage in War (1.437) briefly reports that Aristobulus put on the sacred vestments and approached the altar during a festive assembly of the people. The ordination procedure of Aaron and his sons as High Priests is described in great detail in Exod 29:1-37, 43-46, and their actual ordination in Lev 8-9 (see also Josephus’ rendering of these passages in Ant. 3.188-192, 204-207). Josephus does not explicitly refer to the ritual of Aristobulus’ installation, and there are no close parallels between Ant. 15.51 and LXX Exod 29; LXX Lev 8-9. However, the response of the people present at Aristobulus’ first public appearance as High Priest (15.52) renders it plausible that 15.51 refers to his installation. The ordination procedure described in Exod 29:1-37, 43-46 is interrupted by a brief description of the daily sacrifices in the Temple (29:38-42): a lamb, flour mixed with beaten oil, and wine in the morning; a lamb, grain, and wine in the evening. It is possible that Josephus hints at this passage with “the Law” (the noun θῦμα [“sacrifice”] also occurs in LXX Exod 29:28; cf. Ant. 6.101; 14.477), though the reference might also concern the extensive section about sacrifices and the installation of Aaron and his sons in Lev 1-9. For further discussion and references about the daily sacrifices in the Temple, see Schürer-Vermes 2.292-308. Similar vocabulary in Ant. 3.178. The High Priest wore a very special and costly outfit, including a breastpiece and the so-called ephod (see the extensive description in Exod 28). Antiquities (3.159-187, 214-218) offers a detailed discussion of the vestments of the High Priest and their symbolic meanings (see the notes of Feldman in BJP 3). Aristobulus’ handsomeness is also highlighted in Ant. 15.23, 29. Josephus’ apt phrase (κάλλει τε κάλλιστος καὶ) is a nice example of alliteration (for other examples of alliterations with k, see War 2.68, 76; Ant. 15.339; Apion 2.35, 175). Josephus emphasizes here and elsewhere that the members of the Hasmonean dynasty distinguished themselves from other Jews by the “noblesse” that came with their royal descent (ἀξίωμα can mean “dignity, status, rank,” Rengstorf s.v.). This motif is articulated in 3 ways: (1) the noble descent is clearly apparent from the exceptional beauty of—at least some of—the Hasmoneans, such as Aristobulus III and his sister Mariamme (e.g., Ant. 15.23, 25-29, 237; see also 16.7); (2) their aristocratic origin meant that they they would not tolerate being criticized or dominated by others, and that they would speak their minds, even if that would be clearly counter-productive (cf. several passages about Mariamme; see 15.238 with the note to “license of tongue”); and (3) the descent had consequences for the honor and shame code since the royal Hasmoneans were hypersensitive toward infringements on their honor and status, as Alexandra’s responses to Herod’s actions show (15.23, 36-37, 44-45).

This passage introduces the elaborate description of the Jewish people’s emotional response to Aristobulus’ public performance. It suggests, like Herod’s motive for not sending Aristobulus over to Antony (see Ant. 15.30), that the young man enjoyed considerable support (see also 15.167; 16.7, 234; 17.330). Two reasons seem obvious for this support. First, Aristobulus was a young and very promising member of the dynasty that had previously ruled the people. The association with his grandfather in the continuation of the narrative supports this interpretation. The Hasmoneans still had powerful supporters at Herod’s court (see 15.47 with the note to “Sabbion”). The second reason concerns the obvious antipathy for Herod. It is not explicitly mentioned here, though probably presupposed, since it is a main thread in the Herod narrative of Antiquities. Papponomy (i.e., to be named after one’s grandfather) was rather common in high priestly families in the Persian and Hellenistic periods (Scolnic 1999). Aristobulus’ grandfather was Aristobulus II, who took over the High Priesthood from Hyrcanus II in 67 BCE (see Ant. 15.12 with the note to “High Priest and then king”). The people’s mixed feelings are easily explainable in the light of Herod’s sensitivity about possible competitors (see Ant. 15.1-2, 18-20 with notes) and his suspicious character (see 15.35, 42 with the notes to “suspicion”). The last part of the paragraph implies that too much sympathy and support for Aristobulus would backfire. The parallel passage in War (1.437) briefly notes that the crowd burst out into tears when Aristobulus approached the altar. The best wishes and prayers suggest a role for the people during Aristobulus’ installation ceremony (see Ant. 15.51 with the note to “went up to the altar”). This would be more or less in line with the description of the ordination of Aaron and his sons (Lev 8:3-5; 9:3-24), although these biblical sections do not describe good wishes and prayers of the people; they refer to the crowd’s reaction after divine fire had consumed the sacrifices: “Fire came out from the Lord and consumed the burnt offering and the fat on the altar; and when all the people saw it, they shouted and fell on their faces” (9:24). The translation follows the reading τὴν ὧν πεπόνθεσαν ὁμολογίαν of Niese (341). MSS LAMW read εὖ πεπόνθεισαν (“[the acknowledgment of] the benefits they had received”) instead of πεπόνθεσαν. Marcus-Wikgren (27) propose a different translation: “and their acknowledgment of their emotions seemed too impulsive in view of their having a king” (similarly Meijer-Wes 3.158). The point of Josephus’ comment that concludes the description of the people’s response to Aristobulus’ ordination seems to be that its affectionate welcoming of Aristobulus as new High Priest was excessive and could easily be interpreted as an indication that the young man would also be most welcome as new king, which was dangerous since the Jews had a king who would stick to his power (this is also suggested by Josephus’ reference to Herod’s jealousy in Ant. 15.50). For another hint about Aristobulus’ possible future rulership of the Jews, see 15.30.

It is obvious that the warm support for Aristobulus at his installation as High Priest would arouse Herod’s jealousy (see Ant. 15.50 with the note to “his jealousy”) and strengthen the king’s feelings that this competitor had to be eliminated. Herod’s plan is already indicated in Ant. 15.49. The verb ἑστιάω can mean “entertain, give a feast” (LSJ s.v., here passive, “he/they were given a feast”). See also Ant. 17.200, on Archelaus’ entertaining the Jewish people after Herod’s death, and 15.21, referring to banquets at Herod’s court. The brief parallel report of War (1.437) does not mention Alexandra’s party in Jericho. There was a complex of palaces in Jericho, partly built by the Hasmoneans and partly by Herod (Jericho was his regular winter residence). It was located at the end of Wadi Qelt, about 2 km south of the old city (Möller and Schmitt 1976: 101; Tsafrir, Di Segni, and Green 1994: 143-44; Netzer 1996; 1999; and 2001). Richardson (1996: 164) concludes on the basis of the Greek text that Herod had allowed Alexandra to retain the Hasmonean palace at Jericho. This is not warranted by Josephus’ vocabulary, which only implies that Alexandra acted as hostess in Jericho; in which palace this was remains unspecified. Cf. Ant. 16.61, on Marcus Agrippa’s friendly attitude towards Herod. The translation follows the reading εἰς … πότον (“to drink,” perhaps “to a drinking-bout”; cf. Ant. 15.241) of Niese (341), attested by MS P and the Latin version. The majority of the Greek MSS reads εἰς … τόπον (“to a place”). Niese’s reading should be preferred since it is the more difficult one. The occurrence of τόπος in the next paragraph may have caused copyists to change πότον to τόπον. The noun πότος frequently indicates the drinking of wine (LSJ s.v. II.1). Hence the narrative may hint at the obvious strategy of luring someone to drink a lot before murdering him. Cf. the famous story about Judith’s seduction of Holophernes, who is decapitated after drinking an enormous quantity of wine (Jdt 12:10-13:10; note the word πότος in 12:10; 13:1). This detail is ironic in the light of Aristobulus’ way of dying at nightfall on that same day (see Ant. 15.55). It also keeps the reader in suspense because the association of drinking and fear makes one wonder at this stage whether Aristobulus is going to be poisoned (cf. Marcus-Wikgren 27 n. d). The passage anticipates Aristobulus’ death through a hint at the danger of being poisoned. The reader learns only afterwards that the cause of death was drowning instead of poisoning. The verb συμπαίζω (“play/sport with,” LSJ s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. Cf. the allusion to playing a game in the description of Aristobulus’ murder (Ant. 15.55). The only other occurrence of νεανιεύομαι (“act as a young man,” LSJ s.v.) in Josephus appears in War 4.263. Herod’s companionable attitude towards Aristobulus (κεχαρισμένως “pleasing [him]”; cf. Ant. 15.238) seems to be part of his strategy to lure the young man into a situation that would make it easy to kill him. At the same time this kind of behavior seems self-evident for a king when sons or other young male relatives are in his company (see also 16.315).

Because of its unique location close to the Dead Sea in the Jordan Valley, more than 250 m below sea level, the climate in Jericho is very mild, even in winter. The annual average temperature in Jericho between 1994 and 2004 was 23.3 °C (http://edoc.hu-berlin.de/dissertationen/al-jawabreh-amer-2005-11-25/HTML/chapter2, consulted on 17 April, 2007). In winter the temperature is usually much lower, but even then it can easily reach 25 °C in the early afternoon on a nice day. Josephus doesn not specify the subject, but because of the context (see “after having assembled” further on in the sentence) it is plausible that it concerns a group of guests including Herod and Aristobulus. The noun κολυμβήθρα (“pond, swimming pool,” Rengstorf s.v.) also occurs in the parallel passage of War (1.437; see also 5.145, 467-468). The Hasmonean and Herodian palaces at Jericho had several pools, including large ones for swimming and other water activities (Netzer 2001: 50-139, 299-342). It is not easy to determine the exact location of Aristobulus’ death. Herod’s first palace—constructed in ca. 35 BCE—included 2 units with baths but no swimming pools. The much more magnificent second and third Herodian palaces did include swimming pools, but they were built long after Aristobulus’ death, in ca. 25 and 15 BCE respectively (Netzer 1999: 32-55; 2006: 45). Since Alexandra is mentioned as hostess of the party (Ant. 15.53), we may safely assume that Aristobulus was drowned in one of the swimming pools of the Hasmonean palaces, which remained intact until an earthquake in 31 BCE (Netzer 2001: 73, 303-06; 2006: 10, 43). The location concerned may be the twin pools that were part of the Hasmonean twin palaces. These pools, which survived the earthquake, were later turned by Herod into one big pool of 32 x 18 m and included in his second palace. This pool was surrounded by a garden. Josephus’ vague description seems to match the twin pools best. Josephus switches the subject from the pools to an unspecified group of guests including Herod and Aristobulus. Ancient authors attest that noon is the hottest moment of the day (see, e.g., Aristotle, Probl. 939b; Diodorus 14.70.6; Galen, Temperam. [ed. Kühn 1.528.5]).

On Herod’s friends, see Ant. 15.5 with the note to “the friends around him.” The verb προάγω can mean “induce, persuade” (LSJ s.v. I.4). Herod’s involvement in the murder of Aristobulus becomes clear by the little pieces of information dropped by Josephus at several occasions (see the hint at Aristobulus’ fear in Ant. 15.53; the vague reference to Herod’s order to his friends in the next sentence; and Alexandra’s conclusion described in 15.58). Willrich (1929: 51-52) argues that Aristobulus’ death was an accident, but Schürer-Vermes (1.297) and Schalit (2001: 112-13) claim that Herod murdered the young High Priest. Baumann (1983: 176-78) considers both options possible. The verb ἐπέχω (“hold [out]”) with σκότος (“darkness”) as subject means “come on” (LSJ s.v. VI.2; cf. Aristotle, Mir. ausc. 842a). War 1.437 briefly notes that Aristobulus was brought to Jericho during the night. The parallel passage in War (1.437) reports that Aristobulus was plunged in a pool by “the Gauls” (see the note to “choked the life out of him” below) “according to instructions.” Despite the vagueness of Josephus’ formulation it is obvious in War that Herod ordered Aristobulus’ death. Otto (1913: 42) and Richardson (1996: 164 n. 54) prefer Antiquities as the more reliable report. Cf. the vocabulary in Ant. 15.53. For the phrase “they did not let go … until” (οὐκ ἀνῆκαν ἕως), cf. Ant. 18.246, about Herodias manipulating Herod Antipas until she was successful. The parallel passage in War (1.437) reports that Aristobulus was drowned (βαπτιζόμενος, LSJ s.v. 1; cf. βαπτίζοντες in Ant. 15.55) by “the Gauls.” These Gauls were most probably part of the 400 Gauls from Cleopatra’s bodyguard whom Herod received from Octavian in 31 BCE after the Battle of Actium (War 1.396-397; Ant. 15.215, 217 with the notes to “Gauls” and “who were Cleopatra’s body-guards”). If so, the reference to the Gauls in War 1.437 must be an anachronism (Michel-Bauernfeind 1.420 n. 212; Richardson 1996: 164 n. 54). Ilan (1998: 232-34) argues that the Antiquities report about Aristobulus’ death is based on Nicolaus of Damascus: Nicolaus would have suggested that it was an accident and Josephus would have reworked Nicolaus’ report, emphasizing that Herod caused Aristobulus’ death because he wanted to eliminate all the Hasmoneans who could be considered to be his competitors.

This remark concludes the brief report about Aristobulus’ death. Josephus does not add any comment about Aristobulus’ person or office, as he usually does when relating deaths of kings or High Priests (see, e.g., Ant. 15.179-182 about Hyrcanus II; 17.191-192 about Herod). The lack of such a comment may result from the short period Aristobulus was in office. Following Niese (342), who reads οὐ πάντα (“not entirely”) with MSS PF and E. This reading is also given by Photius in the section—with excerpts from Josephus’ Antiquities—that focuses on Herod (Codex 238). The reading τὰ πάντα (“just/all together [eighteen],” LSJ s.v. πᾶς D II.4) with MSS LAMW (followed by Marcus-Wikgren 28) is paralleled by Ant. 4.84, referring to Aaron’s death: βιοὺς δὲ ἔτη τὰ πάντα τρία πρὸς τοῖς εἴκοσι καὶ ἑκατόν “having lived altogether one hundred and twenty-three years” (trans. Feldman in BJP 3; see also 2.196). Depending on the reading of the preceding passage (see the previous note), Aristobulus died when he was 17 or 18 years old. Both ages match the other chronological data about Aristobulus’ life given in Antiquities (15.29, 41, 51). His age implies—together with Josephus’ reference to one year of high priestly service—that Aristobulus died at the end of 35 BCE at the earliest. Since a party at Jericho would make most sense in the winter season (see 15.53 with the note to “Jericho”), it is plausible that Aristobulus died in the winter of 35/34 BCE, though the autumn of 35 BCE (after the Feast of Tabernacles) and the early spring of 34 BCE (as argued by Mahieu 2012: 184) are certainly possible as well. Kokkinos (1998: 212 with n. 19) states that Aristobulus died in late 35 BCE. Schalit (2001: 111-12 with nn. 36 and 48) calculates that he died about one year earlier. This seems to be an inclusive way of calculating since the actual period must have been less than a year: it concerns the interval between Aristobulus’ installation in 35 BCE and his death in the winter of 35/34 BCE (or possibly late fall 35–early spring 34 BCE). Mahieu (2012: 184) argues that Aristobulus served an entire year as High Priest (early 35–spring 34 BCE). The combination of κατέχω and ἀρχιερωσύνην (“hold the High Priesthood”) also occurs in Ant. 12.434; 20.237; cf. 14.199. For the High Priest Ananel, see Ant. 15.22, 40 with notes.

The phrase ἐξαγγελθέντος τοῦ πάθους (“when the accident was reported”) occurs with slight variations in Herodotus 5.95.6; Plutarch, Agis 21.1. The noun πάθος can mean “accident, calamity” (LSJ s.v. I.1-2). Josephus does not specify which women. The 2 women who were close relatives of Aristobulus were his sister Mariamme I and his mother Alexandra. Ant. 15.58 focalizes Alexandra; War 1.437 and Ant. 15.222 report Mariamme’s criticism of Herod for murdering her brother and grandfather. Yet, instead of Alexandra and Mariamme, the passage perhaps refers to an anonymous group of keening women, who usually began their lamentations in the house of the deceased. Sir 38:16-17 indicates that keening over a deceased person after the burial lasted 1 or 2 days, but the traditional period of mourning became 7 days (Kraemer 2000: 15-16; Hachlili 2005: 481-82). The phrase εὐθὺς … ἐκ μεταβολῆς (“by a sudden change”) is rare but paralleled by Diodorus 14.76; Appian, Hist. rom. 8.16.1. Cf. Josephus’ more elaborate descriptions of Herod’s burial in War 1.670-673; Ant. 17.196-199 (cf. War 3.435-437; Apion 2.205). Josephus’ vocabulary links up with a custom (the prothesis) known from fourth-century-BCE Athens that a body was laid out in a house in order to be greeted by relatives and friends. Burial had to take place before sunrise on the day following the laying out of the body (Hachlili 2005: 482). The phrase “when the news spread around” (τοῦ λόγου διαδοθέντος) is conventional (see, e.g., Polybius 36.7.4; Diodorus 20.66). Cf. Ant. 15.52 on the crowd’s response to Aristobulus’ first appearance as High Priest. The verb ὑπεραλγέω (“grieve exceedingly,” LSJ s.v. 2) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. The words ἥ πόλις ὑπερήλγει (“the city grieved exceedingly”) are paralleled by Heliodorus 4.21.3. This statement almost seems a euphemism in the light of the strong support from the Jerusalem crowd for Aristobulus (see Ant. 15.52 as well as the preceding sentence in 15.57); yet it makes sense against the background of a distinction between private and public mournings. Thus in War 3.435-437 Josephus briefly describes the mourning after the fall of Jotapata-Yodfat, which took place per family for all the deceased except Josephus (who was supposed to have died); for the commander Josephus there was a public mourning (Michel-Bauernfeind 1.462).

Ironically, the expression μᾶλλον ἐκπαθής (“most touched”) reoccurs in Ant. 16.208, this time referring to Herod. Readers are left in the dark about how Alexandra knew the details of Aristobulus’ death. The description of the murder in Ant. 15.55 indicates that the young man was drowned when it was getting dark, which implies that only persons who stood near the edge of the swimming pool could have seen something. Alexandra must have been well informed at Herod’s court and very much aware of the king’s capacity of taking drastic measures, which renders it plausible that she realized the cause of Aristobulus’ death by intuition. Alexandra is focalized in this passage. The statement summarizes her view about the death of her son Aristobulus. In War the narrative continues with Mariamme’s response to Aristobulus’ death (1.438; Richardson 1996: 164).Here and in the next paragraph Josephus describes Alexandra’s conflicting emotions and thoughts, which is a significant aspect of Josephus’ characterizations of the main figures of the Herodian narrative in Antiquities. The depiction of Herod being torn apart by feelings of love and hatred towards Mariamme is the most dramatic example (Ant. 15.211-212). The “greater disasters” anticipate the later executions of Mariamme and Alexandra (Ant. 15.202-251).

Niese (342) follows Wesseling’s conjecture in Diodorus 1.41. His reading of περιγράψασθαι τὸν βίον (“end her life”) may even be supported by the Latin version of Ant. 15.59. However, the reading παραγράψασθαι τὸν βίον (“draw a line across her life”) of the Greek MSS makes sense, such that the conjecture is unnecessary. The verb παραγράφω can mean “draw a line across, cancel” (LSJ s.v. II.5). Hyrcanus from the family of the Tobiads killed himself with his own hands (Ant. 12.236). The noun αὐτοχειρίᾳ (“murder perpetrated by one’s own hand,” LSJ s.v. αὐτοχειρία II; Rengstorf s.v.) has an adverbial meaning elsewhere too (e.g., Diodorus 15.54; Photius, Bibl. 57). On suicide in Josephus, see van Henten 2007a. The rare verb προσαρκέω (“help,” Rengstorf s.v.), which originated in Greek tragedies (references in LSJ s.v.), occurs 3 times in Josephus, all in Ant. 15 (see 15.63, 301). The phrase τῷ ἀνόμως διεφθαρμένῳ (“the one who had been killed lawlessly”) is paralleled by Isocrates, Plat. 52.5. MSS LAMW read παρεκράτει (from the verb παρακρατέω, meaning, among other things, “retain,” LSJ s.v.), which reading probably corrupts the more original reading παρεκρότει (followed by Niese 342; from the rare verb παρακροτέω [“incite, encourage”]). The latter verb occurs relatively frequently in War (1.380, 617; 2.264; 3.153, 239, 484, etc.; Rengstorf s.v.). Concerning Herod’s suspicions, see Ant. 15.22, 42, and on Alexandra’s fear of being under suspicion, 15.35 (cf. 15.38, 44). The expression ὑποψίαν ἐνδίδωμι (“yield/show suspicion”) also occurs in Plato, Leg. 887e; Plutarch, Alc. 6.2; Galen, Praes. puls. (ed. Kühn 9.218). According to Josephus Alexandra knew that Herod was responsible for the death of her son (see Ant. 15.58, 62), which matches Josephus’ own presentation in 15.49. Cf. Josephus’ presentation of Herod’s treatment of Hyrcanus II in 15.21, which also includes the noun ἐπιβουλή (“plot, treachery”; see 15.21 with the note to “to keep the plot unsuspected”). Hyrcanus was apparently unaware of Herod’s ultimate plan. Alexandra’s strategy was apparently to await her chances. Her revenge could have come with a change of government, for which she aimed according to Ant. 15.32, 42. The noun εὐκαιρία (“right moment, suitable time, opportunity”) occurs 6 times in the Herod narrative of Antiquities (15.59, 315, 327, 366; 16.301) and only once elsewhere in Josephus (18.54; Rengstorf s.v.).

The expression ἐγκρατῶς φέρω (literally “bear with self-control”; cf. Ant. 15.219, about Herod) is conventional (see, e.g., Menander, Fragm. 556; Appian, Hist. rom. 12.11.73; Dio Chrysostom 29.22). The virtue of ἐγκράτεια (“self-control”) was a well-known ideal in Hellenistic philosophy (Chadwick 1962) and was also incorporated in Hellenistic Jewish ethics (see, e.g., 4 Macc 5:34; Philo, Spec. 1.149). A description of the Essenes in War emphasizes the importance of this virtue for them (2.120, 138). Josephus’ suggestion that Herod tried to give outsiders the impression that Aristobulus’ death was an accident is ambiguous. Herod’s participation in the mourning shows the king’s strong emotional involvement, though it was (according to Josephus) at the same time part of his attempt to dupe the outsiders. The imperfect ἀπεσκευάζετο (“tried to take away”) should be taken as an imperfectum de conatu (Meijer-Wes 3.159), particularly since Josephus indicates at the end of the paragraph that the attempt failed. The repetition of πρόνοια (“foreknowledge, purpose”) echoes Alexandra’s thoughts about Herod’s involvement in the death of her son. For a similar expression (δάκρυσιν … χρώμενον), see Ant. 17.106, on Antipater (cf. Gregory of Nyssa, Inscr. Ps. [ed. McDonough 5.78]; Theodoretus, Int. proph. min. [PG 81.1645]). The noun ψυχή probably indicates here one’s self or personality as the center of emotions, desires, and affections (LSJ s.v. IV.1), which is an interpretation supported by the continuation of the narrative. Herod appears as a complex character: on the one hand he does not hesitate to eliminate a possible competitor when an occasion presents itself,; on the other hand he is deeply moved by the death of his young brother-in-law. The expression σύγχυσις τῆς ψυχῆς (“sincere confusion of his feelings”) is repeated in Ant. 16.75, also referring to Herod. There are only a few parallels, in scholia and patristic sources (John of Damascus, Vit. Barl. Joas. 324.10; Eustathius of Thessalonica, Od. 4.716 [ed. Stallbaum 1.189]). The reference to Aristobulus’ beauty echoes similar vocabulary in Ant. 15.23, 25, 29, 51, and adds to the dramatization of his death.

The phrase μᾶλλον ἐπεδείξατο (“he displayed all the more …”) is paralleled by Demosthenes, Or. 61.13. Herod’s sumptuous arrangements for the funeral and burial place of Aristobulus correspond to the royal status of the young man and the king’s tendency to spare no expenses for important public events (see, e.g., Ant. 15.268-274). The noun ἐκφορά (“carrying out of a corpse,” LSJ s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus (cf. War 4.330 τοὺς νεκροὺς ἐκφοροῦντες “carrying the corpses outside”). Josephus does not indicate the location of Aristobulus’ grave. It may have been close to Jerusalem or Jericho, i.e., the 2 cities where the Hasmonean family was usually staying. Rengstorf (s.v.) considers the possibility that θήκη (“grave, tomb, burial place”) means “burial” here. Josephus uses the same noun in connection with the tabernacle and sacrifices (Ant. 3.103; 8.101-102; cf. LXX 1 Chr 6:34). Here θυμίαμα may refer to fragrances for the anointment or embalmment of Aristobulus’ body (LSJ s.v. 2), or to spices sprinkled on the body (Rengstorf s.v.; cf. Matt 26:12; Mark 14:8). The fragrances could consist of incense or spices (ἀρώματα; cf. War 1.673; Ant. 17.199 concerning Herod’s funeral) in dry or liquid forms, such as myrrh or aloes (cf. John 19:39). Rabbinic passages suggest that the purified body was sprinkled with perfume before it was wrapped in shrouds (m. Šabb. 23.5; b. Sanh. 48b; cf. John 19:40 “They took the body of Jesus and wrapped it with the spices [μετὰ τῶν ἀρωμάτων] in linen cloths, according to the burial custom of the Jews”). New Testament passages indicate, in connection with Jesus’ death, that fragrances were sprinkled on the corpse in the grave (Mark 16:1; Luke 23:56-24:1; m. Šabb. 8.1; Brown 1994: 2.1256-64; Kraemer 2000: 20-22). Sometimes spices and perfumes were left behind in order to keep a nice odor in the tomb or to slow down the body’s decomposition. Unguentaria (i.e., small bottles that contained fragrances) have been frequently found in tombs from the Second Temple period (Hachlili 2005: 383-85, 444, 460, 480). An alternative translation would be “ornaments,” but the most probable interpretation is that the phrase refers to costly items that were buried together with Aristobulus’ corpse. Artefacts were frequently buried with a deceased person. They usually consisted of personal belongings and items of everyday use. Occasionally, objects were produced to be put in the grave, which probably was also the case for Aristobulus’ burial. Grave goods from Jewish burial sites include pottery, glass, wood, iron objects, leather, textiles, and coins (Hachlili 2005: 375-446). The verb συγκαταθάπτω (“bury together with”) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. The expression ἐκπλῆξαι τὸ λυπηρόν echoes a comforting phrase about recreation after work found in Pericles’ famous funeral oration for the fallen Athenian soldiers (Thucydides 2.34-46): “… we have … homes fitted out with good taste and elegance; and the delight we each day find in these things drives away sadness (τὸ λυπηρὸν ἐκπλήσσει)” (2.38, trans. Smith; see Marcus-Wikgren 31 n. b). Herod’s taking care of Aristobulus’ funeral in lavish style must have left nothing to complain about; yet to those who were aware of his involvement in the High Priest’s death, it must have caused bitter feelings, as the continuation of the narrative—by focusing on Alexandra—shows.

The sentence links up with Ant. 15.58-59, about Alexandra’s reaction to Aristobulus’ death. She knew that Herod was responsible for her son’s death and had set her mind on revenge. For similar phrases of ἡττάω (“overcome”) with οὐδέν (“nothing”) as subject and a person as object, see Cornutus, Nat. d. 9 (ed. Lang 10.16); Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 3.22.21. The expression παρέχουσα τὴν ὀδύνην (“causing [her] pain”) is conventional (see, e.g., Philo, QG 1.41; Galen, Bile [ed. Kühn 5.120-121]; Glauc. [ed. Kühn 11.112]; Eutecnius [ed. Gualandri p. 60]). The adjective ὀδυρτικός (“complaining, querulous,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. It is rather rare and occurs for the first time in Aristotle, Rhet. 1390a (cf. Fragm. 1.82 [ed. Rose 86]; Pol. 1340a; see also Plutarch, Mor. [Amat.] 751a; Adamantius, Physiogn. 2.28 [ed. Foerster 1.380]). The combination of being “querulous” and “contentious” characterizes Alexandra in a most negative way. The adjective φιλόνεικος (“contentious”) is frequently used in a pejorative sense (LSJ s.v. φιλόνικος 1). Rengstorf (s.v.) gives the meaning “embittered” for this passage. The word re-occurs in Ant. 15.166, 168 in connection with other references to Alexandra, and in 15.237 in a reference to Mariamme (cf. War 2.267; 4.132; Ant. 15.156, 290; 16.252; Apion 1.160). This is the third time that Alexandra is turning to Cleopatra for help (for Alexandra’s earlier requests to the queen, see Ant. 15.24, 45; cf. 15.167-168). See also Ant. 15.59, 64, and for similar letters reporting a plot and anticipating a punishment for the plotter, War 2.616; Ant. 13.107.

About Cleopatra, see Ant. 15.24 with the note to “Cleopatra.” For similar vocabulary (οἰκτείρω plus ἀτυχία as object, “lament … misfortune”), see Diodorus 13.24. Josephus does not elaborate on the apparently close relationship between Alexandra and Cleopatra (cf. Ant. 15.24, 45-46). The energetic way in which Cleopatra presents Alexandra’s case is perfectly understandable as part of her strategy to take over Rome’s client kingdoms situated in Egypt’s neighborhood (see 15.28 with the note to “such an affair”). Alexandra’s accusation of Herod for having murdered a Hasmonean prince who was also the High Priest was a very serious one, and Cleopatra’s support of this accusation before Antony must have seriously endangered Herod’s position. Alexandra and Cleopatra shared the same goal of getting rid of Herod, but the aftermath of Herod’s removal was speculated on in very different ways: Alexandra was hoping for a restoration of the Hasmonean rule, while Cleopatra for a take-over of the Judean kingdom (Buchheim 1960: 68-71). The reading ἐρεθίζουσα (“provoking”) given by E (Niese 343) is even more negative about Cleopatra’s effort to make Antony punish Herod. The noun παῖς (“child, son, boy”) links up with earlier references to Aristobulus as a boy (Ant. 15.28, 31, 34, 41, 60; cf. 15.23-24, 27) and dramatizes the murderous act. It may also echo Josephus’ earlier hint at an eventual sexual relationship between Antony and Aristobulus (see 15.29 with the note to “very handsome”). Cleverly Cleopatra emphasizes Antony’s responsibility for Herod’s appointment as king (for references to the appointment, see Ant. 15.2 with the note to “all Judea”). The phrase τῆς οὐδὲν προσηκούσης ἀρχῆς (“over a territory that in no way belonged to him”) probably means that Cleopatra was arguing that Herod was not entitled to be the king of Judea because he was not of Hasmonean descent (cf. Ant. 15.2 with the note to “commoner”). Becher (1966: 67) notes that Cleopatra’s contempt for Herod as a self-made king of non-Judean origin is obvious. Another explanation for Cleopatra’s point is that she was arguing that Judea belonged to her territory (see Schalit 2001: 113 and Ant. 15.24 with the note to “Cleopatra”). Such a claim could be supported by the fact that the Ptolemaic kings controlled Judea until Antiochus III’s victory over the Egyptian army at Paneas in 198 BCE (Schürer-Vermes 2.89).For a similar phrase with a participle of προσήκω plus οὐδὲν, cf. Plutarch, Comp. Demetr. Ant. 1.2 concerning Mark Antony: “… and yet Antony had the courage to seek the power of Caesar (τήν Καίσαρος … ἀρχήν), to which his birth gave him no claim (οὐδὲν αὐτῷ κατὰ γένος προσήκουσαν)” (trans. Perrin; cf. Plato, Gorg. 471a). The passage hints at Aristobulus’ royal descent (see also Ant. 15.51 with the note to “descent”). For the expression “real king” (ὄντως βασιλεύς), see Plato, Alc. mai. 122a; Pol. 276e; Philo, Somn. 2.99; Clement of Alexandria, Paed. 3.12.

Although Cleopatra called upon Antony to punish Herod for having murdered Aristobulus, Antony only ordered Herod to render account for his actions, which shows that he did not slavishly obey the queen in all matters (cf. War 1.243, and see Ant. 15.24 with the note to “Cleopatra”). For vocabulary similar to τούτοις ἀναπειθόμενος, see War 2.183; Ant. 15.355. Antony’s trip to Laodicea on the Syrian coast was connected with a second campaign against the Parthians, in 35 BCE (Plutarch, Ant. 53.7; Dio Cassius 49.39.3; Buchheim 1960: 71). Several scholars assume that Herod met Antony at Laodicea (e.g., Stern 1974b: 232; Richardson 1996: 218; Schalit 2001: 113-20), but Josephus only indicates that Herod was invited to visit Antony after the latter had taken off (ἐστάλη) for Laodicea. Ant. 15.74 implies that Cleopatra was with Antony when Herod came over. Hence Herod may have met Antony while he was on his way to Laodicea, possibly still in Egypt. The translation is based on the reading ἀποδύσασθαι (“take off, clear oneself of”) of MS P (Marcus-Wikgren 32). Niese (343) reads ἀπολύσασθαι (“refute”) with most of the other MSS. The one reading could have easily led to the other owing to a change of δ to λ, or vice versa. Yet the infinitive ἀποδύσασθαι is also attested in Ant. 11.223, and the verb ἀποδύω in 4.83; 10.11; 11.234; 13.84, 220; 19.295. The infinitive ἀπολύσασθαι is absent from Josephus (but cf. ἀπολύσεσθαι in War 1.539). The verb ἀπολύω occurs much more frequently in Josephus (ca. 150 times), which renders it probable that the less obvious reading ἀποδύσασθαι was replaced by ἀπολύσασθαι. The transition to indirect speech suggests that Antony had sent a messenger and/or a letter to Herod (Schalit 2001: 113). This passage is ambiguous: Antony seems to take it for granted that Aristobulus was murdered (this is implied by the use of ἐπιβουλή [“plot”]; see Ant. 15.21 with the note to “that his plot should remain unsuspected”) but leaves open the possibility that Herod was not involved. Yet the conclusion that Aristobulus was murdered would basically have implied that Herod had ordered it because he clearly had a good motive for getting rid of the youngster. Hence Herod’s rule was in serious danger, as the next paragraph confirms.

The reference to Cleopatra’s hostility towards Herod links up with the content of the previous passage. Cleopatra’s repeated support of Alexandra (Ant. 15.28, 45, 62; cf. 15.32) was clearly directed against Herod. The noun δυσμένεια (“hostility”) also occurs in War 1.362 in a reference to Cleopatra: Herod mollified her during her visit to Judea by showering her with large gifts (cf. Ant. 15.96-103). Josephus implies that Antony was the key to Cleopatra’s success. Unfortunately for her Antony did not always give in (see also Ant. 15.64 with the note to “persuaded by these words”). Had Herod disregarded Antony’s order, he would undoubtedly have lost the goodwill of his patron, which would have been fatal for his position as one of Rome’s friendly kings (see Ant. 15.5 with the note to “Antony”). Other passages seem to contradict that Joseph was Herod’s uncle: War 1.441 and Ant. 15.81 note that Joseph was the husband of Herod’s sister Salome and Ant. 15.169 implies that Josephus was unaware of Joseph being Herod’s uncle. Several scholars argue, therefore, that the Greek τὸν θεῖον (“his uncle”; cf. War 1.475, 483; Ant. 11.261; 12.387) is a mistake and that the original text may have read τὸν πενθερόν (“his brother-in-law,” Marcus-Wikgren 33 n. d; Mayer-Schärtel 1995: 207). Schalit (2001: 116) states that Joseph was both Herod’s uncle and his brother-in-law. Günther (2005: 112) claims that Joseph was the youngest brother of Herod’s father, Antipater, and Herod’s brother-in-law after he had been married to Dositheus’ sister (see also Kokkinos 1998: 151; about Dositheus, see Ant. 15.169 with the note to “Dositheus was a relative of Joseph”). For a similar expression in Josephus, see Ant. 20.31 concerning the kingdom of Adiabene (τινα τῆς ἀρχῆς ἐπίτροπον). This puzzling and cruel command is unfolded in the next paragraphs, including Joseph’s explanation of the instruction to Mariamme (Ant. 15.69). Otto (1913: 8, 51) argues that the section about Herod’s instruction for Joseph in connection with his journey to Antony and its aftermath (15.65-87; parallel report in War 1.441-443) is a doublet of the king’s instructions for Joseph and Soemus connected with his trip to Octavian (Ant. 15.183-187). On the analogies and differences between the two reports, see 15.236 with the note to “her last moments.”Herod apparently had serious doubts whether he would get away with the accusation of having murdered Aristobulus (Ant. 15.67; Schalit 2001: 113, 116). The instruction is also motivated by the king’s great affection for his wife, and his fear that somebody would court her after his death (15.66). This fear is associated with Antony (15.67) as well as with Cleopatra’s malign influence upon Antony (Richardson 1996: 164). Ant. 15.82 also suggests that Herod could not bear the thought of a rival courting Mariamme. The parallel passage in War (1.441-443) explains Herod’s motive differently. Joseph revealed the secret to Mariamme “… out of a desire to give proof to the woman of the king’s love for her, since not even in death could he endure to be separated from her” (1.441, trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a; see also 1.442 and Ant. 15.69).Herod’s order seems unprecedented in Jewish and Graeco-Roman traditions (but cf. Plutarch on the suicides of Antony and Cleopatra; see 15.69 with the note to “be separated from her through death”). To a certain extent it reminds one of the Indian practice of sati: widows are burned or buried alive together with their dead husbands in order to be with them in the afterlife (Hawley 1994). Cf. also the line of thinking shown by Achilles, who regards it as Agamemnon’s monumental hybris against him that Agamemnon has taken his prize woman, Briseis (Homer, Il. 1.203, 214). Kasher (2007: 119 with n. 40) offers a psychological explanation and argues that Herod’s behavior reveals a paranoid personality disorder that is reminiscent of the so-called “Othello syndrome.”The expression παραχρῆμα ἀνελεῖν (“kill immediately”) is repeated in Ant. 17.142, about Herod’s decision concerning Antipater.

The vocabulary in this passage is extremely rare. The words ἔχειν φιλοστόργως πρός plus a personal object (“feeling great affection for …”) is paralleled by Ant. 4.135, about the seduction of Israelite youth by Midianite women (Feldman 1993). See also Ant. 15.68, 70, 83, 222 (the latter passage refers to Herod’s affection [φιλοστοργία] for Mariamme). Josephus emphasizes Herod’s love for Mariamme several times (see, e.g., Ant. 15.82, 207, 222). Josephus does not specify against whom outrageous acts would be directed. One could assume that Herod’s fear was inspired by the thought that suitors could commit acts of insolence with Mariamme, but it is more plausible that the outrage concerns Herod and his reputation, In that case Josephus implies that it was unbearable for Herod that other men would have a relationship with Mariamme after his death (cf. what Homer relates in connection with Penelope’s suitors when Odysseus was away [LSJ s.v. ὕβρις I.1 with references]. Roman readers may have interpreted Herod’s fear in the light of the univira ideal that a widow would never marry again (Funke 1965-66; Kötting 1973; Lightman and Zeisel 1977; Kienast 1999: 167; about Jewish practices concerning divorce and remarriage, see Ant. 15.259 with notes, also 17.352). The verb δείδω (“fear”) with ὕβρις (“insolence, outrage”) as object also occurs in Libanius, Prog. 7.4.8. The verb σπουδάζω in the passive voice can mean “be courted” (LSJ s.v. II.2; Rengstorf s.v.). In Ant. 15.40 the same passive verb means “be treated with respect” (LSJ s.v. II.2).

Josephus’ explanation of Herod’s order to Joseph continues. The close connection between Ant. 15.66 (describing a statement by Herod) and 15.67 implies that the reference to Antony’s desire for Mariamme is not a comment by Josephus: it should be understood from Herod’s perspective, elaborating the king’s remarks in 15.66. The expression ἡ ἄνθρωπος (“the woman”) occurs several times in Josephus. It can refer to a specific woman (e.g., Ant. 5.329; 15.212 concerning Mariamme I; 18.72, 349, 351), sometimes with a negative connotation (see War 1.111, concerning the Hasmonean Queen Salome Alexandra; 1.571 and 578, about the slave woman whom Pheroras was living with; Ant. 17.34 (plural), about Pheroras’ wife, mother, and sister; see also Ant. 16.194, 198; 18.40; Rengstorf s.v.). The combination of the verb ἐμφαίνω (“display, indicate”) and ὁρμή (“impulse, desire [for]”) as its object is rare, though it does occur a few times in ancient Greek passages (Polybius 3.44.13; Pseudo-Callisthenes recension b 1.13 [ed. van Thiel 1974: 18]). Scholars have proposed several emendations because the words “have heard accidentally” would contradict Josephus’ earlier report about Antony getting to know the beautiful Mariamme (Ant. 15.23-28). Naber’s conjecture προακηκοώς (“had previously heard”; Naber 1888-96: 3.xl, 322) is supported by a parallel phrase in Aesop (199). His as well as Niese’s proposal (γὰρ ἀκηκοώς “for he had heard,” Niese 344) would solve the contradiction between 15.23-28 and 15.67. However, the reading παρακηκοώς (“he happened to have heard accidentally”) of the Greek MSS makes sense if one reads the passage with Herod as focalizer (see the preceding note): the discrepancy is absent if one assumes that Josephus puts into words Herod’s feelings about what Antony could do to Mariamme after his own death, when there would no longer be any restraint to approach her. How Antony had heard about Mariamme was unimportant for Herod in this situation. The repetition of εὐμορφία (“beauty of form, appearance”—the noun also occurs in Ant. 15.66) emphasizes Mariamme’s beauty and echoes the first reference to Mariamme (15.23). For phrases with ἐλπίς (“hope”)—or related words—and τῶν ὅλων (“all matters, altogether”) plus preposition, see Ant. 2.237, 280; 3.11; 5.38.

Joseph was taking care of the kingdom on Herod’s instructions (Ant. 15.65). Similar vocabulary in 16.1 (cf. 16.21). About Mariamme’s marriage to Herod, see Ant. 15.23 with the note to “living in wedlock with Herod.” The rare expression συνεχὲς ἐντυγχάνων (“continuously conversing”) is paralleled by Ant. 1.330 (see also Pseudo-Lucian, Am. 6). There are slight differences among the readings of the Greek MSS. The translation is based on the reading καθίει (following MS M and the correction in MS A, with Niese 344), which can be interpreted as an imperfect with durative nuance from the verb καθίημι (“let fall, set in motion”). The same verbal form is found in War 1.411, 470; Ant. 3.53; 14.423. The reading καθίεις (the present participle of the same verb καθίημι; cf. Ant. 15.334, in which case most MSS read καθίεις) may have resulted from an assimilation to the first character (i.e., σ-) of the following word συνεχές. The reading καθίει εἰς of E (followed by Marcus-Wikgren 34) may be a correction of the reading καθίει since καθίημι is frequently followed by the preposition εἰς (LSJ s.v. 2-3). For Herod’s affection (φιλοστοργία) for Mariamme, see Ant. 15.66 with the note to “affection for” and 15.84. The combination of εὔνοια and φιλοστοργία (“loyalty and affection”) is conventional (for other passages in Josephus, see Ant. 4.273; 8.193; 16.21; cf. Polybius 22.20; Plutarch, Mor. [Frat. amor.] 489c; John Chrysostom, Dav. [PG 54.687]; Hom. Jo. [PG 59.469]).

There is one further occurrence of the rare verb ἐξειρωνεύομαι (“ridicule,” LSJ s.v.; Rengstorf s.v.) in Josephus: Ant. 15.219, which concerns Mariamme. The adverb γυναικείως (literally “womanly,” Rengstorf s.v.) suggests that women are capable of a typical kind of sarcasm. Remarks in the margin contribute to the stereotypical and negative image of women in Josephus (see also the next paragraph and the adagium “women cannot be trusted” of which Alexander accuses his wife Glaphyra in her dream, Ant. 17.352). Further discussion in Sievers 1989; Mayer-Schärtel 1995: 358-74; Brenner 2003. In Ant. 15.68 Josephus mentions only Mariamme as Joseph’s conversation partner, but the narrative implies that mother and daughter again operated as a pair (cf. 15.31). The continuation of the sentence focuses on Alexandra, suggesting that she took the lead in ridiculing Joseph. Joseph’s great efforts to persuade the women are comical and tragic at the same time: the women’s reaction is the opposite of what he seems to have expected, and his attempt ultimately leads to his own execution (Ant. 15.87). The verb ὑπερσπουδάζω (“be over-jealous,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. This refers to Herod’s secret order to Joseph (Ant. 15.65). The phrase πίστιν ποιέω (“make assurances, pledge,” LSJ s.v. πίστις II.1; Lindsay 1993) is conventional (cf. Philo, Decal. 172; Spec. 1.70). It is highly ambiguous in this context because the narratees may wonder whether Joseph’s confession reveals the opposite of what he tries to convince Mariamme and Alexandra of. This is indeed the conclusion to which the women come according to the next paragraph. I.e., Mariamme. The romantic cliché is rather cynical in light of Herod’s order. For similar vocabulary (οὐ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ζῆν δύναται), see Stobaeus 4.19.47 concerning Diogenes (cf. Plutarch, Mor. [Inim. util.] 86e). The phrase θανάτῳ διαζευχθῆναι (“be separated [from her] through death”; cf. Gregory of Nyssa, Vit. Macr. 35.20 [ed. Maraval 256]; Theodoretus, Int. ep. Paul. [PG 82.273]) echoes Josephus’ vocabulary in the parallel passage of War (1.441): “Joseph, however, revealed the secret not at all out of malice, but rather out of a desire to give proof to the woman of the king’s love for her, since not even in death could he endure to be separated from her (ὡς οὐδὲ ἀποθανὼν αὐτῆς ὑπομένοι διαζευχθῆναι)” (trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a).It is interesting to compare Herod’s case with the idea elaborated by Plutarch in connection with the suicides of Antony and Cleopatra described in the Life of Antony: a marital relationship should be prolonged in death, burial, and afterlife. When Antony was making preparations for his suicide, after he had lost his final battle at Alexandria and had heard about Cleopatra’s apparent suicide, he said: “O Cleopatra, I am not grieved to be bereft of thee, for I shall straightway join thee; but I am grieved that such an imperator as I am has found to be inferior to a woman” (Ant. 76.3, trans. Perrin). After this statement he drove his sword through his belly and died considerably later, after he had been brought to Cleopatra in her tomb (Ant. 76-77). Cleopatra committed suicide after having poured libations for Antony and having embraced his urn, during which she said: “Do not expect other honours or libations; these are the last from Cleopatra the captive. For though in life nothing could part us from each other, in death we are likely to change places; thou, the Roman, lying buried here, while I the hapless woman, lie in Italy, and get only so much of thy country as my portion. But if indeed there is any might or power in the gods of that country (for the gods of this country have betrayed us), do not abandon thine own wife while she lives, nor permit a triumph to be celebrated over thyself in my person, but hide and bury me here with thyself, since out of all my innumerable ills not one is so great and dreadful as this short time I have lived apart from thee (σοῦ χωρὶς ἔζησα)” (Ant. 84.3-4, trans. Perrin). The Society of Partners in Death (ἥ συναποθανουμένων ἐκάλουν), a drinking and feasting society founded by Antony and Cleopatra after the Battle of Actium (Ant. 71), hints at their simultaneous death as well. Plutarch briefly reports that Antony and Cleopatra were buried together (Ant. 86; further discussion and references in Brenk 1992a: 4393-4402; 1992b: 163, 165, 172). The comparison with Plutarch’s description highlights Herod’s self-centered and brutal thinking according to Josephus’ presentation: he pre-empts any volition on Mariamme’s part, by ordering her death. In case he died, Mariamme had to die as well, as if she were his property. The conjunction εἰ (“if”) and the verb πάσχω (“suffer”) echoe the vocabulary of Ant. 15.65.

The phrasing of the last short sentence of Ant. 15.69 and of the beginning of the first sentence of this paragraph highlights (cf. μὲν … δέ) the contrast between Joseph’s attempt to persuade the women of Herod’s love for Mariamme and the women’s interpretation of his words. Josephus’ brief comment may focus on Alexandra and Mariamme’s common sense that Herod’s instruction was obviously cruel. The comment may also have a negative nuance, suggesting that women usually focus on the negative aspects of something (cf. Josephus’ phrase “in the way women usually do” [Ant. 15.69] and its relevant note).The phrase ὡς εἰκός (“as was to be expected”) is used 15 times in Josephus, and the distribution is telling: 2 occurrences in War (3.1, 504), and the other 13 occurrences concern Ant.; of those 13, 10 are in the Herod narrative in Ant. 15-16, the next occurrence coming already in the next section (15.71; see also 7.44; 15.130, 167, 168, 209, 234; 16.286, 306; 19.293; 20.94). The words are not evenly distributed in Ant. 15-16; 4 of the 10 occurrences are in 2 clusters (15.70-71 and 15.167-68). In War, by contrast, Josephus uses this fixed phrase only twice (War 3.1, 504), preferring other forms such as ὡς ἔοικε(ν): War 1.392, 593, 609; 5.154, 558; 7.359, as also in Apion 2.124 (in his own voice). These data might imply that Josephus took over this vocabulary from a source (Nicolaus of Damascus), but repeating vocabulary in close proximity is typical of Josephus’ style elsewhere (see Shutt [1961:74-5] and Mason’s introduction to Life in BJP 9 [pp. li-liii]. The translation follows the reading προλαμβάνουσαι (literally “assuming in advance”) with Niese (344). The alternative reading προσλαμβάνουσαι (“believing”) of MSS LAMW (supported by the Latin version) is the easier and therefore the secondary reading, which simply evolved from the other reading by the addition of an σ after προ-. The vocabulary (φιλόστοργον “affection”) echoes that of Ant. 15.66, 68. “A tyrannical death” probably means a death caused by a tyrant, which implies that Mariamme and Alexandra associate Herod’s decision with that of a cruel tyrant. The passage is part of a cluster of brief hints in Antiquities at Herod ruling and behaving like a tyrant (see also Ant. 14.165; 15.7-8, 222, 321, 353-354; 16.4, 363; 17.66-67, 148, 164, 304-314; van Henten 2011b). In the parallel passage of War (1.441-443) there is no hint whatsoever that Herod was a tyrant. The follow-up of Mariamme and Alexandra’s response to Joseph’s disclosure is described in Ant. 15.74-87. The narrative first continues with the story about the rumor of Herod’s death (15.71-73), set in the same period (see the next note). The parallel passage in War mentions Herod’s return and then reports Mariamme’s response to Herod’s boasting of his love for her in rather cynical terms (1.442), after which the narrative describes in an extremely brief way that Herod lost control of himself because of his anger and jealousy and that he immediately ordered the executions of both Mariamme and Joseph (1.443; cf. Ant. 15.85-87, 223-239). War sets Mariamme’s execution within Antony’s rule (1.441), but that raises questions (see Ant. 15.236-237 with notes and Richardson 1996: 218 n. 8).

This expression (ἐν δὲ τούτῳ) is one of Josephus’ formulae to introduce a parallel story that is synchronized with a previous story (War 1.261, 288, 309; 2.55, 284, 533; 3.414; 4.440, 550, 570, 633; 5.460; 6.149, 229; Ant. 13.330, 353; 14.29, 86, 418; 15.88, 121; 17.79, 206, 264; 18.109; 19.24, 158; van Henten and Huitink 2007: 225-27). It is probably a short hand version of ἐν δὲ τούτῳ τῷ καιρῴ (Ant. 16.6) or ἐν τούτῳ τῷ χρόνῳ (12.156; cf. 19.360), having the same meaning. The new story here is, however, closely related with the previous one because Herod’s death implied that Mariamme had to be executed (see 15.65, 69), such that the situation became very dangerous for the women. The context implies that execution would have been Herod’s punishment if Antony had declared him guilty of Aristobulus’ murder (see especially Ant. 15.65-66), which is not self-evident, because killing off rivals even in one’s family was quite common among rulers, not least among the Romans. The point of the rumor, torture followed by execution, is highly implausible from this perspective. Herod’s father Antipater was a Roman citizen (Ant. 14.137), and Herod had inherited the Roman citizenship. Roman citizens were not tortured during the Late Republic and Early Empire, except in cases of high treason (Garnsey 1970: 141-47). This statement implies that the rumor was false, which the continuation of the narrative confirms. About Herod’s possible enemies, see Ant. 15.2 with the note to “his opponents.” The context implies that it must concern a palace of Herod in Jerusalem. This was probably the Hasmonean royal palace, which Herod used before he constructed his own splendid palace to the west of the Temple Mount (see Ant. 15.248 with notes and Mahieu 2012: 158-165 about the date of construction of this palace). See also 15.43 with the note to “the palace” and 15.247 with the note to “the citadels in the city.” Josephus describes Herod’s own palace in War 5.176-181 (further discussion in Netzer 2006: 129-32). Obviously the consternation about the death of the king must have been great among the members of the family, the king’s friends, and the other persons at the court since the consequences of a change of government would be enormous (cf. Ant. 15.24, 57; 17.184).

This is an extraordinary request in light of Joseph’s double task: Joseph not only replaced Herod as supreme administrator of the kingdom, but was also the supervisor of the 2 women (Schalit 2001: 119). Alexandra’s proposal was extremely risky from the perspective of Herod’s secret order and is only plausible if one assumes that Joseph had taken the side of the women (as argued by Wellhausen 1914: 319-20, who assumes that Joseph was executed by Herod for this reason). However, Otto (1913: 41-42) argues that it is plausible that Joseph remained loyal to Herod and that the safest option for the women was indeed to flee to the Romans (see the next notes) because there was still severe opposition to Herod as king. He also argues that Alexandra and Mariamme would have maintained the friendly relationship with the Romans after Herod’s death (see also Schalit 2001: 117-18 and 15.73 with the note to “some disturbance”). There was no immediate need to flee if Joseph had taken the side of the women since he would not have executed Herod’s order in that case. All in all, the story about the rumor of Herod’s death and the response by Alexandra raises several questions about its plausibility. Nevertheless, Schalit (2001: 116-19) considers the tradition to be authentic and assumes that there were disturbances directed against Herod and the Romans. In that case, Joseph would have done the right thing by bringing the women to the Roman legion. An alternative translation would be “to the standards” (Marcus-Wikgren 35; Meijer-Wes 3.161) because σημεῖον can mean “signal for battle, flag, standard” in addition to a body of soldiers (LSJ s.v. 3 and 4b). A Roman legion was apparently stationed in or near Jerusalem, probably in order to support Herod in his early years as friendly king, when his position was not completely secure (Otto 1913: 41-42; Stern 1974b: 227; Shatzman 1991: 168; Schalit 2001: 117-19). Niese (345) reads ἡγουμένου υἱοῦ ἰούδα with MSS PF and marginal readings in MSS AM, which implies a translation like “under the command of a son of Juda.” This reading would strenghten the motive for Alexandra and Mariamme’s decision to flee to the Roman troops: they would be even safer under the wings of a Jewish commander of the troops. However, it is extremely unlikely that a Jew was the commander of a Roman legion. The reading ἡγουμένου ’Ιουλίου (“under the command of Julius”) of MSS LAMW (supported by the Latin version) is therefore to be preferred. There is no further information about this Julius (Marcus-Wikgren 36 n. b). Braund (1984: 94) refers to the anonymous work Bellum Alexandrinum (33) and notes that a Roman garrison could function as a check on friendly kings. Shatzman (1991: 168) argues that the legion was stationed near Jerusalem in order to secure Herod’s kingdom against the antagonism his rule provoked (see also the note to “leave the palace with them” above).

Niese (345; followed by Marcus-Wikgren 36) conjectures διὰ γὰρ τούτου (“for through this [force]”), but this is unnecessary since the reading διὰ γὰρ τοῦτο (“for on this account”) of the MSS is common (LSJ s.v. διά B III.2). Obviously the Roman legion would protect the members of the family of the friendly king (see Ant. 15.72 with the note to “protect the monarchy”). The noun ταραχή (“disturbance”) echoes the verb ἐτάραξεν (“troubled”) found in Ant. 15.71. Josephus does not specify the disturbance, but it is plausibly related to Herod’s enemies who were responsible for spreading the rumor about Herod’s death (see 15.71 with the note to “those who hated Herod”). In addition to “court” and “court yard” αὐλή sometimes means “palace” (Rengstorf s.v.; see, e.g., Ant. 15.292; Mark 14:54; 15:16). This passage and its continuation indicate again that Alexandra had the ambition to end Herod’s rule and restore the Hasmonean house as ruler of the Judean kingdom (see also Ant. 15.32, 42, 47, and cf. 15.35). This could imply that Joseph was involved in the planned coup, which would explain his execution (15.87; see also 15.72 with the note to “leave the palace with them”). Like Ant. 15.68 this passage reminds one of 15.26-28, about Dellius’ proposal to Alexandra to send portraits of Aristobulus and Mariamme over to Antony (note the repetition of θεασαμένου [“if he would see”] with Antony as subject, 15.26, 73). Ant. 15.28 implies that Antony had already seen Mariamme’s portrait. Taking away the throne from Herod (similar vocabulary in Ant. 16.295 concerning Syllaeus) implied a restoration of the Hasmonean rule. This concluding statement confirms Alexandra’s previous remark and may also be connected with her repeated complaint that Herod did not treat her family the way its royal status required (see Ant. 15.23-24, 44-45, 62).

The plural τὰ γράμματα can have several meanings, including “the documents,” “the scriptures,” “the correspondence,” but also “the letter” in the singular (Rengstorf s.v. γράμμα). The latter meaning seems most plausible in the context here. Josephus’ rendering of this letter (Ant. 15.74-79) focuses on Herod’s acquittal and the relationship with his patron Antony. In 15.79 the letter anticipates Herod’s complicated power struggle with Cleopatra, which is an important theme in the subsequent narrative. The letter, therefore, fits the narrative context well; at the same time it marks a switch of perspective: Herod can be taken as the main focalizer in 15.74-79, instead of Alexandra, who is the main focalizer in the previous section (15.62-73). The passage refers to Ant. 15.71 through the repetition of φήμη (“rumor”). The reading προλαληθέντων (“[the things] stated before,” Niese 345) is without parallel in Josephus; yet it links up with λόγος (“story”) in 15.71. The variant reading προληφθέντων (“anticipated”) of MSS LAMW is also found (though in different grammatical cases) in War 4.385; 5.79. It is the lectio facilior and can easily have evolved from προλαληθέντων by contraction (λαλη—λη) and the addition of a φ.

For the possible location of this meeting, see Ant. 15.64 with the note to “Laodicea.” The continuation of the narrative implies that Cleopatra was also present. This is what one would expect of a friendly king; repetitive gifts were an important dimension in the relationship between a friendly king and his patron, especially at moments when it was appropriate to confirm the relationship (see Ant. 15.5 with the note to “a gift to Antony”). It is plausible that Antony acquitted Herod not because he thought that the king was innocent, but because Herod did what a friendly king was supposed to do: maintaining order and providing significant gifts to his patron (Braund 1984: 67). With the repetition of ταχύ (“quickly”) Josephus emphasizes that Herod was successful in his mission soon after his arrival. He indicates 2 strategies used by Herod: gifts (see the previous note) and personal contact during meetings. The latter means links up with other passages in which Josephus describes how Herod made an extremely good impression on his superiors (see, e.g., War 1.282; Ant. 15.187-194). The passage refers to Cleopatra’s accusation of Herod in Ant. 15.63 (see also 15.65, 77, 97-98). The noun θεραπεία means “favor” or “paying court” here and in War 1.554 (which also refers to gifts); Ant. 15.199, 204, 328 (LSJ s.v. I.2).

A relationship between a friendly king and his Roman patron was not only based on mutual beneficiality, but also on mutual trust (πίστις) and loyalty (εὔνοια), as the section on Herod’s meeting with Octavian after the Battle of Actium and the follow-up of this meeting points out (15.187-201; see especially 15.193-194, 201 with notes). The particular relationship between Herod and Augustus remained intact as long as the king did not exceed his authority, which he did in Augustus’ opinion when he launched a punitive expedition against the Nabateans (16.271-293).Since there was no conclusive evidence that Herod was responsible for Aristobulus’ murder, Antony could easily acquit Herod. Cf. War 1.361, in which passage Josephus states (though the precise context is unclear because of the Greek) that in response to Cleopatra’s plan to have Herod and the Nabatean king Malichus killed Antony “thought that it would be a sacrilege to kill respectable men and kings of such importance …” (trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a).The word εὔθυνα (“account”) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. This is implicit criticism of Cleopatra; a little farther along in the paragraph Antony explicitly indicates that Cleopatra should not interfere in the matters of Herod’s kingdom. The sentence basically repeats the preceding statement but with a positive formulation, which is a rhetorical device of repetition (Lausberg 1998: 372-73, 376-77). The verb πολυπραγμονέω (“be busy about many things,” or pejoratively “meddle in state affairs, intrigue,” LSJ s.v. 2b) occurs 11 times in Josephus and only in Antiquities (e.g., 15.165, 285; 16.96). The passage suggests once again that Cleopatra did not always succeed in getting from Antony what she wanted (see also the previous paragraph with notes). It might also imply that the queen had better not interfere in Antony’s political and administrative affairs, which, perhaps, reflects a criticism of Cleopatra from a Roman perspective by assuming that Cleopatra ruined Antony because she interfered to much in his affairs. It is, however, also possible to interpret the words “the matters of governance” as a refererence only to the matters of Herod’s kingdom. In any case, Antony closely co-operated with Cleopatra in several of his endeavors and needed her military support, especially when his relationship with Octavian became openly hostile (Buchheim 1960: 22-25, 37-38, 68-74, 85-97).

Hudson’s conjecture συνθακῶν (“sit with, be a partner in,” LSJ s.v. συνθακέω) is taken over by Niese (346). LSJ (s.v. συνθωκέω) notes that the reading συνθωκῶν given by MSS FAM has the same meaning as συνθακῶν. The reading συνθηκῶν (“conventions, treaties,” the genitive plural of συνθήκη, LSJ s.v.), attested by MSS PLWE, must have resulted from a scribal error, which is easily understandable given that this form is much more common in Greek literature and occurs 7 times in Josephus. The rare participle συνθακῶν occurs in Euripides (Heraclidae 994) in a different context. Feasting together and participating in a Roman official’s judicial decisions were part of the activities of a ruler’s friends (see Ant. 15.5 with the note to “the friends around him” and 15.31; about banquets of Hellenistic rulers and Roman emperors in general, see Vössing 2004). Having a banquet was one of the ways a ruler could reward a friendly king (Braund 1984: 83). Most MSS (supported by the Latin version) read ὅμως (“all the same, nevertheless”) instead of ὅπως as introduction of this indirect speech (Niese 346). The Greek echoes Ant. 15.28. On Cleopatra’s accusations, see also 15.63, 75 with notes. Buchheim (1960: 71) argues that Cleopatra requested Judea and Nabatea from Antony in 36 BCE and that he refused because she had already received several territories in 37 BCE (see Ant. 15.79, 94-95 with notes). This and Josephus’ other reports of Cleopatra’s interferences with Judean politics (15.32, 45, 48, 62-63) imply that the queen was consistently trying to incorporate Judea in her territory, although this is the first explicit statement that Cleopatra wanted to take over Judea from Herod (see also 15.79, 88, 92). Ant. 15.97-98 hints at Cleopatra’s strategy to have Herod executed on the accusation of having raped her. For the expression ἐκποδὼν ποιεῖσθαι (“get [someone] out of the way”), see 15.20 with the note to “get him out of the way,” also 15.231 with the note to “out of the way.”

For the combination of προσδοκάω (“expect”) and δυσχερές (“unpleasant”), cf. Ant. 15.238. The phrase introduces the conclusion of the letter, which focuses on additional information about Antony and Cleopatra, who were the key persons during Herod’s trip. I.e., Antony. The noun εὔνοια can also mean “loyalty” in connection with a close relationship between a patron and his client (see Ant. 15.193 with the note to “loyalty to him”). The expression βεβαιοτέραν τὴν εὔνοιαν (“his benevolence … had become stronger”) is paralleled by Isocrates, Demon. 36.

The Greek in Ant. 15.79 is ambiguous and can be translated by “hope for a greater advantage” or “hope of satisfying her greediness.” The latter translation matches Josephus’ depiction of Cleopatra in other passages (see, e.g., 15.89-90, and for the queen’s alleged greediness, 15.90). The name “Coele-Syria” (“Hollow Syria”) is ambiguous because in Herod’s time it refers to different areas, including the kingdom of Chalcis (see Ant. 15.92 with the note to “Lysanias, the son of Ptolemy”) and the region between Mt Lebanon and the Anti-Lebanon, which traditionally carried the name “Hollow Syria” (e.g., Strabo, Geogr. 16.2.16). Coele-Syria can also refer to all of southern Syria, including Judea, from the Libanon/Bekaa Valley to the south. The Ptolemies and Seleucids used this name for the contested region of southern Syria (Polybius 5.34.5; 5.42.5-9; 86.1-7; 8.17.11; 16.22a.2; 23.2.4; 28.1.1-5). Strabo, in fact, mentions two meanings: the Bekaa Valley (properly, see above) or all of the south (referring also to the Jordan and Lake Gennesareth, 16.2.16). He adds that many people divide all of Syria (i.e., the Phoenician and Palestinian coasts with their hinterland) into 3 areas: those of the Syrians, the Phoenicians (on the coast), and Coele-Syria, with 4 ethnic groups (Judeans, Gazans, Azotians and Idumeans, Strabo, Geogr. 16.2.21-3.1). Josephus (War 1.155-157) says that Pompey took away the Hasmonean-conquered cities from Coele-Syria and gave them back. These cities (reading the opening of 1.155 as a topic sentence for the whole paragraph) are all of the internal and coastal cities of southern Syria. “Coele-Syria” sometimes refers to the Decapolis area and the Hauran region (see Ant. 15.112). Schalit (2001: 775-77) and Buchheim (1960: 100-01 n. 28) argue that Josephus usually intends the latter region, which may have included the city of Damascus (see also Bickerman 1947; Kasher 1988: 144; Richardson 1996: 70 n. 74; Nodet 2005: 139, and for the later period, Millar 1993b: 121-23).The Antiquities narrative differs from Josephus’ presentation in War because 15.79 may imply that there had already been a grant of territories (i.e., “Coele-Syria”) by Antony to Cleopatra before the region of Jericho and the cities between the river Eleutherus and Egypt were granted to the queen (War 1.361, paralleled by Ant. 15.95-96) and that Antony had tried to satisfy Cleopatra by giving her Coele-Syria instead of Judea. If there actually was a separate first grant to Cleopatra, it may have concerned the kingdom of Chalcis (Marcus-Wikgren 38 n. a; cf. Richardson 1996: 165 n. 62), or the kingdom of Chalcis with the Decapolis and Damascus (Schalit 2001: 775). For further discussion and references, see Ant. 15.92-96 with notes. The context clearly implies that Cleopatra wanted to get the kingdom of Judea from Antony (see Ant. 15.77 “… Cleopatra desired his country …” and the end of this paragraph). See Ant. 15.63, 77, 92.

A similar phrase (τῶν γραμμάτων … ἀπενεχθέντων) is found in Ant. 16.358 (see the note to “letter”) concerning Augustus’ letter about Herod’s options for dealing with his sons Alexander and Aristobulus IV. The continuation of the sentence clearly refers to Alexandra and Mariamme I (cf. Ant. 15.72). The vocabulary echoes that of Ant. 15.72 (see the previous note), although close parallels are absent. This links up with the rumor that Antony had killed Herod (Ant. 15.71). The rare combination of the verb λανθάνω (“escape notice”) and προαίρεσις (“plan”) also occurs in Ant. 13.8, 176, but there προαίρεσις is object instead of subject (see also Polybius 3.11.1, 12.5). Escorting Antony or Octavian for part of their campaigns was an obvious tribute from Herod as friendly king (see also Ant. 15.199-201, and cf. 15.96, 168). Antony undertook a campaign against the Parthians in 36 BCE (Halfmann 2011: 153-61) because he wanted to get back the Roman standards and captives that the Parthians had been keeping since their victory over Crassus in 53 BCE (Plutarch, Ant. 37.2; Cassius Dio 49.24.5; Buchheim 1960: 39). The Armenian king Artabazes-Artavasdes, who may have played a double role during Antony’s attempt to retrieve the standards, advised him to take a northern route through Media. Antony followed up this advice, but the journey turned out to be a disaster: Antony’s baggage train with heavy siege instruments was captured by the Parthians, and his offer of a peace treaty to the Parthian king Phraates IV was rejected. Thanks to his great military skills Antony still managed to retreat and save two thirds of his army, but his reputation of being invincible was ruined forever (Ziegler 1964: 35-36; Huzar 1978: 175-79). In 35 BCE Antony prepared for a new campaign against Parthia (see Ant. 15.64 with the note to “Laodicea”), but he did not carry it through. In 34 BCE he launched a campaign against Armenia (see 15.96 with the note to “Armenia”). Salome is mentioned ca. 40 times as Herod’s sister in Josephus (explicitly in War 1.441, 443, 566, 646, 660; Ant. 15.223, 254; 16.8; 17.93, 147, 175, 189, 220; 18.31). She appears to have been extremely well-informed and did not hesitate to enlighten Herod if that would suit her (War 1.570, 573; Ant. 17.38, 44). Josephus characterizes her as a companion most loyal to Herod (Mayer-Schärtel 1995: 193) and a shrewd schemer against Mariamme and her sons (War 1.446, 475-480, 483, 534; Ant. 15.81, 223, 231; 16.8, 66-74, 193, 201-205; cf. War 1.641-644; Ant. 16.226; 17.38, 137-140, 142, 220). Schalit (2001: 571) concludes on the basis of Josephus’ portrayal of Salome that she actually was a most hateful and unscrupulously murderous person. For further references about Salome, see Kokkinos 1998: 177-205; Ilan 1999: 115-26. Apparently Salome and Herod’s mother Cyprus (see Ant. 15.184 with the note to “his mother Cyprus”) had found out about Alexandra and Mariamme’s plan, which implies not only that the court was a kind of snake pit, but also that there were 2 factions among the women at the court: “Hasmoneans” around Alexandra and Mariamme (cf. the reference to “Alexandra and her associates” [οἱ περὶ τὴν ’Αλεξάνδραν] further on in this paragraph), and “Herodians,” whose most prominent members must have been Salome and Cyprus (van Henten 2010). The rare combination of ἀποσημαίνω (“indicate”) with διάνοια (“thought, purpose”) as object occurs 3 times elsewhere in Josephus (Ant. 17.186, 344; 18.302). For references on Alexandra’s role as intrigante, see Ant. 15.23 with the note to “Alexandra.”

War 1.443 reports a similar accusation (though Joseph is first described in rather positive terms; see 1.441): Herod assumes that Joseph had seduced Mariamme.Niese (346) indicates that there is a lacuna in the Greek text here: Joseph has been mentioned several times in the preceding narrative (Ant. 15.65-73; see 15.65 with the note to “his uncle Joseph”), but—apart from 14.122; 15.80—Salome has not. This absence raises the question what had happened such that Salome accused her husband. The continuation of the narrative helps to resolve this (although the reader should be aware that Josephus’ hints may be biased and that he may even have invented the entire story; see 15.87 with the note to “he ordered Joseph to be killed”): even if Joseph had had no sexual relationship with Mariamme (see the next note), he obviously had become too intimate with her for Salome’s taste, as she considered Mariamme and the other Hasmoneans to be her enemies (see also 15.80 with the note to “his sister Salome”). Mayer-Schärtel (1995: 195-96) argues that Salome’s accusation of Joseph served Herod’s political interests: Joseph’s guilt enabled the accusation against Mariamme. The order of the events is different in War: Herod finds out about the close relationship between Joseph and Mariamme through the latter (1.442; likewise Ant. 15.85-87), and only afterwards Salome seizes the opportunity to launch her accusations against Mariamme and Joseph (1.443). Here Salome accuses only Joseph, her husband.Other references to accusations by Salome including the noun διαβολή (“slander, [false] accusation,” Rengstorf s.v.) or the verb διαβάλλω (“accuse, reproach, speak slanderously,” Rengstorf s.v.) are found in War 1.443; Ant. 15.213. See also Ant. 15.229 with the note to “in line with the slanders.” The verb συγγίγνομαι followed by a reference to a woman is ambiguous: it can simply mean “see/converse with a woman,” but it can also have the sexual connotation of “have intercourse with” (LSJ s.v. II.1 and 3; Rengstorf s.v.). The latter reading is supported by the continuation of the narrative (Ant. 15.86-87). This would imply that Joseph and Mariamme had committed adultery, which is a capital crime according to the Law (Exod 20:14; Lev 20:10; Deut 5:28; 22:20-30), with stoning as the usual punishment (Lev 20:10; Ezek 16:38-40; cf. John 8:5, and also War 1.438-439 about Salome and Cyprus accusing Mariamme of adultery). The combination of διατελέω with a participle (“continue to …”) is common, but the participle should be in the present tense (Rijksbaron 2002: 112; see the reading of E) instead of the aorist. The phrase χαλεπῶς ἔχειν πρός plus a personal object (“be angry with/hostile to,” Rengstorf s.v.) also occurs in Ant. 7.186; 13.195; 14.404; 16.267. Salome’s criticism of Mariamme matches Josephus’ characterization of Mariamme (see Ant. 15.237-238 with notes). The phrase φρόνημα μεῖζον (“proud spirit”), here with a pejorative connotation, also occurs in Euripides, Suppl. 862; Xenophon, Anab. 3.1.22; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 7.34.1; 19.18.7; Philo, Ios. 4; Somn. 1.140; Plutarch, Lys. 18.2. The verb ἐξονειδίζω (“reproach”) occurs once elsewhere in Josephus (War 6.124). Actually, Herod and Salome’s father Antipater was one of the most prominent persons in Judea, and their mother Cyprus descended from a distinguished Nabatean family, possibly even the royal family (Kokkinos 1998: 95 with n. 37). The decisive point for Mariamme and her mother Alexandra, as presented by Josephus, was that Herod and Salome were born as commoners (see Ant. 15.2 with the note to “commoner”), while Mariamme and her mother descended from the Hasmonaean royal family (cf. 15.220 with the note to “their low birth,” the only other Josephan passage in which the noun δυσγένεια [“low birth”] occurs, Rengstorf s.v.). This theme seems to be connected with the motif of Alexandra attempting to replace Herod by a Hasmonaean ruler (see 15.32, 42, 62-63, 73).

Cf. the characterization of Jeroboam as a hot-headed youth (φύσει θερμὸς ὤν νεανίας) in Ant. 8.209 (see also War 4.292; 5.491). This is one of several passages in Antiquities that highlight Herod’s exceptional passion (ἔρως) for Mariamme (see also 15.65, 69, 204, 207, 209, 211, 214, 218, 238). Ant. 15.82-87 depicts this period in Herod and Mariamme’s relationship in intimate and dramatic terms. Ant. 15.84 suggests that their love was mutual. For similar phrases with ἐρωτικῶς (“amorous”), see Ant. 1.337 (concerning Sikimon-Shechem’s love for Dinah; Gen 34); 2.41 (about Mrs. Potiphar’s love for Joseph; Gen 39); 11.195 (about Artaxerxes’ love for Aste-Vashti; Esth 1); 12.162 (about Joseph the Tobiad’s fondness of money). See also 15.84, 319. Herod’s consternation is understandable in light of his passion for Mariamme (see the preceding note). The king’s response to Salome and his mother’s accusation against Mariamme (“he was greatly disturbed,” ἐξετετάρακτο) is similar to his reaction in the much shorter War report (1.438-440): “This struck Herod like a thunderbolt and perturbed him (ἐτάραξεν) …” (1.440, trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a). Herod responds in a comparable way to Pheroras and Salome’s accusation against his sons Aristobulus and Alexander that they would not leave their mother’s execution unavenged (Ant. 16.75; cf. 16.78). For similar phrases with ταράσσω and related vocabulary referring to Herod, see War 1.328; Ant. 15.210, 223-224; 16.197, 208, 259, 261, 265, 385, and also Ant. 16.363 (ἀταρακτήσας). See also 15.24 referring to Alexandra, and 15.235 referring to Mariamme (and 15.71, 277). In both of Josephus’ Herod narratives expressions with (ἐκ-)ταράσσω (“trouble, disturb”) and related words occur, with the majority in Antiquities. This point links up with Herod’s order to Joseph (see Ant. 15.65). War reports Salome and Cyprus’ accusation against Mariamme directly before the narrative about Herod’s trip to Antony and his order to Joseph. Herod is shocked by this accusation “because his passion made him jealous” (διὰ τὸν ἔρωτα ζηλοτύπως ἔχοντα, 1.440, trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a). A little farther on, War uses the noun ζηλοτυπία in a sentence that reports the king’s reaction to Salome’s accusation of both Mariamme and Joseph: “Then, driven mad with sheer jealousy (ὑπ’ ἀκράτου ζηλοτυπίας ἐκμανεὶς), he [i.e., Herod] ordered both of them to be put to death immediately” (1.443, trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a). About ζηλοτυπία referring to the jealousy of husbands, see Ant. 3.271; 15.213 (also referring to Herod); 16.207; 20.149 (cf. 5.277 and Chariton 4.4.9; Achilles Tatius 6.11; Dio Chrystom 61.12). MSS LW read ἐπικρατούμενος δέει (“controlled himself for fear”; cf. Ant. 15.87 ἐκράτησεν ἑαυτοῦ) instead of ἐπικρατούμενος δ’ ἀεὶ (literally “but he continuously controlled himself,” Niese 346). Moments of severe anger occur earlier in the Herod narratives of both War and Antiquities (War 1.212, 214, 252, 320, 484, 507, 526, 565, 571, 654-655; Ant. 14.180, 436; 15.83, 211, 214, 229; 16.90, 199-200, 262, 366; 17.50, 69, 83, 191). The 2 works show, apart from a few exceptions (e.g., War 1.443; Ant. 15.299), that the king was usually capable of controlling and concealing his anger (see, e.g., War 1.320, 484; Ant. 17.50, 83; van Henten 2011b). Ant. 15.177 contains a similar phrase with προπετές and ποιέω (“do [something] rash”), concerning Hyrcanus II. See the note to “could not bear having a rival” above. The Greek (τῷ ζήλῳ παρωξυμμένος) may allude to Deut 32:19 (= Odes 2:19):“And the Lord saw it and was jealous (ἐζήλωσεν), and he was provoked (παρωξύνθη) on account of the wrath of his sons and daughters” (trans. NETS). See the next note on the different endings of this story in War and Antiquities.

Literally “counted up everything.” The verb καταλογίζομαι (“count up, calculate, present,” Rengstorf s.v.) also occurs in Ant. 15.177 (in a similar context); 16.69, 75. Contrary to the parallel passage of War (1.443), in which Herod immediately gives orders to execute Mariamme and Joseph, the Antiquities narrative provides space for Mariamme’s defense (for the probable date of Mariamme’s death, see 15.237 with the note to “died this way” and van Henten 2010: 159-73). Josephus’ vocabulary is slightly ambiguous because the abstract formulation leaves room for the interpretation that Mariamme had committed adultery. Nevertheless, the overall picture of Mariamme is positive: she defends herself as well as she can, and manages to persuade Herod, which is also a victory over Salome, who clearly tries to destroy Mariamme according to Antiquities (see, e.g., 15.80-81; van Henten 2010). This fits in with the general picture about Herod managing to control his anger (see Ant. 15.82 with the note to “controlled himself”; differently 15.211). Compare with the very different presentation in War 1.443. On Herod’s affection (φιλοστοργία) for Mariamme, see Ant. 15.66 with the note to “great affection for” and 15.68 with the note to “loyalty and affection.” For the combination of φιλοστοργία and a passive voice of ἡττάομαι (“be overcome”), see John Chrysostom, Hom. Gen. (PG 54.467). Mariamme’s defense is so successful that Herod and his wife almost reverse roles: the verb ἀπολογεῖσθαι (“apologize”) links up with the noun ἀπολογία (“defense”) a few lines earlier (i.e., “defend herself”), referring to Mariamme. The phrase χάριν ὁμολογέω (“offer thanks, express gratitude,” Rengstorf s.v.) is common in ancient Greek writings, also in Josephus (Ant. 2.162; 5.13, 30; 8.112; 9.270; 15.83; 16.61; 17.201; Life 143). The rare expression κοσμιότης means “proper behavior, decorum” in connection with sexual behavior (LSJ s.v.; Rengstorf s.v.; Mayer-Schärtel 1995: 191). It is usually associated with σωφροσύνη (“self-control,” Plato, Alc. mai. 122c; Gorg. 508a; Philo, Fug. 33, 154; Ios. 40; Somn. 1.124; Spec. 3.51; Josephus, Ant. 2.59) and sometimes also with εὐταξία (“discipline,” Diogenes Laertius 7.126).

The combination of στοργή (“love”) and εὔνοια (“goodwill, affection”) also occurs in Ant. 4.134, which is part of the speech of the Midianite women to the Israelite young men who were seduced by them (Num 25). See also Ant. 15.68 with the note to “loyalty and affection,” and for στοργή referring to the relationship between Herod and his sons Alexander and Aristobulus, War 1.460, 465, 473. See Ant. 15.82 with the note to “loved her terribly.” Forms of the verb πίπτω (“fall, burst”), or its compounds, in combination with the expression εἰς δάκρυα (“into tears”) are very rare (cf. Libanius, Decl. 36.1.38), although 3 such occurrences are found in Josephus (see also Ant. 2.109 about Joseph, and 5.292 about Samson’s wife).

The shorter reading ἀεὶ δὲ καὶ μᾶλλον τοῦ βασιλέως πιστουμένου τὴν αὐτοῦ διάθεσιν of MSS PFV (followed by Niese 347) implies a translation like “But since the king continued to give more pledges of his disposition towards her.” The reading ἀεὶ δὲ καὶ μᾶλλον τοῦ βασιλέως πιστουμένου καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν αὐτοῦ διάθεσιν ἕλκοντος of MSS LAMWE (followed by the present translation) seems to be the more difficult and therefore the preferable reading. Josephus’ description indicates that Mariamme seized the opportunity to be honest with Herod; she told him what had bothered her so much since his trip to Antony. Although Herod’s behavior almost invited this kind of frankness, which is supposed to be self-evident for lovers (cf. Mariamme’s following statement), it apparently turned out badly for her, as the continuation of the narrative shows. The beginning of Mariamme’s statement (οὐ φιλοῦντος … τό) suggests that Herod did exactly what a lover is not supposed to do. A passage in Chariton’s famous novel Chaereas and Callirhoe (4.4.9) reflects the truism that jealousy is typical of a lover: ’Αλλὰ ἐζηλοτύπησα. Τοῦτο ἴδιόν ἐστι φιλοῦντος (“You say I was jealous. That is not unusual of a lover,” trans. Goold; see also Cassius Dio 41.27.2). For other cases of φιλοῦντος as a substantivated participle meaning “lover,” see Plato, Lys. 212b-c; Achilles Tatius 2.37.7. This phrase echoes previous passages about Herod’s order to kill Mariamme if he was executed by Antony (see Ant. 15.69 εἰ πάσχοι τι [cf. 15.65]; 15.70 χαλεπόν; 15.65 ὑπ’ ’Αντωνίου).

The conjecture προπεσόντος (followed by Niese 347) implies a translation such as: “when (these words) were presented.” However, it has no parallels and is unnecessary: the reading attested by the MSS (προσπεσόντος τοῦ λόγου “when these words came to his ears,” LSJ s.v. προσπίπτω II.5) is perfectly understandable and is confirmed by other passages in which the verb has a similar meaning (e.g., Plutarch, Brut. 15.9; Phil. 12.3). The verb περιπαθέω (“be greatly excited,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. Herod’s reaction may seem theatrical, but the continuation of the narrative implies that Salome’s severe accusation of adultery (see Ant. 15.81 with notes) had become convincing to Herod. For the verb (ἐπι-)δράττομαι used for tearing one’s hair as a gesture to show one’s horror, see Menander, Mis. 322; Josephus, Ant. 16.216; Libanius, Decl. 51.1.16. For the rare expression φώριον ἔχειν (“have damning evidence,” LSJ s.v. φώριον), cf. Nonnus, Dion. 8.332; 13.385. Concerning περιφανές (“clear”), cf. Ant. 15.93, 235. The noun κοινωνία can mean “association, fellowship,” but it can also refer to sexual intercourse, as is implied here and in Ant. 15.228 (also referring to Mariamme, LSJ s.v. II; Rengstorf s.v.).

For the verb ἐξεῖπον with the connotation “disclose confidential meaning,” see Ant. 15.205; 19.112; Life 204. This refers to Herod’s secret order to Joseph (Ant. 15.64, paralleled by War 1.441). The noun πίστις (“trust,” Rengstorf s.v.; Lindsay 1993: 78) refers here to an intimate relationship between lovers that presupposes full mutual trust. The expression ὀλίγου … ἀπέκτεινε (“he almost killed …”) occurs with slight differences 3 times in Cassius Dio (39.63; 62.29; 68.11). Mariamme is once again saved by Herod’s exceptional love for her. For references concerning Herod’s love for Mariamme, see Ant. 15.83 with the note to “overcome by affection” (note also the variation in Josephus’ vocabulary: cf. ἡττώμενος τῆς περὶ τὴν γυναῖκα φιλοστοργίας in 15.83 with νικώμενος τῷ πρὸς αὐτὴν ἔρωτι in 15.87). The Greek echoes Ant. 15.82 (“he … controlled himself”). The verb διακαρτερέω (“endure, bear”) in Josephus usually implies the enduring of suffering (War 6.280, 318; Ant. 6.370; 16.379) or torture (Ant. 16.315, 389). Here it indicates Herod’s great emotional pain because he believes, according to Antiquities, Salome’s accusation on the basis of Mariamme’s statement (15.85). Nevertheless, the king decides to be merciful to his wife. Herod’s emotional suffering can also be understood in the light of Josephus’ hints at the king’s jealousy (Ant. 15.65, 70; this is explicit in the parallel passage of War [1.443]). Otto (1913: 8-9 n. **, building on von Destinon 1882: 113 n. 1) considers the entire passage of Ant. 15.65-87 (paralleled by War 1.441-443) to be fictitious. He suggests that it concerns an adapted duplicate of the closely related story about Alexandra and Mariamme being put up in the Fortress Alexandrium, which ultimately led to Mariamme’s death (Ant. 15.185-186, 202-236). The duplicate would result from the fact that Josephus depended on 2 sources for Mariamme’s death: an anonymous source, which set it erroneously in 35/34 BCE; and Nicolaus of Damascus, who correctly placed it in 29 BCE. For a comparison of both passages, see Ant. 15.236 with the note to “her last moments.” Sandmel (1967: 164-65 n. 5), Schürer-Vermes (1.302-03 n. 49), and Schalit (2001: 115-16, 135 n. 127) reject Otto’s argument; Baumann (1983: 183) and Günther (2005: 109) support it. Schalit (l.c.) argues that both stories about Herod’s journey abroad and a secret order to kill Mariamme in case he would not return are historical and that the correspondences between the two accounts result from the similar ways in which Herod responded to the dangerous situations during which he had to defend himself before his Roman patron abroad (first before Antony and later before Octavian). He situates the events narrated in War 1.441-443; Ant. 15.65-87 in 35 BCE and also argues that Herod seriously feared for his life when he entered his journey to Mark Antony in 35 BCE. Richardson (1996: 218-20) partly follows Otto and suggests that Josephus fabricated Ant. 15.65-87 in order to explain Herod’s motive for the execution of Joseph (see 15.65 with the note to “kill Mariamme immediately”). For phrases parallel to ἔρχομαι εἰς ὄψιν, see Euripides, Iph. taur. 902; Diodorus 32.10; Plutarch, Ant. 72.3; Cic. 31.3. The punishment of Alexandra is surprising at first glance: if Salome’s accusation was accurate, Herod had much more reason to blame his wife Mariamme than her mother. The conclusion of the parallel narrative of War, ending with the executions of both Joseph and Mariamme (1.443), supports that reasoning. The narrative of Antiquities, however, leaves Alexandra to carry the can more than once (see also 15.31-32, 42-43). Mariamme and Alexandra cooperate in several actions directed against Herod (15.26-27, 31, 35, 80), but Alexandra usually takes the initiative (15.24, 69, 72-73). The adjective παραίτιος means literally “being in part the cause of something” (LSJ s.v.; Rengstorf s.v.; see also Ant. 4.208, 464; 10.126; 15.152).

This formula (ἐν δὲ τούτῳ) of Josephus introduces a new section of the narrative that focuses upon Cleopatra (Ant. 15.88-103), but chronologically this episode is set in about the same period as the events told in the preceding section. Sometimes the formula commences a parallel story when Josephus is working with several story lines and moves from one to the other by transferring to another location (see 15.71 with the note to “In this time”). While the previous section focuses on Herod and his family within a Judean context, Josephus moves now to Syria, although Herod and Judea are still playing a role (e.g., Ant. 15.96). In this new episode (15.88-160) Cleopatra plays a key role (see the next 2 notes).Syria probably refers here to the region of Syria and not the Roman province with that name (Schalit 1968: 116; Möller and Schmitt 1976: 178-80). This region roughly bordered on the Mediterranean Sea to the west, the Amanus and Taurus Mountains to the northwest, and the River Euphrates to the east. Palestine and Phoenicia were frequently included, though also differentiated from it (see 15.79 with the note to “Coele-Syria”). Pompey founded the Roman province of Syria in 64 BCE, with Antioch as its capital. Judea, Iturea, the Nabatean kingdom, and the Decapolis were connected with the province through various relationships and with various degrees of autonomy (Lifshitz 1977; Rey-Coquais 1978; Millar 1993b: 32-39; Kennedy 1996; Klengel and Ruprechtsberger 2001). The disarray in Syria (ταραχὰς εἶχεν) does not mean rebellion (cf. Ant. 15.30 with notes), but is clearly linked to Cleopatra as an evil person able to manipulate Antony according to her own interests and to undermine the authority of local rulers, including Herod. This overstatement indicates that Josephus immediately characterizes the queen in a negative way (cf. War 1.359). For a list of Cleopatra’s crimes, see Ant. 15.89-91, and for further references, 15.24 with the note to “Cleopatra.” Cleopatra’s strategy is laid out clearly with a few words: Josephus suggests that Cleopatra focused on Rome’s friendly kings in Egypt’s periphery (e.g., Judea, Syria, and the Nabatean territories) and wanted them to be removed in order to become the ruler of their territories (Kasher 1988: 131-33). The parallel passage of War (1.359-361) indicates that this policy implied that the kings had to be murdered. In Ant. 15.88-103 Josephus expands War’s rather compact passage about Cleopatra’s murderous attitude towards Antony’s friendly kings and also changes the sequence of the events somewhat. He highlights Cleopatra’s attempt to have Herod murdered (15.97) and emphasizes in this way that Cleopatra aimed for Herod’s death and territory (cf. 15.92; this motif is anticipated in 15.77, 79). Ant. 15.88 links up with these passages by noting that Cleopatra kept pressing Antony to give her the dominions (δυναστείας) of neighboring rulers after murdering them and that Antony gave in to her in most cases out of his passion for her (see the next note). War 1.361, however, notes that Antony refrained from killing these rulers but did take away parts of their territories. It may also indicate that Cleopatra ended these rulers’ status as Antony’s “friends” (τὸ δὲ τούτων ἔγγιον φίλους διεκρούσατο; see Ant. 15.5 with the note to “the friends around him”), although Schalit (2001: 774) argues that these words in War are corrupt. The Antiquities narrative not only reports Cleopatra’s actions against Antony’s friendly kings (15.92-95), but also implies that Antony never gave the main territories of Herod and the Nabatean king Malichus I (see 15.107 with the note to “the Arab”) to Cleopatra; such behavior would not have matched Antony’s general policy concerning the friendly kingdoms (see 15.5 with the note to “Antony”). The obvious reason for Antony’s attitude towards Herod and Malichus is the support that he received from them, e.g., during his wars against the Parthians and Armenians (Halfmann 2011: 175, 200). Josephus suggests that Antony was instrumental for Cleopatra to implement her strategies. The claim that Cleopatra manipulated Antony by taking advantage of his passion (ἐπιθυμία) for her is also found in War 1.359; Ant. 15.93. The latter passage also refers to a sexual relationship and Cleopatra’s use of drugs in order to manipulate Antony. Ant. 15.88 is slightly milder than its parallel passage of War (1.359) because it notes that Cleopatra did not succeed to have all her wishes fulfilled, while War states in plain language that Antony was already corrupted by his love for Cleopatra (ἤδη γὰῥ Αντώνιος τῷ Κλεοπάτρας ἔρωτι διεφθαρμένος). The key noun in War (ἔρως “love”) is absent in Ant. 15.88; however, the passages share a second key word (ἐπιθυμία “desire, passion”). Velleius Paterculus (2.85.6) and Seneca the Younger (Ep. 83.25) emphasize that Antony’s love for Cleopatra ruined him, which view was more or less the official one at Rome after Octavian’s victory at Actium (Becher 1966: 62; Huzar 1978: 245-46).

With the expression φύσει, which literally means “by nature/character” (cf. Ant. 13.319 concerning Aristobulus I and 15.237 concerning Mariamme), Josephus starts a description of Cleopatra’s character in a brief excursus (15.89-91), which surpasses the parallel comment of War (1.359) with regard to its repetitive negative vocabulary and devastating characterization of Cleopatra.In the context of the characterization of someone (e.g., in a eulogy) the noun φύσει and related expressions can refer to a person’s physical characteristics (e.g., Achilles Tatius 1.6.2; 2.17.3) as well his or her inner (i.e., psychological and moral) traits (e.g., Chariton 1.4.5; 2.3.3; 2.5.2; 2.6.4). Ancient authors dealing with the theory of rhetoric indicate that the qualities indicated by phrases with φύσει are inherent and should be distinguished from characteristics that are the result of one’s descent, social environment, peers, and education, which goes back to the sophists’ distinction between physis and nomos (De Temmerman 2006: 94-98).Although an explicit characterization of Cleopatra is missing in War, several traits highlighted in Antiquities are already present: War 1.360 emphasizes Cleopatra’s greed (πλεονεξία), specified as greed for more territories. The motif of Cleopatra’s greediness (see also Ant. 15.90 and, possibly, 15.79) may have been partly inspired by reports about her desperate attempts to collect whatever money she could lay her hands on after the devastating defeat at Actium, by executing wealthy Egyptians, confiscating their possessions, and plundering temples (Cassius Dio 51.5.4). In Apion 2.58 Josephus accuses the queen of pillaging her ancestral gods and her forefathers’ sepulchers; these minor additions of paternosque and progenitorum make her image even worse than that in Antiquities because they imply that Cleopatra turned into an enemy of her own people. Becher (1966: 68, following Reinach) assumes that Josephus’ exaggerated reproach in Apion 2.58 originates in the bitterness of the Alexandrian Jews about Cleopatra’s aggressive behavior towards them (cf. 2.59-60). Josephus’ statements about the queen in Antiquities and Apion match the stereotypic image of the godless tyrant (Lebram 1975; van Henten 2005a; see also Ant. 15.91). The queen’s unlawfulness (παρανομία) is highlighted again and specified in Ant. 15.90 (παρενομήθησαν). The statement is paralleled by the first item in the catalogue of Cleopatra’s crimes (Apion 2.56-61): cui nihil omnino iniustitiae et malorum operum defuit (“who was steeped in every kind of injustice and criminal activity …,” Barclay in BJP 10 on Apion 2.57; van Henten 2005a: 128-32). War 1.359-361 (cf. 1.440) refers to Cleopatra’s murderous intentions, with 1.359 noting—in general terms—that the queen murdered all her remaining relatives (which fact is elaborated in Antiquities). Apion 2.57 refers to Cleopatra’s crimes against her husbands. The rare verb προαναιρέω (“take away before, kill first,” Rengstorf s.v.) also occurs in Ant. 14.344; 15.192 (referring to Cleopatra as object); 20.149. The general statement about Cleopatra murdering her relatives in War 1.359 is elaborated here with specific information: the note that Cleopatra’s brother Ptolemy XIV was poisoned is not attested elsewhere (Becher 1966: 64; Apion 2.58 states more generally that Cleopatra murdered her brother). Ptolemy XIV was not only Cleopatra’s younger brother but also her husband according to Cassius Dio 42.44 (Hölbl 1994: 212 with n. 71). See also Apion 2.57-58 and Appian, Bell. civ. 5.1.9, which (wrongly) gives Milete—also referring to the temple of Artemis Leucophryene (which was located at Magnesia on the Meander)—instead of Ephesus as the location of Arsinoe’s death (Marcus-Wikgren 44 n. a; Huzar 1978: 154; Hölbl 1994: 216). Buchheim (1960: 25) argues that killing Arsinoe and a few other opponents of Cleopatra was a very small price for Antony for gaining the huge support of Egypt and its queen.The Greek virgin goddess Artemis was associated with Ephesus in mythological traditions about her birth. Artemis’ mother Leto had to flee for Hera, the jealous spouse of Zeus, who was the father of the twins Artemis and Apollo. Leto gave birth to Artemis in Ortygia or “Quails’ Land,” which was located near Ephesus according to certain traditions. Artemis was widely venerated in Asia Minor, and her most prominent local cult was at Ephesus. Her sanctuary there, built by Chersiphron and his son Metagenes in 356 BCE (Strabo 14.1.22), was counted among the Seven Wonders of the World. It functioned as a place of asylum. Augustus reduced the area for asylum seekers because the place attracted too many criminals (Strabo 14.1.23; Mussies 1999: 91-94).

Cleopatra’s greed for money is exemplified by her robbing of temples and tombs. This trait, which is paralleled by Apion 2.58, belongs to the tyrannical stereotype (see 15.89 with the note to “her greedy character”): rulers with a very bad reputation like Cambyses, Antiochus IV, and Nero were famous for robbing temples (concerning Antiochus IV, see 1 Macc 6:1-4; 2 Macc 1:13-16; 9:2). Nero in particular was characterized as enemy of the gods because of his temple robberies (Pseudo-Seneca, Oct. 239; Tacitus, Ann. 15.45; Suetonius, Nero 32.4; Cassius Dio 63.11.3-4; van Henten 1993: 228-35, 242; 2000). For the expression χρημάτων ἕνεκεν (“for the sake of money”), see Aristotle, Eth. Eud. 1216a; Dio Chrysostom 74.24; Eusebius, Comm. Isa. 1.92.85 (ed. Ziegler 180); John Chrysostom, Exp. Ps. (PG 55.297.58). Josephus’ parallel statements concerning sacred and secular spaces highlight that nothing was safe from Cleopatra’s wicked acts and attempts to enrich herself, which ties in with the opening remarks of Ant. 15.89. Several scholars assume that there is a lacuna in the Greek text, which is sometimes filled with the addition of a verb (e.g., ἀρκέσειν “satisfy,” in accordance with the Latin version, as conjectured by Richards and Shutt 1939: 173, and followed by Marcus-Wikgren 44). However, the text transmitted by the MSS (Niese 348) makes sense and there is no reason for adapting it. The extensive quotation of this section in Constantine Porphyrogenitus (Virt. vit. [ed. Roos 2.1.82]) also lacks a verb.

An interesting passage in Herodian associates the phrase “nothing at all was sufficient (οὐδὲν αὔταρκες)” with tyranny: “Plenty of money cannot offer sufficient protection against the lack of self-control of a tyrant (οὔτε γὰρ χρημάτων πλῆθος οὐδὲν αὔταρκες πρὸς τυραννίδος ἀκρασίαν), nor can body-guards protect a ruler sufficiently if the subjects are not loyal to him” (1.4.4, my trans.). About the key noun ἐπιθυμία (“passion, lust, desire”), see Ant. 15.88 with the note to “his passion for her,” and about Cleopatra’s own lust, 15.97 with notes. Horace (Carm. 1.37.7-10) highlights Cleopatra’s lust: “plotting ruin ’gainst the Capitol and destruction for the empire, with her polluted crew of creatures foul with lust” (trans. Bennett). Landau (2006: 121-22) notes that the themes of Cleopatra’s greed and Antony’s weakness (because of his passion for her) recur later in Antiquities in connection with Herod (see 15.219). The Greek text is enigmatic and open to several interpretations, but the implication might be that the queen was not qualified to be a ruler because she was intemperate and lacked self-control, which would match Josephus’ criticism of the queen elsewhere in Antiquities and Apion (van Henten 2005a). This dovetails with Ant. 15.88 about Cleopatra using Antony to take over territories of other rulers (cf. the repetition of ἀφαιρούμενον in 15.88, 91). These 2 lines enfold Josephus’ brief excursus about Cleopatra’s character (15.89-91). This phrase introduces Cleopatra’s interferences with local rulers in the region of Syria (see Ant. 15.88 with the note to “remove everyone’s powers and give them to her”). Cleopatra’s journey through Syria (cf. 15.96) might provide a clue to the date of the events narrated in 15.92-103, although 2 caveats should be taken into account. First, Cleopatra may have accompanied Antony several times when he was traveling from Alexandria to Antioch (the capital of the Roman province of Syria): Josephus relates that she escorted Antony up to the Euphrates River when he was on his way to Armenia (15.96, which trip may be set in 34 BCE; see the note to “war against Armenia”), but the queen may have also accompanied him when he marched to Laodicea (15.64, which journey may be situated in 35 BCE). Second, in 15.92-103, which passage should be situated in different periods (see the notes to 15.94-96), Josephus may have clustered cognate traditions about the extensions of Cleopatra’s territory. I.e., Syria’s regions, as the continuation of the narrative implies.

In ca. 41 BCE Lysanias succeeded his father Ptolemy, the son of Mennaeus, as ruler of Chalcis, a city between Mt Lebanon and the Anti-Lebanon (Jebel Lubnan al-Sharqi) in the Plain of Massyas (Bekaa Valley), south of Damascus. A certain Monicas, an ancestor of Lysanias, founded the principality of Chalcis. Several sources attesting to Monicas imply a setting of ca. 85 BCE. Antony probably appointed Lysanias king of Chalcis in the fall of 39 BCE (Cassius Dio 49.32.5; Buchheim 1960: 19). Lysanias was also appointed king of the Itureans (49.32.5; about the Itureans, see Ant. 15.185 with the note to “the Iturean”) because he was expected to control the robber gangs from this region (Strabo 16.2.18). He supported Antigonus against Hyrcanus II during the Parthian intervention in Syria and Judea (War 1.248; Ant. 14.330). The rulers of Chalcis were natural competitors of the rulers of Judea because they had a great interest in the fertile region of Gaulanitis, northeast of the Sea of Galilee, which belonged to Judea in certain periods (cf. Ant. 13.396; Buchheim 1960: 15-20). This was a most serious accusation because the Parthians were Antony’s greatest enemy in this period (see Ant. 15.11 with the note to “the Parthians”). Buchheim (1960: 19) considers this accusation to be a fabrication because, when Antony appointed Lysanias king of Chalcis, it must have been well known that Lysanias had been a supporter of the Parthian cause and Antony nevertheless made this appointment. However, Cleopatra’s accusation as given here may refer to a later period in which Lysanias was again siding with the Parthians. There may also have been other reasons for Lysanias’ execution, which were probably connected with his rule as Antony’s friendly king. Lysanias may, e.g., not have lived up to his promise to keep the robbers in the region under control (see the previous note). One out of several possible dates for Lysanias’ death is connected with Antony’s campaign against the Parthians in 36 BCE (see the next note). The tenor of Ant. 15.92 (“and she kept asking …”) implies an analogy between Lysanias’ territory and those of Herod and the Nabatean king, which suggests that Lysanias’ death was followed by Antony’s gift of Lysanias’ territory to Cleopatra. This gift is not mentioned in War, but confirmed by inscriptions and coins (Buchheim 1960: 69; see also Strabo 14.5.3; 14.6.6; Plutarch, Ant. 35.5-36.2). Lysanias’ death is mentioned in passing in War 1.439-440 together with the death of the Nabatean king Malichus I (see also Ant. 15.344). War indicates that both of them died because of Cleopatra’s “cleverness” (δεινότης, possibly a double entendre) and that Herod feared for his life as well. Cassius Dio (49.32.5) mentions that Lysanias was executed by Antony and does not connect his death to Cleopatra. In line with this, Roller (1998: 202 n. 14) argues that Josephus’ remark that Cleopatra was responsible for Lysanias’ death is improbable (differently Reinhold 1933: 64; Schürer-Vermes 1.565). Lysanias died either in the 16th year of Cleopatra (September 37-August 36 BCE; Cassius Dio 49.32.4-5) or in 34 BCE (according to a specific reconstruction of the chronological context of the gift referred to in Ant. 15.95; see the notes to this paragraph and Schürer-Vermes 1.253, 288-89 with n. 5, 565). Buchheim (1960: 19) prefers the first date and specifies it: Lysanias would have been killed during the spring of 36 BCE at the latest since Antony was busy with his campaign against the Parthians in the summer of 36 BCE. I.e., the territory of the Nabateans or part of it (Hackl, Jacobs, and Weber 2010: 43; cf. Ant. 15.79, in which passage Coele-Syria is mentioned: Antony had given Cleopatra Coele-Syria instead of what she had been asking for). The Nabatean kingdom consisted of a large territory running from the Southern Hauran (east of the Decapolis and with Bostra as its main city; Nabateans had settled south of the east-west line of Salkhad-Bostra-Der‘a, but it is doubtful whether they formed the majority of the population; see Shatzman 1991: 279-81; Hackl, Jenni, and Schneider 2003: 497) to the mountainous region of the Northern Hedjaz (east of the Red Sea). The Nabateans also settled across the Northern Negev Desert (almost up to the Mediterranean Sea) and in the Sinai Desert. The famous city of Petra was their capital, although the main area of the Nabatean settlement lay north of Petra, in the fertile plains of Moab (Millar 1993b: 387-408). Literally “from them,” i.e., Judea and the territory of the Nabateans.The reference to the death of the Nabatean king Malichus I in the parallel passage of War (1.440) is probably a mistake: other sources show that Malichus outlived Cleopatra and that he ruled from the early fifties to ca. 30 BCE (Richardson 1996: 165 n. 62; Mahieu 2012: 129-32, however, argues for Malichus’ death in March/April 30 BCE, which is before Cleopatra’s death in August 30 BCE; see also Ant. 15.107 with the note to “the Arab”). Josephus may have corrected this mistake in Antiquities.

The verb ἡττάομαι (“being overcome [by a woman/the beauty of a woman]”) is also used in Ant. 7.130, in which case it refers to David falling for Beethsabe-Bathsheba (cf. 15.205). War 1.359 makes a similar statement about Antony: “For Antony was entirely overcome by his passion for her (ἥττων ἦν ἐν πᾶσιν τῆς ἐπιθυμίας)” (trans. BHP 1a). Apion 2.58 implies Antony’s dependence on Cleopatra, but formulates this in a bluntly negative way: “[… she] corrupted Antony by her sexual charms (Antoniumque corrumpens amatoriis rebus) …” (Barclay in BJP 10 on 2.58). See also Ant. 15.88 with notes about Josephus’ characterization of Antony and Cleopatra’s relationship (cf. also Appian, Hist. rom. 12.16.112 concerning Mithridates of Pontus, who “yielded only to pleasures with women,” trans. White). The Greek word ὁμιλία is ambiguous because it can mean “company, conversation” (cf. Ant. 1.45; 2.62; 5.191; 15.68, 75, also War 1.442; Ant. 2.41; 4.134; 7.344; 18.69, 74) as well as “sexual intercourse” (LSJ s.v.). The context implies here that it refers to Cleopatra’s sexual relationship with Antony (see also Ant. 15.97 about Cleopatra’s attempt to have sex with Herod). Cleopatra’s use of drugs (φαρμάκοι) or sorcery in her attempts to seduce men is well known from other sources. Her success with males was attributed to her beauty in later sources only; the motif of her exceptional beauty occurs for the first time in Lucan’s Pharsalia (further references in Becher 1966: 108-10). The rare verb ἐκδυσωπέω (“put [someone] to shame,” LSJ s.v.) also occurs in War 1.51. This passage implies that Antony realized that being obedient to Cleopatra meant that he would be as bad as she, and as such he—as a character in the narrative—endorses Josephus’ very negative view of Cleopatra (see Ant. 15.24 with the note to “Cleopatra”). Josephus suggests that Antony’s shame made him control himself at least to a certain extent, which is perhaps true. However, it is plausible that Antony’s policy with respect to the kings who were his “friends” was determined chiefly by the criterion of advantage to him and Rome (see 15.5 with the note to “the friends around him” and 15.75-76 with notes).

Cf. War 1.361: “Reacting sensibly against at least one part of her orders, Antony thought that it would be a sacrilege to kill respectable men and kings of such importance” (trans. BHP 1a). Both War 1.361 and the statement here imply that Cleopatra’s strategy (cf. Ant. 15.88 with the note to “remove everyone’s powers and give them to her”) partly succeeded.

The River Eleutherus (currently Nahr el-Kebir), in northern Syria, between Orthosia and Tripoli (Strabo 16.2.12-15), was considered to be the boundary between Seleucia and Coele-Syria (16.2.12). A river with the same name is mentioned in 1 Macc 11:7; 12:30, but it is uncertain whether these references concern the relevant river (Abel 1949: 203, 226). Ptolemy I Soter captured the coast of Syria up to the River Eleutherus (Diodorus 20.113.1-2), and the river seems to have been the border between the Ptolemaic and the Seleucid parts of Syria for most of the 3rd cent. BCE (Hölbl 1994: 24, 43). The passage here, therefore, may suggest that it was Cleopatra’s goal to reestablish the early boundaries of the Ptolemaic Empire (cf. Halfmann 2011, who argues that this was Antony’s aim). The parallel phrase of War (1.361) is slightly different: “… he gave … her … all the cities this side of the River Eleutherus …” (trans. BHP 1a). Cassius Dio (49.32.4-5) and Plutarch (Ant. 36) confirm a huge grant of territories to Cleopatra, in 37 (or 36) BCE, but they refer to Phoenicia instead of the cities between the River Eleutherus and Egypt. The date of 37 BCE is adhered to by Buchheim (1960: 68-74), Grant (1972: 240), and Hölbl (1994: 217; see also the gift mentioned in Ant. 15.96, which should be dated in 34 BCE). Schalit (2001: 777) identifies “Phoenicia” (mentioned by Dio and Plutarch) with the cities between the Eleutherus and Egypt referred to by Josephus, which is not entirely accurate because Dio (49.32.4-5), contrary to Plutarch, refers not merely to Phoenicia but to “large parts of Phoenicia and Palestine.” Dio’s phrase may equal Josephus’ reference, which would mean that Josephus and Dio refer to basically the same coastal area that extended from Gaza in the south (see Ant. 15.96 with the note to “the areas in Arabia that were given to her”) to the River Eleutherus in the north. Buchheim (1960: 73) argues that the grants of the coastal region as well as Chalcis (Ant. 15.92) were further motivated by Antony’s strategy to build up a large fleet against Octavian with Cleopatra’s help. Similarly in the parallel passage of War (1.361), but the explanation for this exception is only given in Antiquities. Tyre and Sidon had become autonomous cities in 126/125 BCE, under Seleucid rule, and remained semi-autonomous under the Romans because they were their allies (Udoh 2005: 146 with references). They were not exempt from Roman jurisdiction. Tyre’s special status is apparent from its mint: the city minted silver shekels and half-shekels from 126/125 BCE until 58/59 CE. The Tyrian shekel was the standard currency in which dues to the Jerusalem Temple were paid (Millar 1993b: 285-89).

In the parallel passage of War (1.362-363) Josephus refers twice to the Parthians: when Antony was launching a campaign against them and at Antony’s return from the campaign. Antiquities correctly mentions Armenia and reports later that the Armenian king Artabazes-Artavasdes was taken prisoner of war during the campaign (15.104), which was launched in 34 BCE (Halfmann 2011: 169-72). Schalit (2001: 774) argues that War rightly names Parthia, and refers in this connection to Dio’s note in 49.33.3 that Antony tried to fool the Armenian king by pretending that he was marching out against the Parthians. During the late Roman Republic 2 regions were called Armenia. Lesser Armenia (Armenia inferior) was a small region to the northeast of Asia Minor, west of the Euphrates and south of the Black Sea and the Pontic Mountains. The Romans removed it from the territory of King Tigranes II of Armenia in 66 BCE; it either became an autonomous territory or part of one of the Roman provinces in Asia Minor. Greater Armenia (Armenia maior) was a client kingdom in this period, either in the Roman or the Parthian sphere of influence. This was a much larger area, north of Mesopotamia and south of the Caucasian Mountains (Mitford 1980; Schottky 1989; Brentjes 1997). For Antony’s campaign against Armenia, see Buchheim (1960: 90-91), Bengtson (1974: 21-41), Huzar (1978: 179-82), and Halfmann (2011: 162-76). I.e., to the border of Syria and the Roman sphere of influence (see Ant. 15.88 with the note to “Syria”). Both cities belonged to the Roman province of Syria. The order of these 2 names (also in the parallel account of War [1.362]) may imply that Cleopatra traveled from north to south: Apamea was located near the River Orontes in northern Syria, more than 200 km north of Damascus. Damascus had various rulers in the 1st cent. BCE (see War 1.103, 115; Ant. 13.392, 418) and became part of the Roman province of Syria after its occupation by Pompey’s legates (War 1.127; Ant. 14.29). The city may have belonged to Cleopatra’s territory from 37 to 32 BCE, as coins from 37/36 and 33/32 BCE bearing the images of Antony and Cleopatra suggest (Schürer-Vermes 2.129; Schalit 2001: 120-21, 775-76)—although these coins may also express that there was merely a special relationship between Damascus and Cleopatra (as suggested by Andrew Meadows in Walker and Higgs 2001: 234-35). There is no explicit reference that Antony gave Damascus to Cleopatra, but it is plausible that he did so (with Schalit 2001: 776). The queen must have had a good reason for traveling from the Euphrates to Damascus. The continuation of the narrative refers to economic transactions. A plausible scenario is that Cleopatra went to Damascus to take note of her business affairs after the city had been given to her by Antony, although there is no conclusive evidence for this. Josephus does not specify the place, but one could think of Jerusalem or Jericho since Herod would probably meet the queen in one of his palaces in these cities. In comparison to the brief parallel narrative of War (1.362) Josephus greatly expands the episode of Cleopatra’s visit to Judea in Antiquities (15.96-103; cf. 15.106-107). A region from “Arabia” (i.e., the Nabatean kingdom, Schalit 1968: 14; Millar 1993a: 33; see also Ant. 15.92 with the note to “the territory of the Arabs” and 15.111 with the note to “Arabia”) that Cleopatra probably received was the enclave at the southeastern section of the Dead Sea, where bitumen was produced (Hieronymus of Cardia, FGH 154 F 5; Diodorus 2.48.6; 2.98.1-2). In Antiquities (cf. the parallel account of War [1.361-362]) Josephus seems to date Antony’s grant of the territories near the Dead Sea to Cleopatra in 34 BCE since he connects it with Antony’s campaign against Parthia, which took place in 34 BCE (see the note to “war against Armenia” above and 15.104). The setting implies that this gift should be distinguished from Antony’s grant in 37 BCE, referred to by Plutarch and Porphyrius (see 15.95 with notes and Eusebius, Chron. [ed. Schoene 1.170]).Schalit (2001: 773-77) argues that there were probably 3 successive grants to Cleopatra: a first one (in 37 or perhaps 36 BCE) consisted of the kingdom of Chalcis, Coele-Syria (see Ant. 15.79), Cilicia, Cyprus, and the cities between the Eleutherus and Egypt (see 15.95); a second one (in 35 BCE) of Gaza; and a third one (in 34 BCE) of Jericho and certain Nabatean areas. The separate grant of Gaza becomes improbable if one assumes that the geographical references in Josephus and Dio are correct and that Plutarch’s account is deficient. In that case Gaza was probably part of the coastal area included in Antony’s grant of 37 (or 36) BCE (with Shatzman 1991: 287). Ant. 15.254 implies that Gaza originally belonged to Herod’s territory since it states that Herod appointed Costobarus as governor of Gaza in 40 BCE (Jones 1937: 271 with n. 57). Ant. 15.217 indicates that Gaza was taken away from Herod and given to Cleopatra (i.e., by Antony), and returned to Herod by Octavian in the autumn of 30 BCE (Schürer-Vermes 1.289); it does not refer to a separate gift of Gaza to Cleopatra. Huzar (1978: 167) suggests that Herod lost Gaza and Joppa in 36 BCE as a result of Costobar’s scheming with Cleopatra. Stern (1974b: 306-07) mentions Gaza, Samaria, and Joppa as cities that may have been removed from Herod’s territory. The gifts of Samaria and Joppa are possible, but they are not mentioned explicitly in the relevant passages (cf. Buchheim 1960: 68-74; Becher 1966: 40-41; Schürer-Vermes 1.298-300). The parallel passage of War (1.361) mentions “the palm-grove of Jericho where the balsam-tree grows” as one of the territories received by Cleopatra. In Antiquities Josephus expands the information about Herod leasing back the territories within “Arabia” given to Cleopatra (15.96, 106-107, 132). Ant. 15.107 implies that Herod acted as an intermediary between Cleopatra and the Nabatean king Malichus I, who had to pay Herod 200 talents, most probably for the lease of these territories or part of them. Strabo does not mention Jericho in his reports about Antony’s gifts to Cleopatra, but he does mention Korakesion and Amaxia (14.5.3), and also recalls that Cleopatra owned the island Elaiussa (14.5.6). Diodorus (2.48.9; 19.98), Strabo (16.2.41), and Plutarch (Ant. 36.3) praise the balsam from the region of Jericho. Balsam was used for cosmetic purposes and as a medicine against headache and eyesight problems (on the balsam plantations, see also War 4.469; Ant. 8.174, and for the cultivation of both balsam and dates in the region of Jericho, Schürer-Vermes 1.298-300 with n. 36). Niese (349) conjectures ὀποβάλσαμον (“the juice of the balsam-tree”) instead of βάλσαμον (“balsam-tree,” Rengstorf s.v.) because ὀποβάλσαμον also occurs in a related passage about Jericho (Ant. 14.54). However, this conjecture is unnecessary since βάλσαμον can also refer to the fragrant oil coming from the balsam-trees (LSJ s.v. I.2). The costly products from the area of Jericho (apart from balsam also dates) as well as the bitumen from the Dead Sea yielded huge profits (Schalit 2001: 261; on these products see also War 4.468-481; Ant. 14.54). The revenues of the lease of this region must have been a considerable contribution to Cleopatra’s enormous wealth at the end of her life (Cassius Dio 51.15.4). Richardson (1996: 166) calculates that the amount that Herod had to pay to Cleopatra equaled half of his income of the year 4 BCE. The Greek φοῖνιξ means, i.a., “date-palm” (Phoenix dactylifera, LSJ s.v. II) and “date” (Rengstorf s.v., referring to Ant. 10.190). Marcus-Wikgren and Meijer-Wes translate “palm trees.”

Josephus considerably expands the information given in War 1.362 about Cleopatra’s visit to Judea (Ant. 15.97-103). Otto (1913: 47) and Schalit (2001: 121) consider it entirely possible that Cleopatra really tried to seduce Herod since she was famous for doing such things. Cleopatra’s relationships with Caesar and Antony were well known, and her unsuccessful attempt to seduce Octavian after the Battle of Actium was reported widely (e.g., Florus 2.21.9; Cassius Dio 51.12; Becher 1966: 34; Huzar 1978: 227)—although this last attempt to seduce a powerful man may have been fictitious, part of a trend to present her as a woman who used sex to push her plans through. Josephus’ portrait of the queen in Antiquities matches this trend to portray Cleopatra in a very negative light (see also the next notes). If she really did try to seduce Herod, one would expect Josephus to have included the episode already in War. Grant (1972: 159-60) and Günther (2005: 105-06) argue that both Cleopatra’s attempt to seduce Herod and the king’s plan to murder her (see Ant. 15.98) are unhistorical since both deeds would have made Antony extremely angry. Huzar (1978: 167 n. 46) considers Cleopatra’s attempt to seduce Herod to be highly implausible. If the story is fictitious indeed, it may have derived either from Herod’s memoirs or from Josephus himself (Herod’s memoirs were incorporated in Antiquities according to Ant. 15.174; see Otto 1913: 46; Schalit 2001: 121). Whether or not Herod invented the story, it definitely turns him into a friend of the Roman people in the perspective of Cleopatra and Antony’s defeat at Actium. On the narrative level, the story anticipates the advice that Herod, during his meeting with Octavian, claimed to have previously given to Antony, namely to kill Cleopatra (Ant. 15.191-192; cf. War 1.389-390. Ant. 15.101 hints at a similar advice). The story about Cleopatra’s attempt to seduce Herod and Herod’s plan to murder her could, therefore, also be Josephus’ invention: he may have taken the report of Herod’s discussion with Octavian after Actium (War 1.389-390; Ant. 15.191-192) as point of departure for another, fictitious, story about Cleopatra, i.e., that she attempted to have sex with Herod and have him executed afterwards.The noun συνουσία can mean “company, banquet, gathering,” and it sometimes refers to intercourse with a sexual connotation (LSJ s.v. I.4; Rengstorf s.v.; see Philo, Leg. 3.156; Josephus, War 1.489; Ant. 3.78, 275; 5.307; 6.236; Apion 2.234). Josephus’ description of Cleopatra’s attempt to seduce Herod links up with his brief characterization of the queen in Ant. 15.89-91 through the repetition of “by nature” (φύσει; see 15.89 with the note to “character”). Together, the 2 passages depict Cleopatra as a most dangerous killer queen. See Ant. 15.29 with the notes to “erotic diversion” and “undisguised” concerning Antony. The statement here about Cleopatra lines up with suggestions by other authors that sexual pleasure was a goal in itself for her. Propertius (3.11.39) and Pliny the Elder (9.58.119) characterize her as a whoring queen (regina meretrix; see also Lucan 10.358-360, 369-370, 374-375; Becher 1966: 181-82; Wyke 2009). Grant (1972: XVII) links up with this negative portrayal and states that Cleopatra’s sexuality dominated her character. He seems to be not critical enough of his sources, but his view matches the tenor of Josephus’ portrait of the queen in Antiquities. The other occurrence (Ant. 16.10) of the rare verb ὑποκατασκευάζω (“prepare beforehand/secretly”) in Josephus is also part of the Herod narrative. Josephus is highly ambiguous about Cleopatra’s motive to start a sexual relationship with Herod (cf. Richardson 1996: 166). Her meeting with the king clearly concerns business (Ant. 15.96), but Josephus suggests that she used to enjoy sexual pleasures during such occasions. He also hints at Cleopatra’s being attracted to Herod but suggests at the same time that the attempt to have sex with him was likely a trap, which would imply that Cleopatra unscrupulously used sex as a means to realize her political goals. Josephus’ suggestion of intimacies planned by Cleopatra as a set-up to a framed accusation of sexual harassment by Herod matches the very negative portrayal of Cleopatra elsewhere in Antiquities. One can imagine well that such a trap would be effective with Antony and might have resulted in the gift of Herod’s kingdom to Cleopatra. The Greek with the infinitive verb ἡττῆσθαι echoes Ant. 15.93, concerning Antony’s being overcome by Cleopatra (see also 15.242 with the note to “overcome by his passion”).

Both War and Antiquities suggest that Herod and Cleopatra were competitors and that the queen consistently tried to take over the territories of Antony’s client rulers (War 1.359-360, 365; Ant. 15.77, 92-93). Antiquities adds to this point that Cleopatra was involved in Alexandra’s plot against Herod (15.32), that she hated the king (15.48), and that she tried to have him punished for the murder of Aristobulus III (15.63, 65, 75). Herod’s hostility towards Cleopatra is understandable in the light of these passages (see also the next note). This general motive (cf. Ant. 15.88) hardly legitimates the decision to kill the queen. Herod had certainly better reasons for having Cleopatra murdered, as Josephus points out elsewhere (see the previous note). However, the motive fits Josephus’ negative portrayal of Cleopatra in Antiquities. Enjoying sexual pleasures during a business trip must hardly have been something special for powerful men (see Ant. 15.29 with the note to “because of his power”). Antony was famous for having love affairs when he was abroad (see 15.27 with notes). For women, of course, such behavior was unacceptable, as Herod’s response implies (see also 15.99, 102). Herod’s reaction to Cleopatra’s attempt as presented by Josephus matches Josephus’ own avowed standards (see 15.27 with the note to “sexual pleasures”), and her portrait in Antiquities confirms Josephus’ distrust of women in general (Mayer-Schärtel 1995: 184-91, also 15.35 with the note to “deceiving the women”). His writings imply that promiscuous behavior by women was a horror for him and he may have advocated the univira ideal for women (about this ideal that women should not remarry, see 15.66 with the note to “the outrage” and 17.352). Josephus’ long-winded wording implies that, if Cleopatra aimed at trapping Herod, the king preferred to punish her in advance. Bekker’s conjecture ἐνεδρεύουσα (“placing in ambush”) is followed by Niese (349) but unnecessarily. The reading συνεδρεύουσα of the Greek MSS makes sense because the verb συνεδρεύω (“sit in council”) can also mean “lie in ambush together” (LSJ s.v. II). This verb is less common than ἐνεδρεύω (“lie in wait, set a trap”) in Josephus; however, it still occurs 5 times elsewhere in Josephus (War 4.213; Ant. 13.364; 16.244; 17.90, 93), although with different meanings. Although Josephus does not mention Cleopatra’s helpers, it is plausible to assume that she needed assistance for laying a trap for Herod. Phrases similar to τοὺς μὲν λόγους αὐτῆς διεκρούσατο (“he rejected her words”) are found otherwise only in Late Antique Greek passages (Libanius, Or. 54.75; Procopius, Bell. 6.8.7). About Herod’s friends and their meetings with the king, see Ant. 15.5 with the note to “the friends around him.” Several scholars argue that both Cleopatra’s attempt to seduce Herod and the king’s plan to murder her are most likely fictitious (see Ant. 15.97 with the note to “have sex with the king”). For the expression ὑποχείριον ἔχω (“having [someone] in one’s power”), see 15.20 with the note to “get control over.”

Ant. 15.99 briefly renders Herod’s motivation for his plan to have Cleopatra murdered. Ant. 15.100-103 continues with Josephus’ paraphrase of Herod’s friends’ response. Josephus’ rendering of the friends’ advice starts and ends with paraphrases of their statements (15.100, 103) and presents the crux of their words in indirect speech (15.101-102).The infinitive ἀπαλλάξειν indicates a transition to indirect speech here. The Greek of the first part of Herod’s motivation echoes the negative statement about Cleopatra in Ant. 15.98 (“knowing that she was difficult to everybody”) via the repetitions of χαλεπή (“difficult”) and ἅπαντας (“everybody”). Herod set himself up as the protector of the public interest, although he clearly had important personal reasons to get rid of the queen (see 15.98 with notes). This motive connects Herod’s plan with his speech before Octavian (Ant. 15.191-192), in which he recalls that he had advised Antony to kill Cleopatra (see 15.97 with the note to “have sex with the king”). For Josephus’ characterization of the relationship between Antony and Cleopatra, see 15.88, 93 with notes. An alternative translation for “that he had to ask for [her support in] these matters” (τοιούτων δεησόμενον) is “and he needed such things.” Herod suggests here that Cleopatra had no problem in being disloyal to her partner and patron Antony if that served her self-interest, which corresponds well with Josephus very negative portrayal of the queen (see Ant. 15.93-94, 97 with notes and van Henten 2005a; about the trustworthiness of Herod’s point, see 15.29 with the note to “because of his power”).

MSS FLVW read βουλόμενον (“wishing”) instead of Niese’s βουλευόμενον (“planning,” 350), but this does not make sense in the context. The reading βουλόμενον may easily have resulted from the omission of the characters (-ευ- of the reading βουλευόμενον. Significantly, Herod allows himself to be persuaded by his friends. There is not any trace of tyrannical behavior in this passage; in Antiquities such behavior only becomes prominent at the end of Herod’s rule (van Henten 2011b). It is obvious that the least Antony would do in case Cleopatra died in Judea was demand an account from Herod (cf. Ant. 15.64). He might have held the king responsible for the queen’s death, as the elaboration of the friends’ advice in 15.101 indicates. For phrases similar to ἐγκείμενοι καὶ δεόμενοι, see War 7.108. In Antiquities the noun προπέτεια (“rashness,” Rengstorf s.v.) only occurs in the section about Herod. Josephus repeatedly uses it in connection with Herod’s attitude towards his wife Mariamme and their sons Alexander and Aristobulus (Ant. 15.223; 16.254-255, 263; cf. 15.230, 290; 16.252, 262). Nevertheless, Herod does control himself, at least at this stage of the narrative (cf. 16.263; see also 15.230 with the note to “not to kill her hastily in this way”). Here Herod’s friends withhold him from doing something rash without thinking about the consequences.

In Ant. 15.101 Josephus switches to indirect speech again, focusing on Antony’s probable reaction to a murder of Cleopatra (as presented from the perspective of Herod’s friends). This hypothetical reference to advice given to Mark Antony that killing Cleopatra would be to his benefit may hint at Ant. 15.191-192, in which passage Herod claims before Octavian that he had given Antony the advice to kill Cleopatra. Following up this advice would have enabled Antony to keep his power and come to an agreement with Octavian (see also 15.97 with the note to “have sex with the king”). For phrases similar to τὸ συμφέρον στήσειε πρὸ τῶν ὀμμάτων, see Libanius, Or. 60.11; John Chrysostom, Bab. Iul. 112; and also Ant. 15.192. The first of the 3 arguments put forward by Herod’s friends is that Antony is desperately in love with Cleopatra. This echoes earlier passages about Antony and Cleopatra (Ant. 15.88, 93) and implies that killing Cleopatra would only increase his love. Such an emotional response is confirmed by Herod’s own behavior after the death of his wife Mariamme (15.240-246). For the verb ὑπεκκαίω with τὸν ἔρωτα as object (“inflame someone’s love,” Rengstorf s.v.), cf. Charito 1.3.7. The verb occurs once elsewhere in Josephus (War 1.480). The second point made by the friends, i.e., that Cleopatra is the most important woman in this period, may in fact be accurate (see Ant. 15.24 with the note to “Cleopatra”). See also Josephus’ statement that Mariamme surpassed all women because of her beauty and dignity of manners (15.237). The expression μέγιστον ἀξίωμα (“greatest honor, highest reputation”) is quite common (see, e.g., Thucydides 4.18; Plato, Leg. 690b; Diodorus 12.79; 14.31; 15.78; Plutarch, Fab. 17.4; Rom. 13.6). I.e., Herod’s. The third argument of the friends is that the potential advantage of killing Cleopatra will never outweigh Antony’s conclusion that Herod has been disloyal to his patron.

Literally “it was not uncertain/unclear that” (οὐκ ἄδηλον). It is a case of litotes, a figure of speech that Josephus uses frequently (see, e.g., War 1.241; Life 1; Mason in BJP 9 on 1; see also Ant. 15.39 with the note to “many”). I.e., Herod’s. The king’s friends now focus on the probable outcome for Herod in case Cleopatra would be killed. Both Herod’s rule and his family are mentioned, which matches an important feature of Antiquities’ Herod narrative: in Antiquities Josephus intermingles the history of Herod’s rule with the events within his family, in contrast to the presentation in War. War relates the dramatic history about Herod’s family in one coherent section (1.431-673), which especially highlights the deteriorating relationship between Herod and his sons by Mariamme. Antiquities reports how Herod strengthened his power step by step with the help of his Roman patrons after the capture of Jerusalem. Already at the beginning of Antiquities 15, immediately after the capture, Josephus focuses on conflicts within Herod’s family by highlighting the discontent of Herod’s mother-in-law Alexandra and her attempts to undermine the king’s rule (see 15.23 with the note to “Alexandra”). This statement obviously refers to Cleopatra’s proposal reported in Ant. 15.97. It disqualifies it as a lapse from Herod’s perspective, which might be surprising in the light of the conventional images of male rulers. The lapse is, however, perfectly understandable if we assume that it reflects Josephus’ own point of view (see also 15.98 with the note to “out of licentiousness”). An alternative translation for τίθεσθαι τὸν καιρόν is suggested by Rengstorf (s.v. καιρός): “seize the opportunity.” This translation seems less probable than the one given above because of the subsequent adverb εὐσχημόνως, which can mean, i.a., “honorably, worthily” (Rengstorf s.v.) and “like a gentleman” (LSJ s.v. εὔσχημων II.1). Cf. Ant. 16.101; Life 32.

The verb δεδίττομαι (“frighten,” Rengstorf s.v.) occurs once elsewhere in Josephus (War 4.224). The verb παραδηλόω (“intimate, mention in passing,” Rengstorf s.v.) occurs 5 times in Josephus (apart from War 4.124 only in Antiquities: 12.357; 15.103, 372, 409). Herod acts in this way as one of Cleopatra’s friends in business and politics who were dependent on her (about this meaning of “friends,” see Ant. 15.5 with the note to “the friends around him”). For other combinations of θεραπεύω (“pay court to, conciliate,” Rengstorf s.v.) and δωρεαῖς/δώροις, see 5.189; 15.205; 20.205. In Ant. 15.103 Josephus matches the parallel account of War again. War 1.362 is also brief but notes more specifically that Herod escorted Cleopatra to Pelusium (in Egypt, east of the eastern Nile Delta) and that he treated her with the highest respect. Ant. 15.103 echoes part of the vocabulary of War 1.362 through the verbs προπέμπω (“escort,” Rengstorf s.v.) and θεραπεύω (“conciliate”).

The translation is based on the reading λαβών (Niese 350). MSS PF read ἀναλαβών (“recaptured”). This note links up with Ant. 15.96 (see the note to “war against Armenia”) about Antony’s campaign against Armenia, in 34 BCE. I.e., the Armenian king Artabazes-Artavasdes II. He ruled from ca. 55 to 34 BCE (see Ant. 15.105) and died in ca. 30 BCE. His father was Tigranes the Great (95-55 BCE). Cleopatra executed him after the Battle of Actium (Strabo 11.14.15; Cassius Dio 51.5.5; Buchheim 1960: 81-83; Huss 2001: 738-40; see also the next note). Antony had taken Artabazes-Artavasdes II prisoner of war (cf. Ant. 15.96 with the note to “war against Armenia”). He trapped the king in the Roman camp, supposedly because Artabazes-Artavasdes had betrayed him during his campaign against Parthia in 36 BCE (Plutarch, Comp. Demetr. Ant. 5.2; Buchheim 1960: 82-83). Artabazes-Artavasdes accompanied Antony as hostage during the journey through his kingdom in order to allow Antony access to Armenian treasuries. Antony put him in silver chains, when the Parthians appointed his son Artaxias king (cf. Ant. 15.105), and took him to Alexandria (Strabo 11.13.4; 11.14.15; Tacitus, Ann. 2.3; Plutarch, Ant. 50.4; 53.6; Cassius Dio 49.39.3-40.4; 49.44.2). On the connections between Rome and Armenia in this period, see Chaumon 1976. This passage expands on the parallel passage of War (1.363), which only mentions the Armenian king as captive and does not refer to the sons of Artabazes-Artavasdes (likewise Plutarch, Ant. 50.4).The translation follows the reading σὺν τοῖς παισί of MSS FAMV. MS P reads σὺν τοῖς παισὶ σατράπαις (“together with his children-satraps,” which is the text given by Niese [353] and which is supported by the Latin version); MS W and E attest a corrected reading (σὺν τοῖς παισὶ καὶ σατράπαις [“together with his children and satraps”], which is the text given by Marcus-Wikgren 50). The readings with the word σατράπαις (“satraps”) may derive from a scribal error, which evolved from the word παισί, which shares 4 characters with σατράπαις. The information that Antony brought not only the king but also his sons to Alexandria is confirmed by Cassius Dio, who also mentions Artabazes-Artavasdes’ wife in this connection but no satraps (49.40.2-3; cf. 51.16.2; Buchheim 1960: 90-91; Becher 1966: 29; Chaumont 1976: 72-73). War 1.363 mentions, in addition to Artabazes-Artavasdes, money and booty from Armenia as Antony’s presents to Cleopatra (see the next note). Denarius coins with the portraits of Antony and Cleopatra from 32/31 BCE proclaim Armenia’s complete defeat with the legend Armenia devicta (Sydenham 1952: 194 no. 1210; Goodman 1997: 245-46). This passage may be an allusion to Antony’s mock triumphal procession in Alexandria: Antony entered Alexandria as Neos Dionysos and presented the Armenian king Artabazes-Artavasdes, in golden chains, together with the king’s family to Cleopatra (Cassius Dio 49.40.3-4; Buchheim 1960: 74; Huzar 1978: 182; despite certain analogies, this procession was, of course, not an official triumphal procession, it took place outside Rome and was not granted by the Senate). One day later the well-known scene in the gymnasium of Alexandria took place, during which Antony declared Cleopatra “Queen of Kings” (regina regum) and divided the territories in the East in a new way. Ptolemy Caesarion was recognized by Antony as Julius Caesar and Cleopatra’s son and appointed as Cleopatra’s co-ruler. He was called “King of Kings” (Plutarch, Ant. 54.5-6; Cassius Dio 49.41.1-6). Both actions were part of Antony’s preparations for a new campaign against Parthia (Kienast 1999: 61, 63).

Artaxias II (also called Artaxes or Artashes) was the eldest son of Artabazes-Artavasdes II and king of Armenia from 34 to 20 BCE, when he lost the support of his fellow Armenians (Cassius Dio 49.39.6-40.1; see also the next notes and Ant. 15.104 with the note to “Artabazes, Tigranes’ son”). During Antony’s campaign in Armenia, Artaxias fled to the Parthian king Phraates IV, who put him on the throne of Armenia (Cassius Dio 49.40.2). Artaxias killed the Roman garrison troops that had stayed behind in Armenia (Cassius Dio 51.16.2; Chaumont 1976: 73-75). King Archelaus of Cappadocia is meant here, one of Antony’s friendly kings (Sullivan 1980: 1149-61). Antony supported him starting from 41 BCE and made him king of Cappadocia in 36 BCE. Archelaus received Lesser Armenia, certain regions of Rough Cilicia, and the Cilician coast in 20 BCE (see the next note). Josephus refers to the future emperor Tiberius and makes a chronological jump (i.e., from 34 to 20 BCE, Sullivan 1980: 1155). Tiberius’ official name was Tiberius Claudius Nero (Kienast 1996: 76). Armenian envoys to Augustus in 20 BCE requested Artaxias’ deposition and the appointment of Artaxias’ brother Tigranes as king. Augustus agreed and sent Tiberius off with an army to Armenia. When Tiberius arrived, relatives had already murdered Artaxias (Res gest. divi Aug. 27; Velleius Paterculus 2.94, who refers to Artabazes-Artavasdes instead of Tigranes as the new Armenian king; Tacitus, Ann. 2.3; Suetonius, Tib. 9.1; Cassius Dio 54.9.4-5; Chaumont 1976: 74-75; Kienast 1999: 343), which implies that Josephus’ remark is not entirely correct (as noted by Marcus-Wikgren 51 n. f). The Parthian king Phraates IV accepted Tiberius’ intervention in Armenia because of the peace treaty concluded between the Romans and Parthians in the same year (see Ant. 15.11 with the note to “the Parthians”). Tigranes III was king of Armenia from 20 to 8 BCE. He was a son of Artabazes-Artavasdes II (see Ant. 15.104 with the note to “Artabazes, Tigranes’ son”) and a brother of Artaxias II (see the previous note; Res gest. divi Aug. 27; Tacitus, Ann. 2.3). He was living in Rome when the Armenian embassy arrived with the request that he would become king instead of his brother (Cassius Dio 54.9.4-5). This formula (ταῦτα μὲν οὖν ἐν ὑστέρῳ) indicates that the last events reported in Ant. 15.105 fall outside Josephus’ chronological framework for this section of the Herod narrative, which is set before the Battle of Actium (in 31 BCE; see 15.109), although Josephus usually presents the events in their chronological order (van Henten and Huitink 2007). Landau (2006: 122) calls 15.104-105 a short external prolepsis, meaning that the Armenian succession is not narrated elsewhere in Josephus. For a similar formula in Josephus, see 18.194 (cf. 15.20). The formulae with ὕστερον in War 5.445; Ant. 20.48 also point to later events, but they include cross-references to later passages in Josephus.

The noun φόρος (“tax, tribute, duty,” Rengstorf s.v.) does not necessarily mean “tribute”; it can denote various kinds of payments (Braund 1984: 63-64; Udoh 2005: 142). “The land given” most probably concerns the territories mentioned in Ant. 15.96, given to Cleopatra (i.e., areas in Arabia and Jericho; cf. War 1.362 “… [Herod] … rented the lands that had been torn from his kingdom,” trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a). This gift led to Cleopatra’s visit of Herod and to Herod’s lease of Nabatean territories (cf. Ant. 15.107, which implies that Herod provided surety for the Nabatean king) and the region of Jericho (15.96). Josephus does not specify here the amount of money involved in the leases of these territories, which may have been 200 or 400 talents, depending on the passages on which the interpretation is based. The account of War (1.362) reports that Herod leased back the territories that Antony had taken away for an annual sum of 200 talents; Ant. 15.132 implies a sum of 400 talents: “… I gave two hundred talents and also became the guarantor for two hundred [more], which went to her [i.e., Cleopatra] as collector ….” Richardson (1996: 166 with nn. 70 and 74) argues that the annual sum that Herod had to pay to Cleopatra was 200 and not 400 talents and that Ant. 15.106-107 implies that Herod had to pay 200 talents all in all; this would mean that Herod got Jericho for free since he received 200 talents from the Nabatean king Malichus (as 15.107 indicates). Shatzman (1991: 287), Schalit (2001: 121), and Udoh (2005: 145-48) argue that Herod had to pay 400 talents (200 plus 200 because he was surety for the 200 talents from Malichus). Huzar (1978: 167) mentions an even higher amount of 1200 talents, but she does not explain her calculation. Ant. 15.106-160 frequently presents the events from the king’s perspective and offers a rather positive portrait of him.The adjective δίκαιος (“just, legal”) implies here that Herod fulfilled the obligations that the lease contract implied (LSJ s.v. I.2; see also Ant. 15.108), which means that the land in question was that under lease from Cleopatra. The expression (οὐκ) ἀσφαλές plus ἡγέομαι (“consider [un]safe”) is common in ancient literature (e.g., Xenophon, Cyr. 7.2.29; Demosthenes, Or. 24.165; Philo, Mos. 2.247; Polyaenus 5.19.1) and also occurs in Josephus (War 3.451, 457; 4.33; Ant. 15.164). Cleopatra was a most dangerous opponent for Herod (see Ant. 15.24 with the note to “Cleopatra”). If her attitude towards Herod turned into hatred, he would definitely be in trouble. The brief parallel passage of War (1.362) suggests that Herod behaved as if he was Cleopatra’s friendly king by trying to mollify her hostility (δυσμένειαν; cf. Ant. 15.65) with huge presents and leasing back the territories that Antony had taken away from him.

This short-hand title (cf. War 1.159, 274, 278; Ant. 15.172; 16.224; 20.78) most probably refers to the Nabatean king Malichus I. He is mentioned in Ant. 14.370 as “Malchus [or Malichus with MS P], the king of the Arabs” (Hackl, Jenni, and Schneider 2003: 42-44; see Schalit 2001: 749-50 about the Nabatean name Malichus). Malichus outlived Cleopatra; he ruled from the early fifties to ca. 30 BCE (Richardson 1996: 165 n. 62; Mahieu 2012: 129-32 argues for his death in March/April 30 BCE; Retsö 2003: 371-73 argues for a rule from ca. 58 to ca. 28 BCE).Greek and Roman authors apply the name “Arabs” to a variety of ethnic groups, but Josephus frequently attaches it to the Nabateans (Millar 1993a). The context here confirms the reference to the Nabatean king (see also Ant. 15.96 with the note to “the areas in Arabia that were given to her”). Retsö (2003:371-91) distinguishes the Arabs from the Nabateans, arguing that the Arabs acted as a kind of military elite on behalf of the Nabateans. The translation is based on Niese’s conjecture of ἐπιδεξαμένου (“[Herod] had taken upon himself,” 351). The reading ἐπιδειξαμένου (“[Herod] had displayed for himself”) of most of the Greek MSS does not make sense and is easily explainable as a corruption of Niese’s conjectured reading.The Nabatean king probably subleased from Herod the Nabatean territories given to Cleopatra (Richardson 1996: 166; Schalit 2001: 121; see Ant. 15.106 with the note to “for the land given by Antony”). Herod stood, in any case, surety for the lease of the Nabatean territories (see 15.132 with the note to “became the guarantor for two hundred [more]”; Stern 1974b: 232; Smallwood 1976: 67; Kasher 1988: 136; Hackl, Jenni, and Schneider 2003: 43, 502). Shatzman (1991: 288-90) concludes on the basis of Plutarch’s note (Ant. 36.2) about the Nabatean territory given to Cleopatra (i.e., the part of Arabia that inclines toward the outer sea) that it concerned the Nabatean land east-northeast of the Dead Sea. The noun τάλαντον (“talent”) originally referred to weigh-scales and later became a standard weight: the Attic talent weighed ca. 26 kg/57 lb of gold or silver, and the Aeginetic talent ca. 38 kg/84 lb. The talent was worth 6,000 drachmas (Mason in BJP 1b on War 2.50). In Ant. 17.146, 189-190, 321-323 Josephus suggests that a Judean talent was worth 10,000 Attic drachmas.The amount of 200 talents for Malichus’ lease and the total sum of 400 talents for Herod’s lease (i.e., Jericho plus Nabatean territories) are extremely high. The 200 talents for the Nabatean territory may be explained by the profitable bitumen industry at the Dead Sea, which was a major source of income for the Nabateans, second only to the spice trade (Shatzman 1991: 288). The amount of 200 talents is the same as the sum mentioned in connection with Herod’s lease of the area of Jericho taken from his own kingdom (Ant. 15.96—War 1.362 does not specify this territory). In Ant. 17.318 (paralleled by War 2.95) Josephus indicates that an annual tax revenue of 200 talents was collected from all of Galilee and Perea (Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a on 1.362). The implication of Malichus’ being in default seems to be that Herod had to make up the amount out of his own pocket (on Herod’s being surety for Malichus towards Cleopatra, see Ant. 15.106 with the note to “for the land given by Antony”). War 1.220-222 reports a similar situation for Herod’s father Antipater, who coordinated contributions to Cassius: the passage mentions slow payments and refers in this connection to a certain Malichus, who is further otherwise unknown (Schürer-Vermes 1.277). In Antiquities Josephus transfers this episode to Herod’s period (14.370). Cassius almost executed this Malichus because of his sluggish payment, which Antipater prevented by appeasing Cassius with 100 talents (Shatzman 1991: 286-87). This translation of ἀζήμιως is uncertain. Marcus-Wikgren (53) translate “without withholding part of it” (cf. Rengstorf s.v. ἀζήμιος, who gives “without curtailment/inflicting loss/causing damage” as meanings); Thackeray and Marcus (1930-55: 1.10) and LSJ (s.v. ἀζήμιος I.1) propose “not without fraud.” The adjective ἀζήμιος occurs once in Josephus, in the context of military actions meaning “without inflicting loss” (see Ant. 15.120 with the note to “inflict severe losses upon”).

The sentence presupposes “the Arab,” mentioned in Ant. 15.107, as subject. Josephus does not explicitly refer to the Nabatean king Malichus I, but the context implies that Herod wanted to attack this king because of his inadmissible behavior (see the next note, and about Malichus I, 15.92 with the note to “the territory of the Arabs” and 15.107 with the note to “the Arab”). For a survey of the relationships between the Nabateans and Herod and his relatives, see Shatzman 1991: 277-309. The first words of this paragraph refer to the last part of Ant. 15.107 and introduce the motivation for Herod’s military actions against the Nabateans, on which the long section of 15.108-160 focuses. The elaborate and well-composed commander speech in 15.127-146 constitutes its central part. From a narratological perspective the entire section can be characterized as a ‘scene’: the pace of the narrative slows down and Josephus offers elaborate scenic descriptions (about scenes in ancient Greek narratives, see de Jong 2007: 11-12); he quotes Herod’s entire speech and describes the battle’s beginning and outcome in great detail (Ant. 15.147-159; cf. War 1.380-385). By contrast, the main combat is summarized very briefly in general terms (Ant. 15.151). The verb ἀγνωμονέω (“act unfairly”) also occurs in 16.283, 285, 353, which passages also refer to Nabateans. The repetition of δίκαιος (“just, lawful”) in Ant. 15.106, 108 highlights the contrast between Herod and the Nabatean king (see also 15.106 with the note to “he was obeying the contract”): contrary to Herod, Malichus I did not fulfill his obligation. Syllaeus, another Nabatean leader, later behaves in a similar way (16.282). Josephus specifies this war in Ant. 15.109 (see the next note). Herod’s patron Antony was one of its protagonists, which explains Herod’s postponement of the campaign against King Malichus. This detail suggests that Herod acted as a responsible and loyal friendly king since it was to be expected that his patron Antony would need his support in the conflict with Octavian. It is surprising that Antony rejected Herod’s military aid (Ant. 15.110).Kasher (1988: 138-41, 146-47) argues that the conflict between Herod and the Nabateans, which was complex and led to several battles, must have started quite some time before the Battle of Actium and that it actually lasted from the summer of 32 to the summer of 31 BCE.

The Battle of Actium (in 31 BCE, also mentioned in Ant. 15.121, 161) was officially a battle against the foreign queen Cleopatra (Dio 50.6), but in fact the decisive battle between Octavian and Antony. Their relationship had deteriorated considerably in the preceding years, especially after Antony had divorced his wife Octavia, Octavian’s sister (in May 32 BCE). Antony stationed his camp near Actium, which was located at the entrance of the Ambracian Gulf (also called “Gulf of Arta”), a large enclosed gulf along the Ionian coast of northwest Greece. The sea battle took place on 2 September 31 BCE and changed the political scene considerably (Hölbl 1994: 222-27; Kienast 1999: 63-77; Halfmann 2011: 198-229). Octavian commemorated his triumph over Antony and Cleopatra intensely: he founded a new Greek city north of Actium, at the location where his army was stationed (i.e., northwest of the Ambracian Gulf). Its name Nicopolis (officially Actia Nicopolis) alluded to Octavian’s victory. The victory was also highlighted by a monument and votive inscriptions for Mars and Neptunus at the Michalitsi Hill (Kienast 1999: 78-79, 242, 433-34, 445, 458-59, 461-63, 469). The so-called Actian Games were organized every 4 years in Nicopolis and kept the memory of Octavian’s victory alive. They were probably founded on 2 September 27 BCE (Strabo 7.325; Cassius Dio 41.1; Marcus-Wikgren 262 n. a). Octavian erected impressive memorials near the site of the battle (Suetonius, Aug. 18.2) and gave the existing local Actian Games an isolympic status. Political leaders in other districts organized similar games in honor of Octavian and sometimes even claimed a same status for them, calling them isaktia (Otto 1913: 64-65; Pleket 1975: 67; Schalit 2001: 370-71). Gurval (1995: 65-81) offers a survey of the Aktia celebrated throughout the empire. Finally, a new era, called “Actiad,” also recalled Octavian’s victory (War 1.398; Ant. 18.26; Mahieu 2012: 134). Part of Actium’s aftermath was that Octavian decided to work with several of the friendly kings who had cooperated with Antony, including Herod (see War 1.386-397; Ant. 15.187-201, 215-218). Other references to the Battle of Actium in Antiquities are rather similar to the phrase used here (τῆς ἐπ’ ’Ακτίῳ μάχης; cf. 15.121, 161, 191). Josephus uses another formula in War 1.364: τοῦ δ’ ’Ακτιακοῦ πολέμου (“the War of Actium”; cf. 1.370, 386, 388). The calendar based on the 4-yearly cycle of the Olympic Games started according to tradition with the first games in the summer of 776 BCE. The 187th Olympiad lasted from the summer of 32 to the summer of 28 BCE (for further references to the Olympiads, see Ant. 12.248, 321; 13.236; 14.4, 66, 389, 487; 16.136; Apion 1.184-185; 2.17). Other historians also use this calendar, but Josephus’ references are particularly significant because he frequently combines Olympiads with other dating references (van Henten and Huitink 2007). Lämmer (1974: 110-11, 130-35) suggests that Josephus means the first year of an Olympiad if the year is not specified (as in this passage). Ant. 15.109, however, does not support this hypothesis since the passage implies the 2nd year of the relevant Olympiad (i.e., the year summer 31-summer 30 BCE). “Caesar” (Καῖσαρ; Latin Caesar) was originally the surname (cognomen) of the gens Julia, especially of Julius Caesar. The name refers here to Octavian (63 BCE-14 CE), who was the adopted son of Julius Caesar (see below). For Octavian “Caesar” was a family name, on which he relied heavily in his early years. For the later Julio-Claudians, likewise, the Caesar name was familial, all of them had a connection to Julius Caesar. Later on, especially since the Flavians, “Caesar” became a title of the emperor (LSJ s.v.). Octavian-Augustus was scrupulously careful not to accept other titles than that of princeps (“the most eminent, leader,” see below; cf. his Res Gestae). He even declined Caesar’s title “dictator.” In spite of the fact that he had arranged for a de facto monarchy, Augustus emphasized in his statements that he was a true Republican leader. Later Roman authors like Cassius Dio, however, considered Augustus to be the first emperor (Kienast 1999: 204-12).This is the first reference to Octavian in Ant. 15 (for further references, see Schalit 1968: 69-70). Octavian was the son of C. Octavius and Atia and adopted by Julius Caesar. Caesar’s testament designated Octavian as his most important heir in 44 BCE. Together with Mark Antony, Octavian defeated Julius Caesar’s murderers in 42 BCE. The Roman territories were divided between Octavian, Antony, and Lepidus during the Treaty of Brundisium in 40 BCE: Antony received authority over the East, Octavian over the West, and Lepidus over North-Africa. Octavian’s power increased during the 2nd half of 30s at the expense of Antony, and the Battle of Actium (see the note to this battle above) brought about the decisive defeat of Antony and Cleopatra. On 16 January 27 BCE Octavian accepted the (well-prepared) proposal of the Senate to become the princeps (i.e., leader) of Rome. From this date onward his name switched to Augustus (further discussion and references in Kienast 1996: 61-68; 1999). For the decisive character of the Battle of Actium, see the notes to “Battle of Actium” and “Caesar” at this paragraph. On τὰ πράγματα meaning “government” or “administration,” (here of the Romans), see Ant. 15.32 with the note to “the government” and cf. War 1.109, 111, 120, in which passages τῶν ὅλων is used with a similar meaning. The rare verb εὐβοτέομαι (literally “furnish good pasture,” LSJ s.v.; Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. Josephus hints here at Herod’s income from the tax on agricultural produce (Udoh 2005: 162; see Ant. 15.303 with the note to “the revenues he received from the land”). Several alternative readings have been proposed (Niese 351; Marcus-Wikgren 52), but the transmitted text (προσόδων καὶ δυνάμεως εὑρημένων) is perfectly understandable if one interprets εὑρημένων as “were gained” (LSJ s.v. εὑρίσκω IV).Herod had been ruling over Judea for about 6 years, and Josephus does not give indications elsewhere that Judea prospered at this stage of Herod’s rule (cf. Ant. 15.5). Antony’s gift of Jericho and the coastal region to Cleopatra (15.94-96) must have reduced Herod’s income. Nevertheless, Josephus indicates that Herod’s means were considerable, and he emphasizes several times that the king tried hard to impress his patrons with gifts and services (e.g., 15.5, 75, 103, 200-201). Supporting one’s patron with auxiliary troops during a campaign was an obvious task for a friendly king (see Ant. 15.5 with the note to “the friends around him”; about auxiliary forces during the Early Empire, see Holder 1980).

In Ant. 15.189 Herod recalls during his meeting with Octavian on the island of Rhodes in 30 BCE that he had sent money and grain to Antony in order to support him in his campaign against Octavian. The parallel passage of War (1.388) mentions military aid and countless supplies of grain. In Antiquities Josephus implies that Antony’s refusal of Herod’s military support, which seems unplausible, was the result of Cleopatra’s advice to him (see the continuation of this paragraph). Antony commands Herod to do what the king already intended to do (according to Ant. 15.108). In the next lines, however, Josephus presents Herod’s campaign against the Nabateans as the result of Cleopatra’s devilish scheming. That Antony actually ordered Herod to attack another friendly king of the Romans within Antony’s sphere of influence when a major confrontation with Octavian was at hand is far from plausible (see also the next notes).The infinitive ἐπεξελθεῖν (“attack”) echoes Ant. 15.108 (“Herod was ready to attack him [ἐπεξελευσόμενος]”). On Malichus I’s negligent payment to Herod, see Ant. 15.107-108. Josephus uses a much stronger word here to characterize the Nabatean king’s negligence (ἀπιστία “treachery”), which is echoed by ἀπίστως (“treacherously”) in Herod’s commander speech (15.130). This statement makes sense from Herod’s perspective but not from that of Cleopatra, who would have received the money of Malichus’ lease anyway since Herod acted as guarantor (see Ant. 15.107 with the note to “whose payment Herod had taken upon himself” and 15.132 with the note to “became the guarantor for two hundred [more]”; differently War 1.365). The continuation of the paragraph offers another motive for Cleopatra’s complaint to Antony (see the next note). This remark links up with previous passages in the Herod narrative of Antiquities, which suggest that Cleopatra tried to take over Herod’s or Malichus’ kingdom, in line with her overall strategy to take over the territories of Antony’s friendly kings living near Egypt (see 15.77, 92-93 with notes; Schalit 2001: 122). The passage implies that Cleopatra at this stage succeeded in persuading Antony with her cunning plan (see also 15.111), although this is implausible in the setting of the preparations for the Battle of Actium (as implied by 15.107-108) because it would have weakened Antony’s power: a military conflict between Herod and Malichus would prevent them from sending auxiliary soldiers to Antony (Kasher 1988: 136-37). The parallel passage of War (1.365) points to a similar strategy of Cleopatra and suggests that she would get “Arabia” (i.e., the Nabatean kingdom; see the next note) if Herod defeated Malichus, and Judea if Herod was defeated by the Nabateans.Once again Josephus presents Cleopatra as a wicked person who manipulated Antony time and again. Becher (1966: 67-68) argues that Josephus’ description of Cleopatra’s successful strategy of keeping Herod away from supporting Antony is trustworthy since it matches similar actions by her. Kasher (1988: 134-48) argues differently and concludes—on the basis of the discrepancy between Ant. 15.108 and 15.110 (see 15.108 with the note to “an occasion for a delay”) and the implausibility of the preparations for the Battle of Actium as the setting of Josephus’ report about Herod’s conflict with the Nabateans—that Herod had realized beforehand that he had nothing to gain from joining forces with Antony at Actium; Herod would have started his campaign against the Nabateans in order to loosen his ties with Antony without detaching himself from him and to open the door for a new relationship as a friendly king of Octavian, Antony’s opponent. His interpretation implies that Josephus’ report is tendentious because it takes away the blame from Herod for starting a war against the Nabateans and focuses on Cleopatra as the evil genius instead (cf. Günther 2005: 126). A further possible reason for Cleopatra’s interference appears in contemporary sources: Cleopatra may have wanted to play the first fiddle in supporting Antony in his decisive battle against Octavian (Grant 1972: 196). Cleopatra’s role during this battle has been much discussed by ancient authors, and several of them suggest that Octavian’s opponent was actually Cleopatra rather than Antony (Becher 1966: 32, 75-77, 108-10, 182-83; Huzar 1978: 237).

This remark could suggest that Herod kept the auxiliary forces which he had collected for Antony’s campaign standing by (cf. War 1.388), but this does not fit the context (see Ant. 15.110 and the previous note). “Arabia” refers to the Nabatean kingdom (see Ant. 15.96 with the note to “the areas in Arabia that were given to her”). The continuation of the narrative (supported by War 1.366) suggests that Herod’s campaign was directed against the region north of Southern Hauran. For discussions of the military conflicts between Herod and the Nabateans before Actium, see Kasher 1988: 131-51; Shatzman 1991: 284-91. The Greek phrase εἰς τὴν ’Αραβίαν ἐμβαλῶν (“invading Arabia”) also occurs in War 1.159, in a different context. War 1.366 only mentions that Herod levied a large cavalry force. Shatzman (1991: 170-216) offers a detailed discussion of Herod’s army, which comprised 2 categories of soldiers: (1) men who received plots of land from the king for which they had to render military services in return (see Ant. 15.294-295; 17.24-28), and (2) troop soldiers of the king’s standing army (see also 17.198-199). The bulk of the army consisted of Jews (Shatzman 1991: 186). Diospolis was the Greek name later given to the city of Lod by Septimius Severus (Kaplan 1977: 753; Tsafrir, Di Segni, and Green 1994: 171). That cannot be the reference here, since Lod was located near the Mediterranean coast, southeast of Joppe-Jafo. Most scholars assume that the original reference is to Dion (cf. War 1.132; Ant. 13.393; 14.47), one of the Decapolis cities, located ca. 40 km east of the Sea of Galilee (Marcus-Wikgren 54 n. a; Möller and Schmitt 1976: 82-83; Kasher 1988: 145; Shatzman 1991: 289-90; Schalit 2001: 122; Hackl, Jenni, and Schneider 2003: 497). This would fit the preceding reference to Arabia because Dion was near to the Nabatean kingdom and probably included Nabatean inhabitants. The city was captured by Alexander Janneus and later taken away again from the Judean territory by Pompey (Möller and Schmitt 1976: 82). This detail is missing in the parallel passage of War (1.366). It is plausible that the Nabateans were reckoning with a punitive expedition by Herod. One can even imagine that Cleopatra had informed them, since such a revelation would suit her plan (Ant. 15.110). The Greek μάχης καρτερᾶς γενομένης (“a fierce battle took place”) echoes the vocabulary in the parallel passage of War (1.366; note καρτερᾶς [“fierce”] in Ant. 15.111 and καρτερῶς in War 1.366). The phrase μάχης καρτερᾶς γενομένης is a fixed expression in Josephus (War 1.101; Ant. 1.175; 5.66; 6.368; 8.383; 12.409; Life 327). The combination μάχη καρτερά (“fierce battle”) is common since Thucydides (e.g., 4.43; 4.96; cf. Diodorus 3.54.7; 11.7.1; 11.74.3; Plutarch, Alc. 31.5; Fab. 11.5; Rom. 18.6) and frequently occurs in Josephus (e.g., War 2.47; 3.302; 6.74; Ant. 7.13; 8.383; 15.151; 17.258). This passage also echoes War 1.366 (cf. ἐκράτησαν in Ant. 15.111 with ἐκράτησέν in War 1.366 [“they/he were/was victorious”]), but the contents differ slightly: in War Josephus notes that Herod was victorious, while here he uses a plural verb with “the Jews” as subject. The section of Ant. 15.111-160 (paralleling War 1.366-385) reports 3 battles between Herod and the Nabateans: (1) a first battle at Diospolis, during which Herod was victorious (15.111); (2) a second one near Canata, which ended in a massacre for the Jews (15.112-119); and (3) a final one, which resulted in an overwhelming victory for Herod (15.147-160). A major part of this section consists of Herod’s commander speech immediately before the third battle (15.127-146).

Reading Κάνατα with Niese (352). Scholars have identified Κάνατα with Canata (Kenat in biblical passages), ca. 30 km east of Dion. MSS LAMW (supported by the Latin version) read Κανᾶ (“Cana”), but this reading must be corrupt: Cana lies west of the Sea of Galilee and does not fit with the geographical area where Herod’s conflicts with the Nabateans took place (see Ant. 15.111 with the notes to “Arabia” and “Diospolis”). The parallel passage of War (1.366-367) reads Κάναθα (Canatha), which either refers to a city even further east in the Hauran Mountains (currently El-Qanawat, one of the Decapolis cities; Schalit 2001: 122, 697-98; Hackl, Jenni, and Schneider 2003: 200; Schalit [1968: 71] argues that the names Κάναθα and Κάνατα refer to the same location), or to a region that is not exactly known but probably consists of the city of Soada-Suweida and its neighborhood (west of the Hauran Mountains). All 3 locations (i.e., Kenat, El-Qanawat, and the area of Soada-Suweida) lay near to the important Nabatean city of Bostra, and the Nabateans probably formed a significant proportion of the population at those settlements, though not the majority (see 15.111 with the note to “Arabia”). An argument in favor of the third location may be that Josephus refers to a region, and not to a city or town, in the next sentence. For further discussion of this reference, see Möller and Schmitt 1976: 118-20; Schreckenberg 1977: 132-35; Kasher 1988: 144-45; Shatzman 1991: 289-90; Schalit 2001: 697-98. This statement confirms that the reference to Cana (see the previous note) cannot be correct. “Coele-Syria” can refer to several regions, which sometimes include the area of the Decapolis (see Ant. 15.79 with the note to “Coele-Syria”). If Josephus’ previous reference concerns Canata or Canatha, then “Coele-Syria” refers here to the southern part of Syria, east of the Jordan River (Kasher 1988: 143-44). Reading ἐν καλῷ (“at a good [location]”) with Niese (352), which seems to be a fixed expression, applicable to various contexts and rather common in the sense of siting a military camp (see LSJ s.v. καλός II; cf. Thucydides 5.59.4; 60.2; Sophocles, El. 384; Aristophanes, Thesm. 292; Xenophon, Hell. 21.2.25; 4.3.5; 6.2.9; Ages. 2.3; Plato, Resp. 571b; common in Dionysius and Plutarch, 5 occurrences in Josephus). Sometimes a noun like χωρίῳ (“place”) is added (cf. the phrase καταστρατοπεδεύω ἐν καλῷ χωρίῳ [“encamp at a good location”] in Plutarch, Mor. [Reg. imp. apophth.] 790b; similarly Mor. [An seni] 178a). The MSS LAMW read Κανᾶ (“Cana”). Schreckenberg (1977: 132-35) conjectures ἐν καθαρῷ (sc. τόπῳ; “in the open country”), which is a Homeric phrase. Josephus’ phrase στρατοπεδεύεσθαι ἐν καλῷ [χωρίῳ] is paralleled by Michael Psellus, Chron. 4.44. For similar expressions with βάλλεσθαι and χάραξ as object (“put up a palisade”) in Josephus, see Ant. 20.86; Life 214, 395. The parallel passage of War (1.367) is formulated differently: “Herod … gave the order to pitch a fortified camp (στρατόπεδον τειχίζειν) ...” (trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a).

For further occurrences of τὸ πλῆθος (cf. Ant. 15.2 with the note to “the city’s population”) together with τῶν ’Ιουδαίων (meaning “the crowd of the Jews”), see War 1.335, 347; 2.342, 485; 3.151, 471; 5.489; 7.49, 300; Ant. 11.67; 13.353; 15.14; 16.27; 17.254, 301; 18.123; 20.7, 120, 133; Apion 1.313 (and Ant. 15.114, 126). The parallel passage of War (1.367) refers to the crowd of Herod’s soldiers but distinguishes sharply between Herod, who tried to conduct the war most prudently, and the soldiers, who did not obey him (cf. 1.375), such that the soldiers were partly to be blamed for the subsequent defeat. The Antiquities report is less critical about Herod’s soldiers and suggests that the king tried to make the best out of the situation. The eagerness of the soldiers to enter into battle evolves, according to Josephus’ presentation, out of their assessment of the situations of both armies before the battle. A promising point of departure motivates soldiers to fight and is a common topic in commander speeches before a battle. Being well-prepared and having a well-ordered formation were part of this rhetoric (van Henten 2005b: 193-95). This is again a well-known motif in passages describing the assessment of a situation before a battle (see the previous note). The Greek phrase τὴν πρώτην μάχην νενικήκεσαν (“had been victorious in the first battle”) echoes τῇ προτέρᾳ νίκῃ (“by their recent victory”) in the parallel passage of War (1.367). The expression εἰς χεῖρας ἔρχομαι with a dative construction referring to other persons meaning “come to blows with” is common and occurs already in Thucydides (e.g., 4.96; 7.44; LSJ s.v. χείρ II.6d). The passage highlights the greatness of the Jews’ victory in their first battle against the Nabateans.

The vocabulary of Ant. 15.113 is here repeated in several phrases. Herod’s decision to make use of his soldiers’ eagerness differs from the information in War 1.367, 369 that Herod’s soldiers disobeyed him (see also Ant. 15.119 with the note to “to get help”). The noun ἀρετή (“virtue, excellence, bravery”) may be variously interpreted, depending on the context and the person characterized by this term (Finkelberg 2002). It occurs with several meanings in the Herod narrative of Antiquities (14.446; 15.114, 146; 16.247, 382; 17.13, 29-30, 44, 49, 54, 60, 75, 100-102, 107, 116, 118, 124, 129-130, 149, 152-153, 158, 171, 181). Here, in a military context, it concerns “bravery” (see also War 1.332; Ant. 14.446; 15.146). In line with the Greek ideal of military commanders, Herod goes ahead of his soldiers and leads the way to the enemy (see, e.g., Xenophon, Anab. 6.5; Diodorus 17.57.6; cf. 2 Macc 8:23; 11:7; Josephus, War 3.483-484; Ant. 7.390). As a final touch of encouragement after delivering his commander speech the Spartan commander Brasidas sets the example to his soldiers by entering battle first (Thucydides 5.9.6, 10; 5.10.1). The noun τέλος sometimes means “army unit, position” (Rengstorf s.v.; Shatzman 1991: 158, 207).

The well-organized attack of the Jewish army immediately leads to consternation among the enemy soldiers, which suggests, together with subsequent statements in this paragraph, that a fast Jewish victory was to be expected. The expression ἔκπληξις ἐμπίπτει (“consternation fell on”) is typical for Josephus (see War 3.1; 5.547 and cf. 5.472) and also occurs a few times elsewhere (Thucydides 4.34.2; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 6.47.1; Philostratus, Vit. soph. 516). The phrase ἀντιστάντες εἰς ὀλίγον (“they offered resistance for a while”) has a close parallel in Lucian, Dial. d. 22.1. The invincibility of the Jews is an important motif in 2 Maccabees, which book emphasizes that the Jews were unbeatable because of the support of their God (van Henten 1997: 153-56, 194-95). Thus the Greek commander Lysias states after his failure to capture Beth-Zur: “As he was not without intelligence, he pondered over the defeat that had befallen him, and realized that the Hebrews were invincible because the mighty God fought on their side …” (2 Macc 11:13). Josephus also uses the word ἄμαχος (“invincible”) in a passage about the high priest Ananus, who knew that the Romans were invincible and therefore was looking for ways to end the conflict with them safely (War 4.320). The phrase μεστός φρονήματος (“full of spirit”; similarly War 1.602) is common in contemporary Greek authors (e.g., Plutarch, Ages. 29.4; Brut. 13.4; Philo, Legat. 62; Virt. 3). The word φρόνημα occurs several times in Herod’s commander speech of War (1.376, 378; see also Ant. 15.128, 139; cf. War 1.387; Ant. 15.126). Niese (352) and Marcus-Wikgren (56) read ἐγκλίναντες (“bending in, fleeing”), following Bekker’s conjecture. However, the reading ἐκκλίναντες (“bending out, retreating”) of most MSS makes sense: it can mean “giving ground, retreating” (LSJ s.v. ἐκκλίνω II.1; see also Ant. 15.152 with the note to “had retreated”). The imperfect verbal form ἔφευγον (“they fled”) should be interpreted as an immediative imperfect, indicating that the Nabateans fled straight away (about such imperfects, see Rijksbaron 2002: 17-18). Athenio was one of Cleopatra’s generals (Ant. 15.116, 139; he is also mentioned in War 1.367, 369, 375). His intervention against the Jews in the second battle (Ant. 15.115-117, 140) matches Cleopatra’s plan for Herod and the Nabatean king (see War 1.365, 440; Ant. 15.77, 92-93, 110). The parallel passage in War (1.369) highlights Athenio’s treacherous role. The passage here already reveals that his interference would have a decisive impact on the battle, which resulted in a massacre for the Jews (Ant. 15.117-119; cf. War 1.368-369; further discussion in Kasher 1988: 138-41, 144-48).

The Greek οὗτος γὰρ ὢν στρατηγὸς Κλεοπάτρας is close to Josephus’ introductory information about Athenio in War 1.367. The noun στρατηγός means “general” or “commander” here, as it does in several other passages in Josephus (e.g., War 1.47; Ant. 13.43; Rengstorf s.v.; see also the next note). This detail is missing in the parallel report of War (1.367). The Greek is elliptical and open to several interpretations: an alternative translation is “in charge of her forces there” (cf. Marcus-Wikgren 57; Meijer-Wes 3.167), in which case the ἐπί plus the genitive would express Athenio’s control over the men mentioned (see Luraghi 2003: 311), but this reading seems less probable in the light of the continuation of the narrative. Athenio may have been in the area to control territories that belonged to Cleopatra: Chalcis and, possibly, Damascus (see Ant. 15.92 with the note to “Lysanias, the son of Ptolemy” and 15.96 with the note to “Damascus”). Shatzman (1991: 290) argues that Athenio was both a commander of Cleopatra and a governor of the region. Athenio was apparently obeying Cleopatra’s orders. Interestingly, Herod characterizes him later in his speech (see Ant. 15.139-140) in similar terms as Josephus characterizes Cleopatra. Josephus does not report that Athenio intervened in the third battle (15.126-159), which is surprising since Athenio’s strategy implies that he would unceasingly prevent a victory by Herod (see also the next notes). Kasher (1988: 139-40, 148, building on Joseph Klausner’s reading of the passage [1949-1951: 4.22-3 with footnote 39]) offers two possible explanations for this detail: (1) Athenio had left the region before the third battle in order to assist Cleopatra at the Battle of Actium (which implies that Herod’s conflict with the Nabateans started before Actium), or (2) Athenio’s double game, as described in this paragraph, was invented by someone at Herod’s court, who rewrote the history of the conflict for 2 purposes, namely: to put even more blame on Cleopatra and to conceal that Herod had started the war at his own initiative (and thus had exceeded his authority as a friendly ruler since he had not asked Antony for permission). Kasher (1988: 140-41) considers the second explanation to be more plausible because Cleopatra could only have sent Athenio with Antony’s consent and such a consent is only imaginable if Herod had exceeded his authority. However, on the basis of Josephus’ text it remains complicated to discern what Athenio actually did.The Greek διάφορος plus a dative (“hostile towards [Herod]”) repeats the vocabulary of War 1.367 about Athenio. The Greek οὐκ ἀπαρασκεύως (literally “not without preparation”) expresses a litotes and is echoed a few lines later in the same paragraph through the participle παρεσκευασμένος (“prepared”). The expression ἡσυχίαν ἄγειν (“remain inactive”) is quite common in Greek literature (e.g., Thucydides 5.94; Euripides, Andr. 143; Plutarch, Pel. 11.4; Publ. 4.5). For phrases similar to δρασάντων τι λαμπρὸν (“performing brilliantly”), see Diodorus 15.86.3; Plutarch, Cim. 19.4. Athenio’s strategy is not mentioned in the parallel account of War (1.367-368). It matches Cleopatra’s policy towards Antony’s client kings in the region (see Ant. 15.115 with the note to “defeat upon Herod and the Jews”). It implies that Herod had to be defeated, either by the Nabateans or by Athenio himself. The Greek remains vague here because it fails to specify whether Athenio’s men were regular soldiers. They were plausibly mercenaries. Since Athenio had occasional local fighters at his disposal he may have been violating the rules of just war; one could only put trained soldiers into action (see Ant. 15.135 with the note to “justified”). War 1.367 states unambiguously that Athenio dispatched the inhabitants of Canatha against Herod. Given that these local fighters were Herod’s enemies an identification of these fighters as Nabateans is plausible but at the same time at odds with the fact that the Nabateans had settled mostly further south in this region (i.e., south of the line of Salkhad-Bostra-Der‘a; see Ant. 15.111 with the note to “Arabia” and 15.112 with the note to “Canata”).

The combination of ἐπιπίπτω (“fall upon”) and ἀπροσδοκήτως (“unexpectedly”) also occurs in Diodorus 15.40.2; 19.37.2; Josephus, Life 253; cf. Procopius, Aed. 4.9.8; Bell. 1.15.23; 1.24.1. Athenio apparently chose the right moment to attack: when the morale of the Jewish troops could be expected to be low (as the continuation of the narrative further explains). The combination of κάμνω (“exert oneself, be exhausted/hard-pressed,” Rengstorf s.v.) and νικάω (“be victorious”) also occurs in Thucydides 2.51.5. In the parallel report of War (1.368) Athenio’s attack also brings the turning point, but the slaughter of the Jews is attributed to the Nabateans.The phrase πολὺν ἐποίει φόνον (“he slaughtered”) has many parallels in Diodorus (e.g., 11.10.2; 11.80.5; 12.79.5; 15.65.2; 15.91.5; 16.12.2; 17.12.5; see also Plutarch, Luc. 17.1). The verb ἐκδαπανάω (literally “expend,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. The translation is based on Niese’s reading of ὁμολογουμένους, which is attested by the MSS (Niese 353). Marcus-Wikgren (56) and Rengstorf (s.v. ὁμολογέω) follow Naber’s conjecture of ὁμολογουμένως (“in the open”; Naber 1888-96: 3.xli, 330), the resulting phrase of which (τοὺς ὁμολογουμένως ἐχθρούς) is paralleled by Demosthenes Or. 14.11. Nevertheless the transmitted text can be maintained since it makes sense in the light of fair behavior in warfare. From the context it is apparent that Herod had a conflict with the Nabateans that was to be settled during a combat. Athenio interfered in the conflict, which act was unfair and treacherous from Herod’s perspective: decent warfare required that proper procedures were met and that the war was officially declared beforehand (see Ant. 15.135 with the note to “justified”). Herod elaborates this point of view in his commander speech (15.139-140). Moreover, the word ἐχθρός (“enemy”) with an attributive participle of ὁμολογέω (“agree, declare”), as read by the MSS, also occurs in Polybius 2.45.3; Philo, Flacc. 146; Herodian 3.5.8; 7.10.1. The information in War 1.368 is slightly different: “… the Arabs turned around, and concentrating their forces on a rocky and difficult terrain, they put Herod’s troops to flight and inflicted a huge massacre on them” (trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a). The vocabulary in Antiquities suggests that the fact that Herod’s cavalry could not be properly brought into action was an important factor in the defeat of the Jews. War 1.366 reports that Herod had formed a strong cavalry force in preparation of his campaign against the Nabateans. At least part of Athenio’s army consisted of local combatants (Ant. 15.116).The last 9 words of this paragraph are a striking example of alliteration, which figure of speech occurs regularly within this paragraph (with k, l, and p as the leading consonant sounds). The alliteration emphasizes the massacre of the Jews caused by Athenio’s interference (for other significant cases of alliteration, see War 2.359; 6.337, 343, 345; Ant. 15.151).

I.e., the Jews, who are mentioned explicitly in Ant. 15.117. The combination of κακῶς (“badly”) and πάσχω (“suffer”) is common already in Thucydides (1.38, 86, 122; 5.23, 47; see also Euripides, Ion 1330; Med. 280; Rhes. 473; Xenophon, Anab. 3.3.12; 5.2.2; 7.7.16; Plutarch, Alc. 25.2; Arist. 14.2; Cor. 33.6). Josephus uses it only in Antiquities (4.299; 13.231; 15.111, 345; 16.47, 161). The Greek οὐ πολλοί (“only a few,” literally “not many”; see also Ant. 6.170; 13.431; Apion 1.5) is another example of litotes. In War 1.368 the location of the camp is specified as Ormiza, which lay west of Canata (if it can be identified with El-Mezra‘). The second part of Ant. 15.118 features alliteration again, with p as the leading consonant sound (see also 15.117 with the note to “took refuge in the camp”).

The rare verb ἀφιππάζομαι (“ride off”) also occurs in Ant. 14.345; 18.49. The parallel passage of War (1.369) has similar vocabulary (βοήθειαν ἄγων). The War report attributes Herod’s defeat to the disobedience of his lieutenants, who had forced a rash battle upon Herod and had provided Athenio the opportunity to interfere, which exonerates Herod from the blame of the defeat. This detail is missing in Antiquities (cf. also 15.114 with War 1.367, 369). War 1.368-369 also reports this but with different vocabulary. The Greek phrase οὐδὲ μετρίως (literally “not moderately”) is a case of litotes that occurs frequently in Josephus (War 2.631; Ant. 6.349; 15.194, 276; 16.81, 230, 294; 19.221; 20.83, 109; Life 289, 371; Apion 1.243; 2.8). The expression ἐκ παραλόγου (“unexpectedly,” Rengstorf s.v.) also occurs in War 7.212 (MS P) and Ant. 6.282. Ant. 6.116 expresses the motif of an unexpected victory by King Saul with παραλόγως (“unexpectedly”; see also Diodorus 20.13.3; Appian, Hist. rom. 11.7.37, and cf. παράλογος in Josephus, War 5.291). See also the beginning of Herod’s commander speech in War 1.373: “The fear which is now taking hold of you seems to me to be entirely unreasonable (παραλογώτατα)” (trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a).

The context implies that Herod switched from standard open warfare between armies to the “bandit” (cf. the Greek: λῃστείαις ἐχρῆτο) or guerrilla mode of retreating to the hills, launching suddent raids and avoiding direct confrontation. For a similar combination of λῃστείαις plus χράομαι (“resort to banditry”), see Ant. 14.471. The Greek τὰ πολλὰ κατατρέχων τὴν τῶν ’Αράβων is slightly elliptic and presupposes an additional word like χώραν (“territory”), which is found in the briefer parallel report of War (1.369). For combinations of κατατρέχω (“ravage”) and χώραν in Josephus, see War 1.304; 2.62, 505; 3.431; 7.9; Ant. 11.161 (cf. Diodorus 22.8.1; 36.7.2). Josephus also uses the verb κατατρέχω in the parallel passage of War (1.369). Niese (353) reads ἐπὶ τῶν ὅρων (“on the borders”); MSS FAME (supported by the Latin version) read ἐπὶ τῶν ὀρῶν (“in the mountains”; for a similar case, see Ant. 9.38). The latter reading seems preferable and is followed, among others, by Marcus-Wikgren (58) and Meijer-Wes (3.168). It matches the type of territory of the Hauran, where Herod had confronted the Nabateans before (see 15.111 with the note to “Arabia”; for other occurrences of ἐπὶ τῶν ὀρῶν in Josephus, see War 1.300; Ant. 8.279; 14.409). Ant. 15.121 presupposes that Herod was staying outside of Judea in this period. This suggests that Herod’s military force was too weak in this period to confront the Nabatean army directly (Shatzman 1991: 290). This is a case of litotes (literally “not without inflicting loss”; see Ant. 15.107 with the note to “not without curtailment” and cf. Galen, Usu part. [ed. Kühn 3.660]). The noun συνέχεια (“perseverance,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. Niese minor (283) notes that there is a lacuna in the Greek text after φιλοπόνῳ (“by diligence”). However, the transmitted Greek text makes sense. For other combinations of τῶν οἰκείων (“his own [soldiers]”) and ἐπιμελέομαι (“take care”), see, e.g., Xenophon, Cyr. 4.5.39; Isocrates, Bus. 29.5; Plutarch, Cic. 44.7. The parallel report of War (1.369) also notes the result of these raids by Herod, but it focuses on the emotional impact on the Nabateans: “However, he [i.e., Herod] in turn, avenged himself on the Arabs by constantly devastating their land with raids, so that they could often bewail loudly their single victory” (trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a).The last lines of Ant. 15.120 attest a further case of alliteration, with p as the leading consonant sound.

About the Battle of Actium (in 31 BCE), see Ant. 15.109 with the note to “the Battle of Actium.” The determination of this 7th year is complicated for several reasons: the years of Herod’s rule may be counted from his appointment as king in 40 BCE (see Ant. 15.2 with the note to “the rule over all Judea”) or from his capture of Jerusalem in 37 BCE (or 36, as several scholars argue). It is further dependent on whether the 1st year of Herod’s rule was counted as his accession year or as his first full regnal year, and on whether a new regnal year started in the spring (i.e., on 1 Nisan) or in the fall (i.e., on 1 Tishri). If 37/36 BCE is taken as Herod’s 1st regnal year, the 7th year would be 31/30 BCE (either 1 Nisan 31–1 Nisan 30 BCE or 1 Tishri 31–1 Tishri 30 BCE). Otto (1913: 46), Marcus-Wikgren (58-59), Schürer-Vermes (1.289, 301), Kasher (1988: 138), and Schalit (2001: 122 with n. 98) date the earthquake to the spring of 31 BCE. In the parallel passage of War (1.370) Josephus connects the earthquake with Herod’s 7th year, the peak of the War of Actium, and the early spring. For a detailed discussion of the chronology of Herod’s rule, see Mahieu 2012. The parallel account of War (1.370) includes similar vocabulary (ἡ γῆ σεισθεῖσα) but does not refer to Judea. This detail is absent in War 1.370. Landau (2006: 156) notes that descriptions of unusual natural phenomena (enhancing the drama of the narrative) occur more frequently in Antiquities than in War and that they sometimes anticipate reports about human misconduct or highlight the connection between human sins and divine punishment. This is not the case here, but the introduction of the parallel report of War (1.370) does suggest that the earthquake was a divine intervention: a “heaven-sent calamity” (συμφορὰ δαιμόνιος). The MSS offer various readings (Niese 354), which, however, in most cases hardly affect the meaning of the passage. For vocabulary similar to φθόρον ἐποίησεν (“it caused [great] losses”), see Plato, Pol. 273a (about a great earthquake causing a new destruction [ποιῶν ἄλλην αὖ φθοράν] of all sorts of living creatures); Dionysius, Ant. rom. 5.59.4 (about a famine causing great losses among human beings [πολὺν φθόρον ἀνθρώπων ἐποίησεν]); 7.68.2.

War 1.370 provides similar information. This detail is missing in the parallel report in War (1.370). Landau (2006: 156) notes that the description in Antiquities is more detailed than in the parallel version of War: both reports describe the earthquake’s impact on cattle and humans, but the Antiquities narrative is more dramatic through its additional note “the likes of which had not been seen before” (15.121) and the reference to humans who died in the ruins of their houses. The nouns στρατιωτικόν (“army”) and ὕπαιθρος (“open country/air”) also occur in the parallel account of War (1.370). This is similar to the report in War 1.370. Josephus’ vocabulary (οὐδὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ πάθους κατεβλάβη “was unharmed by this disaster”) echoes that of War 1.370 (ἀβλαβές “[escaped] unharmed”).

Josephus’ vocabulary is tantalizingly vague or even subtle. The object of the hatred is not indicated; it is plausible that the Jews are meant (thus War 1.2; 2.478, 502; 5.556; 6.263; 7.50 and Ant. 18.371 explicitly refer to hatred towards the Jews), particularly Herod and his soldiers. Josephus does not specify either who the hearers of the report are. If the immediate context is taken into account, those hating the Jews could be the Arabs (who are already mentioned in the first part of the sentence), or Cleopatra, or Athenio, or both. One can also think of a reference to hatred towards the Jews in general since Josephus’ formulations are imprecise and exaggeration is a common feature of ancient anti-Jewish statements (for detailed discussions see Sevenster 1975; Schäfer 1997). In War 1.371 Josephus only mentions the Arabs (i.e., the Nabateans) as the ones who received the rumor about the earthquake and points to the fact that such rumors tend to become more dramatic: “… at this moment rumor, which always adds something more grievous to miseries in the spreading of a story, stirred the Arabs to greater boldness” (trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a). The expression μεῖζον φρόνεω literally means “have over-high thoughts” (LSJ s.v. φρόνεω II.2b). The phrase occurs again in Herod’s commander speech, also referring to the Nabateans (Ant. 15.143). This phrase echoes Ant. 15.122 (cf. the repetition of χώρα and φθόρον/διεφθορότων), but it offers variation as well (note the reference to the loss among livestock [κτηνῶν] in 15.121 and to the loss of humans [τῶν ἀνθρώπων] here). War 1.371 roughly expresses the same in different wordings. For the combination of ἀντίπαλος (“adversary, belonging to the opposite party”) and καταλείπω (“leave behind”), see Dionysius, Ant. rom. 3.63.1; Julian, Regn. 6.15 (ed. Bidez 1.1.124).

The issue of the Nabateans’ treatment of Herod’s envoys is taken up in the king’s commander speech (Ant. 15.136-137, 146). The translation is based on the longer reading (γεγενημένοις εἰρήνην ποιησόμενοι) attested by almost all of the ancient textual witnesses. Niese (354) follows the shorter text of MS L (γεγενημένοις). The combination of εἰρήνην (“peace”) and ποιοῦμαι (“make”) occurs once elsewhere in Josephus (War 4.320). This parenthesis explains the mission of the envoys, who have not been mentioned before. The parallel report of War (1.371) also mentions the envoys at this stage (see also War 1.378; Ant. 15.136). Kasher (1988: 139-41) argues that Herod had previously sent still other envoys in order to declare war on the Nabateans (which is not mentioned in Ant. 15.110). The participle τὰ γεγενημένα can mean “event” (Rengstorf s.v. γίγνομαι) or “past” (LSJ s.v. γίγνομαι I.3). Killing the envoys of the enemy was considered to be a terrible crime by the Greeks and the Romans (Herodotus 5.18-21; 7.136.2; Thucydides 4.98.7; Plato, Leg. 941a; Livy 4.58.6; 8.6.7; 10.12.2-3). Envoys were protected by law and had immunity. A murder of envoys justified a war against those who had killed them (Albert 1980: 18; Mantovani 1990: 44; see also Ant. 14.346). For vocabulary similar to μετὰ πάσης προθυμίας ἐχώρουν (“they advanced with great eagerness”), see Dionysius, Ant. rom. 6.38.2; 6.63.3; 9.9.9; cf. Plutarch, Sull. 9.3; Appian, Bell. civ. 5.4.33.

An alternative translation would be “did not withstand …” (Marcus-Wikgren 61; Meijer-Wes 3.168). The verb ἐκδέχομαι can mean “expect” as well as “sustain” (Rengstorf s.v.). The combination of ἔφοδος (“attack”; see also War 1.373; Ant. 15.139) and ἐκδέχομαι occurs once elsewhere in Josephus (War 4.86) and apart from that only in medieval Greek literature (Michael Attaliates, Hist. [ed. Bekker 25.2, 32.19], 11th cent.; Nicephorus Gregoras, Hist. rom. [ed. Schopen and Bekker 1.200.22], 14th cent.). The combination of ἀθύμως (“fainthearted, desperate”) and διάκειμαι (“being in a certain state”) also occurs in Ant. 3.5, which passage refers to the Israelites in the desert (see Exod 15; for similar vocabulary, see Isocrates, Callim. 60.2; Paneg. 93.1; Polyaenus 4.9.3). The phrase echoes part of the vocabulary of the introduction of Herod’s speech in War 1.373: “It was indeed natural to lose heart (ἀθυμεῖν εἰκὸς ἦν) in the face of heaven-sent calamities …” (trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a). The more elaborate report in Antiquities repeats the noun συμφοραί (“misfortunes”) of War 1.372. War 1.372 notes that the Jews were discouraged because of the continuous misfortunes. Antiquities describes their situation in more dramatic terms. For vocabulary similar to προΐεντο τὰ πράγματα, see Plutarch, Per. 33.7; Aelius Aristides, Ars rhet. 2.13.1. The noun ἀπόγνωσις (“despair”) echoes the description of Herod’s assessment of the situation after the Jewish defeat during the second battle against the Nabateans (Ant. 15.119): “In despair (ἀπεγνωκώς) over the outcome of the battle ….” The noun ἰσοτιμία usually means “equality of privilege” in ancient literature (LSJ s.v.), but here it must refer to the outcome of the military conflict for both parties. Rengstorf (s.v.) hesitantly gives “equal standing (in battle)” as meaning for this passage. The phrase also occurs in Ant. 16.98, in which case it indicates equality in a legal context. In 16.193 it refers to equality of social status. Cf. War 2.487 (a variant reading; see Mason in BJP 1b on 2.487); Ant. 7.284; 19.317. The verb προηττάω (“defeat beforehand,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. See Josephus’ description of this situation in Ant. 15.121-122.

This phrase forms the transition to the introduction of Herod’s elaborate commander speech (Ant. 15.127-146, paralleling War 1.373-379) before the third battle against the Nabateans (Ant. 15.147-160 and War 1.380-385). The speech comes at a dramatic point in the narrative, and the narrator greatly slows down the pace of the narrative (van Henten and Huitink 2007: 227-28). The speech that follows in Antiquities (15.127-146) is much more elaborate than its counterpart in War (1.373-379): the vocabulary and rhetorical style are embellished, and the composition is much more sophisticated (on speeches in general in Josephus, see Runnalls 1971; 1997; Villalba i Varneda 1986: 89-117; Landau 2006: 134-56; Mason 2011). Research on ancient Greek historiography reveals that speeches serve several functions: apart from highlighting certain interpretations of the events, they can mark a dramatic climax in the narrative (e.g., Moses’ speech at the end of his life in Ant. 4.177-193; Attridge 1976: 77-78), point out the underlying motives of a main character, or have an aetiological function, e.g., explaining the causes of the events following the speech (Villalba i Varneda 1986: 101-03, 107, referring to Herod’s commander speech in War 1.373-379). Runnalls (1997: 738) claims that Josephus not only uses speeches as a means to present his own theological evaluation of certain events but also as a stylistic tool to elaborate the personality of his narrative’s characters. The latter function is especially relevant for Herod’s commander speech because it presents Herod in a very positive light.It is, of course, possible that Herod actually gave a speech of encouragement before this battle against the Arabs and that Josephus (or somebody else) tried to catch the tenor of his words, as Thucydides tried in the commander speeches reported by him (see below), but there is no way to reconstruct the original speech. Mantovani (1990: 95) argues that Josephus based himself on a source that contained the speech, possibly Herod’s memoirs (see Ant. 15.174). However, we do not possess any source that transmitted the speech; only Josephus’ earlier version (War 1.373-379) has been transmitted to us. Hackl, Jenni, and Schneider (2003: 502) argue that either Nicolaus of Damascus or Josephus himself invented the speech. Grant (1970: 258) states that Josephus fabricated speeches with particular lavishness (see also Villalba i Varneda 1986: 90-92; differently Collomb 1947). There are pros and cons concerning the hypothesis that Josephus himself played a major role in the composition of the speech in Antiquities. The very positive image of Herod in the speech may, at first glance, not go well with Josephus’ own explicit comments about Herod, which are often negative. The speech’s well-polished composition, its persuasive rhetoric, and its content contribute significantly to the image of Herod as the ideal commander who successfully encourages his soldiers. However, this may still reflect Josephus’ own view if we assume that he constructed Herod as a person with a complex character (see Ant. 15.21 with the note to “he had allowed himself to be persuaded”), who was successful in several ways (i.e., as military commander and builder) but failing in other respects (e.g. controlling his family and treating his Jewish subjects). The smooth transition from speech to narrative and vice versa, and the strong cohesion between the speech’s content and its narrative context imply that its vocabulary and argumentation are Josephus’ own creation (cf. Runnalls 1971: 10-11 about the speeches in War).The Antiquities version of Herod’s speech includes many rhetorical topoi of commander speeches from the Classical period (van Henten 2005b). Josephus (or another author who was responsible for the composition of the speech) no doubt was familiar with the well-known Greek and Roman custom of commanders giving a speech of encouragement before a major battle. This habit triggered various fictitious speeches made up by historians: e.g., Herodotus’ speeches set in the mouth of key players of historical narratives are a device to present to the audience specific views and assessments of the events reported (Lendle 1992: 53-63); Thucydides incorporates speeches in his report of the Peloponnesian War and admits in his famous “methodological chapter” (1.22.1) that he freely invented his orators’ phrases and, different from Herodotus, that he attempts to catch the tenor of the speeches in order to offer a balanced and correct presentation of the events and even to present what the speakers ought to have said on particular occasions (Leimbach 1985: 9-14; Lendle 1992: 85-87; Rood 1998: 39-46). In the Roman period Cassius Dio follows the practice of inventing speeches, which started with Herodotus (Lendle 1992: 255). The participle πειρώμενος (“attempting”) is the only word that corresponds with the vocabulary of the much shorter introduction of Herod’s speech in the parallel report of War (1.372 ἐπειρᾶτο [“tried to”]). The expression πεπτωκότα τὰ φρονήματα (“sunken spirits”) is characteristic for Josephus. Similar phrases refer to Jews who had lost confidence and to Josephus himself in his role as commander (War 3.130, 142; see also War 1.376; Ant. 15.128, 139 in Herod’s commander speeches). Like Herod in Ant. 15.126 Josephus encourages his soldiers in War 3.142. The verb προδιακινέω (literally “set previously in motion,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. The reason that Herod approached the braver soldiers first is explained in the continuation of the paragraph, which highlights that the situation was precarious and that Herod had to act with caution (similarly Eleazar ben Yair in his first speech, War 7.322). He apparently made use of a vanguard to persuade the other soldiers (cf. Xenophon, Anab. 3.1.37, who points out that the officers had to take responsibility for the common soldiers). The distinction between the elite and the common soldiers is absent in the parallel report of War (1.372). For similar combinations of παραθαρσύνω (“encourage”) and παρακαλέω (“incite”) further on in this paragraph, see Aesop 3.1; Xenophon, Cyr. 7.1.18; Plutarch, Cat. Min. 21.1; Cor. 8.5; Pomp. 30.3. The subject and object are not explicit here in the reading of the MSS (μὴ καὶ χαλεπῷ χρήσηται, Niese 354): Josephus may refer to the multitude of soldiers or to Herod, although the latter is less plausible and implies a translation like “he would be too tough on them.” The composition, vocabulary, and motifs indicate that Herod’s speech of encouragement is a typical commander speech before a battle to enhance the soldiers’ motivation to fight (Leimbach 1985: 15 and the note to “a speech” above). The key word παρακαλέω (“incite”) in the introduction (see also Ant. 15.128) also indicates that the delivery is a commander speech. This kind of speech is sometimes called a παρακλητικός λόγος (“hortatory speech,” Polybius 12.25i.3; cf. 23.2.9; 28.4.1; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 4.26; LXX Zech 1:13; Leimbach 1985: 14; van Henten 2005b: 186-87). Commander speeches belong to one of the 3 major types of speech according to ancient theories of rhetoric, to deliberative speech (genos sumbouleutikon, Runnalls 1997: 742-46; for this type of speech, see Aristotle, Rhet. 1.3.3 1358b; Lausberg 1998: 32-33, 97-103). Other deliberative speeches in Josephus are Moses’ speech at the end of his life (Ant. 4.177-193), Ananus’ speech against the Zealots (War 4.162-192), Josephus’ own speeches in War 5.376-419; 6.99-110, and Eleazar’s 2 speeches at Masada (War 7.323-388). There are some features in Herod’s speech that belong to forensic speech, another main type of speech (see Herod’s accusations against the Arabs and his statements connected with just war in Ant. 15.130-145). Overlaps between deliberative and forensic speech are common (Lausberg 1998: 97).Herod’s call upon his soldiers’ courage, which is partly repeated at the speech’s end, supports the assumption that the speech belongs to the genre of commander speeches (for this genre, see Luschnat 1942; Leimbach 1985, and for conventional motifs in commander speeches, van Henten 2005b). The vocabulary typical of such speeches includes ἀνδραγαθία (Ant. 15.127, 140, 146; cf. War 1.376), θαρρέω (Ant. 15.127, 143; cf. War 1.374), ἀνδρεία (Ant. 15.138; cf. War 1.379), and τόλμα (Ant. 15.142). The continuation of the narrative in Ant. 15.147 also matches the genre of a commander speech: the soldiers regained their self-confidence and triumphed over the Arabs (15.147-160).Moses’ brief speech (Ant. 3.43-46), Titus’ commander speeches (War 3.472-484; 6.33-53), and Vespasian’s speech (War 4.39-48) are also speeches of encouragement. They concern matters of war and peace, which is one of the 5 subjects of deliberative speech discussed by Aristotle (Rhet. 1.4.7-9 1359b-1360a).

Herod’s commander speech (see Ant. 15.126 with the note to “a speech”) in 15.127-146 is composed in 4 sections, in line with Aristotle’s view of the composition of speeches (Rhet. 3.13.4 1414b, also Cicero, Part. or. 27): (1) introduction (exordium, Ant. 15.127-128); (2) statement (propositio, 15.129); (3) proof (argumentatio, 15.130-145); and (4) conclusion (peroratio with recapitulatio and affectus, 15.146; Runnalls 1997: 746-47). Villalba i Varneda (1986: 108) proposes a composition in 3 sections: (1) introduction (15.127-129); (2) corpus of the speech (15.130-143); and (3) conclusions (15.144-146). The parallel speech of the War (1.373-379) has a rather loose composition. Herod’s introduction of his speech uses a common formula to call for attention (οὐκ ἀγνοῶ μέν, ὦ ἄνδρες, “I am in no way unaware, men, …”); see Demosthenes, Or. 16.3; 23.90; 39.27; Aeschines, Tim. 4.1; Dinarch, Fragm. 19.1; Dio Chrysostom 34.1; Lucian, Bis acc. 20; Hermogenes, Inv. 1.1 (ed. Rabe 99.16); cf. 2 Cor 1:8; 2:11; 1 Thess 4:13. On “men”, qualified in various ways, cf. Josephus, War 3.472 (“It is well for me to remind you, men. …”); 6.328; 7.323; Ant. 3.189; 6.20; 8.227; 11.169 (“You know, men…”); 15.382 (“To speak about my other deeds in connection to the throne, my fellow countrymen, is, I assume, superfluous”). In Antiquities Herod’s introduction first mentions the adversities of his soldiers and the fact that it is unusual to remain brave in such circumstances, and secondly that the combat is unavoidable (15.128). In War Herod starts his speech differently, by referring to the fear of his men, which was unjustified and cowardly because they had been attacked by humans and not by a heavenly force (1.373). The noun ἐναντίωμα (“obstacle,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. The noun ἀνδραγαθία (“bravery”) also occurs in the parallel speech of War (1.376, explicitly referring to the Jews) and further on in the speech in Antiquities (15.140, 146; cf. also 15.160). The combination of ἀνδραγαθία and διαφέρω (“stand out”) also occurs in Demosthenes, Or. 61.39. The Greek θαρρεῖν εἰκός (“it is not likely that … keep courage”) echoes a phrase from the introduction of Herod’s speech in War 1.373 (see Ant. 15.125 with the note to “being in this desperate situation”).

Polybius (2.7.7) offers vocabulary similar to ἐπειδὴ κατεπείγει το πολεμεῖν. Herod’s observation that it is necessary to fight the battle is taken up again in the body of the speech (see Ant. 15.135). Josephus indicates that Herod has a double intention with his speech: “I have deliberately chosen to encourage you and instruct you … (παρακαλέσαι ... καὶ διδάξαι).” For the first aim, see Ant. 15.126 with the note to “he incited the crowd.” The second aim, instruction, is not a hollow phrase here because Herod does instruct his soldiers about the enemy and their own situation (15.130-45; cf. War 1.374-376), which functions as support of his encouragement. Other commander speeches show that such a twofold purpose is conventional. The Spartan commander and politician Brasidas starts his speech in Thucydides 4.126 with a phrase that indicates his intention to encourage and instruct: “Did I not suspect, men of Peloponnesus, that you are in a state of panic because you have been left alone, and because your assailants are barbarous and numerous, I should not offer you instruction combined with encouragement (οὐκ ἄν ὁμοίως διδαχὴν ἅμα τῇ παρακελεύσει ἐποιούμην). But as it is, in view of our abandonment by our allies and of the multitude of our opponents, I shall try by a brief reminder and by advice to impress upon you the most important considerations” (trans. Smith). The instruction in commander speeches concerns the part of speech that analyses the situation, the location of the battle, the enemy’s army, etc. (Luschnat 1942: 71-72, 107-09). The analysis of the situation allows for the choice of the best strategy in the given circumstances. The commander’s clarifications of the situation and his strategy show his intentions (cf. Thucydides 5.8.4-5.9.10). It is obvious that all this information, if presented persuasively, could be a major ground for the soldiers’ encouragement (cf. 2.87.7). The translation follows Dindorf’s conjecture, which is also read by Niese (355). The noun φρονήματα probably means “spirits” in Ant. 15.126 (see the note to “lift their sunken spirits”), but the combination with the verb ἐμμένω (“abide in/by”) requires a different meaning; “proud designs” is given by LSJ (s.v. φρόνημα II.1).

For Herod’s argumentation in connection with just war, see Ant. 15.135 with the note to “justified.” Ant. 15.129 concerns the brief second section of Herod’s speech, i.e., the statement (about the main composition of the speech, see the first note to 15.127). The statement in 15.129 concisely formulates the speech’s 2 main points (cf. the Greek πρῶτον μὲν ... μετὰ δέ), anticipating Herod’s proof for both of them (βούλομαι ἐπιδεῖξαι ... μετὰ δέ τοῦτο δεῖξαι). The 2 main topics are: (1) the battle that has to be fought is just (δικαίως πολεμεῖν) and necessary (ἠναγκασμένοι, 15.130-137/138; see 15.135 with the notes to “justified” and “necessary”), and (2) there is no reason for fear and the soldiers’ prospects for victory are great (15.138/139-145). This statement anticipates the accusation that the Nabateans had killed Herod’s envoys (see Ant. 15.124 with the note to “killed them,” also 15.135-136). It is obvious that one has to defend oneself against an attack by an enemy, especially if its behavior is an act of ὕβρις (“insolence, outrage”). Such an accusation is launched several times at the Athenians in earlier Greek commander speeches (e.g., Thucydides 2.11.7-9; 4.92.1-2, 7) because they threatened the liberty of the other Greek states—in short, the freedom of all Hellas—in their strive for supremacy in the Greek world (e.g., 4.92.7; 5.9.1, 9; see Leimbach 1985: 90). Dionysius’ commander speeches (e.g., 3.23.6-21; 6.6-9; 9.9) point at outrageous acts by the enemy preceding the battle (e.g., the way the war was announced or embassies were treated) with the stock phrase ἡ ὕβρις τῶν πολεμίων (“the enemy’s outrageous act”). Publius Postumius (Ant. rom. 5.44.2) calls the Sabines’ unannounced incursion into Roman territory an intolerable outrageous act. In 5.45.1 the Romans receive a very insolent and arrogant embassy from them (παρὰ τῶν πολεμίων πρεσβεία πολλὴν ὕβριν ἐχούσῃ; see also Fabius’ opening words in Polybius 9.9). This phrase concludes the first point of Herod’s statement, focusing upon the violation of the just war conventions by the Nabateans. The translation follows the reading δεινὸν οὐδέν ἐστιν of Niese (355). The reading δεινῶν … of most MSS may be caused by the adaptation of δεινὸν to the genitive plural of the preceding τῶν and perhaps be translated as “that the fearful things for us are nothing.” The phrase δεινὸν οὐδέν ἐστιν is a fixed expression (see, e.g., Demosthenes, Or. 11.19; Plutarch, Mor. [Quom. adul.] 57e; Lucian, Jupp. trag. 1). Josephus frequently uses the singular δεινόν with οὐδέν or μηδέν (War 3.202; Ant. 1.59; 6.316; 7.79; 10.96, 161, 258, 260; 11.327; 12.395, 403). The plural genitive occurs once elsewhere with οὐδέν and ἐστιν (John Chrysostom, Fat. prov. [PG 50.751.38]). Herod’s second major point focuses on the situation of his soldiers. It is repeated several times in his speech: there is no serious reason to be frightened, and the prospects for a victory (τὸ νικᾶν) are great (the word ἐλπίς [“hope, prospect”] is also highlighted by Herod in Ant. 15.140, 143 as well as in the parallel speech of War [1.373]; cf. Ant. 15.150, 153). Thucydides (6.68.2) and Dionysius (Ant. rom. 9.9.6-7) have statements with ἐλπίς anticipating the outcome of a battle. Such statements are especially common in Polybius (e.g., 1.49.10; 3.64.4; 15.2.3) and in Josephus’ Antiquities (e.g., 6.26; 9.16; 12.300).Josephus seems to follow the convention, already found in Thucydides (see Ant. 15.128 with the note to “instruct you”), that speeches of encouragement before a battle focus on a discussion of the specific circumstances and the opportunities offered by this situation. This requires an analysis of the battle’s location and the specifics and capabilities of both armies (number, experience, courage, and discipline), with their advantages and disadvantages, as well as a discussion of past performances (cf. Aristotle, Rhet. 1.4 1359b-1360a). In the Thucydidean speeches commanders frequently analyze the circumstances, like the battle’s location and the opportunities it provides, the qualities of both armies, their experience and former successes, and the particularities of the enemy’s condition. The Peloponnesian commanders encourage their soldiers in 2.87 before a naval battle, after Athens’ earlier triumph over them in the summer of 429 BCE on the high sea, by listing their advantages: “You have the advantage, both in number of ships and in fighting close to the land, which is friendly to us, and you are supported by hoplites; and victory is generally on the side of those who are the more numerous and better prepared. There is accordingly not a single reason that we can find why we should fail …” (2.87.6-7, trans. Smith; cf. 4.10.3-5; 6.68.3; Polybius 3.54.2-4; 3.111.1-11; 15.10.1). Polybius adheres to Thucydides’ principle that commander speeches should address the circumstances: “… addressed them in words suitable to the occasion … (παρακαλέσαντες αὐτοὺς τὰ πρέποντα τῷ καιρῷ)” (1.32.8, trans. Paton; cf. 1.45.3; 1.60.5; 2.64.1; 3.71.8; 4.80.15; 5.53.6; 11.11.2). The speeches in Thucydides sometimes also reveal the strategy that obviously resulted from the analysis, which also helped to encourage the soldiers (Luschnat 1942: 113, 117). The tenor of most Thucydidean commander speeches is that fear for the enemies—whether because of their huge force, former defeats against them, or difficult circumstances—should change into courage and high spirits through the commander’s encouragements and instructions, and consequently lead to triumph (Thucydides 4.10.1-5; 6.68.3; Luschnat 1942: 35-37; Leimbach 1985: 58, 62, 80).In comparison to the arsenal of arguments linked to the particular military situation found in earlier Greek commander speeches, Herod’s speech is rather vague about the circumstances of the future battle against the Nabateans. He does not spend a word on the battle’s location, which is unclear anyway in Antiquities (see 15.147-148 with notes), but he does offer a brief comparison of both armies after discussing the Nabateans’ outrageous acts against the Jews (15.138) and also turns the soldiers’ adversities into an advantage (15.142). In the parallel speech of War (1.373-379) Herod focuses more on the circumstances for his soldiers. For similar phrases of ἐλπίς plus ἔχω (“have prospects”) and νικάω (“win”) or νίκη (“victory”), see Ant. 12.300; 13.93, also Thucydides 6.68; Anaximenes of Lampsacus 8.14; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 9.16; Polybius 3.64.4; 16.32.2; Lucian, Cal. 12; Athenaeus 1.29.

The expression ἄρξομαι δ’ (“I will start with”) is conventional; it projects the beginning to the future, and enhances the audience’s eager expectation in this way (Pfeijffer 1999: 33; cf. Dionysius, Comp. 20.145 [ed. Usener and Radermacher 6.94]). The body of the speech—the proof—perfectly matches this summary of the content (Ant. 15.129). Its first topic (15.130-137) elaborates Herod’s statement that the battle is just and necessary, obviously because of the behavior of the enemy. The section includes a double narratio in order to support Herod’s point: Ant. 15.131-134 lists the reprehensible deeds of the Nabateans and Ant. 15.136 mentions their outrageous killing of the Jewish envoys. Herod’s second major topic focuses on the soldiers’ own situation. It starts in 15.138 or 15.139 (see the notes to these paragraphs). Herod’s points in this section are: (1) he and his soldiers were victorious in the previous battles up to the moment Athenio entered the battlefield in a treacherous way (15.139-140); (2) if the enemies are courageous, this should be an extra motivation to beat them (15.141); (3) the earthquake caused less damage than the Nabateans are thinking, which should be taken as an advantage (15.142-143); and (4) God will be on their side (15.144-146). For the last 2 points, cf. the parallel version of War (1.373). Herod’s proof calls upon the soldiers’ own experiences by making them witnesses. It takes off with a list of the wicked deeds of the Nabateans (see the next note). Hannibal encouraged his soldiers in one of his commander speeches by calling upon the testimony of their own eyes that they had succeeded in crossing the river Po and that the allies were ready to help them (Polybius 3.44.11).For the combination of ποιέω with μάρτυς and persons as objects (“make someone a witness”), see Ant. 6.230 (God) and 16.106 (Caesar), also Dinarch, Demosth. 86; Cassius Dio 50.18.1. Josephus here lists the wicked deeds of the Nabateans (see also Ant. 15.107 with notes). Most of his accusations are taken up again in the speech’s narrative sections. About the Nabateans’ lawlessness (παρανομία), see 15.136, 140, 156. The unfaithfulness of the Nabateans (ἀπίστως διακειμένων) is also referred to in Ant. 15.110, 130, 132, 134, 140. The phrase τὸ βάρβαρον means “the barbarians” here (Rengstorf s.v. βάρβαρος). In Classical Greek sources the meaning of βάρβαρος developed from “not speaking Greek” (cf. βαρβαρίζω in Herodotus 2.57; LSJ s.v.) into “non-Greek” (see also Ant. 15.136 with the note to “Greeks and barbarians”), frequently with a pejorative meaning (Lévy 1984: 5-14). The adjective βάρβαρος can also mean “uncivilized, cruel, savage,” especially in Hellenistic passages (Windisch 1964: 548). The antagonism between Greeks (Ἕλληνες) and non-Greeks (βάρβαροι) occurs time and again in reports about the wars of the Greeks against the Persians in the 5th cent. BCE (the locus classicus is Herodotus 8.142.5; Mantovani 1990: 21-23). Frequently this opposition implies a value judgment: the Greeks are supposed to be civilized and the non-Greeks not; they are barbarians. Brasidas hints at such a binary opposition at the beginning of his speech of encouragement by calling the Macedonian enemies barbarians and by arguing that there is no reason to fear them because they are barbarians (Thucydides 4.126.1; Leimbach 1985: 80 and see 15.128 with the note to “instruct you”).Elsewhere in Josephus (οἱ) βάρβαροι refers to non-Israelites or non-Jews: the Midianites (Ant. 2.263), non-Jewish inhabitants east of the Jordan (12.222), and the Parthians (War 1.264, 268). The latter passage implies a pejorative meaning; Josephus highlights the unreliability or disloyalty (ἀπιστία) of the Parthians. He seems to exclude the Jews from the βάρβαροι in these passages, as he does here in Herod’s speech (Windisch 1964: 550). The meaning “non-Greek” is also found in War 1.5-6 (Rajak 2001: 275).From a Jewish perspective the Nabateans were foreigners, of course, but the pejorative meaning “barbarians” is clearly presupposed because Herod summarizes their wicked deeds in this paragraph. Herod’s qualification of the Nabateans as barbarians underpins his criticism of them. The presentation of the enemies as barbarians may imply that the Jews, as the counterpart of the barbarians, are associated with the Greeks or the civilized, which suggests that Josephus may have re-interpreted the binary opposition Greeks versus non-Greeks/barbarians as Israelites/Jews versus non-Israelites/non-Jews/barbarians. Other Hellenistic-Jewish passages also show a re-interpretation of the opposition Greeks versus non-Greeks/barbarians from a Jewish insider perspective. In 2 Macc 2:21 “the barbarian hordes (τὰ βάρβαρα πλήθη)” refer to the troops of the Seleucid king against whom Judas the Maccabee and his soldiers had fought (see also 10:4). Nevertheless, the epitomist of 2 Maccabees does not suggest a complete reversal of roles (cf. Gruen 2001: 84-85), which would turn the Greeks into the barbarians and the Jews into the civilized. 2 Macc 4:25, referring to the High Priest Menelaus, indicates that individual Jews can also be characterized as barbarian persons: “After receiving the king’s orders he [i.e., Menelaus] returned, possessing no qualification for the high priesthood, but having the hot temper of a cruel tyrant (θυμοὺς δὲ ὠμοῦ τυράννου) and the rage of a savage wild beast (καὶ θηρὸς βαρβάρου ὀργὰς ἔχων).” Apparently, one’s uncivilized and savage deeds imply, in the perspective of 2 Maccabees, that one is a “barbarian” and do not refer to one’s ethnic identity (see also LXX Ps 113:1 [= MT 114:1]; 2 Macc 5:22; 13:9; 15:2; the next note; and van Henten 2011a). Herod’s association of the Nabateans with a barbarian people (see the preceding note) is elaborated with the statement that they did not have a conception of God (ἀνεννόητον θεοῦ). The word ἀνεννόητος (“without any notion of,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. Herod’s reasoning indicates that having knowledge of the God of Israel or not is a principle difference between the Jews and the Nabateans. This underpins the negative associations associated with the word βάρβαρος and offers an additional explanation of the wicked behavior of the Nabateans. It also anticipates another point in Herod’s speech, namely that the Jews have the support of the God of Israel and the Nabateans do not (Ant. 15.144-146). LXX Ps 113:1 offers a close parallel to Herod’s statement. The psalm praises God for bringing Israel miraculously to the promised land: “Hallelouiah. At Israel’s exodus from Egypt, of Jacob’s house from a barbarian people (ἐκ λαοῦ βαρβάρου), Judea became his holy precinct, Israel his seat of authority” (trans. NETS). The beginning of this psalm constructs a binary opposition between the Israelites/Jews and a foreign people, i.e., Egypt. It presupposes that the Israelites are superior because they are being supported by their God. The inferiority of the Egyptians remains implicit in the psalm; their barbaric deeds are not highlighted, while the deeds of the Nabateans are in Ant. 15.130. The binary opposition of Israel and Egypt nevertheless suggests that βάρβαρος also has a pejorative connotation in LXX Ps 113:1 (van Henten 2011a). The Nabateans’ greed (πλεονεξία) is taken up again in Ant. 15.134 (with 2 occurrences of the verb κερδαίνω [“making profit”]). The jealousy (φθόνος) of the Nabateans is not mentioned again. Landau (2006: 138) suggests that the reference to the Nabateans’ greed and jealousy is ironic because both traits are characteristic of Herod’s own behavior (cf. Ant. 15.89, 91 about Cleopatra). Herod blames the Nabateans for starting a war unannounced (cf. War 1.269; 2.30; Apion 1.318), which can be connected with the topic of just war. According to Graeco-Roman passages starting a war unannounced was a clear violation of the obligation to fight a war in a fair way. In Herodotus 5.81.2 such a war (ἀκήρυκτος πόλεμος) is seen as a crime (cf. Polybius 5.42.2; Josephus, War 1.269; 2.30; Apion 1.318; Mantovani 1990: 60-70, 94, also Ant. 15.135 with the note to “justified”). The Nabateans’ treacherous behavior is taken up again in Ant. 15.140-142. The phrase ἐξ ὑπογύου (“suddenly,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. The parallel passage of War (1.375) focuses upon Athenio’s attack, which is referred to in Ant. 15.139.

Deliberative speech can include narrative sections (narrationes) that underpin the speaker’s argumentation (Aristotle, Rhet. 3.16.11 1417b). The first narratio of Herod’s speech (Ant. 15.131-134) concerns the lawless deeds of the Nabateans. It is introduced by the rhetorical formula “But why do I have to say much [more]?” (καὶ τὰ μὲν πολλὰ τί δεῖ λέγειν;). Exactly the same phrase is found in Demosthenes, Or. 37.12 (also in a narratio). Phrases like τί δεῖ λέγειν; can indicate a transition (e.g., Thucydides 1.73.2; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 10.6). The formula here suggests that there is no need to say more about these wicked Nabateans, although it functions as the introductory phrase for a whole list of accusations. This function reminds one of the figure of speech of praeteritio (i.e., stating something by saying that one is not going to mention it; Lausberg 1998: 393-94).In the next paragraphs Herod briefly describes his own benefactions toward the Nabateans: they benefited from his friendship with Antony (Ant. 15.132) and from his taking care of Cleopatra’s greedy attempts to take over territories from both kingdoms (15.131, 133). Yet they returned his friendship with treachery (15.133-134). Injustice done by the enemy (15.131-134) was an important reason for justifying a war against them. Greek commander speeches frequently justify a war by recalling the enemy’s unjust acts. In Thucydides the Syracusan commander Gylippus justifies a war against the Athenians before a naval battle (413 BCE). Revenge was called for because Athens was attempting to enslave all Sicily and would, if successful, commit all kinds of outrages against the Sicilians, even against wives and children (7.68.1-3; cf. 1.86.2-3). The speech of the Spartan king Archidamus also refers to improper behavior of the Athenians (2.11.7-9). The Nabateans did run the risk of losing their autonomy because of Cleopatra’s strategy to take over the Nabatean and Judean kingdoms, as Josephus indicates in a previous passage (see Ant. 15.110 with the note to “it would be good for her if the one would suffer badly from the other”). The phrase τῆς οἰκείας ἀρχῆς ἐκπεσεῖν (“being deprived of their self-government”) occurs several times in Eusebius (Praep. ev. 5.20.10; 5.21.1, 3). The implication of the passage is probably that the Nabateans would have been ruled directly by Cleopatra, which matches the previous phrase. However, the verb δουλεύω (“be a subject/slave of”) may have a double entendre and also hint at Cleopatra’s evil character. Being a slave of Cleopatra could have frightening consequences (see Ant. 15.89-91 with notes, also War 1.243, which passage suggests that Antony was enslaved by Cleopatra). Herod may hint here at his role as intermediary between Cleopatra and the Nabateans, which prevented the queen from becoming the ruler of the Nabateans (see the continuation of this narratio). War 1.373 briefly refers to God’s vengeance on the Nabateans. The motif of fear in War concerns the Jewish soldiers. For a similar phrase with τοῦ δέους and ἀπαλλάσσω (“free from fear”), see Ant. 2.133, also Isocrates, Phil. 111; Demosthenes, Or. 21.129; Dio Chrysostom 6.43; Appian, Hist. rom. 7.52. Herod refers to his close relationship with his patron Antony, which was the basis for his successful rule (similar phrases in Ant. 15.162, 183; see 15.162 with the note to “because of his close friendship with Antony,” also War 1.386). The friendship motif (expressed by the words φίλοι and πίστις) returns in Ant. 15.133-134. Phrases like (μηδὲ) ἀνήκεστόν (τι) παθεῖν (“[not] suffer [something] fatal”) occur several times in Josephus (War 3.480; Ant. 15.145, 197; cf. War 1.121; 2.233, 320; 6.123; Ant. 18.359). Thucydides uses the phrase already in 3.39.8 (see also Demosthenes, Or. 54.5; Diodorus 17.15.2; Dionysius, Dem. 12; Philo, Conf. 13; Legat. 109; Spec. 3.166; 4.173; Athenaeus 6.89). I.e., Antony. The phrase hints at Antony’s role as Herod’s patron, but the formulation is platitudinous. As a matter of fact, Cleopatra’s interference in the Nabatean and Judean affairs must have made Herod very suspicious; the queen was a formidable competitor for him (van Henten 2005a).

This refers to Antony’s grant of Judean and Nabatean territories to Cleopatra, reported in Ant. 15.96, 106 (see the notes to these paragraphs). Although providing gifts to a patron was the obvious thing to do to obtain a favor, it is doubtful whether Herod actually did this in connection with the lease of these territories. Josephus does not report such gifts in the report about the deal with Cleopatra (Ant. 15.106-107). On the other hand, it is certainly possible that Herod had to bribe Antony first in order to be able to make the deal with Cleopatra. The main point of Herod’s reasoning is that he did his utmost to prevent Cleopatra from directly ruling over the territories granted to her by Antony—not only the Judean part of it, but also the Nabatean section. The obvious response by the Nabateans would have been gratefulness to Herod and compliance with the deal, but this did not happen, as the continuation of the narratio points out. This point leads up to Herod’s accusation that the Nabateans cheated him (Ant. 15.132-134). The combination of πορίζω and ἀσφαλές or ἀσφάλεια (“attain security”) also occurs in War 1.567, 623; Ant. 2.220; 8.13 (see also Philo, Spec. 1.75; Arrian, Anab. 7.9.4). This links up with the previous phrase (“from my own possessions”) and highlights Herod’s own financial sacrifices for establishing the deal with Cleopatra. MSS PFLW read διδούς (“by giving,” Niese 356). The actual amount of talents involved in the tripartite deal with Cleopatra is debated, but the passage may mean that Herod paid 200 talents for his own lease of Judean territories from Cleopatra and also acted as guarantor (ἐγγυητής; see also Ant. 14.81) of the 200 talents for the lease of the Nabatean territories by the Nabatean king (see 15.106-107 with the note to “which Herod had to pay for the land given by Antony”). Josephus’ phrase is elliptic here, but the context implies that the revenues went to Cleopatra. MSS LAMW add γῇ (“to the land”) after μὲν, which does not make sense, but may have evolved from the assumption of copyists that the article τῇ need to be followed by a noun. See Ant. 15.107-108 about King Malichus’ violation of the deal concerning the lease, which made Herod decide to go to war.

Herod’s complicated argument, starting with ἄξιον ἦν (“it was [not] right”), makes 2 statements about what was not right: (1) the Jews had to pay tribute and give up part of their territory (to Cleopatra), and (2) the Nabateans did not keep the agreement with Herod. The first statement is connected with another statement, which follows upon the assumption that the first one was wrong: if there was a reason for the Jews to pay tribute, it should not have been on behalf of those who had already been helped by Herod. Herod has just explained his great help to the Nabateans in Ant. 15.132. I.e., the financial deal about the lease of the Nabatean territory (see the previous paragraph). Herod takes up the injustice (ἀδικεῖν) of the Nabateans in the next paragraphs in order to make his point that the war against them is just (see Ant. 15.135 with the note to “justified”). The Greek is elliptic and open to more than one interpretation. The noun ἔντευξις is translated with “concession,” as suggested by Rengstorf (s.v.), but it can also mean “request” or “appeal” here (cf. Ant. 15.79). The phrase τὴν ἀρχήν is interpreted as an adverbial expression meaning “at first” (LSJ s.v. ἀρχή 1c; Rengstorf s.v.). The statement highlights the treachery of the Nabateans. In the next paragraph Herod elaborates that friendship implies that friends are faithful to each other. This argument is based on Herod’s initially friendly relationship with the Nabateans, also because of his father’s connections with the Nabateans and the fact that his mother, Cyprus, descended from a prominent Nabatean family (War 1.181; Kokkinos 1998: 95). The financial help provided by Herod to the Nabateans is proof of this relationship of friendship, which required from the Nabateans that they would treat Herod as a friend. Herod’s aid matches earlier transactions by Herod’s father Antipater (see War 1.220-222 and Ant. 15.107 with the note to “slow with his payments”). About the phrase ἀδικεῖν … ἀποστεροῦντας … φίλους (“doing wrong by robbing friends”), cf. 1 Cor 6:8 “But you yourselves wrong and defraud—and believers at that (ἀλλὰ ὑμεῖς ἀδικεῖτε καὶ ἀποστερεῖτε καὶ τοῦτο ἀδελφούς).”

Another difficult rhetorical statement, which partly repeats the vocabulary of Ant. 15.133, elaborates what trust or faithfulness (πίστις) and friendship should imply (see the next note) and highlights the treachery of the Nabateans by contrast. It leads to the preliminary conclusion that the criminal acts of the Nabateans have to be punished (see also Apion 2.207, in which passage Josephus emphasizes that friendship implies absolute trust; Barclay in BJP 10 on Apion 2.207). Lindsay (1993: 95) connects Josephus’ vocabulary to the formula πίστιν τηρεῖν in 2 Tim 4:7, meaning “to remain faithful/loyal.” The phrase τόπον ἔχειν can mean, i.a., “have a place, have room for” (LSJ s.v. τόπος I.2); Rengstorf (s.v.) suggests “be respected” as a possible meaning here (see also War 4.434; Ant. 15.158). This repeats, again with emphasis, Herod’s point of Ant. 15.133 that the Nabateans violated the conventions for relations between friends. Friendship is an important ideal in ancient Greek and Roman societies: in Classical Greece friendship concerns societal as well as private reciprocal relations, which implies that both sides were aiming for the happiness or benefit of the other (Aristotle, Eth. Nic. 8.1-2 1155a-1156a). In Hellenistic and Roman times the focus is upon personal relationships. That friends are just and faithful towards and equal to each other is self-evident (Aristotle, Eth. Nic. 9.2 1168b; see also Plutarch’s treatises De amicorum multitudine and De fraterno amore; further references in Treu 1972: 418-25; Klauck 1992: 98-101; Scholtissek 2004: 415-25). The motif of faithfulness among friends is prominent in Greek literature (e.g., Diodorus 10.17.2; Lucian, Tox. 41; Klauck 1992: 98) and also implied by biblical passages: friends are equated to brothers (Deut 13:7; Ps 35:14; cf. Lev 19:18); in emergency situations friends deserve loyalty and solidarity (1 Sam 20:8; 2 Sam 16:16-17). Trust and friendship are a common collocation in Josephus (Mason in BJP 1b on 2.257). Aiming for profit obviously goes against the ethics of friendship referred to in Herod’s previous statement. This is Herod’s second reference to the greed of the Nabateans (see Ant. 15.130, which mentions πλεονεξία [“greed”] in this connection). Herod repeats the verb κερδαίνω (“make profit”) in this sentence and emphasizes in this way the Nabateans’ unscrupulousness, which is apparent from the point elaborated in the previous paragraphs: they received the yield from the land leased from Cleopatra but did not keep their deal with Herod, which implies that they leased the land for free and that Herod, being guarantor, had to make up for that. The introduction of the conditional phrase by εἰ μόνον (“provided that”) instead of the usual εἰ (γε) turns the condition into an exclusive or necessary one (“if only”; Wakker 1994: 340).

MS P (Niese 356) reads ἐπιζήτησις (“desire,” Rengstorf s.v.). That the punishment of the Nabateans is wanted by God as well follows from the continuation of the sentence. It is also indicated in the parallel speech of War (1.373). Josephus uses vocabulary similar to τοῦ θεοῦ βουλομένου in Ant. 1.229; 3.45; 4.288 (cf. 1.223; LXX 1 Sam 2:25). Niese (356) conjectures καὶ τοῦ νόμου (“and the Law [commands …]),” which improves the sentence but is unnecessary (see the next note). God is intended as the subject of the participle παραγγέλλοντος (“commanding [us]”), although there are no close parallels in Josephus to support this reading. Josephus refers to God’s commandments in Ant. 1.41 (τοῖς τοῦ θεοῦ παραγγέλμασιν; Feldman in BJP 3 on Ant. 1.41). Acts 17:30 has God as the subject of the verb παραγγέλλω (“command”): “While God (ὁ θεός) has overlooked the times of human ignorance, now he commands (παραγγέλλει) all people everywhere to repent.” The statement “God … always commands us to hate insolence and wrongdoing (μισεῖν τὴν ὕβριν καὶ τὴν ἀδικίαν)” is perhaps an allusion to LXX Prov 8:13: “The fear of the Lord hates injustice, also outrage (φόβος κυρίου μισεῖ ἀδικίαν, ὕβριν) and arrogance, and the ways of the wicked (trans. NETS, slightly adapted).” If so, the passage from Proverbs was probably interpreted as a statement that persons faithful to God should hate wrongdoing, outrage, etc., by acting against it and punishing the perpetrators. The implication would be that Herod and his soldiers would have God’s approval during their punishment of the Nabateans. For a further occurrence of μισέω plus ἀδικία in Josephus, see Ant. 3.274 (cf. War 2.139; Jdt 5:17 “And as long as they [i.e., the Israelites] did not sin in the sight of their God, good fortune was with them, for with them is a God who hates iniquity [θεὸς μισῶν ἀδικίαν],” trans. NETS; LXX Ps 118:128, 163; LXX Prov 28:16; LXX Isa 33:15). Here Herod formulates one of his main points, already hinted at in Ant. 15.128: the battle is just as well as necessary (οῦ μόνον δίκαιον ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀναγκαῖον πόλεμον, 15.134-135). Many words in the speech highlight the first point that the war is justified (ἄδικος [“unjust”]: 15.134, 146; ἀδικέω [“do wrong”]: 15.134, 144; ἀδικία [“injustice”]: 15.135, 140; δίκαιος [“just”]: 15.135, 137, 138, 145-146; δικαίως [“rightly”]: 15.129). This vocabulary is absent in the parallel version of War (1.373-379). The Antiquities version of Herod’s commander speech is, as a matter of fact, the most elaborate passage dealing with just war in Josephus. It seems to be based on a combination of biblical notions of holy war commanded by God (see the note to “God too wants this” above and 15.136 with notes) and Graeco-Roman traditions concerning just war (Mantovani 1990: 86). Herod emphasizes time and again that another battle against the Nabateans is called for because it would be a justified war (15.129, 135, 138, 145-146).Ancient historians frequently report about just and unjust causes for the many wars fought in antiquity, whether in their attempt to reconstruct the events as precisely as possible, or to legitimate wars afterwards. In the case of the Romans the theory of just war is even used in advance as a pretext to start a war (cf. the examples in Dionysius mentioned below). From Thucydides onwards the theme of just war appears in commander speeches and other passages with a rather fixed vocabulary (key words: πόλεμος [“war”] with δίκαιος [“just”], ὅσιος [“holy”], or ἱερός [“holy”] and the Latin equivalents bellum iustum [“just war”] or bellum pium [“holy war”]; Albert 1980; Clavadetscher-Thürlemann 1985; Mantovani 1990). At the outbreak of the war between the Athenians and Spartans (in 431 BCE), the Spartan king Archidamus points out to his soldiers that the battle against Athens is “right” (δίκαιος, perhaps “obligatory”) for 2 reasons: 1) faithfulness to the reputation of the Peloponnesians and their allies’ ancestors, and 2) the unusual acts of Athens against other Greeks by attacking their lands and destroying them (Thucydides 2.11.2, 7-9; Leimbach 1985: 19-20, 33). Some 50 years previously Mardonius urged the Persian king Xerxes to continue his war against Greece by indicating the outrageous acts against the Persians by the Athenians, which was calling for revenge (Herodotus 7.5, 9). Dionysius often uses bellum iustum vocabulary in his description of Rome’s early history. A striking example is Tullus’ declaration of war on the Albans because of their breaking a treaty: “I declare against the Albans the war that is both necessary and just (τὸν ἀναγκαῖον τε καὶ δίκαιον πόλεμον)” (Ant. rom. 3.3.6, trans. Cary). In 8.2-5 Marcius warns Tullus not to attack Rome immediately, but to establish deliberately a righteous and just ground for the war (αἰτίαν ... δεῖν εὐσεβῆ καὶ δικαίαν ἐνστήσασθαι τοῦ πολεμοῦ, 8.2.2) because of the gods; his advice is to let the Romans break the treaty first. In 5.5.4 Collatinus advises the consuls not to keep the possessions of the expelled tyrants because that could give them a just reason to begin a war (πρόφασιν πολέμου δικαίαν).Coherent theoretical reflections about just war start only with Cicero (Off. 1.20-23, 34-36, 80-81; 2.26-27; Re publ. 2.31; 3.35; Albert 1980: 20-25; Ramage 2001), although he builds on arguments brought forward in previous statements about the issue whether a war is just or not. A justified cause for a war could be based on religious, philosophical, or juridical reasons. Religious grounds for launching a just war could exist of outrageous deeds (acts of ὕβρις) against deities (like the desecration of their temples), unjust and godless acts against relatives (violation of blood ties), and internal wars (violating kinship relations, alliances, or the political bodies of states). A philosophical reason could be that the strong have a right to fight inferiors, e.g., animals or barbarians. Juridical grounds were most important and included the right to defend oneself against an enemy attack or to help an ally, the right to take revenge on the enemy for outrageous deeds, as well as the right to free oneself from tyranny or foreign oppressors (Albert 1980: 17-18; Mantovani 1990: 1-84).Just war requires that a proper procedure is met before declaring the war. According to Greek traditions the procedure includes in any case a formal declaration presented by envoys (Oehler 1921: 355). Roman sacral law (ius fetiale) prescribes several steps of the procedure for Romans: a consultation of the senate, a decision by the people, and the transference of the decision by priestly envoys (Albert 1980: 12-16). In the Republican period the priestly role of the fetiales declined and was taken over by envoys from the senate (Albert 1980: 15; Mantovani 1990: 60-61). A justified war has to be fought in a just manner: both sides have to fight the war with fairness, nobleness, avoidance of cunning and guile, and with only trained soldiers (Clavadetscher-Thürlemann 1985: 104-26; Mantovani 1990: 70-79). Of course, the remarks above reflect the ideal situation and handbooks on warfare and examples transmitted to us, from Caesar’s Gallic War through Frontinus’ stratagems, imply a very different picture concerning the Romans: warfare was all about deception, cunning, and guile (cf. Josephus in War 3). For the Romans a just war may have been, in fact, (a) a justified war, undertaken from some perceived iniuria—in other words the unique right to save face and maintain Rome’s absolute supremacy; (b) a proper war, i.e., a war done the proper way with the usual rituals, and not a civil war or a provincial rebellion (Mattern-Parkes 2003).Several other passages in Josephus touch upon the theme of justified war. The victory of the Israelites over the Ethiopians is attributed to the Israelites being just and holy (ὅτι δικαίους καὶ ὁσίους ἑαυτοὺς παρέσχον, Ant. 8.295). God prevented the battle between Rehoboam and Jeroboam (1 Kgs 15:6) on the ground that it is not just to fight somebody of the same kin: “He was, however, prevented by God, via a prophet, from undertaking the campaign; for he said that it was not just to wage war on one’s compatriots (οὐ γὰρ εἶναι δίκαιον τοὺς ὁμοφύλους πολεμεῖν) and that these things, namely the revolt of the crowd, was in accord with God’s intent …” (Ant. 8.223; trans. Begg in BJP 5). See also War 2.399, 582; Ant. 8.280; 14.63; Life 22, and cf. Eleazar’s speech at Masada referring to a just contest (ἀγὼν δίκαιος, War 7.355). Herod’s statement that the battle against the Nabateans is necessary seems to be closely related to his just war argument; the Nabateans absolutely have to be punished (see also the motif of necessity in Josephus’ own speech at Yodfat [War 3.361] and Eleazar’s Masada speeches [War 7.330, 352, 358, 380, 382, 387]; Runnalls 1971: 261; Lindner 1972: 35-37). Thucydides’ commander speeches refer a few times to necessity (ἀνάγκη), indicating that the battles cannot be avoided in the circumstances at hand, or that specific strategies are forced upon the army because of the circumstances (4.10.1; 6.68.4; 7.62.4; 7.77.5; Luschnat 1942: 35-36, 76-77, 133; Leimbach 1985: 97).

For the reference to “barbarians” (meaning “non-Greeks” here), see Ant. 15.130 with the note to “barbarous.” Herod mentions Greeks and non-Greeks together (Ἕλληνες καὶ βάρβαροι), which are the 2 categories of humankind from a Greek perspective. The implication is that it is self-evident that envoys have immunity (see the next notes). Landau (2006: 138) considers this reference to Greeks and barbarians to be a commonplace, referring to Thucydides 1.1 and War 1.1, in which passages the wars that are going to be described are considered to be the greatest disasters known to both Greeks and non-Greeks. The combination Ἕλληνες καὶ βάρβαροι also occurs in Ant. 1.93, 107; Apion 1.58, 161, as a reference to Greek and non-Greek authors. The slaughtering of the Jewish envoys is Herod’s main accusation in the second narratio of Herod’s speech (Ant. 15.136-137; cf. War 1.378). It is highlighted as a huge sacrilege among Greeks and non-Greeks (see also Ant. 15.124 with the note to “killed them”), which screams for revenge (cf. War 1.378). It leads up to an additional argument for a victorious outcome, God’s support (Ant. 15.138, 144-146). Another case of just war because of maltreatment of envoys is found in Ant. 7.119-120, in which passage David takes revenge upon the Ammonites because their king shaved off half of the envoys’ beards and cut off half of their garments. It is remarkable that Herod, later in the narrative, when the Nabateans send envoys to the king after their defeat, does not repeat their unjust act (15.155). In this light the detail of the Nabateans’ murdering the Jewish envoys gains even more significance and makes Herod look even more favorable. Envoys were protected by longstanding conventions or by law. Killing them was a terrible crime (see Ant. 15.124 with the note to “killed them”). In the continuation of his argument Herod seems to suggest that the Jews, who are here counted among the barbarians, have divine laws transmitted to them that forbid them to kill envoys, but this argument is hardly made explicit. In the parallel speech of War (1.378) Herod refers in this connection to the law that is in force for all humans (τὸν πάντων ἀνθρώπων νόμον). The noun νόμος has the meaning of a universal law as the basis of humankind’s morality in this passage, which seems to be a unique case in Josephus (Schröder 1996: 50). Herodotus mentions that the Spartans did not receive good omens for a long time because they had killed the envoys of the Persian king Darius (7.133-137; cf. Diodorus 33.5.4; 36.15.1-2). This is a remarkable passage for various reasons. On the basis of the foregoing statements one would expect that Herod would mention the Jewish equivalent of regulations concerning the immunity of envoys. However, he could not do that because specific regulations concerning envoys are missing in the Jewish laws circulating at that period. This probably explains why Herod refers to the laws of the Jews in a vague and general way. Although this point hardly contributes to his argument, he highlights, in Josephus’ presentation, these laws in superlatives: “most beautiful” and “most holy.” This connects well with Josephus’ presentation of the Jewish laws elsewhere (e.g., Apion 2.175 with similar superlative qualifications). Herod’s statement perhaps also anticipates his later point about God’s support during the battle (Ant. 15.138, 144-146).The noun ἄγγελος (“messenger”) is ambiguous here because it can refer to human as well as heavenly messengers (i.e., angels; Rengstorf s.v.). Both interpretations have been defended in scholarly literature (Marcus-Wikgren 66 n. a; Najman 2000: 313, 318, with references). If the phrase refers to human messengers, one can think of prophets (cf. Apion 1.37; Davies 1954), High Priests (Walton 1955), or perhaps a vague reference to Moses as the one who was God’s intermediary in revealing the Law to Israel (Exod 24:12; 31:18; 34:1-2, also 2 Macc 7:30). Jewish and New Testament parallels render it more probable that the passage hints at heavenly messengers, either a heavenly Moses (4Q377 2.ii; Sifre Num. [ed. Horovitz 101]; Najman 2000: 318-19, 331-32; van Henten 2003), or angels (Jub. 1.27, 29; 2.1 [the angel of God’s presence instructs Moses with the words about the creation]; Philo, Somn. 1.141-142; Acts 7:53; Gal 3:19, referring to the angels as well as to Moses, without mentioning him: “… it [i.e., the Law] was ordained through angels by a mediator”; esp. Heb 1:4–2:16 (2:2); Najman 2000). For the plural δόγματα (“decrees”) referring to Jewish laws revealed by God, see also Apion 1.42, which mentions God’s decrees (θεοῦ δόγματα), probably the laws of the Pentateuch (Barclay in BJP 10 on 1.42). For a rather different combination of δόγματα and νόμοι (“laws”), see Ant. 17.159. Instead of the usual meaning “name” the word ὄνομα perhaps means “phrase” (LSJ s.v. V) or “category” (Bauer-Aland s.v. II) here, but the translation “category” would presuppose a philosophical context, which is absent. Herod is valuing the treasured and protected name of “messenger” before his troops. His reasoning is that messengers among nations must be sacrosanct just as the messengers who brought the laws were sacred and inviolate. The name refers to the heavenly messengers mentioned in the preceding sentence. The angels (or perhaps Moses; see the previous note) reveal the divine to humans (see also Ant. 15.425, in which passage the genitive τοῦ θεοῦ after ἐμφανείας should be interpreted as a subjective genitive: “the other manifestations of God”). With Niese (356), who reads ἄγει (“makes”) instead of the infinitive ἄγειν (attested in MSS LMW and as a correction in MS A), which is dependent on δύναται (“can … make”). A literal translation is “enemies with enemies”; the repetition gives emphasis. Josephus still focuses on the function of the messengers mentioned previously, but the passage perhaps presupposes a shift from supernatural to human messengers (as Omert J. Schrier, Amsterdam, communicated to me). Obviously human envoys can help to reconcile enemies. Such a role could, however, also be fulfilled by supernatural messengers. The passage may also hint at Moses’ role as mediator and intercessor on behalf of Israel (possibly as heavenly messenger), cf. As. Mos. 11.14, 17; 12.6; 1Q22 iv.1; 2Q21 1; 4Q368 1; 4Q374 7; 4Q378 26; 4Q393 3; 4Q504 1.ii.7-11.

The noun ἀσέβημα (“sacrilege,” Rengstorf s.v.) perhaps echoes the use of the adjective ἀσεβής (“godless”) in the parallel speech of War (1.376), although Josephus also often uses parallel terminology in War and Antiquities in rather different ways. The rhetorical phrase introduced by ποῖον οὖν μεῖζον (“what greater …”) returns to the accusation of the killing of the Jewish envoys (Ant. 15.136) and embellishes this accusation with rhetorical means. Ant. 15.124 notes that the mission of the envoys was to discuss the conclusion of peace with the Nabateans, which negotiation is part of the conventions connected with just war (see 15.135 with the note to “justified”). The combination of διαλέγομαι (“discuss”) and τοῦ δικαίου/τῶν δικαίων (“just matter[s]”) also occurs in Isocrates, Archid. 39; Demosthenes, Or. 56.12; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 7.66.5; Plutarch, Alc. 14.7; Athenaeus 13.92. The formula πῶς δ’ ἂν δύναιτο introduces a rhetorical question emphasizing the impossibility of the issue stated (LSJ s.v. πῶς II; cf. similar formulas in Plato, Gorg. 467a; Philo, Agr. 22; Decal. 112; Ebr. 199; Plutarch, Mor. [Apophth. lac.] 230f; Pyrrh. 11.2; Athenaeus 2.1.159; Acts 8:31). The verb εὐσταθέω (“find/enjoy peace,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. About a peaceful life, cf. Pseudo-Lucian, Am. 43.1; Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 4.25.161. The phrase περὶ τὸν πόλεμον εὐτυχεῖν (“be successful in war”; cf. Ant. 12.339 τῆς ἐν τοῖς πολέμοις εὐτυχίας “good fortune in war”) perhaps echoes a phrase in Thucydides (1.120 ὅ τε ἐν πολέμῳ εὐτυχίᾳ “good fortune in war”; see also Herodotus 1.171; Xenophon, Cyn. 12.8). Herod obviously refers to the killing of his envoys (Ant. 15.124, 136-137).

It is not entirely clear where the section about the second major topic of the speech, which concerns Herod’s comparison between his own soldiers and the enemy (see the next note), starts. It is either with this rhetoric formula—pointing at an anonymous voice (ἴσως τοίνυν ἐρεῖ τις “someone will perhaps say,” de Jong 1987)—or with the formula “Let us also look at our own situation” (Ant. 15.139). Both can be interpreted as the transition to the second issue (i.e., the soldiers’ own situation), but the first option seems more probable because Herod starts his comparison between his own soldiers and the enemy already in 15.138, as the continuation of the sentence indicates. This is the first point of Herod’s comparison of his own soldiers’ situation with that of the enemy. Herod first briefly refers to divine support and justice on the Jews’ side in contrast with the Nabateans’ courage and multitude. In the next paragraphs he elaborates this as well as 4 other points: (1) Herod and his soldiers were victorious in earlier battles (Ant. 15.139-140) until Athenio entered the battlefield (15.140); (2) even if the enemy is courageous, which is not the case, this should be an extra motivation to beat them (15.141); (3) the earthquake caused less damage than the Nabateans think, which should be seen as an advantage (15.142-143); and (4) God will be on the side of the Jews (15.144-145). Herod briefly refers to the fourth point here. The mention of “justice” links up with the earlier points connected with just war (see 15.135 with the note to “justified”).The noun ὅσιον (“holiness”) plus μεθ’ ἡμῶν (“with us”) hints at God’s support to the Jewish soldiers, which is elaborated in the subsequent sentences as well as in 15.144-145. The phrase is a Greek variant of the Hebrew phrase ‘immānû ’Ēl (“El [i.e., God] is with us”), which is also attested as a name (Immanuel, Isa 7:14). It expresses God’s promise of protection (Ps 46:4-7, 11; cf. Isa 8:9-10). The usual Greek rendering of this name is ὁ θεός ἡμῶν (ἐστι) μεθ’ ἡμῶν (“our God [is] with us”): LXX 1 Kgs 8:57; LXX 2 Chr 32:8; Jdt 13:11; Matt 1:23 (cf. LXX Isa 8:8; Justin, Apol. 1.33.1, also Josephus, War 2.390-391; 5.380, 382, 386, 389, 403-404; 6.99-100; Ant. 3.45-46; 8.282, about God as divine ally). This phrase anticipates Herod’s discussion of the enemies’ courage (Ant. 15.140). Herod refers to the irresistible courage (ἀνδρεία) of his own soldiers in the conclusion of the parallel speech of War (1.379; cf. 1.373 and the next note). Being “more numerous” (see also πλῆθος [“number”] further on in this paragraph) builds on a common place in Greek commander speeches as well as on a motif in the Bible. It is twice associated with courage (ἀνδρεία) in this passage, in a chiastic order (ἀνδρειότεροι … πλείους / πλῆθος … ἀνδρεία). In the events connected with the Battle of Thermopylae Herodotus time and again contrasts multitude and courage with experience: in the Persian council Mardonius first convinces Xerxes that there is no risk in attacking Greece because of the multitude of the army (7.9). Next Herodotus offers a marvelous speech by Artabanus, who strongly advises Xerxes not to attack the Greeks. Artabanus combines the importance of divine support with the observation that the bigger army does not necessarily win: “You see how the god (ὁ θεός) smites with his thunderbolt creatures of greatness more than common, nor suffers them to display their pride …. Thus a numerous host is destroyed by one that is lesser, the god of his jealousy sending panic fear or thunderbolt among them, whereby they do unworthily perish …” (7.10, trans. Godley). In his discussion with Demaratus, however, Xerxes keeps putting his trust in his army’s multitude, whereas Demaratus stresses the Spartans’ excellence in battle (7.101-105). Thucydides’ speeches also raise the matter of the number of enemy soldiers. Before the naval battle near Naupactus against the Spartans (in 429 BCE), the Athenian commander Phormio discusses the multitude of the Peleponnesian forces (2.89; cf. 4.12) but does not consider it to be a reason for fear. Referring to the earlier enemies’ defeats and Athens’ triumphs he points out that the greater army nevertheless lost because of lack of experience (ἀπειρία) and courage (ἀτολμία, 2.89.7; Leimbach 1985: 52). The Athenian commander Nicias counters the great number of enemy soldiers and their expectation to triumph because of their majority, with the quality and experience of the fighters of Athens (6.68; cf. 2.87.6; 7.61.3; Luschnat 1942: 60-61, 133). Dionysius (Ant. rom. 6.8.1) contrasts multitude and valor in one of his elaborate commander speeches: “… all wars are won, not by the forces which are larger in numbers (οἱ πλείους τοῖς ἀριθμοῖς), but by those which are superior in valour (οἱ κρείττους ἀρετῇ)” (trans. Cary). Biblical and early Jewish passages sometimes emphasize that because the Israelites or Jews had courage and the support of God they were victorious despite the huge number of enemy soldiers (Judg 7; 1 Sam 14:6; Jdt 9:11; 1 Macc 3:18; Josephus, Ant. 1.178, 313; 4.296-297; 8.280, 293; 12.290-291, 307, 409; see also the last note to this paragraph).Herod’s argument about the number of the enemy troops is absent in the parallel speech of War (1.373-379). This formula introduces Herod’s refutation of a hypothetical counterargument (uttered by an anonymous person; see the first note to this paragraph). Herod’s first reaction to the reasoning of his hypothetical opponent follows from his argumentation that the war against the Nabateans is just, which implies that God will support the Jews (Ant. 15.130, 136, 144-146). Landau (2006: 138-39) notes that God will turn his back on Herod when he acts in unjust ways, as books 16-17 of Antiquities describe. Herod’s second refutation builds on his argument about courage (ἀνδρεία) and numbers in the preceding sentences, and links up with biblical and other passages that suggest that the help of God is decisive for the outcome of a battle (see also the note to “more numerous” above). The Hebrew Bible, as well as additional passages in the LXX, frequently refers to divine support during battles and even presents wars as being authorized by God (e.g., 1 Sam 17:47; 18:17). Deuteronomy 20 renders God’s laws concerning warfare. In the sections of Antiquities that offer paraphrases of the Bible Josephus frequently builds on the biblical notion of holy war and also incorporates the just war vocabulary in several passages in which it is absent in the Hebrew Bible and the LXX (Mantovani 1990: 86).In Herod’s speech God’s help is closely related to the just war theme (Ant. 15.137-138, 144-146). This argument builds on motifs in older Greek commander speeches, which clearly indicate that divine support is guaranteed if a war is just. Divine support is an important presupposition in Graeco-Roman descriptions of just war because only soldiers who are fighting for a just cause are entitled to get divine support (Livy 21.10.9; Mantovani 1990: ix, 4-6). The Beotian commander Pagondas points out a central notion of just war in his speech found in Thucydides 4.92. He elaborates the outrageous acts of the Beotians’ neighbors, the Athenians, who were destroying their country and occupying their sanctuary (4.92.1-2, 7). The support of the deity of the occupied sanctuary was certain in the Beotian war of defense against the Athenians: “Trusting that the god whose sanctuary they have impiously fortified and now occupy will be on our side, and relying on the sacrifices, which appear to be propitious to us, who have offered them, …” (4.92.7, trans. Smith). Polybius’ report of Hannibal’s speech before the decisive battle at Cannae (in 216 BCE) starts in plain language with a double thanksgiving (3.111.1-10): one to the gods who granted the earlier victories over the Romans, and one to himself because he compelled the Romans to fight at Cannae. His past performance rhetoric is combined with the prospect of the unheard victory, mastering Italy, but the triumph over the Romans is ultimately dependent on the will of the gods, as the last words of the speech indicate: “Therefore no more words are wanted, but deeds; for if it be the will of the gods (θεῶν βουλομένων) I am confident that I [i.e., Hannibal] shall fulfill my promises forthwith” (3.111.10, trans. Paton). God’s support during military conflicts is also essential according to other speeches in Josephus (the speech of Agrippa II in War 2.346-401, esp. 2.388-391; of Titus in 3.472-484, esp. 3.484; Ananus’ speech against the Zealots in 4.163-192, esp. 4.190-191; Josephus’ own speech in 5.362-419, esp. 5.367-369, 376-378, 401-414; Eleazar ben Yair’s speech in 7.323-336, 341-388, esp. 7.318-319, 327-332, 358-359; Lindner 1972: 28; Villalba i Varneda 1986: 93-101, 105). Apart from hints that God “has cast bait to the Arabs so as to deliver them to our vengeance and have them punished” (1.373, trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a), and that the Nabateans soon will be punished (1.378), the parallel speech of War does not discuss God’s interference, but it does focus upon the courage of Herod’s soldiers with the phrase ἄνανδρος (“unmanly,” 1.373).

The formula ἵνα δὲ καὶ τὰ καθ’ ἑαυτοὺς ἐξετάσωμεν introduces Herod’s main point in this section: the circumstances of his own soldiers compared to those of the opponents (see also War 1.373-374 and Ant. 15.138 with the note to “someone will perhaps say”).The situation before the battle is an important factor in Thucydides’ commander speeches, which are set in the history of the wars between Athens and Sparta (Luschnat 1942; Leimbach 1985; for the commanders’ analysis of the battle’s circumstances in Thucydides, see 15.128 with the note to “instruct you”). Herod first briefly looks back at the earlier battles against the Nabateans, which are reported in Ant. 15.111-119. Past performances by one’s own army as well as by the enemy’s soldiers are a major reason for encouragement in commander speeches (e.g., Thucydides 2.89.2, 5, 9; 3.111.1-10; 4.95.3). The second battle against the Nabateans is reported in Ant. 15.112-119. The verb συμβάλλω (“come to blows,” Rengstorf s.v.) also occurs in Josephus’ report of the third battle against the Nabateans in War (1.380). This statement links up with Ant. 15.115, in which passage the verb φεύγω (“flee”) is used as well (see also 15.151). The verb ἀντέχω (“withstand”) also occurs in the report of the third battle in War (1.383). About φρονήματα (“spirit”), see Ant. 15.126 with the note to “lift their sunken spirits.” The accusation connects with the description of Athenio’s interference in Ant. 15.115-117, and the indicative aorist ἐπέθετο (“attacked”) repeats the present infinitive ἐπιτίθεσθαι of 15.116. Herod’s formulation highlights the unfairness of Athenio’s act, which is elaborated in the next phrase. The accusation is already hinted at in Ant. 15.117 and implied by Herod’s repeated arguments about just war. Starting a war without declaring it through envoys violates the conventions of just war (see 15.135 with the note to “justified”). The phrase ἀκήρυκτος πόλεμος (“undeclared war”) is common in ancient Greek literature (e.g., Herodotus 5.81; Josephus, War 1.269; 2.30; Apion 1.318; cf. with a metaphorical meaning, Philo, Fug. 114, also Mut. 60; Plutarch, Mor. [Mulier. virt.] 253f; [Suav. viv.] 1095f; Cassius Dio 46.35.5).

See Ant. 15.127 with the note to “courage” and 15.138 with the note to “courageous.” This is the first of a series of rhetorical questions in this paragraph (cf. Ant. 15.137). Herod highlights Athenio’s lawless behavior here, which associates him with the character of his mistress Cleopatra (see 15.89 with the note to “her greedy character”). The second example of lawlessness refers to the unexpected and undeclared attack by Athenio (see the preceding note), who is apparently directly associated with the Nabateans here. The first example must be the Nabatean violation of the deal about the lease of their land (15.107-108). The noun ἐνέdra (“treachery, ambush”) also occurs in the parallel speech of War (1.375) in a reference to Athenio. The phrase ἔλαττον φρόνεω (“be poor-spirited/discouraged, humble oneself,” Rengstorf s.v. φρόνεω) is also found in Isocrates, Panath. 47, 167; Demosthenes, Or. 13.34; Aelius Aristides, Achill. (ed. Dindorf 2.606). See Ant. 15.129 with the note to “the greatest prospects for winning.” The verb καταπλήσσομαι (“be terrified”) also occurs in the introduction of Herod’s speech in War (1.372; see also Ant. 15.142). Herod makes the same observation twice in 2 analogously formulated statements (ὅταν μὲν … ὅταν δε “whenever … whenever”), first focusing upon fair warfare by the Nabateans and its consequences, and next highlighting their treacherous fighting and its results, albeit in a chiastic order. The outcome of the 2 previous battles supports Herod’s point (cf. Ant. 15.111-119). This is the third passage in Herod’s speech that suggests that the Nabateans had violated the laws of war (see also Ant. 15.130, 136). About ἀδικία (“injustice, depravity”) in connection with the Nabateans, see 15.135 with the note to “hate insolence and wrongdoing.”

The rhetorical question is ironic at the same time because Herod argues elsewhere that the Nabateans had acted treacherously with Athenio’s sudden attack (see Ant. 15.140 with the note to “lawlessness and treachery”; about irony in Josephus, see Mason 2005). The introduction of the subordinate clause by the counterfactual conditional εἰ καί (“even if …”) implies that it concerns a concessive conditional clause: conceding the possibility that the Nabateans had been fighting heroically, which they have not … (Wakker 1994: 329-32).Glory is a dominant theme in speeches and reports concerning warfare (e.g., the funeral orations for Athens’ soldiers fallen in war; Loraux 1981). The motif is also prominent in commander speeches. In Polybius’ report of Publius Scipio’s speech of encouragement before his soldiers before the battle against Hannibal at the Ticinus (in 218 BCE), Scipio highlights the glorious reputation of the Roman fatherland and the deeds of their ancestors (3.64.2). A speech by his son Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus before the battle against Hannibal at Zama in 202 BCE offers a cluster of commonplaces (15.10.1-7; 15.11.6-13), including heroic fighting. Scipio reminds his soldiers of earlier victories, encourages them to fight in a manner worthy of the glorious tradition of their country, but also warns for the disgrace of flight or falling into the hands of the enemy (15.10.1-4). He suggests that the soldiers’ choice was dead simple, “triumph or die” (νικᾶν ἢ θνήσκειν, 15.10.5; cf. 3.63.4). Herod’s point is very clear, as explained in the continuation of this paragraph. His soldiers had to fight bravely in any case: if the Nabateans would be fighting heroically, this should be taken as an encouragement to fight even more bravely, in line with established values of the battlefield (see the preceding note). In War 1.373 Herod also hints at courage and glory as the attitudes expected of his soldiers. Courage is a central motif in commander speeches. It is sometimes associated with skill and experience. Nicias, e.g., concludes a commander speech with a beautiful statement: “For her sake, if anyone surpasses another in skill or in courage (εὐψυχίᾳ), he will never find a better occasion for displaying them, at once for his own advantage and for the salvation of us all” (Thucydides 7.64.2, trans. Smith). In 2.87.3-5 a commander argues that in a battle courage is much more important than experience and skill (Luschnat 1942: 24-25, 27, 75, 114-15, 132-34). The verb κρατέω (“have power, prevail, be victorious”) occurs several times in the parallel speech of War: “One could learn this from personal experience: in the first battle, being conquerors, the enemy conquered us (κρατούτων ἐκράτησαν), and now in all likelihood they are going to be defeated, even though they thought they would be victorious (κρατήσειν)” (1.374, trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a; see also 1.377).

The conditional εἰ δέ with a verb in the present indicative introduces a neutral condition, which does not indicate whether the state of affairs will be realized or not. Herod’s point bears on the actual situation of Herod’s men, which matches this type of conditional phrases (Wakker 1994: 125-30; see also the next notes). The adjective οἰκεῖος (“[our] own”) also occurs in War 1.373, 374, but not in close parallels to the speech in Antiquities (cf. 15.128, 131, 143). The phrase hints at the crushing defeat against the Nabateans because of Athenio’s intervention (Ant. 15.116-118) and perhaps also at the earthquake (15.121-122; note the repetition of the noun πάθος [“suffering, disaster”) in 15.122, 142; cf. πάθη τινά in 15.144). See the report about the earthquake in Ant. 15.121-122. Herod also discusses the earthquake in the parallel speech of War (1.373, 377). The verbal form καταπλήττεται (“[should] terrify”), which MSS LAMW attest (likewise the marginal reading καταπλήττει in MS A; Niese 357) links up with the form καταπλαγείημεν (“we are terrified”) in Ant. 15.140 (see the note to “we are terrified”). Niese (357) proposes reading κατέπληξε [“has terrified”]). The difference in meaning of the readings is small. Xenophon (Mem. 4.8.1; Vect. 5.5.4) offers similar vocabulary. In Thucydides some of the commander speeches also recall a defeat. In 2.87.1-7 the commanders argue that insufficient preparations, inexperience, or misadventure can lead to a defeat, but they add that having the proper courage (ἀνδρεία) can prevent another defeat. The soldiers should learn from their mistakes in the past, such that future battles will turn out well. Paulus Aemilius addresses his soldiers’ recent mishaps (τῶν νεωστὶ γεγονότων συμπτωμάτων) in a speech before the battle against Hannibal at Cannae (3.108.3-3.109.13). His discussion of the causes for the misfortune of his soldiers (ignorance, haste, and bad visibility, 3.108.3-9) is the upbeat for his argument that the circumstances for the next battle are exactly the opposite of the soldiers’ former situation, such that a victory is self-evident (3.108.10-3.109.5; see also War 1.377-378). The point takes up part of Herod’s introduction in the parallel speech of War (1.373), in which Herod suggests that God has sent the earthquake as bait to the Nabateans so as to deliver them to the vengeance of the Jews. In this way Herod uses the misfortunes as a springboard for his argument that the prospects for the upcoming battle are great. He turns a disadvantage into an advantage with his argumentation (see also Ant. 15.143-144), which is a rhetorical strategy that earlier commanders also apply in their speeches. Brasidas deals with the issue of the larger number of enemy forces in a way characteristic for ancient Spartans. He constructs an analogy between the situation of the battle at hand and the Spartan oligarchic rule. The great number of enemy soldiers should not be frightening because the Spartans know out of their own experience that it is not the multitude that is ruling over the few but the minority over the majority, and that the minority’s power is based on nothing else other than military success (Thucydides 4.126.2). Brasidas applies in this way the rhetorical strategy of turning real advantages of the enemy into merely seeming advantages (Luschnat 1942: 59; Leimbach 1985: 79-80). The paragraph also connects with Ant. 15.123, about the exaggeration of the impact of the earthquake (cf. the repetition of ἀλήθεια in 15.123, 142). The second point of Herod’s argument that counters the feelings about the misfortune of the Jews is entirely logical though artificial as well because the response to mishaps is foremost emotional, as Josephus’ description of the defeat and the aftermath of the earthquake (Ant. 15.117-118, 123) also indicates.

The phrase τὸ εὔψυχον (“[their] bravery”) already occurs in Ant. 15.141 with respect to the Nabateans. Herod’s phrase links up with the conditional subordinate clause in Ant. 15.142, with which he started this point of his argument. The verb κάμνω (“exert oneself, be exhausted/hard-pressed”) also occurs in the report about the defeat of the Jews during the second battle against the Nabateans (15.117). For similar vocabulary, cf. Thucydides 2.51.5. The phrase μεῖζον φρόνεω also occurs in Ant. 15.123 (see the note to “they got carried away”), in which passage Josephus describes the Nabatean state of mind after their victory over the Jews. Herod’s statement here may hint at that paragraph. This statement, which turns around the Nabateans’ state of mind after their victory (cf. Ant. 15.123-124, 142), seems wishful thinking from Herod’s side at this stage, although it may also form the transition to Herod’s next argument, God’s support (15.144-146), and by way of anticipation hint already at the Nabateans losing their courage because of the divine support for the Jews.

Herod’s statement is a further example of turning a disadvantage into an advantage (see Ant. 15.142 with the note to “who think that things are more serious than they really are”). The verb κακόω (“harm”) also occurs in 15.115, 120, 158. The assumption that a military defeat is caused by divine anger matches Graeco-Roman as well as Jewish religious beliefs (e.g., 1 Sam 15:1-9 together with 1 Sam 28:18, and Josephus, Ant. 5.256). Josephus’ argument about God’s support (15.144-146; see also 15.138 with the note to “have God with them”) can be summarized in 3 points: (1) if the mishaps to the Jews happened in accordance with God’s will, God’s attitude to the Jews has changed by now because the Jews have been punished enough (15.144); (2) God will support the Jews this time because God knows it concerns a just war (15.145; cf. 15.146); and (3) a clear sign of God’s changed attitude is the fact that all soldiers have been spared during the earthquake (15.145). In the parallel speech of War (1.377) Herod argues that disturbances of the elements are a natural phenomenon. The noun σύμπτωμα (“mishap, misfortune”) further occurs in Josephus only in War 4.287; Ant. 3.267. The combination of σύμπτωμα and πάθος (“suffering, misfortune”) is also found in Aristotle, Top. 126b; Plutarch, Mor. [Pyth. orac.] 399a; [Quaest. conv.] 719c. The conditional phrase of Herod, introduced by εἰ and followed by an indicative perfect (Wakker 1994: 125 n. 4), suggests that the events have indeed taken place with God’s consent, which is a leitmotiv in War as well as Antiquities (Lindner 1972: 93, 142-50). The expression ἡ τοῦ θεοῦ γνώμη (“the will of God”) and related phrases occur frequently in Josephus (War 7.327, 358; Ant. 1.14, 112, 255; 2.209, 223, 283, 309; 3.16-17, 315; 4.110; 5.107; 8.4). For similar vocabulary, see Justin, Dial. 95.2; Pseudo-Ignatius, Ep. 8.4.1; George Hamartolus, Chron. 1.16 (ed. de Boor 29). The phrase δῆλον ὡς (“it is clear that …”) anticipates the words δεδήλωκεν αὐτός (“he [i.e., God] himself has made it clear that …,” Ant. 15.145). The parallelism in the formulation (κατὰ θεοῦ γνώμην … κατὰ τὴν ἐκείνου γνώμην) puts emphasis on Herod’s argument. The logic of the argument remains implicit, but from the perspective of Jewish religious beliefs—which reckon with God’s intervention in history—the reasoning would be that, if the mishaps were caused by God, they must have been his punishment for disobedience to him from the side of the Jews. Such disobedience is absent in the immediate context of Herod’s commander speech in Antiquities and, although War (1.369) states that the disobedience of Herod’s lieutenants had forced a rash battle upon him, the parallel passage of War is also silent about unfaithfulness to God. This shows that Herod’s argument is purely artificial here. Nevertheless, if the mishaps were caused by God as punishment, the obvious conclusion would be that this punishment would be temporary, as indicated in, e.g., 2 Macc 6:12-16; 7:18, 32-33 (van Henten 1997: 136-40).A speech by the Athenian commander Hippias (Thucydides 7.77) offers an interesting parallel to Herod’s argument in Ant. 15.140-144. Looking back at the Athenians’ unfortunate defeat against the Syracusans, Hippias notes that it would not be right to give up hope because of the recent mishaps and present sufferings: “… you should still have hope—in the past men have been saved from even worse straits than these—and not blame yourselves too much either for your reverses or for your present unmerited miseries” (7.77.1, trans. Smith). He continues by constructing an analogy between his own life and conduct towards gods and humans and those of his soldiers, concluding that there is no reason for giving up hope (ἐλπίς) despite the terrifying mishaps (7.77.2-3). He also argues that the enemy was successful because fortune was on his side, but that this will change because the Athenians have been punished enough (7.77.3; Luschnat 1942: 104). The Greek is ambiguous because of the verb ἀδικέω (“harm, sin”), which Herod uses in previous statements in connection with the Nabateans (see Ant. 15.133-135). The verb probably has a different nuance here, like “visit upon” (Rengstorf s.v.); otherwise Herod would hint at God’s injustice. The verb μεταβάλλω can mean, i.a., “change one’s mind/purpose” or “change sides” (LSJ s.v. B III.2). The latter meaning would be possible here as well. Ant. 15.145 offers the explanation for Herod’s statement.

In Antiquities Josephus refers several times to God’s intervention by stating that God was willing something (1.114; 2.333, 348; 5.200, 226; 7.373; 18.119 [concerning the destruction of Herod Antipas’ army, which in the opinion of the Jews was God’s punishment for the execution of John the Baptist]). The combination of πόλεμος (“war”) and the passive voice of ἐνεργέω (“be actively carried out,” LSJ s.v. II) also occurs in Polybius 1.13.5 (cf. 7.5.8); Heliodorus 1.30.3. Herod returns to his earlier point that the war is just (see especially Ant. 15.135), which implies that God will support the Jews (see also 15.130, 136, 138). In Ant. 15.122 Josephus describes the human casualties caused by the earthquake. The double negation in οὐδεὶς οὐδὲν ἔπαθεν (“nobody suffered any harm”) is emphatic (Blass, Debrunner, and Rehkopf: 1976: 359 par. 431.2). For very similar phrases, see Xenophon, Anab. 1.8.20; Josephus, Ant. 10.92; John Chrysostom, Hom. Matt. (PG 58.544). Herod’s repetition of his previous statement in positive terms again adds emphasis and leads to a climax: the point he is making in the next phrase. The fact that none of the soldiers was killed during the earthquake is proof for Herod that God will support the Jewish soldiers in the final battle against the Nabateans. The phrase φανερὸν ποίεω (“make clear”) occurs about 20 times in Josephus but nowhere else with God as subject. The conditional subordinate clause introduced by κἂν εἰ (“even if”), followed by an indicative verb, indicates a possible state of affairs (Kühner and Gerth 1898-1904: 2.2.488), which is, however, extremely unlikely. Herod maximizes his point by adding this possibility, which also aims at an emotional effect on his soldiers because of the reference to their wives and children (similarly Eleazar ben Yair in his second Masada speech, War 7.386-387; Runnalls 1971: 255). The word πανδημεί (“with the entire population, universally, publically,” Rengstorf s.v.) is very common in Thucydides (e.g., 1.73.4; 1.90.3). It also occurs in Ant. 6.377; 11.75; Life 290. The phrase μηδὲν ἀνήκεστον παθεῖν (“not suffer any irreparable harm”; cf. War 3.480; Ant. 15.197) is common in ancient Greek literature (e.g., Thucydides 3.39.8; Polybius 4.18.11; 15.1.8; Diodorus 17.15.2; Dionysius, Dem. 12; Philo, Conf. 13; Legat. 109; Spec. 3.166; 4.173).

The conclusion of Herod’s speech is extremely brief and offers hardly more than a staccato summary of the major points. It starts with the last point of the second section, God’s help, in a chiastic arrangement. It emphasizes again the enemy’s treachery and notes at the end that the Nabateans always have been inferior to Herod’s soldiers during previous battles. According to Aristotle (Rhet. 3.19.1 1419b) a conclusion of a deliberative speech has 4 functions: (1) disposing the hearer favorably toward the speaker und unfavorably toward the opponent, (2) amplifying and depreciating, (3) exciting the hearer’s emotions, and (4) recapitulation (Runnalls 1997: 748-49). Apart from the amplification Aristotle’s 4 functions are covered by Herod’s conclusion of his speech. Villalba i Varneda (1986: 108) argues that the conclusion of the speech exists of Ant. 15.144-146 instead of 15.146.For phrases similar to ταῦτα ἐνθυμηθέντες (“taking these things to heart”), see Xenophon, Anab. 2.5.15; 3.1.24; Cyr. 4.1.5; Demosthenes, Or. 47.33; 48.9; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 9.58.2; Dem. 52; Matt 1:20. This passage summarizes Herod’s argument about God’s support (Ant. 15.144-146), but Herod subtly adds “at every moment.” God’s support during impending battles is also anticipated in other pre-battle speeches: Abiah’s speech in Ant. 8.279-280 and Judas Maccabaeus’ in 12.307; cf. Eleazar ben Yair’s first speech before the collective suicide at Massada (War 7.323-336). For other phrases about God with προΐσταμαι (“protect, act as leader,” Rengstorf s.v.) in Josephus, see Ant. 4.6; 6.187 (in David’s speech against Goliath, paraphrasing 1 Sam 17:45-47); 18.288; cf. also John Chrysostom, Exp. Ps. (PG 55.179). This connects with Herod’s remarks about bravery (ἀνδραγαθία) in Ant. 15.127, 140 (see also 15.138, 141, 143). The phrase ἀδίκους … φιλίαν recalls Herod’s arguments about just war and friendship, and echoes the vocabulary connected with these motifs (see Ant. 15.133-135 with notes). Here Herod uses vocabulary that has not been applied earlier in his speech, which shows, together with other phrases, that his conclusion not only summarizes his argument but also rephrases it at the same time through variations of the vocabulary. The adjective ἄσπονδος (“implacable, untrustworthy,” Rengstorf s.v.) also occurs in Ant. 4.264; 15.220 and echoes a phrase in the parallel speech of War (1.378) that presents the Jews as avengers of the treachery (τιμωροὶ τῶν παρεσπονδημένων) of the Nabateans, which refers to their murder of the Jewish envoys. This refers to Herod’s argument about the murder of his envoys by the Nabateans (Ant. 15.136-137). The Greek ἀνοσίους (“unholy, sacrilegious”) echoes ὅσιον (“holy,” Ant. 15.138). With this final phrase about the superiority of his soldiers Herod returns to the theme of the analysis of the circumstances, which is common in commander speeches and should enhance the soldiers’ motivation to fight (see Ant. 15.129 with the note to “we have the greatest prospects for winning”). The combination of ἡττάομαι (“being inferior”) and ἀρετή (“virtue, excellence”) in the genitive also occurs in Plutarch, Cam. 10.7; Dion 47.1; Publ. 17.4; Mor. (Laud.) 542f; Aelius Aristides, Plat. 177 (ed. Dindorf 2.237).

This sentence forms the transition between Herod’s commander speech and the report about Herod’s third battle against the Nabateans (Ant. 15.147-160). It implies that Herod’s speech was very successful in raising the spirits of the soldiers. The report about the battle (15.147-160) is matched by War 1.380-385, which passage is briefer and offers a more dramatic description of the events and the emotions of the persons involved. The narrative of 15.147-160 mostly elaborates the increasing distress of the Nabateans, culminating in a definitive defeat (15.159).Josephus does not give a date for the third battle. The preparation of another army against the Nabateans must have taken up considerable time, but the continuation of the narrative in 15.161 (cf. 15.109) implies that this battle also took place before Actium (about Kasher’s argument that the chronology of Josephus’ report about Herod’s conflict with the Nabateans is implausible, see 15.108 with the note to “an occasion for a delay”). For the phrase τὰς ψυχὰς ἀμείνους ἐγένοντο (literally “began to be in better spirits”), cf. Plutarch, Arist. 16.4; Lucian, Anach. 23. This note is surprising because there is hardly evidence from the Second Temple period that there was a convention of sacrificing to God outside the Temple before entering a battle. Sacrifices outside of the Temple complex were even strictly forbidden (Michel-Bauernfeind 1.416 n. 171). It was conventional to pray (e.g., 2 Chr 20:5-22; 1 Macc 3:44, 46; 2 Macc 8:2-4) and sometimes also to fast (2 Chr 20:5-22; 1 Macc 3:47) before a battle. A priestly blessing could also be part of the preparation for a battle (Deut 20:2-4; frequently in Qumran passages: 1QM 8.6; 16.4-5; 17.10; 18.6; 19.12; 4Q285). However, biblical passages that refer to the period before the building of the First Temple do suggest that a burnt-offering was offered before battle (Judg 20:26; 1 Sam 7:8, 10; 13:9-12; cf. Jephtha’s vow in Judg 11:30-31, which may echo this practice). Marcus-Wikgren (71 n. a) suggest that Herod asked the priests to enact a sacrifice in the Jerusalem Temple, which is possible though not very plausible in the context, which implies that the army and Herod were in the field (Ant. 15.122, 124-126, but see the note to “after they had crossed the River Jordan” below). Moreover, War 1.380 clearly states that Herod himself performed the sacrifice. Josephus’ note about the sacrifice would have been quite obvious for Greek and Roman readers, for whom a sacrifice before battle was a well-known practice, either to placate the gods, or to find out whether there was divine approval for the battle (e.g., Livy 8.9.1; Jameson 1991; Parker 2000; cf. Michel-Bauernfeind 1.416 n. 171, who suggest that Josephus adopted his report here for non-Jewish readers). Herod took the Jewish soldiers (i.e., “the Jews” of the previous sentence) with him. The verb ἀναλαμβάνω also occurs in Ant. 15.126, 132, 143. Here it means “take (troops) with one” (LSJ s.v. 1; cf. Polybius 10.9.6). This note implies an ellipsis in Josephus’ narrative (similarly in the parallel narrative of War [1.380]). The geographic information suggests that the upcoming battle took place within or near the territory of the Nabateans (Ant. 15.122-126), i.e., east of the River Jordan (as is also implied by War 1.380). The note presupposes that Herod had previously returned to Judea, where he may have prepared his army for the third battle against the Nabateans. Yet such information is not provided by Josephus.Antiquities does not mention the location of this final battle. War 1.380 indicates that it took place near Philadelphia, a city of the Decapolis since 63 BCE (currently mod. Amman). The distance between Canata, the location of the second battle (Ant. 15.112), and Philadelphia is about 100 km. Philadelphia had a considerable number of Nabatean inhabitants (Hackl, Jenni, and Schneider 2003: 133, 200). The distance between Canata and Philadelphia was perhaps the reason for Josephus to leave out the reference to this place in Antiquities. The phrase κατὰ τὰ νομιζόμενα ποιήσας (“performed … according to the customs”) is paralleled by Cassius Dio 53.1.1 (cf. Ant. 14.260).

This corresponds with War 1.380, which passage also has the verb στρατοπεδεύω (“encamp”). The phrase φρούριον καταλαμβάνω (“seize a fortress”) already occurs in Thucydides 4.113 (see also Diodorus 15.40.5; Josephus, War 2.484; 7.192). The verb καταλαμβάνω also occurs in the parallel passage of War (1.380). If the reference to Philadelphia in War 1.380 is correct, the fortress mentioned in Antiquities may have been located west of Philadelphia. Kasher (1988: 148 n. 41) and Hackl, Jenni, and Schneider (2003: 505) suggest that it may have been one of the fortresses of the Heshbon area, which lies ca. 20 km southwest of Philadelphia. The city of Heshbon was located on top of a mountain range overlooking the southern part of the Jordan Valley (Netzer 2006: 227). This would fit in with Josephus’ additional information in War 1.381 that the fortified place was located on a hill. Josephus later includes Heshbon among Herod’s fortresses and fortified cities (Ant. 15.294). War also mentions the fortress and adds that Herod fired missiles from a distance in order to capture it. In War 1.380 Josephus formulates it slightly differently: “… in the hope of engaging them in combat quickly” (trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a). Hackl, Jenni, and Schneider (2003: 505) indicate that the Greek text of the last sentence of Ant. 15.148 and that of the first sentence of 15.149 is corrupt, but they may be mistaken. The last sentence of 15.148 is a long-winded statement, and the transmitted Greek text (with slight differences in the MSS) is perfectly understandable (see also 15.149 with the note to “more soldiers were coming to blows from either side”). The possession of the fortress would offer a double advantage to Herod: he could prepare a quick attack in a relatively safe environment, and he would be protected in the case that the battle needed to be delayed. The adjective ἐρυμνός (“fortified”) echoes the related noun ἔρυμα (“fortified place”) of War 1.380.

The advantage of the fortress (see the preceding note) must have been obvious to the Nabateans as well, who apparently did not control it. Josephus does not tell who controlled the fortress at that time. Yet this does not need to be an omission by him because the fortress could also have been unoccupied. The noun ἀκροβολισμός (“discharge of light weapons”) echoes the verb ἀκροβολίζομαι (“fight with light weapons,” Rengstorf s.v.) in the parallel passage of War (1.380). The translation follows the text of Niese (359), which is attested by MSS PF and the Latin version. The longer reading ἀμφοτέρων ἔπιπτον of MSS LAMWE (“[they were coming to blows and more and more soldiers] fell from either side”) is easier to understand and therefore probably an attempt to improve the shorter reading. Niese notes that the Greek text of the entire paragraph is difficult to make sense of. Marcus-Wikgren (73 n. a) state that the transmitted Greek text of the last sentence of Ant. 15.149 and that of the first sentence of 15.150 is probably corrupt. The defeat of the Nabateans implies that Herod got hold of the fortified place. In War Josephus reports more specifically that the Nabateans had sent forth some men in order to secure the place and that Herod’s soldiers prevented this (1.380-381).The transmitted Greek text (ἡττηθέντες οἱ παρὰ τῶν ’Αράβων ἀπεχώρουν, Niese 359) does make sense (see also the preceding note) and is paralleled by a passage in Xenophon’s Anabasis: ὅτε ἐκ τῆς Ἑλλάδος ἡττηθείς τῇ μάχῃ ἀπεχώρει (“he [i.e., Xerxes] retreated from Greece after having lost in the battle,” 1.2.9, quoted in Aelius Aristides, Ars rhet. 2.13.21).

The phrase οὐ μικρόν (literally “not a little”) is a case of litotes. Occurrences of a litotes with μικρός (“small, little”) are common in Josephus, especially in the Herod narrative of Antiquities (11.312; 12.312; 14.71; 15.150, 169, 206, 213, 271, 356; 16.84, 130, 188; cf. War 1.574; 3.34; Apion 2.40). For the combination of μικρός and ἐλπίς (“hope”), see Ant. 15.232 with the note to “little hope of not receiving a similar [treatment] from Herod.” Dindorf (1845: 588) concludes that something is left out after ἐγεγόνει (“led to, raised”). This may indeed be the case because there are serious text-critical problems in the next sentence (see the subsequent notes). The Greek text needs minor adaptations in order to make sense. Niese (359) proposes to reconstruct the text on the basis of the Greek parallel passage of War (1.381). The accusative case of the participle ἐννοούμενον (“noticing”) does not match the rest of the sentence. Hudson’s proposal (1720: 675, followed by Marcus-Wikgren 72) to change it to the nominative is helpful. In that case the participle phrase would concern Herod, which fits the continuation of the sentence. For a further combination of ἐννοέω (“notice”) and δύναμις (“power, army”) as object, see Herodian 7.9.4. MS W reads ἕτοιμον (“ready”) instead of ἐννοούμενον. Niese (359) proposes to read Ἔλθεμον, i.e., the Nabatean commander Elthemus (mentioned in War 1.381). Most MSS read αὐτῶν (“their”), which, given the context, should refer to the Nabateans, despite the fact that the Greek implies that the Jews are referred to. MSS PF read αὐτοῦ (“his”), which would refer to Herod. The translation follows the Greek βουλομένην (“wanting,” modifying δύναμιν), conjectured by Ernesti (1795: 128). The reading of the Greek MSS (βουλόμενος, Niese 359) presupposes Herod as subject, which runs against the purport of the subsequent narrative. A copyist may have missed the connection between βουλομένην and δύναμιν and changed it into βουλόμενος, assuming that the participle refers to Herod (though there are no traces of such an adaptation in the textual evidence). The parallel narrative of War (1.381) confirms that the Nabateans tried to avoid the combat. For vocabulary similar to τὸν χάρακα διασπᾶν, see Polybius 1.17.13; 3.102.4; Plutarch, Ant. 18.6. Cf. also the related phrase χαράκωμα (“camp, palisade,” Rengstorf s.v.) in War 1.381 (Herod demolished the Nabatean camp). In War 1.381-382 Josephus describes Herod’s actions as well as the attitude of the Nabatean opponents in much more dramatic terms: “Every day he [i.e., Herod] led out his troops (προάγων τὴν δύναμιν), lined them up for battle (εἰς μάχην παρετάσσετο), and provoked the Arabs [to combat]. But when no one came out—for a terrible fear overtook them and, even more than his troops, their general Elthemus was paralyzed by fright—he [i.e., Herod] came forth and demolished their camp” (trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a). Elthemus (see the commentary on War 1.381) is not mentioned in Antiquities. The participle προσάγων (“advancing”) in this paragraph can be linked with προάγων in the parallel passage of War (1.381, “led out his troops”). The vocabulary of Ant. 15.150 also shares the nouns δύναμις (“troops”; see the note to “troops wanted” above) and μάχη (“battle”) with War 1.381. However, δύναμις refers to Herod’s army in War 1.381 (being the object of προάγων), but in Ant. 15.150 it probably refers to the Nabatean troops. This is one of the examples of Josephus applying related vocabulary in the parallel passages of the Herod narratives in War and Antiquities with different meanings, or different persons or things referred to. The adjective ἄτακτος (“without order”) occurs again in Ant. 15.152. It is paralleled by War 1.382, which passage also refers to the disorder of the Nabatean troops. The word προθυμία here means “enthusiasm” or “eagerness to fight.” It also occurs in the parallel narrative of War (1.382). For the combination of ἐλπίς (“hope, prospect”), ἔχω (“have”), and νικάω (“win”; cf. the related noun νίκη in War 1.382), see Ant. 15.129 with the note to “we have the greatest prospects for winning.”

I.e., the Nabateans. The phrase εἰς χεῖρας ἰέναι (“engage in hand-to-hand combat,” Rengstorf s.v. εἶμι; see also Ant. 14.474) echoes εἰς χεῖρας ἔρχεσθαι in 15.149. Both phrases are common in Greek passages from the Early Imperial Age (frequently in Appian, Arrian, and Cassius Dio, also Lucian, Anach. 25; Hermot. 49; Symp. 35). Having a larger number of fighters (here formulated as πλείους ὄντες) was, of course, an important motivation for soldiers during combats, but it did not guarantee victory. This detail (paralleled by War 1.382 but in different words: πλήθει μὲν οὖν τῶν ’Ιουδαίων περιῆσαν) recalls Ant. 15.138 in Herod’s commander speech (see the note to “more numerous”). The verb στρατηγέω (here in the passive voice: “be led by,” Rengstorf s.v.) also occurs in War 1.379, with a different meaning: “be commander.” Herod’s maneuvers, narrated in Ant. 15.150, forced the Nabateans to confront his troops in battle. War 1.382 makes a similar statement with different vocabulary. About the motif of necessity during war, see Ant. 15.135 with the note to “necessary.” The phrase ὑπὸ τῆς ἀνάγκης (“out of necessity”) echoes συναναγκασθέντες (“being compelled”) in War 1.382. The expression μάχη καρτερά (“fierce battle”) is common from Thucydides onward (4.43, 96; cf. Diodorus 3.54.7; 11.7.1; 11.74.3; Plutarch, Alc. 31.5; Fab. 11.5; Rom. 18.6). It occurs frequently in Josephus (e.g., War 2.47; 3.302; 6.74; Ant. 7.13; 8.383; 17.258; see also Ant. 15.111 with the note to “a fierce battle took place”). Ant. 15.151 shares the verb πίπτω (“fall,” referring to Nabatean victims) with the parallel passage in War (1.383). In War 1.383 Josephus formulates it slightly differently: “But when they turned their backs, many were slain …” (trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a). The last lines of the paragraph include cases of alliteration, with t as the leading consonant sound. For vocabulary very similar to τέλος τραπέντες … ἔφευγον (“finally they were routed and started to flee”), see Polybius 4.71.11.

The translation is based on the reading τοσοῦτος φόνος attested by MSS LAMW (cf. the Latin version: plurima mors “great slaughter”). Niese (359) follows the shorter reading φόνος (“killing”) of MSS PF. The shorter reading is perhaps more original, but it may also derive from the omission of τοσοῦτος (a case of homoioteleuton). The parallel text of War (1.383) reads οὐ πολὺς ἦν αὐτῶν φόνος (“there was not a great number of casualties”). This reading should not be taken as evidence for the shorter reading of Antiquities because Josephus frequently varies his vocabulary and changes its meaning in Antiquities in cases where the text is paralleled by War (see 15.150 with the note to “to advance”). Niese (359) and Marcus-Wikgren (72) read ἐγκλινάντων (“bending in, fleeing,” conjectured by Bekker) instead of ἐκκλινάντων (“bending out, retreating,” attested by the Greek MSS). The conjecture is unnecessary since the transmitted Greek text makes sense (see Ant. 15.115 with the note to “retreated”). The participle ἐκκλινάντων is also attested in Dionysius, Ant. rom. 5.46.4 (“And now, as both their wings gave way [τῶν κεράτων ἀμφοτέρων … ἐκκλινάντων], the Sabines were utterly routed,” trans. Cary). For παραίτιος (“being partly the cause of”) in Josephus, see Ant. 15.87 with the note to “she was involved in all of this.” For phrases parallel to παραιτίους γίνεσθαι τῶν κακῶν, see Polybius 9.34.4; 18.41.3. Josephus’ vocabulary (σφίσιν αὐτοῖς … συμπατουμένων) here is close to that of the parallel passage of War (1.383 ὑπὸ σφῶν αὐτῶν συμπατούμενοι “… being trampled on by their own men …,” trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a). See Ant. 15.151 with the note to “they were in the majority.” The word πλῆθος (“large numbers”) also occurs in War 1.383-384. The content of this sentence matches the parallel passage of War (1.383), which is phrased in different terms. Antiquities is much more elaborate. Diodorus (17.12.5) describes a similar scene, in which Thebans fighting against Alexander the Great fall in a chaotic situation and are killed by their own weapons. The noun ὅπλα (“weapons”) also occurs in the parallel passage of War (1.383), but in a different context. The phrase πεντακισχίλιοι γοῦν (“at least 5,000”) is matched exactly by War 1.383. The formula ἐγένοντο νεκροί (literally “became dead bodies”) with a number indicates the amount of casualties in a battle (e.g., Plutarch, Marc. 26.4; 29.9; Nic. 21.11). Josephus’ formulation in War 1.383 is different: “In any case, 5,000 fell in their flight (ἔπεσον ἐν τῇ τροπῇ)” (trans. BJP 1a).

This refers to the remaining Nabatean soldiers. The Greek vocabulary at the beginning of the sentence (τὸ δ’ ἄλλο πλῆθος ἔφθη) is very close to that of War 1.383 (τὸ δὲ λοιπὸν πλῆθος ἔφθη “the rest of the crowd managed”). The second part of the sentence is also close to War 1.383, though ἔφθη (“managed [to]”) is followed by an infinitive in Antiquities (συμφυγεῖν “find refuge”; cf. 15.118), and by a participle in War (συνωσθέν “finding shelter”). The phrase εἰς τὸ χαράκωμα (“within the palisade/camp”) of War 1.383 is repeated in Ant. 15.153 (see also 15.150 with the note to “their palisade”). The passage partly repeats the statement at the end of Ant. 15.150 (see the note to “hope of victory”). Phrases like ἔχω τὴν ἐλπίδα τῆς σωτηρίας (“having hope of being saved”) are common from Thucydides onward (1.65; 4.96 [τινα εἶχον ἐλπίδα σωτηρίας]; 8.53; e.g., Demosthenes, Or. 15.2; 25.5; 49.46; Philo, QG 4.198; Plutarch, Ant. 7.5). This detail is absent in the parallel passage of War (1.383). The expression ἀπορίᾳ τῶν ἐπιτηδείων (“because of their lack of provisions”) is perhaps a Thucydean phrase, taken up by later authors (Thucydides 7.80, 83; Plutarch, Pomp. 19.6; Arrian, Anab. 1.12.10; Cassius Dio 46.36.2; cf. Josephus, War 1.349). The information matches the parallel passage of War (1.383-384), but in that report Josephus describes the consequences of the lack of water in much more dramatic terms: “… thirst and the scarcity of water defeated them first …. Parched from thirst, [the Arabs] came forth in crowds and handed themselves over willingly to the Judeans” (trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a). See also Ant. 15.155 with the note to “they were urgently in need of water.”

War 1.383 only notes that Herod surrounded and besieged the Nabateans in their camp. See the preceding note. Josephus slightly altered the meaning and also used different vocabulary in the Antiquities report. The second part of the sentence has a parallel structure: 2 sub clauses with participle constructions in the accusative are dependent on the verbum finitum εἶργον at the end of the clause; one is combined with εἰσόδου (“entrance, entering”), the other with ἐξόδου (“exit, departing”). Nevertheless, this adds no substantial information to the shorter parallel report of War (1.383).

The report in War 1.384 is briefer than that in Antiquities. They share the verb πρεσβεύω in the middle voice (“send envoys, be an envoy,” Rengstorf s.v.). That the Nabateans were forced to send envoys to Herod is ironical in the light of their previous murder of Herod’s envoys (Ant. 15.124). The settlement probably concerns the ransom hinted at in Ant. 15.156. The noun ἄδεια can mean, i.a., “indemnity, amnesty, security, safe conduct” (Thackeray and Marcus 1930-55: 7; Rengstorf s.v.). Since the Nabateans were negotiating for a temporary arrangement, “safe conduct” seems to fit best; it would allow the Nabateans to leave their camp and fetch water. For other combinations of ἀξιόω (“ask for”) and ἄδεια as object, see Plutarch, Alc. 23.1; Philo, Flacc. 40; cf. Dionysius, Ant. rom. 5.4.1. As noted already (see Ant. 15.153 with the note to “especially water”), Josephus’ vocabulary in this section of Antiquities is less dramatic than that in the parallel version of War (see 1.384). The substantive δίψος (“thirst”) occurs in both passages. The phrase τὸ δίψος ἤπειγε (literally “the thirst was pressing”) echoes προκατήπειγεν ἡ δίψα (“the thirst defeated them first”) in War 1.383. For vocabulary very similar to πᾶν ὁτιοῦν ὑφιστάμενοι, see Pseudo-Lucian, Charid. 4; Eusebius, Passio mart. Aeg. (PG 20.1533); Sopater, Quaest. div. (ed. Walz 8.309).

The parallel passage of War (1.384) is more specific: the Nabateans offer 500 talents as redemption money, which is a huge sum (cf. the sum of 200 talents that the Nabateans had to pay to Herod in Ant. 15.107). The word λύτρα (“ransom”) also occurs in the parallel passage of War (1.384). The verb ἁλίσκομαι (“be captured/overcome”) also occurs in that parallel passage, although in a different context. This phrase and the next passage are not matched by the parallel report of War, which briefly states that Herod treated the Nabatean envoys arrogantly and assailed them all the more after their offer of the ransom (War 1.384; see the preceding note). Herod’s eagerness is perfectly understandable in the light of what the Nabateans had done to his envoys (see Ant. 15.124 with notes). His punishment of the Nabateans is very severe. Nevertheless, he does not retaliate by murdering the Nabatean envoys; that would have made him as wicked as the Nabateans according to one of his statements in his commander speech (see Ant. 15.136). The passage refers to the murder of Herod’s envoys by the Nabateans following the second battle (Ant. 15.124), which killing is called a lawless act in Herod’s commander speech (15.136; cf. 15.130, 140). This third reference to the Nabateans being in urgent need of water (cf. Ant. 15.153, 155) leads to a climax: their decision to leave the camp. The parallel report of War (1.384) has a similar note, including the verb ἐγχειρίζω (“surrender”), which is also used here. The phrase ἄγειν καὶ δεῖν is a hendiadys (“to be led away and to be enchained”). E and MS L read δή instead of δεῖν, which should be combined with the preceding καὶ as the beginning of the next sentence. The combination καὶ δή expresses emphasis: “and what is more” (LSJ s.v. δή III.4). Niese (360) concludes that καὶ δή may be the correct reading. However, this reading can easily have evolved out of ἄγειν καὶ δεῖν if a scribe missed the hendiadys, while a change the other way around is very unlikely. The verb δέω (“bind, chain”) also occurs in the parallel passage of War (1.384), which is an additional indication that καὶ δεῖν is probably the more original reading.

The word πλῆθος (“multitude”) is also used in War 1.384, in a slightly different way. The aorist ἑάλωσαν repeats ἡλωκότων (Ant. 15.156). Both forms derive from the verb ἁλίσκομαι (“be captured”). War 1.384 has δεθῆναι (“be put in chains”; cf. the preceding note). The Greek closely follows the parallel passage of War (1.384), though Josephus adds a few words here. Similarly War 1.384. Niese (360) and Marcus-Wikgren (74) follow the reading ἐξίεναι of E. The Greek MSS read ἐξεῖναι (i.e., the aorist infinitive of ἐξίημι, “send out”), which perhaps makes sense if it is interpreted in an intransitive way (“discharge themselves,” LSJ s.v. I.2). The phrase πολέμου νόμῳ can mean “according to the law of war” (War 2.90; 5.332; 6.239, 353; Ant. 1.315; 6.9; 12.273; 14.304, and perhaps 9.58) or “in a warlike manner, fighting” (War 3.363; 4.260, 388; Rengstorf s.v. νόμος; for similar phrases in other authors before and after Josephus, see BJP 1b 2.90). MSS PF and E read καὶ εἰ (“[even] if”), which reading is followed by Niese (360), while MSS LAMW read the slightly weaker concessive conditional εἰ καί. The difference between the 2 conditionals is not great; καὶ εἰ is sometimes used for extraordinary or extreme cases (Wakker 1994: 335-36), which fits the current passage. The preference of the remaining Nabateans to die nobly on the battlefield by the hand of enemy soldiers rather than to be taken captive and executed matches Greek and Roman values about dying honorably. Herodotus recounts, e.g., how Croesus, the extremely rich king of Lydia, interviewed the famous Athenian lawgiver Solon and asked him who was the happiest person on earth. Solon proposed the Athenian Tellus because of the prosperity of his city, his 5 sons, his wealth and, above all, his noble death during battle (1.30). World famous is a line of Horace: dulce et decorum pro patria mori (“It is sweet and appropriate to die for the fatherland,” Carm. 3.2.13, my trans.); cf. 3.19.2; 4.9.51-52), which also glorifies death on the battlefield. Josephus expresses the ideal of noble death well in his speech at Yodfat: “… ‘It is honourable to die in war’: yes, but according to the law of war, that is to say by the hand of the conqueror” (War 3.363, trans. Thackeray; for a discussion of noble death in Josephus, see van Henten 2007a). The motif of noble death is absent in the parallel report of War (1.384); Josephus simply notes that the remaining Nabateans came forth for combat on the sixth day, out of desperation. For vocabulary similar to ἀδόξως (“ingloriously”) and αἱρέω (“choose,” in the middle voice) in connection with the noble death motif, see Alexander of Aphrodisias, Comm. Top. (ed. Wallies 225). The verb διαφθείρω (“destroy, annihilate”) also occurs in the parallel report of War (1.383).

An alternative translation is “After this decision ….” The participle γνόντες (“being determined, having decided”) echoes διέγνωσαν (“they decided”) in Ant. 15.156. The substantive μάχη (“battle”; cf. Ant. 15.147-148, 150-151) also occurs in the parallel report of War (1.384; cf. 1.381-382). Phrases with σῶμα (“body”) and ψυχή (“soul, life”) frequently express that a person’s entire being is involved in an action or experience. 2 Macc 14:37 states concerning the Jewish elder Razis that he had most zealously risked body and soul for the Jewish cause (cf. 7:37; 15:30). Such phrases are also common in Josephus (War 2.136, 476, 580; 3.102, 212, 362, 378; 5.368; 6.81; Ant. 15.190, 251), and Josephus’ expression κεκακωμένοι καὶ τὰς ψυχὰς καὶ τὰ σώματα (“afflicted in body and soul”) has a close parallel in Plutarch, Per. 34.5 (see also Josephus, Ant. 15.251 ψυχῇ καὶ σώματι κεκακωμένος [“afflicted in body and soul”] and cf. Philo, Spec. 3.23; 4.100). The phrase τόπον ἔχειν literally means “have room (for)” (see Ant. 15.134 with the note to “room for observing the bond of trust”). The phrase λαμπρῶς ἀγωνίσασθαι (“fight vigorously”; see also Ant. 6.370; 12.409) is common vocabulary in descriptions of heroic fighting and noble death, especially during battle (see, e.g., Diodorus 2.45.5; 11.32.2; Plutarch, Alex. 32.4; Demetr. 29.3; Appian, Hist. rom. 7.30; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 9.67.6; 10.30.8). For the Nabateans preferring to die rather than live on in misery, see Ant. 15.157 with the note to “ingloriously.” Josephus’ remark (κέρδος δ’ εἰ θνήσκοιεν) recalls Electra’s statements in Sophocles: “For when mortals are involved in ruin, what does the man whose death is delayed gain by the time (θνῄσκειν ὁ μέλλων τοῦ χρόνου κέρδος φέροι;)?” (El. 1486; trans. Lloyd-Jones), which implies that death is better to follow quickly. Rengstorf (s.v. συμφορά) gives “regard as a misfortune” as meaning for the phrase ἐν συμφορᾷ ποιεῖσθαι. Cf. Eleazar ben Yair’s statement in his second speech at Masada—before the collective suicide of him and his fellow rebels—which closely corresponds to the vocabulary here: “… life, not death, is man’s misfortune (ὅτι συμφορὰ τὸ ζῆν ἐστιν ἀνθρώποις, οὐχὶ θάνατος)” (War 7.343, trans. Thackeray). This number is also given in the parallel passage of War (1.384), but E reads 6,000. The translation follows the reading τῇ καρτερᾷ μάχῃ conjectured by Marcus-Wikgren (74). The readings τῇ προτέρᾳ μάχῃ (“the former battle”) and τῇ προτεραιᾷ μάχῃ (“the day before the battle [?],” Niese 360) do not make sense in the context; the Greek text is probably corrupt. The reading proposed by Marcus-Wikgren is a good guess: the combination of μάχη (“battle”) and καρτερός (“strong, fierce”) is common and also occurs in War 1.101.

Josephus also uses the noun πληγή (“blow”) in the parallel passage of War (1.385), though in a different way: “Having punished Arabia by such a fierce blow …” (trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a). The parallel passage also includes a phrase with φρόνημα, which has a slightly different meaning: “… having crushed the spirit of its people [i.e., the people of Arabia] …” (War 1.385, trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a). While War is making a concluding statement, Antiquities may be ironic here. It refers to an earlier situation, which most probably concerns the period following Athenio’s defeat of the Jews (Ant. 15.123-125), during which the Nabateans killed Herod’s envoys and advanced to the camp of the Jews with great eagerness (15.124). The combination of ἀφαιρεῖσθαι (“be deprived of”) and φρονήματος (“spirit, self-confidence”) also occurs in 16.293. Rengstorf (s.v.) gives “talent as a field-commander, generalship” as meanings for στρατηγιά. For phrases of θαυμάζω (“admire”) with στρατηγία as object, see Plutarch, Phil. 10.8; Libanius, Decl. 12.2.38; cf. Diodorus 4.53.7; 15.91.7; 17.30.2. An alternative translation is “ruler of their nation” (suggested by Negev 1977: 544; cf. War 1.633). The term προστάτης can mean, i.a., “leader, ruler, protector” (Rengstorf s.v.; see Ant. 14.157, 444, and cf. 15.313 with the note to “left behind without receiving appropriate help”). War 1.385 shares the title προστάτης and the noun ἔθνος (“people,” referring to the Nabateans) with Ant. 15.159.Momigliano (1934: 325 with n. 2), Smallwood (1976: 67-68 with n. 20), and Shatzman (1991: 291) conclude that it is unclear what προστάτης exactly means here (see also Otto 1913: 47), although Momigliano mentions the possibility that Herod imposed some kind of protectorate on the Nabateans. Kasher (1988: 148 n. 42) argues that a political meaning, which would imply some sort of rule by Herod over the Nabatean people, is highly improbable. The continuation of the narrative does not indicate any change in the political situation for the Nabateans and presupposes that King Malichus was sitting firmly in the saddle (see 15.167). Kasher argues that those Nabateans who were defeated by Herod and were allowed to escape expressed their gratitude by giving him this title (cf. OGIS no. 415, a dedicatory inscription from Si‘a, near Canatha, in which Herod is called “master”; translation and references in Richardson 1996: 206-07). However, even if it concerns only an honorary title, the narrative still raises questions. Josephus does not refer to a Nabatean leader who was involved in the decision to give him the title, nor does he write about a settlement, which must have followed upon the Nabatean defeat. Herod’s motive for starting the campaign against the Nabateans was their reluctance in paying back the lease for the territories given to Cleopatra (15.107-108), which involved King Malichus, who is not mentioned at all in this section. If Herod really had won a definitive victory against the Nabateans, he would certainly have made an arrangement that the Nabateans were to pay back their debt to him, which probably would have included severe sanctions in case they failed to do so. Herod’s appointment as ruler or protector of the Nabateans (War 1.385; Ant. 15.159) seems, therefore, rather implausible. It may well be an invention depicting Herod as a military genius, highlighted by a (fictitious) appointment by his enemies. Otto (1913: 47, 90) takes this possibility into account but also considers the option that the Nabateans gave Herod this title (with its meaning still being unclear). Richardson (1996: 67 n. 57) considers it unlikely that the Nabateans appointed Herod as ruler or protector because it is not confirmed elsewhere. If the acclamation by the Nabateans is fictitious indeed, it is plausible that Josephus did not invent it since he is more inclined to blacken Herod than to enhance the king’s glory in Antiquities. The detail perhaps derives from Herod’s memoranda (Ant. 15.174) or from Nicolaus of Damascus. Shatzman (1991: 291) argues that Octavian’s victory at Actium weakened the position both of Herod and the Nabatean king Malichus because they had supported Antony. Both rulers had good reasons for coming to an agreement in his opinion. Mahieu (2012: 129-31) argues differently that Malichus died in the battle against Herod and that the Nabateans accepted Herod as their ruler.

The parallel report of War (1.385) lacks this passage, which focalizes Herod and emphasizes his feelings of pride about his military success. The noun εὐημέρημα (“good fortune, success,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus (cf. Ant. 15.210). The narrator confirms Herod’s military success with this short statement that the king earned a great reputation because of his final victory over the Nabateans. The note concludes the section about the military conflicts with the Nabateans before Actium. The phrase μέγα ἀξίωμα (“huge praise”) also occurs in Strabo 10.1.11; Plutarch, Sert. 10.1 (cf. John Chrysostom, Oppugn. [PG 47.344]). The key noun ἀνδραγαθία (“courage, bravery”) is repeated several times in the narrative about the Nabatean conflicts (see Ant. 15.127 with the note to “bravery”).

The formula is a transition to the next section about the consequences of the Battle of Actium for Herod (Ant. 15.161-193), in which the end of Hyrcanus II is embedded (15.164-182). The phrase καλῶς ἔχειν (“go/be/do well”) occurs frequently in Josephus (e.g., 15.76; 16.117, 355; 17.153, 354; Rengstorf s.v. ἔχω). This may be an overstatement because Herod decided to build several fortresses to enhance the security of his kingdom (Ant. 15.192-198). Josephus’ remark creates a contrast with the next statement and enhances the drama in this way. The adjective δυσεπιχείρητος (“hard to attack,” Rengstorf s.v.) occurs once elsewhere in Josephus (War 4.162). The word κίνδυνος (“danger”) also occurs in the parallel narrative of War (1.387), but with a different comment: in War Josephus reports that Octavian’s victory at Actium worried Herod and that he decided to confront the danger. The Greek phrase τῶν ὅλῶν with the political meaning “(his) entire rule” (Rengstorf s.v. ὅλος) also occurs in the parallel narrative of War (1.386). Niese (361) reads κρίσιν ἐξάγων (“bringing forth a crisis”) with MS P, while most MSS read κρίσιν ἐπάγων (“causing a crisis”). The latter reading is perhaps preferable since the combination of κρίσις and ἐπάγω is attested in other writings (Aphthonius 4.7; Diodorus 36.15.1; Justin, Dial. 39.2), while the combination of κρίσις and ἐξάγω is not. For the meaning “crisis” (i.e., a decisive event or issue) of κρίσις, see LSJ s.v. III; Rengstorf s.v. I.e., Octavian (see Ant. 15.109 with the note to “Caesar”). For the battle and its aftermath, see Ant. 15.109 with the note to “the Battle of Actium” (also Ant. 15.121, 190).

The phrase ἀπέγνωστο … τὰ πράγματα (“the situation was hopeless”) is paralleled by a few later passages: John Chrysostom, Fragm. Jer. (PG 64.904); Hom. Gen. (PG 53.301); Eutropius 9.9. The phrase οἱ περὶ αὐτόν sometimes refers to the entourage of a ruler (War 1.359, 515; Ant. 15.5, 168, 284; 16.238, 346), of which “the friends” are the nucleus (War 1.515 referring to Herod; Ant. 15.5 referring to Antony; 15.168 referring to Hyrcanus). About Herod’s friends, see Ant. 15.5 with the note to “the friends around him” and 15.31 with the note to “his friends.” In the next paragraph Josephus elaborates the response of Herod’s friends and enemies to the new political situation. This is absent in the parallel passage of War (1.386-387), which focuses on Herod’s own response to Antony’s defeat.The friends may refer to the inner circle of important persons who were close to the king and were consulted by him on important matters of the government (see the preceding note). The Greek suggests that the enemies were also part of Herod’s entourage, which is confirmed by other passages; especially Herod’s mother-in-law Alexandra schemed against him (for references, see Ant. 15.23 with the note to “Alexandra,” also 15.166).Josephus’ remark about friends and enemies also prepares for the story about the end of Hyrcanus (15.164-182), which interrupts the narrative about the aftermath of Actium. The way this story is embedded makes Hyrcanus appear like one of Herod’s enemies (see also 15.165). The phrase ἀτιμώρητος μένειν (“remain unpunished”) also occurs in Ant. 16.116. About the close patron-client relationship between Antony and Herod, see Ant. 15.5 (with the note to “the friends around him”), 131, 183, 189, 409; 18.92. Herod’s father, Antipater, was already a friend of Antony (War 1.281). Herod himself stated before Octavian that “he had had an extraordinary friendship with Antony (φιλίαν αὐτῷ γενέσθαι μεγίστην πρὸς ’Αντώνιον)” (Ant. 15.189; cf. also 15.183).Josephus points out in War that Herod’s close friendship with Antony was the reason for the king’s worries, which led to his decision to make a journey to Rhodes to meet Octavian (1.386-387). War 1.386 indicates that Octavian did not consider Antony to be definitively defeated as long as Herod remained loyal to him, which suggests that Herod was Antony’s tower of strength. This overstatement (Cleopatra was Antony’s mainstay in this period; see Becher 1966: 32, 75-77, 108-10, 182-83), highlighting Herod’s status as intimus of Antony, is missing in Antiquities. Yet in both reports Herod emphasizes that he did not abandon Antony after Actium (War 1.388; Ant. 15.190).

The vocabulary links up with the beginning of Ant. 15.162 through the repetition of φίλοις (“friends”) and the noun ἀπόγνωσις (“abandonment [of hope], desperate situation,” Rengstorf s.v.), which echoes the verb ἀπογινώσκω (“dismiss, abandon [hope]).” For other combinations of ἀπόγνωσις and ἐλπίς (“hope”), see Philo, Mut. 222; Spec. 3.6. Niese (361) reads ἐχθρῶς (“hostile”) with MSS PFV and E. The reading ἐχθρωδῶς (“hostilely disposed,” Rengstorf s.v. ἐχθρώδης), attested by MSS LAMW, occurs once elsewhere in Josephus (War 1.475). The phrase ἐχθρωδῶς ἔχειν τινι (“be hostile to someone”) is a fixed expression (LSJ s.v. ἐχθρώδης). The reading of MSS LAMW may therefore be preferable. The verb συνάγω in the passive voice may mean “be friends with” (cf. LSJ s.v. I.5). Josephus’ phrase is a polite way of saying that Herod’s reign would end. For μεταβολή with the meaning “political change,” see Ant. 15.30 with the note to “a change of government,” also 15.20 with the note to “political changes” and 15.166. For vocabulary similar to ἀμείνονος … τῆς μεταβολῆς, see Aristotle, Fragm. 1.20 (ed. Rose 36); Philo, Aet. 33; Praem. 115; QG 2.41; Spec. 2.249; Virt. 183; Josephus, Ant. 16.359; Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 2.19.97.

Josephus’ focus switches back to Herod, who apparently realized that Hyrcanus was the last remaining possible competitor of Hasmonean descent. The switch is surprising because one would expect—on the basis of the information in the preceding paragraphs—that the king would do something about his weak position following Antony’s defeat. This is indeed what Josephus reports in the parallel narrative of War (1.386-387). Nevertheless, with the reference to Herod’s enemies in Ant. 15.162-163, Josephus prepares for a digression about Hyrcanus (15.165-178), which is without a parallel in War. Hyrcanus was of Hasmonean descent (see Ant. 15.11 with the note to “Hyrcanus the High Priest”). Ant. 15.18-21 reports how Herod successfully persuaded Hyrcanus to return to Judea (see also 15.12-17). In 15.18 Josephus notes that Herod promised to share his kingdom with Hyrcanus. Ant. 15.164-182 is connected with 15.18-21 because Josephus anticipates Herod’s actions against Hyrcanus (narrated in 15.164-182) in 15.20 (see also the next note). For phrases similar to ἐπ’ ἀξιώματος βασιλικοῦ (“of a royal rank”), see Plutarch, Cor. 22.1; Mor. (Mulier. virt.) 255a; Lucian, Laps. 11; Herodian 2.5.5. Marcus-Wikgren (11 n. e) refer to von Destinon (1882: 110), who argues that 2 sources have been combined in this passage: Nicolaus of Damascus, and an anonymous writer hostile to Herod. In the subsequent narrative Josephus offers 2 reports of the events that led to Herod’s order to execute Hyrcanus (Ant. 15.165-173 and 15.174-176). Josephus claims in connection with the second report that Hyrcanus was innocent (15.177), which puts the blame fully on Herod.The phrase μηκέτ’ ἐμποδὼν ἐᾶν (“prevent [him] from being a hindrance,” Rengstorf s.v. ἐάω) echoes ἐκποδὼν ποιεῖσθαι (“get [someone] out of the way”), used in 15.20 referring to Herod and Hyrcanus (see also 15.183 with the note to “out of the way”). I.e., Herod (see also the next note). Josephus describes here—by taking Herod’s perspective—what the king intended to do with Hyrcanus in the cases of Octavian’s 2 plausible decisions (being allowed to continue to be a friendly king of the Romans or being punished for his loyalty to Mark Antony; cf. the construction of the Greek sentence with εἰ μὲν … εἰ δὲ …). Herod is implied as the subject of this passage, which refers to his dangerous new situation after Octavian’s victory at Actium (see Ant. 15.161-163 and the next note). The passage introduces Herod’s motivation for eliminating Hyrcanus as a possible competitor in case Herod would remain king.Josephus suggests time and again that Herod consistently worked on removing all competitors (Ant. 14.469, 489-490; 15.1, 8 on Antigonus; 15.23-38, 42, 45-46, 53, 55 on Aristobulus III; 15.73, 87, 167-170, 247-249 on Alexandra; 15.20 on Hyrcanus). Vogel (2002: 106) argues that the threatening situation after Actium formed Herod’s main motivation for eliminating Hyrcanus, who was the most important member of the Hasmonean house and had already been High Priest and ruler of Judea during several periods (see 15.11-12 and 15.176 with the notes to “fabricated them maliciously” and “own methods”). Günther (2005: 111) ascribes the motivation to the anti-Herodian report of 15.174-176. Niese (361) reads ἀξιώτερον (“more worthy”) with E. The Greek MSS read ἀξιολογώτερον (“more important”). I.e., Herod. The passage echoes a detail of Ant. 15.18-21, where Josephus writes that Herod himself was “ruling while he did not deserve it” (15.20 with the note to this phrase). On Hyrcanus’ descent, see 15.11 with the note to “Hyrcanus the High Priest”. The verb ἐφορμέω (“lie in wait”) occurs once elsewhere in Josephus (War 1.278), in which case it means “lie at anchor” (Rengstorf s.v.). Here it suggests that Hyrcanus was waiting for a chance to gain the throne. This was dangerous for Herod given his insecure situation after Actium, as the continuation of the narrative indicates. I.e., Herod (see the note to “If he” above). Herod’s jealousy is a recurring motif in Antiquities (see 15.50 with the note to “his jealousy”). At this stage Herod had eliminated most of the other possible competitors. Apart from Hyrcanus only Alexandra was still alive (see Ant. 15.167-170, especially 15.166 with the note to “strongly hoping for a political change”).

The phrase δι’ ἐννοίας ἔχω (“think”) is a fixed expression in Josephus (Ant. 3.307; 16.89; Life 227, 282). Josephus’ reference concerns the group of enemies mentioned in Ant. 15.162-163, although in the lines just before the enemy refers only to Hyrcanus. The narrative continues with Hyrcanus as well as his daughter Alexandra as key persons next to Herod. This implies once again that Hyrcanus is presented as an enemy of Herod, despite the fact that he had not undertaken anything against Herod so far. The verb πολυπραγμονέω (“meddle in state affairs”) clearly has a negative connotation here (LSJ s.v. 2b; see also Ant. 15.182). The phrase νεωτέρων ἅπτεσθαι (“start a rebellion”) is connected with the verb νεωτερίζω (“rebel”) and the noun νεωτερισμός (“rebellion, revolt”; see Ant. 15.8, 30, 42 with the note to “aim for a political change”). Philostratus (Vit. Apoll. 8.7) offers a close parallel. Hyrcanus’ “reasonableness” or “generosity” (ἐπιείκεια, Rengstorf s.v.; cf. the related adjective ἐπιεικής “reasonable, kind”) was proverbial (see Ant. 14.13; 15.177, 182). Virtues closely related to ἐπιείκεια are self-control, prudence (σωφροσύνη; cf. 7.391), and moderation-modesty (μετριότης; cf. 6.263). Josephus describes Hyrcanus’ character in the flashback following the report of Hyrcanus’ death (15.177-178). Josephus also characterizes Aristobulus I as a reasonable person (φύσει δ’ ἐπιεικεῖ). This is confirmed by a statement of Timagenes, attested by Strabo, which highlights Aristobulus’ ἐπιείκεια (Ant. 13.319).The substantive τρόπος can mean “way of life, habit” in references to persons (LSJ s.v. III) as well as “character” (Rengstorf s.v.). For phrases similar to ἐπιεικείᾳ τρόπου (“his reasonable character [or habit],” see Hecataeus of Abdera (FGH 264 F 25; Demosthenes, Or. 36.59; Polybius 5.10.1; Diodorus 1.54.2; Lucian, Alex. 61; Aelius Aristides, Ars rhet. 2.3.4; Reg. (ed. Dindorf 1.106); Julian, Euseb. laud. 1.46 (ed. Bidez 74). Hyrcanus’ submission to what fortune (τύχη; see Ant. 15.17 with the note to “fortune”) had in store for him characterizes him as a passive and weak person, which matches his image elsewhere in Josephus (see 14.13; 15.15 with the note to “He was content with these things,” also 15.177-178 with notes).

Josephus’ characterization of Alexandra here corresponds to the way she is presented elsewhere in Antiquities (see 15.23 with the note to “Alexandra”). Josephus suggests in 15.42, while he focalizes Herod, that Alexandra would aim for a political change (νεωτέρων πραγμάτων; see also the note to “start a rebellion” in 15.165) if she had the opportunity. The adjective φιλόνεικος (“contentious, quarrelsome”) echoes 15.62. Rengstorf (s.v.) suggests “ambitious, fond of rule” as meanings for φιλόνεικος in 15.166, 168. For μεταβολή meaning “political change,” see Ant. 15.30 with the note to “change of government,” also 15.163 as well as 15.42, 167, 183, referring to Alexandra. I.e., Hyrcanus (see War 1.241; Ant. 15.23). Herod is associated with lawlessness (παρανομία) elsewhere in Josephus: War 2.84, 86; Ant. 15.40, 63 (a complaint formulated by Alexandra), 243; 16.4, 185; 17.168, 304 (van Henten 2011b). MS A (first corrector) and MSS VW read τὸν αὐτὸν οἶκον (“the same family”) instead of τὸν αὐτῶν οἶκον (“their family,” Niese 361). Josephus’ phrase is a long-winded way of saying that Alexandra was hoping that the Hasmonean dynasty (cf. the reference to their family; see the preceding note) could regain the throne. He indicates several times that this was Alexandra’s ultimate goal (Ant. 15.22, 24, 32, 42, 73; cf. 15.36, 183).

This is most probably the Nabatean king Malichus I (early fifties-ca. 30 BCE), who is referred to in Ant. 15.107 (see the note to “The Arab”) and 15.108.Alexandra applied the strategy to ask a friendly ruler for assistance several times in the preceding narrative (see her letters to Cleopatra, Ant. 15.24, 32, 45, 62). The longer reading τῷ τὴν ἀραβαρχίαν ἔχοντι (“having the rule over Arabia”), attested by MSS LAMW, is preferable since it is the lectio difficilior. MSS VE read τῷ τὴν ’Αραβιάν ἔχοντι (“holding Arabia”), which is also attested by the Latin version (Niese 362). The word ἀραβαρχία (“rule over the Arabs,” LSJ s.v. and Suppl.; Rengstorf s.v.; Retsö 2003: 373) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. Niese (362) reads αὐτόν (“him”) with MSS PFV, but this does not match the continuation of the narrative, which implies that both Hyrcanus and Alexandra would travel to Malichus. Cf. Josephus’ brief report about the plausible consequences of Octavian’s victory at Actium for Herod (Ant. 15.161-163). The combination of ἀπολαμβάνω (“receive”) with ἀρχή (“throne”) also occurs in Ant. 10.216; 17.327; 20.64. Hyrcanus and his daughter Alexandra belonged to the Hasmonean house, which had ruled Judea until Herod became king in 40/37 BCE (see Ant. 15.1-2 with notes). There is no direct reference to a warm support of the masses for Hyrcanus and Alexandra. Yet Josephus’ report about the inauguration of the young Jonathan-Aristobulus III as High Priest suggests that he definitely enjoyed the sympathy of the crowd (Ant. 15.51-52). The phrase τὴν εὔνοιαν τῶν ὄχλων (“the support [or sympathy] of the crowd”) also occurs in 15.52 in regard with Aristobulus III (cf. 7.196 concerning Absalom).

The verb διωθέω (“reject,” Rengstorf s.v.) occurs once elsewhere in Josephus (War 4.604). The adjective φιλόνεικον (“contentious,” perhaps “ambituous”—with Rengstorf s.v. φιλόνεικος) repeats φιλόνεικος in Ant. 15.62, 166 (likewise referring to Alexandra; see 15.166 with the note to “quarrelsome”). The adjective γυναικεῖος (“womanly”) recalls 2 earlier passages about Alexandra (Ant. 15.44 and 15.69). The combination with φιλόνεικος (15.166, 168) implies that γυναικεῖος is used pejoratively here, which matches Josephus’ consistently negative characterization of Alexandra (see 15.166 and 15.23 with the note to “Alexandra”). Josephus adds emphasis with a double formulation, first negatively and then positively: “did not stop—night or day (καὶ μήτε νύκτα μήθ’ ἡμέραν ἀπολειπομένης)—always (ἀλλ’ ἀεὶ) discussing.” For a close parallel of a participle of ἀπολείπω plus μήτε νύκτα μήθ’ἡμέραν (“not stopping, night or day”), see Plutarch, Mor. (Soll. an.) 981a. Josephus’ phrase about Alexandra repeats his earlier information that Alexandra wrote to Cleopatra about Herod’s plot against her son Aristobulus III (Ant. 15.62; cf. 15.59, 64). Since Josephus refers twice to Herod’s scheming against Hyrcanus (15.21, 174), the tenor of the narrative confirms Alexandra’s complaint about Herod, which is ironic in the light of Josephus’ negative characterization of her. Josephus’ report suggests in this way that Hyrcanus was basically innocent, but the fact that he finally gave in to his daughter—or agreed on a compromise with her—implies that he was weak and rather naïve because he did not realize what the consequences of such a letter could be if Herod found out about it (see Ant. 15.173). It is not immediately clear to whom the pronoun “his” refers: either Malichus or Hyrcanus. The continuation of the narrative renders Hyrcanus more probable (see Ant. 15.170), which implies that Dositheus was one of Hyrcanus’ friends and, as a consequence, that Hyrcanus had his own circle of friends at Herod’s court (about “friends,” see 15.162 with the note to “his entourage”).Dositheus is also mentioned in 15.169, 170, 252, 260. The name Dositheus is attested in an inscription from Marissa (SEG 8 no. 253b), and Josephus refers to another Dositheus in 13.260 (Kokkinos 1998: 152). Otto (1913: 86) argues that Dositheus was Jewish but of Idumean ethnic origin (see also Richardson 1996: 222). I.e., the Nabatean king Malichus I (see Ant. 15.167 with the note to “Malchus”). The context presupposes that both Hyrcanus and Alexandra would travel to Malichus (see Ant. 15.167). This is the Greek name for the Dead Sea, the lowest point of the Jordan Rift Valley. Josephus refers about 20 times to this “lake” (references in Schalit 1968: 19; Tsafrir, Di Segni, and Green 1994: 179) and offers a description of the Dead Sea in War 4.476-485. He briefly refers to the production of asphalt (which explains the origin of the lake’s Greek name) and notes that asphalt was used as a sealing device for ship skins and as an ingredient for medicine (War 4.480-481, also Diodorus 2.48; 19.98-9; Strabo 16.2.42-43; Tacitus, Hist. 5.15.71-2; Möller and Schmitt 1976: 27). The journey of Hyrcanus and Alexandra to King Malichus most probably implied that they would travel to the Nabatean capital Petra, south of the Dead Sea. In that case the obvious route would be via the Dead Sea (see the next note). According to several scholars the ancient length standard of the stadion (στάδιον) equals ca. 185 m, which is based on the length of the Roman stadium (which roughly equals 400 Roman cubits; LSJ s.v.; Simons 1952: 395 n. 1). The actual length of a stadion is often not clear (see the notes by Mason at BJP 9: 64). If Josephus follows the Roman standard, 300 stadia would be ca. 55 km. The distance between the northern Dead Sea and Jerusalem was ca. 30 km, which means that the Latin version (Niese 362), reading ducentis (“200” = ca. 37 km), is probably a correction taking the northern end of the Dead Sea as point of departure. The modern road trip from Jerusalem to the northern Dead Sea, which is similar to the ancient one, is about 39+ km. If Josephus’ estimation of 300 stades is based upon the ancient road system, implying a trip from Jerusalem to Jericho through Wadi Kelt and then along the western shore of the Dead Sea, the distance of 300 stades implies a location roughly halfway the west side of the Dead Sea. The journey to Petra was perhaps planned along the road via Masada, Zoara (south of the Dead Sea), Wadi Hasa, Khirbet Tannur, and Khirbet Dharih (Villeneuve and al-Muheisen 2003: 83-84).

Literally “He.” This behavior is obvious in the light of Dositheus’ being a friend of Hyrcanus (see Ant. 15.168). The verb θεραπεύω (“pay one’s court [to],” Rengstorf s.v.) with a person as object frequently occurs in Josephus (5.189; 14.393; 15.205; 16.157; 17.33; 18.188, 294, 339; 19.66). This is another case of litotes in Josephus. It leads up to Josephus’ explanation of Dositheus’ antipathy for Herod. The phrase οὐ μικρὰς αἰτίας ἔχοντος (literally “having no small reason [for]”) has a close parallel in Isaeus 10.20. This is probably the Joseph whom Herod appointed as substitute during his trip to Antony. Joseph had to kill Mariamme in case Herod would not return from this trip (Ant. 15.65). Stern (1982: 44-45) argues that Joseph was a brother of Dositheus. However, this interpretation does not seem to be supported by the precise Greek formulation of Josephus (referring to a “relative” [συγγενὴς ἦν]; about Joseph, see Ant. 15.65 with the note to “his uncle Joseph”). Joseph was executed after Herod’s return from his trip to Antony because Herod believed Joseph had become too intimate with his wife Mariamme I (Ant. 15.87). In the Greek the word for brother (ἀδελφός) stands at the end, which emphasizes the close relationship between Dositheus and this (or these) relative(s) (see the next 2 notes). Several Greek MSS read πρότερος (“the first/earlier”) instead of πρότερον (“before,” Niese 362, who suggests that the reading πρότερος [attested by MSS LAMW and the Latin version] may derive from a personal name). The name could be even Πρότερος (“Proteros”). Osborne and Byrne (1994: 383) list one person with this name, from the 3rd cent. BCE. Josephus’ information is slightly elliptic: the text probably implies that one of the persons who were killed by Antony in Tyre was a brother of Dositheus. Josephus describes that killing of a group of opponents of Antony in Ant. 14.327-329 (paralleled by War 1.245-247).

The introduction of the sentence by οὐ μήν (“truly not”) emphasizes the contrast with the preceding sentence (Wakker 1997: 223). Although Herod was responsible for the execution of a relative (i.e., Joseph) and indirectly for the death of a brother, Dositheus apparently decided to place his hope in the king. Günther (2005: 113) surmises that he acted as a double agent, using a forged letter from King Malichus in order to discredit Hyrcanus and Alexandra (see also Ant. 15.176 with the note to “ordered for the man to be strangled”). Niese (362) conjectures ἐνήγαγε ταῦτα (“these things led on”), but the text transmitted by the MSS (ἐπήγαγε ταῦτα “these things induced”) makes sense and is paralleled by Arrian, Anab. 7.21.6: Ταῦτα ἀπαγγελθέντα ἐπήγαγεν ’Αλεξανδρον (literally “These matters having become known induced Alexander to”). The verb ἐπάγω followed by an infinitive can mean “induce (to)” (Rengstorf s.v.; see also Ant. 15.174). Half of the 12 occurrences of ὑπηρεσία (“service”) in Josephus are found in the Herod narrative of Antiquities (15.170, 199, 201, 273; 16.97, 184). This implies that Dositheus went for realistic politics and that he estimated his prospects better by serving Herod. If so, he must have switched from Hyrcanus’ circle of friends (see Ant. 15.168 with the note to “Dositheus, one of his friends”) to Herod’s friends. Obviously he would have expected a generous reward, but Josephus does not inform us about that (cf. 15.171). Kokkinos (1998: 151) explains Dositheus’ move by the assumption that, following the execution of Joseph, Herod had established a closer relationship with Dositheus by marrying Joseph’s daughter, who would have been Dositheus’ niece. For the content of the letter, see Ant. 15.168.

The verb προσυπουργέω (“do an additional service,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. Rolling up and sealing a letter was a standard practice (White 1986: 213-14). The verb πτύσσω (“fold, roll up”) occurs once elsewhere in Josephus (Ant. 10.16; Rengstorf s.v.). The verb κατασημαίνομαι (“seal [up],” Rengstorf s.v.) also occurs in 4.64; 17.222. The Greek probably means that Hyrcanus would receive a letter as a response from Malichus, although the plural τὰ γράμματα can mean that Malichus would write several letters (Rengstorf s.v. γράμμα). In Ant. 15.173 Josephus clearly refers to one letter from Malichus, but in 15.175, which is part of the second version about Hyrcanus’ end, he mentions letters in a general way (τινας ἐπιστολάς).Schalit (2001: 252 n. 359 and 698-99) argues that it is highly implausible that Hyrcanus would have written to Malichus; Herod himself would have fabricated the letters of Hyrcanus and Malichus in order to be able to present evidence for Hyrcanus’ conviction. This implies that a charge that was fabricated by Herod underlies the first report about Hyrcanus’ death, something which Josephus points out in connection with the second tradition about this death (see Ant. 15.174). The phrase οὐ μικρὸν τὸ διάφορον (literally “not a small difference”) is a case of litotes (cf. Aelius Aristides, Plat. [ed. Dindorf 2.158, 245]; Heliodorus 5.10.2; Gregory of Nazianzus, Laud. Athan. [PG 35.1109]). Hyrcanus’ leaving Herod’s court after having returned to it from Babylon (Ant. 15.12-21) could have serious implications for Herod. It is plausible that Malichus was aware of this and that Herod would have strongly disliked a decision by the Nabatean king to support Hyrcanus’ case. Malichus had previously had a serious conflict with Herod about the lease of Cleopatra’s territories, which led to Herod’s campaign against the Nabateans (15.107-108). In this light, the best option for Malichus was to refuse Hyrcanus’ request in order to keep a good relationship with Herod. The continuation of the narrative suggests, however, that Malichus did not do so (see 15.177 about Josephus’ own assessment of the reliability of the first report about Hyrcanus’ death and 15.176 with the note to “ordered for the man to be strangled” for a discussion of both versions and their trustworthiness).

The participle ὑπουργήσαντος (“rendering a service”) echoes προσυπουργῆσαι in Ant. 15.171. The word may have a negative connotation like the parallel expression in Mart. Pol. 13.1, which refers to the Jews gladly assisting in building Polycarp’s pyre. For the phrase προθύμως ὑπουργέω (“render a service willingly”), see Josephus, Ant. 3.7; Plutarch, Crass. 5.2; Mor. (Vit. pud.) 534a; Gregory of Nazianzus, Fun. or. (PG 35.1016). I.e., King Malichus (see Ant. 15.168). This could imply Hyrcanus’ relatives as well as his friends (see the reference to Dositheus as a friend of Hyrcanus in Ant. 15.168). This detail implies that Hyrcanus represented a Hasmonean faction that opposed Herod’s role. It also suggests that Malichus was happy to support the opposition against Herod. The situation implied by Malichus’ letter presents Hyrcanus’ role in a different light than Josephus’ own remarks, which point out that the former High Priest was never involved in rebellious activities (see Ant. 15.165, 177). Josephus emphasizes, on the other hand, that Alexandra had been disloyal to Herod before (15.22, 24, 32, 42, 73), and it is Alexandra who takes the initiative to write to the Nabatean king (15.167).The verb φρονέω plus a noun in the accusative and a person in the genitive can mean “stand on somebody’s side” (7.204; 12.392; 13.4, 377; LSJ s.v. II.2c; Rengstorf s.v.). The Arab, i.e., Malichus. If the journey aimed for Petra (see Ant. 15.168 with the note to “escort them to Lake Asphaltitis”), an armed escort would be necessary because the route to Petra was obvious and Herod could easily send a force to pursue Hyrcanus’ group. The phrase μετ’ ἀσφαλείας κομίζω (“transport/escort safely”) also occurs in Plutarch, Aem. 12.1. Literally “he.” MSS AMW read ἠξίουν (“they asked for”) instead of ἠξίου (“he asked for,” Niese 363). The first reading seems to be an attempt to harmonize the subject with the preceding “them” (αὐτούς) and is, therefore, an adaptation of the second, more original reading.

The Greek καὶ ταύτην (“also this”) presupposes an earlier letter, i.e., the letter by Hyrcanus given to Herod by Dositheus (Ant. 15.170). The rare combination of εὐθύς (“immediately”) and μεταπέμπω (“send for, summon”) occurs from Thucydides onward (4.100.1; Xenophon, Anab. 7.1.20; Plutarch, Ages. 32.5). The continuation of the narrative presupposes that this interrogation took place during a meeting of Herod’s council (see the note to “the council” below). The plural of συνθήκη can have the stronger meaning “treaty” here, which is very common (LSJ s.v. II.2). In that case Hyrcanus and Malichus would have established a pact against Herod. Literally “he.” Hyrcanus’ denial does not match the information found in Ant. 15.168 that Hyrcanus gave to Dositheus a letter for Malichus. By itself the Greek here allows for a reading that Hyrcanus was honest about his denial because the substantive συνθῆκαι (“arrangement, treaty”), which Josephus uses a few words before, is ambiguous (see the note to “the arrangement” above). The verb διαχειρίζω (“have in hands”) can also mean “slay” in the middle voice (LSJ s.v. II). The reading διεχρήσατο, attested by MS W (Niese 363), probably has only a slightly different meaning: διαχράομαι means “kill, execute” (Rengstorf s.v.). The letter from Hyrcanus to Malichus and Malichus’ reply (Ant. 15.168, 172) obviously formed the evidence for Hyrcanus’ conviction by the council. The narrative implies that Herod usually convened his council when he planned to execute somebody (cf. 16.357; 17.46, 93). He acted as prosecutor as well as supreme judge of such councils, which usually consisted of his friends and relatives (Schalit 2001: 252). Mariamme I was sent to death after a meeting of the council (15.229-231; see 15.229 with the note to “having gathered the persons who were most close to him”). Further examples concern the trial of those responsible for the demolition of a golden eagle at the Temple (War 1.654; Ant. 17.160-164) and that of his sons Alexander and Aristobulus IV in Beirut (War 1.538; cf. Ant. 16.356-357, 361, and also War 1.556; Ant. 16.62; 17.46, 93). When Herod thought about killing Cleopatra during her visit to Judea, on which occasion she tried to seduce Herod (Ant. 15.88-103), he consulted his friends, who prevented him from murdering the queen (15.98-103). See also Herod’s own trial before Hyrcanus because he had executed brigands without organizing a trial first (14.168-178 and 15.3 with the note to “Pollio the Pharisee and Samaias, his student”). Kasher (2007: 158) qualifies Hyrcanus’ trial as a “show trial” and even draws an analogy with Stalin’s notorious trials.Herod’s council should be distinguished from the later Sanhedrin, which was also dealing with capital offences, as reflected in the Gospels (cf. Ant. 14.167, 175). The Sanhedrin operated on the basis of the Pentateuchal legislation (Deut 1:16-17; 19:15-21; cf. Num 35:30; Deut 17:2-8; John 7:51). Rabbinic interpretations of the requirements for trying capital cases are found in, e.g., m. Sanh. 4:1-5:5 (Brown 1994: 1.357-64; McLaren 1991: 74-79; Richardson 1996: 111; Levine 1998: 87-90).

Josephus’ formula introduces an alternative account by stating that his report so far followed a specific source. Landau (2006: 129-30) argues that presenting 2 versions of a report confirms the authority and credibility of a historian (see on historiographical authority in general Marincola 1997). Josephus may follow here the historiographical practice of Herodotus, who considered it important to pass on more than one tradition about an event, even if the reports conflict each other or the reliability of one of them is to be distrusted. Herodotus would sometimes indicate in a personal comment what the most trustworthy version was (e.g., 1.1-5; Lendle 1992: 44-45; cf. Josephus’ comment about the first tradition about Hyrcanus’ death in 15.178). Another example of 2 versions of a certain event in Josephus concerns Phasael’s death (see War 1.271-272; Ant. 14.367-369). The word ὑπόμνημα can mean “note, record, chronicle” (e.g., Ant. 7.110, 293; 10.5, 55; 11.94, 208; Rengstorf s.v.). It is frequently used in the plural and perhaps means “memoirs” here, as several scholars suggest (e.g., Kokkinos 1998: 124). Richardson (1996: 169) concludes that at least part of 15.163-173 derives from Herod’s memoirs. Josephus does refer to “records of the king(s)” (ὑπομνήματα, 11.94, 98, 248; cf. 11.104), but he does not specify that these royal archives concern memoirs. In 11.248 he mentions “the records of the kings who were before him and those of his own deeds” (trans. Marcus) in connection with the king Artaxerxes of the Esther story (see also 2 Macc 2:13 about Nehemiah’s “memoirs” [ὑπομνηματισμοί]; van Henten 1997: 49-50). Josephus also refers to the ὑπομνήματα of the emperor, i.e., the diary-like notes or reminders (Life 342, 358; Apion 1.56; BJP 9 342, with references). The suggestion by Kokkinos (1998: 124) that Herod followed the examples of the memories of Augustus and Marcus Agrippa is problematic since the date of Marcus Agrippa’s lost autobiography is unknown (Reinhold 1933: 142; cf. Roddaz 1984: 570, who suggests 23-21 BCE but acknowledges that this is only a guess). Augustus’ Res gestae were published in 14 CE (for references, see Kienast 1999: 210-11, 263), while the chronological setting of Josephus’ reference to Herod’s memoranda is 31-30 BCE (Ant. 15.161). If Herod did indeed write his own memoirs, their language was most probably Greek, which Herod could have learned at Hyrcanus’ court in Jerusalem (Hengel 1989: 35-36), or at Marissa or Ascalon (Kokkinos 1998: 124). Josephus uses the verb συμφωνέω (“agree,” Rengstorf s.v.) in a technical way, which implies in the current context agreement (or not) with a historical report (see also Ant. 1.107; 8.55; Apion 1.17, 144; 2.15). In Ant. 15.9-10 Josephus refers to Strabo as his source about Hyrcanus. The phrase ἐξ ἐπιβουλῆς (“treacherously” or “with malicious intent,” Rengstorf s.v. ἐπιβουλή) is a fixed expression in Josephus, also for the treacherous murder of persons (War 7.448; Ant. 8.307; 13.228; 20.74, 239). The death of Aristobulus III (Ant. 15.50-56), orchestrated by Herod, would fit this category very well (see also the note to “no ground for suspicion whatsoever” below about the repetition of vocabulary from 15.21, including the noun ἐπιβουλῆς). Literally “his.” This suggests that execution was Herod’s usual way of getting rid of competitors or other persons dangerous to him (see also the note to “fabricated them maliciously” above). MSS LAMW read κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον (“according to the same method”), which does not make sense in the context.

For introductory formulae of a quoted document or report similar to γράφουσι οὕτως (“they write as follows”), see Ant. 12.148; Apion 1.208, 237. Participating in a banquet basically implied pleasure and entertainment (cf. Ant. 15.77 about Herod’s stay with Antony; Garnsey 1999: 128-31; see also 15.21 with the notes to “banquets” and “recline before the others”). Herod’s question during the presumably pleasant atmosphere at the banquet therefore highlights the king’s wickedness (see also the next note). This matches Josephus’ earlier passage about Hyrcanus (Ant. 15.21), in which he describes how Herod treated Hyrcanus better than everybody else but also notes that “He [i.e., Herod] deceived him [i.e., Hyrcanus] during banquets by having him recline before the others, by calling him “father,” and by contriving in many ways that his plot should remain unsuspected (τὸ τῆς ἐπιβουλῆς ἀνύποπτον πραγματευόμενος).” Note also the similarities of the vocabulary in 15.21 and 15.174-175: ὑποψίας (“suspicion”) in 15.175 echoes ἀνύποπτον in 15.21; ἐπιβουλή (“plot”) occurs in 15.21 and 15.174. The plural “letters” is perhaps significant because it differs in detail from what Josephus describes in Ant. 15.168, 171-173, mentioning a letter from Hyrcanus to Malichus and a letter from Malichus to Hyrcanus. Ant. 15.171 allows for a reading that Malichus sent several letters to Hyrcanus (see the note to “Malchus’ letter”), but this reading is hardly plausible because Ant. 15.173 refers to 1 specific letter from Malichus (ταύτην τὴν ἐπιστολήν). In the Greek the article before Malichus’ name catches the eye because he has been mentioned several times previously already. The article, therefore, may emphasize the active participation of the Nabatean king in Hyrcanus’ plan, or his prominent role (for a discussion of such a usage of the article, see Rijksbaron 2001: 16-18). This is a clear contrast with the first version of the report, in which Hyrcanus denies having made arrangements with Malichus (Ant. 15.173). The adjective προσαγορευτικός (“of address/greetings,” LSJ s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus, and the extremely rare combination προσαγορευτικὰ γράμματα probably means “written greetings,” as Rengstorf (s.v. προσαγορευτικός) suggests. This implies that there was no arrangement about a journey from Jerusalem to Petra or another Nabatean city in contradistinction to the first version of the report (Ant. 15.168).

Herod’s first question may still seem innocent, but the second one clearly indicates that his interrogation of Hyrcanus was leading to an accusation of treason. Herod’s questions also imply that Malichus, instead of Hyrcanus, was taking the initiative, and this, in turn, presupposes that Malichus aimed at harming Herod’s position by using Hyrcanus as a tool. The adjective ἀναβατικός (“[animal] used for riding,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. Josephus’ rather general vocabulary perhaps refers to horses or mules fit for riding (cf. LSJ s.v. κτῆνος 2). The verb ἐπαναφέρω (here meaning “to derive criminal charges from”) occurs once elsewhere in Josephus (Ant. 3.72, with the meaning “bring before one,” Rengstorf s.v.). The combination of δωροδοκία (“bribe, bribery”) and προδοσία (“treason”) occurs in Josephus only here (for other combinations of these words, cf. Dinarch, Aristog. 22; Phil. 19; Appian, Hist. rom. 11.7.40; Arrian, Hist. succ. Alex. 1.15 [transmitted by Photius; see FGH 156 F 9]). Herod’s double accusation is extremely severe since the letter only concerns greetings and the relatively innocent gift of 4 riding animals. The background of a possible rebellious act is missing in this second report (cf. Ant. 15.166, 172). The verb ἀπάγχω (“strangle”) occurs once elsewhere in Josephus (Ant. 12.256). MS P reads ἀπαγεῖν and MSS FAV ἀπαγαγεῖν; both readings imply that Hyrcanus was led away to be executed (cf. occidi in the Latin version; Rengstorf s.v. ἀπάγω).Herod’s sons Alexander and Aristobulus IV were also killed by strangling (Ant. 16.394). Strangling was one of the 4 types of capital punishment according to the rabbinic law (m. Sanh. 11.1). Yet treason or bribery are not mentioned among the crimes listed for this capital punishment (Marcus-Wikgren 84-85 n. a).The 2 versions of the account of Hyrcanus’ death both end with Hyrcanus’ accusation by Herod and the old man’s execution, but their content and their description of the role of the key persons differ in several ways. Let us focus on the content first. According to the first version (Ant. 15.165-173) Alexandra manipulated Hyrcanus to approach the Nabatean king Malichus in order to ask him for a safe haven for the time that Herod would still be on the throne, so that they could take over after Herod’s death (15.167). Hyrcanus wrote a letter and gave it to Dositheus, who revealed the letter as well as Malichus’ response to Herod. When Hyrcanus was interrogated by Herod, he denied (which is understandable since he was relying on Dositheus’ faithfulness to him). When Hyrcanus was confronted with the 2 letters during a meeting of Herod’s council (15.173), he was convicted; his treason had become obvious. Although Alexandra was (at least indirectly) responsible for Hyrcanus’ death (15.166), the execution seems justified in this report because Hyrcanus participated in a rebellious initiative (Günther 2005: 111).The second version (15.174-176) immediately states that Herod fabricated the charges against Hyrcanus (15.174). The king set a trap for the old Hyrcanus during a banquet and turned the meal into an interrogation with deadly consequences (15.175-176). This version mentions letters (a plural) from Malichus but does not refer to a letter from Hyrcanus, nor to a journey to Malichus. It does not refer to Alexandra, Dositheus, or Herod’s council either. Hyrcanus admitted having received a letter and a few animals from Malichus, and Herod used this for sentencing Hyrcanus to death. This version specifies the type of execution: Hyrcanus was strangled (15.176; cf. 15.173).The roles of the persons involved also differ in both reports. The first version focuses on Herod’s enemies (15.165), which implies that Hyrcanus, who is mentioned next, was one of them. However, Ant. 15.165 emphasizes that Hyrcanus did not want to engage in a rebellious act against Herod; his daughter Alexandra did do so (15.166). Nevertheless, Hyrcanus could have resisted Alexandra but he did not, which confirms his weak character (cf. 15.177). Malichus was more than happy to assist Hyrcanus and Alexandra, and the detail about “all those Jews who were on his [i.e., Hyrcanus’] side” (15.172) shows that he was fully aware of the fact that the journey to him was part of a scenario to bring back the Hasmonean rule in Judea. The first version, therefore, in the beginning presents Hyrcanus as a victim of Alexandra’s and Malichus’ strategies against Herod, but in the end as a participant in the plan. In the second version Hyrcanus does not seem to have done much wrong, and he is acting in good faith during Herod’s interrogation. Alexandra is mentioned in the first version only and her behavior is very much in line with what Josephus writes elsewhere about her, including her attempts to end Herod’s rule (see 15.166). Malichus’ role is more active in the second version, but the connection with a rebellious move against Herod is absent. A crucial difference between the 2 versions is that Herod’s role is much more negative in the second: he is the evil genius, while Alexandra plays that role in the first. Moreover, in the first version Hyrcanus’ death penalty seems justified; in the second the contact between Hyrcanus and Malichus seems to be rather innocent, and the verdict for the old man is extremely harsh. The second version, therefore, links up with Josephus’ earlier remark that Herod clearly wanted Hyrcanus dead and would use the opportunity to arrange this when he could (15.20-21; cf. 15.164). If we can assume that the first version derives from a source—as 15.174 suggests,—this source seems to serve Herod’s interests well: the blame is put on Alexandra and Hyrcanus, and Hyrcanus is rightly executed. It is plausible that the second version, which puts the blame entirely on Herod, flowed from Josephus’ own pen. Its extremely negative image of Herod corresponds with Josephus’ view about Herod in Antiquities (van Henten 2011b).Scholars have different opinions about the reliability of the two versions. Grant (1971: 90-92) tends to accept the first version as reliable, but Jones (1938: 58) concludes that the second is plausible. Otto (1913: 49-50), Kasher (1988: 149-50), and Schalit (2001: 124-26, 133-35, 252 n. 359, 698-99) try to reconstruct what actually happened. Otto and Schalit argue that Herod’s long-term strategy was to eliminate every male member of the Hasmonean family in order to secure the position of his own dynasty (cf. Ant. 15.186). This policy became urgent when Herod was to visit Octavian after Actium (Schürer-Vermes 1.301). Herod therefore fabricated letters ascribed to Hyrcanus and Malichus in order to convict Hyrcanus during a show process. Otto and Schalit consider Hyrcanus and Alexandra’s intended trip to Malichus to be highly unlikely because they would have been at the center of power had Octavian executed Herod, and could have taken over the throne immediately. As an additional argument for the implausibility of the first version they note that Alexandra was not executed together with Hyrcanus (see also Richardson 1996: 170; Günther 2005: 113, and cf. Ant. 15.183). Kasher (1988: 150) adds that Malichus could not have been a military threat to Herod after the Nabatean defeat (15.147-160), and he and Schalit (2001: 698-99) argue that Herod’s fabrication of the evidence against Hyrcanus (i.e., the letter from Hyrcanus to Malichus and that from Malichus to Hyrcanus) was inspired on the earlier journey of Hyrcanus to the Nabatean king Aretas at the advice of Herod’s father, Antipater (Ant. 14.14-19). Richardson (1996: 170) points out that the second version is partly based on data from the first. He qualifies the second as “an intentionally alternative explanation.”A critical reading shows that both versions are tendentious: the first exonerates Herod from killing Hyrcanus without juridical grounds, and the second takes away all blame from Hyrcanus. It is plausible that Herod wanted Hyrcanus to be out of the way before the crucial visit to Octavian, as Otto and Schalit argue (see above, also Kasher 1988: 149; Kasher [2007: 156-59] explains Herod’s “obsessive fear of anyone of Hasmonean extraction” by the king’s paranoid personality). The first version provides a perfect legitimation of Hyrcanus’ execution from Herod’s perspective. Josephus’ information that the first version derives from Herod’s memoranda may, therefore, be correct. In that case we would have to reckon with at least 2 distortions of the events: Herod probably forged the evidence with the help of Dositheus given that the journey to Malichus is highly implausible, and Ant. 15.166 (about Alexandra as the instigator) must have been added later (cf. a similar note about Alexandra after Hyrcanus’ death in 15.183) because otherwise she would have been executed with Hyrcanus. The second version may have been an invention by Josephus, with the purpose of highlighting once again Herod’s wicked character.

The phrase τέλει περιπίπτω (“come to an end”) also occurs in Sextus Empiricus, Math. 5.91. The subject of καταλογίζονται (“they claim”) is not specified. One possibility is that this connects with Herod’s memoranda, which would imply that the author(s) or editor(s) of these memoranda are meant. However, this does not match the justified death penalty for Hyrcanus according to the first version (Ant. 15.173). It therefore seems much more probable that the “they” links up with the anonymous reference to other sources in 15.174. The phrase τὴν ἐπιείκειαν τοῦ τρόπου (“the reasonableness of his character”) repeats a closely similar phrase in Ant. 15.165, also referring to Hyrcanus (see the note to “because of his reasonable character,” also 15.182 and, as a contrast, 15.174 [about Herod]). About the conventional association of a person’s character and his or her deeds in obituaries, see Landau 2006: 128. The combination of θράσος (“boldness”) and προπέτεια (“rashness”) also occurs in Philo, Legat. 262; QG 4.52; Spec. 3.66 (cf. also Ant. 15.100 with the note to “rashness,” about Herod). Hyrcanus was High Priest from ca. 76 to 40 BCE, and he was appointed as ruler of Judea by Pompey in 63 BCE and by Julius Caesar in 47 BCE (for references, see Ant. 15.11 with the note to “Hyrcanus the High Priest” and 15.180 with the notes to “Pompey” and “received back all of his honors”). Josephus’ narrative suggests that Hyrcanus was very much dependent on Herod’s father, Antipater (see especially Ant. 14.165, also 13.407; 14.8, 16, 37, 80, 99, 127, 131, 141, 276; Schürer-Vermes 1.275-77).

Josephus switches here from his anonymous informants to his own comments, focusing upon Hyrcanus’ old age and his return to Judea, which is relevant for the argument that Hyrcanus did not act against Herod (see Ant. 15.174). Ant. 15.179-182 provides more information about Hyrcanus in a second and longer flashback. Whether more than 80 or 81, the number does not fit in with the date of Hyrcanus’ parents’ marriage, which must have been after ca. 103 BCE (Otto 1913: 52; Wellhausen 1914: 307 n. 2; Marcus-Wikgren 85 n. c; Kokkinos 1998: 212 n. 20; Schalit 2001: 124). If the setting of the relevant marriage and the numbers 80 or 81 were both correct, the period referred to would be 23-22 BCE, which is not shortly after Actium (31 BCE). Richardson (1996: 169 n. 89) proposes 71 as Hyrcanus’ age. The Greek text attested by the MSS is corrupt. MSS LAMWE, followed by Naber (1888-96: 3.XLIII) and Marcus-Wikgren (84), read ἑνός (“one”) instead of ἐντῶ (“within”), which is read by MSS PF (followed by Niese 363). The reading ἑνός cannot be correct: the genitive cannot go with πλείω because in that case the remaining part of the clause is left hanging; it cannot function as a modifier of πλείω either—implying that Hyrcanus would be 81 (as several scholars assume on the basis of the reading ἑνός)—because that would require a dativus mensurae (ἑνί). The reading ἑνός perhaps results from a corruption because of an exchange of Ω and ΟΣ, which could easily happen in Greek uncials (see van Groningen 1967: 34, 44, 54). Niese’s reading ἐντῶ does not make sense. One could conjecture that the text originally read ἐνίοις, which implies “some (years) more than eighty.” Photius (†891 CE), who summarized and paraphrased Josephus, offers a starting point for an alternative reconstruction of the original reading (as was suggested to me by Omert J. Schrier). He writes in codex 238 of the Bibliotheca: ἀνεῖλεν ἄνδρα ὑπὲρ τὰ π’ ἔτη ἐνιαυτῷ ἑνί … βεβιωκότα “He killed the man before he became eighty-one years old …” (trans. Henry). Photius’ words ἐνιαυτῷ ἑνί may be taken from Josephus’ text. If so, a copyist of a predecessor of MSS PF (reading ἐντῶ) may have contracted the words ἐνιαυτῷ ἑνί on account of the same beginning of both words, resulting in ἐντῶ. Josephus’ second point is anachronistic if one connects it with Herod’s situation after Actium, which was extremely dangerous (see Ant. 15.161-163; cf. also 15.291, with similar vocabulary). However, the point is presented as a flashback concerning Hyrcanus, which focuses upon his decision to return to Judea (which is narrated in 15.11-21, especially 15.11, 16). The flashback supports Josephus’ argument that Hyrcanus had no plans whatsoever to participate in a rebellion against Herod. The Euphrates is also mentioned in the story about Hyrcanus’ return to Judea (Ant. 15.15). In Ant. 15.17 Josephus writes that the Babylonian Jews asked Hyrcanus to stay with them and that they honored him as king and High Priest. The participle τιμῶντας (“holding him in honor”) echoes τὰς τιμὰς (“the honors”) in 15.17. The structure of the Greek sentence, with several infinitives, links up with Josephus’ rendering of the view of his anonymous informants in Ant. 15.177. The expression ἐγχειρεῖν … τι (“undertake something”) has the connotation of rebellious activities (cf. 15.42, at which instance the same verb is used in connection with Alexandra’s behavior; see also 15.166 with the note to “hoping for a political change”). The phrase καινοτέρων ἅπτεσθαι (“start a rebellion”) is a variant of νεωτέρων ἅπτεσθαι in Ant. 15.165, also referring to Hyrcanus. For parallel phrases of πάντων ἀπιθανώτατον (“totally unconvincing”), see Sextus Empiricus, Math. 1.268; Eusebius, Gen. elem. intr. 4.1 (ed. Gaisford 167). Josephus describes Hyrcanus’ character in the immediate context of this passage in Ant. 15.165, 177, 182 (for further references, see 15.165 with the notes to “his reasonable character” and “He consented to fortune to love everything that was happening on its account”). For φύσις indicating someone’s nature or character, see Rengstorf s.v. and Ant. 15.89 with the note to “her greedy character.” With this statement Josephus returns to his introduction of the second version about Hyrcanus’ end, which highlights Herod’s fabrication of the accusation against Hyrcanus (Ant. 15.174).

Ant. 15.179-182 is connected with 15.178, and both passages together form the flashback about Hyrcanus as a person and as a leader of the Jews. Such brief analepses in cases where an important character “leaves the stage” (i.e., dies) are typical for Josephus, Arrian, and Herodian (van Henten and Huitink 2007: 222). These obituaries briefly repeat the character’s previous actions, and often include qualifying statements. The formula τοῦτο τὸ τέλος τοῦ βίου plus a personal name and a verb also occurs in Apion 2.144, to indicate the end of Apion’s life (cf. Ant. 6.378 about Saul; 13.433 about Salome Alexandra). The combination ποικίλος καὶ πολύτροπος (“complex and changing”) also occurs in Ant. 10.142, concerning God’s nature. The phrase functions as the introduction to Josephus’ flashback about the life of Hyrcanus, who had, indeed, been through a lot, as the continuation of the narrative points out. Hyrcanus’ mother, Queen Salome Alexandra, appointed him High Priest after the death of her husband, Alexander Janneus, in 76 BCE (War 1.109; Ant. 13.408; for further references, see Ant. 15.11 with the note to “Hyrcanus the High Priest”). For ἔθνος referring to the Jewish people, see Ant. 15.15 with the note to “the entire nation of the Jews.” The note presupposes that Hyrcanus’ High Priesthood lasted as long as Salome Alexandra ruled as queen (76-67 BCE). This matches Josephus’ information that both Hyrcanus’ office and that of Salome Alexandra were held for 9 years (Ant. 20.242; cf. 15.179 ἔτεσιν ἐννέα τὴν τιμὴν κατέσχεν “held this office for nine years”, referring to Hyrcanus, with 20.242 αὐτὴ δὲ τὴν βασιλείαν ἔτη ἐννέα κατασχοῦσα “she held the throne for nine years”). Salome Alexandra probably died in 67 BCE (Schürer-Vermes 1.200-01, 232). It is uncertain whether Hyrcanus remained High Priest between 67 and 63 BCE (cf. Ant. 14.6-7 with 14.41, 97 and 20.244). Hyrcanus was in any case restored as High Priest by Pompey and again by Caesar (see 15.180 with notes). Concerning the phrase ἀρχιερεὺς καταστάς (“he was appointed High Priest”), see 20.242, which passage notes that Alexander Janneus entrusted the appointment of the High Priest (καταστῆσαι τὸν ἀρχιερατευσόμενον) to his wife Salome Alexandra.

War 1.120 states that Hyrcanus was appointed king by Salome Alexandra. The phrase παραλαμβάνω τὴν βασιλείαν (“take over the throne”) occurs 29 times in Josephus, but only once in War (1.479). It is used in various political contexts (e.g., Ant. 8.2; 11.21; 12.11; 15.254; 16.92; 17.95). In 14.4 (only in MSS PF) it is used in connection with Hyrcanus himself. I.e., Salome Alexandra (see Ant. 15.179 with notes). This information is connected with Ant. 14.4 (about Hyrcanus’ royal office), but the chronological information is different: it does not mention the 3 months period of Hyrcanus’ rule as king. The phrase κατέχω (τὴν βασιλείαν) (“holding/obtaining [the throne]”) also occurs in 15.11, referring to Herod, and in 20.242, referring to Salome Alexandra. War 1.120-122 and Ant. 14.4-8 describe more elaborately how Aristobulus II took over the throne from Hyrcanus after a combat near Jericho. Pompey re-appointed Hyrcanus as High Priest in 63 BCE (War 1.153; Ant. 14.73; 20.244). The adverb αὖθις (“again”) echoes War 1.153. Pompey also appointed Hyrcanus as ruler (ethnarch) of the Jewish people (Ant. 20.244). Julius Caesar rewarded Hyrcanus in 47 BCE—for his support against Pompey—with the confirmation of his High Priesthood and his re-appointment as ethnarch (War 1.194; Ant. 14.137, 151, 191-192, 194, 197, 199-200, 211, 226, 314). This is a tentative translation, assuming that the “them” (reading διετέλεσεν ἐν αὐτοῖς with Niese 364 and most of the Greek MSS) refers to the Jews in Judea. MSS PF read ἐνιαυτοῖς (“years”), which is redundant (cf. ἔτη “years,” a few words earlier). Marcus-Wikgren (86) read ἐν αὐταῖς (see already Thackeray and Marcus 1930-55: 163), which results in a smooth meaning of the text (“continued to have them [i.e., the honors; literally: “he continued in them”] for forty years”), but this reading is not supported by any extant textual witness. Thackeray and Marcus (1930-55: 163) give the meaning “to continue in a certain state” for διατελέω ἐν. Cf. the related phrase διατελέω ἐπί in Ant. 16.199, which probably means “remain with [the first woman]” (Rengstorf s.v. διατελέω). The number 40 is well attested by the transmitted MSS but does not match the other data concerning Hyrcanus’ life or career (the period of 63-40 BCE makes up 23 years; in Ant. 20.245 Josephus states that Hyrcanus ruled for 24 years; Udoh 2005: 127 with n. 58). Josephus’ remark about Hyrcanus being more than 80 years old is wrong as well (see 15.178 with the note to “more than eighty”). The 40 years should perhaps be taken as a round figure symbolizing a long period; cf. the 40 days of rain that brought the Flood (Gen 7:4; Josephus, Ant. 1.89), Israel’s period of 40 years in the desert following the Exodus (Ant. 3.32; 5.21; etc.), and Moses being with God on the mountain for 40 days (Exod 24:18; Josephus, Ant. 3.95). Richardson (1996: n. 98) argues that the number derives from a source favorable to Hyrcanus, which wanted to indicate that Hyrcanus was the legitimate king of the Jews from 67 BCE onward. Kasher (2007: 156 n. 3) argues that the period of 40 years matches the period between Hyrcanus’ nomination as king and High Priest in 76 BCE and his return from Babylon in 36 BCE. The different number found in the list of High Priests (Ant. 20.245) fits the data much better. It states that Hyrcanus ruled for 9 years during the first period (76-67 BCE; see 15.179 with the note to “for nine years”) and for an additional 24 years during the second (63-40 BCE; see also 15.181).

On Hyrcanus’ first removal from office (67 BCE), see Ant. 15.180. This remark is connected with Josephus’ earlier reports that Antigonus (see Ant. 15.1 with the note to “Antigonus captive”) took the rule over from Hyrcanus with the assistance of the Parthians in 40 BCE (War 1.248-249, 269, 273; Ant. 14.331-332, 340, 365, 379; 20.245). This information links up with Josephus’ reports in War 1.270 and Ant. 14.366 (see also Ant. 15.17). In War 1.270 Josephus states that Antigonus bit off Hyrcanus’ ears, and in Ant. 14.366 that he cut them off. The verb λωβάομαι (“mutilate”) is also used in War 1.270; Ant. 14.366 (cf. 15.17 κατὰ λώβην “because of the mutilation,” also referring to Hyrcanus). For parallel phrases of λωβάομαι in the passive voice with σῶμα (“body”), see Josephus, Apion 1.234, 253, 273; Pausanias 1.5.4; Aelian, Nat. an. 3.1; Herodian 8.8.7. The Parthians had caught Hyrcanus, together with Herod’s brother Phasael (War 1.269; Ant. 14.365), and carried him away in chains to Parthia (War 1.273). The vocabulary here partly repeats Josephus’ previous information that Hyrcanus was held by the Parthians as a captive (Ant. 15.11 ἦν δὲ παρὰ Πάρθοις αἰχμάλωτος; see also 14.379 and 15.12 with the note to “the commanders of the Parthians”). Ant. 15.11-21 reports Hyrcanus’ return to Judea. MSS LA1MVW read εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν (“to his house/family”), which is a case of itacism (οἰκίαν–οἰκείαν); εἰς τὴν οἰκείαν (“to his own”) is the more original reading (with Niese [364]). Philo (Abr. 62) offers a close parallel concerning Abraham: εἰς τὴν οἰκείαν ἐπανίων (“returning … to his home,” trans. Colson; cf. Diodorus 20.25.4). The variant reading προσγενομένας of MSS PFV (“happened,” Niese 364) hardly results in a different meaning of the passage. The report about Hyrcanus’ return in Ant. 15.11-21 formulates it slightly differently: “… he [i.e., Hyrcanus] gave way to new hopes …” (15.16). The phrase is motivated by Hyrcanus’ awareness that Herod had taken over the rule from Antigonus, Hyrcanus’ former enemy. Ant. 15.18 narrates that Herod persuaded Hyrcanus to return by assuring that he would be rewarded by him for his favors. The phrase κατὰ προσδοκίαν also occurs in Ant. 15.302; 16.264. It echoes προσδοκῶν (“expecting”) in 15.16 (also referring to Hyrcanus). Herod, in fact, treated Hyrcanus very well after his return (15.21). Nevertheless, Josephus’ comments as narrator in 15.20-21 imply that Hyrcanus’ decision to return would ultimately lead to his ruin. The remark suggests that Hyrcanus deserved to be treated well after the long life of sufferings that Josephus had just been summarizing (Ant. 15.178-181). This prepares the reader for the concluding remark (see the next note). The expression πολυπάθεια (“suffering of many afflictions,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. Josephus’ cross-reference probably focuses upon the second version of Hyrcanus’ end (Ant. 15.174-176), in which Herod is clearly the evil genius who wants the old Hasmonean ruler dead. The addition of τοιούτου (“such”) in MSS LAMW (Niese 364) probably derives from τοιούτου τέλους (“such end”) at the end of the next paragraph. Dying in a way worthy of one’s old age is a common motif in laudatory passages of ancient literature—also in Hellenistic-Jewish writings, as 2 Macc 6:23-28 (about the 90 years old martyr Eleazar) shows. Eleazar was very keen on dying in a way that was “worthy of his years” and “worthy of his old age” (van Henten 1997: 226-30). Josephus implies Herod’s evil, in not allowing Hyrcanus to die a death worthy of his age.

Ant. 15.182 offers Josephus’ final assessment of Hyrcanus as a person and as a ruler of the Jews, whereby mostly repeating previous remarks about Hyrcanus. Hyrcanus’ reasonableness (ἐπιεικής) is also highlighted in 14.13; 15.165, 177 (ἐπιείκεια; see 15.165 with the note to “because of his reasonable character”). The combination of ἐπιεικής (“reasonableness”) and μετριότης (“moderation, modesty”—related to the adjective μέτριος [“moderate”], Rengstorf s.v.) is obvious since both virtues are closely related (see Ant. 15.165 with the note to “because of his reasonable character,” and for similar combinations, 6.263; Lucian, Rhet. praec. 15). This remark links up with the previous statement about Antipater taking care of most matters of state during Hyrcanus’ rule (Ant. 15.177). The substantive διοικηταῖς (“administrators”) echoes διοίκησιν (“administration”) of 15.177. The word πολυπράγμων (“being busy about many things,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. It repeats πολυπραγμονέω (“be busy with state affairs,” probably with a negative connotation) of Ant. 15.165, which also refers to Hyrcanus. Cf. 14.13 referring to Hyrcanus’ lack of political ambition (τὸ ἄπραγμον). This repeats in different words the previous remark about leaving the matters of state to administrators (see also War 1.109; Ant. 14.13, 165; 15.15 with the note to “He was content with these things”). The remark is very similar to the accusation of prominent Jews before Hyrcanus that Antipater and his sons were usurping Hyrcanus’ royal power (Ant. 14.165). About Antipater, see 15.177 with the note to “Antipater.” The phrase repeats ἐπιεικής (“reasonable”) at the beginning of the sentence. This remark about Hyrcanus’ unworthy death connects with the final point of the previous paragraph, which also focuses upon Hyrcanus’ death. The repetition of the vocabulary (especially the repetition of τέλος [“end, death”] in Ant. 15.181-182; cf. 15.168, 177, 179) adds emphasis, such that Josephus’ criticism of Herod cannot be missed.The pair (neither) just—(nor) pious (οὔτε δίκαιον οὔτ’ εὐσεβές) occurs several times in books 7 and 8 of Antiquities, mostly in references to Solomon’s rule (7.338, 341, 356, 374, 384; Mason 1991: 85-89, 132-55). It implies just rule towards the citizens and a pious attitude towards God (explicitly so in 7.384). By way of contrast Josephus uses the same pair in 8.300 in the negative assessment of King Baasha’s rule. In the perspective of these passages Ant. 15.182 implies that Herod did not act as a good ruler by executing the old Hyrcanus. The combination of piety and justice frequently occurs in ancient Greek literature (e.g., Diodorus [4.18.3; 6.8.1] refers to persons who distinguish themselves by these 2 virtues). At the same time the pair also echoes the vocabulary of just war (bellum iustum; see Ant. 8.280 and 15.135 with the note to “justified”). The expression may, therefore, also be interpreted from a Roman perspective; Josephus’ phrase can easily be translated into Latin (nec iustum nec pium). The implication would again be that Herod did not act as a sensible ruler should do.The adjective pius (equivalent to εὐσεβής [“pious”]) and its corresponding virtue pietas express the proper attitude (“duty, devotion”) towards relatives, gods (and deceased parents), and the state. One of Cicero’s various definitions of pietas is “love justice and duty (iustitiam cole et pietatem), which are indeed strictly due to parents and kinsmen, but most of all to the fatherland” (Re publ. 6.16, trans. Keyes; the combination of iustitia and pietas also occurs on Augustus’ shield of honor put up in the Curia Julia (about pietas, see Wagenvoort 1980: 1-20; about Augustus’ shield of honor, Kienast 1999: 95-98). The adjective pius was also an epithet of several emperors (LSJ s.v. εὐσεβής I.2). Schwartz (1994: 220) notes that in Josephus’ estimation the fate of Hyrcanus was unjust and unfair but nevertheless what reasonable people would have expected given Hyrcanus’ incapability to rule.

This sub-clause is part of the introduction to the narrative about Herod’s journey to Octavian (Ant. 15.183-198), which had been interrupted by the section about the end of Hyrcanus (see 15.161-163 and 15.164-182). The beginning and end of the digression about Hyrcanus are marked by the words ἐμποδών (“hindrance,” 15.164) and ἐκποδών (“out of the way,” 15.183). About the combination ἐκποδὼν ποιεῖσθαι plus a personal object (“get someone out of the way”), see 15.20 with the note to “get him out of the way.” The repetition in 15.183 recalls Josephus’ remark in 15.20 that Herod aimed at trying to get Hyrcanus out of the way and succeeded in doing so. This information links up with the stage of the narrative in Ant. 15.161, concerning the consequences of Octavian’s victory at Actium in 31 BCE (cf. War 1.386-387). The phrase ἐκ τῆς γενομένης αὐτῷ πρὸς ’Αντώνιον φιλίας partly repeats τοσαύτης αὐτῷ φιλίας πρὸς ’Αντώνιον γεγενημένης in Ant. 15.162 (see the note to “because of his close friendship with Antony”). The motif also occurs in War 1.386 (“because of his friendship with Antony”) but with different Greek words. Josephus already reports in Ant. 15.42 (see the note to “he truly did not remain without suspicion”) that Herod held his mother-in-law under suspicion. The phrase ὕποπτον ἔχω (“hold [someone] under suspicion”) also occurs in Philo, Prov. 2.26; Josephus, Ant. 7.213; Eusebius, Praep. ev. 8.14.26. The phrase τῷ καιρῷ συνεπιθεμένη (“taking advantage of the situation”) in connection with rebellion has a close parallel in Diodorus 20.33.7; cf. 14.40.3; 20.104.3. On τὸ πλῆθος having a depreciatory meaning (“mob, throng, rabble”), see Ant. 15.2 with the note to “the city’s population.” For the association of the mob with rebellion, see already 8.223 (τῆς τοῦ πλήθους ἀποστάσεως γεγενημένης; cf. 15.183 τὸ τε πλῆθος ἀποστήσῃ καὶ στασιάσῃ τὰ περὶ τὴν βασιλείαν πράγματα) about the rebellion of the Israelites against King Rehoboam (1 Kgs 12:18-19), and 15.292. On Alexandra’s attempts to start a rebellion and cause the return of the Hasmonean rule, see Ant. 15.166 with notes. In the light of the preceding narrative it is surprising that Alexandra was not executed with Hyrcanus; she was the instigator according to the first version of the report about Hyrcanus’ death (see 15.166).

Herod’s parents, Antipater and Cyprus, had 5 children: 4 sons (Herod, Phasael, Pheroras, and Joseph) and 1 daughter (War 1.181; Ant. 14.121). Pheroras was the youngest son. He was born in ca. 65 BCE. Scholars differ about the date of his death (Kokkinos [1998: 171-72 with n. 84 and 210] argues for 7 BCE; Schürer-Vermes [1.294] for 5 BCE; and Mahieu [2012: 269] for “after 5 February 2 BC”). For references concerning Pheroras in Josephus, see Schalit 1968: 123, and for a survey of Pheroras’ life, Kokkinos 1998: 164-75, 186-89, 210-13. Pheroras acted as caretaker of the kingdom, as Joseph had done during Herod’s journey to Antony (Ant. 15.65). Herod’s mother’s family was part of the Nabatean aristocracy and probably related to the Nabatean/Arabian royal house (War 1.181; Ant. 14.121; Kokkinos 1998: 95-96; Retsö 2003: 374). The words γενεά plus πᾶσα/ἅπασα can indicate the entire family (War 2.38, 476; Ant. 2.173; 6.255; 7.328; 8.309), but they sometimes particularly refer to its descendants, i.e., Herod’s children (cf. War 1.473; Rengstorf s.v. γενεά). In War 7.285 Josephus reports that the Hasmonean ruler Jonathan (161-142 BCE) made a fortress out of the inaccessible hill on the western shore of the Dead Sea and called it Masada. Schalit (2001: 343-44) and Möller and Schmitt (1976: 135) argue that Alexander Janneus (103-76 BCE) built Masada. Herod fortified the place and built a palace (War 7.286-294; he actually built 2 palaces at Masada). During the war against the Parthians he used Masada as a safe haven for his family (Ant. 14.358, 361, 390, 396-397, 400, 413).Large-scale excavations have been undertaken at Masada, which has been a Unesco World Heritage site since 2001 (further references in Möller and Schmitt 1976: 134-35; Tsafrir, Di Segni, and Green 1994: 180; Schalit 2001: 343-56; Netzer 2006: 17-41).The variant readings Μεσάδοις (MSS FAW) and Μεσσάδοις (MS M; Niese 265) are probably simply variant spellings (a exchanged for e). There is a slight possibility that they derive from the identification with another place, called Mesada, which is located ca. 40 km east of the northern tip of the Dead Sea (if the identification with Qasr el-Mushetta, where an Umayyad castle is located, is correct; Sauvaget 1939: 31-35). Cf. Ant. 15.65, 68, about Joseph as caretaker during Herod’s trip to Antony. I.e., Pheroras. Josephus’ phrase is rather general. Herod takes important steps that clearly reckon with the worst case scenario, i.e., that he would be arrested or even executed by Octavian (see Ant. 15.184, 186). About Masada as a refuge for Herod’s family, see 15.184 with the note to “Masada.” Herod’s measures for the period that he would be away on his trip to Octavian (15.184-186) are absent in the parallel narrative of War (cf. 1.386-387). There is a close analogy with the secret instructions to Joseph to kill Mariamme in case Herod would not return from his journey to Antony (Ant. 15.65).

For Mariamme, see Ant. 15.23 with the notes to “Mariamme, who was living in wedlock with Herod” and “strikingly beautiful.” Mother and daughter side with each other several times in Antiquities. In 15.31 Mariamme persuades Herod to support the case of her mother and to appoint her brother Aristobulus III High Priest. In 15.68-70 both women operate together in finding out Herod’s secret instructions to Joseph (see also 15.202-203 and the next note). Alexandrium (’Αλεξανδρείον) was a Hasmonean fortress (War 1.134; Ant. 13.417; 14.49; etc.) expanded by Pheroras (War 1.308; Ant. 14.419). It was located in the mountains of Acrabetene (East Samaria), overlooking the Jordan Valley, about 35 km north of the Dead Sea. The Arabic name of the location is Qarn Sartaba. Remains of a peristyle court from the Herodian period suggest that the fortress was a palace in Herod’s days (Möller and Schmitt 1976: 12; Tsafrir, Di Segni, and Green 1994: 60-61; Netzer 2006: 204-06). This is one of Josephus’ hints at competing women factions in Herod’s court (see also Ant. 15.35 with the note to “the friends called to their help” and 15.239 with the note to “hostile towards her”). The passage may anticipate 15.213, where Salome and Cyprus—Herod’s sister and mother—are spreading slanders about Mariamme. Salome’s accusation of adultery brings about Mariamme’s execution (15.223-231). Earlier in the narrative Salome accuses her husband Joseph of adultery with Mariamme, in retaliation for the latter’s hostile attitude and her reproaching of Salome’s low birth (15.81). The phrase ἐν διαφορᾷ τῇ (“considering her hostile attitude”) may echo κατὰ τὰς διαφοράς (“in their hostilities,” 15.81), which also refers to Mariamme and Salome. Otto (1913: 50) suggests that Herod already distrusted Mariamme at this stage and that this was an additional reason to separate her from her sons. Schalit (2001: 133-35) also emphasizes that Herod had additional motives for separating his wife and mother-in-law from the rest of the family. This seems plausible, especially since the secret instructions concerned both Mariamme and Alexandra. Herod must have been keen on minimizing the chances for the Hasmonean house to regain the throne. The Greek sentence has a sandwich structure with an embedded parenthesis starting with δυνατὸν γὰρ οὐκ ἦν (“for it was impossible”). The parenthesis explains the reason, formulated in the main clause, for Herod’s measures concerning the women. The translation follows the reading ταμίαν (“administrator, steward”) found in MSS LAMW and read by Marcus-Wikgren (88; see also Rengstorf s.v. ταμίας). The MSS attest to various related readings. Niese (365) reads ταμιαίαν with MSS PV and suggests that Joseph’s surname or father’s name lies hidden behind this Greek word (see also Schalit 1968: 68, 118, and 2001: 135, who builds on Niese’s suggestion and considers ταμιαίαν to be a corruption of Γαλιλαῖον [“the Galilean”], which could easily have happened in uncial manuscripts, cf. ΤΑΜΙΑΙΑΝ with ΓΑΛΙΛΑΙΟΝ). Otto (1913: 50) takes ταμιαίαν to be a case of dittography and considers ταμίαν to be the original reading. I did not find other occurrences of ταμιαίαν, which supports the view that this word is a corruption. The reading ταμίαν makes sense and is also attested elsewhere in Josephus (Ant. 2.120, 124; cf. War 1.627; 2.135; Ant. 14.198, 219, 221). Ant. 2.120, 124 refer to the steward of the biblical Joseph. This Joseph is not mentioned elsewhere in Josephus. He is perhaps identical with the Joseph mentioned in Ant. 15.65, who is fulfilling a similar role. It is striking that Joseph does not appear later on together with Soemus (see, e.g., 15.205, 228). Otto (1913: 50) explains Joseph’s disappearance by the assumption that, in contrast to Soemus, he did not betray Herod and that there was nothing more to tell about him. “Iturean” (’Ιτουραῖος) is the name of an ethnic group mainly living in the mountainous region of Lebanon (Lebanon, Anti-Lebanon, and perhaps the slopes of Mount Hermon), as Strabo (16.2.10, 18-20) suggests. The kings of Chalcis (see Ant. 15.92) were supposed to control the robbers operating from these areas. The name Iturean is often associated with the Biblical name Jetur, who is one of Ishmael’s sons (Gen 25:15; 1 Chron 5:19). The Hasmonean king Aristobulus I campaigned against the Itureans and conquered part of their territory (Ant. 13.318-319). The Itureans were known as good soldiers; Antony had a bodyguard of Itureans (Cicero, Phil. 2.19, 112; 13.18). Further discussion in Schürer-Vermes 1.561-65; Millar 1993b: 35-36, 273-74, 310-11, 506; Aliquot 1999-2003; Myers 2010). Soemus is also mentioned in Ant. 15.204-205, 216, 227-229 in connection with his task to take care of Mariamme. He was apparently the army officer responsible for guarding the fortress (Ant. 15.204; Kasher 1988: 151, who suggests that Soemus belonged to the military unit recruited by Herod on Mount Lebanon [War 1.329; Ant. 14.352]). Kokkinos (1998: 114) claims that Soemus was a son of King Ptolemy of Chalcis and the Hasmonean princess Alexandra III, but this is not supported by the sources. Richards and Shutt (1939: 173) suggest ἐπ’ αὐταῖς instead of ἐπ’ αὐτῶν (“[in charge] of them,” i.e., the women). The MS tradition is divided: MSS LV and the editio princeps have a singular form of the personal pronoun (“him” or “it,” probably the fortress; Niese 365). Two similar phrases about Soemus’ loyalty (Ant. 15.205, 228) will follow in the narrative leading up to Mariamme’s death. The slight variations among these phrases enhance the readers’ suspense: in 15.185 Josephus writes that Joseph and Soemus were Herod’s most faithful men from the beginning on (πιστοτάτους ἐξ ἀρχῆς); in 15.205 he states that Soemus was trustworthy at the beginning (κατὰ τὰς ἀρχὰς πιστός); and in 15.228, looking back, that he was “at all other times most faithful (πιστότατος) to him and the monarchy” (cf. War 1.441 about Joseph being faithful to Herod [πιστὸς ἦν] and favorably disposed because of his marriage to Herod’s sister Salome, and Ant. 16.180, 255 about faithful friends of Herod). Herod needed his most trustworthy men for the delicate task of guarding Mariamme and her mother. The phrase probably means that Joseph and Soemus were supposed to stay with the women because of their royal status (see Ant. 15.23), which may have been true in a certain way (see below). Günther (2005: 113) argues that the stay at Alexandrium was meant as a punishment for Mariamme and Alexandra. However, in the next paragraph Josephus reveals another reason for guarding the women.Herod’s motivation for their separation from the rest of the family may have been more complex than the hostilities between the factions of the women mentioned in 15.185. Though Herod’s jealousy concerning Mariamme is not mentioned here (cf. 15.66), one can easily imagine it was an important motive in this situation as well (as Schalit [2001: 133-34] does). Moreover, the continuation in 15.186 suggests that Herod was also very much concerned about securing the kingdom for his sons, which implies that he saw himself as the founder of a royal dynasty. Mariamme and Alexandra were a threat to this (cf. 15.166, 183) because they opted for a return of the Hasmonean rule. They therefore had to be killed immediately after his death (Otto 1913: 50-51; Schalit 2001: 133-35). Otto also notes that Mariamme’s separation from her children demonstrates Herod’s distrust.

The parallel narrative of War (1.441) reports that Joseph received similar secret instructions (κρύφα ἐντολάς) from Herod (see also Ant. 15.65, 69 on Salome’s husband Joseph). The verb μεταχειρίζομαι can mean “do away with, kill” (LSJ s.v. 5b). The variant reading διαχειρίσασθαι of E has the same meaning. Both verbs are occurring several times in Josephus (Rengstorf s.v. διαχειρίζω and μεταχειρίζομαι). The phrase repeats Ant. 15.184: “… if he would hear anything bad …” (repetition of τι … δυσχερές; see the note to “hear anything bad had happened to him”). This phrase clearly indicates that Herod reckoned with his execution by Octavian. The combination of διατηρέω (“preserve, secure”) and τὴν βασιλείαν (“the throne”) also occurs in Ant. 10.223; Apion 1.138; cf. Plutarch, Mor. (Apoph. lac.) 216e. Pheroras was instructed to be Herod’s caretaker during the king’s absence (Ant. 15.184). Kokkinos (1998: 165-66) connects War 1.483-484 about Pheroras’ position (e.g., sharing all royal honors with Herod except the diadem, having a personal income of 100 talents, and marrying the sister of Herod’s wife Mariamme; cf. Ant. 15.362) with Herod’s trip to Octavian and argues that Pheroras’ position became much more prominent from this period onward.

With this transitional phrase Josephus returns to the main point in the section, i.e., Herod’s trip to Octavian (Ant. 15.161, 183, 187-193). When he was on his way to Rome in 40 BCE Herod had been forced to go ashore at Rhodes owing to a heavy storm (War 1.280; Ant. 14.377) and had assisted in its restoration projects (Ant. 14.378, following Rhodes’ brutal punishment by Cassius in 42 BCE). Josephus uses exactly the same phrase ἠπείγετο συντυχεῖν plus dative (“he hastened to meet”) in Ant. 16.16, concerning Herod’s journey to Marcus Agrippa. The parallel narrative of War (1.387) also states that Octavian was staying at Rhodes at that time. Octavian spent the winter of 31/30 BCE at Samos but had to return to Rome in order to stamp out a rebellion of his veterans. Thereafter he went to Greece in the spring of 30 BCE and travelled to Asia Minor, via Rhodes, in order to prepare for his campaign against Egypt. Syria was the point of departure for the actual campaign (see Ant. 15.198). Herod met Octavian on his way to Egypt during the spring of 30 BCE (Kienast 1999: 71-72; Mahieu 2012: 94 n. 11). Josephus does not specify the location. It must have been Lindus, Rhodes’ most important city. Lindus had a natural harbor (Hiller von Gaertringen 1931: 746). For a description of Rhodes in the 2nd and 1st cent. BCE, see Strabo 14.2.10-12. This matches the parallel account of War (1.387), which shares the noun διάδημα (“diadem”) with Ant. 15.187. The diadem reflected Herod’s status as king. This aspect is apparent from 20.244: Pompey confirmed Hyrcanus II’s status as ruler of the Jews but did not allow him to wear a diadem. Herod’s gesture made clear that it was Octavian’s authority to decide whether or not to confirm Herod in his rule as King of Judea (cf. 17.202 concerning Archelaus, who refrained from accepting the title king and the diadem from the army because his rule had not yet been confirmed by Octavian). The verb ὑφίημι (“lay aside, let go,” Rengstorf s.v.) also occurs in Ant. 5.171; 15.287. This detail differs from War, which states that Herod approached Octavian “in the attire and appearance of an ordinary person” (1.387, trans. BJP 1a). The phrase κοινωνέω λόγου (literally “take part in a discussion”) means “converse with someone” here (Rengstorf s.v. κοινωνέω). The vocabulary that is additional to that of the parallel report of War (1.387) is repetitive. The noun συντυχίαν (“meeting”) repeats συντυχεῖν (“meet”) a few lines earlier; the aorist ἠξιώθη (“permitted, considered worthy”) repeats ἀξιώματος (“dignity, sign of rank”). The parallel report of War (1.387) states more briefly that Herod approached Octavian “with the high-mindedness of a king (τὸ δὲ φρόνημα βασιλεύς)” (trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a). In Antiquities Josephus embellishes the description of Herod’s attitude before Octavian by enhancing the degree in which Herod holds on to his self-awareness and pride. The substantive μεγαλεῖον (“greatness,” Rengstorf s.v.) also occurs in Ant. 8.49; Apion 2.157.

The composition of the first part of this paragraph (which is not found in War) is highly rhetorical because of the similarities in the structure of the sentence (οὔτε … ὡς—οὔτε … ὡς) and alliteration (with k, s, t, and p as the recurring consonant sounds).The readings ἱκεσίας (MSS FVE and the excerpts) and ἱκετείας (MSS LAMW) have the same meaning: “supplications” (Rengstorf s.v. ἱκεσία and ἱκετεία). The combination of τρέπω (“turn”) and εἰς ἱκεσίας/ ἱκετείας/ ἱκεσίαν/ ἱκετείαν occurs frequently (2 Macc 12:42; Posidonius 102a.15; Diodorus 33.5.3; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 3.54; 8.17; Josephus, Ant. 5.256; Cassius Dio 238). In Diodorus 33.5.3 and Dionysius, Ant. rom. 4.52; 6.77; 11.40 a more elaborate formula is found, which is close to Josephus’ phrase here: εἰς ἱκεσίας καὶ δεήσεις τρέπεσθαι (“turn to supplications and petitions”). The phrase δέησιν προτείνω means “bring a request” here (Rengstorf s.v. προτείνω; cf. John Chrysostom, Hom. Isa. 6:1 1.2.32 [ed. Dumortier 52]). Supplications is what one would expect in this delicate situation (cf. Haman’s supplications to Queen Esther in order to pardon his offences, Ant. 11.265). Josephus perhaps already anticipates the positive outcome for Herod. The parallel report of War (1.387) simply states: “Then, without concealing the truth, he spoke openly” (trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a). Herod first gives a survey of his acts as Antony’s loyal friend (Ant. 15.189-192; cf. War 1.388-390) and then moves on to his possible position under Octavian (Ant. 15.193; cf. War 1.390).The rare adverb ἀνυποτιμήτως also occurs in Ant. 16.27 (cf. -τος in 15.265; 16.402). Its meaning is uncertain: LSJ (s.v. ἀνυποτίμητος) gives “that cannot adequately be punished”; Rengstorf (s.v.) gives “without fear of punishment, unpunished, exempt from punishment, without excuse” as possible meanings. Cocceius conjectures ἀνεπιτιμήτως (“not to be censured, unpunished,” Niese 365), which word does not occur elsewhere in Josephus. The Latin version reads sine dubitatione, which is the equivalent of ἀνυποστόλως (“fearlessly”) according to Richards and Shutt (1939: 173; Rengstorf [s.v.] proposes “undisguised, openly”). This adverb also occurs in Ant. 16.69. Both conjectures are unnecessary because the MS tradition is largely univocal and ἀνυποτιμήτως is also attested elsewhere in Josephus (see above). The text makes sense if the meaning given by LSJ is correct.

The parallel report of War (1.388-390) offers Herod’s words to Octavian in direct speech. Antiquities starts with indirect speech (15.189-191) and switches to direct speech when Herod mentions Cleopatra (15.192-193). The switch puts emphasis on the last part of Herod’s speech, focusing on Antony and Cleopatra. The phrase repeats Ant. 15.162 (see the note to “because of his close friendship with Antony”) and 15.183. In the parallel account of War Herod discusses the motif of friendship in 1.390. For φιλία (“friendship”), see also Ant. 15.193, and for φίλος (“friend”), 15.190. The phrase κατὰ (τὴν) δύναμιν (“according to one’s ability”) is a common expression in Josephus (Ant. 3.102, 108, 206; 15.45, 422). It echoes κατὰ τὸ δυνατόν (“as much as possible”) in the parallel passage of War (1.388). The phrase τὰ πράγματα can mean “power, government, administration, etc.” (see Ant. 15.32 with the note to “the government”). Here it concerns the Commonwealth (res publica), i.e., the rule of the Roman Republic (as in 15.109, which passage refers to the Battle of Actium as a contest over the Roman government). Herod had been a very loyal supporter of his patron Antony (see 15.5 with the note to “Antony”), but he did not participate in the battle, as Herod subsequently explains. In War 1.388 Herod states that he had devoted himself to Antony in everything because Antony had made him King of Judea (War 1.281-285; Ant. 14.379-389). Instead of στρατεία (“campaign”) Josephus uses the closely related noun στρατία (“army”) in the parallel report of War (1.389), which is more specific: “I promised him [i.e., Antony], once he killed her [i.e., Cleopatra; see Ant. 15.191], money, walls for his safety, an army (στρατιὰν), and myself as an ally in war against you” (trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a). The phrase (τῆς) στρατείας κοινωνέω (“participate in the campaign”) also occurs in Dionysius, Ant. rom. 6.29.1; Plutarch, Dion 22.4; Athenaeus 5.55; cf. Diodorus 32.15.7. War 1.389 uses the similar noun κοινωνός: he promised himself as “an ally in war against you (κοινωνὸν τοῦ πρὸς σὲ πολέμου).” The motif of Herod’s alliance is already taken up in 1.388. The parallel account of War (1.388) reports the same in different words. The “diversions” of the Nabateans are narrated in Ant. 15.108-110 (see the notes to these paragraphs and Kasher 1988: 137). The noun περιολκή can mean “diversion” in a context of war (LSJ s.v. II; Rengstorf [s.v.] gives “prevention, hindrance” as meanings). It is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. The parallel report of War (1.388) mentions countless supplies of grain (σίτου πολλὰς μυριάδας) as well as military aid (συμμαχία). The grain probably derived from the direct tax on agricultural produce (Udoh 2005: 162).

In the parallel account of War Josephus emphasizes the open-handedness of Herod’s benefaction (see the preceding note), but in Antiquities he relativizes it and thus introduces the motif of friendship, discussed in the next sentences. The participle ὁμολογοῦντα (“agreeing”) recalls ὁμολογῶ (“I admit”) in the parallel account of War (1.388), but the meaning is different. The noun εὐεργέτης (“benefactor”) is also used in War 1.388 in a reference to Antony (see Ant. 15.5 and 15.19 with the notes to “a gift to Antony” and “a considerable number of gifts,” and 15.193, in which passage Herod returns to this motif). The verb συγκινδυνεύω (literally “share someone’s danger with him”) also occurs in War 3.69; 5.283, 419 (Rengstorf s.v.; cf. Aristotle, Rhet. 1368b; Isocrates, Hel. enc. 20; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 6.76.1; 10.16.3). The verb is related to the theme of friendship found in Epictetus, Ench. 32.3 (and Simplicius, Comm. Epict. [ed. Dübner 110-11]). The crux of a sound friendship in ancient Greek society was the principle of reciprocity (Blundell 1989: 28-31). One had to support one’s friends as much as one could, especially in times of trouble (e.g., Euripides, Orest. 727-728; Plato, Crit. 44b-45a). Loyalty and faithfulness were important values in friendship ethics (e.g., Theognis 416, 529-530, 811-813, 1151-1152; Blundell 1989: 34-38; Konstan 1997: 56-59). These values remain relevant in the Hellenistic and Early Roman periods for political friends of a ruler (Treu 1972; Gehrke and von Reibnitz 1998). The noun περιουσία (“surplus, wealth”) is here added to the common combination of σῶμα (“body”) and ψυχή (“soul, life”; see Ant. 15.158 with the note to “afflicted in body and soul”). The phrase ἔλαττον ἢ καλῶς εἶχεν ἀναστραφείς (“his behavior was less than noble”) suggests that Herod’s performance did not match the standard of friendship; the norm would have been expressed by phrases with ἀναστρέφω (“act”) or ἀναστροφή (“behavior, way of life”) plus καλῶς (“nobly”) and related words (e.g., 2 Macc 6:23; Heb 13:18; Jas 3:13; Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 3.11.75; 4.7.46). The statement prepares Octavian for an exceptional example of noble behavior towards friends or patrons (see the next note). Niese (366) does not provide punctuation for the second half of the sentence and suggests that the relative pronoun ὧν is corrupt. The structure becomes clear if we assume that ἀλλ’ (“but”) interrupts the argumentation by moving over to a new perspective on the theme of Herod’s friendship with Antony. For a discussion of various types of ἀλλά as discursive interruption, see Basset 1997: 83-89. Plato offers an interesting parallel of ἀλλά with the verb σύνοιδα: Ion says to Socrates: “I cannot gainsay you on that, Socrates, but this I know about myself (ἀλλ’ ἐκεῖνο ἐμαυτῷ σύνοιδα): that I excel all humans in speaking on Homer …” (Ion 533c, trans. Lamb, adapted; my italics). The phrase καλῶς ποιέω (“act nobly, etc.”) is very common (e.g., Thucydides 8.37; Plutarch, Ages. 9.4; Phoc. 27.2; Luke 6:27). This is ironic since abandoning Antony is exactly what Herod does during the meeting with Octavian; Antony was still alive (see the next note).The verb καταλείπω (“abandon”) is also used in the parallel account of War (1.388). Herod argues that remaining faithful to a patron whose situation was desperate was a noble act. In War 1.388 Herod makes a similar claim (cf. also Josephus’ suggestion in 1.386 that Octavian did not consider Antony to be definitively defeated as long as Herod remained loyal to him). Antony’s situation after Actium was hopeless. He had to withdraw to Egypt. Octavian came after him from the East, while Cornelius Gallus, Octavian’s future commander of Africa, approached him from the West. Antony attempted to fight a final battle before the gates of Alexandria on 1 August 30 BCE, but his fleet and cavalry deserted. He committed suicide and died in Cleopatra’s arms (Plutarch, Ant. 74-77; Cassius Dio 51.10; Hölbl 1994: 223-24; Kienast 1999: 71-72). Here Josephus perhaps hints at Cleopatra’s treacherous behavior during the Battle of Actium (cf. Apion 2.59) or at her attempt to switch camps upon the defeat (cf. Cassius Dio 51.8.6-7; 51.9.5; 51.10.6-9; van Henten 2005a: 130-31). If so, Herod’s loyalty to Antony after Actium would stand out even more, though it is plausible that Herod switched camps soon after Antony’s defeat (see Ant. 15.195 with the note to “every kind of willingness”).

The verb συμμεταβαίνω (“pass over together,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. The verb is partly repeated a few words later by the participle μεταβαινούσης (“passing over”). Cf. the parallel report of War (1.390), in which Herod places his hope of safety on his renowned loyalty as a friend. The statement suggests that Herod was fully aware that Antony’s situation was hopeless after Actium (see Ant. 15.190 with the note to “defeated in the Battle of Actium”), which makes his enduring loyalty to his patron impressive. Concerning the combination μεταβαίνω plus τύχη (“fortune passes over”), cf. War 2.360. For τύχη, see Ant. 15.17 with the note to “fortune.” In War 1.390 Herod states in plain words that God granted Octavian victory and also: “I am defeated together with Antony and, in conjunction with his fortune (μετὰ τῆς ἐκείνου τύχης), I lay down my diadem” (trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a). The noun συναγωνιστής (“fellow-fighter”) occurs once elsewhere in Josephus, likewise in the Herod narrative of Antiquities (16.22; Rengstorf s.v.). The translation follows the reading δεξιώτατον (“most competent),” supported by MSS PFV and E and followed by Niese (366). The alternative reading ἀξιώτατον (“most worthy”) may have resulted from a scribal adaptation triggered by the previous word ἀξιόχρεων (“outstanding”). The combination of συναγωνιστής (“fellow-fighter”) and σύμβουλος (“adviser”) is conventional (see Isocrates, Ep. 8.7; Philo, Somn. 1.111-112; Josephus, Ant. 16.22 [about Herod towards Marcus Agrippa]; Cassius Dio 42.13.2; Hippolytus, Haer. 9.7.2). In War 1.389 Herod expresses the same thought in different words, while σύμβουλος (“adviser”) also occurs. The conjecture κἄν of Niese (366), indicating the possible—but not realized—consequences of the condition, is unnecessary. The double καί (followed by the infinitives), attested by the MSS, adds emphasis (“not only … but also”). The phrase partly repeats Ant. 15.189, in which passage Herod suggests that Antony would have gained the rule over the Romans with Herod’s help (“so that the Commonwealth would fall to him”; cf. τὰ πράγματα in 15.189 with τῶν πραγμάτων in 15.191). Cleverly Herod puts the blame on Cleopatra, which matches a trend in Roman sources about Antony and Cleopatra, clearly blackening Cleopatra (e.g., Velleius Paterculus 2.85.6; Lucan 10.358-360, 369-370, 374-375; Pliny the Elder 9.119; Becher 1966: 32, 63-68, 75-77, 108-10, 182-83; Zanker 1988: 58-60). Antony was never declared an enemy of state by the Romans (Kasher 1988: 135). In the parallel report of War (1.389) Herod also states that he had advised Antony to kill Cleopatra: “I told him that the death of Cleopatra was the only remedy (μίαν … διόρθωσιν) for his misfortunes” (trans. BJP 1a; the word μίαν is shared with Ant. 15.191).Otto (1913: 47) argues that Herod’s speech derives from his memoirs and that the king probably made a statement about his advice to kill Cleopatra as an attempt to show his loyalty to the Roman people. However, Josephus usually crafts speeches (see Ant. 15.126 with the note to “a speech”), which may imply that this point—like most other information in speeches—flowed out of his own pen. This interpretation is supported by the observation that Herod’s blaming of Cleopatra links up with Josephus’ suggestion that Antony’s deeds resulted out of his love for Cleopatra (War 1.243), whereas this was only partly true. An additional reason for doubting the historicity of this point is that it matches the very negative assessment of Cleopatra in Roman sources, which obviously date from after Herod’s meeting with Octavian (see also Ant. 15.96-103 about Cleopatra’s visit to Herod and Herod’s rejected plan to murder her, which report perhaps anticipates Herod’s reference to his advice to kill Cleopatra). Schalit (2001: 127-29) argues that the detail may be historical since it would demonstrate that serving the interests of Rome was Herod’s most important goal, already when being Antony’s client. Schalit further thinks that Herod had not given this advice to Antony and that Octavian most probably did not believe him.

At this point Josephus switches to direct speech, which highlights the crucial role of Cleopatra in Antony’s ruin (see the preceding note). The verb προαναιρέω (“put out of the way,” Rengstorf s.v.) occurs 3 times elswhere in Josephus, and only in Antiquities: 14.344; 15.89 (with Cleopatra as subject); 20.149. The verb ὕπειμι (“be possible,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus (but cf. the variant reading in Ant. 14.81). This is the third time in his speech that Herod refers to the possibility that Antony would have been able to retain his power or even to become the sole ruler of Rome (see the repetitions of phrases with πράγματα [“government, rule, power”] in Ant. 15.189, 191-192). The implicit point at the background of this statement is probably that Antony would have acted much more sensibly had he not been under the bad influence of Cleopatra, who was apparently able to manipulate him because of his love for her (War 1.243, 359; Ant. 14.324; 15.88, 93, 101). The motif is explicit in the parallel report of War (1.389-390): “… his passionate love for Cleopatra … stopped up his ears” (trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a). The parallelism consisting of 2 adverbial phrases followed by a personal pronoun in the dative, emphasizing the contrast between Antony and Octavian, adds to Herod’s rhetoric. Both adverbs stand out in Josephus’ vocabulary: ἀλυσιτελῶς (“unprofitably,” Rengstorf s.v. ἀλυσιτελῆς) occurs once elsewhere (Ant. 16.224, as an adjective), and συμφερόντως (“fortunately,” Rengstorf s.v.: “for the benefit of”) is a hapax legomenon. The verb προτιμάω (here “prefer,” Rengstorf s.v.) also occurs in Ant. 15.209. The noun ἀβουλία (literally “ill-advisedness”; cf. Ant. 2.163; 13.173; 17.108) may be a double entendre, stating that Antony refused to follow Herod’s counsel and hinting at Cleopatra’s wicked advice for him, either in general or during the Battle of Actium. In Apion 2.59 Josephus emphasizes that Cleopatra deserted Antony during the battle (van Henten 2005a: 131; see also War 1.390).

This passage introduces a turn in Herod’s speech by focusing on the king’s future under the new regime of Octavian. Herod cleverly first formulates Octavian’s presumptive response to his speech in order to prepare for 2 related points that may change Octavian’s mind: 1) Herod’s frankness about his loyalty to Antony, and 2) the recall of the motif of friendship by way of analogy, which turns his friendship with Antony into a powerful argument that he could also be a most loyal friend to Octavian. Octavian’s anger is mentioned in War 1.393, in connection with Antony’s friend Alexas (see Ant. 15.197). Herod thus kills 2 birds with 1 stone: he demonstrates his frankness and his pride about his loyalty to Antony, and he offers a new perspective by focusing upon the deeds from which Antony had benefited so much (cf. the repetition of πράσσω in Ant. 15.188-189, 193: τῶν πεπραγμένων, πρᾶξαι, and τῶν πεπραγμένων). The verb ἀπαξιόω (“be ashamed,” Rengstorf s.v.) occurs once elsewhere in Josephus (Ant. 18.47). Here the substantive εὔνοια expresses the loyalty of a client to his patron and vice versa (see its repetition in Ant. 15.194, concerning Octavian’s attitude towards Herod). Herod refers to the close friendship between him and Antony (see 15.78 and 15.189 with the note to “extraordinary friendship with Antony”). The noun also implies goodwill towards each other as well as mutual benefactions, gifts, and favors (Shaw 1993: 185-89). Rengstorf (s.v. πρόσωπον) gives “disregard the person (i.e., to look at the matter itself)” as meaning for the rare phrase τὸ πρόσωπον ἀνελών (but adds a question mark). This may be correct, though the phrase can refer to Herod’s personal involvement, i.e., his relationship with Antony, as well as to Antony himself. The latter is more probable given Herod’s hint at a change of names later on in this paragraph. It is unlikely that the phrase refers to Herod since Herod’s argument builds exactly on the way he acts in the context of a friendship. This is the main point of Herod’s argument: his behavior as a friend of Antony (which includes his role as friendly king). The topic has been raised before in Herod’s impressive speech (see Ant. 15.189-190 with notes). The phrase ποῖος φίλος ἐξετάζοις (“examine … what kind of friend”) echoes the final statement in the War version of Herod’s speech (1.390): “… assuming that it will be asked (ἐξετασθήσεσθαι) not whose friend, but what kind of friend (ποταπὸς φίλος), I have been” (trans. BJP 1a). Herod invites Octavian to reflect upon Herod’s relationship with Antony by way of analogy. The survey of his acts as a friend of Antony (Ant. 15.189-192; cf. War 1.388-390) aims to show that Herod could be a very loyal and useful friend of Octavian as well. I.e., Octavian’s name instead of Antony’s. Phrases with φιλία (“friendship”) and βέβαιος/βεβαίως (“solid”) are common from Thucydides onward (e.g., 2.7.3; 3.10.1; Plato, Menex. 244a; Symp. 182c, 209c; Isocrates, Nic. 54; Diodorus 3.7.2; 13.32.5; 15.30.5; Plutarch, Mor. [Amic. mult.] 93c). The phrase τὸ βέβαιον plus genitive perhaps echoes Thucydides 2.89 (cf. Marcus-Wikgren 92 n. a). Here the argument on the basis of analogy (see above) becomes explicit (cf. also the continuation of the sentence: “no less distinguished”). Herod suggests that he will be as loyal to Octavian as he has been to Antony. At the same time his formulation remains careful, focusing only on his side of the relationship and leaving it to Octavian to decide whether or not such a new relationship should be established. The phrase ἐν ἡμῖν expresses Herod’s involvement (“in my hands, within my reach,” LSJ s.v. ἐν A I.6). The verb εὐδοκιμέω means “be distinguished” here (LSJ s.v. 1).

The word παράπαν (“altogether”) appears once elsewhere in Josephus (Apion 1.199). The combination of παράπαν and ἐμφαίνω (“show altogether”) also occurs in Philo, Conf. 69; Cassius Dio 12.43.25. The phrase summarizes well Herod’s attitude in his speech to Octavian. Rengstorf (s.v. ἐλευθέριος) suggests several meanings for τὸ ἐλευθέριον: “magnanimity, liberality, frankness” (with the latter being given as meaning here). Philo’s Every Good Man is Free offers a detailed discussion of the concept of freedom of spirit, an ideal of several Hellenistic philosophical schools. The Jewish Essenes exemplify it. It is also highlighted by non-Jews belonging to Hellenistic philosophical schools, e.g., the Cynic philosopher Diogenes of Sinope (Philo, Prob. 121-124, also 63, 113, 143; cf. Aristotle, Physiogn. 809b, 811a; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 6.38.2; 6.42.1). This is a free rendition of the litotes “not moderately,” which frequently occurs in Josephus (War 2.631; Ant. 15.276; 16.81, 230, 294; 20.83, 109; Life 313, 371; Apion 1.243; 2.8). The adjective φιλότιμος (literally “loving honor”) means “magnanimous” here according to Rengstorf (s.v.), though the word could also express Octavian’s admiration for Herod’s frank and noble performance and mean “loving distinction.” This interpretation matches Octavian’s statement in War 1.391 that he was envisioning “the most brilliant hopes (λαμπροτάτας ἐλπίδας ἔχω) in your [e.g., Herod’s] high-mindedness (τοῦ σοῦ φρονήματος)” (trans. BJP 1a). Rengstorf (s.v.) gives “generous” as meaning for λαμπρός, which adjective can also mean “brilliant” (cf. War 1.391; see above). Both φιλότιμος and λαμπρός appear together as adverbs in Ant. 9.59, 272. This appears to be rhetoric and may derive from Herod’s memoirs or from Josephus himself: there is no reference whatsoever to accusations against Herod in the preceding narrative. The passage implies that Herod’s analogy about friendship persuaded Octavian. The noun σύστασις (“beginning, basis,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus, but it does also occur in the summary of book 1 of Antiquities, in which case it refers to the beginning of the world (Sievers 2007: 281). Herod’s friendship with Antony could have led to a charge against him (see the preceding note) but leads instead to the opposite result: another friendship, this time with Octavian. About εὔνοια, see Ant. 15.193. Octavian probably considered the possible benefits on the basis of the king’s previous performance and realized that Herod was the best person to act as friendly king of the Romans in Judea (Baumann 1983: 194-95): Herod had been successful so far, and there was no alternative candidate to rule over Judea (Stern 1974b: 234-35). Octavian continued Antony’s policy of relying on client kingdoms in the East. Herod was not the only friendly king appointed by Antony who was maintained by Octavian: King Archelaus of Cappadocia, King Amyntas of Galatia, and King Polemon of Pontus also remained in office (Buchheim 1960: 56, 59).

I.e., Herod. The gesture links up with Ant. 15.187, which passage reports that Herod removed his diadem (see the note to “he removed the diadem” and cf. War 1.393). The parallel passage of War (1.391-392) gives Octavian’s response in direct speech. Interestingly, Octavian’s call applies the analogy between the friendship of Herod and Antony and the one of Herod and himself, on which Herod had been focusing (Ant. 15.189-193). The analogy is highlighted by a parallel structure with a repetition of περί as well as by alliteration (with p as the main consonant sound). The verb φαίνομαι means “appear/prove to be” here (Rengstorf s.v. φαίνω). In War 1.391 Octavian acknowledges that Herod was a defender of friendship. The phrase διὰ τιμῆς ἄγω (τινα) (“honor [someone]”) is a fixed expression (Aeschylus, Fragm. 9A 68 [ed. Mette 24]; Josephus, Ant. 5.185; 20.182; Life 273, 414; Appian, Bell. civ. 3.11.80; Lucian, Fug. 3.11; Prom. es 4; Aelian, Nat. an. 10.16; Synesius, Ep. 29 line 3 [ed. Hercher 652]; LSJ s.v. ἄγω V). Several names have been transmitted by the MSS. Niese (367) offers with MS P καταιδιος as reading (cf. MSS FV) but conjectures καὶ Δίδιος (“and Didius”). This matches Hudson’s earlier conjecture Κύιντος Δίδιος (“Quintus Didius”), based on a passage in Cassius Dio (51.7), which probably explains the background of Josephus’ information. MSS LAMW read Καπίδιος (“Capidius”), which does not make sense since there is no Roman official attested with that name. The readings of the MSS, as well as the name Ventidius given by the parallel passage of War (Βεντίδιος, 1.392), may all go back to the name Didius (note the similar ending -ιδιος of all the readings). Octavian appointed Quintus Didius governor of Syria briefly after the Battle of Actium. Didius helped Octavian with the final elimination of Antony: he persuaded the Nabateans to destroy the fleet of Antony and Cleopatra on the Red Sea, prevented a group of Antony’s gladiators from assisting Antony after Actium (Kasher 1988: 141-42), and helped them to settle at Daphne near Antioch (Cassius Dio 51.7). In War 1.392 the Greek MSS attest to the name Ventidius in connection with this message written to Octavian (see the previous note). The statement presupposes that Herod helped Quintus Didius in blocking the road to Antony’s gladiators, though Cassius Dio does not confirm this (51.7; Marcus-Wikgren 93 n. c). If the detail is reliable, it implies that Herod decided to switch camps before the journey to Rhodes. A passage in Plutarch (Ant. 71) suggests that Herod went over to Octavian soon after Actium. Kasher (1988: 134-48) argues that Herod was aiming at a change already before Actium (see Ant. 15.110 with the note to “if the one would suffer badly from the other”). War 1.392 is slightly more specific by referring to military assistance (συμμαχία) from Herod.

For phrases similar to ἀποδοχῆς ἠξιωμένος (“having been granted a reception”), see Diodorus 15.81.4; Diogenes Laertius 9.24. It echoes the parallel passage of War (1.391), in which Octavian says that Herod was “worthy of (ἄξιος … εἶ) ruling over many people” (trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a). The noun ἀποδόχη (“reception”) occurs in Josephus exclusively in Antiquities (6.347; 12.94; 18.274). The expression παρ’ ἐλπίδας (“beyond [his] expectations”) frequently occurs in Antiquities (e.g., 1.236; 2.57, 193; 4.8; 5.359), while the singular παρ’ ἐλπίδα is common in War (e.g., 1.34, 123, 192, but cf. the plural in 6.57). In the parallel passage of War (1.391) Octavian states the same in fewer words: “… stay safe and rule now with more security (βασίλευε νῦν βεβαιότερον)” (trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a). The word βέβαιος (“solid, secure”) is repeated in the next sub clause (see Ant. 15.193 and War 1.391-392). The passage refers in a very abstract way to Herod’s appointment as king by the Romans in 40 BCE (War 1.281-285; Ant. 14.379-389). The phrase ἐξ ὑπαρχῆς (“in/from the beginning,” LSJ s.v. ὑπαρχή II) occurs once elsewhere in Josephus (Ant. 15.316; Rengstorf s.v. ὑπαρχή, who suggests “anew” as meaning). The adverb πάλιν (“again, in turn”) is redundant in clauses that concern a return to an earlier situation (Blass, Debrunner, and Rehkopf 1976: 413-14). Cf. Braund 1984: 27: “Gifts were often conferred upon kings together with recognition.” The phrase δόσει Καίσαρος (“through Caesar’s gift”) is additional to the vocabulary in the parallel passage of War (1.392). It forms a parallelism with δόγματι Ῥωμαίων (see the next note), which perhaps echoes Herod’s first appointment as king: Antony took the initiative to that appointment, and it was ratified by the Senate in a decree (War 1.283-285; Ant. 14.382, 385-386, 388-389). Instead of by a decree (δόγμα) of the Romans, War 1.392-393 reports that Octavian made public the confirmation of Herod’s kingdom by means of a proper decree (δόγματι). The extremely positive note of the decree in War (“… having placed the diadem on him, he [i.e., Caesar] made known this privilege by a decree, in which he spoke magnanimously and at length in praise of the man …,” 1.393, trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a) is absent in Antiquities, which fits the latter’s more critical trend about Herod. The parallel passage of War (1.391) also has the adjective βέβαιος (see the note to “more secure for him” above), which refers to the written confirmation of Herod’s rule. Stern (1974b: 237) and Schalit (2001: 147) suggest that the earlier ratification of Herod’s rule by the Roman Senate was renewed by Octavian. Herod had provided a similar service to Antony upon his visit to him when Antony was marching against the Parthians (see Ant. 15.80 with the note to “he had escorted Antony to the Parthians,” also 15.198). I.e., Octavian. This is the self-evident expression of gratitude to one’s patron by a friendly king (see Ant. 15.5 with the note to “Antony” about Herod giving presents to Antony and his friends). Here Josephus emphasizes that Herod went beyond his resources (δωρησάμενος ὑπὲρ δύναμιν). This subtle criticism is absent in War 1.393, which simply states that Herod placated Octavian with gifts (δώροις ἐπιμειλιξάμενος). The expression ὑπὲρ δύναμιν (“beyond [his] strength/resources”) again occurs in Ant. 16.154 in a reference to Herod (see also War 1.173, 328; Ant. 18.291-292). The phrase (πᾶσαν) ἐμφαίνων μεγαλοψυχίαν repeats Ant. 15.48 (see the note to “he showed the magnanimity”) about Herod’s magnanimity towards Alexandra, who had tried to escape with her son. Here Josephus uses even stronger language by adding πᾶσαν (“every”).

The Greek MSS and the Latin version read ’Αλέξανδρον-Alexandrum (“Alexander”), but in the parallel passage of War (1.393) the Greek MSS read ’Αλέξαν (“Alexas,” Niese 367). It is much more probable that the shorter and less well-known name ’Αλέξαν resulted into ’Αλέξανδρον because of a scribal misunderstanding than that ’Αλέξανδρον was abbreviated into ’Αλέξαν. It is therefore likely that the name Alexas is original (Niese 377; Marcus-Wikgren 94; Schalit 1968: 8). Alexas was apparently a close friend (συνήθης) of Mark Antony. Plutarch (Ant. 72) notes that Alexas was sent to Herod in order to persuade the king to remain faithful to Antony, but that he betrayed Antony and went to Octavian while relying on Herod. He was later executed by Octavian. War 1.393 depicts Alexas as a “friend” of Antony (about Antony’s friends, see Ant. 15.5 with the note to “the friends around him”). For the phrase μηδὲν ἀνήκεστόν παθεῖν (“suffer nothing fatal”), see Ant. 15.131 with the note to “suffer irreparable harm.” The parallel report of War (1.393) gives a different reason for Octavian’s refusal to meet Herod’s request. It highlights Octavian’s angriness because of many grievous reproaches against Alexas. Antiquities presents Octavian’s decision in a more positive light.

This phrase marks the end of Josephus’ report about Herod’s meeting with Octavian; cf. the similar conclusion of the narrative about a meeting of Herod and 2 of his sons with Octavian in Ant. 16.130 (concluding 16.90-129). Once again Herod survived a serious crisis and came out well. His journey to Antony in order to account for the death of Aristobulus III (Ant. 15.63-80) had also ended very well: Antony granted him several honors (15.77). The nouns παρρησία (here meaning “freedom of,” Rengstorf s.v.; cf. 15.44) and τιμή (“honor”) also appear as a pair in 15.44 (concerning Alexandra). The verb παρέχω (“procure, cause, etc.”) with ἔκπληξις (“consternation”) as object is common from Thucydides onward (e.g., 4.55.3; 6.70.1; 6.98.2; Diodorus 14.72.5; Josephus, Ant. 2.83; 7.157; Plutarch, Cam. 3.3; Pyrrh. 18.1; Arrian, Anab. 1.9.2; 6.3.4). This remark focuses on Herod’s opponents, who had been very doubtful about a positive outcome for Herod following the Roman change of power. Previously Josephus has indicated that Herod’s enemies were hoping for political change (see Ant. 15.162-163). In this light it is obvious that they were very disappointed with the result of Herod’s visit to Octavian (cf. 15.166 about Alexandra’s hope that Herod would be replaced as king). The verb προσδοκάω (“expect”) plus (τὰ) ἐναντία (“[the] opposite”) also occurs in Ant. 6.233; cf. Appian, Bell. civ. 2.17.120. The noun λαμπρότερον (“more splendor”) echoes λαμπροτάτας/λαμπρόν (“[most] brilliant, generous”) in War 1.391; Ant. 15.194. The passage formulates a leitmotiv of the Herod narrative in Antiquities: Herod was very successful as ruler of the Jews because of God’s support (see also the next note). As a result the king escaped serious dangers several times (see 14.177 concerning Herod’s trial in Jerusalem and 14.455 on the collapse of a house in which Herod was staying; Josephus comments that this rescue made everybody believe that Herod was a favorite of God [Ἡρώδην εἶναι θεοφιλῆ] since he had escaped such a great and unexpected danger [μέγαν οὕτω καὶ παράδοξον διαφυγόντα κίνδυνον]). The verb προσεπικτάομαι (“gain even more,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. God as determining factor is a major motif in Antiquities (van Henten and Huitink 2007: 219-21). The Manaemus episode (15.373-379, absent in War) elaborates the theme of God supporting Herod.The noun εὐμένεια (“goodwill, favor”) in reference to God also occurs in Ant. 1.111; 2.291; 3.46; 5.213; 8.119, 297 (cf. Lucian, Merc. cond. 1). In Ant. 16.104 it concerns Herod’s and Octavian’s attitudes towards Herod’s sons Alexander and Aristobulus IV. MSS PVFE add μέν (“then”). There seems to be an inconsistency in the narrative flow: Josephus has already very briefly reported in Ant. 15.196 that Herod escorted Octavian on his way to Egypt. In 15.198 the geographical focus changes to Judea, and Herod’s opponents at home are the focalizers of the first part of the paragraph (see the note to “those who had expected the opposite” above). Now the focus is again on Octavian and his expedition to Egypt. In 15.202 Josephus definitely switches to the situation in the Judean kingdom (in fact, to Herod’s family matters). The noun ὑποδοχή (“reception, entertainment”) echoes ἀποδοχή (“reception, approval”) in 15.196 (referring to Herod), which may highlight the reciprocal aspect of the new relationship between Herod and Octavian. Octavian’s reception is elaborated in 15.199. The parallel narrative of War (1.394) also presupposes that Octavian marched to Egypt coming from Syria. About Octavian’s invasion of Egypt, see Ant. 15.187 with the note to “Caesar” and 15.190 with the note to “defeated in the Battle of Actium.”The variant reading ἐμβαλεῖν, attested by MSS LAMW and the excerpts for εἰσβαλεῖν (Niese 367), hardly makes a difference since both εἰσβάλλω and ἐμβάλλω probably mean “invade” here (Rengstorf s.v.).

The context implies that Octavian arrived at the border of Herod’s territory. Cf. Ant. 15.21 about Hyrcanus II’s return to Judea, in which passage the phrase ἐπειδὴ παρῆν (“when he arrived”) is also used. Ptolemais (Πτολεμαΐς) is the Hellenistic name of the city of Acco, on the Phoenician coast. Ptolemy II Philadelphus refounded the city and gave it a new name (Möller and Schmitt 1976: 156-57; Tsafrir, Di Segni, and Green 1994: 204-05). Antony granted Ptolemais and other coastal cities to Cleopatra (see Ant. 15.95 with the notes to “the cities between the River Eleutherus and Egypt”). Octavian apparently marched along the coastal road from Syria to the south. Herod picked him up in Ptolemais, when Octavian was near Herod’s kingdom (see the map in Tsafrir, Di Segni, and Green 1994: 12). War 1.394 also mentions Ptolemais, though not that Herod picked up Octavian. Octavian seems to have taken the same route on returning from Egypt (Ant. 15.218, which refers to Antioch in Syria). MSS PFVE and the excerpts read πάσῃ τῇ βασιλικῇ τιμῇ (“with every royal honor”) instead of πάσῃ τῇ βασιλικῇ θεραπείᾳ (“with every royal service,” Niese 367). The variant reading is paralleled by Herodian 7.10.5, Niese’s reading by Sozomen 9.8.5. The change from the less common word θεραπείᾳ to τιμῇ is more obvious than the alternative change. Moreover, τιμῇ may have slipped into the textual tradition because of the preceding phrase πλείονι τιμῇ (Ant. 15.198; cf. War 1.396).The verb δέχομαι (“receive”) and the adjectives βασιλικός (“royal”) and πᾶς (“every”) also occur in the parallel passage of War (1.394, παντὶ τῷ βασιλικῷ πλούτῳ δεξάμενος “received him … with all royal luxuries,” trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a). Herod’s services to Octavian and his soldiers belong to the conventional favors of a client towards his patron (see Ant. 15.5 with the note to “Antony”; 15.80, and cf. War 1.175 on Antipater’s assistance to Gabinius, who was on the way to Egypt). Tigranes made similar contributions to Pompey’s troops (Plutarch, Pomp. 33.5; Braund 1984: 80 with n. 48). Yet some of Herod’s services mentioned in Ant. 15.199-200 clearly stand out. The phrase τῶν ἐπιτηδείων ἀφθονία (“abundance of supplies/provisions”) is common (e.g., Diodorus 14.21.6; 17.65.2; Philo, Decal. 16; Det. 113; Spec. 2.158; Josephus, War 1.299, 304; 7.277; Ant. 1.181; Herodian 8.5.3). Ant. 1.181 also mentions ξένια (“hospitable reception, gifts”) together with abundant provisions, in connection with Melchizedek’s reception of Abraham’s army (cf. War 6.615; Ant. 14.131). The parallel passage of War (1.395) mentions ὕδωρ ἄφθονον (“plenty of water”) and states that Herod took care that Octavian’s army did not lack any supplies (οὐδὲ ἔστιν ὅ τι τῶν ἐπιτηδείων ἐνεδέησεν τῇ δυνάμει). The superlative εὐνούστατος (“most loyal”) expresses Herod’s attitude towards Octavian, though Octavian apparently also considered Herod to be a most loyal “friend.” The passive form of ἐξετάζω means “be counted” here (Rengstorf s.v.) and echoes the noun ἐξέτασις (“examination, muster”) in the parallel passage of War (1.394), though with a clearly different meaning (see the next note). This passage closely parallels War 1.394, which states that Herod was riding at Octavian’s side when Octavian was reviewing his troops near Ptolemais. War 1.394 shares several words with Ant. 15.199: συνιππάζομαι (“ride at someone’s side,” with one further occurrence in Josephus: Ant. 16.314; Rengstorf s.v.), δύναμις (“force,” in the plural in Antiquities), and ἐξετάζω (“be counted”)/ἐξέτασις (“muster”; see the previous note). The verb ἐκτάττω (“muster [troops for review or battle],” Rengstorf s.v.) also occurs in War 5.349; Ant. 3.50; 4.68 (in a variant reading). The Greek text is probably corrupt: the noun ἀνδράσιν (the dative plural of ἀνήρ [“man”]) does not fit the context (see also the next note). Hudson’s conjecture ἀνδρῶσιν (“residences, apartments,” the dative plural of ἀνδρών [“hall/room/residence for men,” Rengstorf s.v.]; cf. War 2.503; Ant. 5.177; 16.164) is helpful. It is inspired by the Latin version domibus (“houses”) and taken over by Niese (367). Nevertheless, one or more words seem to be missing. The text cannot be corrected on the basis of the parallel report of War because the detail is missing in War 1.394-395. A hundred and fifty apartments, even if they had only one room, is a huge number and does not seem very realistic if one compares this with what we know about the sizes of Herod’s buildings, including his palaces (Netzer 2006: 3-201). War 1.394 reports a much more modest (and more plausible) reception of Octavian: “… he entertained (εἱστίασεν) him and all his friends with a banquet” (trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a). If the reading ἀνδράσιν (“men”; see the preceding note) is correct, this part of the sentence could be translated as “with hundred and fifty men, all trained to provide extravagant and plenty service.” The verb ἀσκέω can mean “equip, furnish” as well as “train, exercise” (Rengstorf s.v.). The substantive πλοῦτος (“riches, wealth”) is the only noun that also occurs in the parallel account of War (1.394).

Similar information is found in the parallel passage of War (1.395), which refers to Pelusium. The route from the Palestinian coast to Egypt, i.e., from Raphia to Pelusium (at the edge of the northeastern Nile Delta, War 1.175; cf. Cassius Dio 51.9.5-6), was notoriously difficult (War 4.608-610; Plutarch, Ant. 3) because it included a passage through the northwest of the Negev Desert and the north of the Sinai Desert. The shortage of water is highlighted by the adjective ἄνυδρος (literally “without/short on water,” Rengstorf s.v.; the word also occurs in War 1.395), which is echoed by ὕδωρ (“water”) in the next sub-clause (cf. War 1.395).There were several Roman roads from the east to Pelusium, including one going north of Lake Serbonitis via Mount Casius (for further details, see the map of Eretz Israel and the Sinai during the Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine periods in Tsafrir, Di Segni, and Green 1994). The phrase μήτε οἴνου μήτε ὕδατος (“wine nor water”) is not necessarily rhetorical (although wine is not mentioned in the parallel account of War [1.394-395]). Wine (either aceta, sour wine, or vinum, vintage wine) was part of the regular diet of the Roman soldiers, which further consisted of bread, water, meat, oil, vegetables, and salt (Davies 1971; Roth 1999: 18-44). Wine was usually mixed with water. Josephus’ reference to wine is perhaps inspired by War 1.394, about concerning Herod’s entertaining of the regular soldiers (a passage absent in Antiquities): “… he also gave the rest of the army everything for a feast” (trans. BJP 1a). Antiquities shares the noun στρατιώταις (“soldiers”) with the parallel account of War (1.395). The enormous gift (compare the sum of, probably, 200 talents for Herod’s lease of territories from Cleopatra found in Ant. 15.106-107) is not mentioned in War 1.394-395. Antiquities shares the verb παρίστημι (“supply, cause, put in an appearance”) with the parallel passage of War (1.395). The phrase ἔννοιαν λαβεῖν (“form an idea/a design,” LSJ s.v. ἔννοια I.2) is common (e.g., Euripides, Hipp. 1027; Polybius 1.57.2; Philo, Somn. 1.68; Plutarch, Mor. [Quaest. plat.] 1010a; [Comm. not.] 1072b). The noun βασιλεία (“kingdom”) also occurs in the parallel passage of War (1.395). War 1.395 expresses the same impression in different words and in a negative formulation (cf. “much too small” in War with “much bigger” in Ant. 15.200): “The thought forced itself both upon Caesar himself and his soldiers that Herod’s realm was much too small in comparison with what he had provided them” (trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a). Another slight difference is the reference to the focalizers: “Caesar himself and his soldiers” in War, and “all” in Antiquities. As usual Josephus embellishes the parallel material from War in Antiquities. This is apparent from the addition “more splendid.” For a similar statement, see Ant. 16.141 (in connection with the festivities after the completion of Caesarea Maritima).

The noun πίστις means “faith (or trust) in something” here, i.e., faith in Herod’s loyalty and devotion to Octavian (cf. Josephus’ use of πίστις in Ant. 15.87; 17.246; 19.58; Lindsay 1993: 78, 99). The substantive προθυμία (“willingness, eagerness”) can have several nuances (Rengstorf s.v.); “personal affection” would be a further meaning fitting the context. The nouns εὔνοια (“loyalty”) and προθυμία also occur as a pair in Ant. 6.82; 8.57; 17.195 (cf. Demosthenes, Or. 18.286, 312; Polybius 2.50.3; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 10.16.4; Plutarch, Brut. 39.1; Caes. 16.1; Dion 10.4; Herodian 6.8.8). For the phrase πλεῖστον ἠνέγκατο (“he gained the most for himself”), cf. Plutarch, Ant. 22.5, and see LSJ s.v. φέρω A.VI.3. About μεγαλοψυχία (“generosity, magnanimity”) as a central characteristic of Herod, see Ant. 15.48 with the note to “the magnanimity.” This concluding statement by the narrator implies high praise for Herod: it highlights the king’s generosity once elsewhere (cf. Ant. 15.199-200) and adds that he was prudent since he applied this virtue on a scale that matched the circumstances. Combining this with the information given in the context, the result is that Herod was wise to reward Octavian in an extremely generous way. This is basically confirmed by the tenor of the Herod narrative in Antiquities. The meeting at Rhodes was crucial for the continuation of Herod’s rule, and the grandiose services as Herod’s response to Octavian’s establishment of the client relationship later turned out to be a very good investment. I.e., Caesar and his friends, or Caesar and his soldiers (see Ant. 15.200 and the next note). This anticipates Josephus’ report about the aftermath of Octavian’s campaign to Egypt (Ant. 15.215-218). It presupposes that Octavian’s army again took the coastal road to Syria (cf. 15.218). Octavian turned Egypt into a special Roman province, administrated by a prefect (Hölbl 1994: 223-27; Kienast 1999: 72-74).Josephus does not write about Octavian’s invasion of Egypt and his elimination of Antony and Cleopatra, which are described in detail in Plutarch’s Life of Antony (74-87; cf. Cassius Dio 51.4-17; see also Ant. 15.187 with the note to “Caesar” and 15.190 with the note to “defeated in the Battle of Actium”). In Ant. 15.217 he indicates the consequences of Octavian’s victory over Antony and Cleopatra for Herod (cf. War 1.396). The plural ὑπηρεσίας (“services”) repeats the same noun (in the singular) of Ant. 15.199, which emphasizes that Herod’s services during Octavian’s return trip fully matched those of the first reception (15.198-200). The parallel account of War (1.395) reports the same in fewer words. The verb ἐπάνειμι (“return”) also occurs in 1.395. Cf. also τῶν πρώτων οὐδὲν (“nothing less than the first time”) with πρῶτον (“for the first time”) in connection with Herod’s reception of Octavian’s troops described in War 1.394.

Ant. 15.202-252 focuses mainly on 2 Hasmonean women in Herod’s family and their interaction with Herod and Salome: Herod’s wife Mariamme and his mother-in-law Alexandra (for references, see 15.23 with the notes to “Alexandra” and “Mariamme, who was living in wedlock with Herod”). The 2 women are almost depicted as each other’s opposites: Mariamme controls herself up to the very end, while Alexandra exceeds all limits with her self-centered and hysterical behavior. Ant. 15.202-239 offers a dramatic report that starts with a flashback concerning Mariamme and Alexandra’s stay in the Fortress Alexandrium (15.202-208) and ends with Mariamme’s death (15.231-237).Schalit (2001: 132, 575-88) characterizes the style of the section as tragic history (p. 577) since it focuses on the feelings and emotions of the main characters, depicting dramatic events in graphic terms that evoke the sympathy of the readers, with Mariamme’s suffering as principle topic (cf. Kasher 2007: 165, who argues that the tragic-pathetic rhetorical style does not necessarily imply that the account is unreliable). Schalit further argues that the section derives from Nicolaus of Damascus (cf. Ant. 16.185), who had in his opinion a great liking for rhetoric and tragic-pathetic historiography. When Schalit originally wrote his history of Herod (Hebrew original appeared in 1960, the first German edition in 1969), many scholars were taking it for granted that a genre called tragic history existed, a view which is nowadays almost universally rejected (Fromentin 2001; Marincola 2003; Baron 2012: 202-31). Nevertheless, Josephus puts great emphasis on the psychological aspects of his characters’ responses to the dramatic developments in this section. Another typical aspect of this section is that the narrator focuses on different characters in rapid succession.Ant. 15.202 connects with 15.183-186, which passage describes the measures taken by Herod before meeting Octavian in Rhodes. The noun βασιλεία also refers to Herod’s kingdom in 15.183, 186. The verb καταλαμβάνω (“capture, find”) means “find on arrival” here (LSJ s.v. II.2). It also goes with οἰκίαν/οἰκίας as object plus a predicate in War 1.302; Life 376. Trouble in Herod’s family is a recurring motif in the Herod narrative of Antiquities (see 16.75, 300 and 15.22 with the note to “disagreements also arose among persons within his household”). Mariamme and Alexandra had been put up at Alexandrium, while the rest of Herod’s family had been brought to Masada (Ant. 15.184-185). Mariamme was thus separated from her sons Alexander and Aristobulus IV. The next paragraph explains the angriness of both women. The phrase χαλεπῶς ἔχειν (“be angry/hostile,” Rengstorf s.v. χαλεπός) is common in Antiquities (4.262; 7.186; 13.195, 236; 15.75, 81; 16.267, 276).

The separation from the rest of Herod’s family could easily make Mariamme and Alexandra suspicious since they had good reasons to fear Herod’s measures according to the preceding narrative. Alexandra had been frustrated when Herod did not appoint her son Jonathan-Aristobulus III High Priest (Ant. 15.24, 31, 35) and, after Herod had given in, she had been confronted with his death (15.55-56). She knew that Herod was responsible for her son’s death (15.58-60) but did not reveal her suspicion (ἐγκρατῶς ἔφερε τὴν ὑποψίαν, 15.60). Her 3 attempts to flee from the court—twice with one of her children—demonstrate her suspicion towards Herod (15.46, 72, 166-168). The death of the old Hyrcanus II (15.165-182), a further member of the Hasmonean dynasty, must have added to the distrust of both ladies. Mariamme had become very cautious because of Herod’s order to have her killed in case he would not return from his journey to Antony (15.65, 70, 85, 204). Joseph, who had had to take care of both ladies, had ultimately been executed (15.80-87). Alexandra was held responsible for these troubles and had been kept in chains for a while (15.87). I.e., Alexandrium (see Ant. 15.185). Ant. 15.185 states that the womens’ honor (i.e., their royal status) was the pretext for separating them from the rest of Herod’s family. The underlying motive was probably that they were to be killed if Herod died, in order to secure the continuation of the Herodian dynasty (see 15.185 with the note to “they were left behind to guard the women under the pretext of honor”). The noun σῶμα means “person” here (LSJ s.v. II.2; Rengstorf s.v.). The isolated situation at Alexandrium must have aggravated Mariamme and Alexandra, who were used to a prima donna role at Herod’s court (although they may have had a small domestic staff at the fortress). Joseph and Soemus were clearly in charge, which explains the strategy of Mariamme and Alexandra to win both men over (Ant. 15.204-205). For the expression χαλεπῶς ἔφερον (“they were taking it badly”), see Ant. 15.24 with the note to “took the disgrace of her son badly.” The repetition of χαλεπῶς (see the previous note) emphasizes Mariamme and Alexandra’s annoyance.

About Herod’s love for Mariamme, see Ant. 15.82 with the note to “loved her terribly.” This assumption was grounded in Herod’s former order to Joseph to kill Mariamme (Ant. 15.65; see the note to “suffered something terrible” below). Mariamme’s response to this order, during an intimate moment with her husband, states that it could not have come from someone who loved her: “… [it] was not the decision of a lover: that if the lover would suffer something bad through Antony, I should perish as well, having no guilt” (15.85). A few other passages in both versions of the Herod narrative suggest that Herod arranged certain things for the advantage of himself or his rule (see War 1.458, 465; Ant. 15.22, 31, 164; 17.123). The verb ἄχθομαι (“be embittered/sad/grieved,” Rengstorf s.v.) occurs frequently in the Herod section of Antiquities (15.210-211, 235, 349; 16.72, 85, 88, 195, 219, 248, 279, 305, 356). The phrase εἰ πάσχοι τι δεινὸν ἐκεῖνος (“if Herod [literally “that person”] would suffer something terrible”) recalls Herod’s order to Joseph to kill Mariamme in case he would not return from his journey to Mark Antony (Ant. 15.65; see 15.69 εἰ πάσχοι τι δεινόν and cf. 15.65 εἰ πάθοι τι παρ’ ’Αντωνίῳ; 15.85 εἰ πάσχοι τι χαλεπὸν ὑπ’’Αντωνίου). This phrase also connects with Herod’s order to Joseph (Ant. 15.65, 69, 85), although here there are no verbal echoes. Mariamme’s fate was linked to Herod’s. She raises the possibility that Herod could die and, as a consequence, she as well. Concerning Herod’s possible motives for these instructions, see Ant. 15.65 with the note to “secretly instructed him to kill Mariamme immediately.” The verb ἀναμνημονεύω (“remember, recall,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. This passage echoes the 2 references to Herod’s instruction for Joseph (Ant. 15.69 τὰ περὶ τὴν ἐντολὴν εἰπεῖν; 15.85 τὸ κατὰ τὴν ἐντολήν). Here the connection with the instruction for Joseph becomes explicit. Mariamme seems to draw an analogy between her situation during and following Herod’s journey to Antony (15.64-80) and that during the one to Octavian (15.184-201). She does not know yet the content of the instruction to Soemus at this stage of the narrative, but her intuition is right: the instructions were identical, apart from the fact that this time both she and her mother were to be killed (15.208). The phrase διὰ θεραπείας ἔχω (“pay court”) is paralleled by Pausanias 4.10.6. During Herod’s journey to Antony, Mariamme and Alexandra also had tried to manipulate the person who was taking care of them (i.e., Joseph), but they had ridiculed him and induced him to reveal the instructions, particularly Alexandra (Ant. 15.68-69). Here the focus is on Mariamme (15.204-208), who uses a clearly different strategy by paying court to Soemus. Soemus is mentioned for the first time in Ant. 15.185 (see the note to “Soemus”). Cf. Ant. 15.375 about Manaemus, who “knew everything (τὸ πᾶν ἐπιστάμενος).”

The adjective πιστός (“faithful, trustworthy”) and the expression κατὰ τὰς ἀρχάς (“at the beginning”) recall Ant. 15.185 about Joseph and Soemus as “the most faithful men to him from the beginning on (πιστοτάτους μέν ἐξ ἀρχῆς γενομένους αὐτῷ),” although here it concerns only Soemus (Joseph is not mentioned again after 15.185; see 15.185 with the note to “Joseph”). This phrase suggests that Soemus had received various instructions, although the passage that describes these instructions restricts them to the women (Ant. 15.185-187). An alternative translation for λιπαρέστερον is “most persistently” (see Ant. 15.31 with the note to “had slickly pressed him”). The verb ἐκθεραπεύω (“court someone,” Rengstorf s.v.) occurs once elsewhere in Josephus, referring to the Spartan Eurycles (16.303). Cf. King David, who summoned Jonathan’s son Mephibosheth and invited him to eat together every day. The boy thanked David for these “words and gifts” (Ant. 7.114-115). Josephus also uses the verb ἡττάομαι (“be overpowered by, yield to”) in connection to men giving in to women in Ant. 15.83 (Herod and Mariamme); 15.93 (Antony and Cleopatra); 16.197, 227 (Pheroras and the slave woman); 16.206 (Herod and Glaphyra, according to an accusation by Salome and Pheroras). For this meaning of ἐξεῖπον, see Ant. 15.87 with the note to “told.” Soemus’ unfaithfulness to Herod recalls Joseph’s disclosure of Herod’s instructions to Mariamme and Alexandra (Ant. 15.69), although verbal echoes are absent. This passage echoes Ant. 15.163 about the pessimistic expectations of Herod’s friends concerning Herod’s prospects after Octavian’s victory at Actium (cf. ἐλπίσας with τῶν κατ’ αὐτὸν ἐλπίδων in 15.163). Soemus distinguishes himself from the friends, however, by moving over to other patrons who could serve his interests better, as the next paragraph explains. Soemus’ motivation for revealing Herod’s instructions is described in detail in 15.205-207. This phrase is euphemistic: if Octavian did not accept Herod as client king of Judea, he probably would expell or even execute him, as happened with Alexas, another close friend of Mark Antony (see Ant. 15.197 with the note to “Alexas”).

Richards and Shutt (1937: 174) propose to read εἰ δὲ μή (“otherwise”) instead of ἐν ᾧ (Niese 369). Their conjecture may be supported by the Latin version (sed et) and improve the Greek, but it remains a guess and unnecessary. The verb ὑπελάμβανεν (“he assumed”) repeats the same verb of Ant. 15.204, with Mariamme as subject. Soemus’ decision to reveal Herod’s instructions implies that he switched patrons (see Ant. 15.205 with the note to “Soemus was trustworthy at the beginning”). The expression οὐ μικρά (“a lot,” literally “not a little”) is a case of litotes. The verb ἐκφεύγω (“escape”) followed by τὸν κίνδυνον (“the danger”) is a fixed expression in Josephus (Ant. 2.346; 6.220, 245). At that moment there was no danger coming from Herod yet, but the situation was likely to become dangerous for Herod’s friends in case Octavian would not reconfirm the king’s rule. Mariamme and Alexandra were prominent members not only of the royal house but also of the Hasmonean dynasty (see Ant. 15.23 with notes). This status would remain if Herod was deposed, such that they could be involved in the succession of the throne. The noun ἀξίωμα means “dignity, prestige, rank” here (Rengstorf s.v.). Josephus uses the word only in connection with women of royal status (Mayer-Schärtel 1995: 57-59, 86; see Ant. 15.101 about Cleopatra and cf. 15.51 about Aristobulus III; 15.164 about Hyrcanus II; 15.187 about Herod). The Greek text is corrupt and clearly wrong. Niese (369) reads ἕξειν ἢ (“would get either”), which may underly the reading ἕξειν εἰ of MS P (ἕξειν εἰ may have evolved out of ἕξειν ἢ through iotacism). Most Greek MSS read ἐξεῖναι (“send out, discharge”). Dindorf conjectures ἐξιέναι (“go out, quit”). However, the majority reading and Dindorf’s conjecture do not make sense. Josephus does not indicate the ground for this compensation, but the context suggests that it would concern support to activities causing the end of Herod’s rule (see also the note above to “lose their superior status”). The translation follows Niese minor (295), who conjectures ἢ (“either”) based on the reading (ἕξειν) εἰ attested by MS P (Niese 369; see the note to “would get” above). Niese (369) conjectures βασιλευσούσας (“becoming queen”) instead of βασιλευούσας (“being queen”). The reading βασιλευσούσας makes more sense in the immediate context. As a matter of fact, Mariamme was queen at this moment. A change of power might have made Alexandra the new queen, something she may have hoped for (cf. Ant. 15.183 and 15.166 with the note to “bringing their hopes for the future into safer ground again”). The king referred to is Herod’s successor, although it is difficult to imagine who that would be. The passage implies that Mariamme and Alexandra would remain prominent members at the court of the new king. The phrase occurs once elsewhere in Josephus, in a reference about himself: “… we descend from a family that is close to the kings who descend from Asmonaeus (ὄντες ἀγχοῦ τῶν ἐξ ’Ασαμωναίου βασιλέων) …” (Ant. 16.187, my trans.).

Soemus apparently also counted with the less probable option that Herod would return unharmed from his journey to Octavian, as the continuation of the narrative shows. The verb ἐπελπίζω (“cause to hope, be hopeful,” Rengstorf s.v.) occurs a few more times in Antiquities (8.205; 13.329; 15.353) and is also found in Thucydides (8.1.1; 8.54.1, Marcus-Wikgren 99 n. a) and later writings (e.g., Pausanias 1.13.9; 4.26.3; Appian, Bell. civ. 1.7.55; 2.3.16; Cassius Dio 19.18.13 [ed. Boissevain 1.285 l.19]; 41.11.1; 48.11.1; 54.11.4). The expression κατὰ νοῦν (“as he intended,” Rengstorf s.v. νοῦς) is a fixed phrase in Josephus. Cf. Ant. 15.31, which passage reports Mariamme’s successful appeal to Herod to appoint her brother Jonathan-Aristobulus III High Priest. Literally “he.” Herod’s exceptional love for Mariamme is also highlighted in Ant. 15.82 (see the note to “loved her terribly”) and was apparently common knowledge at the king’s court. Josephus suggests that Soemus calculated to be safe if he would have at least Mariamme’s support since she was able to protect him because of her influence over the king (see also 15.210). The expression μείζονα λόγου (“beyond description, exceedingly great”) and closely related phrases also occur in War 5.189; Ant. 1.7; 5.350; 8.97; 15.316 (Rengstorf s.v. λόγος). MSS LAMW read ταῦτ’ ἦν τά (“these were the”) instead of ταῦτα (“these [things or thoughts],” Niese 369; for other cases of lipography, see van Groningen 1967: 54). Marcus-Wikgren (98) read (ταῦτ’ ἦν τὰ) προσελκύσαντα (“[it was these considerations that] induced [him]”) with MS M, which may be the original reading. The verb προσέλκω does not occur elsewhere in Josephus (Rengstorf s.v.). The other Greek MSS read προσεκλύσαντα (Niese 369), which may derive from the reading attested by MS M via a transposition of κ and λ. This majority reading in any case cannot be right: the extremely rare verb προσεκλύω (“relax, weaken the more,” LSJ s.v., giving Plutarch, Mor. [Coni. praec.] 143d as a further occurrence) does not occur elsewhere in Josephus and the meanings given by LSJ hardly fit the context here. This passage concludes the description of Soemus’ motives for disclosing Herod’s instructions (Ant. 15.205-207).

Whether there is an object connected with ἤκουσεν (“heard”) depends on the text proposed for Ant. 15.207 (see the note to “these [thoughts]”). The text given by Niese (369) implies that ταῦτα προσεκλύσαντα is the object of ἤκουσεν, which may be translated as “Mariamme was shocked by hearing that he gave these [thoughts] for reporting the instructions.” However, it is much more plausible that Mariamme was shocked about the instructions rather than about Soemus’ motives, which supports the reading of MS M in 15.207. Rengstorf (s.v. χαλεπός) gives “be shocked by hearing” as meaning for the phrase χαλεπῶς ἀκούειν (cf. the opposite phrase ἡδεῶς ἤκουσεν [“he welcomed the news”] in 6.197 concerning Saul; cf. 5.194). The phrase τῶν ἐξ Ἡρώδης κινδύνων (“the dangers coming from Herod”) repeats τὸν ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ κίνδυνον in Ant. 15.206 concerning the possible dangers for Soemus caused by Herod. This is ironic since Soemus assumed that he was safe as long as he had Mariamme’s support. As a matter of fact, the preceding narrative mentions the secret instructions for Joseph during Herod’s journey to Antony as the only threat to Mariamme from Herod (15.65). The phrase may also hint at Mariamme’s dreadful fate that follows upon this episode (15.231-237).The phrase μηδὲν πέρας … τῶν … κινδύνων is a variant of the conventional expression πέρας (τε) κακῶν (οὐδὲν ἦν) (see 15.6 with the note to “no end to their miseries”). The phrase χαλεπῶς διάκειμαι (“be shocked/upset/displeased/sulk,” Rengstorf s.v. χαλεπός) also occurs in Ant. 7.163; 12.327; 16.389 and in Diodorus 11.2.2; 12.46.4; 13.65.2; Pseudo-Callisthenes recension a 2.8.2 (ed. Kroll 74); Plutarch, Per. 35.3; Them. 29.1. An alternative translation is “no fair terms at all.” Both meanings of ἴσος may be influenced by the meanings of the Latin equivalent aequus (“fair, just, reasonable,” OLD s.v. 6). Rengstorf (s.v. ἴσος) suggests “the appropriate things” as meaning for τῶν ἴσων. For other combinations of τὰ ἴσα and τυγχάνω (“receive”), see Isocrates, Callim. 50.3; Diodorus 3.64.4; 8.7.6; Plutarch, Lyc. 7.3; Aelius Aristides, Plat. rhet. [ed. Dindorf 2.65]. This passage hinting at Herod’s possible failure to persuade Octavian to maintain him as ruler depicts Mariamme as a resentful woman. Her reaction is understandable, however: Herod’s instruction was extremely harsh; there is no evidence that any other ruler from the Graeco-Roman period took similar measures (see Ant. 15.65 with the note to “instructed him to kill Mariamme immediately”). The adjective δυσύποιστος (“intolerable,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. The expression εἰ τύχοι (“if he would receive”) is elliptical, but the meaning is clear because of the repetition of τυγχάνω (“receive”). This phrase anticipates Mariamme’s reaction to Herod’s return from his trip to Octavian (Ant. 15.210-211) and concludes, together with the subsequent phrase, the flashback of 15.202-208. The reading δὲ ἔδειξε (“but she showed”) of MSS LAMW (cf. E) is probably a corruption of διέδειξε (“she revealed plainly,” Rengstorf s.v. διαδείκνυμι), attested by MSS PFV (Niese 369), because δέ does not fit the structure of the sentence. Marcus-Wikgren (100) read καθ’ αὑτήν (“concerning herself”) with Dindorf’s conjecture, which matches the context very well and would result in a translation like “(did not conceal any of) her inner (feelings).” Most MSS read κατ’ αὐτήν (“concerning her,” Niese 369), which perhaps derives from καθ’ αὑτήν owing to a scribal error. MS W reads κατ’ αὐτόν (“concerning him [i.e., Herod]).” This motif is taken up again in Ant. 15.210.

Via a brief transitional formula (ὁ μὲν γὰρ …) Josephus focuses again on Herod, who is mentioned explicitly in Ant. 15.208. There is also a chronological transition: Josephus turns here to the description of Mariamme’s response to Herod’s visit to Octavian (15.209-212). For the explanatory function of γάρ (“so”) preceded by μέν, focusing on Herod as one of the persons mentioned in the preceding sentence, see Denniston 1954: 67. The verb εὐτυχέω (“be fortunate”) is used again in Ant. 15.218, in a flashback of Herod’s marriage with Mariamme. Herod’s successful visit to Octavian is described in 15.187-198. His success as a ruler is a recurring motif in the Herod narrative of Antiquities (see 15.361, 377; 16.77). The expression παρ’ ἐλπίδας (“beyond [his] expectations”) repeats Ant. 15.196 (see the note to “beyond his expectations”), referring to Herod’s expectations about his journey to Octavian, and echoes 15.183 (μηδὲν ἐλπίσαι) about the same trip. The verb καταπλέω (“sail, land, enter a harbor”) also occurs in Ant. 15.187, concerning Herod’s voyage to Rhodes. For the phrase ὡς εἴκος (“as was usual”), see Ant. 15.70 with the note to “as was to be expected.” Interestingly, the previous episode of Herod’s journey to Mark Antony does not confirm this picture: it ends with a letter from Herod to the women, reporting Herod’s success (Ant. 15.74-80). Upon Herod’s return his sister and mother immediately inform him of Alexandra’s former plan to flee with Mariamme to the Roman legion nearby (15.72, 80-81). This confirms Herod’s intimate relationship with Mariamme and her unique status (cf. Ant. 15.207 on Soemus’ calculation based upon Mariamme’s special relationship with Herod). For expressions similar to μόνην ἐκ πάντων (“her alone”), cf. 9.96; 16.22. The verb προτιμάω (“honor above others, esteem very highly,” Rengstorf s.v.) also occurs in Ant. 15.170 (concerning Dositheus); 15.361 (concerning Octavian’s appreciation of Herod). For the meaning “prefer,” see 15.192. About Herod’s love for Mariamme, see Ant. 15.82 with the note to “loved her terribly.” The noun συνήθεια (“intercourse,” Rengstorf s.v.) means “intimate relationship” here, which may have a sexual connotation (cf. Ant. 15.97 concerning Cleopatra; see also 15.240 with the note to “the king’s desire was inflamed even more”; 16.237, 302; and 15.238 with the note to “not pleasing the king” about the relationship between Herod and Mariamme). In 15.240 the word again occurs together with ἔρως (“love”; cf. Diodorus 32.10.9; Cassius Dio 56.7.2).

The noun εὐημερία (“good fortune, fortunate result,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. The phrase χαλεπῶς φέρω (“take [it] badly”) is a fixed expression in Josephus (see Ant. 15.24 with the note to “took the disgrace of her son badly”). Josephus uses the phrase 3 times in reference to Mariamme (15.203 [referring to both Mariamme and Alexandra], 210, 223). This phrase repeats ἐπικρυψαμένη τοῦ πάθους (“concealing [her] feelings”) of Ant. 15.208. The verb ἀναστένω (“give a groan, sigh audibly,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. Note the alliteration with s as the prominent consonant sound in the sub-clause. With Rengstorf (s.v. ἀσπασμός). The noun ἀσπασμός (with “greeting” as usual meaning) occurs once elsewhere in Josephus (War 2.323). Most MSS read ἀδοξίας (“disdain, disgrace,” Rengstorf s.v. ἀδοξία; Niese 370), but MS F reads εὐδοξίας (“renown, esteem”), which is probably a case of homoioarkton (εὐ-; cf. the next noun εὐγενείας). The reading ἀξίας (“dignity”), attested by MS M and E, is also secondary (-δο- has been erased). The noun ἀδοξία occurs elsewhere in Josephus (Ant. 5.360; 15.36; 16.321; 18.47), and ἀδοξίας is the lectio difficilior (Schalit [2001: 576] offers a different view, with several alternative readings).Josephus first notes that Mariamme held Herod in contempt because of his secret instruction and then refers to her feelings of superiority caused by her royal descent. The noun εὐγένεια (“nobility of birth,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a recurring motif in passages about members of the Hasmonean family: Ant. 15.37 (Alexandra); 15.73 (Mariamme and Alexandra; cf. 15.36 on Alexandra and Aristobulus III); 15.236 (Mariamme); and War 1.449, 468, 522; Ant. 16.192 (Mariamme’s sons Alexander and Aristobulus IV; cf. War 1.475-476 about Glaphyra). In several of these passages, including the present one, the noun εὐγένεια also implies a specific elitist attitude, which was mostly taken as an admirable matter in ancient society (cf. Rengstorf s.v., who also gives the meaning “aristocratic mentality” for εὐγένεία; see also Josephus’ description of Mariamme’s death and her “obituary” in Ant. 15.235-239). These phrases repeat a preceding sub-clause of this paragraph (cf. συγχαίρειν—χαίρειν and διηγήμασιν—διηγουμένου), which is all the more striking because some of the phrases are rare: the verb συγχαίρω (“rejoice with, congratulate,” Rengstorf s.v.) occurs once elsewhere in Josephus (Ant. 8.50), as does the noun διήγημα (“report, story,” War 1.1). Mariamme’s disgust with Herod’s behavior is strongly emphasized by this vocabulary. Josephus’ formulation suggests that suspicion had become second nature to Herod. About Herod’s suspicion as a recurring motif, see Ant. 15.35 with the note to “being under suspicion” and 15.42 with the note to “he truly did not remain without suspicion.” These facts most probably refer to Mariamme’s attitude towards Herod at his return, which was an unmistakable signal, as the next sentence explains. Here the situation appears to be extremely painful for Herod because the obvious thing to do after his successful trip was to celebrate with his beloved wife. For Herod’s being troubled by unpleasant tidings about the misbehavior of people close to him, see Ant. 15.82 with the note to “immediately he was greatly disturbed.” The verb ἐπιταράττω (“trouble,” Rengstorf s.v.) occurs once elsewhere in Josephus (13.410).

The verb ἀδημονέω (“be dismayed/worried”) occurs once elswhere in Josephus, likewise in the Herod narrative of Antiquities (15.388). If the word παράλογος means “unreasonable” here (cf. Rengstorf s.v.), it indicates a strong disqualification by Herod of his wife’s behavior. A less negative translation would be “unexpected” (see also Ant. 15.119 with the note to “unexpectedly winning a victory”). This statement further explains Herod’s being troubled by the response of his wife (Ant. 15.210). Herod is focalized and the continuation of the narrative shows his agony of doubt about what to do with Mariamme (15.211-212). Such glimpses into his feelings are rare in the Herod narrative (Landau 2006: 166). For a similar construction of a passive voice of φέρω with τῷ πράγματι (“being devastated by the matter”), cf. Cassius Dio 36.38.3. The verb ἀδυνατέω (“be unable”; cf. Rengstorf s.v.) occurs once elsewhere in Josephus (Ant. 6.371). The contrast between Mariamme’s hatred of Herod and Herod’s love for her is also apparent from the parallel passage of War (1.436): “For Mariamme’s hatred for him (τοσοῦτον γὰρ ἦν μῖσος εἰς αὐτόν τῆς Μαριάμμης) was as great as his passionate love for her (πρὸς αὐτὴν ἔρως)” (trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a).The noun ἔρως (“[sexual] love, passion”) is a key word in this section of the Herod narrative (see Ant. 15.204, 207, 209, 211, 214, 218, 238, and about Herod’s love for Mariamme, 15.82 with the note to “loved her terribly”). For other phrases of φέρω (“bear up against, stand firm to”) with ἔρως (“love”) as object, see Parthenius of Nicaea 23.1; Lucian, Nav. 43.6; Xenophon of Ephesus 4.5.4. Josephus makes the same statement twice: negatively in this passage and positively in the next sub-clause. For a related combination of ὀργή (“anger”) and διαλλαγή (“reconciliation, pardon”), cf. Plutarch, Dion 16.3. The presentation of Herod as being torn apart by 2 competing powerful emotions, love and hate (see also Ant. 15.212 and cf. 15.208 which still focuses on Herod’s love for Mariamme), is characteristic of his image in Antiquities.Kasher (2007: 13) analyzes the Herod narratives from a psychological perspective and argues, by applying the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), that Herod suffered from a paranoid personality disorder. Herod’s behavior is indeed reminiscent of the type of mental disorder described in DSM as “borderline personality disorder,” which is characterized by (1) impulsive or unpredictable acts, (2) unstable and intense interpersonal relationships, (3) inappropriate, intense anger or lack of control of anger, (4) identity disturbance, (5) affective instability, (6) intolerance of being alone, (7) physically self-damaging acts, and (8) chronic feelings of emptiness or boredom. The question remains, however, whether these characteristics are representative of the historical Herod or rather reflect stereotypes articulated by Josephus or one of his sources. It is problematic to apply modern psychological assessments, which are based on contemporary conditions, to ancient monarchs and emperors. Many ancient rulers would fit the characteristics pointed out by Kasher in connection with Herod.For an expression similar to ἀπὸ θατέρου μεταβαίνω εἰς θάτερον (“moving from the one to the other”), see John Philoponus, Aet. mund. (ἐκ θατέρου εἰς θάτερον μεταβαίνειν, ed. Rabe 357). For other combinations of πολλὴν ἀπορίαν with ἔχω (“suffer great distress”), cf. Antiphon, Caed. Her. 65; Lysias 19.1; Aristotle, De an. 432b; Phys. 189b; Pol. 1284b; Arrian, Anab. 4.17.5.

Niese (370) reads στυγεῖν (“hate, abhor,” Rengstorf s.v. στυγέω) with MSS LAMW. The reading δυστυχεῖν (“suffer”) of MSS PFV and E may derive from a scribal lapse, switching to a related and more common verb. The verb στυγέω does occur a few more times in Josephus (War 5.413; Ant. 16.203; Apion 2.199). The parallelism in στυγεῖν καὶ στέργειν is another argument for the authenticity of the reading στυγεῖν (see the previous note). Both verbs echo the key words μῖσος (“hatred”) and ἔρως (“love”) of Ant. 15.211 and emphasize again that Herod was torn by these 2 emotions. Both verbs occur in Philo, Sobr. 23, which comments on Deut 21:15 (about a man who has 2 wives, the one beloved and the other disliked): “… we declare that in the beloved wife we have a figure of pleasure and in the hated wife a figure of prudence” (trans. Colson and Whitaker). The adjective ἕτοιμος followed by the middle voice of an infinitive of ἀμύνω (“being prepared to punish/fight/protect,” Rengstorf s.v.) may echo Thucydean vocabulary (see 4.73.2; cf. Appian, Bell. civ. 2.20.145). Mariamme’s arrogance (ὑπερηφανία), a characteristic she apparently shares with her mother, is a recurring motif in the Herod narrative of Antiquities (see 15.37 with the note to “frankness”). The expression ἡ ἄνθρωπος (“the woman”) may have a depreciating connotation in this context (see Ant. 15.67 about Cleopatra with the note to “the woman”). Cf. 15.231, again about Mariamme but with a different connotation. The verb μεθίστημι means “remove by killing” here (cf. Ant. 4.48; 18.147, 352; LSJ s.v. II.2; Rengstorf s.v.). Ant. 18.352 (about the poisoning of Asineus) offers a close parallel, having τὸν ἄνθρωπον (“the man”) as object of the verb. The noun ψυχή refers here to Herod’s conscious self, or his personality as the center of his emotions (LSJ s.v. IV). Rengstorf (s.v.) suggests “be already captivated (by love)” as meaning for the passive voice of προκαταλαμβάνω. The focus switches from Herod to the narrator. The concluding comment that follows is even more negative than the description of Herod’s feelings in Ant. 15.211-212 because it highlights Herod’s self-interest as his most important motive for not executing Mariamme. This detail is ironical: it suggests that it was not Herod’s intention to have his wife killed. When he ultimately did have her executed, his fear was realized (Ant. 15.229-247). For λανθάνω with verbs that express acting (“[doing something] without knowing or guessing [it]”), see Rengstorf s.v. The phrase is elliptical. Niese (370) reads παρ’ αὐτοῦ (“from him”) with MSS PF, but Marcus-Wikgren (100) read παρ’ αὐτῆς (“from her”—or “upon her,” as they translate). The combination of εἰσπράττω plus τιμωρίαν and παρά (“exact payment/punishment from [someone])” is conventional (e.g., Demosthenes, Or. 35.44; Xenophon of Ephesus 2.1.2, also Josephus, War 4.415). Josephus’ comment not only highlights the wickedness of Herod’s reasoning but also anticipates the king’s grief and illness following Mariamme’s execution (see Ant. 15.240-246).

Herod’s sister Salome and his mother Cyprus also acted as a tandem during the aftermath of Herod’s journey to Mark Antony (Ant. 15.65). Immediately upon Herod’s return they revealed Mariamme and Alexandra’s former plan to flee to the Roman legion nearby (15.80), and Salome accused her husband Joseph of having a sexual relationship with Mariamme (15.81; see also War 1.438; Ant. 15.220, 239, 258 as well as 15.184-185 about the different fortified places where Mariamme and Alexandra on the one hand and the rest of Herod’s family—including Salome and Cyprus—on the other hand were brought under during Herod’s journey to Octavian). Kasher (2007: 166) suggests that Salome and Cyprus were much aware of Herod’s impulsive and tempestuous character so they deliberately tried to provoke him in order to cause an outburst of insanity during which he would execute Mariamme. For the verb λαμβάνω with καιρός as object (“receive the opportunity”), see Ant. 15.42 with the note to “received the opportunity.” The Greek text is elliptical, but the context makes clear that Salome and Cyprus were eager to undertake actions that would harm Mariamme. The noun μῖσος (“hatred”) also occurs in connection with Mariamme hating Herod in War 1.436; Ant. 15.211 (cf. 15.44 about Alexandra’s hatred for Herod). About the 2 female factions at Herod’s court, one led by Salome and Cyprus and the other by Alexandra and Mariamme, see 15.80 with the note to “his mother.” The Hasmonean women hated not only Herod (15.211) but also his mother and sister (15.220), and Josephus’ report indicates that this hatred was mutual. The verb παροξύνω (“incite, provoke, make angry,” Rengstorf s.v.) also has Herod as object in Ant. 16.89, 308 (both about arousing Herod’s anger against his sons); cf. 17.64. The verb also occurs in 15.82, about the aftermath of Herod’s journey to Antony (see the note to “provoked by his jealousy”). Niese (370) reads οὐ μικρῶς, which is a case of litotes (literally “not a little”). Marcus-Wikgren (102) read οὐ μικραῖς (διαβολαῖς) with MSS VE, which implies a slightly different translation: “(talking about) serious (causes for suspicion)” (see also War 1.443; Ant. 15.81 about Salome’s accusations against her husband Joseph; the latter passage includes the noun διαβολή, which can mean “slander” as well as “[false] accusation,” Rengstorf s.v.). This passage is reminiscent of the aftermath of Herod’s journey to Mark Antony, during which Salome accused Joseph of having committed adultery with Mariamme (Ant. 15.81-82), which charge immediately triggered Herod’s jealousy. The noun ζηλοτυπία (“jealousy,” Rengstorf s.v.) also occurs in 15.82; for the recurring motif of Herod’s jealousy, see 15.50 with the note to “jealousy” and 15.82 with the note to “could not bear having a rival.” Herod’s hatred (μῖσος) of Mariamme is not mentioned in 15.81-87 (about Joseph’s adultery with Mariamme), which suggests that the relationship between Herod and Mariamme is deteriorating here, as the next paragraph states explicitly (see also 15.212).

This is a further nuance of Herod’s complex and wicked character. The reason for Herod’s pleasure is not given, but the readers may think of Herod’s suspicion, which is emphasized several times elsewhere in Antiquities (see Ant. 15.35 and 15.42 with the notes to “suspicion”). In line with this motif it is imaginable that Herod was glad that his assumptions concerning his wife, which had been triggered because of the affair with Joseph (15.81-87), were confirmed. The combination of ἀκούω and ἀηδῶς (“listen … without pleasure”) is common (e.g., Demosthenes, Exord. 33.2; Plutarch, Sull. 35.5; Chariton 5.8.6; Cassius Dio 44.45.5). The verb ἀποθαρρέω (“dare,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. This statement reflects Herod’s deeply ambiguous attitude towards Mariamme as described by Josephus (Ant. 15.211-212). The verb πιστεύω (“believe, trust,” Rengstorf s.v.) also occurs in the related passage of 15.81-87, in which Herod even apologizes for “having believed what he thought he had heard” (15.83; cf. the noun πίστις [“trust”] in 15.87). Compared to this earlier episode Herod’s present relationship with Mariamme is worse: he is trusting slanderous accusations against his wife. Josephus states here explicitly what several preceding details had already been hinting at. The imperfect tense εἶχεν (“had/continued to become”) implies that this was an ongoing process. The noun πάθος is repeated several times in this section and also occurs in related passages, but with various nuances (Rengstorf s.v.). In Ant. 15.208, 210 it indicates Mariamme’s inner feelings, but here and in 15.242 it refers to Herod’s passion for Mariamme (cf. 15.82 about the aftermath of Herod’s journey to Antony, in which case πάθος indicates Herod’s intense emotions; the word occurs twice in the parallel passage of War [War 1.443-444], indicating Herod’s anger). Herod’s passion for Mariamme fired up again after her death (Ant. 15.242).The verb ἀντεκκαίω (“kindle in turn,” LSJ s.v.; Rengstorf [s.v.] gives “be set ablaze against” as meaning) is found only here in all of ancient and medieval Greek literature (so the TLG). Josephus uses the simpler and much more common form ἐκκαίω at War 1.436 in a comparable but more general statement, contrasting Herod’s passion for Mariamme with her contempt for him. This statement connects with Josephus’ earlier description of Mariamme’s feelings about Herod in Ant. 15.208, 210 (note the correspondence between ἀποκρυπτομένης τὴν διάθεσιν “[not] conceal her disposition” and ἐπικρύπτεσθαι with τὸ πάθος “[not] conceal her feelings” in 15.208, 210). This statement connects with the description of Herod’s deeply ambiguous feelings about Mariamme and his agony in Ant. 15.211-212 (see, e.g., the beginning of 15.212).MSS LAMWE read μεταβάλλοντος (“change,” Rengstorf s.v. μεταβάλλω) instead of μεταλαμβάνοντος (“switch, change,” Rengstorf s.v. μεταλαμβάνω; Niese 370; for a similar variant reading, see 11.173). It is difficult to decide which reading is the more original; the reading μεταβάλλοντος is, however, likely a corruption of μεταλαμβάνοντος. The meaning of both participles is basically the same. This final clause summarizes the very different feelings of both spouses (cf. the construction with τῆς μὲν … τοῦ δέ) and repeats previous statements (see the preceding notes).

The conjunction κἂν is a crasis of καὶ ἄν and functions as a more intense form of καί (“even,” LSJ s.v.). The vague formulation adds suspense. The context suggest Mariamme’s execution (Ant. 15.230-231) as the fatal event intended (cf. 16.356 in connection with Herod’s punishment of his sons by Mariamme: Octavian advises Herod “not to accomplish anything incurable [μηδὲν ἀνήκεστον διαπράττεσθαι],” my trans.). Cf. Procopius, Bell. 2.4.21 and see Ant. 15.131 with the note to “irreparable harm.” The first part of this sub-clause connects with the previous report about Octavian’s victory at Actium (Ant. 15.161), but here the final scene of Octavian’s victory is meant: his capture of Egypt (see the next note). Antony committed suicide after a disastrous final battle before the gates of Alexandria on 1 August 30 BCE. Cleopatra committed suicide following her failure to persuade Octavian to enter into a partnership with her. Octavian turned Egypt into a Roman province (Plutarch, Ant. 75-86; Cassius Dio 51.6-17; see Ant. 15.190 with the note to “defeated in the Battle of Actium” and 15.201 with the note to “returned from Egypt”). The deaths of Antony and Cleopatra and Octavian’s capture of Egypt are also reported in the parallel passage of War (1.396). The meeting took place in Egypt (Ant. 15.217), most probably in the early autumn of 30 BCE (shortly after 1 August; cf. the preceding note and Herod’s haste to meet Octavian). Herod attempted to be a model of loyalty to his new patron (see 15.201). Josephus characteristically describes Herod’s visits of his patrons by emphasizing the king’s haste (cf. ἐπείγω [“be eager, haste”] in 15.187; 16.91 concerning visits to Octavian and in 16.12 concerning a visit to Marcus Agrippa). Ant. 15.201 mentions Herod’s support to Octavian and his army during their return trip from Egypt. Herod apparently considered Octavian’s affairs to be the most important; they clearly overrule his family concerns. The phrase τὰ περὶ τὴν οἰκίαν (“the matters of his family”) also occurs in Ant. 15.22, 42; 16.300. The troubles within Herod’s family mentioned in 15.202 concentrate here on Herod’s relationship with Mariamme, which thread will be taken up again in 15.218.

The story implies that Mariamme chose this moment deliberately because Herod was pressed for time (see the note to “hastened to meet Caesar” above), such that he likely would give in quickly to a request from his wife. This behavior matches her smart and successful pleading for the appointment of her brother as High Priest (see Ant. 15.31 “… not in the least because his wife Mariamme had slickly pressed him …” with the note to “had slickly pressed him”). Mariamme’s request was successful (15.217). Together with the administrator Joseph, Soemus was responsible for guarding Mariamme and Alexandra at Alexandrium (see Ant. 15.185 with the note to “Soemus”). Niese (371) reads the future participle παραστησομένη with MSS PF (expressing an intention: “in order to”) instead of the aorist participle παραστησαμένη of MSS LAMVWE (read by Marcus-Wikgren 102). The future participle is the lectio difficilior, but it is hardly compatible with the other information mentioned in this clause, which is not at all situated in the future (cf. Rijksbaron 2002: 33; the future participle παραστησόμενος in Ant. 12.243 indicates the intention of the actor). The aorist participle is, therefore, preferable. The reading παραστησομένη may result from a scribal lapse changing α incidentally to ο. The verb παρίστημι probably means “introduce, bring forward” here (Rengstorf s.v.). The Latin version reads commendans (“commended,” Niese 371; cf. LSJ s.v. C I.2 “commend,” referring to this passage). For the common phrase χάριν ὁμολογέω (“express gratitude”), see Ant. 15.83 with the note to “he offered many thanks.” The word ἐπιμέλεια (“care”) is more positive than the term φρουρεῖν (“guard”) used to indicate Soemus’ task in Ant. 15.185 (see 15.44 with the note to “care”). This may be in line with Mariamme’s attempt to get a favor from Herod. The noun therefore probably has a positive meaning here, although it can have a negative connotation (as it does in 15.44 concerning Alexandra). The word μεριδαρχία (“governorship,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus, and before him attested only in LXX 1 Esdras (1:5, 12; 5:4; 8:28). The related noun μεριδάρχης (“governor”) occurs twice in a reference to a high Seleucid official named Apollonius (Ant. 12.261, 264), but the name of Apollonius’ district is not explicitly given. Stern (1974b: 250) suggests that the “meridarchies” are identical with the regions of Idumea, Judea, Samaria, Galilee, and Perea. Schalit (2001: 214 n. 252) argues that the district meant must have been outside Judea since Soemus was an Iturean. Yet we can only speculate about the name and size of Soemus’ district. The point of the passage seems to be to present Soemus’ grant of office as an indistinct token extracted from Herod.

This simple remark indicates that Mariamme’s request reported in Ant. 15.216 was successful, which is remarkable in the light of Herod’s highly ambiguous attitude towards his wife described in the preceding paragraphs. Josephus perhaps contrasts the vague and presumably relatively small honor for Soemus with the huge grant Herod receives from Octavian according to this passage.Phrases with τυγχάνω (“receive”) and (τῆς) τιμῆς (“honor, office, etc.,” Rengstorf s.v. τιμή) as object occur frequently in Josephus (e.g., Ant. 2.128; 5.199; 11.244, 254, 280; cf. 3.188 on Aaron and the high priestly office). In War 1.396 Josephus refers to “additional honors” for Herod with a plural of τιμή. Herod must have marched towards Octavian in Egypt after hearing the news about the final victory over Antony and Cleopatra; and met him somewhere on the route (possibly in Pelusium because that was an obvious place to halt) or in Alexandria. The parallel account of War (1.395-397) only mentions Herod’s services during Octavian’s return from Egypt in a general way. The expression εἰς λόγους ἐλθεῖν/ἀφικνεῖσθαι (“discuss, speak with,” Rengstorf s.v. λόγος) is a fixed phrase in Josephus (Ant. 1.285; 13.282). Speaking with frankness (παρρησία, Rengstorf s.v.) to Octavian was apparently part of Herod’s personal relationship with Octavian as one of his friends (see the next note). This new relationship of frankness (παρρησία, Rengstorf s.v.) is confirmed by Ant. 16.293, which states that later it became temporarily impossible, when Herod had damaged the relationship by his actions against the Nabateans. This note refers to Herod’s meeting with Octavian in Rhodes, where he was installed as one of Octavian’s friends (Ant. 15.195-196, 199; see 15.5 with the note to “the friends around him,” concerning political friendship relationships), and echoes earlier statements about his friendship with Octavian (see 15.195 on Octavian’s treating Herod with every honor, and 15.199 on Herod’s being counted among Octavian’s most loyal friends). The note also introduces Octavian’s huge grants to Herod described in the remaining part of the paragraph. The phrase μεγίστων ἠξιώθη (“he was honored with the greatest favors/rewarded with the greatest honors”) is a fixed expression (e.g., Isocrates, Aeginet. 37; Diodorus 15.56.3; Josephus, Ant. 13.411; Lucian, Dial. mort. 25.2; Appian, Hist. rom. 2.9.1). The verb ἐδωρήσατο (“he gave [him]”) occurs also in the parallel account of War (1.397), at the end of which a motivation is given for Octavian’s generous grants to Herod: “And nothing drove him so much to grant these favors as the magnanimity of their beneficiary” (trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a). War 1.397 adds that the 400 Gauls were given to Herod as a bodyguard. Josephus formulates it slightly differently in the parallel passage of War (1.397) but also uses the verb δορυφορέω (“protect, form the bodyguard,” Rengstorf s.v.). It was usual practice to recruit foreign elite troops (e.g., Germans or Gauls) as bodyguards because such mercenaries were motivated by receiving good pay and not by local political ideology. Therefore, they were considered to be much more reliable than indigenous soldiers (Goldsworthy 1996: 71). Various ethnic groups of soldiers are mentioned in connection with Herod’s funeral procession (War 1.672; Ant. 17.198). Josephus also lists Gauls there (Γαλάται in War; τὸ Γαλατικόν in Ant.) but distinguishes them from the bodyguards (οἱ δορυφόροι; cf. War 1.437 on the Gauls who were responsible for the death of Aristobulus III). This information is also given in the parallel account of War (1.396-397), partly with other words (the noun χώρα [“land”] occurs in both passages). See Ant. 15.95-96 on Antony’s gift of the coastal cities between the River Eleutherus and Egypt and the region of Jericho to Cleopatra (see the notes to “the cities between the River Eleutherus” and “and Egypt”; also Otto 1913: 48-49; Kienast 1999: 75-76). The verb προσέθηκε plus τῇ βασιλείᾳ (“he [i.e., Octavian] added to his kingdom”) also occurs in the parallel account of War (1.396-397). The remaining part of the paragraph is, apart from a few variations, similar to War 1.396, in which passage the same geographical references are given. Gadara (currently Umm Qais) was one of the free cities of the Decapolis (Pliny the Elder 5.16.74), located on a hill south of the River Yarmuk, ca. 10 km southeast of Lake Gennesaret. The city was captured by Alexander Janneus and later removed from Judean territory by Pompey. After Herod’s death it became a free city again (Möller and Schmitt 1976: 59; Schürer-Vermes 2.132-36; see also Ant. 15.351-359 on Herod’s relationship with the Gadarenes). Hippus was a further city of the Decapolis (Pliny the Elder 5.15.71; 5.16.74, who refers to the name Hippo). Its location was ca. 3 km east of Lake Gennesaret. Like Gadara the city was captured by Alexander Janneus and liberated again by Pompey (Möller and Schmitt 1976: 110; Schürer-Vermes 2.130-02; Tsafrir, Di Segni, and Green 1994: 147). Augustus removed the cities of Gadara (see the preceding note), Hippus, and Gaza from the Herodian territory when Herod was succeeded by Archelaus as ruler of Judea (see War 2.97). In War 2.97 Josephus specifies that Archelaus received only an ethnarchy based in Jerusalem (and not Galilee or Perea, nor the Golan), i.e., Idumea, Judea, and Samaria. The only poleis connected with this were Jerusalem, Sebaste, Caesarea, and Joppa. The other Greek cities mentioned in this passage (Gaza, Gadara and Hippus) were removed from what Herod had governed and attached to the Province of Syria. The city of Samaria (renamed Sebaste by Herod, War 1.403; Ant. 15.246, 392), located ca. 11 km northwest of Mount Gerizim and ca. 50 km north of Jerusalem, was turned into a Macedonian colony by Alexander the Great or Perdiccas. The sons of John Hyrcanus captured it in ca. 107 BCE, and Pompey separated it again from the Judean territory. Since Samaria was part of Herod’s territory before Antony’s grants to Cleopatra (see War 1.213, 229, 302, 344; Ant. 14.284, 411, 413, 467), Octavian apparently returned Samaria to Herod in 30 BCE (Schalit 2001: 130, 161-62; further references in Udoh 2005: 141 n. 139). Otto (1913: 49, 55) argues that Octavian’s grant of Samaria means that he abolished the tribute that Herod previously had had to pay for Samaria (cf. Appian, Bell. civ. 5.75). Gaza, the southern-most coastal city of Judea, was a Greek city (War 2.97; Ant. 17.320) and originally not part of the Judean territory. It was a transit port for merchandise coming from South Arabia. Alexander Janneus conquered and destroyed the city following a siege of a year, Pompey liberated it, and Gabinius rebuilt it together with various other cities, including Samaria and Anthedon (Ant. 14.88; Möller and Schmitt 1976: 61-62; Schürer-Vermes 2.98-103; Tsafrir, Di Segni, and Green 1994: 129-31). Gaza most probably belonged to Herod’s territory (as Samaria did; see the preceding note) before Antony’s grant of the coastal cities to Cleopatra, which is supported by Herod’s appointment of Costobarus as governor of Idumea and Gaza (Ant. 15.260). Gaza was probably included in Antony’s grant of the coastal area to Cleopatra in 37(36) BCE, although Schalit (2001: 773-77) considers the possibility that there had been a separate grant of Gaza to Cleopatra (see Ant. 15.96 with the note to “the areas in Arabia that had been given to her”). Anthedon is located a few km north of Gaza. Herod restored it and renamed it Agrippias or Agrippeum in honor of Marcus Agrippa (War 1.118, 416; Ant. 13.357; Möller and Schmitt 1976: 17; Schürer-Vermes 2.104; Tsafrir, Di Segni, and Green 1994: 63). The Greek harbor city of Joppa (currently Yafo, south of Tel-Aviv), from which agricultural products from its hinterland were exported, was turned into a Jewish city by the Hasmonean ruler Simon. Pompey separated the city from Judean territory (Ant. 14.76). Julius Caesar returned it to the Jews (Ant. 14.205). It was part of Herod’s territory before Antony’s grant of the coastal region to Cleopatra (15.95), although Schürer-Vermes (2.113) is hesitant about this (further references in Möller and Schmitt 1976: 105; Schürer-Vermes 2.110-14; Tsafrir, Di Segni, and Green 1994: 152-53). The origin of Straton’s Tower is debated. The previously common view that the city was founded by a Sidonian king named Straton in the Persian period is contested on the basis of the Louvre Caesarea Cup, a 4th-cent. CE commemorative bronze cup that presents the city’s foundation legend in 3 scenes implying that Straton’s Tower was founded by the Greeks (one of them being called Straton) in the 3rd cent. BCE (Patrich 2007: 95-100). Straton’s Tower is located on the coast, ca. 35 km south of the current city of Haifa. It was handed over to Alexander Janneus, but Pompey separated it again from the Judean territory. Josephus refers to it for the first time in War 1.77 (further references in Schalit 1968: 116). Herod built a new city at the location of Straton’s Tower in honor of Octavian-Augustus and named it Caesarea Sebaste (Καισάρεια Σεβαστή; Ant. 15.293, 339). Levine (1975: 12) points out that the city was in disrepair before Herod decided to rebuild it (cf. Möller and Schmitt 1976: 114-15; Schürer-Vermes 2.115-18; Tsafrir, Di Segni, and Green 1994: 94-96). The last 4 cities mentioned in this list are part of the coastal area of Palestine. The word παράλιος (“situated by the sea, coastal region,” Rengstorf s.v.) is used in the plural in the parallel passage of War (1.396), with the same meaning. Octavian also enhanced the territory of King Archelaus of Cappadocia (Strabo 12.1.4; Cassius Dio 54.9.2; Buchheim 1960: 56).

Octavian’s grants obviously increased Herod’s prestige, not at least because they happened within a year after Herod had become Octavian’s friend in the spring of 30 BCE (Ant. 15.195-196, 199; about the date, see 15.187 with the note to “Caesar”). The connection with Herod’s visit to Octavian may be also apparent from the fact that the same adjective λαμπρός (“brilliant, magnificent, illustrious, generous, etc.,” Rengstorf s.v.) is used in the description of this meeting in connection with Octavian (15.194). The parallel passage of War (1.391) even uses it in Octavian’s phrases about Herod (see 15.194 with the note to “magnanimous and generous”). The word also occurs in 15.198 (ὡς ἀεὶ τὸ λαμπρότερον … προσεπικτώμενος “he always seemed to gain in splendor when he came out of the dangers”) and 15.200 (about Herod’s services to Octavian being “much bigger and more splendid [λαμπρότερα] than the kingdom”). Herod had escorted Octavian before (Ant. 15.196, 199-201), as he had previously done for his patron Antony (see 15.80 with the note to “he had escorted Antony to the Parthians” about escorting as one of the services of a client king). This connects with Ant. 15.201 (see the note to “returned from Egypt”) about Herod’s services to Octavian and his army on their return from Egypt. Since Antioch is most probably Antioch on the Orontes, the capital of Syria (see 15.8 with the note to “Antioch”), Octavian apparently returned along the same route as the one he had taken to Egypt (see also 15.199 with the note to “Ptolemais”). With this formula Josephus returns to the main theme of the episode: the domestic troubles, with the focus on Mariamme (Landau 2006: 167). For a similar transition with ἐπανελθών, cf. Ant. 16.276 “After Herod had returned from Rome, he learned that …” (my trans.). Herod, the subject of “he thought,” is the focalizer again (cf. Ant. 15.211-212). Herod draws a parallel by contrast, making an analogy between the increasing success in external affairs (i.e., as a ruler) and the increasing problems within his family, which matches Josephus’ own opinion about the king (see the next note).For a similar phrase to ἐπιδίδωμι εἰς (“provide, increase”) with εὐδαιμονίαν (“fortune, prosperity, well-being,” Rengstorf s.v. εὐδαιμονία) as object, see War 7.74 on the reception of Vespasian by the Romans. Although Josephus presents this reasoning through the perspective of Herod, the contrast between Herod’s success as a ruler and the tremendous troubles connected with his family and private life is, in fact, one of the recurring motifs of the Herod narrative in Antiquities (van Henten 2011d: 243-50). Ant. 16.76-77 (cf. 16.150-151, 156-159) also expresses this theme and questions whether it had been right to buy such great success in external matters at the price of the disasters at home (here too Josephus uses the words τὰ πράγματα [“his matters/situation”] and ἔξωθεν [“external”]). On the troubles in Herod’s family, see Ant. 15.202 with the note to “his family was in disorder” and the preceding note. The marital relationship between Herod and Mariamme, on which this section focuses, apparently had gone through several crises already: Dellius’ proposal to send Mariamme’s portrait over to Antony, which was embraced by Alexandra, may have caused a temporary alienation and certainly had serious consequences for Herod’s relationship with his mother-in-law (Ant. 15.26-33; cf. 15.73); Herod’s secret orders to Joseph during his journey to Antony had a devastating effect on Mariamme (15.65-87); and the similar procedure during Herod’s journey to Octavian turned Mariamme’s love into hatred (15.185, 202-215). Herod himself switched between deep feelings of love and anger (e.g., 15.211-212, 214), and Josephus suggests several times that the king was thinking of killing his wife (15.87, 212, 215). Josephus does not explicitly report about Herod’s previous happiness with Mariamme, but there are 2 indications for this: (1) Herod derived tremendous prestige from his marriage with Mariamme since she was not only of royal (i.e., Hasmonean) descent but also extremely beautiful (see Ant. 15.23 with the note to “strikingly beautiful”), and (2) Josephus repeats that Herod madly loved his wife (see 15.82 with the note to “loved her terribly” and 15.211 with the note to “his love”). About Herod’s love for Mariamme, see the previous note. Herod had good reasons for loving Mariamme (see the note to “have been rather fortunate before” above). The expression μετὰ τοῦ δικαίου is an adverbial phrase equivalent to δικαίως (“lawfully, rightly, justly,” LSJ s.v. δίκαιος B I.2). The complicated formulation ἔρωτα … οὐδενὸς ἐλάττω τῶν ἱστορουμένων ἐπεπόνθει (“the love … was greater than any [love] recorded” or “the love … was greater than [the love] of anybody on record”) may be corrupt (cf. Marcus-Wikgren 104-05). Nevertheless, there is a related expression in Philodemus, Mus. 36 (ed. Kemke 108): τῶν ἱστορουμένων οὐδενὸς ἥττον πολυπράγμων (“the most industrious person on record,” my trans.; LSJ s.v. ἱστορέω II). The plural τῶν ἱστορουμένων is ambiguous: it can be neutral or masculine/feminine and therefore refer to things or persons (cf. Rengstorf s.v. ἱστορέω, who prefers the second option).

Josephus briefly interrupts the narrative flow with a characterization of Mariamme (see also Ant. 15.237-239). The first key word, σώφρων (“prudent, wise”), is the most important virtue of a prudent ruler, as the Joseph story in Antiquities exemplifies (2.9-200, especially 2.48, 50, 56, 69, 138; Feldman 1992, in contrast to Josephus’ depiction of Cleopatra in 15.89-91; van Henten 2005a). Several other women in Josephus also exemplify this virtue (Mrs. Potiphar, from the perspective of her husband, Ant. 2.59; Nabal’s wife [cf. 1 Sam 25], Ant. 6.296; the wise old woman [2 Sam 20:16], Ant. 7.289; Paulina, Ant. 18.66, 73; Antonia, Ant. 18.180). In some of these passages the word σώφρων probably has a sexual connotation, indicating self-control in a context of improper sexual contacts and/or faithfulness to one’s partner (2.59; cf. 2.48, 50, 56, 69; 18.73). This connotation may also be present here, especially if the larger context is taken into account (cf. Salome’s accusation against Joseph and Mariamme in 15.81 and the slanderous remarks by Salome and Cyprus concerning Mariamme in 15.213; see also the next note). Mariamme’s faithfulness probably should not be taken in a general sense since Alexandra and Mariamme’s attempt to flee to the Roman legion—after they had become aware of Herod’s secret instructions for Joseph to kill Mariamme (Ant. 15.65)—was a clear case of disloyalty (15.72-73). The adjective πιστή (“faithful”) can have a sexual connotation (Mayer-Schärtel 1995: 230-31), which would in this case imply that Salome’s accusations and slander about Mariamme’s adulterous behavior (see the preceding note) were unwarranted. Alexander’s accusation of his wife Glaphyra is a parallel that supports a sexual interpretation of πιστή: Glaphyra was unfaithful to him (referring to women who cannot be trusted, ἄπιστα) by having entered into relationships with other men (Ant. 17.352). The word γυναικεῖος/-ως (“pertaining to women,” Rengstorf s.v.) already occurs in the Herod narrative in Ant. 15.44, 69, the first time in a reference to Alexandra and the second time referring to both Mariamme and Alexandra (with the emphasis on Alexandra). The 2 passages are far from flattering and express various aspects of typically female behavior (see 15.44 with the note to “full of female thoughts”). Mariamme’s difficult character (see also Ant. 15.220, 237-238) becomes apparent in her arrogance, highlighted already in the description of the aftermath of Herod’s visit to Antony (15.81), as well as in her frankness of speech (see 15.238 with the note to “license of tongue”; cf. War 1.437).The expression χαλεπός/-ῶς is a key word in this section (15.202-203, 208 [twice], 210, 219, 223). See also χαλεπῶς ἐχούσας (“they were angry,” 15.202 with the note to “were angry”) and χαλεπῶς ἔφερον (“they were taking it badly,” 15.203 with the note to “which they were taking badly”) concerning Mariamme and Alexandra’s response to Herod’s decision to lodge and guard them in Alexandrium apart from the rest of the family (15.185, 203-204). A similar phrase (χαλεπῶς διέκειτο “she was annoyed”) concerns Mariamme alone (15.208). The phrase ἐκ φύσεως is here synonymous with φύσει (“by nature, according to one’s character,” Rengstorf s.v. φύσις). It implies that the statements in this passage concern Mariamme’s character. For similar phrases concerning the characters of Cleopatra, Hyrcanus, and Herod, see respectively Ant. 15.89 (with the note to “greedy character”), 15.178 (with the note to “against his nature”), and 17.304 (with the note to “his character”). Niese (371) reads ἱκανῶς ἐντρυφῶσα with most MSS, which can be translated in several ways because ἐντρυφάω (which is a hapax legomenon in Josephus) can be interpreted as “treat haughtily” (Rengstorf s.v. ἐντρυφάω), “delight in” (LSJ s.v. I), or “(ab-)use at pleasure” (LSJ s.v. III). Instead of ἱκανῶς MSS LW and a marginal reading of MS A have ἀνικάνως (“insufficiently, not capable, being dissatisfied with everything,” LSJ s.v.), which only seems to go with the third meaning of ἐντρυφάω: “she made insufficiently use of.” This phrase echoes passages about Antony and Cleopatra being enslaved by love (ἔρως) or passion/desire (ἐπιθυμία): Antony was “enslaved by his passionate love for Cleopatra (τῷ Κλεοπάτρας ἔρωτι δεδουλωμένον)” (War 1.243, trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a); Cleopatra herself was “a slave to her desires (δουλευούσῃ ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις)” (Ant. 15.91; see also 15.88, 93 [with the note to “he was totally overcome by this woman”], 97, 131, and van Henten 2005a: 114-15). Landau (2006: 167) emphasizes, however, that the analogy between Mariamme and Cleopatra is only partial. This criticism is connected with Josephus’ earlier remarks about Mariamme’s difficult character: her arrogance (because of her royal descent; see the note to “difficult” above) and frankness of speech (Ant. 15.238). The latter characteristic is related to what Josephus seems to criticize here: Mariamme “did not know her place”; she sometimes forgot that Herod was not only her husband but also the king. Mariamme could even not keep her opinion to herself when expressing it was to her disadvantage (cf. 15.85-86, 210; differently Alexandra according to 15.60). In this light τῷ καιρῷ probably means “at the right time/moment” (cf. Rengstorf s.v. καιρός).The verb συγκαταλογίζομαι (“take into account,” Rengstorf s.v.) occurs once elsewhere in Josephus (16.96). The phrase ὑβριστικῶς προσηνέχθη (“she treated [him] insolently/arrogantly”) elaborates a further aspect of Mariamme’s difficult character. For related vocabulary, see Diodorus 16.41.2; 34/35.2.36; Plutarch, Mor. (Mulier. virt.) 259a. Mariamme’s arrogance towards Herod matches her and her mother’s behavior towards Herod’s relatives (see Ant. 15.37, 44). This is one of the passages that suggest that Herod was capable of controlling his emotions if he wanted to (van Henten 2008a: 202-03). Josephus uses the same phrase ἐγκρατῶς ἔφερε (“bore with self-control”) in Ant. 15.60 (see the note to “Alexandra controlled”) concerning Alexandra’s self-control with respect to her suspicions about her son’s death. The rare compound ἐξειρωνεύομαι (“ridicule, being ridiculed”) occurs once elsewhere in Josephus, in connection with Alexandra and Mariamme’s attempt to worm Herod’s secret instructions out of Joseph (see Ant. 15.69).

Apparently Mariamme insulted Herod’s mother and sister even in public (ἀναφανδόν —“openly”; cf. the same adverb in Ant. 16.73 concerning Mariamme’s sons Alexander and Aristobulus), which is a further indication of Mariamme’s lack of self-control (see 15.219 with notes). On the antagonistic relationship between Herod’s mother Cyprus and sister Salome on the one hand, and Mariamme and Alexandra on the other hand, see Ant. 15.81, 213, the continuation of the narrative below and the following notes. The noun δυσγένεια (“low birth”) partly repeats Ant. 15.81 (see the note to “their low birth”), concerning Mariamme’s reproaching the low birth of Salome’s family. Here Josephus uses the verb διαχλευάζω (“scoff at, ridicule,” Rengstorf s.v.; cf. War 2.281; 4.338; Ant. 9.265 [variant reading]), with δυσγένειαν as object, instead of ἐξονειδίζω (“reproach”). War 1.437-438 suggests that in addition to his mother and sister Mariamme also reproached Herod himself for having Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus III murdered: “It was for this reason that Mariamme upbraided (ὠνείδιζεν) Herod, and insulted his sister and mother with disgraceful reproaches (δειναῖς ἐξύβραζεν λοιδορίαις)” (trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a). The same phrase κακῶς λέγω (“revile, ridicule,” Rengstorf s.v. λέγω) is used in Ant. 16.72 concerning Salome reviling Mariamme as well as her sons (cf. also Apion 1.318). Dissension (στασίς) and hatred (μῖσος) are words that fit the previous descriptions of the relationship between the 2 camps of women (i.e., Hasmonean versus Herodian) very well (see Ant. 15.80-81, 184-185, 213 [in which passage μῖσος is used] and cf. 15.23-24, 35-38, 44). For the rare expression μῖσος ἄσπονδον (“implacable hatred”), cf. Sozomen 5.22.2. The adjective ἄσπονδος (“implacable, untrustworthy”) also occurs in Ant. 4.264; 15.146 (see the note to “untrustworthy in battle”). The expression διαβολὰς μείζονας (“rather serious slanders”) connects with Salome’s slanderous accusation (διαβολή) against her husband Joseph (and, in fact, also against Mariamme, Ant. 15.81), as well as with Cyprus and Salome’s manifold slander about Mariamme (οὐ μικραῖς διαβολαῖς, 15.213).

Josephus frequently refers to Herod’s suspicion (see Ant. 15.42 with the note to “suspicion”). Being under his suspicion was dangerous for the person involved (15.35 with the note to “suspicion”). Mariamme was apparently in an extremely dangerous situation because of Cyprus and Salome’s slander. It is obvious that both ladies could do a lot of damage to Mariamme’s reputation in the course of a year, but the period of a year also suggests that Herod was capable of controlling himself from taking rash decisions (see Ant. 15.219). Josephus’ remark is ambiguous because the preceding paragraphs reports 2 visits of Herod to Octavian and 2 returns: (1) the visit to Rhodes after Actium (Ant. 15.187-197), followed by a reference to Herod’s return (15.198), and (2) Herod’s meeting with Octavian in Egypt, after the final victory over Mark Antony and Cleopatra (15.215-218), followed by a reference to Herod’s return home (15.218). There are 2 further references to a return from a trip to Octavian (15.202, 209), which probably both concern the first visit. That visit took place in the spring of 30 BCE (see 15.187 with the note to “Caesar”), the second probably in the early autumn of that same year (see 15.215 with the note to “hold Egypt following Antony’s and Cleopatra’s deaths”). It is plausible that the second visit (15.215-218) is meant in 15.221 (differently Otto 1913: 51) because it is described in the immediate context. In that case “the period of a year” would extend from the early autumn of 30 BCE until the early autumn of 29 BCE. If the first visit is meant, which remains possible, the period would be the spring of 30 BCE—the spring of 29 BCE. The meaning of the passive voice of the rare verb προοικονομέω (“arrange before,” LSJ s.v., or “take precautions,” Rengstorf s.v.; cf. War 7.279; Ant. 2.87) is uncertain here. Rengstorf (s.v.) suggests “be kept previously under control” as meaning (although with a question mark added). LSJ (s.v.) give “be so arranged.” The phrase τέλεον μέντοι … ἐξερράγη (“finally, however, … exploded”; for ἐκρήγνυμι [“break out, burst”], see Rengstorf s.v.) draws the readers’ attention and prepares for a climax. It may echoe a phrase in Herodotus (8.74): “(For a time each man talked quietly to his neighbor, wondering at Eurybiades’ folly,) but finally it came out into the open (τέλος δὲ ἐξερράγη)” (trans. Godley; cf. Aelius Aristides, Sacri serm. [ed. Dindorf 1.468]). The verb ἐγγίγνομαι (“be born in, occur, emerge, pass,” Rengstorf s.v.) occurs 13 times in Josephus. Six of these occurrences are part of the Herod narrative of Antiquities (15.221, 295; 16.75, 176; 17.104, 109). The phrase ἀφορμῆς ἐγγενομένης (literally “starting-point occurring …”) finds a close parallel in Gregory of Nyssa, Cant. cant. (ed. Langerbeck 6.55).

The verb κατακλίνω (“lie down, recline at table,” Rengstorf s.v.) often occurs in the context of a meal (cf. Ant. 6.48), but here the verb refers to resting (cf. aorist infinitive ἀναπαύσασθαι a few words further), probably for a nap at noon (the hottest period of the day). Cf. the story about the death of Mariamme’s brother Aristobulus III, in which Josephus relates that the young man and other guests of Alexandra “cooled themselves off from the extreme heat of midday” near the swimming pools of Jericho (15.54). The noun μεσημβρία (“noon”) also occurs in 15.54. This detail suggests that it was Herod’s habit to call for Mariamme when he was resting (see also Ant. 15.242 about Herod calling for Mariamme although she was dead).With Mariamme’s refusal to lay down with Herod Josephus moves over to the climax of the dramatic story about the queen’s end, which focuses on Salome’s framing of Mariamme, alleging that she was planning to have her husband poisoned (15.222-231). Herod’s great affection (φιλοστοργία) for Mariamme is a recurring motif in the Herod narrative of Antiquities (see 15.66, 68, 70, 83; cf. 16.11 concerning Mariamme’s sons). Ant. 15.83 states that Herod was “overcome by affection for his wife.” Here, a small but telling detail is added: Herod always felt affection for Mariamme. This may be somewhat overstated, but it would explain why Mariamme could stand her ground at Herod’s court despite the sabotage by Salome and Cyprus (see 15.213 with the note to “his sister and mother noticed” and cf. Dositheus’ calculation). The aorist κατεκλίθη (“did [not] lie down”) contrasts with κατακλινόμενος (“lying down”) concerning Herod. The participle σπουδάζοντος (“although he urged her to,” Rengstorf s.v. σπουδάζω) is absent in MSS FVE (Niese 372). Mariamme treats Herod here the way she used to behave towards Salome and Cyprus (see Ant. 15.81, 220). Ilan (1998: 211) argues that the Antiquities report about Mariamme’s death is modelled on King David’s removal of his wife Michal from the court (1 Sam 6:12-23), which likewise mentions Michal’s contempt for David. The verb ἐκφαυλίζω (“depreciate, pour contempt on,” LSJ s.v.) occurs 8 times in Josephus and only in Antiquities. The verb προσλοιδορέω in the middle and passive voices (here passive) means “insult besides.” The verb occurs once elsewhere in Josephus (Ant. 7.170; cf. the variant reading of MS M in 13.372 and the noun λοιδορίαις in War 1.438). Most Greek MSS transmit τὸν πατέρα (“her father”), which is probably the original reading (Niese 372). MS L and E read τὸν πάππον (“her grandfather”), which is historically correct but likely a correction by a copyist (Marcus-Wikgren 106 n. b; Schalit 2001: 587 n. 43) on the basis of the parallel passage of War (1.437; see Ant. 15.238 with the note to “for her not living acceptably with the king”), which reads τὸν πάππον. Since Mariamme’s father Alexander had been executed in 49 BCE by Q. Metellus Scipio, the governor of Syria (Ant. 14.125), the correct reference should be to Mariamme’s grandfather Hyrcanus II. Josephus offers 2 versions of his death in Antiquities (15.165-178) and sides with the second version, strongly suggesting that Hyrcanus’ execution was orchestrated by Herod (15.174, 178 and see 15.176 with the note to “ordered for the man to be strangled”). Mariamme thinks aloud what Josephus has already suggested to his readers: Herod was responsible for the death of Mariamme’s (grand-)father and brother (Ant. 15.53, 55, 58, 174, 178). Small hints in the narrative concerning Jonathan-Aristobulus’ death (15.50-56) suggest that Herod was responsible (15.53, 55) and these are taken up in the aftermath of the event, leading to Herod’s journey to Antony (15.58, 62-65). The parallel passage of War (1.437) reports a similar accusation but does not indicate the context of this reproach: “She publicly reproached him (φανερῶς ὠνείδιζεν αὐτῷ) about what had happened to her grandfather (τὸν πάππον), Hyrcanus, and to her brother, Jonathan” (trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a).

The phrase χαλεπῶς φέρω (“take badly”) also occurs in Ant. 15.203, referring to Alexandra and Mariamme’s response to their stay and treatment at Alexandrium. For other occurrences, see 15.24 with the note to “took the disgrace of her son badly,” and for parallel phrases of χαλεπῶς φέρω plus ὕβρις (“insolence, disgraceful treatment,” Rengstorf s.v., or “outrage,” LSJ s.v. II) as object, Hesiod, Fragm. astr. 7.5; Appian, Bell. civ. 4.5.32. For the motif of Herod’s rashness in acting, see Ant. 15.100 with the note to “out of rashness” and 15.230 with the note to “not to kill her hastily in this way.” Herod’s sister Salome acts at the right moment, as she does during the aftermath of Herod’s journey to Mark Antony, when she accuses her husband Joseph of adultery with Mariamme (Ant. 15.80-81). Josephus presents Salome as a shrewd and unscrupulous schemer against Mariamme and her sons (see 15.80 with the note to “his sister Salome”). Herod’s disturbance is emphasized in the earlier episode about Joseph and Mariamme during the aftermath of his journey to Antony, but there Herod “was greatly disturbed” (ἐξετετάρακτο) after Salome’s accusation that Joseph had committed adultery with Mariamme (see Ant. 15.82 with the note to “he was greatly disturbed”). The noun ταραχή (“disturbance”) also occurs with μείζων (“greater, more serious”) in War 1.245 and Ant. 16.229 (concerning the disturbances and dissension within Herod’s family; see also 15.22 with the note to “disagreements also arose among persons within his household”). Cup-bearers were part of the royal court in the eastern Mediterranean world (cf. the Joseph story about the cup-bearer in Pharaoh’s dream: Gen 40:1-41:13; Josephus, Ant. 2.63-79). Josephus’ other references to cup-bearers mostly concern the setting of a royal court (War 1.249, 261; Ant. 14.333 on the Parthian royal cup-bearer Pacorus [see 15.12 with the note to “the commanders of the Parthians”] and Ant. 11.159 concerning Nehemiah, the cup-bearer of the Persian king Xerxes). Cup-bearers were to pour wine for the king (Ant. 2.64) and so they had to be absolutely reliable (cf. 2.66) in order to prevent poisoned wine. Herod’s father Antipater’s being poisoned by Malichus with the aid of a cup-bearer illustrates the need for reliability (War 1.226; Ant. 14.281). Vössing (2004: 168 n. 2 with references) wonders whether Herod’s cup-bearer was a eunuch since it was a practice at the Hasmonean court that cup-bearers were eunuchs (similarly at the royal house of Nicomedia). A later passage about Herod’s cup-bearer explicitly states that he was an eunuch (Ant. 16.230). Salome’s act perfectly matches her image in Josephus (see the note to “his sister Salome” above).The adverbial phrase ἐκ πλείστου (“long before”) can also be translated with “in great detail” (LSJ s.v. πλεῖστος IV.3). Both possibilities emphasize that Salome had carefully prepared this set up. The accusation is plausible because the cup-bearer’s nearness to the king could lead to confidential tasks, ordered either by the king or by somebody who needed to approach the king. The offer of a love-potion (φίλτρον, Rengstorf s.v.) coming from Mariamme would have appealed to Herod since it would be a signal that Mariamme had overcome her anger and wanted to respond to Herod’s love again. The noun φίλτρον is a key-word in this section (see Ant. 15.224, 225 [twice], 229). The dangerous potential of a love-potion is also apparent from the stories about the death of Herod’s brother Pheroras (War 1.583; Ant. 17.62).The verb συγκατασκευάζω means “help to prepare” here (Rengstorf s.v.) and implies that Mariamme was involved in the preparation of the love-potion.

I.e., Herod. The aorist ταραχθῇ (“if he should be confused”) connects with ταραχῆς in the previous paragraph and puts emphasis on Herod’s confusion and disturbance (see Ant. 15.223 with the note to “his disturbance was rather serious”). It is clear that the subject is the cup-bearer since the infinitive λέγειν (“say”) follows κελεύουσα (“she [i.e., Salome] had ordered him [i.e., the cup-bearer] to say”) of Ant. 15.223. Dindorf (1845: 594, followed by Marcus-Wikgren 106 but not by Niese 372) notes that there is a lacuna after ὅτι (“[say] that”). The noun φάρμακον is ambiguous: it can mean “medicine, potion” but also “drug” and especially “(deadly) poison” (Rengstorf s.v.; see War 1.272, 581-583, 592; Ant. 17.69). The word could, therefore, easily have aroused Herod’s suspicion (cf. Ant. 15.42 with the note to “suspicion”), and this seems to have been exactly what Salome was aiming for.Marcus-Wikgren (106) conjecture χεούσης (“pouring”) instead of ἐχούσης (“having”; assuming that a transposition of χ and ε corrupted the more original reading), which is unnecessary since the transmitted text is perfectly understandable: Mariamme kept the potion until the cup-bearer poured it (cf. War 1.593 on Pheroras’ wife, who was keeping poison intended to murder Herod). The passive participle of παρακαλέω probably means “be requested” here (Rengstorf s.v.): the context implies that Mariamme requested the cup-bearer to pour the potion. The cup-bearer’s words to Herod confirm this (see Ant. 15.225 with the note to “said that it was a potion given by Mariamme”). Herod is not mentioned explicitly.These phrases form the beginning of what the cup-bearer should do in case Herod did not respond to the statement about the love-potion. The verb κινέω (“move, arouse”) is ambiguous: it can indicate the effect of certain feelings or emotions upon a person, positively or negatively (cf. Ant. 15.50 concerning Herod being provoked by jealousy and 15.351 about the Jews’ feelings of hatred of Herod). The passive voice can in such contexts mean “be agitated/disquieted/angry” (Rengstorf s.v. κινέω). With Rengstorf (s.v. ἀργός “idle”), who suggests “not to dwell on the matter, drop it” as meanings for τὸν λόγον ἀργὸν ἐᾶν. For other expressions with λόγος and ἀργός, cf. Aesop 287; Clement of Alexandria, Paed. 2.6.50; Strom. 7.9.54. This is the conclusion of Salome’s words to the cup-bearer, which explains her previous statement. The cup-bearer’s participation in her scheme had to be without danger for him. MSS PFV read οὐδέν instead of οὐδένα, which implies a slightly different translation: “nothing would cause a danger for him.” The verb προδιδάσκω (“instruct previously,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. The verb εἰσπέμπει (“she sent [him] in”) repeats the same phrase of Ant. 15.223 and rounds off Salome’s instructions for the cup-bearer.

The common meaning of πιθανῶς is “credibly, persuasively” (Rengstorf s.v. πιθανός); an alternative translation would be “obediently, docilely” (LSJ s.v. πιθανός). Josephus neither tells how Salome succeeded in persuading Herod’s cup-bearer to co-operate with her, nor mentions any reward by Salome (see the next note). The cup-bearer may have thought that he would not put his position at risk by participating in the intrigue, as Salome’s last remark suggests (see Ant. 15.224 with the note to “not cause any danger for him”). This is the obvious thing to do in order to bribe an official (cf. War 1.489; Ant. 15.205). It is plausible that Salome had to do something similar in order to assure herself of the cup-bearer’s co-operation, but Josephus does not mention this. The infinitive ἀναπείθειν echoes πείθοι (“persuaded”) of Ant. 15.223. In both cases Mariamme is the subject. The combination of ἀναπείθω (“persuade,” Rengstorf s.v.) and διδόναι (“give”) also occurs in 15.168, in which passage Alexandra persuades Hyrcanus II to give a letter to Dositheus in order to arrange an escape to King Malichus. Salome’s strategy, explained in her instructions to the cup-bearer (“If [Herod’s interest] would not be aroused because of this love-potion …,” Ant. 15.224), aimed for this response by Herod: διακινηθέντος (“got excited”) partly repeats κινηθέντος (“[if Herod’s interest] would not be aroused”) of 15.224 and adds suspense because of the prefix δια-. The verb is ambiguous (cf. 15.224 with the note to “would not be aroused”): the passive voice can mean “get excited” and “be disturbed/agitated” (LSJ s.v.; Rengstorf s.v.). Herod’s question also connects with Salome’s instructions (“… if he would … ask what of all things this was …,” Ant. 15.224), but the vocabulary is different. This statement also connects with Salome’s instructions (“… [the cup-bearer] should say that Mariamme had this potion but that he was requested to serve [it],” Ant. 15.224), which were apparently meticulously obeyed by the cup-bearer. The noun φάρμακον (“potion, drug”) also occurs in that passage (see the note to “this potion” about the ambiguity of this phrase). The noun δύναμις (“power”) indicates the potential power of the potion (cf. Rengstorf s.v.: “potentiality, effect”), which is again ambiguous: it could imply a powerful love-potion but also a powerful drug. The cup-bearer’s statement adds to the ambiguity implied by the noun φάρμακον (see the previous note) and could easily arouse Herod’s suspicion since knowing about the drinks poured to the king was the crucial part of the cup-bearer’s job (see Ant. 15.223 with the note to “his cup-bearer”).The narrative about the poisoning of Pheroras (17.59-77) results in Varus testing the power of the drug: “… he [i.e., Varus] … ordered for the poison (τὸ φάρμακον) to be brought before them, so that he would know the force that remained in it (ἵν’ εἰδῇ τὴν περιοῦσαν αὐτῷ δύναμιν)” (17.131, my trans.); a prisoner who had been sentenced to death had to drink from the potion and died on the spot (17.132). This is the cleverest part of Salome’s instructions: informing Herod that he did not know the potential of the potion enabled him to fulfill his duty as cup-bearer (see the previous note and the continuation of the narrative) and execute Salome’s instructions. In this way it was safe for him to participate in the scheme, as Salome indicated at the end of her words (“For it would not cause any danger for him …,” Ant. 15.224). See the previous note.

For a similar introduction of a response by Herod to disturbing news, cf. Ant. 16.235 “Having heard these statements, Herod (became extremely bitter …) (Τούτων τῶν λόγων ἀκούσας Ἡρώδης)” (my trans.). Herod’s bad state is explained by Mariamme’s refusal to lie with Herod (Ant. 15.222-223). The verb διάκειμαι means “be in a certain mental or emotional condition” (Rengstorf s.v.). In combination with κακῶς it can indicate being in a bad state in general (this is the most probable meaning here), having an illness or handicap (Apion 1.257), or showing a negative attitude towards certain persons (possibly here and in Ant. 16.386 with Ernesti’s conjecture; see Niese 63). Cf. the related phrase χαλεπῶς διάκειμαι (“be shocked/annoyed/displeased/sulk”) in 15.208 (with the note to “Being upset”). These phrases connect with Herod’s reaction to Mariamme’s refusal to lie with him (see the previous note): “While he took her outrageous [accusation] badly …” (Ant. 15.223). Niese (373) reads ἠρεθίσθη with MSS PFV and E, which can mean that Herod “was enraged” or “felt disturbed” (Rengstorf s.v. ἐρεθίζω). MSS LAMW transmit a passive voice of the related compound verb ἀνερεθίζω, with a slightly different meaning: “was provoked/irritated” (Rengstorf s.v.). Eunuchs traditionally served at royal courts in the eastern Mediterranean world (see Ant. 10.190 paraphrasing Dan 1:8, and Ant. 11.191, 260 concerning Queen Esther’s eunuchs), as is also apparent from Josephus’ brief description of Herod’s 3 eunuchs in War 1.488 (cf. Ant. 16.230-231): “There were three eunuchs who were particularly respected by the king (τρεῖς εὐνοῦχοι τιμιώτατοι τῷ βασιλεῖ), and this was evident by the services they performed: one was in charge of pouring wine, another served dinner, and the third one put him to bed and slept at his side” (trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a; cf. 17.44). Mariamme, being the queen, had probably her own eunuchs (cf. 11.260; further references in Schalit 2001: 411).E reads οἰνοχόον (“cup-bearer”) instead of εὐνοῦχον (“eunuch,” Niese 373). The 2 words are closely related, and the epitomist may have stuck to the noun οἰνοχόος given in 15.223. The cup-bearer may, in fact, have been an eunuch, as the passage of War 1.488 suggests. Herod frequently applied torture as a means to find out the truth (War 1.443, 485, 489, 496, 527-529, 577, 584-586, 590-594, 598-599, 606, 635; 2.85; Ant. 15.231; 16.246-253, 256, 315, 317-318, 320, 388-391; 17.56-57, 64-65, 69, 77, 79, 93, 105-106, 118-121; cf. 15.358; 17.105-106, 118-119). Ant. 17.69, 79 mention the torture of a Samaritan named Antipater and a freedman Bathyllus concerning a drug that had been prepared for poisoning Herod.Torture was often applied in Graeco-Roman trials and private households. Herod did not distinguish between slaves and free persons. Roman law implied that Roman citizens could not be tortured, but Roman officials and governors had no qualms about torturing anyone else—including foreigners and freedmen without citizen status. Herod was presumably acting not differently from any other monarch, none of whom had anything like the Roman citizenship in his kingdom. Roman monarchs too, even during the early empire, did not bother much about rules when push came to shove. From the 2nd cent. CE onward, free persons were tortured on a more regular basis (Peters 1985: 11-36). Obviously Mariamme’s most faithful eunuch could have been expected to be familiar with her confidential acts. The formulation of this passage is redundant. The last part of it (οὔτε μεῖζον οὔτε ἔλαττον τι πεπρᾶχθαι “that nothing big or small could have been done”) is paralleled by Pseudo-Socrates, Ep. 1.6; cf. Aelius Aristides, Conc. (ed. Dindorf 1.789); Sacri serm. (ed. Dindorf 1.531).

The expression ὁ ἄνθρωπος (“the man, the fellow”) can refer to a specific man (e.g., War 2.106; 6.302; Ant. 8.49, 234; 13.295; 17.180; 19.223; Life 102; Apion 1.180, 189, 202), sometimes implying pity in particular contexts (“the poor man/fellow,” Rengstorf s.v. ἄνθρωπος), which is probably the case here (cf. Ant. 17.34 about Pheroras being controlled by women). This matches the information about Salome’s intrigue: there was no potion, and so the eunuch could not know about it. On Herod’s application of torture, see Ant. 15.226 with the note to “torture.” The phrase τῆς γυναικὸς ἔχθος εἰς αὐτόν (“the woman’s hostility to him”) connects with several other passages about hostility towards Herod. Six out of the 9 occurrences of ἔχθος in Josephus concern Herod: τὸ πρὸς Ἡρώδην ἔχθος (“[his] hatred for Herod”) in War 1.239; 2.68, 76; Ant. 15.71, 227; 17.287. On Mariamme’s hatred of Herod and his mother and sister, see Ant. 15.211 and 15.213 with the note to “their feelings of hatred towards Mariamme.” This refers to Soemus’ revelation of Herod’s secret instructions to kill Mariamme if Herod was not accepted by Octavian as ruler of Judea (Ant. 15.185, 205-208).

The phrase ταῦτα δ’ ἔτι λέγοντος draws the readers’ attention to what is subsequently narrated (cf. Life 259: “While I [i.e., Josephus] was still saying these things [ταῦτ’ ἔτι λέγοντος], there were numerous voices from all sides calling me patron and rescuer …,” trans. Mason in BJP 9). For a similar formula, see Ant. 1.286. Herod’s dismay is apparent from his outcry; his emotional state is going from bad (Ant. 15.226) to worse. He responds in a similar way to Mariamme’s statement about his secret instruction: “He cried out (ἐβόα) and tore his hair with his hands” (15.86). For phrases similar to μέγα βοήσας (“cried out aloud”), see 7.278; 17.206; cf. 8.219 and adverbial phrases with μεγάλη βολή (“in a loud voice”) in the dative or accusative (6.172; 7.380; 8.339; 9.248). This is the third and final reference to Soemus’ faithfulness to Herod. The 2 previous references are found in Ant. 15.185, 205: Ant. 15.185 concerns Herod’s instructions for Joseph and Soemus to guard Mariamme and Alexandra (see the note to “most faithful to him from the beginning”); Ant. 15.205 invokes the reader’s suspicion (see the note to “trustworthy at the beginning”). Here Josephus writes in retrospective that Soemus had been “at all other times most faithful (πιστότατος, repeating πιστοτάτους of 15.185) to him …,” which implies that Herod believed that something very exceptional had taken place; otherwise Soemus would have remained faithful to him. This belief is elaborated in the continuation of the narrative (15.228).The additional phrase “to the monarchy” may be redundant, unless it intends the absence of rebellious acts against Herod as ruler, acts with which particularly Alexandra is associated (see 15.166 with the note to “hoping for a political change”). The verb καταπροδίδωμι (“betray”) occurs once elsewhere in Josephus (War 3.137, about betraying the fatherland). There may be a double entendre here because the verb προσέρχομαι (“go/come to,” Rengstorf s.v. προσέρχομαι) sometimes refers to sexual intercourse (see Apion 2.234: συνουσίᾳ προσελθεῖν “in connection with sexual relations,” Barclay in BJP 10 on Ap. 2.234, and the next note). Herod’s consternation and anger should, therefore, be explained by his conclusion that his wife had committed adultery with Soemus and by his enormous jealousy of possible rivals as sexual partners of Mariamme (see Ant. 15.65-67 and 15.82 with the note to “could not bear having a rival”). The noun κοινωνία can mean “association, contact, fellowship, etc.” (Rengstorf s.v.), sometimes in connection with a sexual relationship. The word also occurs in the episode about Joseph and Mariamme (see Ant. 15.86 with the note to “sexual relationship with her”), in which the sexual connotation is obvious because of the accusation of adultery (15.81). Here the context likewise suggests a sexual connotation (see the previous note).

Soemus’ fate is very similar to that of Joseph, who was immediately executed when Herod concluded that he had committed adultery with Mariamme (Ant. 15.87). Since Soemus had been appointed governor of a district (15.217) and had been one of Herod’s most loyal officials (see 15.228 with the note to “most faithful to him and the monarchy”), one would expect that Herod would have convened a council meeting to pronounce the death sentence for Soemus (see also the next note). Günther (2005: 112, 116) argues that Soemus was actually executed because of treason and rebellion and not because of adultery. She supports this interpretation by stating that Herod had married another wife in 35/34 BCE (cf. Kokkinos 1998: 202; differently Stern 1974b: 262), the daughter of his brother-in-law Joseph and the sister of Dositheus. Günther argues that Josephus obscures the political dimension of the conflict. Kasher (2007: 167) qualifies Mariamme’s trial as a show trial like Hyrcanus’ in Ant. 15.173 (see the note to “after showing the letters to the council”). Nevertheless, Herod must have been aware that executing persons without a trial could trigger serious opposition. When Herod, after his appointment as governor of Galilee, had killed Ezekias and his fellow brigands without a trial (14.159; cf. War 1.204), the most prominent Jews complained before Hyrcanus II that the unlawful execution had been neither authorized by Hyrcanus nor by the council (Ant. 14.167). Herod was put on trial as a result (14.168-178; van Henten 2008a). This experience as well as his relationship with his Roman patrons may have led Herod to organize trials when he wanted to execute important opponents or close relatives (see War 1.654; Ant. 17.160-164 on the persons responsible for the demolition of the golden eagle; Ant. 15.173 on the execution of Hyrcanus II; and War 1.538 [cf. Ant. 16.356, 361] on the trial of Herod’s sons Alexander and Aristobulus, and cf. Ant. 15.98-101 on Herod’s consultation of his council in order to decide whether Cleopatra was to be murdered or not). Concerning the rare phrase ἀποδίδωμι κρίσιν (“give/grant a trial”), cf. Polybius 5.16.5. The verb συνάγω (“bring together, convene”) refers to the council meeting for Mariamme’s trial (cf. War 1.538 concerning the trial of Herod’s sons by Mariamme: συνῆγε τὸ δικαστήριον “he assembled the court,” and Ant. 15.173 about the council meeting preceding Hyrcanus II’s execution). The superlative adjective οἰκειοτάτους is open to several interpretations: it can indicate persons belonging to the same family (cf. Ant. 15.40, 218, 239) or close friends (LSJ s.v. II; cf. Rengstorf s.v. οἰκεῖος), which meanings would imply that the council either existed of close relatives (including Salome and Cyprus, i.e., Mariamme’s opponents) or political friends (whether Jews or not; see 15.5 with the note to “the friends around him” and cf. 17.46 concerning the council discussing the accusations against Pheroras’ wife), or both (Schalit 2001: 405-06). The last option finds support in the continuation of the narrative—which focuses on Alexandra (see 15.233)—and in a parallel passage of War (1.556) about a meeting concerning the children of the executed Alexander and Aristobulus: “Now one day Herod assembled his relatives and friends (συναγαγὼν … συγγενεῖς τε καὶ φίλους), set the children before them, and, his eyes filled with tears, said …” (trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a). The selectness of the gathering must have made the chances very slim that Mariamme would not be convicted. An alternative translation is “a very carefully prepared accusation”: the verb σπουδάζω can mean “pursue zealously” as well as “prepare with great care” (Rengstorf s.v., who prefers the second meaning for this passage).The phrase κατηγορίαν ποιεῖσθαι (“formulate an accusation”) is common in Josephus (Ant. 1.319; 16.393; 18.179; 19.12-13, 160; 20.200; Life 194, 284) and occurs already in Thucydides (3.61.1). The combination with σπουδάζω, however, is unique and emphasizes that Herod absolutely wanted Mariamme to be executed, which is confirmed by the continuation of the narrative (but see Ant. 15.230). The positive term φίλτρον (“love-potion”; see Ant. 15.223 with the note to “love-potion”) and the highly ambiguous noun φάρμακον (“potion, drug, poison”; see 15.224 with the note to “potion”) are combined here. The phrase κατὰ τὰς διαβολάς (“in line with the slanders”) is ambiguous since διαβολή can mean “slander” as well as “accusation” (see Ant. 15.81 with the note to “accusing” concerning Salome’s accusation that Joseph had committed adultery with Mariamme). It probably concerns a marginal comment by Josephus since it connects with Salome and Cyprus’ continuous slanders against Mariamme before Herod (15.213 οὐ μικραῖς … διαβολαῖς; 15.221 διαβολὰς μείζονας), which would imply that Josephus is hinting at Mariamme’s innocence. Schalit (2001: 138) concludes that there can hardly be any doubt that Mariamme was innocent, but Grant (1971: 99) considers Mariamme’s guilt a serious possibility. Ant. 16.185 refers to false charges of licentiousness fabricated by Nicolaus of Damascus in connection with Mariamme’s death. Ironically this phrase about Herod (ἀκρατής ἐν τῷ λόγῳ) is paralleled in Ant. 16.399 by a remark about Herod’s sons Alexander and Aristobulus: “(they were) intemperate in their speaking (ἀκρατεῖς δὲ λέγειν).” Herod’s anger connects with his response to the confession of Mariamme’s eunuch (see Ant. 15.228-229). The comparative of ὀργίλος (“enraged, furious,” Rengstorf s.v.) also occurs in War 3.23. The only other occurrence of ὀργίλος in Josephus is Ant. 19.19. Herod’s state of mind was apparently such that the persons present at the trial did not dare to oppose him. For a similar situation during the council at which the destroyers of Herod’s golden eagle were sentenced, see Ant. 17.164. The combination of καταψηφίζομαι and θάνατον (“vote for the death penalty,” Rengstorf s.v. καταψηφίζομαι) is common (Demosthenes, Or. 24.171; 50.48; Philo, Ebr. 71; Mos. 1.134; Josephus, Life 225; Plutarch, Cic. 21.3; Mar. 8.2; Cassius Dio 74.17.4; 76.8.4).

The noun γνώμη means “verdict, judgment” here (LSJ s.v. III), and the verb διαφέρω “pass (on), pronounce” (Rengstorf s.v.). The combination of these meanings is rare. The verb ὑπογίνομαι (“grow up after, increase,” Rengstorf s.v.) occurs once elsewhere in Josephus, also in the Herod narrative (Ant. 17.86). This note confirms the rapid and extreme changes of Herod’s mood (see Ant. 15.211-212 with notes) and the servile behavior of the council members (see 15.229 with the note to “voted for her death penalty”), who simply follow Herod’s change of mind. Ten of the 17 occurrences of the adjective προπετής (“rash, passionate, thoughtless,” Rengstorf s.v.) in Josephus appear in the Herod narrative of Antiquities. Five of them concern Herod himself, sometimes emphasizing his rashness (16.262; cf. 16.69, 125 on Herod’s sons Alexander and Aristobulus), but more often his self-control (15.82; 16.262, 359, and here). Ant. 15.82 offers a close parallel, concerning Salome’s accusation of Joseph and Mariamme: “… he continued to control himself not to do anything rash (τοῦ μὴ προπετές τι ποιῆσαι) because of his love [for Mariamme]” (cf. 16.359 about Herod’s attitude towards his sons Alexander and Aristobulus). See also the related noun προπέτεια (“rashness”), which occurs frequently in the Herod narrative of Antiquities (see 15.100 with the note to “anything out of rashness” and cf. War 1.379, 430). The noun φρούριον means “fortified place, fortress,” sometimes “dungeon” (Rengstorf s.v.). The usual meaning is plausible here since it would make Mariamme’s situation similar to her previous stay at Alexandrium, where she had been guarded (Ant. 15.185).

Several passages in the Herod narrative suggest that there were at least 2 factions among the women at Herod’s court: one around Alexandra and Mariamme, the other around Salome and Cyprus (see 15.213 with the note to “his sister and mother noticed”). It is plausible that several of Herod’s (non-female) friends sided with one of these factions (see 15.35 with the note to “the friends called to their help”).MSS LAMW read τοῖς instead of ταῖς, which implies that Salome’s associates were males. Niese (373) considers this reading to be probably right. Nevertheless, the reading ταῖς should be preferred as the lectio difficilior: a correction from ταῖς into τοῖς is logical, while the alternative option is not. Moreover, Josephus’ hints at female factions elsewhere also favor the feminine article. The meaning of σπουδάζω (“endeavor zealously”) is very similar to that of the passive participle ἐσπουδασμένην (“a zealously pursued accusation” [i.e., pursued by Herod]) of the same verb in Ant. 15.229 and associates Salome’s attitude towards Mariamme with Herod’s. The expression ἡ ἄνθρωπος (“the woman”) is here not a simple reference to a specific woman, neither has it a depreciating connotation. The phrase probably expresses pity in certain contexts (i.e., “the poor woman”), as the male equivalent ὁ ἄνθρωπος sometimes does (“the poor fellow”; see Ant. 15.227 with the note to “the fellow” and cf. 18.112; 19.34). The phrase ἐκποδὼν ποιεῖσθαι plus a personal object (“get [someone] out of the way”) is a fixed expression in Antiquities (see 15.20 with the note to “get him out of the way”). In 15.77 it is also combined with σπουδάζω (“pursue zealously”), referring to Cleopatra’s murderous intentions to get Herod out of the way. Salome’s hint at disturbances among the population may be explained by the assumption that she expected that Mariamme’s fate would arouse protest because she was a member of the Hasmonean house. Cf. Herod’s excuse for not sending Aristobulus III to Antony: “So [Herod] wrote in reply that in the event the young man would merely leave the country, everything would become filled with war and disorder (ἅπαντα πολέμου καὶ ταραχῆς ἀναπλησθήσεται) because the Jews had hoped for a change of government and a new regime with a different king” (Ant. 15.30). Günther (2005: 115) argues that Josephus’ emphasis on the tragic end of Herod’s relationship with Mariamme causes readers to overlook the political aspect of Mariamme’s downfall.Josephus refers to “disturbances of the people” (τὰς ταραχὰς τοῦ πλήθους) or rebellions of the crowd in various contexts: War 1.347 concerning the siege of Jerusalem by Herod and Sosius; War 2.29 concerning the disturbances following Herod’s death; Ant. 4.35 concerning the revolt of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram described in Num 16; Ant. 15.358 concerning the complaints of the Gadarenes against Herod (see also 15.286 concerning the conspiracy to murder Herod during a festival in Jerusalem and 4.151; 10.8). The phrase ἤγετο τὴν ἐπὶ θανάτῳ (“was led to her execution,” Rengstorf s.v. θάνατος) is elliptical: the verb ἄγω is synonymous with ἀπάγω (“lead off [to execution],” Rengstorf s.v.) and the article τὴν should have been followed by a noun (e.g., ἔξοδον “departure” or ζημίαν “penalty”). Similar elliptical phrases with θάνατος occur elsewhere (LSJ s.v. θάνατος I.2). The phrase is closely paralleled by Ant. 19.269 about the execution of Chaereas (ἀπήγετο τὴν ἐπὶ θανάτῳ; see also 15.289 about the conspirators executed by Herod; 2 Macc 7:18; Socrates of Constantinople 7.22.11). This remark suggests that the narrative about Mariamme’s death comes to a conclusion. The continuation of the narrative switches to Alexandra (Ant. 15.232), however, such that there is still another scene before Mariamme’s death is finally reported (15.237).

Instead of reporting on how Alexandra felt about her daughter’s execution, Josephus emphasizes that she was considering what was going on. He does so for 2 reasons:(1) Presenting Alexandra as a tough and egocentric woman, which theme Josephus will elaborate in the subsequent paragraphes (Ant. 15.232-236). Unlike Mariamme, Alexandra was very well capable of hiding her emotions and thoughts, as the aftermath of her son Aristobulus III’s death shows (15.57-65).(2) Preparing readers for the final information about Mariamme’s death (15.232-236), which starts with Alexandra as focalizer and then switches again to Mariamme, how she went to her death, contrasting the 2 Hasmonean women.The verb συνθεωρέω (“contemplate,” LSJ s.v., or “consider, think over, recognize clearly [?],” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. For another combination of this verb with τὸν καιρὸν (“the situation”), cf. Polybius 3.102.1. Alexandra had not only sided with Mariamme during their stay at Alexandrium (Ant. 15.202-205) but also attempted several actions against Herod. E.g., she had masterminded the attempt to escape to the Nabatean king Malichus, which led to the execution of Hyrcanus II (15.166-182), and had been lucky not to have been executed together with him (for her involvement in other actions against Herod, see 15.23 with the note to “Alexandra” and 15.166 with the note to “hoping for a political change”). Herod had become suspicious about her already during the episode that led to Aristobulus III’s appointment as High Priest (15.42).For similar expressions with μικρός (“small”), ἐλπίς (“hope,” in the singular or plural), and the verb ἔχω (“have”), see Lysias 25.21; Strabo 2.3.5; Lucian, Dom. 13; Hermot. 69; Ind. 22. The phrase τῶν ὁμοίων τυγχάνω (“obtain/receive similar [things]”) also occurs in Josephus, Ant. 1.274; 7.43; 16.157. Josephus has not used the noun θράσος (“boldness”) before in references to Alexandra (cf. Ant. 15.177 about Hyrcanus II), but this adjective can easily be connected with previous descriptions of Alexandra taking great liberties in speaking (παρρησία; see 15.37 with the note to “frankness”) and her contentious character (φιλόνεικος, 15.62, 166, 168). For references about her rebellious acts, see 15.23, 34 and the previous note, and concerning Salome, 16.66 (cf. 17.147; Mayer-Schärtel 1995: 186).

The verb ἐμφαίνω (“display, show”) is sometimes used for highlighting traits (e.g., Herod’s generosity in Ant. 15.48, 196; his pride in 15.187; and his independence of spirit in 15.194) or feelings (e.g., Antony’s desire for Cleopatra in 15.67 and Herod’s grief about Aristobulus III’s death in 15.60) of one of the characters in the narrative. In 15.379 it concerns the revelation of certain events. The verb is repeated in 15.234-236. This note is ironic: Alexandra could not have been acquainted with Mariamme’s attempt to poison Herod since it was set up by Salome. In light of what Josephus writes elsewhere about Alexandra it is plausible to assume that she knew everything about the tensions at the court and therefore realized that her daughter was framed. The combination of ἐμφαίνω with ἄγνοια (“ignorance”) occurs also in Christian documents (e.g., Origen, Exp. Prov. [PG 17.209]; John Chrysostom, Hom. Rom. [PG 60.508-09]). For the phrase αἰτίαν ἔχω (“be accused”), see Thackeray and Marcus 1930-55: 15. Alexandra apparently had made up her mind very quickly, and the continuation of the narrative presupposes that she had come to the cold and rational conclusion of gaining nothing from siding any longer with her daughter. Her highly emotional behavior in Ant. 15.233-234 strongly contrasts with Mariamme’s calm and dignified attitude in 15.235-236. The verb ἐκπηδάω probably means “leap up” here (LSJ s.v. I.3). The combination of the verbs ἐκπηδάω and λοιδορέω (“revile, rail [at],” Rengstorf s.v.) is rare (cf. John Chrysostom, Hom. Eph. [PG 62.97]). The imperfect ἐβόα (“she cried out”) suggest in combination with the verbs ἐκπηδάω and λοιδορέω (see the preceding notes) that Alexandra was putting up a dramatic show. The fact that everybody present heard her implies that she was the focal point. Josephus does not specify the setting of Alexandra’s act, but the continuation of the narrative renders it plausible that it concerns the pronouncement of the death sentence for Mariamme, at which time Herod’s closest associates and relatives were present (see Ant. 15.229 with the note to “the persons who were closest to him”). This highlights Alexandra’s unscrupulous behavior: she not only betrays her own daughter but also acts as if she herself had been grateful to Herod, while she had been involved in many more actions against Herod than Mariamme had been (see Ant. 15.23 with the note to “Alexandra” and 15.166 with the note to “Alexandra was quarrelsome”). Kasher (2007: 169) notes that this section turns Alexandra into a collaborator in Herod’s criminal execution of his wife.The combination of the adjectives κακός (“bad”) and ἀχάριστος (“ungrateful”) is unique in Josephus but does occur elsewhere (e.g., Demosthenes, Or. 20.55; Plutarch, Aem. 31.6; Alex. 71.4; Cassius Dio 52.26.7).The noun ἀνήρ also means “husband” in Ant. 15.81, referring to Salome’s husband Joseph. Submission to one’s husband was standard in Jewish marriages (Mayer-Schärtel 1995: 189). Alexandra seems to overdo her betrayal of her daughter. In the light of what Josephus writes about Herod’s court and the factions involved, with Alexandra as one of the protagonists, it is likely that she had realized that Mariamme was the victim of a plot. This would imply that Alexandra joined the plotters against Mariamme here, which is sheer opportunism and seems incredible since she often sided with Mariamme (e.g., Ant. 15.72-73, 202).The phrase δίκαια πάσχειν (“suffer justly/just punishment”) also occurs in War 5.325; Ant. 5.166; 16.70; cf. Ant. 16.238; Apion 2.278 and Theognis 1.746; Aristophanes, Thesm. 86; Xenophon, Anab. 5.1.15; Hell. 4.6.1; 5.3.11; Theophrastus, Char. 26.6; Plutarch, Mor. (Suav. viv.) 1090d. The vagueness of the formulation may indicate that Alexandra was unaware of Mariamme’s supposed attempt to poison Herod, apart from what had become known by the words of the cup-bearer and the eunuch (Ant. 15.225, 227). It may also hint once again at Alexandra’s unscrupulous behavior towards her daughter. The noun τολμήμα can mean “bold undertaking, outrage, shameless act” (LSJ s.v.; Rengstorf s.v.). This connects with Mariamme’s ungratefulness in the previous sentence and puts massive blame on Mariamme: she not only was ungrateful to Herod as her husband but also neglected her duty as a subject who had benefitted from Herod’s benefactions as ruler. Gratitude towards a benefactor (εὐεργέτης; see also Ant. 15.19, 190, 193) was a basic expectation (12.206 and see 15.19 with the note to “a considerable number of gifts”). The notion that a ruler is the benefactor of all inhabitants of a state (τὸν πάντων αὐτῶν εὐεργέτην; cf. Polybius 4.38.10; Diodorus 2.36.7; Philo, Spec. 1.152; Aelius Aristides, Iov. [ed. Dindorf 1.10-11]) is connected with the Hellenistic idea that a ruler is the personification of a state and responsible for the care and protection of all inhabitants. This notion is also expressed in 1 Macc 14:47, in which verse the Hasmonean ruler Simon is called “the protector of them all” (τοῦ προστατῆσαι πάντων, Hölbl 1994: 83, 88; van Henten 2007b: 268; cf. Ant. 14.253 concerning Hyrcanus II as the benefactor of everybody and 16.98 about Augustus as “their common benefactor”).The verb ἀμείβω (“give in exchange,” in the middle voice, “do in return, reciprocate, reward,” Rengstorf s.v.), with εὐεργέτης (“benefactor”) as object, also occurs in 17.327; 19.184; cf. Aesop 65; 176.2; Dio Chrysostom 41.5; Aelian, Nat. an. 6.44.

The depreciating vocabulary (τολμώσης “she dared”) in this paragraph prepares for the rejection of Alexandra, which is narrated in the next lines. Alexandra is here depicted as Mariamme’s opposite (Schalit 2001: 569-70). This gesture could have been convincing had it been honest, but the reader—like those present—knows from the larger context that it is not. The phrase ἐφάπτεσθαι καὶ τῶν τριχῶν (“tear her hair,” perhaps elliptical “seize [Mariamme by] her hair,” Rengstorf s.v. ἐφάπτω). The Greek lacks a reference to another person and Salome tears her hair (ἐπιδραττομένης τῶν τριχῶν) in vociferous self-defence when she is accused of conspiracy (16.216), so Alexandra’s tearing her hair may be intended—according to Josephus’ presentation—to express her indignation. The middle voice of the verb ἐφάπτω plus a genitive usually means “touch,” but it sometimes has a stronger meaning (“lay violent hands upon,” LSJ s.v. II d). The vocabulary shows that Josephus as narrator clearly repudiates Alexandra’s behavior: the phrase μεταξὺ καθυποκρινομένης ἀσχημόνως (“between such shameful histrionics”) is unique, and the verb καθυποκρίνομαι (“pretend/subdue by histrionic acts,” LSJ s.v. I; Rengstorf s.v., who also suggests “play the hypocrite” as meaning) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. These words partly repeat the phrase that introduces Alexandra’s behavior towards her daughter (cf. λίαν ἀπρεπῶς in Ant. 15.232 with ἀπρεποῦς here). The noun προσποίησις (“acquisition,” Ant. 17.149) can also mean “pretence, hypocricy” (Rengstorf s.v.). This brief note (ὡς εἰκός) conveys Josephus’ own opinion once again, see Ant. 15.70 with the note to “as was to be expected.” For the phrase πολλὴ … ἡ κατάγνωσις ἦν (“the disapproval was … great”), cf. Petrus Patricius’ excerpts of Cassius Dio 160 (ed. Boissevain 3.742). With this remark Josephus switches from Alexandra to Mariamme as focalizer and builds up to a climax that highlights Mariamme’s impressive behavior during her last moments. The contrast between Mariamme and Alexandra is emphasized by the repetition of the verb ἐμφαίνω (“display”; see Ant. 15.233 with the note to “wanting to display” and 15.234-236), which refers to Alexandra in 15.233 and to Mariamme here.

The literal translation is “did not say one word” (without the person[s] addressed). Yet the expression λόγον διδόναι can mean either “give permission to speak, grant a hearing” (cf. Ant. 15.351; 17.304) or “say a word (to),” with the person(s) spoken to indicated in the dative (War 2.443; 5.72). The phrase here may be elliptical and connected with the second meaning, implying that Mariamme did not say a word to her mother. If the phrase is to be understood in a general sense, it probably emphasizes that Mariamme did not defend herself. Schalit (2001: 138) concludes that Mariamme was determined to end her tragic life with Herod. The participle ταραχθεῖσα (“she was [not] disturbed”) echoes ταραχθῇ of Ant. 15.224 referring to the possibility that Herod would be disturbed by the love-potion, possibly contrasting Mariamme with Herod. For this motif, see 15.82 with the note to “he was greatly disturbed” and 15.223 with the note to “his disturbance was rather serious.” MSS LAMW read ἐπέτρεπεν (“handed over, submitted”) instead of ἐπέβλεπεν (“looked at, watched,” attested by MSS PFV and E; cf. the Latin version). The first reading does not make sense in the context and resulted most probably from a scribal error that changed β to τρ. Ernesti’s conjecture ἀπέβλεπεν (“looked at,” Niese 374) is unnecessary. Rengstorf (s.v.) offers, with question marks added, “offensive behaviour” and “insults” as meanings for δυσχέρεια here, but a more general meaning like “annoying behavior” may be more appropriate (cf. Josephus’ phrases with the adjective δυσχερής [“difficult, unpleasant, bad”] in Ant. 15.238-239). The phrase ὑπὸ φρονήματος is open to several interpretations since φρόνημα can indicate various mental qualities of persons, positive or negative: e.g., a female way of thinking (Ant. 15.44 concerning Alexandra), arrogance (15.81 concerning Mariamme), (high) spirit (15.115, 139, 159 concerning the Jews and their Nabatean opponents), and pride or high-mindedness (15.187 concerning Herod). Josephus emphasizes here that Mariamme’s mental attitude was admirable because of the way she dealt with the annoying behavior of her mother. Rengstorf (s.v. φρόνημα) gives “attitude” as one of the meanings of φρόνημα, but “pride” would also fit. The aorist ἐνέφηνεν (“she indicated”) with Mariamme as subject repeats the passive aorist ἐνεφάνη of the same verb ἐμφαίνω in Ant. 15.234 (for this verb, see also 15.233 with the note to “wanting to display”), also pointing to Mariamme, which adds emphasis to her admirable response to Alexandra’s behavior. The noun ἁμαρτία probably means “offense” here (Rengstorf s.v.). The participle ἀσχημονούσης (“behaving shamelessly, conducting oneself disgracefully”) connects with the adjective ἀσχήμων (“shameless”) in Ant. 15.234, also highlighting Alexandra’s despicable behavior. The verb ἀσχημονέω is a hapax legomenon in Josephus; the related noun ἀσχημόσυνη (“disgraceful behavior, improper conduct,” Rengstorf s.v.) occurs in 16.223 referring to Salome and is also a hapax legomenon in Josephus.

Literally “in a calm condition” (ἀτρεμαίῳ τῷ καταστήματι). As in the previous paragraph Josephus describes Mariamme’s death with rare vocabulary. The adjective ἀτρεμαῖος (“unmoved, calm”) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. The noun κατάστημα usually means “condition, position” (cf. War 1.40; 2.650; 4.287). Rengstorf (s.v.) suggests “bearing, demeanor” as meaning in this passage. This note and the preceding one about Mariamme’s calm attitude during her last moments (cf. Ant. 15.237) associate her with Greek and Roman traditions about noble deaths of famous persons, especially philosophers like Socrates and Seneca (Ronconi 1966; Döring 1979; Baumeister 1983; van Henten and Avemarie 2002: 11-14, 25-30).The adjective ἀμετάβλητος (“unchanged, unchangeable,” Rengstorf s.v.) occurs once elsewhere in Josephus (Life 264). The expression οὐδ’ … ἄδηλον (literally “not … invisible”) is a case of litotes, which adds emphasis to Mariamme’s attitude during her last moments. This participle, which concludes the Greek sentence, is the fourth occurrence of the verb ἐμφαίνω (“display”) in this section and again emphasizes Mariamme’s behavior (see also Ant. 15.233-235). Mariamme’s εὐγένεια (“noble ancestry, nobility of birth”), referring to her Hasmonean descent, is a recurring motif in the Herod narrative of Antiquities. Several passages refer to the noble ancestry of the Hasmoneans (see 15.14 with the note to “the eminence of his noble ancestry”), and this nobility is particularly emphasized in references to Alexandra and Mariamme (15.73 and see 15.210 with the note to “her superior nobility” concerning Mariamme). In this concluding note about Mariamme’s death Josephus suggests that her admirable way of dying matched her nobility of birth, which is a topos in noble death traditions (2 Macc 14:42; 4 Macc 8:4, as well as Athenian funeral orations; Loraux 1981; van Henten 1997: 225-27). The verb ἐπιθεωρέω (“look at,” Rengstorf s.v.) is another hapax legomenon in Josephus. For the date of Mariamme’s death, see the next note.

Mariamme probably died in 29 BCE. Josephus’ note that Herod’s suspicion extended over a period of 1 year starting from Herod’s return from his second visit to Octavian (see Ant. 15.221 with the note to “a period of a year”) suggests a time after the spring/summer or the autumn of 29 BCE. Schürer-Vermes (1.289, 302), Hoehner (1972: 9), and Smallwood (1976: 71) opt for 29 BCE; Schalit (2001: 114-19) for 30/29 BCE; and Kokkinos (1998: 213, supported by Kasher 2007: 165 n. 23) for 29/28 BCE.Otto (1913: 51-52) and Schalit (2001: 139-41) wonder why Alexandra was not executed together with Mariamme, particularly since Alexandra was the mastermind of many actions against Herod in Ant. 15. Otto assumes that Josephus exaggerated Alexandra’s rebellious role greatly and that Herod hardly knew about her intrigues until immediately before her death (which differs from what Josephus writes in 15.42-44). Schalit offers another explanation: Herod’s intent to kill all members of the Hasmonean family would have become obvious had he executed both Hasmonean ladies at the same time. He therefore postponed Alexandra’s execution and gave the impression that Mariamme was executed because of her adultery and her attempt to poison him (p. 140).The phrase οὕτως ἀπέθανε and similar formulas are common (e.g., Antiphon, Caed. Her. 44; Xenophon, Hell. 2.4.1; Plutarch, Art. 19.6; Cassius Dio 42.26.1; 46.54.1; 58.25.4). In Josephus they usually form the conclusion of a death report (War 7.369, 453; Ant. 3.210; 9.123; differently Ant. 1.346; 16.319). The phrase ἄριστα γεγενημένη (literally “being the best”) can in principle refer to either birth or rank. The latter is much more probable here. Two parallel passages in Josephus indicate an exceptional status on the basis of deeds or experience (Ant. 5.274; 7.390; cf. Lysias 25.31). This is the first out of 6 characteristics that Josephus gives in this brief “obituary” of Mariamme (see Landau 2006: 130-31, 180, who suggests that Josephus uses Mariamme’s personal traits to interpret her relationship with Herod). The first remarks concern extremely positive points (cf. ἐν φύσει [“in her character”] further in the sentence, see the note to that phrase): self-control and greatness of mind. They are followed by 2 negative points: lack of reason and contentiousness. The final 2 characteristics are her exceptional beauty and aristocratic behavior.The philosophical term ἐγκράτεια (“self-control”) is connected with the earlier description of Mariamme’s attitude during her last moments (Ant. 15.236). It is a prominent ethical concept in Stoic philosophy and in other Classical and Hellenistic philosophical schools. Socrates considers it to be a cardinal virtue (Xenophon, Mem. 1.5.4), and Aristotle offers elaborate discussions of it (see below). In Stoic philosophy it is a virtue subordinate to σωφρόσυνη (“prudence,” Diogenes Laertius 7.92; Stobaeus 2.60.20-21). Cleanthes describes it as a force and tension of the soul (Plutarch, Mor. [Stoic. rep.] 1034d), which explains why ἐγκράτεια is often associated with the moral and rational struggle against passions and certain other feelings (e.g., Galen, Plac. Hipp. Plat. 5.7.21-25 [ed. Kühn 5.484-86]). This interpretation of ἐγκράτεια is also important in Jewish philosophical writings such as 4 Maccabees (e.g., 5:34) and the works of Philo, who argues that philosophy teaches ἐγκράτεια, which is interpreted as abstinence from food, sexuality, and the prudent use of the tongue (Congr. 79-80; cf. Spec. 2.195; further references in Grundmann 1964). Josephus gives a definition of ἐγκράτεια in his presentation of the Essenes, contrasting it with pleasures and emotions: “Whereas these men shun the pleasures as vice they consider self-control (ἐγκράτεια) and not succumbing to the passions virtue” (War 2.120, trans. Mason in BJP 1b). In Ant. 6.63 he mentions ἐγκράτεια together with σωφρόσυνη (“prudence, self-control”), which is apparently almost synonymous.Schalit (2001: 567-71) argues that Nicolaus of Damascus is responsible for all or most of the section of Ant. 15.202-239 (see 15.202 with the note to “when he came to the kingdom that time”), such that Mariamme’s characteristics may be described in line with Nicolaus’ own philosophical preference for the Peripatetic School. Schalit notes that most of the key words in the relevant section are prominent in Aristotle’s writings, especially in his Nicomachean Ethics (concerning ἐγκράτεια, Eth. Nic. 7.1-9 1145a-1152a; see also Eth. Eud. 2.3-6 1220b-1223a; Virt. vit. 2 1250a; further references in Schalit), but he rightly observes that the descriptions of Mariamme’s virtues and vices are more general and popular than Aristotle’s descriptions. Schalit further suggests that Mariamme’s virtue of self-control is ultimately based upon a feeling of pride and contempt of others (p. 569). The noun μεγαλοψυχία (“magnanimity, greatness of mind,” Rengstorf s.v.; cf. Aristotle’s description in Eth. Nic. 4.3 1123a-b) sometimes has a negative meaning (“arrogance,” LSJ s.v. 2). It usually refers to males which may add emphasis to Mariamme’s exceptional character: to a certain extent her virtues correspond to those of men. The other occurrences of this word in the Herod narrative of Antiquities mostly refer to Herod (see 15.48 with the note to “he showed enough magnanimity”). The reading ἔλειπεν of MSS FVE (Niese 374) implies a translation such as “continually lacked” if the imperfect has a durative aspect. Mariamme lacked ἐπιείκεια (“reasonableness, kindness”), the trait that characterized her grandfather Hyrcanus II (see Ant. 14.13; 15.165 with the note to “his reasonable character” and cf. 15.177, 182 about Hyrcanus II and 15.48 about Herod). Cf. Aristotle’s description of ἐπιείκεια in Eth. Nic. 5.10 1137a-b. The adjective φιλόνεικος (“being contentious/quarrelsome,” Rengstorf s.v.) expresses a trait that Mariamme shared with her mother Alexandra (see Ant. 15.62 with the note to “contentious” and 15.166, 168). The phrase ἐν φύσει (“in her character”) confirms that Josephus gives a description of Mariamme’s character (see also the note to “self-control” above). The noun φύσις and related words sometimes mark characterizations of important persons in Josephus (see Ant. 15.89 with the note to “her greedy character” concerning Cleopatra). For phrases similar to (ἐν τῇ) φύσει φιλόνεικον, cf. Galen, Propr. an. 4 (ed. Kühn 5.10-11); Meth. med. (ed. Kühn 10.20). Mariamme’s exceptional beauty has been highlighted several times (see Ant. 15.23 with the note to “strikingly beautiful”). Ant. 15.25 also contains the noun κάλλος (“beauty”; cf. 15.51). For expressions similar to κάλλει δὲ σώματος (“in physical beauty”), cf. War 7.118 and Ant. 16.122 (referring to Herod and Mariamme’s sons). The noun ἀξίωμα means “dignity” here and is related to Mariamme’s royal status and rank (cf. Ant. 15.164, 187; see also 15.51 about Mariamme’s brother Aristobulus III and 15.206 about Mariamme and Alexandra). The plural of ἔντευξις (“meeting, communication,” Rengstorf s.v.) can also mean “manners, behavior, speeches” (LSJ s.v. 2b, 3). Josephus emphasizes that not only Mariamme’s beauty but also her dignity of behavior were unique. Mariamme apparently stood out among all women of her time in these respects (as Cleopatra did in other respects: Ant. 15.101 “… a woman who held the greatest honor [μέγιστον ἀξίωμα] of all women at that time [τῶν κατ’ ἐκεῖνον ἐσχηκυῖαν τὸν χρόνον] …).”Ant. 15.238 echoes several words of 15.51 that concern Mariamme’s brother Aristobulus: “… he looked extraordinary handsome (κάλλει τε κάλλιστος) and taller than (ὑπεράγων) most youths of his age. Yet it was his dignity (ἀξιώματος) connected with his descent that particularly showed itself in his appearance.” Haverkamp’s conjecture ὑπερῆρεν (“surpassed,” Niese 374, taken over by Marcus-Wikgren 112; see also Naber 1888-1896: 3.xliv, 351) is unnecessary: not only does the reading ὑπερῆγεν attested by the Greek MSS make sense, but the verb ὑπεράγω (“surpass, exceed,” Rengstorf s.v.) also occurs in Ant. 15.51 concerning Aristobulus. The expression μειζόνως ἢ φράσαι echoes a phrase in a fragment of Euripides’ tragedy Temenidae or Temenus (Fragm. 1083 in ed. Nauck = 727e in ed. Kannicht ll. 9-10) transmitted by Strabo (8.5.6): τὸν δὲ δεύτερον τῆς Μεσσήνης ἀρετὴν ἐχούσης μείζον’ ἢ λόγῳ φράσαι (“… and the second over Messenia, ‘whose fertility is greater than words can express’ …”; trans. Jones).

Apart from the 2 affairs following Herod’s journeys to his patrons (Ant. 15.65, 70, 185-186), Josephus leaves us very much in the dark about Mariamme’s relationship with the king. His indication that Herod loved her very much (see 15.82 with the note to “loved her terribly”) is plausible, which may imply that the relationship was intimate for several years, such that Mariamme would initially have responded to Herod’s affection (with Kasher 2007: 165 n. 23; differently Schalit 2001: 131, 586-87, who assumes that Mariamme despised Herod because of his Idumean origin and hated him from the beginning). This is matched by the emotional description of Herod and Mariamme’s reconciliation in 15.84 and by 2 hints in 15.209: at Herod’s happy return from his visit of Octavian “he told the good news—as he usually did—first to his wife” and “he embraced her, honoring her alone specially, because of his love and the intimacy he felt for her” (cf. 15.222). It is very hard to go beyond Josephus and make sure about this relationship, but the fact that Herod and Mariamme had 5 children together (War 1.435) implies that it cannot have been that bad for several years. This also supports the later date of Mariamme’s death as implied by Antiquities (29 BCE; Kokkinos 1998: 213 and see 15.237 with the note to “died this way”).Josephus’ point that Herod’s secret instructions and Mariamme’s reactions to them greatly deteriorated the relationship (Ant. 15.70, 85-87, 204, 208, 210-211, 222) is plausible. The death of Mariamme’s brother Aristobulus III probably also determined Mariamme’s attitude towards Herod. Josephus writes that she took it for granted that Herod had caused his death (War 1.437; Ant. 15.222), which may be an overstatement, but it is plausible that his death made her suspicious and dampened her affection for Herod (Schalit 2001: 132).The expression κεχαρισμένως (“to please, [live] acceptably,” Rengstorf s.v.) with a personal object in the dative also occurs in Ant. 15.53 (concerning Herod pleasing Aristobulus III) and 16.184 (concerning Nicolaus of Damascus writing to please Herod). Josephus’ report implies that Mariamme’s marriage became increasingly unhappy after Herod’s journeys to Mark Antony and Octavian (see the preceding note). The phrase μηδὲ πρὸς ἡδονὴν ζῆν (“not enjoying to live”) finds a close parallel in Plutarch, Pyrrh. 16.2 about the inhabitants of Tarentum who disliked their treatment by Pyrrhus: “Many therefore left the city, since they were not accustomed to being under orders, and called it servitude not to live as they pleased (δουλείαν τὸ μὴ πρὸς ἡδονὴν ζῆν καλοῦντας, trans. Perrin).” MSS LAMW add ἀεί (“all the time,” Niese 374). Herod’s great love (ἔρως) and affection (φιλοστοργία) for Mariamme have been emphasized many times before (Ant. 15.66, 68-70, 82-83, 87, 209). Within the present context this seems a really cynical remark, but it may refer to an earlier period in which Mariamme still had full confidence in Herod (see the last note of Ant. 15.239). Later on Herod’s double secret instructions to kill her if he did not return from his trips to Antony and Octavian (15.55, 70, 185-186) greatly disturbed her (see the note to “reason for [her] not living acceptably with the king” above). Earlier references to Mariamme’s frankness in her speaking to Herod (see the next note) are also connected with these secret instructions. A further explanation of Josephus’ remark could be that it is part of an attempt to put the blame for Mariamme’s death on herself instead of Herod (see 15.239), although this would not match the main trend of the preceding narrative (see 15.236 with the note to “even in her last moments”).For a similar combination of προσδοκάω (“expect”) and οὐδὲν/μηδὲν δυσχερές (“nothing bad/unpleasant”), see 15.78 referring to Cleopatra’s scheming against Herod (“… he did not expect any further unpleasantness …”). Ironically the same word δυσχερές appears in passages which indicate that Octavian might decide to punish Herod during his visit (15.184, 186; see also 15.239 with the note to “suffer something bad”). The adjective ἀσύμμετρος (“incommensurable, excessive,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. Josephus adds a third negative characteristic of Mariamme (for the other 2, see Ant. 15.237), which he singles out as the main reason of all the problems: her frankness (παρρησία, Rengstorf s.v.), mainly the great freedom she allowed herself in expressing what she thought and felt (see her statement about the secret instruction in 15.85; cf. 15.210, 222, 239) and her arrogant behavior towards Herod’s sister, mother, and Herod himself (see War 1.438; Ant. 15.219-220, 222 with notes). This trait contrasts with Mariamme’s alleged ἐγκράτεια (“self-control”) and associates her with her mother Alexandra (see 15.37 with the note to “because of her kin and frankness” and 15.44; nevertheless, Antiquities emphasizes Mariamme’s frankness only after Herod’s secret instructions for Joseph had become known to her: 15.65, 69-70, 85, 222; see the references above). War 1.437 (cf. Ant. 15.222) connects Mariamme’s παρρησία with her response to the deaths of her grandfather Hyrcanus II and her brother Aristobulus III: “Her hostility was justified by what had taken place, and she was at liberty to express herself (τὴν… παρρησίαν) because of her husband’s passion for her. She publicly reproached him about what had happened to her grandfather, Hyrcanus, and to her brother, Jonathan” (trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a).

War 1.437 and Ant. 15.222 are much more explicit and report that Mariamme reproached Herod for killing her (grand-)father and her brother. The expression τὰ περὶ τοὺς οἰκείους refers here to the tragic events in Mariamme’s Hasmonean family (for οἰκεῖος meaning “related, relative,” see 15.229 with the note to “the persons who were closest to him”). This phrase repeats the point in the previous paragraph about Mariamme’s frankness (see the note to “[level] of frankness”). With Niese (375), who follows the reading ἐξενίκησεν of E. The verb ἐκνικάω (“achieve by force,” metaphorically also “prevail, succeed [in],” Rengstorf s.v.; cf. Ant. 5.286) also occurs elsewhere in Josephus (War 3.536; 7.419; Ant. 5.286; 13.132). The reading ἐξεκίνησεν (from ἐκκινέω “move out, put up,” LSJ s.v.) of the Greek MSS does not make sense. It may easily have resulted from the reading attested by E because of a transposition of ν and κ (for a similar case, see Ant. 15.286). Herod’s mother Cyprus and his sister Salome clearly opposed Mariamme following Herod’s journey to Mark Antony (see Ant. 15.80 and 15.213 with the note to “his sister and mother noticed”), but it is plausible that they had been hostile towards Mariamme already for a longer period (with Otto 1913: 50; Schürer-Vermes 1.302) in their status of prominent members or even leaders of the rival women factions at Herod’s court (see 15.35 with the note to “the friends called to their help”). On the deterioration of the relationship between Herod and Mariamme, see Ant. 15.238 with the note to “reason for [her] not pleasing the king.” Herod’s hostile attitude largely arose during the aftermath of his journey to Octavian (15.210-215, 229, i.e., in 30/29 BCE; see 15.221 with the note to “returned from Caesar”). The verb ἀποπιστεύω (“trust mistakenly,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. Mariamme’s confidence that Herod would never undertake anything against her because of his extraordinary love for her is also suggested by Soemus’ reasoning described in Ant. 15.207: “… Herod … would not be able to deny his wife anything she wanted. For [Soemus] knew that the king’s love for Mariamme was beyond description.” It is also indicated twice in War: “… she was at liberty to express herself because of her husband’s passion for her” (1.437, trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a; my emphasis) and “… Whereas he was reduced to silence by his passionate love for her …” (1.438, trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a).The expression τὸ μὴ παθεῖν τι δυσχερές partly repeats the phrase with δυσχερές (“bad, unpleasant”) of Ant. 15.238 (see the note to “having nothing bad to expect from Herod”) and ironically also echoes the references to Herod’s possible sufferings during his journeys to Mark Antony and Octavian (15.65 εἰ πάθοι τι παρ’ ’Αντωνίῳ; 15.69 εἰ πάσχοι δεινόν τι; 15.85 εἰ πάσχοι τι χαλεπόν; 15.164 εἰ δὲ καὶ πάσχοι τι; 15.197 μηδὲν ἀνήκεστον παθεῖν; 15.204 εἰ πάσχοι τι δεινόν).

Josephus describes Herod’s reaction to Mariamme’s death in dramatic terms in Ant. 15.240-246: he first focuses on Herod’s emotions (15.240-242, 244) and then on Herod’s illness (15.245-246) after a break out of a pestilential disease (15.243). The verb ἀναιρέω can mean “kill, murder” as well as “remove, do away with” (Rengstorf s.v.). The second meaning can be a disparaging way to indicate someone’s death aimed for by somebody else. Josephus prepares his readers for the subsequent report of the quick change of Herod’s state of mind. Herod suddenly desired Mariamme again, which reminds one of Josephus’ portrayal of Herod as a person switching from one extreme emotion to another (see Ant. 15.211-112 with notes). Nevertheless, Herod’s desire for Mariamme is quite understandable since she was no longer available; it is a cross-cultural experience that the longing for a lost person or for something that one cannot get steadily increases. The parallel passage of War (1.444) also describes Herod’s prompt change of temper after Mariamme’s death and his desire for her: “A feeling of regret immediately followed upon his fateful outburst and when his rage subsided, his passionate love was newly reawakened (ὁ ἔρως πάλιν ἀνεζωπυρεῖτο). So intense was the ardor of his desire (τοσαύτη δ’ ἦν φλεγμονὴ τῆς ἐπιθυμίας) that he believed she was not dead” (trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a).There is only one further occurrence of ἐπιθυμία (“desire”) referring to Herod’s longing for Mariamme (Ant. 15.219), but it is telling: “… he [i.e., Herod] was enslaved by his desire [for Mariamme].” The noun ἐπιθυμία may mean “lust” here as well as “longing” in a more general sense (cf. 15.88, 91, 97). For other expressions of ἐξάπτω (“tie, kindle”) with μᾶλλον (“more”) in Josephus, see War 2.490 and Ant. 18.67 (concerning Decius Mundus’ love for Paulina). The translation follows the Greek MSS and E, with Niese (374). Bekker (1855-56: 3.320, followed by Marcus-Wikgren 112-13) proposes to move ὡς to after καὶ πρότερον, which seems more logical: “… for such had been his feeling even earlier, as we have related.” Nevertheless, the conjecture is unnecessary: the transmitted text may be elliptical but it makes sense and seems to imply “because he felt the same as [he had felt as] we indicated earlier [i.e., before Mariamme’s death].” The text matches the earlier descriptions of Herod’s love for Mariamme (see the preceding note). For the formula ὡς ἐδηλώσαμεν (“as we have indicated”), see Ant. 15.254 with the note to “as we have indicated.” The preceding narrative of Antiquities emphasizes Herod’s love for Mariamme many times, with ἔρως (“love”) and φιλοστοργία (“affection”) as key terms (see 15.68 with the note to “affection” and 15.82 with the note to “loved her terribly”). The expression οὐ ἀπαθής (literally “not without passion”) is a case of litotes, emphasizing that Herod’s love for Mariamme was passionate, which matches the continuation of the narrative. Cf. Ant. 16.222 concerning Salome being eager to marry the young Nabatean Syllaeus: “Salome did not look at the youngster without passion (οὐκ ἀπαθῶς ὁρῶσα) …” (my trans.). The opposite of οὐ ἀπαθής involves πάθος (“passion, erotic desire,” Rengstorf s.v.), which noun is used for Herod’s relationship with Mariamme in 15.242 (for different meanings of this word referring to Herod or Mariamme, cf. 15.82, 208, 214). The prepositional expression ἐκ συνηθείας functions as a synonym of the preceding οὐ ἀπαθής. The noun συνήθεια means “the usual/habitual” here (Rengstorf s.v.), which excludes passion. In Ant. 15.209 (see the note to “intimacy”) συνήθεια has a different meaning and refers to Herod’s intimate relationship with Mariamme. Herod loved Mariamme passionately (see the note to “not without passion” above) and she may have loved him too at the beginning of their marriage (see Ant. 15.238 with the note to “reason for [her] not pleasing the king”). The adverb ἐνθουσιαστικῶς (“passionately, enthusiastically,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. This phrase (τῇ παρρησίᾳ τῆς συμβιώσεως) is ambiguous because the noun παρρησία can mean “freedom of speech, frankness” as well as “freedom of action” (LSJ s.v. 3), and even “licence of tongue” (see Ant. 15.238 with the note to “[level] of frankness”). The phrase can, therefore, point either to the open character of the marriage (implying that Herod and Mariamme could say everything to each other) or to the freedom involved in their married life. Rengstorf (s.v.) interprets the noun συμβίωσις (“marriage”) in a sexual sense: “(freedom) of cohabitation.”

Josephus indicates that Herod suffered terribly after Mariamme’s death. Landau (2006: 131) argues that the noun νέμεσις (“punishment, revenge,” Rengstorf s.v., or “retribution,” LSJ s.v.) indicates divine punishment here (see also Marcus-Wikgren 115), although an explicit reference to punishment by God is missing (but note that God is referred to in Ant. 15.243). The context of the only other occurrence of this noun in Josephus (War 6.176) supports such an interpretation, which also matches Josephus’ message in other passages about Herod (e.g., War 1.431: “Fortune, however, made [Herod] pay for his public success with troubles at home,” trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a). Landau (2006: 180-81) also argues that the word νέμεσις echoes the vocabulary of Greek historians such as Herodotus (e.g., 1.34 on Croesus’ downfall caused by divine vengeance).Kasher (2007: 171-72) argues that Josephus’ description of Herod’s mental state after Mariamme’s death is accurate, and he explains that the king’s deep depression was caused by acute feelings of grief and guilt and the incapability to cope with Mariamme’s death at the cognitive level. Note the parallelism in these 2 subclauses through the repetition of πολλάκις (“frequently”) and the related nouns ἀνακλήσεις (“invocations”) and θρῆνος (“laments”). The adjective ἀσχήμων (“unseemly, shameless, extravagant”), preceding θρῆνος (cf. John Chrysostom, Ecl. [PG 63.807]), echoes the adverb ἀσχημόνως referring to Alexandra’s disgraceful behavior (Ant. 15.234) and indicates, together with other reactions to Mariamme’s death, that Herod’s suffering is not likely to evoke sympathy (Landau 2006: 131). One might conclude that laments for Mariamme ordered by Herod were inappropriate since Herod had asked for Mariamme’s death, but it should be noted that Josephus’ presentation implies that Herod’s character was complex (see the excurse about Herod’s portrait in Antiquities at 17.199). Josephus’ description of Herod’s response to Mariamme’s death (15.240-246) strongly suggests that the king’s grief was real, and this matches his earlier report about Herod’s grief and mourning following Jonathan-Aristobulus III’s death found in 15.60. The implication is that Herod could cause the death of a family member and still experience deep and genuine feelings of grief because of this death. An alternative translation is “to amuse [himself]”: the noun ψυχαγωγία can mean “entertainment, amusement” (see Ant. 15.274; 16.140 in the context of festivals; cf. Dionysius, Ars rhet. 1.1) as well as “distraction” (Rengstorf s.v.). Even the original meaning (“evocation of souls from the netherworld,” LSJ s.v. 1) may be relevant here since the phrase connects with Herod’s previously mentioned invocations of Mariamme and his order to call for her (Ant. 15.242). The drinking-bouts and parties (πότους καὶ συνουσίας; similar phrases in Theopompus, FGH 115 F 233.5; Isocrates, Antid. 286; Plutarch, Dion 41.2; Athenaeus 4.61) show what Herod apparently did to distract himself (see the preceding note). Concerning πότος, cf. Ant. 15.53, and concerning συνουσία, 15.97 with the note to “have sex with the king.”

The noun διοίκησις concerns the administration of the kingdom here (cf. Ant. 15.68, 177; 16.1, 22). This phrase connects with the expression οὐ ἀπαθής (“not without passion”) of Ant. 15.240 (see the note to “very passionate”), although a milder translation of πάθος (“feelings,” Rengstorf s.v.) may be preferable here. The noun also occurs in the parallel account of War (1.444). Ant. 16.153 attests a similar combination of πάθος with ἡττάομαι (“be overpowered”), concerning Herod’s love of honor: “… (he) was strongly dominated by this emotion [or ‘passion’] (τούτου τοῦ πάθους ἡττημένος ἰσχυρῶς)” (my trans.); for similar vocabulary, cf. Plutarch, Per. 36.5; Cassius Dio 758; Heliodorus 4.10.3; Gregory of Nyssa, Orat. cons. Pulch. [ed. Spira 9.464]). A related combination of ἡττάομαι with φιλοστοργία in Ant. 15.83 indicates that Herod was overcome with affection for Mariamme (cf. 15.97 about Cleopatra being overcome with [sexual] desire [ἐπιθυμία] and 16.206 about Herod being overcome with love [ἔρως] for Glaphyra). The verb καλέω (“call”) with Mariamme as object recalls the dramatic conversation between Herod and Mariamme reported in Ant. 15.222-223, which is introduced by “When the king was lying down to rest at noon, he called for Mariamme (ἐκάλει τὴν Μαριάμμην) out of the affection he always felt for her.” This final note is redundant but adds to the drama and also ridicules Herod somewhat. War 1.444 suggests that owing to his burning desire Herod could not believe that Mariamme was dead and that he addressed her as if she were still alive (ὡς ζώσῃ προσλαλεῖν).

In Ant. 15.87 a similar phrase (οὕτως δ’ ἔχων) makes the transition to the report about Herod’s actions in response to his crisis concerning Mariamme (caused by her revelation that she knew about his secret instructions for Joseph). Here it concerns the transition to the report about the epidemic that broke out during Herod’s grief. This illness is not mentioned in the parallel account of War (1.441-444). The adjective λοιμώδης (“pestilential,” Rengstorf s.v.) also occurs in War 6.2, 421 and Ant. 15.301 (also in combination with νόσος [“illness”]; cf. already Thucydides 1.23 and subsequent authors, e.g., Aeschines, Ep. 1.2; Philo, Abr. 136; Conf. 22; Mos. 1.236; Plutarch, Cam. 43.1; Cor. 12.4; Num. 13.1; Cassius Dio 75.13.2; Herodian 1.12.1). Ancient historians sometimes connect natural disasters and other catastrophes with human conduct (e.g., Thucydides 2.47-55 about the Athenian plague of 430 BCE; further references in Landau 2006: 157 with n. 127). It is also an important motif in the Bible and its paraphrases in Josephus (e.g., Ant. 2.313-314 on the final plague in Egypt: the deaths of the firstborn, Exod 12:29-33). This implies that the majority of the population was killed, which emphasizes the severity of the epidemic (see also the next note). Alternative translations are “most respectable, most esteemed, most valued, dearest” (Rengstorf s.v. ἔντιμος; the word ἔντιμος is a hapax legomenon in Josephus). The fact that, in addition to the majority of the population, the most high-ranking persons among Herod’s friends were killed once again emphasizes the impact of the disaster and puts the focus on the king because losing more than half of his subjects as well as his most important friends could hardly be considered to be a coincidence, as the next sub-clause elaborates. The verb ἐξυπονοέω (“suspect,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. The translation is based on the reading τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦτο of MSS LE (followed by Marcus-Wikgren 114). Niese (375) reads τοῦτο with MS P, which is the only Greek MS that lacks an explicit reference to God (the Latin version also refers to God). Although Niese’s reading may be preferred as the shorter and the more probable reading, further occurrences of μῆνις (“wrath”) in Josephus show that κατὰ μῆνιν τοῦ θεοῦ is a fixed expression (6 occurrences out of a total of 9: Ant. 1.164; 2.344; 4.8; 9.104, 246; 15.243, and a related phrase in War 6.40; see also Ant. 8.112; 15.299). There is no occurrence of κατὰ μῆνιν without a reference to God in Josephus (cf. κατὰ μῆνιν τῆς θεοῦ in Strabo 12.8.9 and κατὰ μῆνιν θεοῦ in Origen, Comm. Matt. 10.17). These data render it probable that τοῦ θεοῦ was left out in MS P because of homoioarcton (-του … του-). Since Ant. 1.164 indicates that God punished Pharaoh for his desire for Sarah by causing the outbreak of a disease and a rebellion (cf. Gen 12:10-20) and Ant. 2.344 concerns God’s destruction of the Egyptian army in the Red Sea (cf. Exod 14:23), Vogel (2002: 115) and Landau (2006: 157) conclude that Josephus presents the plague as a divine punishment for Herod here. In line with biblical traditions, not only the king but also his people are punished (see Ant. 15.244). Josephus attributes this view to all of Herod’s subjects (“it made everyone suspect”), as Landau (2006: 157 n. 131) rightly notes. She argues that this distinction between the people and Josephus as narrator gives credence to the account and presents Josephus as a serious and reliable historian. Reading διά with MSS FLAMWE and Marcus-Wikgren (114). Niese’s reading τῶν κατά (375, only supported by MS P) does not make sense. Josephus uses for the first time strongly negative language in connection with Mariamme’s death, which no doubt targets Herod. Herod’s παρανομία (“lawless behavior”) is mentioned a few times in War (in flashbacks) and more frequently in Antiquities (see 15.166 with the note to “lawless behavior”).

Josephus focuses on the impact of the pestilential disease for the king not only because Herod is the main character of this section but also because he is held responsible for the misery (see Ant. 15.243 with notes). Josephus’ remark that Herod retreated to the wilderness points to the emotional collapse of the king at the moment when he had to coordinate the aid for his subjects’ sufferings. It implies a double disqualification: Herod was unable to control himself, and he took the wrong priorities by focusing on his own grief. The retreat seems to be a motif added by Josephus in order to show that the king was unfit to rule. The last Babylonian king, Nabonidus (555-539 BCE), suffered from a mental illness and retreated from the civilized world according to the Nabonidus Chronicle, Haran inscriptions, and the Qumran Prayer of Nabonidus (4Q242; further discussion in Henze 1999). These traditions may originate in Nabonidus’ absence from Babylon in 552-543 BCE: he stayed for 10 years at Tayma, an oasis in the Arabian Desert. They partly underlie the story about the dream and madness of the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar in Dan 4: the king’s dream, explained by Daniel, comes true and he spends 7 times in the wilderness with the animals (Dan 4:15-16, 23, 25, 32-33) before he returns to his senses and acknowledges God’s sovereignty (Dan 4:34-37). Like Herod’s collapse Nebuchadnezzar’s madness is clearly caused by God (Dan 4:25-26, 31). Both traditions about a journey to the wilderness are probably fictitious, although Kasher (2007: 173) argues that Herod actually decided to retreat into the wilderness and that it is plausible that he did this in order to prevent himself from becoming infected by the epidemic disease. The vague information about the wilderness and the reference to the doctors at the beginning of Ant. 15.246 do not enhance the plausibility of this detail.The location of this wilderness is not mentioned. One might think of a Judean wilderness but also of a wilderness near Samaria-Sebaste (the north-east Samarian wilderness, north of Wadi al-Far‘a; see Kallner and Rosenau 1939: 63) since Ant. 15.246 refers to Samaria. Although the hunt merely seems to have been a pretext for Herod’s retreat, it indicates at the same time that hunting was a usual kind of entertainment for the king (see also Ant. 16.248). The rare verb ἐναδημονέω (“be greatly afflicted,” LSJ s.v., referring to this passage, or “worry, grieve [in a place],” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. The verb φθάνω plus a negation and followed by a participle (here an infinitive) and καί or εὐθύς indicates that the 2 actions referred to are closely related (LSJ s.v. IV.1; cf. the rendering by Rengstorf s.v.: “scarcely … when”). The text suggests therefore that Herod soon fell ill in the wilderness, such that he must have been infected before his retreat. This general but at the same time very negative formulation leads up to a more detailed description of Herod’s physical illness in the next paragraph. Herod suffered from this illness in addition to his emotional breakdown (Ant. 15.240-242).

The noun φλόγωσις also occurs in the report of Herod’s final illness (Ant. 17.168). The only further occurrence in Josephus concerns the combustion of a fire (3.63; cf. Thucydides 2.49, who mentions that the first symptoms of the plague described by him were having burned feelings in the head as well as red and inflamed eyes [τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν ἐρυθήματα καὶ φλόγωσις]). The noun πεῖσις (“affection, pain,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. Cobet (followed by Herwaarden and Naber 1888-96: 3.xliv, 352) conjectures πῦσις (“suppuration”). The noun ἰνίον (“back of the head, nape of the neck,” Rengstorf s.v.) occurs once elsewhere in Josephus, in connection with the High Priest’s turban (Ant. 3.178). The vocabulary concerning Herod’s illness is largely unique (but see the next note), such that it is hard to determine the illness. Kasher (2007: 172-74) discusses several options, including bacterial or viral forms of meningitis, which disease causes a stiffness of the neck and headaches and also matches the epidemic character (see 15.243). The noun παραλλαγή is a further hapax legomenon in Josephus and can mean “alteration, disturbance” but also “distortion” (e.g., of the vertebrae; Hippocrates, Art. rep. 48; LSJ s.v.). Rengstorf (s.v.) believes that the noun indicates a temporary loss of consciousness here. Another possibility is madness (LSJ s.v. IV), which may be supported by the definition of madness (μανία) in Pseudo-Galen, Def. med. (ed. Kühn 19.416): “Madness is an ecstatic state of the mind and a change of the usual habits (μανία ἐστὶν ἔκστασις τῆς διανοίας καὶ παραλλαγὴ τῶν νομίμων … ἐθῶν) when one is healthy and without fever” (my trans.). Josephus reports a temporary madness for Herod later (Ant. 16.259-260; cf. 17.247). Richardson (1996: 218) wonders whether the plague accounts for some of Herod’s symptoms. Herod was accompanied by doctors, as the next paragraph indicates. The noun θεράπευμα (“medical treatment,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. The verb ἐξανύω (“accomplish, be effective,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a further hapax legomenon in Josephus. Reading τέως (“for a while”) with MS P and Niese (376). The other Greek MSS read τέλος (“finally”), which is followed by Marcus-Wikgren (114-15). The change from τέως to the more usual word τέλος may derive from an accidental exchange of -ω- and -λο-. Josephus uses τέως also elsewhere (references in Rengstorf s.v.). For the noun ἀπόγνωσις (“desperation, abandonment [of hope]),” see Ant. 15.125 and 15.163 with the note to “lost their hope.”

This detail is remarkable because Herod is located in the wilderness according to the context (Ant. 15.244). The presence of doctors implies that he stayed at a less deserted place. If Josephus’ information is trustworthy here, as some scholars think, this detail requires that one assumes there is an ellipsis in the Greek text: Josephus has left out a journey by Herod, e.g., a transfer to Samaria-Sebaste (where Herod is staying according to the end of the paragraph). Another option is that the wilderness motif was added by Josephus in order to disqualify the king as ruler of the Jews (see 15.244 with the note to “he made his way to the wilderness”). This statement connects with “They [i.e., the treatments] worked in the opposite direction” of the previous paragraph, highlighting Herod’s serious health condition. Despite the deficiency of the treatments, the doctors did not know anything better than to desperately continue them. The noun βοήθημα (“remedy,” Rengstorf s.v.) occurs once elsewhere in Josephus, in connection with King David, for whom his doctors arranged that he could sleep with the young woman Abishag to be kept warm (Ant. 7.343-344). The expression προσφέρω βοηθήματα (“apply remedies”) is a medical term (Galen, Plac. Hipp. Plat. 9.6.20; 9.7.7 [ed. Kühn 5.766, 779]; Pseudo-Galen, Intr. [ed. Kühn 14.677]). This remark implies that Herod’s situation was not completely hopeless, since he was able to eat. The noun ἀρρωστία has a general meaning (“illness,” Rengstorf s.v.). In Apion 1.146 the word occurs in a quotation from Berossus concerning Nabuchodonosor’s death. The only further occurrence in Josephus is Ant. 6.361. The subject of the passive verb ἐπενεχθείη, attested by the Greek MSS (Niese 376), is the pronoun ἐκεῖνος (“he,” referring to the king). The basic meaning of ἐπιφέρω is “bring upon” (LSJ s.v.); the middle and passive voices can mean “consume/eat in addition” (LSJ s.v. II.2). Naber’s conjecture ἐπειχθείη (from ἐπείγω [“press, force”], Naber 1888-96: 3.xliv, 352, supported by Schreckenberg 1977: 137) finds a close parallel in War 7.372: “Who would not rush [or ‘be eager’] to his death ere he shared their fate [i.e., of the persons captured by the Romans] (τίς οὐκ ἄν ἐπειχθείη πρὸ τοῦ ταὐτὰ παθεῖν ἐκείνοις ἀποθανεῖν)?” (trans. Thackeray). The verb ἐπείγω can also mean “be eager (for)” in the passive voice (Rengstorf s.v.)—in which case the translation would be “(everything) he might be eager for”—but such instances are usually followed by an objective genitive (LSJ s.v. III.b) or an infinitive (e.g., War 7.372) and not by a dative (which is the case here: οἷς). The noun δύσελπις (“hopeless, almost desperate,” Rengstorf s.v.) occurs twice elsewhere in Josephus, both times in Antiquities (3.11; 5.41). Schreckenberg (1977: 137) erases the ἐν of ἐν ἐξουσίᾳ because common Greek requires a simple instrumental dative here. This phrase is ambiguous since τύχη can mean, among other things, “fate, fortune, deity” (see Ant. 15.17 with the note to “fortune”). Jewish and Christian readers would conclude that Herod’s recovery was in God’s hands, but Greeks and Romans would think of fate or fortune. The connection between Rome’s rise and fortune (interpreted as chance or personified as a sometimes malevolent force, or in the case of Plutarch as either fortune or a divine force) is a longstanding theme since Polybius, elaborated especially by Plutarch (Eckstein 1995: 254-71; Swain 1996: 151-61).For a phrase similar to ἀνατιθέντες τῇ τύχῃ (“leaving … to fate”), see Clement of Alexandria, Exh. 4.51: “The Romans, who ascribed their greatest successes to Fortune (Τύχῃ ἀνατίθεντες), and regarded her as a very great deity … (trans. Wilson). There is one further occurrence of νοσηλεύω (“be ill,” Rengstorf s.v.) in Josephus (War 3.156). Samaria-Sebaste was part of Herod’s territory at least since Octavian’s grant (see Ant. 15.217 with the note to “Samaria,” and for the new name Sebaste, 15.292 with the note to “Sebaste”).

Ant. 15.247 introduces a section that focuses on the theme of rebellion against and betrayal of Herod. It starts with Alexandra (15.247-251) and continues with Costobar and other friends (15.252-266), which passage includes a subsection about the Sons of Baba (15.260-266). The section reports that all these opponents were executed. Alexandra had been mentioned for the last time in Ant. 15.232-235, in connection with Mariamme’s trial, which took place in Jerusalem. She apparently did not follow Herod into the wilderness and did not join him in Samaria either. She was staying in the center of power, while Herod, being ill, was away in Samaria. On the basis of the previous descriptions of Alexandra, one would assume that she once elsewhere would attempt to take over the throne (see 15.31-34, 42-43, 47, 59, 62, 87, 166, 183, 185; further references in 15.166 with the notes to “hoping for a political change” and “get a start with bringing their hopes for the future into safer ground again”). The reading πυθομένη of MSS MVE (Niese 376; the other MSS have the present participle πυνθανομένη) implies the meaning “had learned” and matches the preceding aorist participle διατρίβουσα. Nevertheless, Josephus does combine aorist and present participles in several instances (e.g., Ant. 15.233 ἐκπηδήσασα καὶ λοιδορουμένη). The reading πυθομένη is probably a correction of πυνθανομένη; the latter reading would then be original. Taking control over the fortresses gave Alexandra a power base (as the next paragraph explains), which confirms that she was planning a coup (see the note to “Alexandra, who was staying in Jerusalem” above). Josephus does not specify the fortified places (for their identifications, see the next notes and Shatzman 1991: 225; Richardson 1996: 220). War 5.245, which shares the noun φρούριον (“fortified place, fortress”) with Ant. 15.247, refers to 2 fortresses (the Antonia and Herod’s palace; for a description of this palace, see War 5.176-181) and states that the Temple was situated adjacent to the city as its fortified place and the Antonia adjacent to the Temple as its fortification.

The identification of the fortress protecting the city of Jerusalem is less easy than that of the fortress near the Temple because in the period shortly after Mariamme’s death (29 or perhaps 28 BCE; see Ant. 15.237 with the note to “Mariamme died this way”) Herod’s fortified palace (mentioned in War 5.245; see the previous note) was still to be built. It probably concerns the cluster of the 3 multi-story towers named Phasael, Hippicus, and Mariamme after the 3 persons whom Herod loved most (2.439; 5.162). They were located west of the Temple Mount in the upper city (close to the Jaffa Gate of the current Old City) and are described in detail in War 5.163-171 (further discussion in Netzer 2006: 127-29). Herod’s later palace was built to the south of these towers. The fortified place that protected the Temple area was the Fortress Antonia, which was located northwest of the Temple precinct and directly connected with its wall. Netzer (2006: 160-61) argues that the fortress was partly integrated into the Temple complex. Herod built it and named it after his first Roman patron, Mark Antony (see Ant. 15.292 with the note to “Antonia”). The noun ἔθνος sometimes refers to the Jewish people as an ethnic entity recognized by outsiders rather than to a population living within a specific territory (cf. Ant. 11.184, 303; 15.15; 18.378 referring to the Jews staying in former Babylonia; see 15.15 with the note to “nation of the Jews”). Here, however, the Jewish nation living in its heartland Judea is meant. The phrase ὑποχείριον ἔχω (“have in one’s power”) also occurs in Ant. 15.20 concerning Herod and Hyrcanus II and in 15.99 concerning Herod and Cleopatra. This way of expressing the prominence of the fortresses may reflect Josephus’ interests as a priest. He may have in view events from the time of Antiochus IV through to the recent war against Rome and its antecedents, when control over the population interfered with the sacrificial regimen. The priests were in charge of the sacrifices in the Temple and control over both fortresses implied control over both the city and the Temple complex, such that the supply of sacrificial animals could be stopped. The Temple cult was, therefore, dependent on the support of the political authorities. This note is surprising for 2 reasons. First, the Temple did not exist anymore at the time of Antiquities’ composition. Nevertheless, Josephus sometimes writes about the Jerusalem Temple as if it is still functioning (see Apion 2.102-109, discussed by Bauckham 1996, who argues that Josephus could not imagine Judaism without the Temple, p. 347; I thank Michael Tuval, Jerusalem, for this reference). In War 6.94 Josephus indicates that the Jewish population was deeply depressed because of the interruption of the daily sacrifices in the Temple. The importance of the Temple cult is also acknowledged by a famous statement of Simon the Righteous: “By three things is the world sustained: by the Law, by the [Temple-]service, and by deeds of loving-kindness” (m. ’Abot 1.2, trans. Danby). Second, Josephus’ reference to the sacrifice obligation is vague and abstract, especially if compared with the biblical instructions, which not only differentiate between the tasks of the priests and those of the lay persons but also state that the male Jews have to bring sacrifices to the Temple only 3 times a year, during the 3 “pilgrim festivals” (Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles, Lev 23; Deut 16:16-17); women were free to bring sacrifices (m. Ḥag. 1.1). This vagueness is, however, understandable in the present context, which focuses on the importance of the fortresses in the city and not on the prescriptions for the temple service. Josephus may hint at other reasons why the Temple cult was important: a cosmic function (the Jewish cult in Ant. 3.179-187 is a divinely established worship at a place chosen by God, carried out by chosen priests on behalf of the Jews and all humankind) and a symbolic meaning (cf. the annual payment of the Temple tax [a half-shekel equaling two drachmae or denarii in Josephus’ time] by all male Jews, also those living in the Diaspora: War 7.218; Ant. 18.312-313; Trebilco 1991: 13-16, 196-97; Sanders 1994: 52, 156, 163-68).The verb συντελέω with the meaning “present (a sacrifice)” (Rengstorf s.v.) also occurs in Ant. 15.51, concerning the young High Priest Jonathan-Aristobulus III. Josephus swiftly connects the Temple cult with the Jews’ readiness to sacrifice themselves for their culture and identity. A similar readiness is apparent from passages in which Josephus briefly points to the Jews’ fame of dying nobly for a Jewish cause (War 2.169-177 [cf. Ant. 18.55-62]; 3.475; 5.88, 315, 458; 7.406; Ant. 17.256; Apion 1.42-43, 190-193; 2.146, 218-220, 225-235; cf. the Jews’ response to Gaius’ decision to erect a statue of himself in the Temple in War 2.184-203; Ant. 18.261-288; further discussion in van Henten 2007a). The vocabulary partly repeats that of the previous sub-clause (e.g., συντελέω) and also echoes that of Ant. 15.51 (e.g., θρησκεία “cult, rites,” Rengstorf s.v.).

For the verb προσφέρω with λόγους as object (“address”), see Ant. 15.16 with the note to “he addressed.” The officers in charge are called friends (φίλοι) of the king further on in the paragraph. The fortified places of Ant. 15.247-248 are clearly meant here, although Josephus uses another noun (φυλακτήριον) this time. Alexandra boldly tries to have her own way, apparently on the basis of her royal status and authority, which matches her frank and arrogant attitude in other passages (see Ant. 15.37 with the note to “because of her kin and frankness”). She apparently sets herself up as Herod’s substitute—which is logical in a way since Herod had not appointed one, while he had done so during his journeys to Antony and Octavian (15.65, 184). The sons are not specified. The Greek text suggests that all of Herod’s sons who were born before this event are referred to: Antipater, Alexander, Aristobulus IV, and possibly Herod III, Herod IV, and Archelaus (these last 3 sons were born in 28 or 27 BCE; Kokkinos 1998: 208). However, it is plausible to assume that Alexandra appointed herself as the patron of Herod’s sons who had “blue” (i.e., Hasmonean) blood through Mariamme I rather than of all of his sons. Herod and Mariamme had 5 children (War 1.435; Ant. 14.300): 3 boys and 2 girls. One son died early (War 1.435), Alexander was born in 36 BCE, and Aristobulus probably in 35 BCE (Kokkinos 1998: 213-14). This phrase is ironical because it echoes Herod’s accusation of Alexandra in Ant. 15.32: “He said that she [i.e., Alexandra] secretly plotted against the throne and was arranging, through Cleopatra, that he would be deprived of his rule and that the young man [i.e., Jonathan-Aristobulus III] would receive the government (παραλάβῃ τὰ πράγματα; cf. ἀντιλαμβάνεσθαι τῶν πραγμάτων in 15.249) instead of him through Antony.” For τὰ πράγματα meaning “the matters of the kingdom” or “the government,” see 15.32 with the note to “the government.” Alexandra’s claim is brilliant: it implies that she was the best substitute for Herod, no matter whether he died or remained alive. Alternative translation: “closest friends.” This statement is clearly ironical in the light of Alexandra’s repeated actions against Herod (see Ant. 15.247 with the note to “she hurried to get control over the citadels in the city”).The verb διατηρέω (“maintain, keep”) also occurs in the description of Herod’s secret instructions for Joseph and Soemus (15.184-186), which include the phrase “to do everything possible to secure the kingdom (τὴν βασιλείαν … διατηρεῖν) for his sons together with his brother Pheroras” (15.186).

The expression ἐπιεικῶς φέρω means “accept, assent” here (Rengstorf s.v. ἐπιεικής; cf. Lucian, Laps. 1; John Chrysostom, Hom. Matt. [PG 58.772]; De meretrice [ed. Abicht 151]). Niese (376) reads ἀλλὰ πιστοί (“furthermore, [having been] faithful”) with MSS FV and E. Most MSS read the opposite: ἀλλ’ ἄπιστοι (“furthermore, [having been] unfaithful”). It is likely that the latter reading is a misinterpretation of the first; in the stage of the uncial MSS both readings were identical, except for the separation of both words. The particle ἀλλά has a progressive function here (Denniston 1954: 21-22). The aorist διέμειναν links up with the word πιστοί at the beginning of this subclause. For phrases of διαμένω (“maintain, continue to be”) with πιστός (“faithful”), cf. Xenophon, Cyr. 7.1.45; Hell. 6.5.44; 7.2.2; Cassius Dio 6.28.4. Josephus does not explain this hatred. On the basis of the preceding narrative one can think of at least 3 possibilities: (1) Alexandra was apparently an arrogant woman who allowed herself great liberties and had plotted against Herod before, and the officers may have known her personally or have, at least, been familiar with her bad reputation; (2) Josephus refers to the mutual hatred of Alexandra and Mariamme on the one hand, and Salome and Cyprus on the other hand (Ant. 15.213, 220), and the officers may have supported the faction of Salome and Cyprus; (3) some of the officers were close to Herod. The third option is in line with the last part of this section, and the first two could be additional explanations, although this remains entirely speculative. The phrase (μηδ’) ὅσιον ὑπολαμβάνειν (“think [something] is against the divine laws”; cf. Philo, Spec. 3.27; Theodoretus, Hist. eccl. 3.72.3 [ed. Parmentier and Hansen 206.16]; Quaest. Regn. Paral. [PG 80.649]) indicates that the attendants considered it to be their religious duty to respect Herod’s life (see the next note). Josephus’ description of the response of those in charge of the forts to Alexandra’s proposal (see Ant. 15.249) implies that they interpreted it very negatively: the immediate context indicates that they assumed that Alexandra took Herod’s death for granted (see the next note), and their response also presupposes that they took Alexandra’s initiative as an attempt to overthrow Herod’s rule. The adjective ὅσιος (“holy, appointed by divine decree, pious,” Rengstorf s.v.) may evoke the divine laws here (cf. ὅσιον οἴεσθαι in 15.281 [“think it is a religious duty”], which concerns faithfulness to the divine laws). The obligation to protect and respect the lives of human beings is an important point in Jewish tradition and already emphasized in the Ten Commandments: “You shall not murder” (Exod 20:13; cf. Deut 5:17) and other passages in the Pentateuch (Gen 9:5-6; Exod 21:12-14, 19; Lev 24:17; Num 35:16-34; Deut 19:11-13; see also Josephus’ reference to this commandment in his summary of the Decalogue in Ant. 3.91-92). Josephus’ vocabulary implies that these men were not only political friends of Herod, which meant that they had a high status (on the “friends of the king,” see Ant. 15.5 with the note to “the friends around him”), but also that they had a close connection with the king. This is confirmed by the next detail, which indicates that Achiab was a relative of Herod (see the next note). Their close relationship with Herod explains their refusal to Alexandra’s proposal. Achiab prevented Herod’s suicide near the end of the king’s life and was apparently still close to the king at that time (War 1.662; Ant. 17.184; see also War 2.55, 77; Ant. 17.270, 292). War 2.55 also refers to Achiab as a cousin of the king (ἀνεψιὸς [τοῦ] βασιλέως).There are 2 explanations for Achiab’s relation to Herod (Vogel 2002: 115 n. 23): Achiab may have been (1) a son of Phallion, who was a brother of Antipater (i.e., Herod’s father) and died in 40 BCE (Richardson 1996: 221 n. 13), or (2) he was a son of Dositheus’ sister (see Ant. 15.168-169 with the notes to “Dositheus, one of his friends” and “Dositheus was a relative of Joseph”) and Joseph, Herod’s youngest brother (Kokkinos 1998: 153-55; Günther 2005: 112).Kokkinos (1998: 153) argues that Achiab hated Alexandra because he held her responsible for the death of his father Joseph (15.87). However, in 15.87 Josephus merely notes that Herod held Alexandra partly responsible for the troubles in his family and kept her under guard. The passage also indicates that Herod was primarily responsible for Joseph’s death; it was the king who ordered Joseph’s execution. Had Joseph been Achiab’s father, Achiab would probably have hated Herod for killing his father. Achiab’s loyalty to Herod implies that Phallion was more likely his father.

A message had to be sent because the king was still staying in Samaria-Sebaste (Ant. 15.246). The officers’ swift report to Herod is only logical in the light of their close connection with the king (Ant. 15.250). It is puzzling why Alexandra approached them since one would assume that she was aware of their relationship with the king, given that she was a prominent member of the court. Günther (2005: 121) concludes that Alexandra miscalculated the situation. The translation follows the reading οὐδὲν ἀναβαλλόμενος of MSS FLAMW. Niese (377) conjectures οὐδὲν ἀναβαλομένους (“[he ordered] them [to kill her] without any delay”). Herod was apparently sound enough to respond immediately to Alexandra’s attempt to take over the throne. Alexandra is executed immediately, although Herod used to kill prominent family members only after having convened a council (cf. the executions of Hyrcanus II and Mariamme I in Ant. 15.165-176, 229-236; see 15.229 with the note to “having gathered”). However, the circumstances are different here, as the continuation of the paragraph indicates: Herod was apparently still in Samaria-Sebaste (15.247) and had barely survived a critical medical condition, which deeply affected his mental and emotional states.Kokkinos (1998: 182) dates Alexandra’s execution to 28/27 BCE. Otto (1913: 52) wonders why Alexandra is executed so late in the Herod narrative while she had been involved in many previous rebellious acts (see 15.166 with the notes to “quarrelsome” and “strongly hoping for a political change”). He therefore suggests that Alexandra became Herod’s enemy at a very late stage and that the earlier references to her rebellious acts are fictitious. Kokkinos (1998: 181-82) argues that Herod only dared to take action against Alexandra (and Costobar; see 15.252) after Cleopatra had died, since the queen would have tried to have Herod punished if he executed Alexandra.Josephus does not offer an obituary of Alexandra after the notification of her death, although one would expect this here because he offers such assessments of Alexandra’s father Hyrcanus II (15.179-182) and her daughter Mariamme I (15.237-239) after reporting their deaths. Yet Josephus already commented on Alexandra as a person in 15.233-234, shortly before Mariamme’s execution. Josephus’ very negative view of Alexandra is not a likely explanation of the absence of a concluding assessment of Alexandra. He does comment on Herod as a person and a ruler after the king’s death (17.191-192), while there are several negative remarks about Herod within Antiquities’ Herod narrative. Moreover, an assessment of Jonathan-Aristobulus III after his death is missing as well (cf. 15.56-57), and Josephus’ portrait of him is very positive (see 15.23, 25, 29, 51-52).Landau (2006: 132) argues that the brief description of Alexandra’s execution is a means to anticipate the report of Herod’s subsequent “preposterous deed,” i.e., the execution of his sons Alexander and Aristobulus IV, but that episode is narrated only much later (16.356-394). The noun κακοπάθεια (“distress”) is rare in Josephus. Here it means “great pains, arduous effort” (Rengstorf s.v.). The 2 other occurrences in Josephus are part of the Herod narrative in Antiquities (15.312, referring to distress because of a famine, and 17.347). Concerning the phrase ψυχῇ καὶ σώματι κεκακωμένος (“afflicted in mind and body”), see Ant. 15.158 with the note to “afflicted in body and soul.” For a very different statement about Herod, which also closely connects body and mind, see the praise of Herod in War 1.429-430: Josephus emphasizes that Herod’s body and soul fully corresponded to each other (“Endowed also with a physique that equalled his genius [σώματι πρὸς τὴν ψυχὴν ἀναλόγῳ] … in addition to the advantages he had in mind and body [πρὸς δὲ τοῖς ψυχικοῖς καὶ τοῖς σωματικοῖς προτερήμασιν],” trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a), which explains why he was an extremely successful hunter as well as an irresistible fighter (Sievers 2009: 91-4). The adjective δυσάρεστος (“discontent, grumbling” and here “in an irritable mood,” Rengstorf s.v.) occurs once elsewhere in Josephus (Ant. 3.23), in which case it characterizes the human race as being discontent and fond of uttering reproaches in cases of misfortune. This trait of Herod’s character becomes very explicit at the end of his life, when the king is planning a huge mourning session for him by having prominent Jews killed in the hippodrome of Jericho (Ant. 17.173-179). Josephus indicates that Herod tended to take his misery out on others in an extreme way, killing them at random, which is part of the tyrannical stereotype (van Henten 2011b). This point is, however, sometimes mollified. Thus the next paragraph shows that Herod actually had a good reason for executing these friends (see 15.252 with the note to “for the following reason”). The verb ὑποπίπτω (“fall under”) means “fall into someone’s hands” here (Rengstorf s.v.).

Josephus is combining 2 execution reports (Alexandra’s and that of part of the administrative elite at Herod’s court), although they likely occurred at different moments: Alexandra was executed in 28 (or 28/27) BCE (see Ant. 15.251 with the note to “for her to be killed”), and the friends of Herod mentioned here may have been executed in 26/25 BCE (see 15.254 with the note to “governor of Idumea and Gaza”). Ant. 15.251-252 therefore is an example of Josephus’ technique of synchronizing events that are thematically related (van Henten and Huitink 2007: 225).Josephus may indicate that the very close friends mentioned here belonged to the Idumean elite at Herod’s court since in 15.253 Josephus explicitly states that Costobar, the friend who is mentioned first, was an Idumean, like Herod himself.The combination of ἀναγκαῖος and φίλος, indicating close friends, is a fixed expression in Josephus (Ant. 7.350; 11.254-255; Life 223) and also occurs with the superlative ἀναγκαιότατος (Ant. 10.5, 59, 229; 13.224). For a political meaning of φίλος, see 15.5 with the note to “the friends around him.” This theophoric name is of Semitic origin (qwsgbr) and means “Qôs is mighty” (Knauf 1999: 675; Ilan 2002: 436-37; see Ant. 15.253 with the note to “Koze”). Costobar must have been a very important administrator in Herod’s kingdom: Herod appointed him as governor of Idumea and Gaza (15.254) and arranged a marriage for him with his sister Salome (15.254; cf. War 1.486).The subsequent section of Ant. 15.253-266 focuses on Costobar. The parallel narrative of War (1.486) mentions Costobar in passing, also in a context of betrayal of Herod: he would have supported Herod’s brother Pheroras in his attempt to flee to the Parthians. Costobar’s fall sets in with Salome’s decision to separate from him (Ant. 15.259). For further references to Costobar, see Kasher 1988: 55, 64, 74, 143, 150, 214-18, 222-23; Kokkinos 1998: 179-82; Marshak 2011. Lysimachus is a familiar Greek name and therefore does not confirm an Idumean provenance (cf. the 2 previous notes). Although this name was also used for Jews, it is uncertain whether Lysimachus considered himself to be Jewish (Ilan 2002: 49-50, 294; cf. the following report about Costobar in Ant. 15.253-258). Lysimachus is mentioned again in 15.260. Antipater is another familiar Greek name. Both Idumeans and Jews used it (Ilan 2002: 264-65). Herod’s father was called thus (or Antipas, War 1.19; Ant. 14.8, 10) in addition to his Semitic name Gadia (gdy’; Schlatter 1913: 35; Schalit 2001: 144), which means “kid” (Marcus-Wikgren 118 n. d; Ilan 2002: 366)—although it may be a theophoric name deriving from Gad, a Semitic god of fortune (cf. Tyche in Greek and Fortuna in Latin literature; Ribichini 1999; Ilan 2002: 366-67). This Dositheus has already been mentioned in Ant. 15.168 (further references there in the note to “Dositheus, one of his friends”). Important points in the following section about Costobar (Ant. 15.253-266) are that he had approached Herod’s arch-enemy Cleopatra (15.256) and had hidden the Sons of Baba, who were possible pretenders to the throne (15.260). Both acts were cases of severe betrayal. The other friends mentioned may have been involved in Costobar’s acts or in other cases of treason.

Josephus starts with a flashback concerning Costobar and the Idumeans before coming to the main issue, the Sons of Baba (Ant. 15.260). Costobar’s family came from Idumea, a region south of Judea, west of the Dead Sea, and east of Gaza, which roughly coincides with the area attributed to the Edomites in the early Second Temple period (Möller and Schmitt 1976: 100; Kokkinos 1998: 36-139). Idumea was from the beginning a part of Herod’s kingdom (see 15.2 with the note to “all Judea” and 15.254). This suggests, together with Josephus’ next remark, that Costobar’s family belonged to the priestly elite of the Idumeans (see also the next note). The noun ἀξίωμα can mean, among other things, “dignity, status, rank” (Rengstorf s.v.), sometimes in combination with a statement about someone’s descent (see Ant. 15.51 with the note to “his dignity connected with his descent” concerning Jonathan-Aristobulus III, who descended from the Hasmonean dynasty). Niese (377) reads Κοζαί with MS P, while the other Greek MSS read Κωζέ; they are different spellings of the same divine name. Qôs was the national deity of the Edomites (see Ant. 15.252 with the note to “Costobar”). Theophoric names with Qôs (qws, “bow”) are attested for Edomite royal and non-royal persons. Qôs was originally a Syrian weathergod, and Qôs, Yahweh, Haddu/Hadad, and Baal may be different names for the same deity (Knauf 1999: 677). A small altar with the name “Qôs” on its base was found at Ramat el-Khalil (the location of the oaks [or terebinths] of Mamre, where Abram was living according to Gen 13:18; Josephus refers to this place as “the oak called Ogyges,” Feldman in BJP 3 on Ant. 1.186), 3 km north of the old city of Hebron, which altar was enclosed by a massive wall erected in Herod’s time (Magen 1993). Evidence shows that Qôs was still worshipped in Nabatean territories in the 2nd and 3rd cent. CE (further discussion and references in Dearman 1995: 123-31; Knauf 1999).The verb ἱερατεύω (“assume the duties of/be a priest”) occurs twice elsewhere in Josephus (Ant. 3.189; 20.242). This is Josephus’ diplomatic way of saying that Qôs was one of the Idumean gods. Stating unconditionally that Qôs is an Idumean deity would be at odds with the first commandment to venerate no god other than the God of Israel (Exod 20:2-3; cf. 23:24; 34:14; Deut 6:13). The veneration of Qôs by the Idumeans was a sensitive issue, also because they had converted to Judaism (see Ant. 15.254).

I.e., the Jewish ruler John Hyrcanus, Hyrcanus I (135/134-104 BCE). The noun πολιτεία not only means “citizenship” or “constitution” but also a “way of life” (Rengstorf s.v.) associated with a specific ethnic group (2 Macc 6:23A; 8:17; 4 Macc 8:7; 17:9-10; van Henten 1997: 189-90, 197-99, 254-55, 263). This meaning is also apparent from the first lines of a famous inscription from Stobi (Macedonia, probably 3rd cent. CE): “[Claudius] Tiberius Polycharmus, also (called) Achyrius, the father of the synagogue at Stobi, having lived my whole life according to the (prescriptions of) Judaism (ὅς πολιτευσάμενος πᾶσαν πολιτείαν κατὰ τον ’Ιουδαϊσμόν), in fulfilment of a vow (have donated) the rooms(?) to the holy place, and the triclinium with the tetrastoa out of my personal accounts without touching the sacred (funds) at all …” (CIJ no. 694). Chester (2012: 120-22) concludes that these lines imply that Polycharmus had lived his life throughout faithful to the Jewish tradition. Claudius Tiberius Polycharmus clearly was an official figure, belonging to the elite, and “life” probably implies “public life,” which means that the inscription does not make a stament about this man’s personal life but rather indicates that he has enacted his every policy in keeping with the Jewish tradition. The continuation of the Antiquities narrative confirms this meaning of πολιτεία: John Hyrcanus forced the Idumeans to adopt the practices of the Jewish people (see the next note), implying that they participated in the Jewish public form of life (calendar, holidays, cult and public devotion). The verb μεθίστημι plus τὴν πολιτείαν as object (“change the way of life, change the form of government”) is a common expression in Plutarch (Caes. 13.2; Lyc. 5.2; Lys. 15.1; Pel. 25.7; Pomp. 20.4; Sol. 13.3; cf. Xenophon, Hell. 7.1.42; Diodorus 13.34.6; 15.40.4; 15.79.3; Eunapius, Fragm. [ed. Dindorf 1.251]). John Hyrcanus expanded the Judean territory in several directions and conquered the Idumean cities of Adora and Marissa. He forced the Idumeans to convert to Judaism, which required male circumcision and observance of the other Jewish laws and practices (War 1.63; Ant. 13.255-258). Accepting the Jewish religion implied, of course, that the worship of deities like Qôs was forbidden. War 4.281 indicates that many Idumeans implemented this transition: they protected the Jerusalem Temple and were ready to fight, together with the Jews, for their fatherland (Schürer-Vermes 1.207, 538; 2.3-6). The combination ἔθη καὶ νόμιμα (“habits and customs”) also occurs in Ant. 14.216 and in War 2.160 concerning the Essenes (see also 15.267 with the note to “the ancestral customs”). This note refers to Herod’s final triumph over Antigonus at his capture of Jerusalem in 37 or 36 BCE (see Ant. 15.2). The verb παραλαμβάνω with τὴν βασιλείαν as object is a fixed expression for taking over the throne, which occurs ca. 32 times in Josephus (Rengstorf s.v. παραλαμβάνω; see, e.g., 15.16, 40 referring to Herod; 15.180 referring to Hyrcanus II; and 16.92; 17.95 referring to Herod’s sons who were apparently planning to take over the throne). Richardson (1996: 221) connects Costobar’s appointment with his marriage to Salome and situates both events in 34 BCE. Smallwood (1976: 63 n. 10) also states that both events occurred at approximately the same time but she argues for 37 BCE. Kokkinos (1998: 179 n. 9) argues that the date of Costobar’s appointment is ambiguous: in Ant. 15.254 Josephus connects it with Salome’s marriage, but in 15.260 he mentions 12 years during which Costobar protected the Sons of Baba. If the latter period is in view, it could imply that Costobar became governor shortly after Herod had captured Jerusalem (in 37 or 36 BCE), with the 12 years corresponding to 37-26/25 BCE (Kokkinos 1998: 180). Smallwood (1976: 72 n. 37) and Kasher (2007: 190 n. 28) reconstruct the 12 years as 40/39-29/28 BCE, starting at Herod’s appointment as king by the Romans. If Gaza was included in Antony’s grant of the coastal area to Cleopatra in 37 (or 36) BCE or given to her as a separate gift (see 15.217 with the note to Gaza), Costobar must have been appointed before this gift, which implies an appointment in 37 BCE at the latest. Furthermore, since Costobar’s marriage with Salome took place after the death of Salome’s first husband Joseph in 35/34 BCE (see 15.87 with the note to “he ordered Joseph to be killed” and the note to “gave him his sister Salome [in marriage]” below), the appointment and the marriage were 2 separate events. Ant. 15.254 does not imply that both events occurred simultaneously; Josephus merely mentions them together (cf. War 1.486, which only mentions Costobar’s marriage to Salome). For the function of governor (στρατηγός) in Herod’s kingdom, see Levine 1975: 17, 155 n. 29 with references; Shatzman 1991: 287 n. 38 (for other practices concerning this office, see Mason 1974: 155-62). Costobar and Salome were probably married in 34 BCE (Marcus-Wikgren 121; Richardson 1996: 221; Vogel 2002: 116; Günther 2005: 120). Josephus indicates that Herod orchestrated the marriage (likewise War 1.486; cf. 1.566; Ant. 16.244; 17.10), but he does not mention Herod’s motive, nor does he inform us about Salome’s position in this or about the role of their mother Cyprus. A plausible motive would be that the marriage was a way to hold on to Costobar and secure his loyalty (Smallwood 1976: 63). Herod also decided about the marriages of his children, grandchildren, and brother (Ant. 16.11, 97; 17.22; Mayer-Schärtel 1995: 202-03).The formulation δίδωσιν αὐτῷ τὴν ἀδελφήν Σαλώμην (“He gave him his sister Salome”) is elliptical and may be a short-hand formula for γυναῖκα διδόναι (“give as wife”) or διδόναι πρὸς γάμον (“give in marriage,” Rengstorf s.v. δίδωμι; see, e.g., 12.154). For a similar elliptical phrase with διδόναι, cf. 6.204 concerning the marriage of David and Michal. The execution of Joseph is reported in Ant. 15.87. The “we” refers to Josephus as author. He mentions the marriage of Joseph and Salome in passing in his report about Salome accusing her husband of adultery (see Ant. 15.81).The formula ὡς ἐδηλώσαμεν (“as we have indicated”) marks cross-references to other passages, sometimes with additional words: 7.330 (plus μικρὸν ἔμπροσθεν [“a little while ago”]); 9.28; 15.240 (plus καὶ πρότερον [“earlier”]); 16.206; Life 61 (plus ἐν ἄλλοις [“elsewhere”]).

The phrase ἤρθη ὑπὸ τῆς εὐτυχίας (“he was excited about his good luck”; about the motif of Herod’s fortune as a ruler, see Ant. 15.361 with the note to “this state of fortune”) is paralleled by Plutarch, Mor. (Fort. Rom.) 319b concerning the emperor Gaius Caligula. This formulation may imply that it was not self-evident that Costobar was appointed as governor of Idumea and Gaza by Herod and that other prominent Idumeans were more likely candidates, or that Costobar did not belong to Herod’s closest friends, despite the reference to “his closest friends” in Ant. 15.252. It is imaginable that Herod chose Costobar in order to win over a potential enemy (cf. Ronen 1988: 217). The expression παρὰ δόξαν (“contrary to expectation,” Rengstorf s.v. δόξα) occurs frequently in Josephus (War 1.95, 614; 3.289, 518; 4.529; Ant. 2.280; 3.210; 5.40; 15.316, 388; 16.269; 18.129, 219; 19.243; Life 46, 96). Here Josephus offers a psychological explanation for Costobar’s behavior: his unexpected great success made him lose sight of reality. The verb ἐκβαίνω (“deviate from”) means “exceed all bounds” here (Rengstorf s.v.). The phrase ποιέω τὸ προσταττόμενον (“do what is ordered”) is common in ancient Greek literature (e.g., Isocrates, Archid. 7.5; Aristotle, Rhet. 1399b 13; Polybius 6.21.2; 6.49.4; Diodorus 2.1.8; 9.31.3; Plutarch, Lyc. 11.3; Sert. 25.2; Diogenes Laertius 6.36). Disobedience to the king is a most serious matter for a governor. Such behavior implies that Costobar did not accept Herod’s authority. The subsequent note that Costobar turned to Cleopatra also indicates that he committed treason. It is remarkable that Costobar got away with this according to Josephus’ report (see Ant. 15.258). The phrase μεταλαμβάνω τὰ ’Ιουδαίων ἔθη (“adopt the customs of the Jews”) also occurs in Ant. 20.139, concerning Epiphanes, the son of King Antiochus of Commagene, who rejected a marriage with Agrippa’s sister Drusilla because he did not want to adopt the Jewish customs. Several scholars translate this passage as if Costobar was against the Idumeans’ conversion to Judaism (e.g., “For he did not think that it was proper … for the Idumeans to adopt the customs of the Jews and be subject to them,” trans. Marcus-Wikgren; Kasher 2007: 137). Richardson (1996: 221) concludes that Costobar himself “refused to accept Judaism,” although he must have been circumcised in his opinion in order to be able to marry Salome (cf. Ant. 16.225). If Costobar was circumcised, this plausibly has happened at 8 days of age, as part of the Jewish custom now adopted in Idumea. In that case his circumcision would not tell us much about his intentions or outlook to Judaism. Josephus’ point, therefore, may be different, hinting at Costobar’s being dissatisfied with the Idumean subjection to the Jews or the adoption to the Jewish way of life (Josephus writes: “… the Idumeans, who had adopted the customs of the Jews …”). This could imply that he could not accept the Idumeans’ subjection to the Jews for the very reason that they had adopted the Jewish practices and therefore should be considered to be equal to the Jews (cf. the Idumean loyalty mentioned in War 4.281; see Ant. 15.254 with the note to “the habits and customs of the Jews”). Another explanation is that he wanted to remain faithful to Idumean practices, which interpretation may be supported by Josephus’ introduction of Costobar (15.253), which emphasizes his high status and his ancestry; he descended from a long line of priests of Koze, whom the Idumeans “think … is a god” (note the present tense of νομίζουσιν “think” in 15.253).

Costobar turned to Cleopatra for help, as Alexandra had done several times before (Ant. 15.24, 45, 62; Kokkinos [1998: 181] connects Costobar’s letter with Alexandra’s appeals to the queen). This makes Costobar’s betrayal of Herod even worse since Cleopatra was Herod’s biggest enemy (see, e.g., 15.28, 75, 77). Josephus does not indicate why Costobar applied to Cleopatra for help but, if his report is trustworthy, it is highly plausible that he hoped to benefit from his drastic move (Richardson 1996: 221). Costobar obviously had to make it attractive for Cleopatra to help him. Supporting a claim that Idumea originally had belonged to the Ptolemaic kingdom and had to be returned to her was one way of doing that. After the Battle of Paneas in 198 BCE Idumea, together with Judea, had been taken over from the Ptolemies by the Seleucids (Schürer-Vermes 1.138). Cleopatra actually attempted to restore the size of the Ptolemaic kingdom to what it had been in the 2nd half of the 3rd century BCE. Josephus emphasizes several times that Cleopatra attempted to expand the territory of her kingdom (see Ant. 15.24 with the note to “Cleopatra” and van Henten 2005a). Cleopatra received several territorial grants from Antony (Ant. 15.77-79, 95-96, 106) and thus became a dangerous competitor of Herod. He even became dependent on Cleopatra because he leased Jericho from her and was guarantor for a Nabatean lease from her (15.106-107).

The phrase οὐδέν … ἀρεσκόμενος (“he was in no way … pleased”) may echo Thucydides 8.48 (cf. also LXX Prov 12:21; Theocritus, Idyl. 27.14; Lucian, Hermot. 21.6). Costobar’s reasoning seems to presuppose a context in which parts of Herod’s territory would be transferred to Cleopatra, which matches the situation at the time when Antony was giving grants of land to her (see Ant. 15.256 with the note to “it was right to request the territory from Antony”). The continuation of the sentence indicates how he would benefit from such a transfer. The rare adjective εὐεπιχείρητος (“easy to be attacked,” LSJ s.v.) occurs once elsewhere in Josephus, with a similar meaning (Ant. 1.112; cf. Dionysius, Ant. rom. 4.29.4; Strabo 5.3.7; Philo, Mos. 1.168; Appian, Bell. civ. 2.8.54; 2.18.127; Cassius Dio 86.13). Costobar apparently did not intend to take over Herod’s entire kingdom but only to separate Idumea from Judea. If Costobar’s plan was successful, he would replace Herod as ruler of Idumea and thus increase in status and power, although he would remain dependent on Cleopatra and obliged to demonstrate his loyalty with gifts and services as a friendly king (see Ant. 15.5 with the note to “the friends around him”). For phrases similar to μεῖζον πράξειν (“achieve more, do on a grander scale”), see Thucydides 1.130; Libanius, Ep. 1178.1. The verb ἐπιδιαβαίνω usually means “cross likewise” (see Ant. 13.14) and is used metaphorically here (Rengstorf s.v.). LSJ (s.v. II.1) give “pass all bounds” as the meaning for this passage, which would emphasize Costobar’s unbridled ambition. The phrase οὐκ ὀλίγας ἀφορμάς (literally “no small means”) is a case of litotes (cf. Diodorus 19.33.2; Galen, Alim. facult. [ed. Kühn 6.479]). Costobar’s appartenance to the very wealthy aristocracy of Idumea matches the introductory information about him in Ant. 15.253, which also mentions his priestly descent. This note in passing characterizes Costobar rather negatively as a selfish and greedy person. In Life 75 Josephus uses the noun αἰσχροκέρδεια (“greed, vile avarice,” Rengstorf s.v.) in connection with John of Giscala in a highly critical passage about an issue of pure olive oil: “Yet Ioannes did not say these things in the service of piety, but on account of the most blatant, disgusting greed (δι’ αἰσχροκέρδειαν φανερωτάτην)” (trans. Mason in BJP 9; cf. Life 224 and the statement of the famous blind seer Teiresias to King Creon of Thebes in Sophocles’ Antigone: “Rulers, also, are prone to be corrupt (αἰσχροκερδείαν φιλεῖ)” [1056, trans. Lloyd-Jones]). The vague phrase οὐδὲν μικρὸν ἐπενόει is a further negative remark about Costobar that points to his unbridled ambition and boldness. The phrase connects with the words “he kept passing all bounds in his hopes” at the beginning of the sentence. Lucian’s satire of a contemporaneous prophet named Alexander offers a close parallel: “So he [i.e., Alexander] abandoned petty projects for ever (ὀυκέτι μικρὸν οὐδὲν ἐπενόει). He formed a partnership with a Byzantine writer of choral songs, one of those who enter the public competitions, far more abominable than himself by nature” (Alex. 6, trans. Harmon). For a similar phrase concerning Domitian before he became emperor, see Cassius Dio 66.3.4: “Domitian became afraid of his father because of what he himself had done and far more because of what he had intended to do; for he was quite ambitious in his projects (οὐδὲν γὰρ μικρὸν ἐπενόει)” (trans. Cary).

I.e., Idumea (see the previous paragraph). The unspecified informant may have been a fellow friend of Costobar who disagreed with his policy, or a spy of Herod (cf. War 1.492). Alternative translations for οἱ λόγοι (“the matter”) are “the story” and “the negotiations” here (Rengstorf s.v. λόγος). Herod’s intent to have Costobar executed is understandable: Costobar’s proposal to Cleopatra as well as his hiding of the Sons of Baba (Ant. 15.260-266) were severe cases of treason (see also 15.255 with the note to “by Herod”). I.e., Salome and Cyprus. Elsewhere Josephus suggests that Salome and Cyprus presided a faction of their own (see Ant. 15.35, 185, 213 with notes). Costobar may have belonged to that faction, or his own faction may have occasionally co-operated with it. The immediate context shows that the reason why the 2 women pled for mercy towards Costobar was his marriage with Salome (15.254). This can only be correct if the intervention took place after the execution of Salome’s first husband Joseph in 35/34 BCE (see 15.87 with the note to “he ordered Joseph to be killed” and 15.254 with the note to “He gave him his sister Salome [in marriage]”). Kokkinos (1998: 179-180 n. 9) considers Josephus’ information about Costobar’s betrayal, Herod’s lenient policy towards him, and the date of the event (see Ant. 15.254 with the note to “he appointed Costobar as governor of Idumea and Gaza”) to be highly ambiguous. Yet if Costobar was married with Salome at this stage, Herod’s pardon for Costobar is understandable, and even if he was not yet married, it is plausible that Salome and Cyprus were eager to change Herod’s mind, especially if Costobar was close to the women’s faction (see the previous note). On the motif of suspicion by Herod in the immediate context, see Ant. 15.264-265, and for further references in the Herod narrative of Antiquities, 15.42 with the note to “he truly did not remain without suspicion.”

This vague chronological marker (χρόνου διελθόντος) also appears in Ant. 10.196. Elsewhere the time lapses are specified, either by the context (1.300) or by an addition, especially ὀλίγου (“a little,” 8.328; 9.27; 10.17; 19.300; cf. 13.168). For similar vague expressions, see Demosthenes, Or. 23.153; Cassius Dio 52.20.4. The verb στασιάζω (πρός) (“rebel, clash, quarrel, etc.,” Rengstorf s.v.) can be used in descriptions of conflicts between individuals (Ant. 12.239; 13.285; 14.77; 18.109). The verb ἐπισυμβαίνω (“happen [further]”) occurs once elsewhere in Josephus (15.409). The noun γραμματεῖον (“written message/letter,” Rengstorf s.v.) also occurs in Ant. 16.319 (with the meaning “message” or “document”). Marcus-Wikgren (122 n. b) note that Josephus uses the noun γράμματα (“letter”) in a similar context in 4.253, in which corresponding passage the LXX (Deut 24:1, 3) has the technical phrase βιβλίον ἀποστασίου (“certificate of divorce”), which renders the expression sēfer ketîrut of the biblical Hebrew (Deut 24:1, 3; Isa 50:1; Jer 3:8; cf. Matt 5:31; GELS 1.56). The Rabbinic word for a divorce certificate is geṭ. For the phrase γραμματεῖον πέμπω (“send a message”), see Herodian 1.17.6; Libanius, Or. 54.35. According to Josephus’ report Salome takes the initiative (see also the next paragraph), but Mayer-Schärtel (1995: 195-96) notes that this divorce served Herod’s political interests as much as Salome’s former accusation of her first husband Joseph had done (Ant. 15.81).The verb ἀπολύω (“sever, separate, dissolve [one’s marriage],” Rengstorf s.v.) is used in contexts of divorce, mostly in situations in which a husband sends away his wife (e.g., 1 Esdr 9:36; Matt 5:31; Luke 16:18). Biblical law prescribes the procedure as follows: “Suppose a man enters into marriage with a woman, but she does not please him because he finds something objectionable about her, and so he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house …” (Deut 24:1). A subsequent husband can act likewise, and the wife is not allowed to remarry a former husband (Deut 24:3-4; Instone-Brewer 1998). The reason for divorce, “something objectionable” (‘erwat dābār), has been interpreted as adultery, failure to please her partner sexually, or any possible objection. Deut 24 does not indicate that women could divorce from their husband, but several scholars argue that in exceptional cases Jewish women did take the initiative (Hanson 1989-90: 142-51; Richardson 1996: 221 n. 15; Ilan 1996; Satlow 2001: 352 n. 104; see also the next note). The phrase “she left me” in Life 415 is sometimes interpreted as if Josephus’ first wife divorced him (Thackeray 1926: 153), which allowed him to remarry. Two caveats should be noted, however: (1) the Greek MSS read ἀπαλλάγην instead of ἀπαλλάγη (found in the editio princeps), implying that Josephus (i.e., “I”) left his wife, and (2) the Greek text does not necessarily imply a divorce (Mason in BJP 9 on Life 415 translates “she was released”). Further discussion in Rabello 1981; 1982; Jackson 2005: 346-56; Schwartz 2013: 14-16. Biblical law concerning divorce (Deut 24:1-4; see the previous note) focuses on the male partner, as Josephus’ paraphrase of it in Ant. 4.253 likewise does. It does not explicitly provide a procedure for women, but it does not forbid women to divorce from their husbands either. Second Temple writings offer more specific information about marriage regulations for women. The Qumran community seems to have allowed women to remarry if a spouse had deceased (Shemesh 2009: 117-18). Ilan (1996) as well as Cotton and Qimron (1998) argue that the Papyrus Ṣe’elim (XḤev/Se) 13, a document from the Judean Desert (edited by Yardeni 1997: 65-70), confirms that women could divorce their husbands, while Schremer (1998) and Brody (1999), among others, argue that it does not (cf. Instone-Brewer 1999). Cf. Jesus’ statement in Mark 10:12: “… and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” In Graeco-Roman contexts it was more common for women to divorce their husbands (e.g., Diodorus 12.18.1). Ilan (1995: 146) suggests that Roman law inspired Salome’s deed.Josephus clearly states here that Salome’s decision went against the Jewish law, which implies that he interpreted Deut 24 as a ban on divorce initiated by women. Whether or not the Jewish law allowed Salome to divorce Costobar, she certainly had the support of her brother, as the next paragraph implies (Mayer-Schärtel 1995: 196; Satlow 2001: 352 n. 104).For phrases similar to κατὰ τοὺς ’Ιουδαίων νόμους (“according to the laws of the Jews”), see Ant. 13.318; 14.258; cf. 13.74. I.e., among the Jews. Ilan (1995: 143-44) argues that the report about Salome’s divorce basically derives from Nicolaus of Damascus and that the comment about the unlawfulness of Salome’s behavior would be Josephus’ own statement. She refers to the phrase “for with us” in support of this argument. See the note to “which [act] was not according to the laws of the Jews” above. Josephus’ comment that Salome transgressed the Jewish law is based upon his interpretation of Deut 24:1-4 (see “which was not according to the laws of the Jews” above).The verb διαχωρίζω (“separate,” Rengstorf s.v.) occurs twice elsewhere in Josephus but in contexts different from the breaking off of a marriage (War 1.535; Ant. 1.28). This passage explains Josephus’ previous words and connects with Deut 24:4 (“… her first husband, who sent her away …”). The words τοῦ πρότερον ἀνδρός echo LXX Deut 24:4: ὁ ἀνήρ ὁ πρότερος (“the former husband”). Niese (378) reads ἐφιέντος with MS P and E, which can be translated “[him] letting her go” or “[him] consenting” (Rengstorf s.v. ἐφίημι). Most Greek MSS read ἀφιέντος (“sending away, divorcing,” LSJ s.v. ἀφίημι II.1d), which is the easier and therefore probably secondary reading.

The phrase τὸν ἐγγενῆ νόμον (“the law of the country”) is rare if not unique in ancient Greek literature. The adjective ἐγγενής (“native, indigenous,” Rengstorf s.v.) occurs once elsewhere in Josephus, in another context (Ant. 16.59). The prepositional expression ἀπ’ ἐξουσίας (read by MS P and Niese 378) means that Salome acted on her own authority; cf. the same phrase in Ant. 15.43 (according to MSS PF) about Alexandra: “… [do nothing] on her own authority …,” and 15.321 about Herod himself. The verb προαπαγορεύω (“renounce beforehand,” LSJ s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. Rengstorf (s.v.) suggests “repudiate first” as meaning. The verb may imply a public setting: LSJ (s.v. III) give “make an announcement” as one of the meanings of the simplex verb ἀπαγορεύω. In that case Salome not only gave her husband a divorce certificate but also declared officially her marriage with Costobar to be over. The noun συμβίωσις (“common/married life”) means “(freedom of) cohabitation” here (Rengstorf s.v.). The Herod narrative of Antiquities emphasizes that Salome was keen to suggest to Herod that her deeds were given in by loyalty (εὔνοια) to her brother (e.g., Ant. 16.214: “And [she said] that all were eager for her to incur the king’s hatred and to get rid of her in every possible way because of the loyalty she had to Herod, always prognosticating his dangers,” my trans.). For other cases of Salome’s loyalty to Herod, see 15.170-171, 16.83 as well as 17.36 concerning Salome observing the interactions of Pheroras and Antipater.On the basis of the context one can also think of another motive for Salome revealing Costobar’s treason to Herod: she may have wanted Herod’s consent for her divorce; revealing her husband’s treason at the moment of her request would greatly strengthen her position. Kasher (2007: 133-34) argues along these lines and concludes that Salome had known for a long time about Costobar hiding the Sons of Baba. She would have maintained her marriage as an insurance policy in case Costobar would succeed in a rebellion. She resolved the marriage after she had come to the conclusion that Costobar was no longer useful to realize her political ambitions.The verb ἀφίστημι (“alienate, etc.”) can also mean “separate from” (Rengstorf s.v.; see 1.266 concerning Esau and his Canaanite wives Ada and Alibame and Plutarch, Galb. 19.4). The phrase νεωτέρων ἐφίεμαι (“aiming at a rebellion”) also occurs in Ant. 16.135 (cf. Life 391 about Justus of Tiberias). For Antipater, Lysimachus, and Dositheus, see Ant. 15.252. The combination of παρέχω (“provide”) and πίστις (“pledge, assurance”) occurs elsewhere in Josephus and means “make (appear) credible” (Rengstorf s.v. πίστις; Apion 2.218; cf. Ant. 16.188). Josephus explains who the Sons of Baba are in the next paragraphs (Ant. 15.261-265). Baba is the Aramaic form (bb’) of the Hebrew name Babi (bby). The name is attested in Rabbinic literature, papyri from Naḥal Ḥever (XḤev/Se 64; 5/6Ḥev 7; Ilan 2002: 80), and inscriptions (from the late 3rd and 2nd century BCE) from a necropolis at Marissa, a major city in Idumea. These funerary inscriptions are dedicated to Babatha (βαβάτας) and Baba (Βάβα), a sister and brother, the children of Cosnathan, son of Amareus (Oren and Rappaport 1984; Ronen 1988: 214-20). That the Semitic name Baba was used by the Idumeans does not necessarily mean that the Sons of Baba like Costobar were Idumeans, as some scholars argue (Oren and Rappaport 1984: 144 with n. 68; cf. Schalit 2001: 142-43, who argues that there was a close friendship between the families of Costobarus and the Sons of Baba). The conclusion of this section rather implies that they were related to the Hasmonean dynasty (see 15.266 with the note to “that there was no one left from Hyrcanus’ family”). Ronen (1988: 219-20) and Kokkinos (1998: 180) also mention the possibility that the Sons of Baba were connected with a sage called Baba ben Butha, whose eyes Herod had cut out and on whose head he had placed a garland of hedgehog bristles (b. B. Bat. 3b-4a; further references in Ben-Shalom 1980: 235-36). If this long duration is correct, the period implied may be 37-26/25 BCE (Kokkinos 1998: 180; see Ant. 15.254 with the note to “governor of Idumea and Gaza”). Otto (1913: 53-54, followed by Schalit 2001: 144) proposes to read δέκα (“ten”) instead of δεκαδύο (“twelve”) and therefore reconstructs the period as 37-28/27 BCE. He argues that the context implies that the execution of Costobar and his fellow friends took place not long after Herod’s illness and Alexandra’s execution (described in 15.244-251). Mahieu (2012: 160-61) argues that the capture of Jerusalem took place in 36 BCE, with the 12 years period referring to 36-25/24 BCE.

The verb ἐμποιέω (“cause”) with ἔκπληξις (“consternation, astonishment, admiration,” Rengstorf s.v.) as object also occurs in Ant. 15.414, in a very different context: concerning the magnificent columns of the Temple. The phrase is rare in ancient Greek literature (see Gorgias, Fragm. 11a.4 [ed. Diels and Kranz 2.295]; Pausanias 7.24.8). The combination of the simplex ποιέω and ἔκπληξιν is more common. Cf. the consternation (ἔκπληξις) among Herod’s opponents when the king returned unexpectedly successfully from his trip to Octavian (Ant. 15.198). It is easy to imagine that the duration of Costobar’s betrayal (12 years, Ant. 15.260), when the Sons of Baba were hidden, was shocking to Herod. A second reason for Herod’s consternation apparently was his assumption that the case of Baba’s Sons had been settled, as the continuation of the paragraph indicates. Josephus’ phrase ἐπὶ τῷ παραδόξῳ τοῦ λόγου (“the matter was unbelievable”) echoes the words τοῦ λόγου in Ant. 15.260 about the statement made by Salome. The words τοῦ λόγου can refer either to that statement or to the matter pointed out by Salome (Rengstorf s.v. λόγος; cf. 15.224). The hostility that the Sons of Baba felt for Herod is explained by their support of Herod’s opponent Antigonus, as the next paragraphs indicate (Ant. 15.262-263).The noun διάθεσις means “disposition” towards a person here (LSJ s.v. II.1b), which attitude can be friendly, affectionate, etc., or hostile, as here (cf. 4.250; 6.225; 8.405; 15.70, 85, 131; 16.54, 119, 193). Apart from their support of Antigonus, Josephus reports in Ant. 15.263 that the Sons of Baba continuously slandered Herod. The phrase τῆς μνήμης ἐξέρχομαι means “fade from memory, be forgotten” (Rengstorf s.v. ἐξέρχομαι; cf. Ant. 2.202: the Egyptians had forgotten Joseph’s benefactions of long time ago).

For a similar combination of ἔχθρα and μῖσος, cf. Ant. 13.130: “Accordingly, he [i.e., Demetrius II] incurred the enmity and hatred of the soldiers (ἔχθρα τοιγαροῦν αὐτῷ καὶ μῖσος ἐκ τούτου γίνεται) …” (trans. Marcus). The Romans had appointed Herod king in 40 BCE, but he had to defeat the Hasmonean ruler Antigonus, the son of Aristobulus II, before he could actually execute his authority as king. With the capture of Jerusalem Herod finally took hold of the throne, in 37 (or 36) BCE (see Ant. 15.1-2 with notes). Antigonus’ kingship is referred to in 14.469, 478. Niese (379) reads τὴν τῶν Ἱεροσολυμιτῶν πόλιν (literally “the city of the Jerusalemites”) with MSS FV and E, which reading is common in Josephus (e.g., Ant. 5.82; 10.109; 15.71; Life 130). Most Greek MSS (supported by the Latin version) read slightly differently: τὴν τῶν Ἱεροσολυμῶν πόλιν (“the city of Jerusalem”), which is unusual in Josephus but found in Christian passages (e.g., Origen, Comm. Matt. 16.26; Gregory of Nyssa, Hom. opif. [PG 44.216]; John Chrysostom, Comm. Isa. 1.9 [ed. Dumortier 90]; Hom. 2 Cor. [PG 61.416]) and may have resulted from the accidental omission of -ιτ- in the noun Ἱεροσολυμιτῶν. Herod’s siege of Jerusalem with the help of C. Sosius, Antony’s lieutenant, is described in Ant. 14.468-488 and briefly referred to in 14.176; 15.1; 20.246. Josephus’ report of the siege of Jerusalem in Antiquities refers to a lack of provisions and hunger (14.471, 475; cf. War 1.449), damage to the Temple (14.476), and widespread killings by the Romans and Herod’s soldiers (14.479-480; cf. War 1.351-352). Niese (379) reads ὑπὸ δὲ χρείας κακῶν (“out of the need because of the suffering”) with MSS PF, but most MSS read ὑπὸ δὲ χρείας καὶ κακῶν (“out of [all] the need and suffering”). The first reading may have resulted from an omission of καί since both καί and κακῶν begin with κα- (i.e., a case of homoioarcton). This detail is absent in the Antiquities report of the siege, but 14.484-486 (cf. War 1.356) does note that Herod made an end to the plundering and killing by the Romans by rewarding them out of his own pocket and by purchasing security for the city. War 1.358 and Ant. 15.2 show that Herod had supporters among the population of Jerusalem, but only here they are told to have been numerous.

The beginning of this new clause creates an opposition between those calling upon Herod and the Sons of Baba. The noun ἀξίωμα can, among other things, point to dignity connected with an aristocratic or even royal descent (Ant. 15.51, 164) and to high reputation (15.101). The prepositional expression ἐπ’ ἀξιώματος (“of high standing, being influential/respected”) is common in Josephus (5.115; 12.187; 15.164, 266; 16.368; 18.142). In 15.164 (see the note to “the only person left of a royal rank”) it refers to Hyrcanus II’s royal descent. The remark further on “that there was no one left from Hyrcanus’ family” (15.266) strongly suggests that the Sons of Baba were related to the Hasmonean family. They may have married into the Hasmonean family, as Herod himself had done in 37 BCE by marrying Mariamme I (see 15.23 with the note to “who was living in wedlock with Herod”). The adjective δυνατός means “influential” here (Rengstorf s.v.). The Sons of Baba were apparently very dangerous opponents for Herod because of their support of Antigonus (see the next clause) and their great influence on the population. This point and the slander mentioned in the next phrase explain the enmity between the Sons of Baba and Herod mentioned in Ant. 15.262.The expression πιστός διατελέω means “remain faithful to” here (cf. Isocrates, Plat. 26). The 2 imperfect tenses διετέλουν (see the preceding note) and διέβαλλον together with the adverb ἀεί (“always”) emphasize the firm support of the Sons of Baba for Antigonus and their continuous slander of Herod. The expression διαβάλλω ἀεί (“slander continuously”) also occurs in Isaeus 8.36; Cassius Dio 75.15.6; Damascius, Vit. Isid. (fragm. 191, ed. Zintzen 167). Josephus does not give the content of the slander. One could think of Herod’s bold and violent way of ruling (cf. Ant. 14.165; 15.321; van Henten 2011b) but more likely of his being a commoner (see 15.263 with the note to “the kings’ rule that was based on birth”). The form προὔτρεπον (“they kept urging,” from προτρέπω “urge, incite, encourage, cause,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a further imperfect verb with a durative aspect. The verb συμφυλάττω (“hold, maintain together,” Rengstorf s.v.) occurs once elsewhere in Josephus, in a very different context (War 4.123). The plural “kings” refers to the Hasmonean dynasty. Josephus’ remark implies that the Sons of Baba were not only supporting Antigonus as a ruler because he was a member of the Hasmonean royal family but also that they undermined the legitimacy of Herod’s kingship. It was common knowledge that Herod was born a commoner (see Ant. 14.489-491 as well as 15.2 with the note to “while he was still a commoner”). Herod only became a member of this family through his marriage with Mariamme in 37 BCE. The Sons of Baba apparently ignored Rome’s appointment of Herod, as Antigonus himself had done. The Sons of Baba would no doubt have benefited from their support of Antigonus had Herod been defeated: Antigonus might have given them an important office or other significant rewards (cf. Dositheus’ betrayal of Hyrcanus II because he calculated that Herod would reward him better, Ant. 15.169-170). A similar combination of νομίζω (“think”) and the infinitive συμφέρειν (“be advantageous”) occurs in War 2.346.

This refers to Herod’s capture of Jerusalem in 37 (or 36) BCE (see Ant. 15.262 with the note to “When Antigonus was holding the throne”). For further phrases combining ἁλίσκομαι (“capture”) with ἡ πόλις (“the city”) in Josephus, see War 7.147; Ant. 5.13, 26. The expression τὰ πράγματα literally means “the matters.” It frequently has a political meaning in Josephus, in which cases it can refer to the government or the administration of Judea (see Ant. 15.32 with the note to “the government”). With Niese (379), who reads τὰς διεκβολὰς ἀναφράττειν with MSS AMW and E (MS L reads slightly differently). The noun διεκβολή (“exit, gate,” Rengstorf s.v.) and the verb ἀναφράττω (“bar,” Rengstorf s.v.) are both hapax legomena in Josephus. MSS PFV and marginal readings in MSS AM read ἐπιβουλὰς ἀνατρέπειν (“to counter plots”; a similar phrase occurs in Athanasius, Vit. Anton. [PG 26.965]), which is the easier and therefore probably the secondary reading. Cf. Ant. 15.6: “… after stationing guards at the gates of the walls, so that nothing would be taken outside together with the corpses,” which concerns a similar purpose of preventing citizens from moving valuable things out of the city but does not mention Costobar. The context implies that the citizens were indebted to Herod. Costobar had to prevent them from fleeing, which detail is missing from the reports about the aftermath of the capture of Jerusalem (War 1.354-359; Ant. 14.482-491; 15.1-11). The repayment by Herod’s debtors was indispensable, likely because the king was badly in need of money following his generous reward of Sosius and the Roman soldiers and his purchase of Jerusalem’s security (War 1.356-357; Ant. 14.485-486; cf. War 1.358; Ant. 15.5-7). The phrase τοὺς ὑπόχρεως (“those who were indebted”) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. The phrase τἀναντία πολιτεύομαι plus a reference to a person in the dative (literally “act in the opposite way to”) is closely paralleled by Aelius Aristides, Plat. (ed. Dindorf 2.168); Lucian, Phal. 1.2; cf. Dionysius, Ant. rom. 11.59.2. War 1.358 reports that Antigonus’ supporters were executed: “… he [i.e., Herod] slew those who were of Antigonus’ party” (trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a; cf. Ant. 15.2). This would no doubt also have befallen the Sons of Baba had Herod had his way. This phrase links up with Ant. 15.263: “Baba’s Sons, who were of high standing and had a strong hold on the people.” Note the climax τῷ πλήθει (“the people,” 15.263)—τῷ παντὶ πλήθει (“the entire people,” 15.264). Costobar’s self-interest apparently also underlay his decision to approach Cleopatra (Ant. 15.257). In both cases he betrayed Herod (see also the next note).The expression μέγα μέρος (“a great part”) also occurs in War 1.225; Ant. 14.117; 15.307; 19.233. The text leaves no doubt about Costobar’s strategy: his aim was to rescue the Sons of Baba in order to benefit from a future rebellion in which the Sons would be involved. It is significant that Josephus does not report such a rebellion, whereas there had been several occasions for starting a rebellion during the 12 years of the Sons’ concealment (e.g., during Herod’s visits to Antony and Octavian, Ant. 15.71-73, 183-187). The noun μεταβολή means “political change” in several other Josephan passages (see 15.30 with the note to “had hoped for a change of government”), and the words τὰ πράγματα refer to the matters of the state or to the government (see the note to “the state” above; for other combinations of μεταβολή and πράγματα with a similar meaning, see War 2.113; Ant. 17.346-347; Life 36). The verb ὑπεκτίθεμαι (“bring secretly in safety,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. As important supporters of Antigonus the Sons of Baba would surely have been executed by Herod (see Ant. 15.2). Josephus does not specify where Costobar’s family estate was situated; it was most probably in Idumea (cf. Ant. 15.253 with notes).

Josephus first focuses on Herod (instead of Costobar, the subject of this passage) and then starts a brief parenthesis that reveals Herod’s thoughts, introduced by γάρ. For a similar parenthesis, about Mariamme, see Ant. 15.185.The noun ὑποψία (“suspicion”) echoes 15.258 (see the note to “holding him under suspicion”): “… holding him [i.e., Costobar] under suspicion (οὐκ ἀνύποπτον … ἔχων) for the rest of his life ….” For other occurrences of πιστόω plus ὅρκοις (“assure with oaths”) in Josephus, see War 1.532; 4.213; Ant. 14.7. This phrase is ironical because Costobar apparently knew exactly where the Sons of Baba were hiding (see Ant. 15.264 and the continuation of this paragraph). The phrase ἀφεῖτο τῆς ὑπονοίας is slightly ambiguous since it can also mean that Herod let go his suspicion (LSJ s.v. ἀφίημι II.1b), but this requires a change of subject. The noun μήνυτρον (“reward for information,” Rengstorf s.v.) occurs once elsewhere in Josephus (Ant. 4.220). Herod apparently tried every possible means to find out where the Sons of Baba were staying, obviously with the intent to have them killed, which reminds one of his role in the story about the birth of Jesus and the visit of the Three Sages (Matt 2:1-18; van Henten 2008a: 103-08). The climax indicated by πάντα τρόπον ἐρεύνης ἐπινοοῦντος (“tried every possible means to find out”) is emphasized by the alliteration (note the p and t sounds). The extremely rare adjective ἀνυποτίμητος (cf. a late parallel in Constantine Porphyrogenitus, Legat. [ed. de Boor 1.2.367]) may mean “that cannot adequately be punished” here (LSJ s.v.). The word also occurs in Ant. 16.402 (cf. ἀνυποτιμήτως in 15.188; 16.277). Rengstorf (s.v.) lists several possible meanings, with question marks added, including “exempt from punishment.” The unclear meaning may explain the omission of the preceding οὐκ (“not”) in MSS PFVW. The phrase ἔξαρνος γίνεσθαι (“deny”) is found only here in Josephus, but ἔξαρνος εἶναι (with the same meaning) occurs in Ant. 5.44; 14.282; 16.280. Both phrases are common in ancient Greek literature (see, e.g., for the first phrase Isocrates, Euth. 3; Demosthenes, Or. 23.171; 29.10, and for the second Herodotus 3.66; Plutarch, Pyrrh. 26.9; Sull. 23.3). I.e., loyalty to the Sons of Baba (cf. Costobar’s offer to be loyal to Cleopatra, Ant. 15.256). There was no other option left for Costobar, since his confession would reveal immediately that he had been betraying Herod during the period he had hidden Baba’s Sons.

This passage links up with Salome’s disclosure mentioned in Ant. 15.260 and concludes the flashback about Baba’s Sons and Costobar’s involvement in hiding them.The transmitted Greek text (περὶ τούτων ἐξαγγελθέντων) requires an adaptation: either περί has to be left out, as suggested by E and Dindorf (1845: 379, τούτων ἐξαγγελθέντων, with περί possibly added because of περιείχετο in the previous paragraph), or ἐξαγγελθέντων should be changed into ἐξαγγελθέντος, as Niese (380) conjectures (περὶ τούτων ἐξαγγελθέντος “When he was informed about these matters”; an absolute genitive without a subject, as is common in Thucydides; examples in Kühner and Gerth 1898-1904: 2.2.81-82). The first reading is preferable since Niese’s conjecture does not go well with the next word in the MSS (αὐτῷ “to him”). Ant. 15.264 identifies this location as Costobar’s estate. The execution of Baba’s Sons is expected in the light of the information given about them in Ant. 15.261-264, but the reference to “those jointly accused with them” is vague. The most likely way to fill this gap is to assume that it concerns the persons involved in hiding Baba’s Sons, in addition to Costobar (15.264). These persons are, perhaps, identical with Antipater, Lysimachus, and Dositheus (i.e., the other friends of Herod mentioned in 15.252, 260). Josephus reports the execution of Costobar and the other 3 friends in 15.252, but he only gives a reason for the execution of Costobar. There is a possibility that the other friends were also involved in hiding the Sons of Baba, but Josephus does not say this.The verb συγκαταιτιάομαι (“be accused together,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. This remark concerns the Hasmonean royal family; the Hyrcanus referred to is Hyrcanus II, the former High Priest (see Ant. 15.11 with the note to “Hyrcanus the High Priest”). Hyrcanus, his daughter Alexandra, and his grandchildren Mariamme I and Aristobulus III are important characters in book 15 of Antiquities (further references in 15.23-24 with notes). Josephus emphasizes several times that Herod attempted to remove any possible Hasmonean competitor (see 15.164 with the note to “considered it the safest option”). Not all Hasmoneans, however, were a threat to the throne: e.g., Herod’s son Antipater married Antigonus’ daughter (Ant. 17.92; Marcus-Wikgren 127 n. c; Kokkinos 1998: 210-11).The implication of Josephus’ statement that there were no competitors left from the Hasmonean family after the execution of the Sons of Baba is, of course, that the Sons were part of this family, although Josephus does not say this explicitly. Although Herod had been the sole ruler of the kingdom starting from Antigonus’ defeat (Ant. 15.262-264), this passage implies that he had no serious rivals for government only from now on. This means that Josephus suggests that the Sons of Baba had been an ongoing threat for Herod.Josephus’ phrase (τὴν βασιλείαν αὐτεξούσιον αὐτῷ) may hint at autocratic government: the combination of βασιλεία (“kingdom, throne, power”) and αὐτεξούσιος (“at one’s sole disposal,” Rengstorf s.v., or “free, absolute,” LSJ s.v.) also occurs in Philo, Her. 301 (cf. Philo, Ios. 148) and refers there to God’s absolute and sovereign rule of the world (Her. 228). The phrase μηδενὸς ὄντος ἐπ’ ἀξιώματος links up with the words ὄντες ἐπ’ ἀξιώματος of Ant. 15.263 referring to the Sons of Baba. It emphasizes that there were no longer influential persons who could stand up against Herod (see also the next note). Richardson (1996: 222) concludes differently—also referring to the earlier executions of Joseph and Soemus: “Herod had lost support among the elite upon whom he counted.”The phrase ἐμποδὼν ἵσταμαι (“hinder”) occurs in Ant. 2.283 and is common in ancient Greek literature (e.g., Herodotus 8.68; Thucydides 1.53; Philo, Legat. 313; Plutarch, Pyrrh. 12.6). With this passage Josephus concludes the section about Costobar and other opponents of Herod (Ant. 15.247-266) and prepares his readers for the next section, about Herod’s festival in Jerusalem (15.267-291). Josephus emphasizes that since there were no leading figures left who could oppose him, the king had the opportunity to do whatever he liked. The report about the festival shows immediately what the result of this freedom was in Josephus’ opinion: the founding of quadrennial games and the issue of trophies are presented as shocking examples of Herod’s transgressions of the Jewish laws. Herod was developing into an absolute monarch. The later golden eagle episode (17.148-164) is also presented in this light and explicitly portrays Herod as a tyrant. Eliminating possible competitors and committing lawless deeds both belong to the stereotype of tyrants (van Henten 2011b).

Ant. 15.267 introduces a new episode of the Herod narrative, which focuses on Herod’s foundation of quadrennial games in Jerusalem and the response of the Jerusalemites to this initiative (15.267-291; van Henten 2008b). The narrative, which finds no parallel in War, can be divided into 3 sections: (1) Josephus first deals with the arrangements for Herod’s festival and the newly erected buildings (15.267-276); (2) then he briefly describes the protest of Jerusalem’s indigenous population against the newly erected theater (15.277-279)—with its trophies in honor of Octavian (15.272; cf. the later collective protests against Gaius Caligula’s statue in the Temple of Jerusalem: Philo, Legat. 203-337; Josephus, War 2.184-203; Ant. 18.261-309, and against the Roman golden shields brought into Jerusalem by Pilate: Philo, Legat. 299-305; Josephus, War 2.169-174; Ant. 18.55-59); (3) and finally he describes the attempt by 10 anonymous male Jewish citizens and a blind man to murder Herod (15.280-290).The first part of 15.267 (“For this reason …”) connects with the statement in 15.266 that there was nobody of high rank left to withhold Herod from unlawful acts because he had killed them all; not even Costobar or the Sons of Baba could hinder him any longer. Josephus suggests that Herod immediately used this situation to perform something unlawful in Jerusalem (see also the next note). This introduction of Herod’s innovations, which are described in the next paragraphs, immediately sets the tone. Josephus repeats the accusation in Ant. 15.275, 277. The combination of ἐκβαίνω (“abandon”) plus τῶν ἐθῶν (“the customs”) is also found in 15.328, which connects Herod’s deviation from the ancestral customs with his ambition to flatter important Roman persons (for more criticism of Herod because of his transgressions of the ancestral customs, see 16.1-5, 183-187, 395-404; 17.148-164, 180-181).The expression “the ancestral customs” of the Jews is one of Josephus’ container terms that vaguely refer to the Jews’ traditional way of life. For similar expressions with τὰ πάτρια ἔθη (“the ancestral customs”) in Josephus, see War 2.220 (in a variant reading), 279; 4.102; 7.424; Ant. 5.90, 101; 9.95 (with τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ θρησκεία), 137; 11.339; 12.255, 271, 280; 13.397; 14.194, 213, 223, 258; 16.1, 35; 19.290; 20.100; Life 198; Apion 1.317; 2.10. Almost synonymous are “the holy customs” (τὰ ἱερὰ ἔθη, War 4.182), “the (ancestral) customs of the Jews” (τὰ [πάτρια] τῶν ’Ιουδαίων ἔθη, War 7.50; Ant. 13.397; 15.254-255; 16.225; 20.17, 38, 139, 146; see also 15.268 with the note to “not according to the tradition”), and “our customs” (τὰ ἡμετέρων ἔθη, Ant. 16.43). The ancestral customs should be guarded (Ant. 5.90) and not altered (Ant. 5.101) or transgressed (War 4.102; Ant. 9.95). According to Josephus, these customs are closely related to “the ancestral laws” or “the ancestral constitution” (see Mason 1991: 96–106; Schröder 1996: 49-50). An alternative translation is “corrupted the way of life.” The noun κατάστασις can mean “existence, situation” or “constitution” (Rengstorf s.v.). Ant. 6.35 mentions it together with πολιτεία (“constitution, citizenship, way of life”) in a reference to the Israelite type of government (Begg in BJP 4 on Ant. 6.35; see also ἡ κατάστασις τοῦ πολιτεύματος in Apion 2.145, 184 referring to the constitution of the Jews; Barclay in BJP 10 on Ap. 2.145, 184). The meanings “way of life,” “existence” and “code, constitution” all match the context, because Herod apparently introduced foreign practices in Jerusalem and perverted the Jewish constitution or corrupted the Jewish way of life in this way. The verb ὑποδιαφθείρω (“corrupt gradually,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. Josephus severely criticizes Herod for introducing foreign and unconventional practices. The following report about the quadrennial games (Ant. 15.267-276) illustrates his criticism (differently Otto 1913: 76-77 n. *, who argues that Ant. 15.267-298 derives from an anonymous source hostile to Herod; see also Schürer 1901-09: 1.366 n. 8 and Levine 1975: 61 concerning 15.280-291). One might ask whether Herod really transgressed the ancestral laws. The narrative about the games and their follow-up does not offer much evidence for Josephus’ criticism (as rightly observed by Smith 1999: 229), which is repeated in 15.268, 271, 274-275 (Ant. 15.274-275 suggests that combats between wild animals and between humans and wild animals go against the Jewish customs). Lämmer (1973: 222 n. 120) connects Herod’s innovations with a rabbinic passage in Sifra Lev. (on 18:3) that interprets the foreign practices hinted at in Lev 18:3 (“You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you. You shall not follow their statutes”) as visits to the theater, stadium, and circus. In the Second Temple period there was usually only a clash between the foreign and and the Jewish authorities if the foreign customs forced the Jews to transgress the Mosaic Law (see, e.g., the court tales in Dan 3 and 6), or if the Jews felt the Law was violated (e.g. in the case of Pilate’s decision to move the Roman standards from Caesarea to Jerusalem, War 2.169-174; Ant. 18.55-59). Therefore one should not exclude the possibility that the majority of the Jerusalemites tolerated Herod’s innovations. The continuation of the narrative implies that only a small group took action against Herod’s trophies (Ant. 15.280-290; differently Feldman 1993: 41; Richardson [1996: 224] concludes that it remains unclear how widespread the opposition to the trophies was). Similarly, only a limited group of young men decided to destroy Herod’s eagle erected in the Temple (17.148-164).The noun ἐπιτήδευμα in the plural can mean, among other things, “habits, ways of life” (LSJ s.v.). Ant. 1.61 characterizes Cain as a “teacher of evil practices” (διδάσκαλος πονηρῶν ἐπιτηδευμάτων). The phrase ξενικά ἐπιτηδεύματα (“foreign practices”) also occurs in Dionysius, Ant. rom. 2.19.3; Josephus, Ant. 15.275; Eusebius, Praep. ev. 2.8.7. The adjective ἀπαρεγχείρητος is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. LSJ (s.v.) offer “not to be tampered with” as meaning here, which fits well if the preceding noun κατάστασις refers to the sacrosanct Jewish constitution (see Ant. 3.84, 213, 322, and for a discussion with further references, Rajak 1998). Rengstorf (s.v.) gives “undisturbed, inviolate” as meanings. Regardless whether this passage concerns the Jewish constitution or the Jewish way of life, the statement is in any case opportunistic since foreign rulers who previously had captured Jerusalem did interfere with the city’s affairs. Josephus himself reports about Antiochus IV’s desecration of the Temple, his introduction of idolatrous sacrifices, and his ban on the veneration of the God of the Jews (14.248-256). The “we” is not specified, but the preceding passage makes clear that the Jewish people is intended. The expression οὐ μικρά (literally “not little”) is a case of litotes (see Ant. 15.150 with the note to “significantly”). The context implies that the harm mentioned concerns the impact of Herod’s foundation of the quadrennial games (see the next paragraph) and his trophies in Octavian’s honor (Ant. 15.272). Josephus does not specify the harm done and only indicates in general terms that Herod violated the Jewish customs. If one reads between the lines, the narrative even seems to imply that Herod successfully countered the protest triggered by the trophies (see 15.277-279 and van Henten 2008b). The noun εὐσέβεια (among other things, “awe, piety, manner of worship,” Rengstorf s.v.) often has God as object (e.g., War 7.264, 267; Ant. 2.196; 4.181; 15.288, 365, 375-376, 386; 17.150). The worship of God is closely connected with faithfulness to the Mosaic commandments (Ant. 3.49; 8.290; 14.65; Apion 1.60, 212; and passages with εὐσέβεια in 4 Macc; see van Henten 1997: 131-32, 281-84). It sometimes indicates the proper attitude owed to God and humans (see Ant. 7.269 referring to David and 16.92, 169). This links up with an aspect of the related Latin word pietas, which indicates the appropriate behavior towards deities and human persons, especially family members (Hellegouarc’h 1963: 276-79; Latte 1960: 39-40). Cf. Ant. 11.300; 16.37.

Athletics were a prominent part of Herod’s games in Jerusalem (see the references to athletes and gymnastics in Ant. 15.269-270), but other festivities were also part of them. The games thus belonged to the category of paneguris festivals, which matched contemporary Roman customs (Bieber 1939: 167-89). In contrast to the horse races (see 15.271), Josephus does not provide details about the athletic contests, which may imply that they included the usual Olympic disciplines: apart from the horse races the single stadium running race (200 m), the double stadium race (400 m), the long distance race (4800 m), the race in armor, the pentathlon, wrestling, boxing, and the pankration (i.e., a combination of boxing and wrestling; Lämmer 1973: 187; Finley and Pleket 1976: 26-46). Herod also helped to re-organize the Olympic Games and sponsored them (War 1.426-427; Ant. 16.149).Josephus does not mention the date of the games’ foundation, but the larger context of the narrative (see, e.g., Ant. 15.237, 252 with notes) implies that they were organized in the spring or summer of 28 BCE (Otto 1913: 64, 80; Lämmer 1973: 196, 206; Bernett 2007a: 52-53). The location of the games must have been Jerusalem because the new theater and amphitheater mentioned in the next lines were located in or near that city. Schalit (2001: 371) argues that these 2 constructions were built before or in 28 BCE. Mahieu (2012: 160-61) dates the 2 buildings to 25 BCE and the first Jerusalem Games to 5 March 24 BCE.Several states organized games in honor of Caesar, inspired by the huge triple triumphal festivities held in Rome in August 29 BCE, which celebrated Octavian’s victory at Actium as well as his triumph at Illyricum and the annexation of Egypt. (Lämmer 1973: 189 with n. 27; Bernett 2007a: 56-57). Rome organized quadrennial games for Octavian’s welfare (ludi quinquennales pro salute Caesaris) from 28 BCE onward (Kienast 1999: 79). Lämmer (1973: 189), Schalit (2001: 422), and Bernett (2007a: 56-57) suggest that Herod’s games were named Kaisareia, although there is no conclusive evidence for this. If so, Herod would have been one of the first rulers to organize such games outside Rome. Other scholars argue that Herod’s festival was connected with the Aktia (the Latin Actia or ludi Actiaci), i.e., the games that commemorated Octavian’s victory at Actium (differently Bernett 2007a: 56). Since Octavian’s Aktia were celebrated for the first time only in September 27 BCE (see Ant. 15.109 with the note to “the Battle of Actium” and 15.343 with the note to “for the following reason”), they can only have functioned as a model for Herod’s games if these latter games were celebrated in a later period (as argued by Mahieu 2012: 160-61).A few scholars argue that Josephus’ report of Herod’s festival in Jerusalem is fictitious. If so, it may have been invented by Josephus in order to disqualify Herod as king of the Jews (see 15.282). Geva (2001) argues that Josephus modeled the report on conventional images of Roman city celebrations. Drüner (1896: 66-68) argues that (1) specific information about the festival in Jerusalem is missing; (2) there are striking correspondences between the descriptions of the festivals in Jerusalem and Caesarea (War 1.415; Ant. 16.137-141), which renders it plausible that the report about Jerusalem is based on the information about the Caesarean Games; and (3) there is no parallel report in War, whereas such a report would have fit in with the list of tributes to Augustus (War 1.401-428). One could add that the descriptions of Herod’s theater and amphitheater are not convincingly supported by archaeological evidence, although this objection vanishes if one assumes that both buildings were of wood (see Ant. 15.268 with notes). The parallels in the vocabulary used for the festivals in Jerusalem and Caesarea cannot be denied, but there are significant differences between the 2 festivals as well (see 16.137-141 with notes)—which may result from the fact that Herod took the Jews’ religious views into account when organizing his festival in Jerusalem (van Henten 2008b). Mahieu (2012: 177) argues that Herod initiated the Caesarean Games in 8 BCE in order to replace the Jerusalem Games, which might further explain the correspondences between the 2 games mentioned. An additional argument against the hypothesis that the report is fictitious are the tensions between the actual information provided by the report and Josephus’ own comments: Josephus consistently tries to disqualify Herod because of a supposedly all-embracing attempt to change the Jewish customs.For a similar formula of καθίστημι (“erect, establish”) with ἀγῶνα πενταετηρικόν (“a quinquennial contest”) as object, cf. War 1.415 (referring to the games founded by Herod in Caesarea, with athletic and musical contests [Ant. 16.136-141]) and Cassius Dio 61.21.1. The Greek text literally says that the games were quinquennial (like those at Caesarea, War 1.415), but the Greeks and Romans counted inclusively: the games took place every 4th year by our exclusive method of counting. Thus, if games were held in 28 and 24 BCE, we would count 4 years from one to the next. The ancients counted 28 as Year 1 and 24 as Year 5 in that cycle, which became Year 1 of the next cycle. “Big games” like the Olympic Games were also labeled quinquennial (e.g., War 1.426-427; Ant. 16.149), whereas they took place every 4th year (Lämmer 1973: 189; Mahieu 2012: 76 n. 129).The phrase ἀγὼν πενταετηρικός (“quinqennial contest”) also occurs in 2 Macc 4:18; Plutarch, Arist. 21.1; Mor. (Amat.) 748f; Prov. Alex. 24.2; Cassius Dio 61.21.1. Herod also organized quadrennial athletic and musical contests in Caesarea when the building of this city was completed (War 1.414-415; Ant. 16.137-138). Herod “dedicated this festival also to Caesar” (ἀνετίθει δὲ καὶ τοῦτον τὸν ἀγῶνα Καίσαρι, Ant. 16.138, italics added), which associates the Caesarean Games with the festival in Jerusalem. The War passage mentions that both the city of Caesarea and its festival were named after “Caesar” (see also Ant. 15.364 about the Temple in Jerusalem). Josephus explicitly situates the theater within the city of Jerusalem (ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις). Schalit (2001: 370-71) thinks this is correct (differently Richardson 1996: 187, 224 n. 28). The statement that images of human beings should not be brought into the city (Ant. 15.277) confirms a location in Jerusalem. Josephus does not refer to the theater in other episodes (the other references [Ant. 15.272, 284-285] all belong to the same section), not even in passages in which a reference to such a landmark (if it were one) would seem natural, as in the detailed descriptions of Jerusalem (War 1.401; 5.184-214, 238-247). Nor does he say whether the Jews visited the theater, although a remark in Ant. 15.284 suggests that at least some Jews did (see the note to “to the theater”).Several proposals have been made for the location of the theater, mostly on the basis of archaeological remains (differently Aharoni and Avi-Yonah 1977: 139; cf. Patrich 2002b: 231). In the 19th cent. already Schick (1887) associated Herod’s amphitheater with traces of a semicircular auditorium cut in the rock on the northern side of a hill ca. 900 m south of Jerusalem, south-south west of Bir Eyub and north of Wadi Yasul (further references in Schürer-Vermes 1.305-06 n. 56). He could not relate it to the theater because of the latter’s location within the city. However, the amphitheater does not fit either, since it was located in the plain according to Josephus (see the next note). Reich and Billig (2000a; 2000b) connect recent findings of theater seats near Robinson’s Arch, at the southwestern corner of the Temple platform, with Herod’s theater. They could belong to Herod’s theater or to Hadrian’s (the Chronicon paschale, a 7th-cent. Christian document, mentions a theater erected by Hadrian in Jerusalem [ed. Dindorf 1.474]; see also the Chronicon Alexandrinum seu paschale [PG 92.613]), as other scholars suggest. The outline of these seats, however, is straight rather than curvilinear, which makes it more likely that the seats belonged to a different type of entertainment building, such as Herod’s hippodrome/stadium or Hadrian’s circus in Jerusalem (Patrich 2002b: 231). Neither Schick’s nor Reich and Billig’s identifications thus explain Josephus’ theater description. Avi-Yonah (1966: 5, 8-9, 16) and Aharoni and Avi-Yonah (1977: 139) suggest that the theater was located ca. 200 m to the west of the southwestern corner of the Temple platform, to the southeast of the upper city, because it was the area where the wealthy “hellenizers” were living. There are, however, neither archaeological remains nor texts to support this location. Richardson (1996: 186-87 with n. 40) locates the theater on the northern slope of er-Ras, the southern side of Wadi es-Shamm, 100 m south of the Hinnom Valley. Patrich (2002b: 231) argues that it is plausible that the theater was located at the head of one of the valleys, with the seats resting against a hillside.Both Patrich (2002b) and Lichtenberger (2006; cf. Netzer 1999: 56-59) convincingly argue that Herod’s theater was of wood. Wooden theaters and amphitheaters were standard during the Late Republic and the Early Empire (Bieber 1939: 326-55; Beacham 1999: 25-35). Herod may have followed Roman rather than Hellenistic conventions for the erection of his theater in Jerusalem, although the shape of the stone theater and the stone hippodrome/stadium at Caesarea as well as the characters of the festivals in Jerusalem and Caesarea (see the notes to Ant. 15.269-271) clearly show that the king combined Greek and Roman conventions. A wooden temporary building fits in with the description of the trophies (15.272), which seem to have been portable. A wooden construction would also explain the silence about the theater in his descriptions of the Herodian buildings in Jerusalem and give meaning to Josephus’ note that Herod’s theater at Caesarea was of stone (15.341), suggesting a contrast with the earlier facility in Jerusalem.Herod also founded theaters in Caesarea, Sidon, and Damascus (War 1.415, 422-423; Ant. 15.341; cf. Ant. 19.329 and 19.335-336; 20.211 on Agrippa I’s constructions), and probably at Samaria-Sebaste (as argued by Fulco and Zayadine 1981: 197). Jericho had a theater according to the reading of Ant. 17.161 in some MSS. It is unclear whether the amphitheater in Jerusalem was of wood or (partially) of stone. Bieberstein and Bloedhorn (1994: 3.400-01) argue for a wooden construction on a stone foundation (see also Patrich 2002b: 235). Wooden amphitheaters were common before the Empire, and both Caligula and Nero still erected such amphitheaters in 38 and 57 CE, respectively (Calpurnius Siculus 7.23-56; Tacitus, Ann. 13.31; Suetonius, Nero 12; Patrich 2002b: 235). The procurator L. Calpurnius erected one in Antiochia Pisidia in the 2nd cent. CE (Lämmer 1974: 158 n. 229 with references).It is also unclear which type of building it was, since Josephus uses the words ἀμφιθέατρος/-ον rather loosely (see War 1.415 and Ant. 15.341 [in Caesarea]; War 1.666 and Ant. 17.161 [according to Naber’s conjecture, Naber 1888-96: 4.xiii, 98], 194 [in Jericho]; War 2.490, 492 [in Alexandria]; Ant. 19.335-336 [in Beirut]). Herod perhaps erected an amphitheater in the strict sense of the word (Kähler and Forni 1958; Golvin 1988; Golvin and Landes 1990), although it concerns more probably an elongated multi-functional construction with 1 or 2 semi-circles with seats at the end(s). A stadium could have such a form, as suggested by an inscription about a stadium at Laodicea on the Lycus (IGR IV no. 861; see also Dionysus of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 4.44.1-2 concerning a hippodrome). The word ἀμφιθέατρον denotes in this period usually a stadium or hippodromos rather than the Roman oval amphitheatrum (which was known in the 1st cent. BCE as a spectaculum, Étienne 1965; see also Lämmer 1973: 191, 208-09, 216 with notes; 1974: 152 n. 142; Patrich 2002b: 234-35). Josephus describes the building as exceptionally big (Ant. 15.268) and refers to 3 types of horse races within the direct context (15.271), which could not have taken place in an actual amphitheater. Moreover, he does not mention the amphitheater anywhere else, whereas he does refer twice to a hippodrome in Jerusalem, located to the south of the Temple (War 2.44; Ant. 17.255). Several scholars have, therefore, identified the amphitheater with that hippodrome, sometimes suggesting that the differing vocabulary results from the use of different sources (Lämmer 1973: 191, 208-09 with nn. 49, 174-75; Bernett 2007a: 56). Otto (1913: 80) argues that Herod built not only a theater and amphitheater but also a hippodrome in Jerusalem, which is refuted by Humphrey (1986: 528). Bieberstein and Bloedhorn (1994: 401) suggest that the hippodrome south of the Temple was merely a park (see also Lichtenberger 2006: 296 and Ant. 15.271 about the horse races).Herod implemented a similar cluster of innovations in Caesarea (War 1.415 [cf. Ant. 15.341; 16.137-141]: contests, a theater, amphitheater, and agora; War 2.172: a stadium). The location of the amphitheater is debated (Lämmer 1973: 191-92 with nn. 45-57; Lichtenberger 2006: 291). Richardson (1996: 187 n. 41) locates it in the Rephaim Plain, southwest of Jerusalem. Other scholars identify it with the hippodrome, which was within the city according to War 2.44 (Mason in BJP 1b on War 2.44; see also the previous note), but this does not match the location specified here as “in the plain.” Avi-Yonah (1966: 8-9) locates it near the southwestern corner of the Temple platform, in the direction to the south, in the western section of the Ophel (cf. Aharoni and Avi-Yonah 1977: 139: in the Tyropoeon Valley). Perowne (1956: 136) suggests the present Baq’a Quarter (further references in Lämmer 1973: 191-92 with nn. 45-57). If Josephus’ description is accurate in all the references to the amphitheater and hippodrome (i.e., War 2.44; Ant. 15.268; 17.255), they were distinguished buildings; the hippodrome may have been built later. Since both Herod’s new games (Ant. 15.269) and his 2 newly constructed buildings are described by means of superlatives, Lämmer (1973: 190) concludes that the theater was probably built of stone, but Patrich (2002b: 233-34) argues that wooden buildings could be monumental and expensively decorated and refers to the stage houses (scaenae) of the theaters erected by Lucius Mummius in 144 BCE (Tacitus, Ann. 14.21) and the theater built by Lucius Pulcher in 99 BCE, which was decorated with realistic paintings (Pliny the Elder 35.23; see also Vitruvius 5.5.7). The facades of later wooden stage houses, like the one erected by Marcus Aemilius Scaurus in 58 BCE in Rome, were plated in gold, silver, ivory, or marble, and contained columns (see also Ant. 19.335 concerning Agrippa’s theater in Beirut, which surpassed many others in beauty and expensive decorations). Rich decoration as such did not run counter the Jewish laws, but it may have irritated (Jewish) readers (and still do so) who cared for a sober and responsible lifestyle. This criticism links up with the remarks in the introduction of this episode (cf. ἐξέβαινε τῶν πατρίων ἐθῶν in Ant. 15.268 with κατὰ τοὺς ’Ιουδαίους ἔθους ἀλλότρια in 15.269; see also 15.274 with the note to “the customs long honored by them”). Kienast (1999: 464) notes that festivals like Herod’s games generally had positive effects on the population and brought economic advantages with them. The noun ἐπίδειξις can mean, among other things, “the act of presenting” (Ant. 6.203) and “show, performance” (War 1.77 “parade”), sometimes metaphorically (Rengstorf s.v., e.g., War 4.368: a “display” of physical power and weapons as if it were a theater performance; Lämmer 1973: 224; see also Ant. 15.271 with the note to “eminent show”). This remark links up with Josephus’ criticism that Herod’s festival implied a transgression of the Jewish practices, which is also highlighted in Ant. 15.267. Herod’s games must have been organized in co-operation with non-Jewish guilds of athletes and performers in the arts (Forbes 1955; Pleket 1973; 1975: 81-82). The Judean Jews most probably lacked the necessary know how (cf. 15.269, 275), and Herod needed professional organizations in order to get the best athletes and performers (Lämmer 1973: 188-89). About ancient professional organizations of dancers, musicians, and actors, see Poland 1934; Pickard-Cambridge 1968: 279-321.The verb παραδίδωμι means “hand down by tradition” here (LSJ s.v. I.4).

The noun paneguris (πανήγυρις “festal assembly, feast,” LSJ s.v. 1; Rengstorf s.v.) indicates the festival organized by Herod. Josephus uses the same word for the quadrennial games at Caesarea (Ant. 16.140, 142; see 15.268 with the note to “an athletic contest”) and the Olympic Games (16.149). The word has a more general meaning in War 5.230; Ant. 2.45, 47; 5.170, 286. The phrase πανήγυριν … συντελέω (“organize a feast”) is common (e.g., Diodorus 6.7.1; 17.16.4; Strabo 8.4.9; 9.5.15; and especially Diodorus 5.4.2: οἱ Συρακόσιοι πανήγυριν ἐπιφανῆ συντελοῦσι). Many of these celebrations were organized on a local scale and founded in honor of a local deity or a deceased aristocrat. They usually consisted of athletic and other contests, entertainments like drinking bouts and dancing, and cultic procedures (Pleket 1975: 55). Josephus mentions none of these in connection with Herod’s festival. Josephus does not indicate here whether the persons invited concern the guests or the participants, but the continuation of the sentence indicates that he first focuses on the guests and then on the participants (starting from “And the athletes …”). Announcing such contests was an official task executed by representatives who were called theoroi (Ziehen 1934: 2239-44).“All living close” (literally “those all around”) must denote people near Judea since the festival took place in Jerusalem. Herod may have invited especially the inhabitants of Greek cities in Syria, Transjordan, Egypt, and the coastal plain (Lämmer 1973: 188). Kokkinos (1998: 125) points out that documentary evidence indicates that the Phoenicians took active part in athletic games. The translation follows the conjecture of Chamonard (1904: 332), who leaves out the article τοῦ before παντὸς. The Greek MSS read συγκαλῶν ἀπὸ τοῦ παντὸς ἔθνους (Niese 380), which means “inviting from the entire [i.e., Jewish] people” and is highly improbable (differently Marcus-Wikgren 129 n. c) because the sentence suggests a progression from non-Jewish persons in the neighborhood of Judea to an even larger circle of all peoples and states, which is supported by the similar phrase “from every country” (ἀπὸ πάσης γῆς; note that the article is absent) in the next sentence. Herod’s ambition must have been to invite as many foreigners as possible in order to add luster to the event. The article τοῦ before παντὸς ἔθνους was perhaps added by a copyist who associated the noun ἔθνους with the Jewish people. Lämmer (1973: 188 with n. 16) also rejects the transmitted text and proposes the reading συγκαλῶν τοὺς ἀπὸ παντὸς ἔθνους (“inviting the inhabitants from every state”). The noun ἀγώνισμα (“conflict, contest, objective [of a competition],” Rengstorf s.v.) can also indicate every kind of person involved in athletic and other contests, including trainers, masseurs, doctors, and theater specialists (Lämmer 1973: 211 n. 7). Several categories of performers are mentioned in Ant. 15.270. The participle of πρόκειμαι (“be first, lie openly,” Rengstorf s.v.), which is used as a noun here, indicates things lying ready or on display, or objects being offered. Five further passages in Josephus include a similar participle and concern prizes (ἆθλα): Ant. 8.208, 302; 16.313; 18.173; 19.131. Hence it seems safe to translate τῶν προκειμένων with “the prizes being offered.” On prizes given at contests in antiquity, see the next note. Herod probably functioned as ἀγωνοθέτης (“organizer and president of the games”), such that he was responsible for the level of the prizes (cf. War 1.415 about Herod’s games at Caesarea and War 1.426-427; Ant. 16.149 about his sponsorship of the Olympic Games). MSS FV read εὐεξίαν (“skill”) instead of εὐδοξίαν (“honor”). The note builds on the Graeco-Roman agonistic mentality: contestants received prestige only by winning; athletes even qualified their mission as “to win or die” (Weiler 1974; Pleket 1975). There were 2 types of ancient games (details in Pleket 1975: 53-71). (1) The highest category of games consisted originally of the Olympic, Pythian, Nemean, and Isthmian Games. This circuit (periodos) of 4 games was later extended with other “great” games like the Aktia in Octavian’s honor (see Ant. 15.109 with the note to “the Battle of Actium”). These games were called the “holy crown contests” and announced in the entire Graeco-Roman world. The winner received, in principle, only an olive wreath or a crown as reward—the main point was the huge glory resulting from winning—although considerable benefits could follow (especially in the athlete’s native city: a pension, fixed amounts of money, or entering the city in a solemn procession). (2) The second type of games, sometimes also called “sacred,” had a more local character. The winner gained a wreath or crown as well as a valuable object or (later on) a money prize. Herod’s games seem to be situated in between both categories: the scale and the expenses made (cf. the superlatives in the next paragraphs) place them at almost the same level as the great games, whereas the prizes being mentioned before the honor match the less important games. The superlatives concerning the rewards in Ant. 15.270-271 imply that Herod attempted to attract the very best competitors. The vocabulary further suggests that the athletes were professionals specialized in certain disciplines. The word ἐπιτήδευμα (“effort, conduct, etc.,” Rengstorf s.v.) can also mean “professional performance” in a specific sport (Galen, Prot. 9-14 [ed. Kühn 1.20-39]; Lämmer 1973: 188; Pleket 1975: 72-74, 80-89). This professionalism was quite different from other contemporary sport performance: earning income through money prizes did not match the ideology of the wealthy aristocratic circles in which sport was rooted.

Herod had to offer costly prizes in order to attract good athletes (see the previous note). Whether these rewards included money is left open by Josephus, who refers to great gifts (Ant. 15.271), the biggest prizes (15.270), and prizes offered (15.269). At Caesarea even those who were second and third received prizes (War 1.415). For a list of prizes during a comparable contest at Aphrodisias (in Asia Minor) with gymnastic, musical, and equestrian disciplines, see Liermann 1889: 168-74 inscription no. 37. Ant. 11.35 specifies the victory prize for one of King Darius’ guards—competing in giving the most intelligent speech—as purple garments, golden drinking cups, a golden bed, a chariot with a bridle of gold, a head-dress of fine linen, a golden necklace, the chief place after the king, and the honor of being called the king’s kinsman. The expression γυμνικαὶ ἀσκήσεις (“gymnastic contests”) has synonyms in Ant. 14.153 (γυμνικοὶ ἀγῶνες) and 16.137 (γυμνικὰ ἀθλήματα). Ant. 16.137 also mentions a combination of gymnastic and musical contests at the Caesarean Games. About the program of Herod’s festival in Jerusalem, see 15.269 with the note to “the quinquennial feast.” The adjective θυμελικός (“pertaining to the theater,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. Since the musical performers were usually identical with the θυμελικοί (literally “those who performed on stage”), the καί (“and”) before the word θυμελικοῖς is sometimes left out, in line with the Latin version (Niese 381). The translation of such a reading would be “also for the participants in the musical competitions who are called thumelikoi.” The word θυμελικοί derives from θυμέλη (“hearth”), which originally indicated a central spot in the orchestra of a Greek theater for a hearth or altar (LSJ s.v.; Fensterbusch 1936); afterwards it became the name of the podium for the singers and musicians. Josephus’ formulation probably reflects the Roman practice, in which the θυμέλη could indicate the λογεῖον (“speaking place, stage,” i.e., the location where the actors were performing). If so, the word θυμελικοί means “actors” and not “musicians” here (cf. Plutarch, Fab. 4.6; Sull. 36; Lämmer 1973: 187 with n. 10). The verb διασπουδάζω (“do zealously,” in the passive voice “be anxiously done,” LSJ s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. This note links up with the final words of Ant. 15.269, such that the expression “all the most famous people” probably concerns competitors in the performing arts rather than guests. Herod apparently aimed for the most famous competitors in both the athletic contests (15.269) and performing arts (15.270).

The aorist προύθηκε (“he displayed”) recalls the form προυτίθει of Ant. 15.270 (from the verb προτίθημι, with the meaning “hold out [prizes],” Rengstorf s.v.; see also the next note). The phrase οὐ μικρὰς δωρεάς (literally “no small gifts”) is a case of litotes (cf. War 1.415 about Herod’s games in Caesarea: ἆθλα μέγιστα προθείς “supplying excellent prizes”). About prizes for horse races, see Friedländer 1934: 432-34; Lämmer 1974: 144 n. 31). The noun τέθριππος (“four-horse chariot,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. The noun συνωρίς (“two-horse chariot,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a further hapax legomenon in Josephus. The word κέλης (“race horse” or “horse race,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. Herod’s horse and chariot races were Greek-style (Patrich 2007: 119). Races with chariots for 4 horses were very expensive and hard to organize. The information about the 3 kinds of horse races stands out because it is the only reference to specific disciplines, which could imply that Herod himself was especially interested in these races (see Lämmer 1973: 187-88, 202, who argues that Herod may have had 2 motives for organizing these races: [1] they showed that he was capable of organizing races that matched the aristocratic Greek tradition; and [2] he was an excellent and passionate horseman himself [see War 1.429] and may even have brought his own horses and chariots to the race). However, Josephus’ emphasis on the horse races could also be implicit criticism of the king (cf. Tacitus, Dial. 29, who considers passions for actors, gladiators, and horses to be Roman vices).Horse races usually took place in a hippodrome (Humphrey 1986; Richardson 1996: 224 n. 25), but such a building is not mentioned by Josephus here (cf. War 2.44 and Ant. 17.255, in which cases he does mention a hippodrome). If the “amphitheater” mentioned in Ant. 15.268 was in fact a multi-functional building (see 15.268 with the note to “a huge amphitheater” and Richardson 1996: 187), the races may have taken place there. The vocabulary partly repeats that of Ant. 15.268 (e.g., πολυτέλεια “great expense, splendor, extravagance”). The noun σεμνοπρέπεια (“splendor, magnificence,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. The verb ἐσπούδαστο echoes διεσπούδαστο (“a great effort was made”) of Ant. 15.270. The overstatement (“everything … pursued by others independently he imitated faithfully”) emphasizes Herod’s ambition and can be a critical note. The verb ἐκμιμέομαι (“imitate [faithfully]”) further occurs in War 7.269; Ant. 8.316 and in War 7.428 (with the meaning “copy exactly,” Rengstorf s.v.). This passage once again indicates that Herod was eager to turn the games into a spectacular show (see also Ant. 15.268-269 and cf. 16.140-141) in order to demonstrate his great capabilities as organizer, benefactor, and ruler of Jews and non-Jews alike (Lichtenberger 2006: 287-88). Josephus indicates that his gratitude to Octavian was another important motive (see the next paragraph). Lämmer (1973: 197-99, 208) discusses 2 possible additional motives: (1) a display of control and stability, and (2) a demonstration to the Greeks that Greek practices would be the model in the new Jewish state. Schalit (2001: 417-18) argues that Herod attempted to breach the spiritual wall between Jews and non-Jews and behaved in line with the conventions of the Hellenistic rulers.The noun φιλοτιμία can mean, among other things, “love of glory” (see Ant. 16.138 concerning Caesar’s contribution to the games at Caesarea and 16.153, 248), “ambition,” and “munificence” (LSJ s.v.; Rengstorf s.v.). Especially the second and third meanings match Herod’s characterization by Josephus, who highlights both the king’s ambition to erect new buildings (War 1.403, 408, 419; Ant. 15.296, 303, 330) and his munificence (Ant. 15.312, 315, 328; 16.149-150, 158). The final part of Ant. 15.271 corresponds closely to a passage in Ant. 16.140 about the Caesarean Games: “… so that his (i.e., Herod’s) magnanimity became renowned” (my trans.), as has been observed by Drüner 1896: 67-68 (see also 15.268 with the note to “an athletic contest”). The noun ἐπίδειξις (“competitive showing, show”) also occurs in 15.268 (see the note to “the competitive showing”). It alludes to the spectacular character of the festival and to the competition between the participants (Ebert 1972: 133-34; Lämmer 1973: 224 n. 144; Pleket 1975; see also 16.140 and 19.335-337 about Agrippa I’s involvement in the organization of similar entertainments in Beirut).

The inscriptions in Octavian’s honor show Herod’s second motive for organizing the festival in Jerusalem: expressing his gratitude and loyalty to Octavian (already indicated in Ant. 15.268; see also 15.271 with the note to “in his ambition” and 15.328; 16.137-138). Following the successful meeting in Rhodes (15.187-198), Octavian had become the foundation of Herod’s power, such that the king did his best to express his connection with and recognition to Octavian by founding cities, temples, and altars and by organizing games in the emperor’s honor (see, e.g., War 1.407, 414-415). Such behavior was expected from friendly kings (Suetonius, Aug. 59-60). The inscriptions here may have been written on the trophies (see the next note). Previous Jewish rulers already had issued inscriptions honoring Roman leaders: Ant. 14.34-36 mentions a golden vine donated by Aristobulus II to Pompey, which Josephus himself had seen in the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus in Rome. This vine bore the inscription “from Alexander, the king of the Jews,” which probably refers to Aristobulus’ father, King Alexander Janneus (Marcus 467 n. c). The syntax of the Greek sentence implies that the trophies (τρόπαια; see the next 2 notes, also Ant. 15.276-278, 287 and cf. 13.251) were located around the theater, like the inscriptions. Inscriptions on or close to trophies frequently explained the occasions for the trophies’ erections (Pliny the Elder 3.136; Pausanias 5.27.11; Tacitus, Ann. 2.18). Patrich (2002b: 236) argues that Herod’s trophies were located at the front side of the stage. Patrich’s references to trophies in the form of shields and bounty stands with body armor include a relief from the Augustan era with very naturalistic body armor (found in Turin, possibly as part of an honorific arch) and a relief on a frieze of a tomb at Petra from the 1st cent. CE. Picard (1957: 283) connects Herod’s trophies with Roman trophies found in public city places, like a forum or temple (Pausanias 5.27.7; see also Pliny the Elder 3.136; Tacitus, Ann. 2.18; Cassius Dio 52.35.6). Several Greek and Roman authors refer to trophies located at the Odeum in Athens—a public building for musical performances erected by Pericles, which had the appearance of a theater—e.g., Pausanias 1.20.4: “Near the sanctuary of Dionysus and the theatre is a structure, which is said to be a copy of Xerxes’ tent” (trans. Jones; similar information in Plutarch, Per. 13). Vitruvius (5.9.1) is more explicit: “For those who exit on the left side [of the theater of Dionysus] there is the Odeum that Themistocles set up with stone columns and covered over with the masts and yardarms of ships from the Persian war booty” (trans. Rowland; I thank Dr. Peter Eversmann, Amsterdam, for these references). I.e., Octavian, who is referred to in the sentence as “Caesar.” The trophies are the pièce de résistance for the Jews in this case (Ant. 15.276-279; van Henten 2008b). Trophies were originally memorials of a specific military victory and were situated at the place where the enemy started to flee, which explains their name (the noun τρόπαιον derives from the verb τρέπω [“turn”]; Woelcke 1911; Janssen 1957; Hurschmann 2002). Ant. 13.251 reports that Antiochus VII Sidetes erected a trophy at the River Lycus after his triumph over the Parthian general Indates. Herod’s trophies commemorated Augustus’ victories and were made of refined gold and silver. In 15.276-277 Josephus adds that they appeared to be images of humans surrounded by weapons, and in 15.279 he suggests that they were statues with a wooden frame (see the notes to these passages). These data match the present knowledge about ancient trophies: the basic form of a trophy consisted of a tree stump or a wooden pale with a crossbar (Diodorus 13.24.5), covered by a torso of the defeated enemy and one or more of his weapons (lance, shield, sword, etc.; see also Ant. 15.276 with the note to “they” and 15.279 with the note to “the bare wood”). Trophies developed in various ways, including into naval types (e.g., those commemorating the sea battle at Actium [Hölscher 1985; Zachos 2003] and cf. the carvings on the Hasmonean mausoleum at Modein [1 Macc 13:29]). They were represented on reliefs not only at public places but also on vases and coins (Woelcke 1911; Janssen 1957: 60-178). Coins minted in 34 BCE in honor of Caius Sosius, the Syrian governor active at Herod’s capture of Jerusalem, bear the image of a Roman trophy flanked by captives representing Antigonus and Judea (Fine 2005: 75 with references). The Romans took over the convention of erecting trophies from the Greeks and adapted it, e.g., by adding images of captured males and females standing or kneeling beside or around the trophies. Such scenes were also depicted on triumphal or honorary arches (Künzl 1988: 76, 123, 128, 132; Hurschmann 2002: 873). Josephus’ description stays close to the original Greek type and suggests that the trophies were portable (Ant. 15.279). The general character of Herod’s trophies, however, fits in with a trend during Augustus’ rule, attesting many examples of universal trophies commemorating all of the emperor’s victories (Picard 1957: 232-311; Künzl 1988: 132). Whether Herod’s trophies had a cultic function is not completely clear from Josephus’ vocabulary, which is ambiguous (see 15.276-279). The main objection for the Jews seems to have been the images of humans on their surfaces (15.277; cf. 2 Macc 5:6 about the wicked High Priest Jason: “… he [i.e., Jason] was setting up trophies of victory over enemies and not over compatriots [πολεμίων καὶ οὐχ ὁμοεθνῶν τρόπαια]”).For the practice of combining trophies with inscriptions, see the note to “trophies” above.The vocabulary (πολεμήσας … ἐκτήσατο, with the seemingly superfluous πολεμήσας) may echo a phrase in the Res gest. divi Aug. 13 (esset parta victoriis pax “… there was peace, secured by victory …,” trans. Shipley), which is typical for the Augustan ideology that war brings peace (see also the Ara Pacis on the Field of Mars in Rome; Galinsky 1996: 107). It is plausible that such a message was expressed by an inscription on or near the trophies. The trophies were only covered by gold and silver (see Ant. 15.279). The adjective ἄπεφθος (“refined, purified,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus.

The noun ὑπηρεσία (“service,” Rengstorf s.v.) refers to the equipment used at the festival (cf. in Ant. 15.199, 201 the word indicates extraordinary services provided by Herod to Octavian), as the continuation of the narrative indicates. The utensils and other equipments are described in superlatives in order to add to the glory of the festival. The noun σκευή (“equipment, attire”) can indicate the dress of a singer, actor, or public officer (LSJ s.v. 1). Rengstorf (s.v.) proposes, adding a question mark, “utensil” or “ornament.” The noun ἀγώνισμα (“contest”) repeats the vocabulary of Ant. 15.269. The verb συνεπιδείκνυμι (“exhibit/present at the same time”) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. Herod combined the Greek tradition of athletic and other contests with Roman style entertainments. Gladiator combats and shows with wild animals (venationes; Futrell 1997: 24-28) were both included in the Caesarean Games (Ant. 16.137) and common in Roman festivities to entertain the audience (Friedländer 1934: 487-500; Robert 1940: 309-31). Some Jews of the elite may have been familiar with them, also because Julius Caesar had given, by a decree of 44 BCE, to the Hasmonean High Priest Hyrcanus II and his children as well as to Jewish delegates the privilege to attend gladiatorial combats in Rome in the senatorial box (Ant. 14.210; Lämmer 1973: 195). The contests were commonly organized in Greek cities and Roman colonies in the contexts of a ruler’s cult, a celebration of an emperor’s birthday (or the inauguration of his rule), or a military victory. A visit of Roman officials or military commanders could also induce local authorities to organize such events. Antiochus IV, who had lived for a period in Rome before his accession, may have been the first Greek ruler to organize gladiator and animal fighter combats in the East (in Antioch; Livy 41.20), although this report may be fictitious (Robert 1940: 263-64; Lämmer 1973: 195, 203 with n. 134). It is implausible that Herod organized gladiator combats in Jerusalem (see Ant. 15.274 with the notes to “humans” and “who who had been condemned”).The rare phrase παρασκευὴ θηρίων (“supply of wild animals”) also occurs in Polyaenus 4.6.7. This phrase emphasizes the physical strength of the animals (cf. other passages with ἀλκή [“strength, might”]: War 2.580 about Roman soldiers in general; 6.81 about the centurion Julianus; Ant. 9.220 about Uzziah’s soldiers; 17.278 about the pretender Athronges). The reading τὰς ἄλλας ὑπερβολάς (“the other extreme cases,” found in MSS LAMW) instead of τὰς ἀλκὰς ὑπερβαλλούσας (“the other [wild animals] with extraoardinary strength,” found in MS P and with slight variations in MSS FE; Niese 381) probably resulted from a wrongful copying of the second reading. It is much more probable that the first reading evolved out of the second by mistake than vice versa. The Greek text implies that these animals were rare according to their nature (τὴν φύσιν), which probably denotes their physical appearance. Josephus’ very specific formulations again express the spectacularity and extreme costs of the show.

In addition to animal fights Herod also arranged for combats between animals and humans, usually convicted criminals, which was common practice in the Early Roman period (Friedländer 1934: 498-500; Robert 1940: 320-21; Futrell 1997: 28-29). Out of need of human fighters, administrators sometimes supplied non-professional persons even if they had committed relatively light crimes (Cicero, Pis. 89). Such entertainment appealed to the Romans and may have had a deterrent function (Cicero, Tusc. 2.41; Lämmer 1973: 196 nn. 84-85). War 6.418 reports that, after his victory in 70 CE, Titus transferred most of the Jewish prisoners who were over 17 years old from Jerusalem to the provinces to be executed in the theaters by the sword or by fighting against wild animals (see also Apion 1.43). Josephus does not specify who these persons are, but forcing convicted persons to fight against wild animals is in line with the usual practice at events like this (see the next note). Josephus does not mention gladiators or professional animal-fighters (venatores) during the festival in Jerusalem. Willrich (1929: 82) and Lämmer (1973: 196) argue that Herod deliberately arranged this because he was aware of the Jews’ sensitivity in this respect (the Caesarean Games included gladiator combats; see Ant. 15.273 with the note to “wild beasts were also provided”).The absolute use of the verb καταγινώσκω stands in for the longer phrase θάνατόν τινος καταγινώσκω (“sentence someone to death”; see War 1.545; 7.154; Ant. 16.352, 382; Life 425; Apion 2.265; cf. Ant. 18.242; Apion 2.263). Josephus distinguishes between foreigners and indigenous people (note the opposition τοῖς μὲν ξένοις … τοῖς δ’ ἐπιχωρίοις). The vague reference to “foreigners” probably includes local non-Jews as well (see Ant. 15.269 with notes about Herod’s invitations). The perplexity of the non-Jewish audience concerns the huge expenses here, while the next note highlights the admiration caused by the spectacle itself. Cf. an honorary inscription from Mylasa (in Asia Minor), which refers to the “huge perplexity” (ἔκπληξις μεγίστη) of the audience during a gladiatorial contest (Robert 1940: 174 no. 171 l.12). The noun ψυχαγωγία (“pleasure, entertainment,” Rengstorf s.v.; Lämmer 1974: 106) also occurs in Ant. 16.140 about the Caesarean Games (see also Ant. 15.241 with the note to “everything possible for diversion”). Entertainment showing severe dangers and bloody scenes appealed to the Roman taste (Friedländer 1934: 498-500; Futrell 1997: 24; more generally about the penchant for spectacle in Roman society, see Meijer 2007: 1-12, 135-75). Josephus returns to his criticism that the festival in Jerusalem abolished the Jewish practices (see Ant. 15.267-268 with notes). The vocabulary echoes previous phrases that convey Josephus’ criticism (see ἔθος/ἔθη in 15.267-268 and 16.1 about another case of abolishing ancestral customs [κατάλυσις τῶν πατρίων ἐθῶν] by Herod; cf. also similar vocabulary in different contexts: War 1.34; 2.393; 4.348; Ant. 12.364; 16.36; 19.301; 20.81). Kasher (2007: 188) argues that the entire Jewish community of Jerusalem was furious about the trophies (differently Richardson 2004: 238).

Instead of ἐκ προδήλου (“clearly, very evidently,” Niese 381), MS L reads ἐκ προχείρου (“easy [to see]”), which is a common phrase in Galen (e.g., Plac. Hipp. Plat. 2.5.38 [ed. Kühn 5.248]) and Gregory of Nyssa (e.g., Apol. Hex. [PG 44.68.48]; see also Didymus, Gen. 231.19 [ed. Nautin and Doutreleau 192]). Here Josephus expresses the opinion of the indigenous people (see Ant. 15.274), which implies severe criticism not only of Herod’s festival but also of the non-Jews’ festal practices in general given that such combats were common practice (see 15.273-274 with notes).The verb ὑπορρίπτω (“throw to”) occurs once elsewhere in Josephus (War 2.90, a passage that is also highly critical about Herod). This ethical criticism that human enjoyment at the expense of other humans is godless is not found elsewhere in this episode (Herod’s opponents remain silent about it), such that it may well be an objection by Josephus himself (cf. Bergmann 1908: 16-20). Although there are no other explicit passages about fights between animals and between animals and humans in ancient Jewish literature, it is highly plausible that such fights were considered to be problematic by at least some of the Jews. Humans are to take care of animals in the Jewish tradition, and the Torah includes several regulations in order to protect animals (though mostly tame ones). The deaths of wild animals for human entertainment hardly match these ethics (Landmann 1959: 86-88), which is even more true for the deaths of humans. Nevertheless, the sources do not allow us to retrieve whether these considerations were shared by most of the Judean Jews in Herod’s day (see also Apion 2.213-214, 271; Barclay in BJP 10 on Ap. 2.213-214, 271). The combination of τέρψις (“enjoyment”) and θέα (“viewing, spectacle”) also occurs in Ant. 11.188, which is part of Josephus’ report of Ahasverus’ banquet (see Esth 1). Josephus states that the bowls were “made of gold or precious stones for the pleasure of those who beheld them (εἰς τέρψιν ἅμα καὶ θέαν πεποιημένοις)” (trans. Marcus). The phrase ξενικά ἐπιτηδεύματα (“foreign practices”) repeats the vocabulary of Ant. 15.267 (see the note to “foreign habits” and 15.281). Josephus criticizes Herod once elsewhere for introducing “foreign practices” with his festival (cf. also 15.268, 271, 274). The repetition of the adjective ἀσεβής (“ungodly, wicked”) in this sentence emphasizes that Herod’s innovations went against the Mosaic Law, although this criticism is hardly elaborated.MSS LAMW read ἐξαλλάττειν τοὺς θεσμούς (“change their laws”) instead of ἐξαλλάττειν τοὺς ἐθισμούς (“change their customs”), read by MSS PFVE and Niese (381). The first reading probably derives from a change of ἐθισμούς into the rather similar word θεσμούς. The noun θεσμός occurs once elsewhere in Josephus (War 4.386; cf. the variant reading θεσμοῖς for ἐθισμοῖς in Ant. 16.163). Josephus’ point in this section is not that Herod tried to change the Jewish laws, but that he attempted to change the Jewish practices (see 15.267 with notes and 15.281 with the note to “the abandonment of the ancestral customs”).Apart from War 7.148 all occurrences of the verb ἐξαλλάττω (“change”) are part of the Herod narrative of Antiquities (15.17, 275, 281, 300; 16.13, 121).

This passage indicates a transition in the narrative; Josephus focuses on the trophies in Ant. 15.276-279. He first presents the trophies as the main cause of the Jews’ resistance against Herod’s festival, and then explains why in the next sentences. It should be noted that there is no indication whatsoever in the text that Herod included the usual Graeco-Roman religious rituals in the festival, such as a procession or sacrifices and prayers to the patron deity of the festival (Bernett 2007a: 59-61).For a similar phrase with λυπέω (“grieve”), cf. War 1.208 about Hyrcanus II, who “grieved most especially (μάλιστα δὲ ἐλύπει) over the successes of Herod” (trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a). This detail (δοκοῦντες “thinking”) is important for 2 reasons: (1) trophies entailed in most—if not all—cases images of human persons, and (2) the vocabulary that describes Herod’s trophies is ambiguous (as noted by Bernett 2007a: 64): on the one hand it associates them with images of humans (Ant. 15.276-277, 279), on the other hand with idolatry (see 15.279 with the note to “became a cause of laughter”). This raises the question whether Herod’s trophies were different from the usual ones. The description fits in with the original Greek type of trophies: a dummy of a defeated enemy on a wooden frame and with one or more of his weapons (see Ant. 15.272 with the note to “had won during wars”).Several scholars consider the reading τὰς τοῖς ὅπλοις περιειλημμένας (“those being surrounded by weapons”) of the Greek MSS (Niese 381) to be corrupt. Niese minor (305), following Ernesti, proposes to strike τὰς. Marcus-Wikgren (130) conjecture αὐτὰ τοῖς ὅπλοις περιειλημμένας (“[that] these were [images] surrounded by weapons”). However, both conjectures are unnecessary; the transmitted text makes sense: “(thinking that) they (i.e., those specimens of the trophies) were (images) surrounded by weapons.” Josephus specifies the noun εἰκόνας (“images”) in Ant. 15.277, 279 by adding the word ἀνθρώπων (“of humans”). Images of living creatures—human and non-human alike—go against the second commandment (Exod 20:4-6; Deut 5:8-10; Josephus, Ant. 3.91; Apion 2.190-191; Richardson 2004: 231-35; Gambetti 2009: 168 n. 4).Several episodes in Josephus show that the Jews were particularly sensitive to images of living creatures erected in the holy city of Jerusalem (see, e.g., the demolition of Herod’s golden eagle in War 1.648-655; 2.5-7; Ant. 17.148-164). Pontius Pilate’s transfer of Roman standards from Caesarea to Jerusalem was met with fierce opposition: the Jews were even willing to sacrifice their lives for stopping this (Philo, Legat. 299-305; Josephus, War 2.169-174; Ant. 18.55-59; Kraeling 1942; Maier 1969). Gaius Caligula’s decision to erect a statue of himself in the Temple of Jerusalem triggered a similar response (Philo, Legat. 203-337; Josephus, War 2.184-203; Ant. 18.261-309; see also Life 65-67).Richardson (2004: 238) concludes that Herod respected the second commandment within Judea and permitted images of living creatures outside the area. I.e., the indigenous Jews mentioned in Ant. 15.274. The phrase οὐδὲ μετρίως (literally “not moderately”) is case of litotes (see Ant. 15.119 with the note to “exceedingly”). About δυσχεραίνω (“be displeased,” Rengstorf s.v.), see Ant. 15.281 with the note to “being annoyed” and 15.369 with the note to “were disgusted about being compelled.” Feldman (1993: 41) argues that this reflects the actual response to Herod’s initiative and that Josephus’ description of the protest indicates fierce Jewish opposition to Herod. This criticism links up with Josephus’ introduction of this section in Ant. 15.267 (see the note to “he departed even more from the ancestral customs” and the next note). In 15.277 Josephus also emphasizes that the trophies concerned a violation of the Jewish customs (cf. the more general criticisms in 15.267-268).The phrase (μὴ) πάτριον ἦν (or ἐστι or εἶναι) occurs frequently in connection with practices that do or do not match the Jewish tradition: Ant. 1.11; 3.247; 8.193; 14.41, 63 (about keeping the Sabbath); 15.277; 16.169; 18.121; 20.34, 120, 226; Apion 1.91; 2.237. See especially Ant. 18.121 concerning the Jews’ protest against Vitellius, who marched through Judea with his army and its military standards: “For, they said, it was contrary to their tradition (οὐ γὰρ αὐτοῖς εἶναι πατρίον) to allow images (περιορᾶν εἰκόνας), of which there were many attached to the military standards, to be brought upon their soil” (trans. Feldman). The statement “it is not according to their ancestral practices to venerate such [images] (τὰ τοιαῦτα σέβειν)” implies a switch in the Jews’ objection against Herod’s trophies: the previous information denounces a violation of the second commandment (see the note to “images [of human persons]” above), but the present phrase points to the violation of the first commandment (Exod 20:3; Deut 5:7) because of idolatry (i.e., the cultic veneration of the trophies). The expression τὰ ἀγάλματα (“the statues”) in Ant. 15.279 is important in this connection: it could mean that the trophies were statues in honor of a god (LSJ s.v. ἄγαλμα 3 and 5; Rengstorf s.v.). The meaning “statue of a god” is implied in 15.339 for the statues of Augustus and Dea Roma standing in the temple near Caesarea’s harbor (ἔχων ἀγάλματα, τὸ μὲν Ῥώμης, τὸ δὲ Καίσαρος). Greek games and Roman festivals usually included cultic activities (Futrell 1997: 77-93). Cultic performances in Augustus’ honor would have been an obvious and important demonstration of Herod’s loyalty towards his patron. Herod organized a cult for Augustus in Samaria-Sebaste, Paneas (i.e., the later Caesarea Philippi), and Caesarea (see 15.339 with the note to “one of Caesar”).Like statues of gods, trophies proper were also usually venerated; they were dedicated to anonymous war gods, the god(s) who had brought victory, Zeus, Nike, or the emperor himself (Herodotus 8.37; Plutarch, Sull. 464e; CIA II no. 467 l.27 = SIG II no. 521 l.27; Woelcke 1911: 138) and sometimes accompanied by sacrifices to these gods (Woelcke 1911: 138, 147-48). The emperor, e.g., dedicated an enemy’s military equipment to the gods as a thanksgiving after a victory. The trophies’ cultic function is probably the ground for Picard’s bold conclusion (1957: 283) that Herod erected the theater and its trophies in order to impose the Roman imperial cult on his subjects, which is highly implausible, however, because it does not match other evidence about the king’s religious policy. Smallwood (1976: 84) and Braund (1984: 110) argue that Herod arranged the festival within the limits permitted by the Jewish religion. Apart from perhaps 1 or 2 exceptions, Herod’s buildings erected in Jewish environments were not decorated with images of living creatures (note the difference with Caesarea, which had a temple in the emperor’s honor containing statues of Augustus and Roma; see above and Richardson 2004: 225-39; van Henten 2008b). Herod probably realized the limitations of showing gratitude and loyalty to Augustus in Jerusalem. The trophies are the only evidence in the report about the festival in Jerusalem pointing to a veneration of deities other than the God of Israel (see also Ant. 15.279 with the note to “became a cause of laughter”).

For the verb λανθάνω (“escape [notice]”) followed by a negation, see Ant. 15.43 with the note to “nothing escaped [their] notice.” I.e., the indigenous Jews referred to in Ant. 15.274, 276. This passage introduces Herod’s response to the Jews’ objection against the trophies. For the verb ἐκταράσσω (“disturb [highly],” Rengstorf s.v.), see Ant. 15.82 with the note to “he was greatly disturbed.” This note may hint at Herod’s behavior as a tyrant, which would fit the Herod image found in Antiquities. His noticeable use of force (βία) is already emphasized in Ant. 14.165: “But the chief Jews were in great fear when they saw how powerful and reckless Herod was and how much he desired to be a dictator (ὁρῶντες τὸν Ἡρώδην βίαιον καὶ τολμηρὸν καὶ τυραννίδος γλιχόμενον)” (trans. Marcus; see also 15.321 and the discussion in van Henten 2011b). Herod’s attempt to appease some of the local Jews seems to have been successful, apart from the radical group mentioned in Ant. 15.281. Lämmer (1973: 205) argues that the reconciliation took place on the eve of the new festival, when the trophies were put outside on display, and that the protesters were looking for a pretext to enforce a confrontation that could result in a change of government. The word of δεισιδαιμονία (“fear of God, reverence, superstition”, Rengstorf s.v.) often has a negative connotation, which matches the context here. Koets (1929: 22) and Marcus-Wikgren (132-33) translate “religious scruples,” which is perhaps anachronistic. Thackeray and Marcus (1930-55: 126 s.v.) give “piety” as meaning, while Kasher (2007: 187-88) argues that Herod took great pleasure in mocking the “superstitious beliefs” of his Jewish subjects (cf. Lämmer 1973: 225 n. 153).For the combination of δεισιδαιμονία and ἀφαιρέω (“take away”), cf. Plutarch, Mor. (Suav. viv.) 1100e-f, 1101c; Nic. 23.5; Clement of Alexandria, Ecl. 28.1. In Ant. 20.70 the personal object of οὐ μὴν ἔπειθεν (“he failed to persuade”) is also to be supplemented on the basis of the context (cf. War 3.346). The imperfect ἐδόκουν links up with the participle δοκοῦντες (“thinking”) of Ant. 15.276 (see the note to “thinking”) and adds to the ambiguity of this section: in what way were the trophies thought to be irreconcilable with the Jewish religion (see 15.276 with notes) and what was Herod’s view about them? The repetition of the verb δοκέω may suggest that the trophies were actually harmless, which may match Herod’s own take on them (see 15.279). The adjective οἰστός (“bearable,” Rengstorf s.v.) occurs once elsewhere in Josephus (Ant. 17.175), likewise in the Herod narrative of Antiquities. The problem of the trophies seems to be again that they conveyed images of living creatures (see Josephus’ explication at the end of the sentence and Ant. 15.276 with the note to “images [of human persons]”). The geographic reference suggests a distinction between Jerusalem (the area within the city walls) and the Judean territory outside the city; the city with the Temple was apparently the most sacred area. Other passages in Josephus that concern objections against images of living creatures sometimes also focus on the city, e.g., the passages about Pilate’s decision to move Roman standards bearing images of the emperor from Caesarea to Jerusalem (War 2.169-174; Ant. 18.55-59, especially Ant. 18.55-56 with the phrase τὰς εἰκόνας φέρειν εἰς τὰ Ἱεροσόλυμα; see also 15.276 with the note to “images [of human persons]”). War 2.170 states in relation to this transfer that the Jewish laws forbid any kind of sculpted creature (οὐδὲν … δείκηλον τίθεσθαι) in Jerusalem. See also Josephus’ explanation in War 1.650 about Herod’s violation of the Law by erecting a golden eagle, which passage mentions the Temple as geographical marker: “… for it was unlawful for the Temple (κατὰ τὸν ναόν) to contain either images or busts or a work representing some living creature” (trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a, my italics; see also Ant. 15.417-419 with notes; further discussion in Schwartz 1996; Tromp 1996). The passage οὐ γὰρ εἶναι πάτριον αὐτοῖς repeats the phrase μὴ πάτριον ἦν αὐτοῖς of Ant. 15.276, which recurrence emphasizes that the protesters considered the trophies to be a violation of the ancestral customs. There is a different nuance, though: Ant. 15.276 concerns the veneration of the trophies, while Ant. 15.277 reflects the view that the trophies were images of living creatures.

The introduction of Herod’s response to the protesters (Ant. 15.278-279) echoes part of the vocabulary of Josephus’ description of the protest in 15.277 (cf. τεταραγμένους [“[they] being troubled”] in 15.278 with ἐκταραττόμενοι [“[they] feeling greatly troubled”] in 15.277; see also the next note). The noun παρηγορία (“comfort,” here “appeasement,” Rengstorf s.v.) echoes the imperfect παρηγόρει (“he [i.e., Herod] comforted [some of them]”) of Ant. 15.277. The phrase οἱ ἐπιφανέστατοι (“the most eminent/prominent/etc.,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a common expression for a very select group, in various contexts (see War 2.243 [the most prominent Samaritans]; 4.335; Ant. 11.6; 20.114; Life 427; Apion 2.239). Ant. 11.6 is a close parallel of 15.277: “… summoning the most distinguished (καλέσας τοὺς ἐπιφανεστάτους) of the Jews in Babylon” (trans. Marcus). In Ant. 15.269 Josephus uses the superlative ἐπιφανεστάτην to qualify Herod’s festival in Jerusalem. Herod’s response to the protest as described by Josephus is quite clever: it is neither based on the use of force (cf. Ant. 15.277), nor on his authority as king. He neither gives in to the protesters by bringing the trophies outside of the city walls (contrary to Pilate, who decided to remove the Roman standards from Jerusalem; see 15.277 with the note to “would not bear images of humans in the city”). Herod apparently realized that he could counter the protest only by refuting the protesters’ reasoning, which he did by revealing the trophies’ true identity. The passage indicates that the king was sensitive to the protesters’ religious feelings (Richardson 1996: 188 n. 48; van Henten 2008b: 166; cf. Richardson 2004: 233 concerning the eagle episode). Herod’s question repeats the verb δοκέω (“seem, think”) of Ant. 15.276-277 (see 15.276 with the note to “thinking” and 15.277 with the note to “they thought”), which passage turned the trophies into an ambiguous item. The continuation of the narrative in 15.279 builds on this: Herod shows to the protesters that the trophies are not what they seem to be.

The report of the protesters’ response to Herod’s question repeats the vocabulary of Ant. 15.277 (i.e., the verb ἐκβοάω [“cry out”] and the expressions ἀνθρώπων εἰκόνες/ εἰκόνας ἀνθρώπων [“images of humans”]). The protesters clearly consider the trophies to be a violation of the second commandment (see 15.276 with the note to images [of human persons]”). The adjective περιθέσιμος (“[intended to] be put around, put around,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. Herod ordered to strip off the decoration from the trophies up to the point that their wooden frames were laid bare (about the construction of trophies, see Ant. 15.272 with the note to “had won during wars”), so that any possible association with images and the reason for the protest given in Ant. 15.277-278 were eliminated. However, there was more to Herod’s demonstration, as the continuation of the narrative indicates. The verb ἀποσυλάω (“strip, take away,” Rengstorf s.v.) occurs once elsewhere in Josephus (Ant. 19.323). Its use is humorously ironic here, for a trophy represented military victory and the taking of spoils from the defeated party. Now, to satisfy his critics, Herod is taking the “spoils” from the trophy itself, doing to it what armies did to populations in order to earn trophies. The laughter and the mocking (see the note to “had mocked” below) imply a further interpretation of the trophies in addition to the first one (that they were images of humans): they were considered to be idols. Josephus already prepares the readers for this second interpretation in Ant. 15.276, when he speaks of the veneration of the trophies (see the note to “venerate such [images],” also the reference to τὰ ἀγάλματα [“the statues”] at the end of that paragraph). The narrative implies that Herod successfully countered the 2 objections that were raised in connection with the trophies (i.e., a violation of the first and second commandments).That the protesters laughed about the trophies is understandable in the light of the Jewish polemics against idols, which state that the veneration of statues of deities is stupid because they are deceptive; they are fabricated by humans and are exactly what they appear to be: handmade artifacts, pieces of wood with precious metal coverings (Bel 5; Ep Jer 3, 7-15, 39, 45, 50, 54-56, 70-71; Sib. Or. 3.27-38, 586-590, 601-607; especially Ep Jer 57-58: “Gods made of wood and overlaid with silver and gold are unable to save themselves from thieves or robbers. Anyone who can will strip them of their gold and silver and of the robes they wear, and go off with this booty, and they will not be able to help themselves”). I.e., the group of protesters taken to the theater by Herod. The MSS transmit several readings here. MSS FAVW, followed by Niese (382), read εἰς διάχυσιν (“to relaxation, to amusement,” Rengstorf s.v.), MSS PLE εἰς διάλυσιν (“to relief”), and MS M εἰς διάθεσιν (“to goodwill”). The first reading is the more difficult and therefore the more original one; scribes may have replaced the rare noun διάχυσις (one further occurrence in Josephus: War 3.507) by more common words. The final outcome of the exchange between Herod and the protesters seems to be that both sides agreed upon the trophies’ true identity. Herod apparently appeased the protesters (see also Ant. 15.280) not by persuading them that the trophies were no idols (they were already convinced of this since the sentence reports that the protesters had mocked the trophies among themselves) but by taking side with the protesters in confirming the trophies’ voidness. This was dangerous because Herod ridiculed the trophies made in Octavian’s honor; the king could not afford many more of such actions. If this detail is historical, it implies that Herod had miscalculated the sensitivity of the Jews and realized during the festival that the trophies were not acceptable to some of the local Jews. He may have tried to find a way out of this precarious situation by showing that the trophies were, in fact, harmless artifacts. The positive image of Herod here does not match the criticism of the king in the previous paragraphs of this episode. Richardson (2004: 238) concludes that Herod was not “a fully Torah-observant Jew”; the king tried to remain “pious” towards the God of the Jews and towards the emperor.Concerning the phrase ἐν εἰρωνείᾳ τίθεσθαι (“mock”), cf. War 4.152; Life 367; Mason 2005. Lämmer (1973: 225 n. 150) takes the noun εἰρωνεία here to denote the attitude of somebody who pretends not to know what he or she in fact does know. On the association of the trophies with statues, see Ant. 15.276 with the note to “venerate such [images].”

The meaning of παρακρούω is ambiguous: the verb can mean “strike aside, divert” (LSJ s.v. 1) or “mislead, deceive” (Rengstorf s.v.). The latter meaning would match the criticism in this episode (see Ant. 15.267-268 with notes). This phrase is the transition to the third section of the episode (Ant. 15.280-291), which focuses on an attempt to murder Herod. Note the similarity between the verb διαχέω (“disperse, relax”) and the noun διάχυσις (“relaxation”) in Ant. 15.279. The complicated formulation includes a word play of ὁρμή (“commotion, turbulence”) and ὀργή (“anger, rage”). Josephus makes a distinction between the majority of the protesters (οἱ μὲν πλείους) and a tiny minority (τινὲς δὲ αὐτῶν, Ant. 15.281) that persisted in its resistance against Herod (for the description of this group, see 15.282). This implies that Herod’s response to the protesters was largely successful (see Ant. 15.279 with the note to “they too had mocked”). Smallwood (1976: 84) states that Josephus presents the conspiracy against Herod described in 15.282-290 as a chain reaction set off by Herod’s festival.

See the previous paragraph with the note to “most of them.” The noun δυσχέρεια (“annoyance”) echoes related words in Ant. 15.276 (δυσχεραίνω “be displeased”) and 15.277 (δυσχέρεια), which links this group with the protest described in 15.276-279 (cf. also the adjective δυσχερής [“bad, unpleasant”] in 15.283). Concerning more repetitions of the preceding vocabulary, see the next notes. The opinion of this final group of protesters connects with Josephus’ own criticism in the introduction of this episode (see Ant. 15.267; note the repetition of ἐπιτηδεύματα [“habits”; cf. 15.269, 275] and ἔθος [“custom”]). The phrase καταλύεσθαι τὰ πάτρια echoes the expression “abolition (κατάλυσις) of the customs they held in honor” of Ant. 15.274 (see the note there) and the adjective πάτριος (“ancestral”) of 15.267, 276, 278. Ant. 16.1, which also concerns Herod, offers a close parallel about another case of abolishing ancestral customs (κατάλυσις τῶν πατρίων ἐθῶν). Josephus embellishes the criticism of these protesters with a stock phrase (μεγάλων ἀρχή κακῶν) taken from Greek historiography; see Polybius 11.5.9; 18.39.2; 23.5.9; Philo, Ios. 12 (concerning Joseph being sold by his brothers, Gen 37:12-36); Michael Psellus, Chron. 4.24, which passages may go back to 2 famous episodes: (1) in Thucydides 2.12 the Spartan envoy Menippus concludes at the eve of the Peloponnesian War (431-404 BCE), when the Athenians have sent him back without a hearing: “This day will be the beginning of great evils (μεγάλων κακῶν ἆρξει) for the Hellenes” (trans. Smith), and (2) during the rebellion of the Ionians (499-497 BCE) Herodotus (5.97) remarks concerning the Athenian fleet: “These ships were the beginning of troubles (ἀρχή κακῶν) for Greeks and foreigners” (trans. Godley). The verb ἀποκινδυνεύω (“run a/incur any risk,” Rengstorf s.v.) occurs once elsewhere in Josephus (Ant. 14.438). These protesters were apparently willing to sacrifice their lives to prevent Herod from changing the Jewish customs (see the next note). In War 2.200-201 Josephus uses similar vocabulary when he describes that Petronius was willing to die in preventing the emperor Gaius Caligula from putting a statue of himself in the Temple of Jerusalem (see Ant. 15.276 with the note to “images [of human persons]”): “It is rather for me to face the risk (παρακινδυνευτέον ἐμοὶ μᾶλλον … ἥ). Either, with the God collaborating, I shall persuade Caesar and happily be saved along with you [i.e., the Jews] or, upon his becoming provoked, I shall readily give up my own life for the sake of so many” (trans. Mason in BJP 1b; about Josephus’ rhetoric of noble death in general, see van Henten 2007a, also 15.236 with notes concerning Mariamme’s death). The verb ἐξαλλάττω (“change [utterly]”) also occurs in Ant. 15.275 (see the note to “totally change their practices into foreign customs”), with τοὺς ἐθισμούς as object (i.e., “change their laws”), also referring to Herod’s innovations. Once again the vocabulary echoes a previous passage, this time contrasting Herod’s own intentions with the radical protesters’ opinion: in Ant. 15.277 Herod “thought it a bad time to use force (βίαν ἐπάγειν) against them,” while here the protesters want to prevent Herod “to introduce things by force (πρὸς βίαν ἐπεισάγοντα).” The phrase τὰ μὴ δι’ ἔθους ὄντα (“that ran counter to [their] customs”) connects with “the uncommon habits (τῶν οὐκ ἐξ ἔθους ἐπιτηδευμάτων)” mentioned previously in this passage (for other occurrences of ἔθος [“custom”] in this episode, see Ant. 15.267-268, 274 with the note to “the public dissolution of the customs long honored by them”). The criticism that Herod was a king in name only occurs once elsewhere in the Herod narrative of Antiquities (17.304; cf. 16.4); it is part of the tyrannical image of Herod (van Henten 2011b). It constitutes the upbeat to the radical conclusion that Herod was the enemy of the entire people (see the next note). This severe accusation is unique in both War and Antiquities, but it clearly builds on the previous criticisms in this section (see the previous notes to this paragraph and their references to other passages): Herod’s festival was considered to be an unacceptable violation of the Jewish customs and practices, enforcing non-Jewish customs upon the Jews; the statement that the king was the enemy of the entire Jewish people is the logical conclusion of this line of thought. For similar radical criticisms, see the golden eagle episode (Ant. 17.148-164) and the Jews’ petition to Augustus after Herod’s death (17.304-314); both passages depict Herod as a wicked tyrant. The opposition “in name” (or “in words”)—“in deeds” (λόγῳ μὲν … τῷ δ’ ἔργῳ) is very common in Greek rhetoric. For similar phrases in Josephus, see War 1.288; 2.26; Ant. 5.289; 18.260; 19.101; Apion 2.241. The correspondence between one’s words and deeds was considered to be very important (cf. the often mentioned example of Socrates’ death, e.g., Cicero, Tusc. 1.102-103 and further Döring 1979).

The continuation of the narrative (Ant. 15.284) indicates that it was a conspiracy in order to murder Herod. For the verb συνόμνυμι (“promise by oath, conspire”) in a similar context, see Ant. 19.38. The conspirators were apparently willing to sacrifice their lives (cf. Ant. 15.284). The vocabulary is ambiguous: the verb ὑποδύω can mean “go under, plunge into” (LSJ s.v. II.1a) or “accept, take on (oneself)” (LSJ s.v. II.3b; Rengstorf s.v.). The first meaning implies a pejorative connotation, suggesting that the conspirators’ plan was doomed to fail; the assistance of the blind man mentioned in the next sentence may support this reading. On the other hand, the expression κίνδυνον ὑποδύεσθαι is elsewhere used with a neutral or even positive import (Herodotus 3.69; Xenophon, Symp. 4.35; Plutarch, Mor. [Gen. Socr.] 576e; see especially Xenophon, Cyr. 1.5.12: πάντα δὲ κίνδυνον ἡδέως ὑποδύεσθαι “undergo any danger gladly”). Several scholars argue that there is a gap in the Greek text here (Niese 382; Marcus-Wikgren 134-35 with n. a).The so-called Sicarii were famous for keeping small daggers (sicae) under their clothes before murdering someone (see War 2.255 [Mason in BJP 1b on War 2.255; Brighton 2009] and Ant. 20.164; Life 293).

The sequence of the Greek sentence is awkward and can hardly be maintained in the translation. The verb διαφθείρω (“destroy”) can mean “be blind” in the perfect passive voice (in combination with τὰ ὄμματα or τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς; LSJ s.v. διαφθείρω II). The extremely rare noun ἀναξιοπάθεια (“unworthy treatment, indignation”) also occurs in Ant. 15.37 (see the note to “her unworthy treatment”). Niese (382) reads ἤκουε (“he had heard about”) with MS F and a marginal reading of MS V. Most MSS read ἤκουον (“they had heard about”). The reading συνωμοσμένος of the Greek MSS is probably a corruption of συνομωμοσμένος (“joining the conspiracy,” with Niese 382). The phrase οὐχ … ἱκανός (εἶναι) plus an infinitive (“be unable/incapable to,” Rengstorf s.v. ἱκανός) also occurs in Ant. 16.156, 298. This phrase may anticipate the failure of the conspiracy described in Ant. 15.285-290. The adjective δυσχερές (“bad”) echoes the noun δυσχέρεια (“annoyance”) and related words in 15.276-277, 281 (see 15.281 with the note to “being annoyed” and 15.316 with the note to “the calamity that befell him”), but here it regards the conspirators’ fate instead of Herod’s innovations. I.e., his fellow conspirators. The blind person apparently decided not to participate in the action—which would hardly have been of any help—but to suffer in solidarity with the other conspirators if they would be caught. The expression τοῖς ἐπιχειροῦσι (“the plotters”) echoes τὴν ἐπιχείρησιν (“the attack”) in one of the preceding subclauses. The phrase μὴ μετρίαν (literally “not little”) is a case of litotes, like οὐδὲ μετρίως (Ant. 15.276; see 15.119 with the note to “exceedingly”). Note also the alliteration in μὴ μετρίαν τὴν ὁρμήν, with the repetitions of the m and r sounds.

For a similar introduction with ταῦτα γνόντες for an action by the persons involved, see Ant. 15.158 with the note to “determined to do this.” An alternative translation is “(Having decided this) as agreed upon, (they went …).”The word σύνθημα can mean, among other things, “sign, signal” (LSJ s.v.). Rengstorf (s.v.) gives “agreement, decision” as meanings here. The phrase ἀπὸ συνθήματος seems to refer to a signal given in a military context (see War 3.26; Ant. 18.58; Cassius Dio 36.49.1; 62.12.2, and cf. Polybius 3.105.4; Philo, Ios. 6; Lucian, Tox. 17). The meaning “given signal” fits the context best because the murder attempt’s location at the theater required a careful timing taking into consideration the schedule of the performances and the expected moves of Herod (see also Ant. 15.285). I.e., the theater built in connection with Herod’s festival (Ant. 15.268). This detail suggests that the Jews of Jerusalem were not used to going to the theater, as Lämmer (1973: 202) observes. This is all the more striking since Josephus so far did not say one word about the Jewish interest in Herod’s festival (cf. 15.274). The exact plan is not specified. The participle ἐλπίσαντες introduces the description of the strategy of the conspirators given in the remaining part of this paragraph. The theater was an obvious place to murder Herod because of the crowd present and the possibility to hide somewhere. This concept is standard in Graeco-Roman literature: wicked tyrants are murdered during a festival and/or at a theater. Famous is the murder of Hipparchus by Harmodius and Aristogeiton during the Panathenean Games (Bengtson 1950: 127). Amphitres murdered the tyrant Leodamas of Milete during the local Didymean Games, in honor of Apollo (Nicolaus of Damascus, FGH 90 F 52). Josephus twice refers to the murder of Philip of Macedonia by one of his companions when he was entering the theater (Ant. 11.304; 19.95) and describes the murder of Gaius Caligula in great detail (19.14-118); the emperor died during the Palatine Games after he had left the theater (Wiseman 1991; cf. Bathybius’ statement in 19.92: “Well then, Cluvius, the programme for to-day will include assassination of a tyrant,” trans. Feldman). The strategy of the 10 conspirators corresponds to that of contemporary terrorist groups: creating terror among the audience by causing numerous casualties. These men were apparently as evil as Herod himself. A second purpose of the conspiracy is provided by the continuation of the narrative: they intended to provide the king and his people with a clear warning that would make them to reconsider their policies. This phrase links up with the statement in Ant. 15.282 that the conspirators were willing to accept any danger (see the note to “plunge themselves into any kind of danger” and 15.288 with the note to “which all are obliged to preserve or die for”). The verb ἐξυβρίζω (“behave insolently, commit an outrage,” Rengstorf s.v.) connects with the criticism formulated against Herod in Ant. 15.281, including that he was considered to be the enemy of the entire people. MSS FV read προθεσμίας (“fixed time, previously appointed day”) instead of προθυμίας (“eagerness”), which does not make much sense. The second reading probably derives from a scribal lapse, misreading -υ- for -εσ-. This note concludes the description of the conspirators’ strategy. The participle προκαταστάντες is missing in MSS LWE. The verb προκαθίστημι (“prepare previously,” Rengstorf s.v.) occurs twice elsewhere in Josephus, each time within the Herod narrative of Antiquities (15.34 [with the meaning “appoint previously”], 381).

This passage suggests that Herod had spies or a secret service avant la lettre at his disposal, which evokes his great distrust (Schalit 2001: 314). Other passages in Josephus support such secret missions, e.g., when Herod was suspicious about his son Alexander plotting against him: “But, secretly sending out spies (κατασκόπους) night and day, he investigated all that was done or said, and immediately put those under suspicion to death” (War 1.492, trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a; cf. Ant. 16.236 and War 1.468). Another secret mission concerns the death of Jonathan-Aristobulus III in one of the royal swimming pools at Jericho (War 1.437; Ant. 15.50-56). Herod ordered some of Aristobulus’ friends to secretly drown him (Ant. 15.55) because he considered the young and popular Hasmonean High Priest to be a possible competitor (15.50, 52, 60). Matthew 2 suggests that Herod sent the Three Sages on a secret mission (Matt 2:8) after the religious authorities had revealed him the birthplace of the new king (2:5-6) and the Sages, in private, the precise time of the star’s appearance (2:7, 16). This passage implies that Herod implemented a double strategy by combining official assignments with secret missions. This matches the king’s behavior in Antiquities (France 1979: 116; van Henten 2008a; see also Ant. 15.366-367 and Shatzman 1991: 188-89). The rare combination of the verbs πολυπραγμονέω (among other things, “inquire closely into,” LSJ s.v. 3) and διαγγέλλω (“report”) also occurs in Plutarch, Dion 28.1; Cassius Dio 55.19.1. This detail not only confirms that the murder attempt was planned to take place in or near the theater (see Ant. 15.284), but also suggests that the plot was revealed to Herod just in time (see also 15.287), which enhances the dramatic character of the report.

The opening of the sentence (ὁ δ’ “He …”) is immediately followed by a parenthesis introduced by οὐ γάρ (“for [he] … not”). For similar parentheses introduced by οὐ γάρ in Josephus, see War 1.138, 318; 2.231; Ant. 3.5; 5.16, 305, 351; 6.151; 8.223; 9.31, 131, 192, 224; 13.278; 14.386; 15.325; 16.361; 17.44, 337; 18.69, 108, 154, 287, 317; 19.115; Life 83, 153; Apion 1.216, 221. As in several other cases, the parenthesis offers an explanation for the act of the key person described in the narrative (see the next note). The parenthesis focalizes Herod’s feelings concerning the conspiracy. The information that the report did not surprise the king is implausible if one takes the context into account; it goes against the king’s great efforts to make a success of his festival in Jerusalem. Even though the festival was apparently mainly organized to impress non-Jewish participants (see Ant. 15.269 with notes), it is plausible that Herod was keen on attracting the admiration of his subjects with his initiative as well. However, the Jews’ protest against the trophies and the subsequent conspiracy showed that he had been wrong (further discussion in van Henten 2008b).The adjective ἀνοίκειος (“unsuitable, strange,” Rengstorf s.v.) occurs once elsewhere in Josephus, likewise in the Herod narrative of Antiquities (16.262). The dislike, if not hatred, of Herod by the majority of the Jewish population is a theme that reoccurs several times in the Herod narrative of Antiquities (see 15.8 [with the note to “out of hatred for Herod”], 10, 304, 315). It is connected with Herod’s negative image as a violator of the Jewish customs and his portrayal as a tyrant (van Henten 2011b). About Herod’s unpopularity, see also 15.281. This note matches the negative relationship between Herod and his Jewish subjects presented in the previous subclause. The danger of disturbances (ταραχαί) among the masses had been the final argument for executing Mariamme (see Ant. 15.231 with the note to “on his guard against disturbances of the masses” and 15.30 with the note to “war and disorder”).The verb παρυφίστασθαι (“happen [in consequence],” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. The Greek text interrupts the note about Herod’s return to his palace by a parenthesis (see the note to “He” above).This may be a reference to the Hasmonean palace in Jerusalem that was used by Herod before he built his own palace (see Ant. 15.71 with the note to “in the palace” and 15.318 with the note to “he built a palace”), although it is also possible that the Fortress Antonia (mentioned in 15.292) is meant (Kasher 2007: 188 n. 25). There is a small ellipsis: Josephus has not reported that the 10 conspirators were arrested and moved over to the palace. The first act is related in the next paragraph, while the second act is clearly presupposed because the narrative continues with Herod’s interrogation of the conspirators. The verb καλέω together with ὀνομαστί (“call/summon by name”) also occurs in War 3.294, 385; Ant. 1.279; 2.172, 267; 5.348.

The adjective αὐτόφωρος (“in the very act,” Rengstorf s.v.) occurs twice elsewhere in Josephus, each time in the Herod narrative of Antiquities: Ant. 15.48 concerns Alexandra’s arrest during her flight to Cleopatra, and Ant. 16.213 Pheroras’ accusation that Herod was courting his son Alexander’s wife Glaphyra. This detail partly fills the gap of the narrative in the previous paragraph (see the note to “summoned those under accusation by name”). Shatzman (1991: 189) emphasizes that the conspirators were arrested by Herod’s servants and not by his soldiers or bodyguards. This detail perhaps confirms the secrecy of the operation. At the moment of the conspirators’ arrest Josephus focuses again on their thoughts (cf. in Ant. 15.283 the introduction to the conspirators is followed by a description of their motivation). Since death was unavoidable, the conspirators apparently decided to make the best out of it. A similar reasoning may underlie the collective suicide at Masada: Eleazar ben Yair persuaded his companions to kill themselves together before the Romans arrived; their situation was hopeless and suicide was the only way to prevent the Romans from harming their wives and children and making them slaves (War 7.321). Suicide is presented as a necessity (ἀνάγκη, War 7.330, 358, 380, 387; ἀναγκαῖος, 7.352, 382; cf. Ant. 15.287: τὴν ἀναγκαίαν καταστροφήν). The noun καταστροφή in combination with βίος or τέλος can indicate the end of a person’s life (LSJ s.v. II; see Ant. 15.376 with the note to “at the end of your life”). This phrase introduces Josephus’ presentation of the conspirators’ execution as a noble death (see also Ant. 15.281 with the note to “rather than deem it good”), which is elaborated in the next paragraph. This paragraph also offers additional noble death vocabulary (καλῶς καὶ σὺν εὐσεβείᾳ and θνήσκειν πρό/ὑπέρ).The verb ἐπικοσμέω (“add ornaments to, decorate, honor,” LSJ s.v.) is also used in a context of noble death in War 6.186, concerning the Roman soldier Longus (for the same verb in different contexts, cf. Ant. 8.185; 15.396; 16.138). The verb ὑφίημι (“give up,” LSJ s.v. I.4) combined with φρόνημα (“[high] spirit”) occurs frequently in Plutarch (Caes. 6.4; Cat. Min. 1.2; Cor. 9.4; Demetr. 18.2; Pyrrh. 25.1; see also Dionysius, Ant. rom. 7.46.2; 9.54.4; Cassius Dio 68.17.2).

The particular nuance implied by the absolute use of the verb ἐντρέπω (“turn”) remains open, although the verb certainly highlights the conspirators’ heroic attitude. Suitable translations are “feeling no remorse/shame” (Rengstorf s.v.) as well as “feeling no fear” (LSJ s.v. II.4). The translation follows Niese’s reading κρατούμενα τὰ ξίφη (383), attested by MS L. MSS FAMVWE read κρατούμενοι τὰ ξίφη (“[showed] their swords, holding [them] …”). The phrase τὰ ξίφη echoes the noun ξιφίδια (“daggers”) of Ant. 15.282. The 3 verbal forms ἐντραπέντες, ἀρνησάμενοι, and ἀνέδειξαν lead to a climax culminating in διωμολογήσαντο (“they asserted”), which highlights the conspirators’ confession. The verb διομολογέω (“affirm, assert,” Rengstorf s.v.) occurs once elsewhere in Josephus (Ant. 13.115). The noun συνωμοσία (“conspiracy”) also occurs once elsewhere in Josephus, in the Herod narrative of Antiquities, in connection with Herod’s sons Alexander and Aristobulus IV (16.111). The noun εὐσέβεια (“piety, proper worship”) is also mentioned in the introduction of this episode in connection with Herod’s innovations going against the proper worship of God (see Ant. 15.267 with the note to “proper worship” and cf. 15.365 about Herod’s subjects’ belief that the king’s measures would put an end to their worship [εὐσέβεια] and change their habits for the worse). There is an obvious contrast between Herod and the conspirators: while Herod corrupts the worship of God, the conspirators defend it and even sacrifice their lives for it. Manaemus’ prophecy in 15.375-376 clearly states what Herod should aim for: “For the best policy would be if you would love righteousness and proper worship of God (καὶ πρὸς τὸν θεὸν εὐσέβειαν) as well as reasonableness towards your citizens. … but you will forget about worship (εὐσεβείας) and what is righteous” (see also 17.150). Rengstorf (s.v.) gives “personal interest” as meaning for πάθος οἰκεῖον here and in War 5.162, but the latter passage seems to concern Herod’s personal feelings rather than his personal interest (in naming 3 towers in Jerusalem after his brother Phasael, his wife Mariamme, and his friend Hippicus). In Ant. 15.142 the same expression refers to sufferings (see the note to “sufferings”). The phrase τῶν κοινῶν ἐθῶν also links up with the introduction of this episode (see ἔθος [“custom”] in Ant. 15.267 [with the note to “the ancestral customs”], repeated in 15.268, 274, 281), again contrasting Herod as a violator of the Jewish tradition with the conspirators as its protagonists. The phrase θνήσκειν πρό (“die for”) connects with ὑπὲρ τῶν κοινῶν ἐθῶν (“for [preserving] the common customs”; see the previous note) and confirms that the conspirators’ interrogation and execution are depicted as a noble death (see Ant. 15.287 with the note to “noble”).The conspirators die because of their faithfulness to the Jewish customs, but the Jewish laws are clearly implied (see 15.291). Their motivation links up with brief passages in Josephus about brave ways of dying and about the Jews’ contempt of death, sometimes explicitly in connection with faithfulness to the Jewish laws (see, e.g., the motivation given by the persons who demolished Herod’s golden eagle in their reply to the king in 17.158-159). In Against Apion Josephus emphasizes that, if necessary, every Jew would gladly die for the ancestral laws (1.42-43, 190-193 [quoting Hecataeus]; 2.146, 218-235, 293-294). In 1.42 Josephus notes with respect to the Jews’ attitude towards their Sacred Scriptures: “… and it is natural for all Jews, right from the day of their birth, to consider them as God’s decrees, abide by them, and, if necessary, gladly die for them (καὶ ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν, εἰ δέοι, θνήσκειν ἡδέως)” (trans. Thackeray, my emphasis; cf. Barclay in BJP 10 on Ap. 1.42). Smith (1999: 226 n. 116) argues that Josephus praises the conspirators out of self-hatred because he himself failed to commit suicide during the Roman siege of Jotapata.

The conspirators’ frankness is another noble death motif. Socrates figures in Epictetus as a steadfast philosopher who does not shrink away from a tyrant’s threats, says what he has to say with full frankness and independence, and accepts torture and even execution (Epictetus 4.1.165; cf. 1.9.25; 4.1.70, 161, 168-169). Jewish and Christian martyrs approved Socrates’ attitude, which was an example for many in the early imperial age (van Henten and Avemarie 2002: 14 with references; see also Ant. 16.379 about the old soldier Tiro’s speech to Herod and 17.160 about the persons who pulled down Herod’s eagle).The rare verb ἐμπαρρησιάζομαι (“speak frankly [about something],” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. The verb occurs in LXX Job 22:26 (MS A); Polybius 38.12.7; Eusebius, Vit. Const. pinax 3.2 (ed. Winkelmann 8); Basil of Caesarea, Enarr. Isa. 3.114; 5.174; Gregory of Nyssa, Ep. 29.9 (ed. Pasquali 89); Eun. 3.2.136 (ed. Jaeger 96). The verb ἄγω has probably the meaning of the compound verb ἀπάγω here (“lead off [to execution],” Rengstorf s.v.). The simplex ἄγω is also used in Ant. 15.231 in connection with Mariamme’s execution (see the note to “led to her execution”). The torture may have been an additional punishment because the conspirators had done more than only attempting to murder the king: they also had disqualified him as king by their statement. The combination of ὑπομένω (“undergo, endure”) and πᾶσαν αἰκίαν (“every kind of torture”) also occurs in Ant. 10.115, about the prophet Jeremiah being tortured by one of the Judean magistrates (cf. also Dionysius, Ant. rom. 10.39.1; Justin, Dial. 34.8, and see War 4.329; 7.273 for similar vocabulary in Josephus). Herod’s mild and wise reaction to those protesting against the trophies contrasts his harsh punishment of the conspirators, which brutal response is understandable in the light of their attack on his rule and personal life (Lämmer 1973: 206). The chronological marker μετ’ οὐ πολὺ (δέ) occurs frequently in Josephus (e.g., War 1.513; Ant. 1.133; 6.176), as does its longer form μετ’ οὐ πολὺν δέ χρόνον (e.g., Ant. 1.160; 7.298; 10.96). This phrase implies that the conspirators had the warm support of other Jerusalemites, which has not been indicated before (but see the next paragraph). Josephus’ introduction of the story about the conspiracy even suggests that most inhabitants of Jerusalem had been persuaded by Herod’s dealing with the trophies and that only the group of conspirators continued to resist (see Ant. 15.280 with the note to “most of them”). The phrase τὸν ταῦτα μηνύσαντα echoes the aorist κατεμήνυσεν (“he revealed it [to the king]”) of Ant. 15.285. Here Josephus may hint at a correspondence between the deaths of the conspirators, which followed upon every kind of torture (see the note above), and the murder of the informant. The adverb μέλιστι (“limb from limb,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. The shamefulness of this death is obvious to any reader. The fact that the man was not buried still adds to the shame (1 Kgs 14:11; cf. 2 Kgs 9:10, 37). By being thrown to the dogs the corpse had a status equal to impure prey: “You shall be people consecrated to me; therefore you shall not eat any meat that is mangled by beasts in the field; you shall throw it to the dogs” (Exod 22:31). Josephus’ passage may hint at the fate of Queen Jezebel, who was famous for her idolatry and persecution of Israelite prophets and was thrown out of a window by Jehu; her blood spat on the walls, horses trampled upon her, and her flesh was eaten by the dogs (1 Kgs 21:23-24; 2 Kgs 9:30-37; Josephus, Ant. 9.122-124). Josephus also refers elsewhere to human bodies that were eaten by the dogs or whose blood was licked by them (War 6.367; Ant. 6.187; 8.270, 289, 361, 407, 417). Kasher (2007: 189) suggests that this passage derives from a pro-Herodian source.

The phrase κατεμήνυσεν οὐδείς partly repeats the aorist κατεμήνυσεν (“he revealed it [to the king]”) of Ant. 15.285 and may be ironical. The contrast between many citizens seeing the informant’s shameful death and nobody reporting it to Herod again suggest that the conspirators enjoyed warm support among the population (see also 15.289 with the note to “some persons”). A few passages in the Herod narrative of Antiquities refer to Herod’s bitterness or cruelty (πικρός [“bitter, cruel”] in 16.235; πικρία [“bitterness”] in 17.148; cf. War 1.494). The adjective φιλόνεικος means “pursuing eagerly, relentless” here (Rengstorf s.v.). For other passages with the same word referring to Herod, see Ant. 15.156 concerning Herod’s attitude towards the Nabateans and 16.252 concerning the king’s eagerness not to appear as having sentenced his son Alexander hastily to prison (cf. φιλονεικέω [“be intent on”] concerning Herod in War 1.411; Ant. 16.141). The meaning of ἐκβασανίζω, which verb is a hapax legomenon in Josephus, is ambiguous. Rengstorf (s.v.) offers “compel testimony under torture” but LSJ (s.v.) “be put to the question” (not necessarily implying torture) as meanings for this passage. Here torture is likely since starting from Mariamme I’s death Herod frequently applies torture in Antiquities (see 15.226 with the note to “to torture”). A few passages also connect Herod’s (excessive) use of torture with his characterization as a tyrant (War 1.586; cf. War 2.84-86; Ant. 17.66-67; van Henten 2011b: 197-99). Kasher (2007: 189) argues that torture was not unusual in the ancient world, but that Herod applied it in an excessive way. The verb ἐνεργέω (“undertake, be active”) also occurs in Ant. 15.283 concerning the blind supporter of the conspirators. Herod’s punishment of the perpetrators and their families (πανοικί) apparently functioned as a deterrent. Josephus mentions a few similar severe punishments (War 7.365 about the murder of the Jews at Scythopolis by “the Greeks”; Ant. 5.11 about Rahab’s risk in helping Israel’s scouts; 9.168 about God’s punishment of Judah’s unfaithful inhabitants during the reign of King Joash). The alliteration in this passage (the repetition of the p sound) emphasizes the harshness of Herod’s punishment.

This phrase commences the conclusion of the present episode. The paragraph forms the transition to a brief section about some of Herod’s building activities (Ant. 15.292-298).Niese has ἡ δ’ ἐπιμονὴ τοῦ πάθους with MS P (“The persistence in [the face of] suffering”), presumably in part because of the parallel with the next clause. Niese minor (p. 384) reads ἡ ἐπιμονὴ τοῦ πλήθους (“The persistence of the people”) with MSS VFE (and partly P), while MSS LAMW read ἐπιδρομή (“attack”) instead of ἐπιμονή. The second reading (probably mistaking -μ- for -δρ-, which automatically led to the change of -ονη into -ομη because of the lexeme -δρομ-) does not match the previous information that only a small minority participated in the coup (15.280-282). Whether the text of MSS LAMW is original or not, it implies that the “attack” of the conspirators had considerable support among the Jerusalemites. The people’s persistence may imply a rejection of Herod’s festival by the majority of the Jews in Jerusalem. The expression τὸ πλῆθος (“the people, the crowd,” sometimes also pejoratively “the rabble”; see Ant. 15.2 with the note to “the city’s population”) also appears in 15.280, 284, 291. Here Josephus uses the noun νόμων (“laws”) instead of ἔθων (“customs”), which he repeatedly uses in this episode to highlight Herod’s violation of the Jewish customs (see Ant. 15.267 with the note to “the ancestral customs”). The perspective in the narrative shifts: the preceding paragraphs suggest that the majority of the Jewish population stopped their protest against the festival, particularly against the trophies (see 15.280: “After he had diverted the people in this way and dissolved the rage …”; note the expression τὸ πλῆθος in that passage, which also occurs here), and that the conspirators were ready to sacrifice their lives for the Jewish customs (see 15.288 with the note to “which all are obliged to preserve or die for”), while the passage here suggests that the people’s faithfulness to the Jewish laws was an important factor for Herod.It is difficult to reconstruct what actually happened during Herod’s festival in Jerusalem, but one can make a plausible case that the Jewish response to his initiative was mixed at best. If the scene about taking away the protest against the trophies is reliable (15.276-279), one could argue that Herod tried to make the best out of a hopeless case: the Jews’ reaction forced him to be explicit about the trophies’ meaning and show that they were harmless in regard to the Jewish religion.The failed conspiracy seems to have brought an end to the festival in Jerusalem: there are no references to later celebrations, neither in Josephus, nor in any other document (Bernett 2007a: 65). The Jews’ reaction to the festival in Jerusalem may have made Herod decide to demonstrate his gratitude and loyalty to his Roman patrons at locations where the sacredness of the ground was not an issue and the Jews did not form the majority of the population. Thus he implemented his plan for a Graeco-Roman style festival at Samaria-Sebaste, which was founded in 27 BCE as a Greek polis. Its Herodian buildings include a huge temple for Augustus and a hippodrome, with games and a cult for the emperor (Crowfoot, Kenyon, and Sukenik 1942: 31-129; Avigad 1993; Schalit 2001: 358-65). Later Herod organized a festival at Caesarea, which had obvious connections with a cult for the ruler (see 16.138).The rare adjective ἀκατάπληκτος (“undaunted,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. The noun πίστις means “faithfulness” here and refers to the undauntedness of the Jews’ loyalty with respect to their laws (Lindsay 1993: 86, 99). Josephus uses the phrase (οὐ) ῥᾴδιον ποιεῖν (“put someone in a difficult position,” Rengstorf s.v. ῥᾴδιος) in a curious way here. Several suggestions have been made to improve the text (Niese 384; Richards and Shutt 1937: 174). However, the transmitted text is understandable. This passage transmits Josephus’ voice and combines 2 clusters of information about Herod: the episode about the festival in Jerusalem (Ant. 15.267-291) and the brief section about Herod’s building activities (15.291-298). This connection suggests that the response to the king’s festival—with the murder attempt as its aftermath—compelled Herod to improve his security situation. Once again Josephus colors the interpretation of the events in a specific way, by blackening the image of Herod (see van Henten 2008b). It is implausible that Herod’s decision to build a series of fortresses was given in by a serious security problem and the need to contain the Jewish population (see already Drüner 1896: 68; Otto 1913: 95, also Bernett 2007a: 69-70; differently Schalit 2001: 340-41, who suggests that the fortresses were to control foreign enemies; see, e.g., Ant. 16.277, 284-285, also Vogel 2002: 192; Günther 2005: 215; Udoh 2005: 197 n. 408, and Schalit 2001: 315, who adds that Herod also kept Jewish prisoners in these fortresses). It is improbable that fortresses would protect Herod against murder attempts like the one in the theater. The fortresses served other goals, e.g., demonstrating Herod’s loyalty to Rome (see the parallel passages of War [1.401, 403, 417-421]) and impressing important guests by providing luxurious accommodation (Günther 2005: 215). For Herod’s early period the security motive would make much more sense: the equipment of the fortress at Masada and Herod’s flight there were clearly to protect him from internal enemies (War 1.264, 286, 294, and especially 7.300, also Ant. 14.352-358, 390, 400) as well as from Cleopatra.For the phrase μετ’ πλείονος ἀσφαλείας κρατέω (“rule with greater security”), cf. Ant. 15.178 concerning Hyrcanus II, who decided to return to Judea: “He [i.e., Hyrcanus] knew that Herod ruled with full security (κρατοῦντα δὲ μετὰ πάσης ἀσφαλείας) ….” This is an implausible motivation for Herod’s erection of the fortresses (see the previous note and Ant. 15.292 with the note to “as a third stronghold”).The verb περιλαμβάνω (“surround”) is commonly used in contexts about surrounding cities or fortresses, not peoples. The expression τὸ πλῆθος (“the people”) refers to the Jewish population of Jerusalem and probably also of Judea (see 15.280, 284, 289). For the verb νεωτερίζω (“revolt”), see Ant. 15.8 (with the note to “rebelling”), which also concerns the Jewish people rebelling against Herod. This is the first passage in the Herod narrative of Antiquities in which the noun ἀπόστασις is used with the meaning “rebellion, revolt” (see also 17.176 and cf. 16.337). In 15.183 the verb ἀφίσταμαι means “rebel” in connection with Herod’s fear that his mother-in-law Alexandra would start a rebellion. This passage also helps to understand why Herod is eager to contain a possible rebellion: as a friendly king of the Romans he was to maintain peace and order (see 15.5 with the note to “a gift to Antony”); signs of a rebellion would no doubt have made a very bad impression on the emperor.

Ant. 15.292-298 briefly describes a couple of building projects, particularly fortifications. These projects are presented in the light of the security situation of Herod’s kingdom and the tendency of the Jewish population to revolt against their king (see especially 15.295). This matches Josephus’ comments in 15.291, which forms the transition between the previous section (about the festival in Jerusalem) and the present one. This new section exemplifies Josephus’ technique of combining thematically related clusters of information; not all the projects mentioned in it match the period at this stage of the narrative, i.e., ca. 28/27 BCE (with Otto 1913: 76-77; for the date of the festival in Jerusalem, see 15.268 with the note to “an athletic contest,” and for the foundation of Samaria-Sebaste in 27 BCE, 15.293): the date for the fortification of the Antonia Fortress (named after Herod’s first patron Mark Antony) is most probably situated before Antony’s defeat at the Battle of Actium (see also the note to “Antonia” below). Herod’s first palace (αὐλή) in Jerusalem (also mentioned in Ant. 15.43, 71, 286 and in the parallel passage of War [1.402]) was a Hasmonean palace (see Ant. 15.71 with the note to “the palace”). The noun αὐλή (“court[-yard]”) can also mean “palace” in Josephus (Rengstorf s.v.; e.g., 15.73). Richardson (1996: 225 n. 31) concludes that Herod restored the Hasmonean palace in the mid or late thirties BCE. Later he built his own splendid palace, adjacent to the 3 royal towers located west of the Temple Mount (see 15.318). Kokkinos (1998: 221-22) assumes that Josephus is referring to Herod’s later palace. Since this would imply a chronological inconsistency within the narrative—because the building of that palace is mentioned further on, in 15.318—he argues that Herod started the building preparations already in 29/28 BCE. The Antonia Fortress is mentioned for the first time in Josephus in War 1.75 (see also Ant. 15.247-248, 403, 406, 409, 424; for other references in Josephus, see Schalit 1968: 13). The fortress was named after Herod’s first patron, Mark Antony (War 1.118, 401; Ant. 15.409), which implies that the reconstruction of this fortress took place before the Battle of Actium in September 31 BCE (with Otto 1913: 42) and definitely before the summer of 30 BCE, when Herod switched his allegiance to Octavian (Mahieu 2012: 159), although War 1.401 and Ant. 15.380-409 connect its building with the renovation of the Temple, set in Herod’s 15th or 18th year, respectively (mostly dated to 23/22 and 20/19 BCE; see 15.380, 409 with notes). Josephus offers a detailed description of the fortress in War 5.238-246: it was located north of the Temple precinct, at the corner of the western and northern porticoes of the Temple. If the location of the fortress was identical with that of the Baris Fortress (as most scholars argue, see Gibson and Davidson 1996: 230 Fig. 104; Patrich 2011: 564 with Fig. 1, and also 15.403 with the note to “Baris” and the next note) it was damaged during the wars conducted by Pompey (in 63 BCE) and Herod (in 37/36 BCE). It served together with the Hasmonean palace (see the previous note) as Herod’s residence in Jerusalem before his own palace was constructed on the western hill (Smallwood 1976: 73-74; Patrich 2009: 66). Herod made it stronger than the Baris Fortress, for his and the Temple’s safety (see 15.409). A secret subterranean passage led from the Antonia to the inner Temple (further references in Netzer 2006: 120-26; Ritmeyer 2006: 123-31; Patrich 2009: 55, 64-66 with n. 111 about the archeological remains). Netzer (2006: 160-61) argues that the fortress was even partly integrated into the Temple complex. This remark contrasts with Ant. 15.403, in which passage Josephus states that the Hasmoneans built the fortress. In Ant. 18.91 Josephus specifies that the fortress was originally built by a priest called Hyrcanus, who can be identified with the Hasmonean ruler John Hyrcanus (Simons 1952: 402). These passages imply that Herod only adapted the fortress. The parallel passage of War (1.401) adds that Herod restored it at extravagant costs and also notes that it was “no less lavish than a palace” (κατ’ οὐδὲν τῶν βασιλείων ἔλαττον, trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a; cf. Josephus description of Samaria-Sebaste in superlative terms in Ant. 15.296-298). Ritmeyer (2006: 126-28, 216, 334-37; cf. Bahat 1994: 184-85) argues that Josephus’ remark here is correct and connects this with a hypothesis about a location of the Baris other than that proposed by the majority view (see the previous note). Archaeological data imply in his opinion that the Antonia was a new construction by Herod at the northwest corner of the enlarged Temple Mount, while the Baris Fortress stood at the northwest corner of the previous square Temple Mount. Herod would also have restored this latter fortress between 37 and 31 BCE and called it Antonia (cf. Ant. 15.403-409; 18.92), which implies that there were 2 Antonia Fortresses. Ritmyer (2006: 334-37) calls the renovated Baris Fortress the Proto-Antonia.For Herod as builder, see Levine 1981; Teasdale 1996-97; Roller 1998; Netzer 2006 (also 15.330 with notes), and for a detailed discussion of Herod’s fortifications, Shatzman 1991: 217-76. Niese (384) reads ἐνόησεν (“he planned”) with MSS PFV, while MSS LAM read ἐπενόησεν, which hardly implies a different meaning; both verbs can mean, among other things, “contrive” (Rengstorf s.v. ἐπινοέω and νοέω).The next paragraph explains Herod’s strategy. The noun ἐπιτείχισμα (“bulwark, rampart,” Rengstorf s.v., or “stronghold [placed on the enemy’s frontier],” LSJ s.v.) preceded by the dative παντὶ τῷ λαῷ (referring to the Jewish people) implies that the entire Jewish population was opposed to Herod (for a similar use of the noun, see Strabo 8.4.2 concerning the Athenian stronghold Pylos in Messenia directed against the Spartans, and Thucydides 1.122; LSJ s.v.). Josephus specifies Herod’s motivation further in Ant. 15.295: the king aimed at arranging maximum control over the Jewish people, who apparently seized every occasion to start a rebellion. The parallel passage of War (1.403) about Samaria-Sebaste (“In the region of Samaria he fortified [τειχισάμενος] a city with a magnificent wall of twenty stadia …,” trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a) does not mention the issue of security. Josephus specifies “the entire population” in Ant. 15.293, in which case he refers to “the city [i.e., Jerusalem] and the countryside.” The term λαός can refer to the Jewish population or the Jewish people in Josephus (Rengstorf s.v.). Such a meaning is plausible here because the Jewish people is consistently depicted as Herod’s opponent in this context. Josephus returns to Samaria in Ant. 15.296 (see also 15.217, 246). Samaria was renamed Sebaste after Herod had rebuilt and fortified the city (Strabo 16.2.34; Posidonius, FGH 87 F 70; Josephus, War 1.64; Ant. 15.246, 296). Sebaste (Σεβαστή) is the Greek equivalent of the Latin Augusta, which recalls Octavian’s honorary name Augustus (in Greek Σεβαστός; sometimes the Latin title is transcribed as Αὔγουστος). The new name was given to Octavian on 16 January 27 BCE (Kienast 1996: 63), which implies that this date is the earliest possible date for the fortification of Samaria-Sebaste by Herod. Other friendly kings, like Archelaus I of Cappadocia and Pythodoris of Pontus, also renamed cities as Sebaste (Braund 1984: 108; Kienast 1999: 469-70).Scholars differ on the date of the fortification of Samaria-Sebaste: Otto (1913: 53-54, 76-77), Richardson (1996: 225 n. 32), Bernett (2007a: 67), and Mahieu (2008) argue for 27 BCE because Herod plausibly dedicated Samaria to Augustus shortly after Octavian had accepted his new name of Augustus-Sebastos (see Ant. 15.109 with the note to “Caesar” and above). Schürer-Vermes (1.290-91 n. 9) and Shatzman (1991: 180 n. 36) suggest ca. 25 BCE because of Herod’s 13th regnal year, which is mentioned in 15.299. The earlier date seems more probable (detailed discussion and further references in Mahieu 2008). A parallel passage of War (1.401, 403) sets the refoundation in a different chronological framework, in Herod’s 15th year (mostly dated in 20/19 BCE). A new era started with Herod’s refoundation of the city (Schürer-Vermes 2.163). The city had a mixed population, including former soldiers, local residents, immigrants from surrounding territories, and Jews (Levine 1975: 15-16 with notes). Some coins from Samaria-Sebaste bear the inscription Σεβαστηνῶν (“of the inhabitants of Sebaste”) or Σεβαστηνῶν Συρ(ίας) (“of the inhabitants of Sebaste in Syr[ia]”). For a survey of the city’s history, see Schürer-Vermes 2.160-64, also Möller and Schmitt 1976: 164-65; Tsafrir, Di Segni, and Green 1994: 220-21 (about Octavian’s grant of Samaria to Herod, see Ant. 15.217).

Niese’s text (384) is elliptical. Several MSS transmit a different text, but this hardly affects the meaning; the implication of the passage is clear: Samaria-Sebaste was designed as a fortress to control the Jewish people and it was as strong as the 2 fortresses referred to in Ant. 15.292 (the royal palace and the Antonia, both situated in Jerusalem). The verb ἰσχυροποιέω (“fortify,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. It was quite common in ancient Greek literature to indicate a distance between 2 locations by the number of days the journey took (see, e.g., Herodotus 1.179; 3.26; 4.122; Xenophon, Hell. 3.2.11; Diodorus 17.32.2; Plutarch, Oth. 15.4). Josephus applies the same principle in Ant. 5.178; 9.32, 37; 12.192, 335-336; Apion 2.21, 23, 116. The straight line distance between Jerusalem and Samaria-Sebaste is ca. 55 km. Josephus seems to imply in Ant. 15.292-293 that Herod was aiming at controlling the Jewish population in his kingdom from various sides (see 15.292 with the note to “against the entire population”). Here he refers to Jerusalem and its surrounding countryside (χώρα), which is generally considered to denote Judea (for similar references, see War 1.154; Ant. 11.161, 13.284; 16.1): it is more logical that Samaria-Sebaste was intended as a stronghold against the Judean countryside than against Jerusalem. Yet the geographical markers still do not fit because Samaria-Sebaste was not part of Judea. Josephus adds a fourth fortress (Samaria is the third; see Ant. 15.292), which clearly shows that he is clustering information that belongs thematically together (see 15.292 with the note to “Therefore”). Caesarea was built considerably later than Samaria-Sebaste (see 15.341 with the note to “a period of twelve years”).The expression τῷ δὲ ἔθνει παντί (“[against] the entire people”) connects with παντὶ τῷ λαῷ (“[against] the entire population”) of 15.292 and probably also refers to the Jewish people (see 15.292 with the note to “against the entire population”). About Straton’s Tower, see Ant. 15.217 with the note to “Straton’s Tower.” Other friendly kings, like Archelaus I of Cappadocia, Juba II of Mauretania, Polemo I of Pontus and the Bosporus, and possibly Deiotarus Philadelphus of Paphlagonia and Philopator of Cilicia, also refounded earlier cities as Caesarea (Levine 1975: 152 n. 76; Braund 1984: 108 with nn. 22-23; Kienast 1999: 469-71; Bernett 2007a: 69). For many cities with names like Caesarea or Sebaste—referring to the emperor—it remains unclear whether it concerns new cities or the renaming and refounding of already existing cities (Kienast 1999: 469). Concerning the renaming of Straton’s Tower as Caesarea, cf. War 1.80; Ant. 13.313; 15.331; 20.173. The present section mentions Caesarea together with Samaria-Sebaste (see already Ant. 15.292), although Caesarea was founded considerably later than Sebaste (see 15.293 with the note to “Sebaste” and 15.342 with the note to “when Sebaste was already built as a city”). Herod’s founding and construction of Caesarea is described in 15.331-341. The context here strongly suggests that Herod founded Caesarea for security reasons. Such a motive is absent in the introduction to the description of the building of Caesarea (15.331).

The Great Plain was also called the Valley of Esdraelon (cf. Jdt 3:9), the Valley of Megiddo, or the Valley of Jizreel (Josh 17:16; Judg 6:33; Hos 1:5). It is mentioned in War 2.232, 595; 3.39; 4.54; Ant. 5.83; 8.36; 12.348; 14.207; 18.122; 20.118; Life 115, 126, 318. Ant. 12.348 situates it in front of the city of Beth-Shean (i.e., Scythopolis). The valley is situated east of Mount Carmel, in between the regions of Samaria and Galilee. Three other plains are also called “great”: the coastal plain of Ptolemais (War 2.188; cf. 2.192; Mason in BJP 1b on War 2.188), the Jordan Valley (War 4.455; Ant. 4.100; cf. 5.178), and the modern Beit Netofa Valley, which is also called the Plain of Asochis (War 3.59; Life 207; Shahar 2004: 228 n. 58). Herod apparently selected these men by lot in order to found a colony in the Great Plain (cf. Ant. 15.296). The verb ἀποκληρόω (“dispose of by lots, allot,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. Elite cavalrymen could be expected to be very loyal to Herod. They were probably living in Gaba as civilians, like their fellow veterans in Esebonitis and Samaria-Sebaste (about whom Josephus is more explicit in Ant. 15.296; Schalit 2001: 181-82). Ant. 16.373-375 (about the old soldier Tiro) indicates that there were also veteran soldiers living in Caesarea (Levine 1975: 16). Shatzman (1991: 181) convincingly argues that they could be reconscripted in emergency cases.Alexander the Great started the practice of establishing military colonies as part of a defense system, and the Romans continued this strategy, e.g., in Asia Minor (Levine 1975: 150-51 n. 59). Herod apparently created colonies for his veterans at several locations (Otto 1913: 80, 90; see 16.285, 292 concerning Trachonitis and 17.23-28 concerning Batanea). Richardson (1996: 225) argues that an important reason for Herod’s settling of veterans was an economic one: the veterans no longer received payment but were able to earn a living through the allotment of a piece of fertile land and thus stimulated the economy in this way. Octavian founded several colonies for veterans after his victory at Actium (Kienast 1999: 321-22).Josephus uses phrases similar to οἱ ἐπίλεκτοι ἱππεῖς (“the elite cavalrymen”) in War 3.470; 5.52, 258; 6.246; Ant. 9.114; cf. War 3.120. The formulation may imply that Herod commanded these elite riders, which would fit in with the king’s interest in horse races (see Ant. 15.271 with the note to “riding horses”). The verb συγκτίζω (“join in founding/colonizing,” LSJ s.v.) occurs once elsewhere in Josephus (War 1.422), referring to Herod’s building activities. The noun χωρίον (“place, area, etc.”) can also mean “fortified place” (Rengstorf s.v.), which would fit the context (with Kasher 1990: 208). Pastor (2003: 156 n. 19) notes that χωρίον denotes a royal estate here (the word also occurs in Ant. 15.297, referring to the specific geographical location of Samaria-Sebaste). Gaba (also called Hippeum) is the name of a colony of cavalrymen founded by Herod. It probably existed already as a settlement before Herod’s colonization. Jdt 3:10 likely mentions the place, although the Greek spelling in Jdt (Γαιβαί) differs from that in Josephus (Γάβα). Gaba is located at the western end of the Esdraelon Valley, a strategic point. War 3.36 situates the city adjacent to Mount Carmel (further references: War 2.459; 3.36; Life 115, 117-118, and possibly War 1.166; Ant. 14.88; see Möller and Schmitt 1976: 53-54; Schürer-Vermes 2.164-65; Schalit 2001: 365). Mazar (1952-53) identifies Gaba with el-Harithiyye, on the eastern slope of Mount Carmel; Linn (1988) identifies it with Tell Sush, to the west of Tell Megiddo (see also Marcus-Wikgren 140-41; Schalit 1968: 29; Kasher 1990: 208; Shatzman 1991: 85-86; Netzer 2006: 224).All settlements mentioned in this paragraph are part of Herod’s royal land (Pastor 2003: 155-56). The preposition ἐπί (“for”) followed by the dative τῇ Γαλιλαίᾳ indicates the purpose of Herod’s action (LSJ s.v. ἐπί B III.2): Gaba was founded as a military colony in order to control Galilee (Schürer-Vermes 2.164 n. 417; Shatzman 1991: 181). The τε after ἐπί in the Greek MSS should be omitted (Niese 384); otherwise the passage refers to 3 instead of 2 military colonies. The first colony would remain unspecified if τε is included in the text, while Gaba matches the location of the first colony, i.e., in the Great Plain (see the note to “Gaba” above).Galilee (Γαλιλαία) is mentioned frequently in Josephus. Its location is described in War 3.35 (further references in Möller and Schmitt 1976: 64-65). In Josephus Perea (Περαία) refers to the Jewish territory east of the Jordan River. War 3.46 describes its location: its boundaries are marked by Pella in the north, Machaerus in the south, Philadelphia in the east, and the Jordan in the west (references in Möller and Schmitt 1976: 154-55). The formulation is elliptical. It could simply imply that Herod rebuilt the area that was called Esebonitis (i.e., the area around the city of Heshbon-Esbun, north-east of the Dead Sea, War 2.458; 3.47; Ant. 12.233; Schalit 1968: 46; Möller and Schmitt 1976: 89; Schürer-Vermes 2.165-66; Netzer 2006: 227), but the context implies that Herod established a military colony at Esebonitis (Shatzman 1991: 181-82). Otto (1913: 79-80, 90) argues that Herod founded the settlement at Esebonitis in order to connect the territories east of the Jordan more closely to his kingdom. The city of Heshbon (currently Tell Hesban) existed already in biblical times and was known as a Moabite town in the Hasmonean period; Alexander Janneus conquered it (Ant. 13.397).

The verb ἐπεξευρίσκω (“devise additionally,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. This motivation connects with Josephus’ introduction of the current section (see Ant. 15.291 with the note to “Therefore”) through the repetition of the key word ἀσφάλεια (“security,” which also occurs in 15.291, 296, 298). Cf. a similar phrase about one of Pompey’s commanders in War 1.144: διαλαβὼν φρουραῖς τὴν πόλιν (“posting guards throughout the city,” trans. Rengstorf s.v. διαλαμβάνω). The translation follows Niese’s text ἀπ’ ἐξουσίας (“out of control”; for other meanings, see Ant. 15.321 with the note to “using his authority”). The reading ἐπ’ ἐξουσίας (“having the license/authority”) of MSS LAMW (Niese 385) occurs elsewhere in Josephus (War 4.222; Ant. 10.103) but does not fit the context here and can easily have derived from a scribal error. For similar cases in which the MSS transmit both the readings ἀπ’ ἐξουσίας and ἐπ’ ἐξουσίας, see Ant. 15.43, 260. Ant. 15.295 implies not only that Herod’s Jewish subjects opposed the king but also that they had an inclination to start a rebellion even if there was only a small reason for discontent (see the next sentence with notes).For ταραχή (“disorder, unrest”) in connection with the possibility of a rebellion by the Jewish people, see 15.30 with the note to “disorder” and the next note.MSS PFV read προπίπτειν (“fall/plunge into”), while MSS LAMW have προσπίπτειν (“fall upon,” Niese 385). The second reading matches the context less and does not fit in with the preposition εἰς (“in[to]”), whereas the first reading does (see Ant. 5.292; 6.63, 116). The second reading may derive from a scribal error, adding a -σ- after προ-. Both verbs are common in Josephus and could easily have been exchanged (see War 2.37; Ant. 6.63; 15.47). Josephus’ suggestion that the Jewish population of Herod’s kingdom was very much inclined to rebellion is absurd in the opinion of Morton Smith (1999: 229). The question is whether this stereotypical view reflects the ideas of Herod, Josephus, or both. Rebellion is an important motif in the Herod narrative of Antiquities (e.g., 15.8, 30, 165-166, 247-266, 291; cf. also 15.366), which report highlights the rebellious nature of the Jewish people several times (further discussion of this motif in van Henten 2011d). The verb παρακινέω (“alter, create disorder”) can also mean “act rebelliously” (Rengstorf s.v.). Josephus does not specify the persons, but the context presupposes former elite cavalrymen (Ant. 15.294) and former soldiers (15.296). This note connects with Josephus’ remark in Ant. 15.291 and suggests once again that Herod’s measures described in 15.292-298 aimed to control the Jewish population from every side, although there is also a remarkable difference between both passages: Ant. 15.291 states that Herod’s measures should prevent that a revolt would become manifest outside of the kingdom, while Ant. 15.295 suggests that Herod had settled veterans and soldiers at so many places that any initiative to revolt would easily be noticed (cf. 15.285 with the note to “inquire into such matters” concerning Herod’s ‘secret service’) and suppressed. Both passages do not necessarily contradict each other: they may represent different aspects of Herod’s rule as a friendly king who had to satisfy his Roman patrons.

The fortification of Samaria has already been mentioned in Ant. 15.292-293. The infinitive τειχίζειν (“fortify”) echoes the noun ἐπιτείχισμα (“stronghold”) of 15.292. Herod’s policy in Samaria seems to have been similar to his in Gaba and Esebonitis (Ant. 15.294), where the king settled former cavalrymen. His veteran soldiers are not specified and may be infantrymen this time (distinctions between cavalry and infantry were common, e.g., 14.431 about Herod’s army), although there is no evidence for this assumption. War 1.403 offers the number of the settlers but does not differentiate between soldiers and non-soldiers: “… (he) brought 6,000 colonists (οἰκήτορας) into” the city (trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a). Herod apparently settled a new, mixed population at Samaria-Sebaste, existing of veteran soldiers and non-Jewish volunteers from the city’s neighborhood. Schalit (2001: 176-80) argues on the basis of an inscription from Magnesia on the Sipylus (OGIS no. 229, dated to ca. 244 BCE) that the population of Samaria-Sebaste consisted of 3 categories: veterans, people from the neighborhood, and former inhabitants of Samaria. An alternative translation would be “(he arranged …) to settle.” The verb συμπολίζω can mean “settle” or “take part in reconstruction work” (plausibly including the settlement of the builders; Rengstorf s.v.; cf. LSJ s.v. 3). Levine (1975: 227 n. 4) argues that Herod also maintained close relations with the Samaritans in order to find support against the opposition of many of his Jewish subjects. Concerning Herod’s φιλοτιμία (“love of glory, ambition, munificence”), see Ant. 15.271 with the note to “his ambition” and cf. the introduction in War 1.403 to the report about Samaria-Sebaste: “… his generosity (τὸ φιλότιμον) extended to the establishment of entire cities” (trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a). The translation follows Niese’s reading νέον (“something new”), attested by MSS PFV (Niese 385). Although this may be the best reading according to text-critical criteria, several scholars prefer a different reading on account of the content. Niese minor (308; see also Marcus-Wikgren 140) conjectures νέαν, which results in a slightly different translation: “(to erect the place) as a new city.” MSS LAMW (supported by the Latin version) read νεών (“[to erect] a temple”), which reading is preferred by Schalit (2001: 175 n. 97) and might be supported by Ant. 15.298 and the parallel passage of War (1.403), which both refer to the construction of a temple.The meaning “erect (a wall or building)” for ἐγείρω is quite common in Josephus (e.g., War 1.99; 3.174; 4.56; Ant. 8.96; 13.57; 20.191, 228), especially in the Herod narrative of Antiquities (15.298, 318, 328, 363, 380, 416; 16.19). With Niese minor (308), who reads δι’ αὑτοῦ. Niese (385) reads δι’ αὐτοῦ (“by him”). This passage suggests that Herod turned Samaria-Sebaste into a magnificent city, which topic is elaborated in the next paragraphs. The vocabulary (τὸ φιλότιμον ἐπετηδεύετο) is very similar to a previous phrase a few lines earlier (ἐπετήδευεν, ὑπό τε φιλοτιμίας; see the note to “He realized his ambitious plan” above, also War 1.403). This note connects with Ant. 15.291, 295, also via the repetition of the noun ἀσφάλεια (“security”; see 15.295 with the note to “enhance security”). The compound verb ὑπαλλάττω (“change,” Rengstorf s.v.) occurs 3 times in Josephus and always in the Herod narrative of Antiquities (15.47, 193, 296; Ant. 15.193 similarly refers to a change of name). This phrase (Σεβαστὴν καλῶν) partly repeats “which he called Sebaste” (καλέσας αὐτὴν Σεβαστήν) of Ant. 15.292 (see the note there and cf. War 1.403: τὸ ἄστυ Σεβαστήν καλέσας “he named the city Sebaste,” trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a). War 1.403 also refers to the quality of the agricultural land near Samaria-Sebaste: “… (he) allotted them very fertile land (γῆν … λιπαρωτάτην)” (trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a). The combination of χώρα and ἀρίστη also occurs in Ant. 16.142, concerning the city of Antipatris, which was also founded by Herod: “… he erected another city in the plain [i.e., the Plain of Sharon] that is called Kafarsaba. He selected a well-watered place and land excellent for plants (χώραν ἀρίστην)” (my trans.). The allotment of pieces of land to colonists matches the practice of founding colonies for veterans (see Ant. 15.294 with the note to “elite cavalrymen”) and confirms that Herod refounded Samaria-Sebaste as a colony of veterans.The verb καταμερίζω (“distribute”) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. The noun οἰκήτωρ (“inhabitant, settler, colonist”) occurs in the parallel passage of War (1.403). The connection with the previous phrase is obvious: the fertile land around Samaria-Sebaste was a sound basis for a stabile life of the new inhabitants. The phrase ἐν εὐδαιμονίᾳ οἰκεῖν (“live happily”) may be inspired by a passage in Plato’s Gorgias referring to the blissful posthumous life at the Island of the Blessed (Gorg. 523b; cf. Plutarch, Mor. [Cons. Apoll.] 120f). The parallel passage of War (1.403) lacks this note but mentions another detail: Herod granted to the inhabitants of Samaria-Sebaste an especially privileged constitution (ἐξαίρετον … εὐνομίαν), which, like the constitutions of Gaba and Esebonitis, was that of a Greek city with the usual privileges (Otto 1913: 116; Levine 1975: 17).

Only at this stage, after Samaria-Sebaste has already been mentioned several times, a more detailed description of the rebuilt city commences (cf. the shorter and much more straightforward narrative of War 1.403).In War 1.403 Josephus also mentions that Samaria-Sebaste was a walled city: “… he [i.e., Herod] fortified a city with a magnificent wall (καλλίστῳ περιβόλῳ τειχισάμενος, trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a; cf. Ant. 15.297 τείχει … περιέβαλε).” Archaeologists have found sections of this wall and remains of several towers (Schalit 2001: 358-59; Netzer 2006: 84-85). On the west side—not necessarily on all sides—the wall was ca. 3.2 m thick (Netzer 2006: 84). Samaria-Sebaste was built on a high hill and had been a fortified place since the period of the Israelite kings. The Hasmonean king John Hyrcanus destroyed the city in 108 BCE, but Gabinius, a Roman governor of Syria, rebuilt it in 55 BCE.The noun ἐρυμνότης (“fortification, security,” Rengstorf s.v.) occurs once elsewhere in Josephus, in the next paragraph. I.e., Samaria. The expression μηδὲν ἀποδεῖν plus a genitive construction (“fall short of … in any way”) also occurs in War 7.297; Ant. 12.75 (cf. ὀλίγον ἀποδεῖν in War 3.95; 4.115 and οὐδὲν ἀποδεῖν in War 5.156; Life 246; see also Plutarch, Alex. 60.12; Galen, Usu part. [ed. Kühn 4.70]). For the phrase ἐλλογιμώταται πόλεις (“the most renowned cities”), see Isocrates, Pac. 68; Strabo 13.1.49 (cf. 13.1.26). The adjective ἐλλόγιμος (“renowned, famous,” Rengstorf s.v.) occurs once elsewhere in Josephus, in the next paragraph. War 1.403 mentions the same length for Samaria-Sebaste’s city wall. Since a stadium (στάδιον) equals ca. 185 m (see Ant. 15.168 with the note to stadia), 20 stadia equal ca. 3.7 km, which length matches the archaeological findings of the wall (Netzer 2006: 84).

War 1.403 likewise indicates that the precinct with the temple building was situated at the center of the city (cf. ἐν μέσῳ with κατὰ μέσην here). War 1.403 similarly reads “In the middle of this settlement he erected an enormous temple (νάον … μέγιστον) with an enclosed sacred area around it (περὶ αὐτὸν τέμενος), which measured one and a half stadia (τρίων ἡμισταδίων). He dedicated the temple to Caesar (ἀποδειξας τῷ Καίσαρι)” (trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a). The temple’s consecration to Augustus is not mentioned explicitly in Antiquities, but Josephus seems to hint at it in the elliptical phrase τέμενος ἀνῆκεν (“he consecrated a precinct”). Thucydides (4.116) uses the same phrase for Brasidas’ dedication of a former fortification in Lecythus to the deity Athena (cf. Pausanias 2.27.4: ἀνῆκε τῇ ’Αρτέμιδι τέμενος “he … devoted a precinct to Artemis,” trans. Jones). The noun τέμενος (“precinct, temple area”) is the usual word for the area of a sanctuary, in contradistinction to the temple proper (here called νάος; see Ant. 15.380 with the note to “God’s sanctuary”). The same longitudinal measurement (ἡμιστάδιον) is mentioned in the parallel passage of War (1.403; cf. 2.304). A half-stadium equals ca. 96 m. The variant readings ἥμισυ σταδίων of MSS FLAMW and unius et semis stadii of the Latin version (Niese 385) result in the same measure, 1.5 stadia (= ca. 273 m). Herod’s temple in honor of Augustus (Josephus does not mention that it was a temple for Augustus; Bernett 2007a: 72) at Samaria-Sebaste has been partly excavated. It was an impressive building with a forecourt, standing on a high platform on a hill, which was visible from afar (Hänlein-Schäfer 1985: 34-35; Barag 1993; Schalit 2001: 359-61; Netzer 2006: 82-83, 86-90). It dominated the buildings in the center of the city; it was by far the highest building of the acropolis. The platform was partly raised through substructures and fills. The forecourt was surrounded by double colonnades. The entire complex had a length of ca. 128 m (measured from the supporting wall in the north to the backside of the temple in the south) and a width of ca. 72 m. Both the forecourt and the temple were orientated to the north. The temple was ca. 4.5 m higher than the forecourt and measured ca. 35 x 24 m (for detailed descriptions of the forecourt, temple, and surrounding buildings, see Netzer 2006: 85-91; Bernett 2007a: 68; 72-86). Among the 15 Augustus temples of which the measures are known the temple at Samaria-Sebaste is the fourth largest building (Bernett 2007a: 78). The size of the building was impressive (see the previous note). The type of the columns is unclear, and remains of the decorations are missing. The stadium in Samaria-Sebaste probably had Doric columns, and the inner faces of the colonnade’s rear walls were likely decorated with frescoes (Netzer 2006: 92).In War 1.414 Josephus uses similar vocabulary for Augustus’ temple at Caesarea Maritima: “On a mound right opposite the mouth [of the harbor] was Caesar’s temple, remarkable for its beauty and size (κάλλει καὶ μεγέθει διάφορος)” (trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a). Phrases like μεγέθει καὶ κάλλει occur frequently in Josephus (War 1.147; 5.161; 7.118, 175; Ant. 2.224; 3.166; 4.98; 6.130; 8.176; cf. Ant. 5.279; 6.137; 7.238; 8.125, 168; 13.211; 15.25, 51; 16.19; 19.335). The superlative ἐλλογιμώτατος (“most renowned”) also occurs in 15.297 referring to the city of Samaria-Sebaste in comparison to other cities. Archaeological finds indicate that there was a second temple in Samaria-Sebaste (dedicated to Kore and possibly the Dioscuri), a colonnaded road, a forum, a basilica, a theater, and a stadium. These buildings have been renovated and it is not certain that all of them were created by Herod; most of these buildings probably date from a later period (cf. Schalit 2001: 358-65; Netzer 2006: 83, 92-93; Bernett 2007a: 84-98). Once again Josephus emphasizes Herod’s concern for security as being the main motive for turning Samaria-Sebaste into a stronghold (note the repetition of the key word ἀσφάλεια [“security”] in Ant. 15.291, 295-296, 298). The noun φρούριον (“fortress”) also occurs in Ant. 15.292, referring to the Antonia, and in 15.293, referring to Caesarea Maritima. This note echoes previous words concerning Herod’s fortification of Samaria-Sebaste: ἐρυμνότης (“fortification”) occurs in Ant. 15.297 (see the note to “fortification”); περίβολοι (“[surrounding] walls”) echoes περιέβαλε (“he surrounded [the city]”) of 15.297, and the singular of this noun occurs in the parallel passage of War (1.403). In his concluding remarks Josephus suddenly adds a second motivation for Herod’s rebuilding of Samaria-Sebaste: Herod’s love of beauty and his ambition to be remembered on account of his splendid buildings (the structure of the sentence clearly distinguishes 2 motives: τὸ μὲν ἀναγκαῖον τῆς ἀσφαλείας ὁρῶν … τὸ δ’ εὐπρεπὲς “looking after the necessity of his security …. He also made it look good”). In the previous narrative there is just one hint at the second motive: the noun φιλοτιμία (“love of glory, ambition”; see Ant. 15.296 with the note to “his ambitious plan,” also 15.330 and the next note). For a more elaborate passage with this motive, see Ant. 15.328-330, and for a similar phrase concerning Herod seeking posthumous fame, 15.330: “leaving behind … monuments of his reign (τὰ μνημεῖα τῆς ἀρχῆς τοῖς αὖθις ὑπολιπέσθαι).” Cf. 5.183 concerning Nehemia leaving the city walls of Jerusalem behind as his eternal monument (μνημεῖον αἰώνιον αὑτῷ καταλιπών) and 12.424 concerning Judas the Maccabee leaving behind a non-material monument, the liberation of his nation: “… he left behind him the greatest and most glorious of memorials (μέγιστον αὐτοῦ κλέος καὶ μνημεῖον κατέλιπεν)—to have freed his nation and rescued them from slavery to the Macedonians” (trans. Marcus). Josephus’ phrase μνημεῖον ἀπολείπω (“leave behind a memorial”) also occurs in Diodorus 1.19.7; 2.13.5; Philo, Mos. 1.4; QG 4.191a; Spec. 4.169; Josephus, War 7.376 (about the ruins of Jerusalem as a memorial to those killed). Other passages in Josephus highlight Herod’s benevolence (φιλανθρωπία) towards cities (especially outside his kingdom) that needed support in building (War 1.422-425; Ant. 15.328-330; 16.18-19, 146-149). There is no further reference in Josephus to Herod’s love of beauty (φιλοκαλέω), but the descriptions of several building activities in the present context (e.g. Samaria-Sebaste, Ant. 15.296-298; Herodium, 15.323-325; Caesarea Maritima, 15.331-341) support the remark. The archaeological remains testify to Herod’s ambition to create beautiful constructions, e.g., at Masada, Herodium, and Caesarea Maritima (Otto 1913: 81-82; Netzer 2006: 300-06).

The formula “this year” makes Schürer (1901-09: 3.366) and Schürer-Vermes (1.290-91) date the refoundation of Samaria-Sebaste to Herod’s 13th regnal year (mentioned in the next phrase), which is converted into 25 BCE (further references in Ant. 15.292 with the note to “Sebaste”). However, one should not presuppose a close connection between Josephus previous remarks about Samaria-Sebaste and this dating formula since Josephus is clustering related information (concerning fortresses) that dates from various periods (see 15.292 with the note to “Therefore”). Otto (1913: 76-77) argues that the formula derives from Nicolaus of Damascus, who may have been Josephus’ source for 15.299, and that it cannot be used as a clue for the date of the refounding of Samaria-Sebaste. The conversion of Herod’s 13th regnal year results in the year Nisan 25-Nisan 24 BCE if Nisan (March/April) 37 BCE is taken as the starting point of the calculation (Otto 1913: 67; Schürer-Vermes 1.290-91 with n. 9; Applebaum 1976: 664; Smith 1999: 228). If the regnal years are counted starting from Herod’s appointment as king by the Romans in 40 BCE, the year is 28/27 BCE (further discussion in Mahieu 2012: 140-42). Richardson (1996: 222-23 with nn. 17, 19) favors the year 28/27 BCE as the date for the famine described in this section and argues that the preceding year 29/28 BCE had been a Sabbatical year, during which the fields were left fallow. He realizes that the reference to Petronius in Ant. 15.307 constitutes a problem for this date since Petronius probably became prefect of Egypt only in 25/24 BCE (see the note to “from Caesar”). Obviously this problem does not exist if one accepts the later date of 25/24 BCE. This phrase introduces the disasters described in Ant. 15.299-316: a period of severe drought caused illnesses and famine among the population (15.299-304; see also the description of the hunger in Jerusalem during the First Jewish-Roman War [War 5.512-518] and Schürer-Vermes 1.457 n. 8; Hamel 1990: 44-52 concerning famines during the 1st cent. CE). Herod’s measures to counter this crisis are described in rather positive terms (Ant. 15.305-316). Richardson (1996: 223 n. 22) argues that this positive portrayal of Herod derives from Nicolaus of Damascus. Josephus implies that there was a close connection between Herod’s transgression of the Jewish laws in organizing a festival in Octavian’s honor in Jerusalem (Ant. 15.267-291) and God’s punishment of the Jewish people with a drought (see the continuation of the narrative). About the motif of God’s wrath and the formula κατὰ μῆνιν τοῦ θεοῦ in Antiquities, see 15.243 with the note to “in connection to God’s wrath.” Ant. 15.243 associates a pestilence among the population with Herod’s execution of Mariamme and God’s wrath (see also 15.375-376; 16.188; 17.150-151, 155). Droughts as a divine punishment also occur in 7.294-297; 8.319-324; 18.285. The verb μηνίω (“be angry”) with God as subject also occurs in 8.112 and Sib. Or. 4.51; Diodorus 4.34.2; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 3.35.2; Plutarch, Mor. (Amat. narr.) 775e. Josephus presents 2 alternative interpretations for the disasters. The first one matches his own opinion (see the preceding note). Yet the alternative interpretation may ultimately also imply a divine interference since nature was supposed to be orchestrated by a higher cause: Philo (Her. 97) refers to the Babylonian astronomers thinking that the world is divine and that good and evil are dependent on the divinely determined orbit of the stars. The philosopher-emperor Marcus Aurelius (5.32) speaks of “the reason that informs all Substance, and governs the Whole from ordered cycle to cycle (κατὰ περιόδους τεταγμένας) through all eternity” (trans. Haines).

Rain usually falls in Palestine during winter and spring, although sometimes there is little or no rain during the wet season, as the story about Honi the Circle-Drawer implies: people asked Honi to pray for rain since no rain had fallen so far, and Honi drew a circle and said to God that he would not step out of it until it would start raining (m. Ta‘an. 3:8; b. Ta‘an. 23a; cf. Ant. 14.22; further references in Hamel 1990: 45-46).The severe drought presupposes that the rainfall was poor during the winter of 25/24 BCE (or 28/27 BCE; see Ant. 15.299 with the note to “the thirteenth year of Herod’s rule”). Josephus’ rendering of Solomon’s prayer at the inauguration of the Temple in Jerusalem (1 Kgs 8; 2 Chr 6) includes a passage (Ant. 8.115) that connects the land’s barrenness with Israel’s sins and divine punishment. The noun γῆ (“land”) also occurs together with the adjective ἄκαρπος (“barren”) in War 5.383, a passage which concerns Egypt in relation to the Ten Plagues (Exod 10:1-20; cf. also Diodorus 3.59.7; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 6.17.3; Pseudo-Apollodorus 3.35). The MSS and E show many minor differences. The present translation follows the reading καθ’ αὑτὴν εἴωθεν ἀναβλαστάνειν φέρουσα of MS W as well as MSS LAM and E with minor variations. Niese (386) conjectures ἀνεβλάστανεν (“[the barren land] … brought forth …”) instead of ἀναβλαστάνειν and assumes that there is a lacuna before this verb. A lack of cereals (σιτία) is the obvious result of a severe drought and causes shortages of bread and porridge, the staple foods for most of the population. Moreover, a drought implies that there are no fresh vegetables and fruits either (Hamel 1990: 46-47), such that vitamins are lacking. Galen (Reb. suc. 1.1-3 [ed. Kühn 6.749-51]) describes the consumption of indigestible plants because of famine. Drought often leads to a culmination of calamities, including the deaths of animals and the lack of support for poor people.The noun δίαιτα (“[way of] life,” Rengstorf s.v.) also has the meaning “diet” in Ant. 15.246 (concerning Herod’s illness) and in 16.13. A lack (ἔνδεια) of cereals (σῖτος, σιτία) resulting in hunger is also mentioned in War 5.427; 6.419. Illnesses are the obvious result of hunger and a limited diet (Hamel 1990: 52-54). Famine studies reveal that the number of infectious diseases increases when a famine is worsening (Pastor 2007: 342 with references).Josephus distinguishes bodily from mental illnesses. E.g., when he describes Catullus’ death as a divine punishment (War 7.451-453), he notes that Catullus’ mental illness (delusions) was more severe than his bodily illness (ἀλλ’ ἦν ἡ τῆς ψυχῆς αὐτῷ νόσος βαρυτέρα, 7.451; see also Ant. 15.251 with the note to “suffering mentally and bodily” and 17.238). The phrase πάθος λοιμικόν (“calamity/illness of the plague”) is a fixed expression (Hippocrates, Ep. 2; Erotianus, Fragm. 33 [ed. Nachmanson 108]; Strabo 14.1.6; 17.1.7; Plutarch, Mor. [Is. Os.] 383c; [Def. orac.] 419f; [Quaest. conv.] 662e). This passage introduces Josephus’ detailed description of a catastrophic period (starting in the next paragraph, with τό τε γάρ).The adverb διηνεκῶς (“continuously”) echoes the adjective διηνεκεῖς of the first sentence of this paragraph. The verb ἀντεφοδιάζομαι (“be meted out one after another [?],” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. LSJ (s.v.) offer the meaning “be furnished instead of provisions” and indicates that Josephus uses the verb metaphorically here.

The noun θεραπεία probably means “(medical) care” here, as in several other Josephan passages (e.g., Ant. 6.166; 14.368; 19.134, 157). The phrase (ἡ) λοιμώδης νόσος (“[the] pestilential disease”) also occurs in Ant. 15.243 and may allude to Thucydides 1.23 (see Ant. 15.243 with the note to “a contagious illness broke out”). Josephus clarifies this phrase in the next sub-clause: the survivors obviously felt down-hearted because they were unable to help the afflicted (cf. by way of contrast Ant. 15.246, concerning Herod’s illness). The translation follows the meaning “medical treatment” of ἐπιμέλεια given by LSJ (s.v. 1). The word can also have a more general meaning (e.g., “effort, concern,” Rengstorf s.v.), in which case the phrase should be translated “by care” or “with treatment.”

Due to the severe drought (Ant. 15.300) there were no crops that year (cf. Diodorus 4.61.1). Droughts were a familiar phenomenon in Herod’s kingdom, and the farmers built up stocks in order to assure survival in a year with a bad harvest (Hamel 1990: 46-47; Pastor 2007: 342). The phrase ἐλπὶς χρηστή (“hope for a turn for the better,” Rengstorf s.v. χρηστός) is a fixed expression (Dionysius, Ant. rom. 5.6.3; 5.34.2; Philo, Cher. 106; Josephus, Ant. 7.234; 8.419; 18.284; Plutarch, Arist. 15.4; Tim. 12.1; Cassius Dio 12.49.1; 41.15.2; Herodian 1.7.1; 2.14.3).For other combinations of ὑπολείπω in the passive voice with ἐλπὶς χρηστή, see Philo, Ebr. 25; Didymus the Blind, Fragm. Ps. Ps. 76:6 794a12 (ed. Mühlenberg 121). Concerning the passive voice of ὑπολείπω combined with ἐλπίς, cf. War 1.616; Ant. 2.140. This phrase echoes previous words: ἐπιτείνω (“increase, grow worse”) of Ant. 15.301 and κακόν/κακά (“disaster[s]”) of 15.299-300. The noun ὑπόλοιπον (“remains”) echoes the imperfect ὑπελείπετο in a previous subclause within the same paragraph. The statement at the beginning of the paragraph is repeated in order to build up a climax (introduced by “such that not only … but also …”) highlighting the absence of sowing seed. This passage echoes previous expressions (cf. ἀπολωλέναι with ἀπολλυμένων and τῶν περιόντων with τοὺς περιόντας, both in 15.301—although the latter passage refers to persons). For the combination of ἀνίημι (“cause to sprout, let grow,” Rengstorf s.v.) with γῆ (“land”), see Ant. 3.183; 12.151. With Niese (386), who reads μηδὲ τὸ δεύτερον with MSS LAM. MSS PFVE read μηδέτερον (“neither of the two years”), which is probably a case of haplography.The drought apparently continued during the second winter, such that the seed was unable to sprout and was lost (or eaten). Richardson (1996: 222 with n. 17) argues that the description matches the extremely difficult situation in a year following a Sabbatical year (i.e., in the post-Sabbatical year 28/27 BCE), when the supplies of seed would be consumed. Pastor (2007: 342) calculates that droughts lasting 2 years occurred on average once every 25 years in Palestine. Successive bad harvests obviously also occurred in non-Jewish areas (Garnsey 1988: 23-24).

The “them” is added because of the context, though in fact it is Herod who is improvising during this difficult situation, as the continuation of the narrative indicates (Richardson 1996: 222). The repetition of the vocabulary underlines that both the king and the population were greatly affected by the drought (cf. τὰς ἀπορίας [“the difficulties”] with ταῖς ἀπορίαις in Ant. 15.301; see also the next note). Niese (386) reads ἀφῃρημένῳ (“he was deprived of [the revenues]”) with MSS PFVE but notes that the reading ἀφῃρημένων (“[the revenues …] were lost”) of MSS LAMW could be correct. The verb ἀφαιρέω (“remove, be deprived of”) in the passive voice also occurs in Ant. 15.301: “The death of those who kept perishing in this way also took away (ἀφῃρεῖτο) the morale of the survivors ….”Josephus nowhere provides details concerning Herod’s taxation of the agricultural production (the land tax, tributum soli; see also 15.365; Udoh 2005: 162-64). A major part of the king’s income must have been collected from the revenues of the agricultural sector (Udoh 2005: 163; Pastor 2007: 105-10; 2007: 343), although the amount that the landowners were to pay is unknown. We do know the amount for an earlier period: Ant. 14.202-210 concerns a decree issued by Julius Caesar in 47 BCE referring to a tax of one fourth of the crop in the second year (to be paid to the Romans), except in the Sabbatical years, but the interpretation of this passage is much debated (Mahieu 2012: 337-343). Whether Herod levied taxes on properties other than land estates is also unknown, but it is possible that he did (Udoh 2005: 164). Information about censuses conducted by Herod—in connection with the head tax—is likewise missing (Udoh 2005: 164-71). Herod also received income from his royal land: parts of it may have been leased to members of the elite for a fixed amount of money (see Ant. 16.250 and cf. 15.106), possibly for part of their harvests. Other income like customs probably also dropped dramatically because of the drought. For further discussions of taxes (including tolls, duties, and sales taxes) during Herod’s rule, see Schürer-Vermes 1.372-76; Stern 1974c: 331-32; Applebaum 1976: 661-62, 665; Schalit 2001: 262-98; Udoh 2005: 159-206 (who argues that Herod as a friendly king did not pay tribute to Rome, pp. 118-59; differently Mahieu 2012: 324-49, who argues that 25% of the civil tax revenue of the post-Sabbatical year—i.e., once in 7 years—was paid to Rome). The verb δαπανάω (“spend, consume”) also occurs in Ant. 15.302, in connection with the supplies that had been consumed. Apart from the section about the construction of Samaria-Sebaste (Ant. 15.292-293, 296-298), Antiquities so far did not deal concretely with Herod’s contributions to the renovation of (non-Jewish) cities. The note may anticipate 15.328 about such contributions. It is obvious that Herod’s many building activities made inroads on the treasury (Schalit 2001: 670). About the various meanings of φιλοτιμία (“love of glory, ambition, munificence”), see 15.271 with the note to “his ambition.”

Rengstorf (s.v.) suggests “direct (one’s hatred) at someone” as meaning of προκαταλαμβάνω here. That Herod’s subjects held the king responsible for the crisis, directly or indirectly, is evident (as the final statement of this paragraph suggests) and also matches Josephus’ opinion that the drought was a divine punishment for the king’s transgression of the Jewish laws (see Ant. 15.299 with the note to “because God cherished wrath”).The expression τοῦ κακοῦ (“the disaster”) further occurs in 15.299, 302 (cf. τῶν κακῶν in 15.300). The phrase οἱ ἀρχόμενοι refers to Herod’s subjects (likewise in 15.327; 16.4, 115, 151). Josephus seems to come out with a platitude about politicians and leaders (see also the next note), although there are no close parallels in classical literature. A few passages share the theme of a people’s inclination to blame its leaders, including one episode in Josephus: the Israelites complain against Moses several times during their journey through the desert (Ant. 3.1-38; cf. Exod 15:22-17:8), which compels Moses to approach God and act as the people’s intercessor (3.22-23). He asks God to forgive the people and tries to justify its behavior by referring to the distress and humans’ response to misfortune (3.23): “… inasmuch as the race of humanity who experience misfortune is by nature grumbling and fond of having reproaches at hand (φύσει δυσαρέστου καὶ φιλαιτίου τοῦ τῶν ἀνθρώπων … γένους)” (trans. Feldman in BJP 3). This and the present passage are the only instances in Josephus in which the rare adjective φιλαίτιος (“fond of bringing accusations,” LSJ s.v.) is found. In Aeschylus’ tragedy The Suppliant Women King Pelasgus of Argos states: “And let no random word fall against me; for the people is fain to complain against authority (κατ’ ἀρχῆς γὰρ φιλαίτιος λεώς)” (Suppl. 484-485, trans. Smyth). In his fourth speech against Philip of Macedonia, in a response to an unknown Aristomedes, Demosthenes points to the risk for politicians to be criticized: “Tell me, Aristomedes, why, when you know perfectly well—for no one is ignorant of such matters—that a private station is secure and free from risk, but the life of a politician is precarious (φιλαίτιον), open to attack, and full of trials and misfortunes every day, why do you not choose the quiet, sequestered life instead of the life of peril?” (Or. 10.70, trans. Vince; see also Plutarch, Mor. [Praec. ger. rei publ.] 813a). The plural οἱ προϊστάμενοι (“the leaders”) suggests that Josephus is making a general statement about a people’s response to its leaders (see also the preceding note).

This sentence introduces the report about Herod’s actions to counter the crisis caused by the drought (Ant. 15.305-316), which episode depicts Herod in rather positive terms (see 15.316 with the note to “in their need”). An alternative translation would be “coming to rescue in time” because καιρός can also indicate the right time (Rengstorf s.v.). The noun σιτία (“cereals, food”) also occurs in Ant. 15.300 (see the note to “cereals”). Neighboring people like the Nabateans and the Syrians were probably suffering from the same drought. This note connects with Ant. 15.303 (cf. the repetition of χρήματα [“money”]).

MSS PVF read ἀνελεῖν (“annul [anything],” LSJ s.v. ἀναιρέω A II.2) instead of μὴ ἀμελεῖν (“not to neglect [anything]”), attested by MSS LAMW and E (Niese 387). Both infinitives are quite similar. The first reading probably resulted from the second; the inverse direction would require the addition of μή. The MSS attest several readings, related to the previous text-critical issue: the reading ἀνελεῖν requires a noun in the accusative, which is attested by MSS PFV (πάντας), while Niese (387) reads μὴ ἀμελεῖν and conjectures πάντος because ἀμελεῖν requires a noun in the genitive (cf. πάντος ἀμελεῖν in Plato, Pol. 260e; Gregory of Nyssa, Sanct. pasch. [ed. Gebhardt 9.249]). MSS LAMW read πάντως (“[neglect] absolutely [anything]”). The verb συγκόπτω (“cut up,” Rengstorf s.v.) occurs once elsewhere in Josephus (Ant. 19.138). Herod’s first step is to provide silver and gold (ultimately money, Ant. 15.307) for the purchase of food. The phrase ἀργυρίου καὶ χρυσίου (“silver and gold”) probably modifies τὸν κόσμον (“the valuable things”), although it could also denote “silver and gold money” (Rengstorf s.v. ἀργύριον; cf. 9.62; 19.71 and see also Marcus-Wikgren 147, who translate “cut up into coinage all the ornaments of gold and silver”). Josephus’ repetitions imply that Herod made a great sacrifice in destroying items of diligent handicraft and beautiful artwork.

Egypt’s agriculture depends on the Nile River. Most of its water comes from Lake Tana in Ethiopia, far away from Palestine. The Egyptian food supplies were, therefore, probably less affected by the drought (Richardson 1996: 223; Pastor 2007: 343). The noun ἐπαρχία (“[Roman] province,” Rengstorf s.v.; Mason 1974: 45, 135-36) refers to the office of prefect of Egypt here. MSS PFVE read τὴν ἀρχήν (“the rule”) instead of τὴν ἐπαρχίαν (“the prefecture,” with MSS LAMW; Niese 387). The first reading is secondary since it is more probably that the technical term ἐπαρχίαν evolved into ἀρχήν than vice versa. The province of Egypt was founded by Octavian after his triumph over Mark Antony and Cleopatra VII in 30 BCE. It had a special status because of its importance as one of Rome’s granaries (Kienast 1999: 74). Its prefect belonged to the equestrian class and bore the official title praefectus Alexandreae et Aegypti (“prefect of Alexandria and Egypt”; Kienast 1999: 188-89). His most important task was the tax management in Egypt. He was also the highest legal authority and coordinated the grain export to Rome (Stein 1915: 79-119).Publius Petronius succeeded Aelius Gallus as prefect of Egypt in the second half of 25 BCE (Schürer-Vermes 1.290 n. 8) or in 24 BCE (Mahieu 2012: 142-45) and remained in office until 21 BCE (cf. Strabo 17.1.54; Bagnall 1985: 87, 89). Obviously other persons from the region were also seeking refuge in Egypt since this country was probably not, or far less, affected by the drought (see the note to “Egypt”). A similar scenario appears in Gen 42:1-5 (paraphrased in Ant. 2.95), when Jacob sends 10 of his sons to Egypt because he had heard that grain was available there; they arrived together with other people from Canaan. The expression διὰ τὰς αὐτὰς χρείας (“out of the same need”) recalls διὰ τὰς χρείας of Ant. 15.303, referring to Herod’s subjects. The vocabulary indicates that Petronius was a personal friend (ἰδίᾳ τε φίλος ὤν Ἡρώδῃ; cf. Ant. 16.327: οἱ ἴδιοι φίλοι “his [i.e., Antipater’s] personal friends”) of Herod, and Josephus seems to suggest that Petronius’ favoring of Herod resulted from his warm relationship with the king. Obviously, such a friendship did not exclude a business arrangement between these 2 persons (see the note to “its purchase and departure from the harbor” below). Josephus indicates that Herod’s “friendships” with Mark Antony and Augustus were also close (see, e.g., 15.77, 189-190, 194-197), but these concern client-patron relationships (see 15.5 with the note to “the friends around him”). The subject of this clause must be Petronius, whose relationship with Herod apparently made him give priority to Herod’s representatives, which was a notorious privilege because Egypt’s grain was supposed to be transported to Rome (Garnsey 1988: 255-57). The ships that transported grain from Alexandria to Italy weighed 340 tons, in the Hellenistic period ca. 150 tons. If the number of 80,000 kor (Ant. 15.314) equals ca. 28,000 tons (see the notes to 15.314), ca. 200 shiploads were brought to Herod’s kingdom. Such numbers support the conclusion by Udoh (2005: 204) that Herod’s measured up to a “national relief and economic recovery program.” The motivation for Petronius’ exceptional support may have been his close relationship with Herod, as Josephus indicates at the beginning of this paragraph, but the fact that the prefect supervised the purchase and export of the grain points to an additional reason: Herod’s money (see 15.306-307) may have gone partly or even completely into Petronius’ pocket. MSS LAMW add the words τὸν Ἡρώδη(ν) and imply in this way that Herod was mainly responsible for the aid. The noun βοήθεια (“help”) also occurs in Ant. 15.306, 313, 315 and echoes the infinitive βοηθεῖν of 15.305. Ant. 15.307 refers to Petronius, though, while 15.305, 306 refer to Herod.

The γάρ at the beginning of the Greek sentence (ὁ γὰρ Ἡρωδης “For Herod”) introduces an exemplification (as in Ant. 15.309; Denniston 1954: 58-68). This would have worked had Herod been the subject of the previous sentence (as several MSS might suggest; see the previous note), but Petronius functions as its subject, such that the γάρ is problematic and therefore better left untranslated. MSS PFV read προστιθείς (“adding”), which reading is followed by Niese (387). The verb προστίθημι has several meanings (LSJ s.v.; Rengstorf s.v.). The meaning “add” (LSJ s.v. III) fits the context well; it does not put Herod in a negative light. The reading προτιθείς (“setting before, presenting,” Rengstorf s.v. προτίθημι) of MSS LAMW probably results from the omission of the -σ- in προστιθείς. The verb ἀντιμεθίστημι (“change completely,” Rengstorf s.v.) occurs in Josephus only in the Herod narrative of Antiquities (see also 15.316; 16.264). Several preceding passages of Antiquities mention enemies of Herod, or persons thinking badly of him (e.g., 15.2, 5-6, 8, 71, 162-163, 252-266, 280-291). Concerning the phrase χαλεπῶς ἔχειν (“think badly of, be angry with”), see 15.202 with the note to “were angry.” Josephus focuses on Herod’s care for his subjects during the famine, which topic he elaborates in Ant. 15.309-310. The noun εὔνοια can mean, among other things, “(expression of) goodwill” and “love” (Rengstorf s.v.). The word is common in the Herod narrative of Antiquities but seldom used in connection with Herod’s goodwill towards his subjects (see 16.197 concerning Pheroras). An inscription from Athens (OGIS no. 414) refers to Herod’s εὔνοια: “The people to King Herod friend of Romans because of his good works and goodwill (εὐεργεσίας ἕνεκεν καὶ εὐνοίας) toward the city” (trans. Richardson 1996: 207; cf. OGIS no. 417, an inscription from Delos referring to Herod’s son Herod Antipas; Richardson 1996: 207, 209-10, 223). The noun προστασία can mean, among other things, “leadership” but also “care, protection” (Rengstorf s.v.); cf. the related noun προστάτης (“protector, leader”) in Ant. 15.159 (see the note to “patron of their people”).

Applebaum (1976: 664) suggests, building on Heichelheim, that Herod provided the grain as a repayable loan, which was a common procedure in ancient society. The noun σῖτος (“grain”) also occurs in Ant. 15.307. For phrases similar to τὰ περὶ τὰς τροφὰς ἐκπονεῖν (“to accomplish the preparation of the food”), cf. Aristotle, Hist. an. 588b, 612b. Herod apparently divided the population into 2 categories according to their fitness. Niese (387) reads ἔκταξιν with MSS PLAMW. The readings ἔκστασιν (“displacement, differentiation,” attested by MSS FV) and ἔκτασιν καὶ ἐξέτασιν (“extension and investigation,” a marginal reading of MS A) are scribal errors and clearly secondary. The noun ἔκταξις (“distribution,” LSJ s.v. III; Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. The noun σιτία (“cereals”) repeats Ant. 15.300, 305. The noun ἀρτοποιός (“baker,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. Herod apparently organized a kind of soup kitchen for the weak and needy, which is remarkable for a ruler (Hands 1968: 26-61, who emphasizes that benefactions generally implied that something was to be given in return; Hamel 1990: 219; see also Ant. 15.316 with the phrase “beyond expectation” and the note to “in their need”). The combination τροφὴν ἑτοίμην παρέχω (“provide ready-prepared food”) also occurs in Hecataeus, FGH 264 F 25.1; Diodorus 1.10.1 (cf. Aesop 4.3; Philo, Spec. 1.132; Josephus, Apion 2.230).

The noun ἐπιμέλεια means, among other things, “provision, care” (Rengstorf s.v.) and also occurs in Ant. 15.308, 315-316 in references to Herod’s care (cf. the same word with different meanings in 15.301, 306). The verb διαχειμάζω (“come through the winter,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. The verb συγκαταλαμβάνω (“comprise also,” Rengstorf s.v.) is also a hapax legomenon in Josephus. The vocabulary seems to imply that part of the cattle had died because of lack of food and diseases (owing to the drought) and that the rest had been slaughtered. In the ancient Mediterranean, farmers usually could hardly afford to feed their cattle well. Animals and humans were competing for food, which was a further reason for killing animals (Pastor 2007: 344). For a survey of domestic animals (sheep, goats, cattle, donkeys, horses, mules, and camels) in Palestine in the rabbinic period and their usual feed, see Krauss 1910-12: 1.111-20, 129-32. Warm clothing is important in Palestine during winter, especially in the hills and mountainous areas like Jerusalem and its neighborhood. Such clothes were prepared from wool and animal skins (cf. Elijah’s mantle made from goat skin, 1 Kgs 19:13, and John the Baptist’s mantle from camel’s hair, Mark 1:6; for a survey of cloths fabricated from wool, leather, and other animal materials, see Krauss 1910-12: 1.136-38 with notes).

Josephus does not specify the items, but the close connection with the previous paragraph implies that they concern winter clothes. Herod may have provided wearable clothing and/or raw materials to fabricate such. The lack of precision may indicate that this aspect of Herod’s help was added by Josephus (or his source) to embellish Herod’s positive portrayal. The need for clothing was likely far less urgent than that for food because clothes last for many years. “The cities nearby” (αἱ πλησίον πολεῖς) may be the cities of the Decapolis (the “Ten Cities”; further references in Richardson 1996: 88-91), which are situated east of the Jordan (except for Scythopolis), southeast of the Sea of Galilee, directly bordering Herod’s kingdom (see also Ant. 15.111-112, 148 with notes). The expression does not denote a fixed group of cities in Josephus since in War 2.598 the same phrase refers to other cities. The subsequent reference to Syria favors a reference to the Decapolis. Most MSS read διδούς (“giving”), but Niese (388) reads διαδούς (“distributing, giving,” Rengstorf s.v.) with MS P, which is presumably the original reading since the -α- in διαδούς was more probably left out than added. “Syria” likely refers to the region thus called and not to the Roman province of Syria. The region lies roughly north of Herod’s kingdom and the Decapolis (see the note to “the cities nearby” above), except for the city of Damascus, which is part of Syria (further references in Ant. 15.88 with the note to “Syria”). Herod’s profit may imply that the distribution of seed was a transaction, such that the Syrians were to pay back Herod, either in natura or with money. In combination with the last part of the sentence Josephus’ remark could imply that the Syrians had a very generous harvest, which allowed them to feed everybody and pay back Herod. The noun χάρις can mean “good deed, favor” (see Ant. 15.16 with the note to “that his favor would be remembered” and Rengstorf s.v.). The verb εὐστοχέω further occurs in War 1.287; Ant. 5.273. LSJ (s.v.) give “(blessing) seasonably granted” as meaning here. Instead of εὐστοχηθείσης MSS PFV read εὐθὺς τε χυθείσης (“was shed immediately”), which must be a scribal mistake (it also destroys the word play and alliteration in the phrase εὐστοχηθείσης εἰς εὐφορίαν τῆς χάριτος). The reading ἀστοχηθείσης (“went wrong”) of E (Niese 388) does not fit the context and must also be secondary. Herod’s purchase was successful because the sowing resulted in a good harvest. The phrase τὰ περὶ τὰς τροφὰς further occurs in Ant. 15.309 (which passage also includes the phrase παρέχων ἑτοίμας τὰς τροφὰς [“providing them with the food ready-prepared”]) in connection with Herod’s arrangements for the Jews. The word context implies that “everybody” refers to the Syrians (see the note to “the people in Syria” above).

The translation is based on Niese’s reading ὑποφανέντος, attested by most MSS (Niese 388). Niese minor (310) reads “(when the harvest time …) was starting,” with MS W. There is no external evidence in support of this high number, but the analysis of Pastor (2007) leads to the conclusion that Josephus’ report of the famine and Herod’s aid is all in all plausible in the light of famine studies and common knowledge about the agricultural society of Palestine at the turn of our era. Niese (388) reads ἔθρεψε (“fed”) with MSS PF and E. Most MSS read ἔξεθρεψε(ν) (“brought up”), which does not fit the context and is probably a scribal error, possibly under biblical influence (cf. the phrase περιεποιήσατο καὶ ἔξεθρεψεν [“he [i.e., the poor man] brought it [i.e., the ewe lamb] up and it grew up with him”] in Nathan’s parable about the little ewe lamb, LXX 2 Sam 12:3). The sentence seems to imply that Herod sent out these men to help with the harvest, presumably because the local people had become very weak. This presupposes that Herod also had provided his own subjects with seed (as he had done for the people of Syria; see Ant. 15.311). The verb περιποιέω means “save, keep alive” here (Rengstorf s.v.). The phrase τὴν βασιλείαν ἀναλαμβάνω (“restore the kingdom”) also occurs in Plutarch, Ant. 3.4; Cassius Dio 40.9. For φιλοτιμία (“effort, munificence, etc.”), see Ant. 15.271 with the note to “ambition” (the noun also occurs in 15.296, 303). For phrases similar to ὑπὸ φιλοτιμίας καὶ σπουδῆς, cf. Polybius 31.12.9; Philo, Mos. 2.136; Josephus, Ant. 6.292; 7.380; 10.25; 12.83; 14.154; Plutarch, Aem. 10.2; Mor. (Stoic. rep.) 1036b; Cassius Dio 36.24.5. This phrase connects with the reference to the neighboring cities and the inhabitants of Syria (see Ant. 15.311 with the note to “the people in Syria”; at least those parts of Syria north and northeast of Herod’s kingdom). Other nearby regions were Nabatea (south and southeast of Judea) and Perea (east of the Jordan). The noun κακοπάθεια (“distress, need”; see Ant. 15.251 with the note to “under great pains”) echoes the participle κακωθεῖσαν (“ruined”) in the previous subclause.

The phrase ὑπὸ χρείας (“out of need”) further occurs in the Herod narrative of Antiquities in 15.262 (see the note to “all the need and suffering”) and 16.221 (cf. a related phrase in Ant. 1.287) Josephus formulates twice that everybody who had appealed to Herod for help was heard: first in a negative clause (“no one was left behind”) and subsequently in an enumeration of categories who received help (peoples, cities, and private citizens; see the next note). He does not differentiate between Jews and non-Jews here (cf. Ant. 15.311-312) and the next paragraph implies that he intends both.For the noun βοήθεια (“help”), see Ant. 15.307 with the note to “this help.” The prepositional phrase κατ’ ἀξίαν/κατὰ τὴν ἀξίαν (“properly, deservedly,” Rengstorf s.v. ἀξία) further occurs in the Herod narrative of Antiquities in 15.20; 16.54, 94, 212 (cf. War 1.511 concerning Herod and War 7.274; Ant. 12.210). Josephus mentions 3 categories of groups: peoples (δῆμος, i.e., the collective body of the citizens of a state as well as its assembly; LSJ s.v. III), cities (πόλις “[city-]state,” LSJ s.v. III), and private citizens (ἰδιώτης “private person, ordinary citizen,” Rengstorf s.v.; see also Ant. 15.2 with the note to “a commoner” as well as the next note). For a similar list, cf. Cassius Dio 71.27.3 according to the excerpts of Joannes Antiochenus (ed. Boissevain 3.761). The 3 categories mentioned (see the previous note) differ from the common people (οἱ πλείονες) because they are responsible for the people (the third category probably refers to rich private persons who acted as benefactors of their cities and/or peoples). The verb προΐσταμαι means “support, protect” here (LSJ s.v. προΐστημι B II.3; cf. Herod’s role as patron or protector [προστάτης] of the Nabateans, Ant. 15.159). The phrase ἐπ’ αὐτὸν καταφεύγω (“flee to him for refuge”) also occurs in Ant. 15.307, in a reference to Petronius.

The noun κόρος (“kor,” Rengstorf s.v.) is the transcription of the Hebrew dry measure kōr, which is used, among other things, for grain (1 Kgs 5:2, 25; Luke 16:7; KBL 2.472, and see the next note). The μέδιμνος is a Greek grain measure and exists in an Attic and a Sicilian version (Herodotus 1.192; Polybius 2.15.1; Josephus, Ant. 3.321; LSJ s.v.). The Attic medimnos equals a bushel and a half (i.e., 52.857 liters). Josephus’ equation of the kōr measure with 10 Attic medimnoi is probably incorrect; most scholars assume that the kōr equals ca. 7 Attic medimnoi (for a different equation, cf. Ant. 3.321; Marcus-Wikgren 150 n. a; Feldman in BJP 3 on Ant. 3.321). GELS (2.264) gives ca. 450 liters for the kōr measure, but other scholars propose 370 or 395 liters. LSJ (s.v.) state that the kōr roughly equals 120 gallons (see also Pastor 2007: 339 n. 17 with references). Interestingly, the people outside of Herod’s kingdom are mentioned first among those benefiting from Herod’s aid, although the amount of grain given to them is far less than that given to Herod’s subjects. These foreigners are referred to already in Ant. 15.311 (“the cities nearby” and “the people in Syria”), which may indicate that Josephus (or his source) was writing primarily for a non-Jewish audience (Mason 1998; van Henten and Huitink 2009). Applebaum (1976: 669) calculates that the 80,000 kōr equal 28,155.6 ton of grain.

The key word ἐπιμέλεια (“care”; see Ant. 15.310 with the note to “arranged”) introduces and resumes the 2 subsequent paragraphs that describe the impact of Herod’s aid on the inhabitants of Herod’s kingdom and on the foreigners: Josephus first deals with the king’s Jewish subjects (15.315) and then with the non-Jews (15.316). For the noun εὐκαιρία (“right moment, suitable time, opportunity”) in the Herod narrative of Antiquities, see 15.59 with the note to “an opportunity for revenge.” Various groups of non-Jews have been mentioned in the preceding episode: “the neighboring people” (Ant. 15.305), “the cities nearby … the people in Syria” (15.311), “the surrounding peoples” (15.312), “peoples, cities, as well as all the private persons” (15.313), and “(those) outside of his realm” (15.314). In the preceding Herod narrative Josephus has mentioned several times that the king was hated by a considerable part of his subjects (e.g., Ant. 15.8, 10, 71, 286; see the next note).For the phrase τὰ πάλαι μίση, cf. War 7.363, in which passage Josephus recalls “the old hatred” (τὸ παλαιὸν μῖσος) of the non-Jewish inhabitants of Caesarea Maritima towards their Jewish fellow citizens in order to explain the murder of Caesarea’s Jewish inhabitants by the non-Jewish crowd. A combination of a reference to the hatred of Herod by his subjects and an accusation that the king changed the Jewish practices occurs in the report about Herod’s festival in Octavian’s honor and its aftermath (the change of the Jewish customs [τὰ ἔθη] is described in Ant. 15.267-268, 274, 281, 286, 288, the hatred towards Herod in 15.286; see the note to “the hatred he well knew the masses had for him”). Here Josephus may hint at that episode. The hatred towards Herod mentioned in both instances may reflect Josephus’ own view rather than that of the majority of the Jewish population (see 15.267 with the note to “foreign habits”).The verb παραχαράττω (“alter”) also occurs in Ant. 5.306, concerning Samson (who changed, in the company of Delilah, the way of life he grew up with), and in 15.328 about Herod, who “was forced to depart from the Jewish customs and to change many of their practices (πολλὰ τῶν νομίμων παραχαράττειν)” because of his intention to please Octavian (the verb παραχαράττω also occurs in War 1.529, with the meaning “falsify,” Rengstorf s.v.). The transmitted Greek text is perhaps corrupt. With Niese (388) the present translation follows the text καὶ τῆς βασιλείας ἐξαιρεθῆναι καὶ τοῦ παντὸς ἔθνους, which is attested by MSS AM, but it should be noted that no further passage in Josephus combines τὰ ἔθη (“the customs”, mentioned just before the phrase) with ἡ βασιλεία (“the kingdom/rule”) in this way. The reading of MSS PFLVWE leaves out the second καί: “that the earlier hatred—aroused by the change of some of the customs of the kingdom—departed from the entire [Jewish] people.” This reading makes more sense, but it is the easier reading and therefore probably not original. The noun φιλοτιμία (“munificence”) is a further key word in the episode about the drought and the subsequent famine (see Ant. 15.303, 312, 315 [with notes], also referring to Herod; cf. 15.296, 298, 328). The noun βοήθεια (“help”) is also a key word in this episode (see Ant. 15.307 with the note to “help”). Josephus suggests that in the opinion of Herod’s subjects the king’s aid made up for his changes of the Jewish customs, but this is not very convincing in the light of the previous narrative. Persons like the conspirators against Herod (Ant. 15.280-288), who were willing to sacrifice their lives for maintaining the customs, no doubt remained very critical of Herod. The statement may reflect Josephus’ own voice and his mainly negative interpretation of Herod’s rule.The rare noun ἀντικατάλλαγμα (“compensation,” Rengstorf s.v.; in LSJ s.v. “satisfaction”) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus (cf. Onosander 35.4; Pseudo-Socrates, Ep. 6.10; Epiphanius, Haer. 64.59.1 [ed. Holl 2.494]).

Obviously Herod’s aid to the various groups of non-Jews (Ant. 15.311-314) greatly enhanced his reputation among them. The phrase οἱ ἔξωθεν (“the foreigners,” also War 1.359; 4.179) echoes ἔξω τῆς ἀρχῆς (“[those] outside of his realm”) of Ant. 15.314 (see the note to “outside of his realm”). For εὔκλεια (“good reputation, renown”) concerning Herod, cf. 16.184; 17.163. Concerning the phrase τὰ δυσχερῆ συμβαίνω (“the calamity … befell”), cf. Ant. 15.283 (with the note to “something bad” about δυσχερής) concerning the blind man and his fellow conspirators against Herod: “… he [i.e., the blind man] held himself ready to suffer if something bad happened to them (εἴ τι … συμβαίνοι δυσχερές),” and Euripides, Fragm. 963.3 (ed. Kannicht 963); Aristotle, Cael. 304a; Demosthenes, Or. 39.19; Plutarch, Mor. (Cons. Apoll.) 102f; (Def. orac.) 437b. Cf. Ant. 5.350 about God’s revelation to Samuel concerning the Philistine victory over Israel (1 Sam 3-4): “And God said: ‘since you are available, learn of the misfortune—beyond the words and belief of those involved—that will happen to the Israelites (μάνθανε συμφορὰν ’Ισραηλίταις ἐσομένην λόγου μείζονα) …” (trans. Begg in BJP 4). The phrase κακώσαντα τὴν βασιλείαν (“[the calamity had] devastated his kingdom”) links up with κακωθεῖσαν αὐτῷ τὴν βασιλείαν (“his ruined kingdom”) of Ant. 15.312 (cf. 8.303). Cf. Ant. 16.272, 396 about Herod’s reputation or fame (εὐδοξία). The first passage is neutral or even positive, like the current remark; the second is clearly negative and highlights the king’s hunger for glory: “(Herod …) who was insensible and excessive in his desire for the rule and every other fame” (my trans.). The participle ἐπιδειξάμενος (“showing himself”) echoes ἐπίδειξις (“demonstration”) of Ant. 15.308. The adjective μεγαλόψυχος (“generous, magnanimous”) also occurs in Ant. 15.201, concerning Herod’s extraordinarily generous support of Octavian. About μεγαλοψυχία (“generosity, magnanimity”) as an important characteristic of Herod, see 15.48 with the note to “enough magnanimity.” The noun ἀπορία (“difficulty, need”) is repeated several times in this section (Ant. 15.301, 303, 310, 313, 316). Alternative translation: “redefined his relationship with the masses.” Josephus apparently switches again to Herod’s Jewish subjects since the masses concerned are changing their opinion of Herod (cf. Ant. 15.308, 315). The rare verb ἀντιμεθίστημι (“change completely, transform”) also occurs in 15.308 (see the note to “completely changed”). Niese (389) reads (ἀντιμετέστησε) τοὺς πολλούς (“[overturned] the majority/masses”) with MS P and E, while the other MSS have τοὺς ὄχλους, which basically means the same. This subclause concludes the section of the drought and Herod’s aid with a rhetorical statement about Herod’s performance as king containing 2 parallel phrases introduced by οἷον (“like”). The prepositional phrase ἐξ ὑπαρχῆς (“in/from the beginning, anew”) occurs once elsewhere in Josephus (Ant. 15.196). Josephus speaks about Herod in an indirect way but clearly intends Herod’s previous behavior as king, which had been negatively perceived, as several previous passages suggest (e.g., Ant. 15.267-291).For the phrase ἡ πεῖρα τῶν πάλαι γεγενημένων (“the experience during the earlier events”), cf. the expression πείρᾳ τῶν ἤδη γεγενημένων (“through what has already happened”) in 15.193, which refers to Herod’s loyalty towards Mark Antony. About the key word ἐπιμέλεια (“care”), see Ant. 15.315 with the note to “he provided.” This positive conclusion concerning Herod’s intervention matches Josephus’ description of Herod’s aid to the Jews and non-Jews in Ant. 15.305-316. The exceptional scale of the king’s support stands out when compared to the responses of other rulers in similar situations of drought. Apion 2.60 brackets Cleopatra VII’s suicide with her refusal to give corn to the Alexandrian Jews during a famine in 43/42 BCE (cf. Seneca the Younger, Mal. bell. civ. = Anth. Lat. no. 462; Appian, Bell. civ. 4.108; Becher 1966: 65-66, 87, 116; Barclay in BJP 10 on Ap. 2.60). The Romans probably did not care much about Josephus’ reproach of her refusal, but it must have been sensitive to Jewish readers, who were familiar with the aid granted by the biblical hero Joseph. Joseph took care of his father and the families of his brothers in Egypt during 7 years of famine (Gen 41:53-47:27; Josephus, Ant. 2.93-193). He was for Josephus a prime model of a prudent statesman, also because of his self-control (σωφροσύνη), a ruler’s most important virtue (Niehoff 1992; Feldman 1992, and see Ant. 15.27 with the note to “sexual pleasures”). Another highly praised person on account of providing food to the Jews is Queen Helena of Adiabene. She bought grain in Alexandria—for a large sum—and dried figs in Cyprus to relieve the Jerusalemites’ need during a famine in 46/47 CE (Ant. 20.51-53, 101). Herod’s behavior can clearly be associated with the exceptional supports given by Joseph and Queen Helena, even though helping his needy citizens belonged to his duties as king. The noun χρεία (“need”) also occurs in 15.303, 307, 313 in connection with the crisis caused by the drought.

The section Ant. 15.317-325 is a cluster of brief reports about various events set in roughly the same period (15.317 the military support to Aelius Gallus; 15.318 the building of a new palace in Jerusalem; 15.319-322 the marriage with Mariamme II; and 15.323-325 the building of Herodium). The phrase “about that time” is one of Josephus’ formulas that indicate synchrony (related phrases in 7.117; 16.136; 20.15; see van Henten and Huitink 2007: 225-27). The formula links up with the introduction of the previous section about the drought: 15.299 “Now in this year, which was the thirteenth year of Herod’s rule …,” such that the date for the information given here seems to be the year Nisan 25/Nisan 24 BCE. However, external evidence concerning Aelius Gallus implies that the event likely preceded the drought (see 15.299 with the notes to “this year” and “the thirteenth year of Herod’s rule”). It is plausible that Herod actually sent this force of allied auxiliary troops (συμμαχικόν; cf. War 5.47) not to Octavian but to Aelius Gallus, who is mentioned later in this paragraph. Octavian is mentioned because of Herod’s being a friendly king of him (see Ant. 15.187-201, especially 15.193, 196, 199), which friendship implied military support in times of trouble (see 15.5 with the note to “gift to Antony”). This information is confirmed by Strabo 16.4.23, who mentions 500 Jews among the Roman allies. Herod’s bodyguard included the 400 Gauls who had been Cleopatra’s guards and given to Herod by Octavian (see Ant. 15.217 with notes; see also 16.314; 17.55). The Nabatean administrator Syllaeus (see 16.220 with the note to “Syllaeus”) led another auxiliary force of 1,000 Nabatean soldiers (Strabo 16.4.23). Herod himself probably did not participate in the campaign (Richardson 1996: 230). Concerning σωματοφύλαξ (“bodyguard”), see 16.314 with the note to “bodyguards”. Josephus inverts the name of this high Roman official. Aelius Gallus was prefect of Egypt in ca. 26-24 BCE and the predecessor of Petronius (attested in Ant. 15.307). He is mentioned several times by the famous historian Strabo of Amaseia, who was one of his friends (Strabo 2.5.12; 16.4.22; 17.1.46; 17.1.53-54; Kienast 1999: 311-12). MS P and E, supported by the Latin version, read ἐπί (“to”). In the light of what we know about Aelius Gallus’ campaign (see the next note), this probably implies a journey from Alexandria (in Egypt) to the western shore of the Red Sea. MSS FLAMVW read περί (“round about”), which implies that Aelius Gallus went all along the shore of the Red Sea to southern parts of the Arabian peninsula (see the next note). Josephus does not give the context of the military support given to Aelius Gallus, but we know from other sources that the prefect launched a campaign against the Sabeans in Arabia Felix (southern Arabia, roughly equivalent to the area of contemporary Yemen and Oman; about the campaign see Res gest. divi Aug. 26; Strabo 16.4.22-24; Pliny the Elder 6.160; Cassius Dio 53.29.3; Kienast 1999: 335-36 with further references). Aelius Gallus crossed the Red Sea with a fleet and went ashore at Leuce Come, a harbor city at the western coast of the Arabian Peninsula, from where he marched south. Augustus’ Res Gestae and Pliny indicate that the campaign was a success, but Strabo points out that it was a great failure. Pliny’s source may have been Juba (Juba II, ca. 50 BCE–23/24 CE, king of Numidia and Mauretania, and author of a natural history of Arabia), who was close to Augustus (Retsö 2003: 402-03 with footnotes). Strabo puts the blame for it on the Nabatean Syllaeus, who would have sabotaged the operation, which seems unlikely since Syllaeus would have been executed in that case (with Richardson 1996: 230; see also Schürer-Vermes 1.290 with n. 8; Kienast 1999: 335; Schalit 2001: 163-64, 407).

The expression τὰ πράγματα can have a general meaning here (“the matters”) or a more specific meaning (“the government/administration”; see Ant. 15.32 with the note to “the government”). This remark implies that Herod’s kingdom had recovered from the severe crisis of the drought (Ant. 15.299-316) and that his own financial situation had gone back to normal again. The recovery may have taken several years; Josephus does not specify the period. Schürer-Vermes (1.304-05) date the building of the palace to ca. 24 BCE; Otto (1913: 80), Smallwood (1976: 91), and Schalit (2001: 371) to ca. 23 BCE; Richardson (1996: 225 n. 31) to 22 BCE or later. A clue for the date is Marcus Agrippa’s authority to act as Augustus’ deputy in the East, which was given in 23 BCE (see Ant. 15.350 with the note to “Agrippa”). Agrippa had likely been active for some time in that role before Herod decided to name a room in the palace after him (15.318; cf. Kokkinos 1998: 221-2 with n. 53, who argues that the building activities started in 29/28 BCE and that the project was completed in 23 BCE). Mahieu (2012: 158-62) situates the building of the palace in Herod’s 15th year (B.J. 1.401-402), converted as the year 25 BCE, and makes it coincide with Herod’s other building projects in Jerusalem: the theater, amphitheater, and Temple enclosures.The prepositional phrase πρὸς ἐπίδοσιν (“increasingly”) is found a few times in other authors (Aspasius [ed. Heylbut 19.24]; Aelius Aristides, Dem. [ed. Dindorf 2.615, 617]; John Chrysostom, Exp. Ps. [PG 55.418]). The verb εὐθηνέω (“thrive, flourish, experience an improvement”) is also found in War 6.300; Ant. 7.297; 9.176. This is Herod’s second palace, which was newly built by him (for his earlier palace, see Ant. 15.43, 71, 247 with notes). It was located in the Upper City in the western part of Jerusalem (see the next note and War 1.402), adjacent to the three towers Mariamme, Hippicus, and Phasael (War 5.175, 183), which meant that the palace was part of Jerusalem’s fortifications (see also Ant. 15.292 with the note to “the palace in which he lived”). The palace was situated south of these towers, along the western city wall, which was thickened at the palace’s place. Archaeological remains confirm this location. War 5.176-181 describes the second palace in detail (further discussion in Schalit 2001: 371-72; Netzer 2006: 129-32).The verb ἐξοικοδομέω (“build, construct, furnish [with]”) occurs in Josephus only in the Herod narrative of Antiquities (15.318, 324, 425; 16.13; Rengstorf s.v.). The phrase ἡ ἄνω πόλις (“the Upper City”) also occurs in War 1.39, 402; 2.424, 426, 530; 5.11, 245, 252, 260, 356, 445; 6.325, 363, 374; 7.26; Ant. 7.66; 14.477. The Upper City existed already before the Babylonian captivity, the City of David being too small to host all of Jerusalem’s inhabitants. It was located southwest of the Temple and west of the City of David, from which it was separated by the Tyropoeon Valley (the Valley of the Cheesemakers). The first city wall enclosed the Upper City at the west and north sides until Herod’s day (War 5.142-145; Netzer 2006: 119-21 with a map on p. 121). The noun οἶκος, which is also used in the parallel passage of War (1.402), usually means “house” or “dwelling-place,” but it can also refer to a room, chamber, or dining hall (LSJ s.v. I.2). The translation “dining hall” is particularly appropriate here, especially since Josephus seems to hint at huge banquet halls (see the note to “couches that could hold numerous people” and Netzer 2006: 131, who notes that Herod’s palace in Jericho also included a gigantic reception and banquet hall, a triclinium). The chambers are most probably the two rooms mentioned at the end of this paragraph. War 5.177 mentions huge chambers and guestrooms with 100 couches. The adjective ὑπερμεγέθης (“gigantic”) further occurs in Ant. 15.334 concerning the huge stones that were sank down in Herod’s harbor at Caesarea. The more elaborate passage about the palace in War 5.176-181 notes that the palace was unsurpassed with regard to the costly materials used and the craftsmanship (οὔτε γὰρ πολυτελείας οὔτε κατασκευῆς τινος ἔλειπεν ὑπερβολήν). War 5.179 refers to silver and gold. Precious stones are also mentioned in War 5.178. The chambers’ decorations are clearly extraordinary, but the precise details remain unclear. The meaning of the extremely rare last word of the description (περιάλειμμα, which is a hapax legomenon in Josephus) is uncertain. LSJ (s.v.) gives “pigment” as meaning for this passage, while Rengstorf (s.v.) offers “paint, pigment (?)” as meaning. Several conjectures have been proposed for this passage; nevertheless, Hudson’s (1726: 771) κατακλιμάτων (meaning unclear, the word is missing in LSJ) as well as Ernesti’s (1795: 132) καταποικιλμάτων (“brocades” ?) or περιπετασμάτων (“covering” ?) are hardly an improvement. Niese (389) suspects a lacuna. The passage does not connect well with the preceding one about the decorations, which supports Niese’s assumption of a lacuna (see the preceding note). According to the current text Josephus switches without any transition from the decorations to the rooms’ sizes. The noun κλισία means “(banquet) couch, group of guests” (Rengstorf s.v.). The word occurs twice elsewhere in Josephus. One of these passages concerns the 72 men who translated the Hebrew Bible into the Greek LXX for Ptolemy Philadelphus (Ant. 12.96) and offers an interesting parallel: Ptolemy is so happy with his guests that he organizes a banquet lasting for 12 days (12.98); couches for the guests are ranged in two rows next to or behind Ptolemy’s couch, which presupposes a large room functioning as a banquet hall. The Greek text is most probably corrupt. Niese (389) supposes a lacuna after ὑποδέχεσθαι: a verb is missing, which is here tentatively added (with Marcus-Wikgren 153). Cf. War 1.402 (see the next notes). Herod also named two cities after Augustus: Samaria (Sebaste, Ant. 15.246, 292, 296, 342) and Straton’s Tower (Caesarea Maritima, 15.331-341). War 1.402 likewise mentions that Herod’s palace in Jerusalem contained two very large and extremely beautiful rooms (or buildings; see the note to “chambers” above) named “Caesareum” and “Agrippeum,” adding that they were named after Herod’s most important “friends” (i.e., Augustus and Marcus Agrippa, Reinhold 1933; Schalit 1968: 3; Roddaz 1984; Taylor 2006: 566). Herod also named new buildings in Jericho after Augustus and Agrippa (War 1.407) and Agrippa’s name was inscribed on one of the gates of the Temple (1.416).Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa is here mentioned for the first time in book 15 of Antiquities (references in 15.350 with the notes to “Agrippa” and “Caesar’s deputy”; see Braund 1984: 82, 122 on ways of honoring one’s patrons and the importance of the friendship between Herod and Agrippa).

Ant. 15.319-322 briefly reports Herod’s decision to enter into a new marriage, with another Mariamme, the daughter of a priest called Simon (15.320). There is no parallel account in War. The phrase προσελάμβανε γάμον αὑτῷ may link up with a biblical convention since in the Bible “taking a wife (for himself)” sometimes indicates the beginning of a marital relationship: “Lamech took two wives; the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah” (Gen 4:19); “Abraham took another wife, whose name was Keturah” (Gen 25:1; also Gen 24:4; 34:16; Ruth 1:4; 2 Chr 11:21; 13:21; Ezra 10:44). For related vocabulary in Josephus, see 15.321 with the note to “marry the maiden.” The chronological order of the narrative suggests that this new marriage took place in ca. 23 BCE (see 15.318 with the note to “were increasingly going well”). Schürer-Vermes (1.320), Richardson (1996: 235), and Vogel (2002: 121) refer to 24 BCE; Mahieu (2012: 189-90) to 25 BCE. Kokkinos (1998: 221-22) dates it to 29/28 BCE (his date is followed by Günther 2005: 238) and argues that Josephus’ association of the marriage with the completion of Herod’s new palace (see the previous paragraph and 15.292) is misleading because it actually coincided with the beginning of the building activities in 29/28 BCE. Additional arguments in favor of Kokkinos’ hypothesis are the implausibility that Herod remained without a wife for several years after the death of Mariamme I (i.e., during the period 29/28-23 BCE) and that his son by Mariamme II, Herod III, was probably ca. 20 rather than ca. 15 years old (the age implied if the marriage took place in 23 BCE) when he became the designated heir to the throne second after Antipater (War 1.573, 588, 600; Ant. 17.53, 78). Kokkinos’ interpretation implies that Ant. 15.319-323 is a flashback. Josephus states in plain words that Herod’s motivation for this new marriage was sexual desire (κινηθεὶς ἐξ ἐρωτικῆς ἐπιθυμίας). For ἔρως (“[sexual] love”), see Rengstorf (s.v.) and Ant. 15.29 with the note to “erotic diversion”, and for ἐπιθυμία (“desire, [sexual] lust”), 15.88 with the note to “his passion for her.” The rare noun ὑπολογισμός (“reflection, scruple,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. The passage is ambiguous because the adjective οἰκεῖος can be interpreted in two different ways: it can indicate family matters and family relations, but also one’s own interests or issues (Rengstorf s.v.). The first meaning implies as translation “because he had no high regard for a happy family life.” The second interpretation is more plausible, especially since in a similar passage in Josephus the biblical Joseph explains his refusal to sleep with Mrs. Potiphar as follows: “but it was for the sake of virtue and self-control that we were condemned to endure the punishment of evil-doers, since I did not wish, for the sake of my own pleasure (μετ’ οἰκείας ἡδονῆς), to insult the one who had done these things for us” (Ant. 2.69, trans. Feldman in BJP 3). Non-Jewish passages that combine οἰκεῖος and ἡδονή (“desire, pleasure”) also support the second interpretation (see especially Plato, Resp. 587b, who associates true and personal pleasures with kingship).

The priest Simon, son of Boethus, is also mentioned in Ant. 15.322; 17.78; 18.109, 136 but not in War (Schalit 1968: 113). The explicit reference to Jerusalem may intend to contrast him with Ananel, a former High Priest appointed by Herod, who was of Babylonian origin (see 15.22 with the note to “Ananel”). Simon’s father Boethus came from Alexandria. The family of Boethus developed into one of the families of the High Priesthood (see Ant. 15.322 with the note to “the office”). Ant. 19.297 mentions another Simon, son of Boethus, who was appointed High Priest by Agrippa I (Schalit 1968: 113). I.e., Simon. Schürer-Vermes (1.320-21; 2.229) indicate that other passages mention Boethus as the father of the woman (cf. Richardson 1996: 243) but do not offer specific references. Some scholars deduce from Ant. 19.297 (see the previous note) that she was the daughter of Boethus since it refers to Boethus as a father and directly afterwards to a daughter married to Herod (see especially Schwartz 1990: 185-86). Schalit (1968: 28) rejects such a reading because the reference to Boethus as a father is part of a parenthesis and his fatherhood does not concern the woman in question. Stern (1976a: 605) argues that Josephus made a mistake in 19.297 and that he meant to refer to Simon ben Boethus as the father of the woman. Kokkinos (1998: 220) argues that Boethus functions as a family name in 19.297 and that Simon ben Boethus is implied, also because he is mentioned elsewhere as father of the woman (17.78; 18.109, 136). Unfortunately the references in the War (1.562, 573, 599, see the next note) do not mention the name of this priest. The name Simon Boethus resembles the inscription “Shimon Bothon” (‮שמון בוטון‬‎, šimôn bôṭôn) found on an ossuary from Jerusalem (CIJ no. 1246; Kokkinos 1998: 218 n. 40; Ilan 2002: 348). War (1.562, 573, 599) mentions her name, Mariamme, and also indicates that she was “the daughter of the High Priest.” Her son by Herod, also named Herod (Herod III), is mentioned in War 1.562, 573 (further references in Kokkinos 1998: 207-08; 222-23; 265-68). This statement clarifies Herod’s behavior described in the next two paragraphs, which characterize Herod as a powerful macho man who can easily afford to take the most beautiful woman and arrange a marriage with her. The translation follows Niese (389), who reads καλλίστην τῶν τότε νομιζομένην with MS P. The other Greek MSS read καλλίστην τῶν τότε νομιζομένων (“the most beautiful [woman] as people at that time thought”).

For similar vocabulary, see Ant. 15.71 about the rumor in Jerusalem that Mark Antony had tortured and killed Herod. The subsequent lines and the next paragraph focalize Herod, describing his feelings and his strategy to acquire this remarkable woman. The verb κίνεω (“move, arouse, be excited [in the passive voice]”) also occurs in the introductory passage about Herod’s new marriage (Ant. 15.319). By first referring to an anonymous report about the fame of this Mariamme and subsequently describing Herod’s response to the beauty of the girl Josephus creates a climax that highlights her exceptional beauty. Josephus builds this climax by two steps (indicated by τὸ μὲν πρῶτον and ὡς δὲ καί) that differentiate between two senses: he first focuses on Herod hearing about the priest’s daughter and then on the king actually seeing her. Josephus does not tell whether Herod was actually searching for a new wife, neither whether he arranged for a meeting or saw the girl by coincidence. Although Josephus does not say so explicitly, it is plausible that Herod made arrangements for a meeting with the girl. That implies that Herod wanted to see for himself, and apparently only by seeing the girl Herod realized how exceptionally beautiful she was (see the previous note). Josephus uses the noun ὥρα (“beauty”) also in Ant. 15.25, 29, 60, when he refers to the exceptional beauty of Mariamme I and her brother Aristobulus III. The combination of ἐκπλήσσω (“astonish, etc.”) with ὥρα also occurs in Plutarch, Alc. 4.1, concerning Alcibiades. The verb ἀποδοκιμάζω (“reject,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. The phrase ἀπ’ ἐξουσίας (“by … his authority”) is used with this same meaning in Ant. 15.43, 260 (see the note to “on her own authority”), although it could here also refer to Herod’s power (cf. 6.61). It may hint at Herod’s apparent inclination to tyrannical behavior, which shines through in several passages in the Herod narrative of Antiquities (e.g. 15.6-7, 252; 16.4; see the note to “tyrannical behavior” below). Ant. 19.65 notes about Calistus, a freedman of Gaius: “His power was no less than a tyrant’s. For he was a great taker of bribes, and most contemptuous of rights, with none to match him. His authority had been exercised beyond all reason (ἐξουσίᾳ χρησάμενος παρὰ τὸ εἰκός)” (trans. Feldman). Herod could easily have used his authority or power to bring the girl over to his palace; it is significant that he did not do so. Cf. Ant. 15.277 concerning the protest against the trophies, in which case too Herod decides not to apply force. Josephus hints here at Herod’s use of force and at the king’s tyrannical behavior (εἰς βίαν καὶ τυραννίδα διαβληθήσεται) but reports that Herod decided to handle this in a prudent way in order to save his reputation. Nevertheless, the suggestion that Herod was a tyrant is made once more. For βία (“force”) and τυραννίς (“tyranny”) as parts of the semantic field of tyranny in connection with Herod, see Ant. 14.165, a passage that expresses the fear of prominent Jews of Antipater (Herod’s father) and his sons, with the focus on Herod: “But the chief Jews were in great fear when they saw how violent and bold Herod was, and how much he longed for a rule as a tyrant (ὁρῶντες τὸν Ἡρώδην βίαιον καὶ τολμηρὸν καὶ τυραννίδος γλιχόμενον).” The immediate cause of this fear was Herod’s execution of Ezekias and his fellow brigands (14.159, 165-169). About the semantic field of tyranny, cf. War 7.261 referring to the so-called Sicarii (“dagger people”; see War 2.255) and Ant. 5.339 referring to the sons of Eli (further discussion in van Henten 2011b). The decision to marry the girl implied that Herod needed permission from her father for the marriage. This is already apparent from biblical passages. In Ant. 1.337-338 Sychem arranges for his father Emmor to get permission from Jacob to marry Dinah (Gen 34): “And Sychemmes … being amorously disposed toward her, he implored his father to take the maiden in marriage for him (ἱκετεύει τὸν πατέρα λαβεῖν αὐτῷ πρὸς γάμον τὴν κόρην)” (Ant. 1.337, trans. Feldman in BJP 3). Cf. also 1.242-252 (esp. 1.253) concerning Abraham’s servant asking Laban, Rebecca’s brother, and her mother permission for Isaac to marry Rebecca. In ancient Judaism marriage was a contract which determined the môhar (bride price) and dowry as economic protections of the wife and which presupposed the consent of the wife’s father (see the conclusion of this paragraph, Tob 7:12-13, and the discussion in Collins 1997: 107-15). In Ant. 14.300 Josephus mentions Herod’s engagement with Mariamme in a passage in which he also refers to Herod’s first wife, Doris, by way of a flashback. Josephus writes about this engagement : “And when he [i.e., Herod] arrived in Jerusalem, Hyrcanus [i.e., Hyrcanus II] and the people wreathed his head with crowns. As Herod had already become connected by an agreement of marriage (ἐγεγάμβρευτο … καθ’ ὁμολογίαν) with the family of Hyrcanus, he [Hyrcanus] was for that reason more protective of him … (trans. Marcus).”

I.e., Herod’s family. This detail implies that the status of Herod’s future wife’s family was important for Herod. Mariamme I had descended from the Hasmonean royal and high priestly family (see Ant. 15.23 with notes), and the new Mariamme could not compare unfavorably with her. This phrase with ἐπιθυμία (“desire”) links up with Ant. 15.319 (see the note to “sexual desire”). Herod’s policy is fully consistent with his reasoning indicated in the previous lines; the decision to give the High Priesthood to Simon, reported in the next sentence, is the logical outcome. Obviously Herod could not arrange for a royal status of Simon’s family, but by making Simon High Priest Mariamme II equaled her predecessor at least partly in rank. Similar formulation in Ant. 15.39, in which passage Josephus mentions that Herod deposed Ananel as High Priest. Jesus, the son of Phabes, is mentioned only once as High Priest in Josephus (Schalit 1968: 60). Josephus does not indicate when Jesus was appointed. Jesus’s father’s Greek name (or his family name) is spelled out in various ways in the MSS (also Phoabes and Phobes, Niese 390). Schürer-Vermes (2.229 n. 6) indicate that the correct name is Phiabi, which form is attested in Rabbinic sources. Kasher (1985: 119-35), Stern (1974b: 274; 1976a: 604-05, 607), Hengel (1989: 14), Richardson (1996: 244-45), and Kokkinos (1998: 217-18) argue that Jesus, son of Phiabi, came from Egypt and descended from Onias III (?), who had founded a Jewish temple at Leontopolis (cf. Vogel 2002: 121, who considers this connection to be possible). Through his appointment Herod perhaps attempted to connect both this Zadokite family and the Egyptian Jews closer with his kingdom. Some support for this hypothesis is found in the fact that a Greek version of the name (Phabeis) is attested in a funerary inscription from Tell el-Yehudiye (Leontopolis, CIJ no. 1510 = JIGRE no. 33 l. 5 with pp. 69, 72). Josephus mentions two other High Priests from the family of Phabi: Ishmael, son of Phabi (Ant. 18.34, High Priest in 15-16 CE), and another Ishmael, son of Phabi (20.179, 194-195, High Priest in 59-61 CE, Schürer-Vermes 2.229-31). He also mentions several persons with the name Jesus (Hebrew or Aramaic equivalents: Jehoshua, Joshua, and Jeshua), which was a common name in the Second Temple period (Ilan 2002: 126-29), and distinguishes between them by adding the name of their father or the surname (Schürer-Vermes 1.431 n. 5 provide a list). This may have been the beginning of the close connection of the family of Boethus with the High Priesthood. From Herod’s time onward the High Priesthood became the prerogative of a few priestly families: the family of Phiabi (see the previous note), that of Ananus or Annas, and that of Boethus (Schürer-Vermes 2.229-34). It is possible—though not probable—that Ananel was the first High Priest from the family of Boethus (Schürer-Vermes 2.229 with n. 5, but cf. Ant. 15.22 with the note to “Ananel”). Ant. 17.78 reports that Herod later deposed Simon the son of Boethus as High Priest. This final statement indicates that Mariamme’s father was a decisive factor in the arrangement of the marriage (see also Ant. 15.321 with the note to “marry the maiden”). The High Priesthood greatly enhanced the status of Simon’s family, as stated previously in this paragraph.

This chronological marker forms the transition between the report about the marriage between Herod and Mariamme II (Ant. 15.319-322) and that about the building of a new fortress (15.323-325; cf. War 1.419-421).The phrase κῆδος συνάπτω (“form an alliance through marriage, contract a marriage,” LSJ s.v. συνάπτω II.2) also occurs in Thucydides 2.29; Philo, Fug. 49. The fortress was called Herodium (War 1.419). The time marker in the previous phrase implies that the fortress was built after the wedding (for the date of the wedding see Ant. 15.319 with the note to “took a wife for himself”). Several scholars argue for 24 or 23 BCE, or later. Shatzman (1991: 230) gives ca. 23 BCE as date; Roller (1998: 33, 164) gives 25-22 BCE; Mahieu (2012: 190-91) argues for 25 BCE. Kasher (2007: 181 n. 1) argues for an even earlier date (29/28 BCE), which is connected with his early date for the marriage of Herod and Mariamme II.The site of Herodium has been identified with Jebel Fureidis, southeast of Bethlehem, ca. 12 km from Jerusalem (Schalit 2001: 357; Netzer 2006: 179). Herodium was a large and unique complex, with a royal residence on top of an adapted and fortified hill as well as a lower cluster of buildings containing a palace and a large pool (see 15.324-325 and the detailed discussion in Netzer 2006: 179-201). The entire site extends over an area of ca. 25 ha. War 1.419 mentions two fortresses with the name Herodium and notes that the first one was built “on the mountain towards Arabia” as a remembrance of Herod himself, which matches the context: 1.419 follows a passage with brief notes about other constructions named after relatives of Herod (1.417-418). Since the second fortress was also named after Herod, it was also built in memory of Herod (Netzer 2006: 180). Josephus mentions that Herod was buried at Herodium (War 1.669, 673; Ant. 17.199; Netzer 2006: 180, 198), but he does not provide details. Prof. Ehud Netzer has claimed having found Herod’s tomb near the top of the monumental staircase of the Herodium Fortress at Jebel Fureidis, together with remains of a rare sarcophagus (press conference in Jerusalem on 8 May 2007; lecture at the Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study, Wassenaar, on 3 June 2008). Lichtenberger (1999: 113-15) and Netzer (2006: 181 n. 15) argue that the first Herodium never existed.Through the verb προσκατεσκευάσατο (“he built another [fortress]”) Josephus connects this passage with his report about fortified places built by Herod (Ant. 15.292-298). The association of the location of the fortress and this defeat implies that the fortress served as a commemoration of Herod’s victory, which is pointed out in rather general terms in the next subclause (see the next three notes). Josephus refers here to the power struggle between Herod and Antigonus in 40-37/36 BCE, which is also mentioned in 15.1-11 (see 15.1 with the note to “they took Antigonus captive”). The reference to location of the fortress in connection with this victory is missing in the parallel report of War (1.419-421) and particularly notable because of the long interval between Herod’s triumph over Antigonus (in 37 or 36 BCE (see 15.7 with the note to “at that time”) and the building of this fortress in the twenties (see the note to “another fortress” above). Moreover, the conflict ended when Antigonus surrendered in Jerusalem (Ant. 14.481; 15.1) rather than in Herodium. Elsewhere Josephus connects the fortress’ location with the dramatic flight of Herod and his family from Jerusalem to Masada. During the journey Herod’s mother got an accident: her chariot overturned and Herod almost committed suicide. Nevertheless, Herod fought against the Parthians and defeated his Jewish opponents during this trip. War 1.265 reports: “In his flight, he found the Judeans even more an encumbrance than the Parthians; they harassed him continually and at a distance of sixty stades from the city, they engaged in a battle that lasted a long time. Here Herod was victorious and he slew many of them. It was here, too, that he founded a city as a memorial to his victory. He adorned it with the most sumptuous palaces and constructed an exceptionally well-fortified citadel, calling it Herodion after his own name” (War 1.265, trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a; cf. Ant. 14.355-360). Netzer (2006: 179-80) argues that Herod was emotionally deeply attached to this location because of the flight, his mother’s accident, and the battle; all would have taken place on the same day. Additional motives for building Herodium may have been the suitability of the location and the fact that there was already a summer palace (Netzer 2006: 181-83). Since the fortress was built on the highest hill in the countryside, it must have been visible from Jerusalem, such that it suited the purpose of being a monument for Herod well (see the note to “another fortress” above). I.e., Herod. An alternative translation would be “had been driven out of the realm”; the noun ἀρχή can mean, among other things, “realm” as well as “rule, throne” (Rengstorf s.v.). In the latter case ἡ ἀρχη may be synonymous with τὰ πράγματα (“the matters,” i.e., “the power”; see Ant. 15.32 with the note to “the government”). The phrase τῆς ἀρχῆς ἐκπίπτω (“lose power”) is common (e.g., Dionysius, Ant. rom. 4.7.3; 6.1.4; Plutarch, Mor. [Reg. imp. apophth.] 176d; [Mulier. virt.] 250a; Athenaeus 14.6.28).

War 1.419 provides the same information. Sixty stades equal ca. 11 km (about the location of the fortress see Ant. 15.323 with the note to “another fortress”). Josephus points here to a double advantage of the location: the area apparently was a stronghold by itself and it was also a convenient place for the construction (κατασκευή) of a fortress. The next sentence gives a clarification: there stood a hill that could be adapted (Shatzman 1991: 230). The description of Herodium starts with the center (the fortress on top of the hill) and then moves on to the periphery: the site, the aqueduct, the lower city, and the palaces at the base of the hill (Shahar 2004: 232-33, who compares this manner to Strabo’s way of topographical descriptions). The description in War 1.419 includes the same word κολωνός (“hill”), which occurs once elsewhere in Josephus (Ant. 15.339 concerning the location of Augustus’ temple at Caesarea Maritima). There are small differences between War 1.419-420 and Ant. 15.324: in War the fortress is identical with the hill, whereas in Antiquities the fortress is close to the hill; War states that the hill was entirely artificial, while Antiquities correctly suggests that an existing hill was adapted in its form (Richardson 2004: 257-58; see also the next note). The fortress was built on top of the hill. A conical fill was erected around the building (by artificially heightening the hill outside the fortress), which caused several stories in the fortress to be below ground-level. The diameter of the cone was ca. 180 m, its gradient ca. 32 °. The fortress was round, having two round walls with an outer diameter of 63 m as casing (details and figures in Netzer 2006: 182-88). The archaeological findings prove this plastic description to be adequate. The conic structure of the hill together with the round fortress on top in the center can be associated with a breast, the fortress being its nipple. The same adjectives χειροποίητος (“made by human hands”) and μαστοειδής (“in the shape of a female breast,” Rengstorf s.v.) occur in War 1.419 in a somewhat compacter description of the hill (it is repeated in 1.420). The word μαστοειδής does not occur elsewhere in Josephus. See also War 7.189 about two hills near Baaras-Baaru (with a cold and a hot water spring), east of the Dead Sea, the shapes of which are compared to female breasts (ὡσανεὶ μαστοί). The verb διαλαμβάνω (“intersperse, etc.”) also occurs in the parallel passage of War (1.420) in connection with the construction of the staircase. The towers are also mentioned in War 1.420 (with the same noun πύργος). The fortress had 4 towers: 1 main multi-story tower to the east (which was round and considerably higher than the rest of the fortress) and 3 semi-circular extensions to the casing (facing north, west, and south, Netzer 2006: 183-86). The adjective κυκλοτερής (“circular, round,” Rengstorf s.v.) occurs once elsewhere in Josephus (War 2.190). War 1.420 provides a similar description with a slightly different vocabulary: both passages mention the noun ἄνοδος (“way up”) but its steepness is not mentioned in War; War notes instead that the hill was moderately high) and also mentions the 200 steps (Ant. 15.324 uses the noun βαθμίς, while War 1.420 employs βαθμός and adds that the steps were made of white marble). The monumental entrance to the fortress was on the northeast (Netzer 2006: 187). The meaning of καταγωγή (translated with “residence”) is uncertain here. Elsewhere in Josephus the word can mean, among other things, “landing place (within a harbor)” (Ant. 15.332) or “accommodation” (Rengstorf s.v.). It may refer here to rooms where important guests were received (cf. Ant. 16.128), but the context and archaeological findings indicate that these spaces were within the hill (built-in, so to say). The construction was ca. 30 m high and may have had 7 stories. The western part included the rooms of a royal mansion, while the eastern part contained a large courtyard surrounded by colonnades (Netzer 2006: 182-89). War 1.420 offers vocabulary partly different from that of Antiquities: “(Herod) … filled the enclosure with splendid palaces (βασιλείοις πολυτελεστάτοις; cf. Ant. 15.324 καταγωγαὶ βασίλειοι πολυτελεῖς), so that not only the interior of the buildings had a magnificent appearance, but also the outer walls” (War. 1.420, trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a; cf. War 1.265 and the description in superlative forms of Herod’s new palace in Jerusalem in Ant. 15.318). This detail is absent in War. Herod apparently combined the arrangement of security (see Ant. 15.327: “building a stronghold for [defending] himself against his [own] subjects ”) with the construction of a splendid settlement, which policy matches Aristotle’s remark about the preferred way of building cities: security combined with beauty (Pol. 1330b). Netzer (2006: 181) considers security for Herod and his family during periods of unrest to have been the primary purpose of the fortress. Shatzman (1991: 231-32) notes that Herod needed a new urban and administrative center because of the decline of the city of Beth-Zur, west of Herodium. This change may be reflected also by the fact that Herodium and not Beth-Zur is mentioned in a list of toparchies or capitals of a toparchy (War 3.55, Schürer-Vermes 2.190-96; Netzer 2006: 180, 191).

War 1.421 uses the noun βασίλεια (“palaces”) for these buildings. Lower-Herodium was located north of the hill. It included a large garden complex (130 x 110 m) around a big pool, a large palace (130 x 55 m), a bath house, and a monumental building at the western end of a large course (350 x 30 m, Netzer 2006: 189-99). The noun κατασκευή (“structure”) also occurs in the previous paragraph, with a slightly different meaning (see Ant. 15.324 with the note to “construction work”). The adjective ἀξιοθέατος (“worth seeing,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. This phrase presupposes a water supply system like an aqueduct. War 1.422, a passage which immediately follows upon the passage about Herodium (War 1.419-421), includes a very similar sentence: “He built an aqueduct (ὑδάτων εἰσαγωγήν) for the Laodiceans who lived on the coast” (War 1.422, trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a). This is not entirely true; nevertheless, there is certainly no permanent water source near Herodium.The Greek sentence has a parenthesis introduced by οὐ γάρ. For further examples of such parentheses in the Herod narrative of Antiquities, cf. 15.50, 124, 185, 286 (with the note to “He”). Netzer (2006: 180) states that water was led to Herodium from a spring located ca. 5 km away, in the current village of Urtas, which lies close to Solomon’s Pools. Niese (390, likewise Niese minor 312) changes πόλεως (attested by most MSS) into πόλις (implying a translation such as “a city not inferior to any other”). However, Josephus creates a distinction between the flat areas (τὰ δ’ ἐπίπεδα) and the hill (ὁ λόφος), which both served as construction grounds for Herod. This implies that the attested word ἐλάσσω goes with τὰ ἐπίπεδα and does not have to be changed into ἐλάσσων, as Niese does. War 1.421 shares the word πόλις (in the accusative) with Ant. 15.325 but is more modest in its comparisons: “Therefore, because of the fact that the fortress had everything, it seemed to be a city (πόλιν εἶναι δοκεῖν), whereas by its size [it was] only a palace.” (trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a). Since Herodium was an administrative center (see 15.324 with the note to “for embellishment”), Lower-Herodium must have included, in addition to living quarters for the staff of the fortress and the palace, buildings for the administration of the area. In consequence of the text-critical argument in the previous note, the participle ἔχουσα (“having,” with πόλις as its subject) attested by the MSS should be changed into ἔχοντα (as an attributive particle going with τὸν λόφον), which conjecture was suggested already by Hudson (1726: 772 n. c; Marcus-Wikgren 156). The change of ἔχοντα into ἔχουσα could easily have been caused by a scribal error, especially in the minuscule MSS. The transmitted text obviously has to be amended either in the way proposed by Niese (see the previous note), or in the way proposed here. The noun ἀκρόπολις can mean “castle, fortress” (Rengstorf s.v.) as well as “upper city” (LSJ s.v. I.1). The latter meaning is more plausible because Josephus is focusing on the settlement rather than on the fortifications.

The brief assessment of Herod’s situation reflects Josephus’ own voice and makes a transition to the section of Ant. 15.326-341, which once again highlights Herod’s violation of the Jewish practices (15.328-329). For similar transitions in the Herod narrative of Antiquities, cf. 15.218, 291. The section 15.326-341 first focuses on Herod’s benefactions outside his kingdom (15.326-330) and then describes in detail the construction of the harbor city of Caesarea Maritima (15.331-341). About Herod’s suspicion as a recurring theme in Antiquities, see 15.35, 42 with the notes to “being under suspicion” and “without suspicion.” Significantly this note presupposes that Herod’s suspicion had been taken away, in contrast to other passages. The divergence is explained in the following subclauses. This note is significant in connection with Josephus’ previous information about Herod’s motivation for constructing new fortresses (Ant. 15.291-292, 295). The fortresses were apparently to enhance Herod’s security against the inhabitants of his kingdom who “continuously organized disturbances (ταραχαί), even after a minor incitement” (15.295). Since references to the possibility of such disturbances appear in book 15 of Antiquities only until the present note (e.g., 15.30, 73, 231, 286, 295), the readers can conclude that Herod’s building of new fortresses was efficient. Nevertheless, the continuation of the narrative gives other reasons for Herod’s secure position. Josephus suggests here that fear (φόβος) was an important means for Herod in securing his position, but there are actually not many passages in the Herod narrative of Antiquities that highlight fear felt for Herod by his subjects: 14.427 about brigands being executed in Galilee; 15.44 about Herod’s mother-in-law Alexandra; and 15.358 about the Gadarenes (cf. 17.67, 206-207 and see also the next note). The Herod narrative of Antiquities reports many executions ordered by Herod, including those of his wife Mariamme I and other close relatives (Ant. 15.87, 176, 229-236, 251-252, 284-289; 16.379-394; 17.156-164, 187). One could question whether all of these cases were just, but several clearly were in response to betrayal or military opposition (e.g., 14.283, 288-289: the execution of Malichus, the murderer of Herod’s father; 14.432-433: rebels in Galilee; 14.336, 15.2, 5-6: other opponents; 15.251: Alexandra; 15.252-266: Costobar and other friends as well as the Sons of Baba). Josephus suggests time and again that Herod was extremely severe in his punishments (e.g., 15.356: “For more than anyone else he had the reputation of being inexorably harsh [δυσπαράιτητος] towards his own people, but of being generous to foreigners by letting them go after they had done wrong”; see also 15.251, 290, 356, 366; 16.1-4, 151). This particularly pertains to the sections about Herod’s last period: the golden eagle episode and the king’s brutal plan to kill a great number of prominent Jews in the hippodrome of Jericho after his death in order to guarantee that many would be mourning (17.148-164, 174-181 with Josephus’ comments in 17.180-181).For the combination of ἀπαραίτητος (“implacable, unrelenting,” Rengstorf s.v.) and τιμωρία (“punishment”), cf. Apion 2.292 concerning the Jewish laws (Barclay in BJP 10 on Ap. 2.292) and Diodorus 10.21; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 4.58.2; Philo, Spec. 3.42; 3.76; Cassius Dio 36.16.2. Herod’s care (ἐπιμέλεια, see also 15.308) for his subjects is highlighted in the episode about the king’s response to the drought (Ant. 15.299-316, especially 15.308-310, 315-316). The adjective μεγαλόψυχος (“generous, magnanimous”) also characterizes Herod in the conclusion of the episode about the drought (see also Ant. 15.48 with the note to “magnanimity” and 15.201 concerning Herod’s extraordinarily generous support to Octavian). The noun περιπέτεια (“[sudden] change, crisis”) occurs once elsewhere in Josephus, in a different context, in the prologue to Antiquities (1.13). The plural here suggests that there were several crises during which Herod arranged aid, although the narrative reports only one: Herod’s response to the severe drought (Ant. 15.299-316).

This passage links up with Ant. 15.291-298, which indicates that Herod built several strongholds to protect himself against his own subjects (see 15.291-292, 295 with notes as well as the next note). Some of these fortified places were located at the border of his kingdom, like Caesarea Maritima and Esebonitis. The noun ἀσφάλεια is a key word in the section 15.291-298. Herod apparently focused on security for his rule from an internal perspective (15.291-298) and on strengthening the external support for his rule through benefactions and assistance from his Roman patrons (15.327-328).The phrase ἡ ἔξωθεν ἀσφάλεια (“ security on the outside”) also occurs in War 2.572 concerning Josephus’ measures in Galilee during the war against Rome: he first ensured himself of the support of the Galileans (2.569-571) and subsequently fortified many places there because he assumed that the Romans would attack Galilee first (2.572-574). Thus these fortifications enhanced the security against attackers from the outside. The noun ἐπιτείχισμα (“stronghold”) occurs twice elsewhere in Josephus. In Ant. 15.292 it concerns a literal meaning: “… he planned against the entire population Samaria as a third stronghold.” A metaphorical meaning which is similar to the passage here occurs in War 1.448 about Herod’s decision to use Antipater as “a bulwark” against his other sons Aristobulus and Alexander: “Fed up as a result of these false accusations, Herod called back Antipater, Doris’ son, to function as a bulwark (ὥσπερ ἐπιτείχισμα) against his (other) sons, and began to honor him above the others in every way” (trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a; cf. Athanasius, Syn. 45.8 [ed. Opitz 271]). The same motive is mentioned in Ant. 15.291: “So he decided to enclose the people from every side …” (see also 15.292 about Samaria as a stronghold “against the entire population”). Josephus switches here from Herod’s own kingdom to other territories. Benefactions to other states contributed to a secure position for the king (Braund 1984: 79) and demonstrated his aspiration to be a respected ruler in the eastern Mediterranean world (Levine 1975: 11-13).The adverb φιλανθρώπως (“generously”) suggests in combination with the next subclause that Herod supported cities outside his kingdom, although the word can also be used together with the preceding verb ὁμιλέω (“associate with, etc.”) in a more general way (e.g., Polybius 11.24a; Diodorus 27.6.1-2). Josephus does not provide details here, while he does in War 1.422-425 (see also Ant. 15.298; 16.18-19, 24-26, 146-149). Herod’s impressive building activities within and outside his kingdom match Augustus’ policy in this respect. Augustus was extremely active as builder in Rome, the cities in Italy, and Rome’s provinces (Kienast 1999: 408-49). This building activity outside the city of Rome was an important innovation (Kienast 1999: 417-18). About benefactions to cities in the Hellenistic period in general, see Bringmann and von Steuben 1995. There are several cases in the Herod narrative of Antiquities in which Josephus reports about Herod paying court to (θεραπεύω) leaders (see 15.328 with the note to “the court he paid to Caesar and the most powerful Romans”), though not specifically to leaders of cities, such that this is a unique statement. However, such behavior is what one would expect from a prominent leader who aimed at enhancing his power base (cf. 17.81 about Herod’s son Antipater: “He had been paying court [περὶ θεραπείαν … ἐγεγόνει] to the most important men …”). Levine (1975: 151 n. 67) notes that the kings of Pergamum maintained warm relations with the cities along the Ionian coast through gifts. Richardson (1996: 223 n. 20) takes this to be an allusion to the allocation of food supplies to neighboring Syrian cities during the famine (Ant. 15.311-314). This point links up with the remark at the beginning of this paragraph about Herod arranging security from the outside. The Roman leaders’ gratitude would, from Herod’s perspective, no doubt pay off in the future (as the last subclause of this paragraph indicates; cf. War 1.400; Ant. 15.360-361). Herod’s rule depended very much on Augustus’ support (cf. Augustus’ deposition of Herod’s successor Archelaus after a rule of ca. 10 years in Judea, Ant. 17.342-344, 355). About Herod as a friendly king of the Romans, see 15.5 with the note to “gift to Antony” and 15.127-129, 330. Josephus notes here that generosity (μεγαλοψυχία) was an important trait of Herod (μεγαλόψυχον φύσει; a similar expression occurs in War 5.162, also about Herod; cf. Diodorus 17.74.4 concerning Alexander the Great and the next note). Ant. 16.153 makes a similar statement. Herod’s generosity is a recurring motif in the Antiquities narrative about him (see 15.48 with the note to “magnanimity”). The emperor Julian the Apostate states in his speech The Heroic Deeds of the Emperor Constantius (also called On Kingship) that love of labor and generosity are appropriate characteristics for a king (φιλόπονος δὲ ὢν φύσει καὶ μεγαλόψυχος, Regn. 28 [ed. Bidez 1.1.162; cf. Cyn. ind. 20 [ed. Rochefort 2.1.172] and Dio Chrysostom 32.95 concerning Trajan’s generosity). Philo, Det. 14, about Jacob’s household that was growing in every respect as time progressed, offers a close parallel (πάντα διὰ πάντων ἔλαβεν αὔξησις). The translation follows the reading προχωρούντων attested by MS P (Niese 391). The other MSS read προσχωρούντων, which results in a translation like “because more and more people were choosing his side.” This reading does not fit the context and may have been caused by the addition of a σ to προχωρούντων, possibly because the verb προσχωρέω (“come to, go over to someone’s side”) is more common in Josephus than προχωρέω (“proceed”). An additional argument in favor of the reading of MS P is that the same verb occurs in Ant. 15.326.

The noun φιλοτιμία can mean several things, including “love of glory” (Ant. 16.138, 153, 248), “munificence,” and “ambition” (see 15.194 with the note to “magnanimous and generous” and 15.271 with the note to “ambition”; Landau 2006: 123, 168, 171 n. 173). The last meaning matches the context best. The phrase εἰς τοῦτο can be interpreted in several ways, but the next word (θεραπεία; see the next note) renders it plausible that it refers to Herod’s strife for more security by cultivating relations with other states and with his patrons. Josephus notes several times that Herod courted his Roman patrons (as his father Antipater already had done [War 1.187] and his son Antipater would do later on [1.554]). Ant. 15.75 reports about Herod’s favors (θεραπεία) to Mark Antony and associates them with gifts (δῶρα; see also 15.5 with the note to “gift to Antony”; 15.200). Josephus states in 15.199 that Herod received his new patron Octavian “with every royal service” (πάσῃ τῇ βασιλικῇ θεραπείᾳ) in Ptolemais. In 15.103 he notes that Herod conciliated (θεραπεύσας) Cleopatra with gifts. Herod’s favors to his Roman patrons also included honors (the naming of cities, buildings, or rooms after one of them [War 1.118; Ant. 15.318, 363-364] and the organization of festivals in Augustus’ honor [15.268; 16.138]); also services (15.200-201, 318, 363; 16.21-22), and festive receptions (e.g., 15.199; 16.12-15). Two specific favors, founding cities and erecting temples, are mentioned at the end of this paragraph. Herod also offered favors to Marcus Agrippa (War 1.118; Ant. 15.350-351; 16.12-15, 21-22, 60, 157). The combination of ἐκβαίνω (“abandon”) plus τῶν ἐθῶν (“the customs”) also occurs in Ant. 15.267, the introduction to the episode about Herod’s festival in Augustus’ honor in Jerusalem. It is doubtful whether Herod’s strategy to court his Roman patrons required that the Jewish customs were violated. Nevertheless, some of the obvious conventions in this connection, like the erection of a temple in the emperor’s honor (see Ant. 15.339), clearly opposed the Jewish customs. The crucial question is whether Herod’s Jewish subjects were affected by such measures, as Ant. 15.267 suggests (see the note to “the ancestral customs” and the next paragraph). This phrase (καὶ πολλὰ τῶν νομίμων παραχαράττειν) is almost synonymous with the previous remark (cf. Ant. 15.254, which refers to the customs and habits of the Jews in connection with the Idumeans, who had to switch to a Jewish way of life: “Hyrcanus [i.e., John Hyrcanus] had changed their way of life to the habits and the customs of the Jews [τὰ ’Ιουδαίων ἔθη καὶ νόμιμα]”). Concerning παραχαράττω (“alter”), see 15.315 with the note to “the change of some of the customs,” and for the rare combination of this verb with τὰ νόμιμα, John Chrystom, Fragm. Jer. (PG 64.768); Theophylact Simocatta 5.13.7. Herod refounded Samaria and named it Sebaste after Augustus (War 1.119, 403; Ant. 15.246, 292-298; see 15.292 with the note to “Sebaste”). He created a harbor city at the location of Straton’s Tower and called its harbor Sebastus (War 1.613; Ant. 17.87) and its city Caesarea after Augustus (War 1.408-416; Ant. 15.331-341). War 1.407 makes an overstatement concerning Herod’s founding of settlements in Augustus’ honor: “In short, it is impossible to mention any significant place in his realm that he left without [attributing] some sign of honor to Caesar. After he filled his homeland with temples, he outdid himself by bestowing honors on his [i.e., Caesar’s] province, and in many cities he erected monuments to Caesar” (trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a). Herod also rebuilt the harbor city of Anthedon, north of Gaza, and renamed it Agrippeion or Agrippias after Marcus Agrippa (War 1.87, 119, 416; Ant. 13.357). This second occurrence of φιλοτιμία in this paragraph may again refer to Herod’s ambition or to his love of honor (see the note to “ambition” above). Concerning φιλοτιμία in connection with the founding of cities, cf. Philo, Opif. 17. Herod erected temples in Augustus’ honor at Paneion-Baneas (War 1.404-406; Ant. 15.363-364) and at Caesarea Maritima (War 1.414; Ant. 15.339).

Josephus explains the distinction between the Jewish and non-Jewish territories in the next subclause. The Jewish territory could be identical with Judea (see Ant. 15.2 with the note to “all Judea”) and probably does not concern Herod’s entire kingdom because in that case the temples in Caesarea Maritima and Banias would be included, which would contradict Josephus’ statement here. Levine (1975: 152 n. 71) argues that Josephus presents Caesarea as a non-Jewish city in Antiquities.A noun has to be added in the Greek text, most probably the word χώρα (“territory”), which occurs in the opposite phrase later in the paragraph (τὴν δ’ ἔξω χώραν; cf. ἡ ’Ιουδαίων χώρα in War 1.21; Ant. 13.57, 145; 14.250, and ἡ γῆ τῶν ’Ιουδαίων in War 7.216; Ant. 15.121). Cf. Ant. 15.277 about the Jerusalemites’ response to the trophies in Augustus’ honor: “… they would not bear images of humans in the city ….” The noun ἄγαλμα can mean “image” or “statue” (Rengstorf s.v.). In Josephus the majority of the occurrences refers to images of deities: War 7.136 Roman deities in general; 7.151 Nike (the goddess of victory); Ant. 18.79 Isis (cf. 15.279; 19.11; Apion 1.199). It is probable, therefore, that the word here also refers to statues of deities. The noun τύπος can mean, among other things, “impression, picture, sculpture” (Rengstorf s.v.; see also Ant. 16.319). Because of the context the word probably refers to images of living creatures cast in a mold, like sculptures or reliefs (see also the next note). Expressions like πρὸς τὸν Ἑλληνικὸν τρόπον point to various Greek conventions (e.g., Herodotus 7.89; Xenophon, Cyr. 2.2.28; Diodorus 1.11.2; 20.58.3; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 1.38.4; Strabo 17.1.42; Cassius Dio 72.17.3); here it concerns the Greek practice to put sculptures and reliefs on the outside of temples, which represented deities, humans, and mythological creatures like giants and centaurs (on metopes, friezes, pediments, roofs etc.). Ant. 18.55 is even more explicit about Pontius Pilate’s transfer of Roman standards (which included busts of the emperor) to Jerusalem: “… for our law forbids the making of images” (trans. Feldman; see also Life 65).The verb ἀπαγορεύω (“prohibit, forbid, etc.,” Rengstorf s.v.) frequently refers to a specific ban by the Jewish laws, usually the written laws of the Pentateuch (Ant. 3.260, 318; 8.191; 12.145-146; 18.264; Life 65, 128). Jewish readers will easily connect Josephus’ remark with the Second Commandment, which forbids the making of idols or images of any living creature (Exod 20:4-6; Deut 5:8-10; cf. Ant. 3.91; 17.151; Apion 2.190-191 and see Ant. 15.276 with the note to “venerate such [images]”). For non-Jewish readers the remark remains an unspecified reference to the Jewish laws. Josephus’ note that Herod did not transgress the Second Commandment in the Jewish territory is fairly adequate, as is apparent from the archaeological remains of Herod’s buildings in Jewish locations. Herod probably tried to avoid such images in public spaces of Judea, but privately he did not (Fine 2005: 74-79; differently Jacobson 2001a: 103; Richardson 2004: 230; see also Ant. 15.279 with the note to “they too had mocked”). A recent find by Ehud Netzer and his team in Herodium (a non-Jewish place) of a room near the monumental tomb of the fortress displays magnificent fresco’s, and the walls of the caldarium of the upper-bath-house show pictures of birds (email from Prof. Joseph Patrich, Jerusalem to me on 1 May 2009). The same geographic division between Jewish and non-Jewish territories and images of living creatures applies to the Herodian coinage: Hellenistic-Roman influences are found only on coins minted outside of the Jewish territory (Mahieu 2012: 391-93, 556-57). The golden eagle on a Jerusalem Temple gate may be the exception to the rule (War 1.648-655; 2.5-7; Ant. 17.148-164). Fine (2005: 69-81) argues that images by themselves were not problematic; they were considered to be offensive only if they were associated with idolatry. This phrase (τὴν δ’ ἔξω χώραν) contrasts the previous expression “in the [territory] of the Jews” (see 15.329 with the note to “the [territory] of the Jews”). Assuming that the first phrase refers to Judea, the second one would refer to other territories within Herod’s kingdom. This expression may be synonymous with the previous one or denote a wider extension, i.e., areas outside Herod’s kingdom where Herod likewise erected buildings or contributed to them (see Ant. 15.327 with the note to “[Judea’s] outside”).

An alternative translation would be “he apologized to the Jews” (cf. War 1.457 after Herod’s return from a trip abroad: “Upon his arrival in Jerusalem, Herod assembled the people, introduced his three sons, and apologized for [ἀπελογεῖτο] his absence”). Both meanings of ἀπολογέομαι (“defend” or “apologize,” Rengstorf s.v.) are possible here. This remark is highly implausible in the light of indications in Josephus, which suggest that Herod was very eager to show his loyalty and gratitude to his most important Roman patron, Octavian-Augustus (e.g., War 1.404-406, 414; Ant. 15.268, 339, 363-364).The combination ἐξ ἐντολῆς καὶ προσταγμάτων (“on the basis of a command and orders”) is a bit bizarre because προστάγματά is almost synonymous with ἐντολή. The expression may echo a frequent phrase in the LXX referring to God’s commands and orders (τὰ προστάγματά καὶ αἱ ἐντολαί, LXX Gen 26:5; 3 Kgs 3:14; 8:58; 9:6; 11:11, 38; 2 Chr 7:19; 2 Esd 7:11; 11:7; 19:13-14). This note may anticipate the report about Herod’s foundation of Caesarea in Augustus’ honor (Ant. 15.331-341). Paying homage to one’s patrons was an obvious activity for a friendly king, and Josephus reports several times about Herod giving several kinds of honors to Mark Antony (War 1.401), Octavian-Augustus (War 1.407, 414; Ant. 16.129; 17.87), and Marcus Agrippa (Ant. 16.22, 51; see also 15.328 with notes). Herod at the same time benefited from honors and presents from his patrons (War 1.396; Ant. 14.445; 15.76-77, 195, 198; 16.129). For a further general statement about Herod’s relationships with his Roman patrons and his own subjects, see Ant. 16.157 “But evidence for me that this was his greatest emotion is also what happened with the honors for Caesar, Agrippa, and his other friends (κατὰ τὰς Καίσαρος καὶ ’Αγρίππα καὶ τῶν ἄλλων φίλων τιμάς). For with the very favors he was paying court to those higher in rank he was expecting to be paid court himself” (my trans.).For references concerning friendly kingship, see 15.5 with the note to “gift to Antony.” I.e., the customs of Herod’s Jewish subjects. Concerning Josephus’ repeated accusation that Herod abandoned the Jewish customs, see Ant. 15.267, 328 (with the note to “depart from the Jewish customs”). The phrase τὰ ὀικεῖα ἔθη (“[their] own customs”) also occurs in 16.61, in connection with the Ionian Jews. Josephus emphasizes this aspect through the repetition of the verb στοχάζομαι (“aim at, be intent on,” Rengstorf s.v.), which is followed by a reflexive pronoun (literally “aiming for himself”). Enhancing one’s own glory by courting one’s patrons is an obvious thing to do, as Ant. 15.327 implies (see the note to “paid court to their leaders”), but Josephus presents it as a criticism here. Kasher (2007: 183-84) argues that the constructions of Herodium and other buildings indicate that Herod suffered from megalomania. An alternative translation of φιλοτιμούμενος would be “showing the ambition of.” For φιλοτιμία (“ambition” or “love of honor”) in connection with Herod, see Ant. 15.194, 271, 303, 328 with the note to “his ambition.” For the motive of leaving behind a monument for posterity, see Ant. 15.298 with the note to “leave behind for later times memorials.” Ant. 15.298, the concluding paragraph about the rebuilding of Samaria-Sebaste, offers a similar passage (“leave behind for later times memorials to his benevolence”) without a critical undertone. Josephus’ remark is ironic in the opinion of Landau (2006: 168), but one can hardly deny that the remains of Herod’s buildings at, e.g., Caesarea and Jerusalem still indicate that they must have been very impressive while they were still intact. Josephus does not indicate in comparison to what these monuments of Herod were bigger, but one can think of the building activities reported in the previous sections (e.g., Samaria and Herodium, Ant. 15.292-298, 323-325). Josephus’ remark, together with the concluding subclause of this paragraph, anticipates the report about the building of Caesarea in the next section (15.331-341), which concerns a huge construction project. This note makes the transition to the report about the set-up and building of Caesarea (Ant. 15.331-341). Caesarea, like Samaria-Sebaste (15.292-298), concerns a refoundation and renovation of an existing city (see 15.331). Ant. 15.332 and 15.341 refer to Herod’s expenses involved in the building of Caesarea. Ant. 15.396 contains a further superlative formula concerning Herod’s spending: Herod surpassed previous rulers with the money spent for the renovation of the Jerusalem Temple. Ant. 16.13 notes that Herod’s fortresses Alexandrium, Herodium, and Hyrcania were built at great expense (cf. 15.274 about the festival in Jerusalem). See also Ant. 16.24 concerning Herod’s generosity to foreign cities.

Ant. 15.331-341 reports about Herod’s foundation of the city of Caesarea (Maritima) at the location of the former city of Straton’s Tower (see the note below). The passage finds a close parallel in War (1.408-415). The introduction (1.408) of that passage is similar to that of Antiquities and also shares the participle κατιδών (“observing, attracting attention”) as its first word: “A city on the coast, called Strato’s Tower, attracted his attention ….” (trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a).The notes concerning Caesarea’s location near the sea are comparable to the description of Samaria-Sebaste (Ant. 15.292-298), the suitable location of which is also noted: it was only a day trip from Jerusalem (15.293) and surrounded by fertile soil (15.296). Antiquities mentions the account about Samaria-Sebaste directly after that about Caesarea (15.342); both cities are mentioned together in 15.292-293. Herodium was also built at a location that was most suitable (see 15.324 with the note to “most suitable for construction work”).Caesarea soon had a mixed population, consisting of Jews and non-Jews (including Romans, merchants, and tax farmers). Jewish inhabitants lived scattered all over the city (Patrich 2007: 93, 109). Herod most probably did not design it as a Jewish city, otherwise he would not have erected a temple with statues of Augustus and Roma in it (see 15.328-329, 339; Levine 1975: 16-17). This argument was also brought forward by the non-Jewish inhabitants of Caesarea against their Jewish fellow citizens who claimed that the city was Jewish because it was founded by a Jew (i.e., Herod; War 2.266).Herod probably had several motives for founding Caesarea: he clearly intended to show his loyalty and gratitude to Augustus by naming the new city Caesarea (see 15.293 with the note to “Caesarea,” also 15.339) and to create an image of himself as a successful builder and ruler–Caesarea was his most extensive and prestigious building project (cf. Schalit 2001: 341, who emphasizes that Herod was a Hellenistic ruler who loved splendor and glory). Herod probably also built the city for economic reasons (see the next note) and to improve his relationship with prominent non-Jews (Levine 1975: 12-14). And last but not least, Caesarea also became the administrative capital of the kingdom (Patrich 2007: 93). The suitability of the area can be taken in a strict as well as in a broad sense. Its location on the coastal Plain of Sharon provided ample space to build a new city, and Mount Carmel was relatively close, such that the city’s water supply was fairly easy to arrange. Moreover, the city had wells (Netzer 2006: 101-03; Patrich 2007: 120-21, who notes that it is uncertain whether there was an aqueduct already in Herod’s time). In a broader perspective the location could give an important stimulus to commerce and other economic activities in Herod’s kingdom given the good road connections with Egypt, the Phoenician coast, Antioch, Asia Minor, Scythopolis, Damascus, Palmyra, the Red Sea area (via Gaza), and the Euphrates area (Charlesworth 1926: 36-56; Schalit 2001: 340). The Plain of Sharon as the city’s hinterland provided access to the Valley of Esdraelon, Galilee, and the fertile hills of Samaria (Stern 1974b: 257; Levine 1975: 12 with n. 63). The tolls in Caesarea must have been an important source of income for Herod (Udoh 2005: 172).Dionysius (Ant. rom. 1.85) offers a close parallel to Josephus’ phrase (χωρίον ἐπιτηδειότατον δέξασθαι πόλιν “an area … most suitable for holding a city”) concerning the location of the city of Remoria near the Tiber (ἔστι δὲ τὸ χωρίον ἐπιτήδειον ὑποδέξασθαι πόλιν). The parallel report of War (1.408) also shares several words with Ant. 15.331, but it has a different tenor: “… it was suited for welcoming his generosity because of its favorable position (διὰ δὲ εὐφυίαν τοῦ χωρίου δέξασθαι δυναμένην τὸ φιλότιμον αὐτοῦ).” Cf. Ant. 5.68 about Silo as location for the Tabernacle. Similar phrases in War 1.156, 408; Ant. 15.293. Straton’s Tower was founded by the Sidonians and located on the coast, ca. 35 km south of the current city of Haifa (further references in 15.217 with the note to “Straton’s Tower”). War 1.408 notes that Straton’s Tower was dilapidated. This passage suggests that Herod was actively involved in the building activities as a city planner and architect (about Herod as builder, see Roller 1998; Lichtenberger 1999; Japp 2000; Netzer 2006).The noun διαγραφή (“outline, plan,” Rengstorf s.v.) occurs once elsewhere in Josephus, concerning David giving to Solomon a plan for the building of the Temple (Ant. 5.375). The phrase οὐ παρέργως (literally “not incidentally”) is a case of litotes, which phrase also occurs in War 7.136; Ant. 1.9; 20.157; Apion 1.183, 216. The parallel report of War (1.408) includes a similar note: “He entirely rebuilt it with white stone (πᾶσαν ἀνέκτισεν λευκῷ λίθῳ)” (trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a), although Antiquities uses πέτρος instead of λίθος for “stone.” Marcus-Wikgren (159 n. d) and Oleson and Raban (1989-94: 1.52) state that marble is intended. Archaeological finds, however, imply that most buildings at Caesarea were made out of local kurkar, which was plastered and sometimes also provided with stucco (Patrich 2007: 100-01). The plural βασίλεια, which also occurs in the parallel passage of War (1.408 καὶ λαμπροτάτοις ἐκόσμησεν βασιλείοις), can either mean “palace” or “palaces” (Rengstorf s.v.), such that an alternative translation would be “most costly palaces.” Nevertheless, the excavations reveal that Herod built only one palace, at a special spot: a kurkar salient that jumps into the sea ca. 450 m south of the harbor. Herod expanded this beautiful promontory palace over 2 terraces with a view to the festival, which would be held at the completion of Caesarea, in order that he could host important guests in it. This palace (the “lower terrace”) was a two-story building (110 x 55 m) with a rock-cut rectangular pool at its center. The pool was ca. 35 x 18 m wide (and 2 m deep) and positioned within a peristyle court, which provided access to a triclinium and other rooms. The added “upper terrace” was built adjacent to the “lower terrace” and bonded with the hippodrome stadium at its northeastern corner. It had a large peristyle courtyard (64 x 32 m) and a large wing of rooms along the north side. Its western section included a large basilical hall (ca. 15 x 17 m), which may have functioned as an audience hall. The southern side of the palace was almost entirely eroded (Netzer 1986; 2006: 106-12; Patrich 2007: 110-13). This detail is missing in War, which also has no parallel for δίαιται πολιτικαί (“public buildings,” LSJ s.v. δίαιτα). In his De architectura (5 preface 5), a work written for Augustus, Vitruvius mentions the public buildings (loci publici) that each city should have: a forum (marketplace), a basilica (assembly hall), a treasury, a prison, a curia (council house), a theater with adjoining porticoes, baths, a palaestra (wrestling school), a harbor, and ship yards. Archaeological remains confirm that Caesarea contained several of these buildings, of which the harbor, mentioned in the next paragraph, was the most important (see also Ant. 15.339-341). The parallel passage of War (1.408) highlights Herod’s magnanimous character: “Above all he demonstrated in this way his innate magnanimity (τὸ φύσει μεγαλόνουν; cf. 1.400, 428) ….”

The complicated and long Greek sentence of Ant. 15.331-332 has to be broken up in English. The beginning of 15.332 puts emphasis on the harbor as the last and biggest project mentioned in the sentence. The construction of the harbor is described in detail in 15.334-338. The adjective ἄκλυστος (“free from inundation,” LSJ, or “sheltered from the sea,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus (cf. Diodorus 3.44.7; 17.104.8; Strabo 6.3.6; Arrian, Ind. 26.10; Oppian of Corycus 1.226; 4.450). War 1.410 says that Caesarea’s harbor was even bigger than Pireus’ (μείζονα τοῦ Πειραιῶς λιμένα κατεσκεύασεν). Archaeological research shows that the statements of both War and Antiquities are exaggerated: Caesarea Maritima had a middle sized harbor (Lehmann-Hartleben 1923: 180; Lämmer 1974: 140 n. 7; Schalit 2001: 339, referring to Foerster). The noun καταγωγή (“landing, entrance, etc.,” Rengstorf s.v.) refers here to the space of the enclosed harbor (see Ant. 15.334-336), which offered a safe berth for ships. The word also occurs in War 1.413; Ant. 15.337, in which cases it refers to the accommodation for the sailors arriving at Caesarea. Oleson and Raban (1989-94: 1.52) translates with “quays” here. The expression δευτέρους ὑφόρμους (translated as “second anchorages”) has no parallels, and we can only guess what it refers to exactly. It might indicate that the harbor offered to ships a 2nd place to anchor in addition to the anchorages at the shore (cf. Ant. 15.333) or refer to a 2nd row of ships lying at anchor behind those directly connected with the quay. The noun ὕφορμος (“anchorage,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. The noun δόμησις (“building, construction”) also occurs in War 1.411 but with a different tenor: Antiquities focuses on the materials used for the construction, while War highlights the technicality of the construction in the sea (“Despite the entirely adverse nature of the terrain, he struggled with the difficulties so that the solidity of the construction was not damaged by the sea.” Trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a). The materials for the mole (concrete with volcanic ash—pozzolana—as active ingredient) and for the double-walled frameworks (wood into which concrete was poured; see Ant. 15.334 with the note to “enormous stones”) came from Italy or Greece and Eastern Europe, respectively (Richardson 2004: 261; Netzer 2006: 100).The noun ἐπιτηδειότης (“necessary material,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. The noun μεγαλουργία (“magnificence”) also occurs in Ant. 15.414, concerning the columns of the portico of Herod’s Temple in Jerusalem. The verb ἐκτελειόω (“accomplish, complete,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. See the note to “no local materials that were necessary” above. This note links up with the phrase “he went to the greatest expense for this” (Ant. 15.330), concerning Herod’s aid to foreign cities. Ant. 16.13 mentions Samaria-Sebaste and Caesarea as well as fortresses that Herod had built at great expense (πολλαῖ δαπάναις; cf. 15.274; 16.154, 182).

In this paragraph Josephus first points out the location of Caesarea. His information is rather similar to that given in the parallel passage of War (1.409): “For from Dora to Joppa (μεταξὺ γὰρ Δώρων καὶ ’Ιόππης; cf. Ant. 15.333 ’Ιόππης μεταξὺ καὶ Δώρων), midway between which the city is situated, the coast was without a port, so that sailing along the coast of Phoenicia (τὸν τὴν Φοινίκην) on the way to Egypt entails dropping anchor in the open sea because of the threat of the south-west wind (διὰ τὴν ἐκ λιβὸς ἀπειλήν) …” (War 1.409, trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a). Both passages mention Phoenicia, but there is a significant difference: War points to a sea trip along the coast from Egypt to Phoenicia to the north, without connecting Caesarea directly with Phoenicia, while Antiquities locates Caesarea within Phoenicia. In the 1st cent. BCE “Phoenicia” usually refers to the coastal area between Mount Carmel to the south and the territory around the city of Gabala to the north, including the Bekaa Valley (Grainger 1991: 5-19, 113-14); sometimes the Palestinian coast was included as well. Thus concerning Antony’s grant of coastal cities and other areas to Cleopatra in 37 BCE, Plutarch (Ant. 36) refers to Phoenicia, while Cassius Dio (49.32.4-5) to Phoenicia and Palestine (see Ant. 15.95 with the note to “and Egypt”). Dionysius Periegetes (904-912) associates Gaza and Joppa with Phoenicia by pointing to Phoenician inhabitants (Kokkinos 1998: 117 n. 105). Möller and Schmitt (1976: 190) note that the coastal city of Dor-Dora, north of Caesarea (see the note to “Dora” below), was considered to be part of Phoenicia. Josephus apparently takes Phoenicia in a broad sense here, referring to the entire coastal line running from Egypt to Asia Minor. The implication of his presentation seems to be that Caesarea was not part of the Jewish territory (see also Ant. 15.331 with the note to “an area near the sea”).The phrase ἡ πόλις κεῖται (“the city lies”; see already Herodotus 1.142; Thucydides 1.46) occurs in War 1.409 (also referring to Caesarea); 3.52 (Jerusalem); 4.2 (Gamala); 7.224 (Samosata); Ant. 12.348 (Scythopolis); 15.410 (Jerusalem); Apion 2.10 (Heliopolis). Cf. the parallel passage of War (1.409), which refers to a journey by sea along the Phoenician coast to Egypt (see the previous note). Caesarea was considerably closer to Dora than to Joppa: it was located ca. 12 km south of Dora and ca. 52 km north of Joppa-Jafo. Herod captured Joppa at the beginning of his rule (see Ant. 14.396-397 and 15.2 with the note to “all Judea”). Dora was founded by the Phoenicians. It became part of Alexander Janneus’ territory (13.324) but was separated again from the Judean territory by Pompey. It remained an independent city and never became part of Herod’s territory (13.324, 326, 334-335; 14.76; Möller and Schmitt 1976: 84-85; Schürer-Vermes 2.118-20). Josephus starts here his explanation why Herod decided to build an artificial harbor at Straton’s Tower (Ant. 15.333-334). The parallel passage of War (1.409), which shares the adjective παράλιος (“coastal”) with Ant. 15.333, similarly notes that there were no harbors along the coast between Dora and Joppa.The word πολισμάτιον is the diminutive of πόλισμα (“[buildings of] a city,” LSJ s.v.) and a hapax legomenon in Josephus. There is no natural harbor at this part of the coast. The adjective δύσορμος (“with bad anchorage,” LSJ s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. War 1.409 and Ant. 15.333 share the noun λίψ (“south-west, south-wester,” Rengstorf s.v.). There is one further occurrence of this word in Josephus (Ant. 3.294; 3.34). With Niese 392. MSS FLAMVW lack the adverb ἀεί (“continuously”). The word may have been left out because it conflicts with the expression “most of the time” found in the final subclause of this paragraph. The noun θίς (“sand,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. The noun πόντος (“[open] sea,” LSJ s.v.) occurs once elsewhere in Josephus, referring to the Euxine Sea in the story of Jonah (Ant. 9.213). In addition to the winds that were blowing the ships to the shore, shifting sandbanks may also have made anchorage along this coast difficult. Niese (392) leaves out the word μειλίχιος (“smooth”) with MS P, but all the other Greek MSS include this adjective. Niese’s reading implies “do not offer a landing place” as translation. The word μειλίχιος occurs once elsewhere in Josephus, as a noun (τὸ μειλίχιον “friendliness,” War 7.71; Rengstorf s.v. μειλίχιος). The noun καταγωγή (“landing, landing place”) also occurs in Ant. 15.332. The implication of Josephus’ explanation seems to be that the ships had to keep a safe distance from the shore most of the time, such that the merchandise had to be transferred to small boats in order to bring it ashore. War 1.409 also notes that the ships had to stay away from the shore but focuses on the effect of the winds on the water: “For even when the wind blows moderately, it sends the waves up to such a height against the cliffs, that the waves’ backward flow stirs up the sea to the greatest distance.” (trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a).The verb ἀποσαλεύω (“ride at anchor,” LSJ s.v.; cf. Rengstorf s.v. “be exposed to the sea, lie [at anchor]” and War 1.409 σαλεύειν ἐν πελάγει “dropping anchor in the open sea”) occurs once elsewhere in Josephus, with a different meaning (War 7.62 “be alarmed,” Rengstorf s.v.).

Niese (392) reads δύσδιάθετον (“difficult to regulate,” Rengstorf s.v.), following MS P (δυσδυάθετον) with a slight change. MSS FLAMMVW and E read δύσθετον (“unfavorable”), which would be a hapax legomenon in Josephus. This reading probably results from a contraction of the reading δύσδιάθετον and should, therefore, be considered to be secondary. Schreckenberg (1967-69: 70-71) proposes δυσίατος (“incurable”), which adjective occurs once elsewhere in Josephus (War 7.451), but there is no need to change the transmitted text. The harbor had 3 basins, the major part of which was built into the open sea. It had 2 piers (or breakwaters), one at the north side and one at the south-west, with the entrance to the north (see Ant. 15.337 with notes). For the report of the maritime excavations of the harbor, see Oleson and Raban 1989-94; Raban and Holum 1996.The noun κύκλος (“ring, circle”) also occurs in the parallel report of War (1.413), but there it is used adverbially in connection with the quay: “… the entire circular quay (τὸ πᾶν κύκλῳ νάγμα) in front of them [i.e., the vaulted chambers] formed an extensive promenade for those disembarking.” For the combination of the verb περιγράφω (“draw’) with κύκλος (“circle”) and λιμήν (“harbor”), cf. Heron, Diop. 17.1. The verb ἐνορμέω (“to lie at anchor in the harbor,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. The noun χέρσος (literally “dry land,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. Josephus’ description does not completely match the archaeological findings: the base of the mole was constructed from poured concrete, put underwater into place with a wooden construction that could sink at the appropriate location. This technique was quite recent; Vitruvius describes it in his De architectura (5.12.2-6). Underwater the concrete blocks looked like huge stones (Richardson 2004: 260-61). Many of the blocks were ca. 30 m3 (ca. 90 tons) or more in volume (Netzer 2006: 100).The adjective ὑπερμεγέθης (“gigantic, immense,” Rengstorf s.v.) also occurs in the description of the 2 huge rooms in Herod’s palace in Jerusalem, which were named after Caesar and Agrippa (Ant. 15.318). I.e., ca. 37 m. Cf. War 1.411 “… he submerged into twenty fathoms of water stone blocks (καθίει λίθους ἐπ’ ὀργυιὰς εἴκοσιν εἰς τὸ πέλαγος) ….” (trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a). The noun ὀργυιά (“the length of the outstretched arms,” LSJ s.v.; see Ant. 15.413) indicates a unit of length equal to 6 feet and 1 fathom (ca. 1.85 m). The word also occurs in the parallel passage of War (1.411) and still once elsewhere in Josephus (Ant. 15.413 concerning the thickness of the columns of the Temple’s portico). The foot (πούς) is a common unit of length in antiquity (LSJ s.v. 3), equaling roughly 30 cm: the Attic and Roman feet are ca. 29.5 cm; the Olympic foot is 32.1 cm. The same measurement occurs in the passage of War (1.411) and the same unit in War 1.412; Ant. 15.335, 413, 415. War 1.411 offers similar measurements: “… most of which measured fifty feet in length, nine in depth, and ten in breadth (ὧν ἦσαν οἱ πλεῖστοι μῆκος ποδῶν πεντήκοντα, βάθος ἐννέα, εὖρος δέκα) ….” (trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a). The parallel passage of War (1.411) is slightly briefer and different: “… some were even larger (τινὲς δὲ καί μείζους).” (trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a).

The rare noun ἐνδόμησις (“thing built in, mole, breakwater,” LSJ s.v.; Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. It occurs a few times elsewhere, although only in Christian literature (e.g., John of Damascus, Vit. Barl. Joas. 94 [ed. Woodward and Mattingly 158.23]). A variant reads ἐνδώμησις (“enclosing with a wall,” Niese 392), which noun is also attested in Rev 21:18 and in an inscription from Smyrna (SIG no. 996 l. 30; LSJ s.v.). War 1.412 uses the noun τεῖχος (“wall”) for “mole” (Marcus-Wikgren 161 n. d; Rengstorf s.v.): “When the underwater foundation was completed, he then extended a mole (τεῖχος) two hundred feet in breadth above the water.” (trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a). For a detailed report of the archaeological findings concerning the breakwaters, see Oleson and Raban 1989-94: 1.101-203. Niese (392), who reads ὅσον ἦν ἐβάλλετο (“[the construction] …, which was as big as ? he threw …”) with MS P, indicates that the transmitted Greek text is corrupt. The description in War is clear (see the next note). War 1.412 says more specifically that the mole was 200 feet wide. In fact, there were 2 breakwaters: a northern and a southern one. The debris of the northern breakwater implies that it had a rectangular outline, which was ca. 60-65 m wide and ca. 250 m long in the east-west direction. The southern breakwater formed a great arc (running first [roughly] east-west), then making a curve (running north-south), and finally making another curve towards the end of the northern breakwater. Its width varied, and its length was ca. 750 m (about the southern and northern breakwaters, see Raban and Oleson and Raban 1989-94: 1.104-31, 157-60, 279-86). Josephus’ number of 200 feet, therefore, can hardly apply to the main construction of the southern and northern breakwaters and may rather pertain to a section of the outer construction of the southern breakwater. The transmitted Greek text is probably corrupt again. Niese (393) and others follow the conjecture proposed by Coccejus: προβέβλητο κυματωγαῖς. The noun κυματωγή (“place where the waves break,” LSJ s.v.) would be a hapax legomenon in Josephus (Rengstorf s.v.). The readings κυμαγωγίαις and κυμαγωγαῖς of MSS FLMVE and MSS AW, respectively, are nouns that are not attested in ancient Greek literature. The reading κυματώσαις of MS P is an existing noun (κυμάτωσις) meaning “flow (of the tide)” (LSJ s.v.), but this does not fit the context well. It is, however, associated with storms and high seas in Philo, Mos. 2.255; Opif. 63. The description of the breakwater is again more specific in the parallel report of War (1.412): “… one hundred feet of which were built out to break (the assault of) the waves (πρὸς τὴν ἀνακοπὴν τοῦ κύματος).” (trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a).The verb περικλάω (“break”) occurs once elsewhere in Josephus (Ant. 19.226; Rengstorf s.v.). Instead of the noun προκυμάτια attested by MSS FLAMW, Niese (393) reads προκυμία (“breakwater,” LSJ s.v.), following War 1.412: προκυμία γοῦν ἐκλήθη (“whence the name ‘breakwater’”). The noun προκυμία does not occur elsewhere in Josephus. The archaeological remains imply that a segmented construction outside the main body of the southern breakwater functioned as the actual breakwater and that a wall with sloping faces on both sides served as the subsidiary breakwater. The width of the main breakwater from the outside to its inner edge was ca. 65 m, which roughly matches Josephus’ reference to 200 feet (Oleson and Raban 1989-94: 2.284-85, 288).

Similarly War 1.412, with partly the same vocabulary: “… the rest supported a stone wall (λιθίνῳ τείχει) …” (trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a). The verb διαλαμβάνω (“intersperse,” Rengstorf s.v.) occurs in Ant. 15.324 in connection with the building of a series of towers at Herodium. The parallel report of War (1.412) also combines διαλαμβάνω with πύργοις (“towers”). War 1.412 indicates that all the towers of the mole were huge (μέγιστος; see also War 5.177, 242 and Aristotle, Pol. 1331a; Diodorus Siculus 2.7.3; 14.18.8), while Antiquities uses this adjective to note that the tower called after Drusus was the biggest. War 1.412 uses different vocabulary to point out that the Drusus Tower was the most important and most beautiful tower of the breakwater. Likewise War 1.412, which also shares the word πρόγονος (meaning “ancestor, stepson” here, Rengstorf s.v.) with Ant. 15.336. Drusus the Elder (i.e., Nero Claudius Drusus) was the brother of the later emperor Tiberius and Augustus’ adoptive son. He is also mentioned in Ant. 18.143, 180 (Schalit 1968: 40; further references in Kienast 1996: 68-69; Kienast 1999: 125). Josephus does not offer a specific reason for this honor to Drusus the Elder. There is no evidence of a special relationship between Herod and Drusus. Caesarea may have been completed shortly after Drusus’ death in 9 BCE, such that the tower would have been thus called in his commemoration (Braund 1984: 109). This would imply that Herod would have honored Augustus by naming the tower after Drusus.

The noun ψαλίς (“vault”) occurs in Josephus only here and in the parallel passage of War (1.413). Rengstorf (s.v.) gives the meaning “build in to” for the verb ἐμποιέω. The noun καταγωγή (“landing place, accommodation, etc.”) also occurs in Ant. 15.332-333, in which case it refers to landing places for ships in the harbor (see 15.332 with the note to “internal landing places”). Here as well as in the parallel passage of War (1.413) it indicates an accommodation for sailors (Rengstorf s.v.). The noun ναυτίλος (“seamen,” Rengstorf s.v.) used in the plural is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. About Herod’s navy, see Shatzman 1991: 186-87. The noun ἀπόβασις (“quay,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a further hapax legomenon in Josephus. The vocabulary for the description of the quay in War 1.413 is closely similar to that in Ant. 15.337, although it also varies, using identical or related words in differing ways: “… the entire circular quay (τὸ πὰν … κύκλῳ νάγμα; cf. Ant. τὸν πὰντα λιμένα) in front of them (πρὸ αὐτῶν, i.e., the vaulted chambers; idem in Ant.) formed an extensive promenade (πλατὺς περίπατος; cf. Ant. ἀπόβασις πλατεῖα) for those disembarking (τοῖς ἀποβαίνουσιν) …” (trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a). The verb περιστεφανόω (“enwreathe, surround,” Rengstorf s.v.) occurs twice elswhere in Josephus (Ant. 6.108 concerning the location of a military camp and 12.80 concerning the decoration of the rim of a mixing vessel). The dative κύκλῳ (“around”) also occurs in War 1.413 (see the previous note). The combination of both words also occurs in Ant. 6.108 about a camp’s location on a cliff “surrounded by a ring of rocks (ἐν κύκλῳ περιστεφανούσης).” Cf. Plutarch’s reference in his Symposiacs to the common saying “the pleasantest sailing is along the coast, while the pleasantest walk is by the sea (περίπατος δ’ ὁ παρὰ θάλατταν ἥδιστος)” (Plutarch, Mor. [Quaest. conv.] 621d, trans. Clement and Hoffleit). The noun περίπατος (“walk, promenade,” Rengstorf s.v.) also occurs in the parallel passage of War (1.413), but there it means “promenade” (see above and Ant. 15.366). Likewise War 1.413, which shares the noun εἴσπλους (“entrance [of a harbor],” Rengstorf s.v.) with Ant. 15.337. The word occurs once elsewhere in Josephus, referring to the narrow entrance of Alexandria’s harbor (War 4.612). The entrance to Caesarea’s harbor was between 20 and 30 m wide. The noun στόμα (“mouth”) is redundant and also occurs in the parallel passage of War (1.413). Instead of the noun βορρᾶς (“north, north wind”), War 1.413 has the closely related word βορέας (cf. also the adjective βόρειος [“northern”] concerning the entrance of the harbor, 1.413). Likewise War 1.413, which shares the words ἀνέμων (“wind”) and αἰθριώτατος (“clearest”) with Ant. 15.337.

The noun βάσις (“foot, base”) also occurs in the description of the hill upon which Herodium was built (Ant. 15.325). Rengstorf (s.v.) gives “(outermost) end” as meaning here. The adjective περίβολος also functioned as a noun, meaning, among other things, “(surrounding) wall, temple area,” but Rengstorf (s.v.) gives “ring shaped mole, quay” as meanings here. Part of Josephus’ description of Caesarea takes a panoramic viewpoint by inviting the readers to look at Caesarea’s harbor as if they were sailing in to it (Ant. 15.338-339). Other classical authors likewise provide topographical information from the perspective of an anonymous traveler on a boat that sails into or around a specific place. E.g., Thucydides 1.24.1: “There is a city called Epidamnus on the right hand as one sails into the Ionian gulf …” (trans. Smith). This description presents the viewpoint of somebody who is sailing away from the Mediterranean basin. See also Appian’s preface to his Foreign Wars (about the territories ruled by the Romans), which includes the following passage: “In the Ocean they [i.e., the Romans] rule most of the Britons; to one that enters through the Pillars of Heracles [i.e., the promontories that flank the entrance to the Strait of Gibraltar] into this sea [i.e., the Mediterranean Sea] and that sails around again to the same Pillars they rule all islands, and all the main-lands that run down to the sea” (translation and discussion in Pitcher 2012: 222-24; similar vocabulary in Strabo 7.3.15; 7.4.5; 11.2.10; 11.7.11; Procopius, Aed. 1.8.2). The participle εἰςπλεόντων (“sailing into,” also Ant. 15.339) echoes εἴσπλους (“entrance”) in 15.337. Apart from here and the parallel passage of War (1.413), the verb occurs only in the next paragraph. An alternative translation would be “a compressed stronghold,” but that does not fit the context well. MSS AMVW read πύργος περιηγμένος or πύργος … ιηγμένος (“a [rotated] tower”) instead of πύργος νενασμένος attested by MS P, which reading is followed by Niese. The Homeric verb νάσσω (“squeeze close, press, stamp down,” LSJ s.v.) occurs once elsewhere in Josephus (War 1.337), referring to houses packed with heavily armed troops (πᾶσα ὁπλιτῶν οἰκία νένακτο).” Rengstorf (s.v.) offers “be filled in, be solid” as meanings for νάσσω in the passive voice. Similarly War 1.413, although the size of the stones is not indicated in War. The “stones” were in fact towers (see the next note). Cf. War 1.413. Concerning the remains of the tower located northwest of the northern breakwater and the twin towers situated west of the harbor’s entrance channel, see Oleson and Raban 1989-94: 1.127-30 and 1.149-51 (written by Vann). Similarly War 1.413 (ὀρθοὶ λίθοι … συνεζευγμένοι), which passage offers a roughly similar description of the harbor’s entrance but adds information about colossal statues supported by columns: “At the mouth (ἐπὶ τοῦ στόματος) [of the harbor] colossal statues (κολοσσοὶ) were supported by columns, three on each side (ἑκατέρωθεν). A massive tower (πύργος ναστός) held up [the columns] on the left of vessels entering (εἰσπλεόντων) [the harbor], while two stone blocks standing upright (δύο ὀρθοὶ λίθοι) and clamped together (συνεζευγμένοι) [held up] those [columns] on the right, whose height surpassed that of the rim of the tower on the opposite side (τοῦ κατὰ θάτερον χεῖλος πύργου μείζονες)” (War 1.413, trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a, slightly adapted).”

An alternative translation would be “a series of houses” since οἴκησις can mean “house, building, dwelling” as well as “place of residence” (Rengstorf s.v.). War 1.414 refers explicitly to houses (see the next note). A translation like “houses,” however, does not fit the grid system of Caesarea’s city plan: the houses of the city were located within the grid, in the insulae between the streets (see the next note), such that Josephus may here vaguely refer to public buildings that were situated outside of the grid plan, like the temple, theater, amphitheater, and royal palace (see Ant. 15.331 with the note to “a most costly palace”). The description in War 1.414 is different: “The houses (οἰκίαι) adjacent to the harbor were also of white stone, and the streets of the city, marked out at equal distances from each other, led down to it.” (trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a). Contrary to other Herodian cities, Caesarea was built according to an orthogonal grid, possibly inspired by Alexandria’s city plan. This is confirmed by the descriptions of its streets in War 1.414 and of its drainage and sewage system in Ant. 15.340. The city had 4 north-south streets (cardines) and at least 7 east-west streets (decumani), with rectangular blocks for housing in between (insulae, Patrich 2007: 95-96, 104-05). Patrich (2007: 104, 122-24) argues that there was also a diagonal street leading up to Augustus’ temple from the east. Caesarea most probably included all the public buildings that were usually part of a Hellenistic city (see also 15.331 with the note to “public buildings”) and was surrounded by a semi-circular city wall at its south, east, and north sides (Netzer 2006: 96-99; Patrich 2007: 101-04). The adjective λειότατος (“most smoothly”) probably refers to carefully polished stones (see also War 5.239 and Ant. 15.331 with the note to “buildings of white stone”). The platform on which the temple stood was ca. 13 m above sea level and partly based on a natural ridge of kurkar, which was filled in on the sides. It was rectangular in shape (ca. 100 x 90 m), but the eastern side was curvilinear. At the ends of the western side westward-projecting wings were built (21 x 9.5 m). A massive pier (20 x 10 m) housed a staircase leading up to the temple from the west side, which shows that the west, visible from the sea, was the temple’s front side. The temple itself was 46.4 m long, 28.6 m wide, and ca. 21 m high. It had colonnades on all sides, in Corinthian style and with Attic bases (Holum 1999; Netzer 2006: 103-06; Patrich 2007: 105-08). The noun κολωνός (“hill, mound,” LSJ s.v.; Rengstorf s.v.) occurs twice elsewhere in Josephus, both times referring to the hill on which Herodium was built (War 1.419; Ant. 15.324). In the parallel version of War (1.414) the description and most of the vocabulary are again different: “On a mound (ἐπὶ γηλόφου; cf. Ant. 15.339 κολωνός τις) right opposite the mouth [of the harbor] was Caesar’s temple (ναὸς Καίσαρος; cf. Ant. νεὼς Καίσαρος), remarkable for its beauty and size” (trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a). Patrich (2007: 108-09) argues on the basis of city coins and a marble statue of Tyche dating from the 2nd cent. CE that Caesarea also had a temple of Tyche. This detail is missing in War. Archaeological research confirms that this temple of Augustus was located on a terrace and visible from afar at sea (Schalit 2001: 336-37). Concerning τοῖς εἰσπλέουσιν (“those who sailed in”), see Ant. 15.338 with the note to “those who sail into.” Vogel (2002: 196) states that the harbor with its view on Augustus’ temple was Herod’s “visiting card,” presenting his kingdom as a stabile part of the Roman Empire. See the next two notes. For ἀγάλματα meaning “statues (of gods),” see Ant. 15.276 with the note to “venerate such [images].” Roma (Ῥώμη) is the toponym for the capital of the Roman Empire. According to legends, the name goes back to Romulus, the founder and first ruler of Rome (Livy 1.7.3), or to the name of a Trojan woman called called Rhome (Ῥώμη; this tradition is part of the legend that Odysseus and Aeneas founded Rome, see Dionysius, Ant. rom. 1.72.2). In the Greek world Roma was the personification of the Roman people and the Roman state, analogous to Demos as the personification of Athens. Such personifications were deified and honored with cults and festivals. In line with Rome’s presence in the eastern part of the Mediterranean world from the beginning of the 2nd cent. BCE onward, cults of Roma were founded at several places, with temples, altars, priests, and Romaia festivals (at Smyrna in 195 BCE, Chalcis in 194 BCE, Delfi and Lycia in 189 BCE, Alabanda in 170 BCE). The supreme deity, Zeus or Jupiter, usually joined Roma, although not so much as the patron deity of Rome but rather as the protector of oaths and treaties. In the Imperial period the emperor was frequently venerated together with Roma and associated with Zeus/Jupiter, whose characteristics were transferred to the emperor. Roma changed from a symbol of military hegemony into a representation of the empire. Shortly after the Battle of Actium (in 31 BCE), temples for Roma and Augustus were founded in several cities in various provinces of Asia Minor (Pergamum in Asia, Nicomedia in Bithynia, and Ancyra in Galatia; see the next note). Tacitus (Ann. 4.37.3) presents the relevant cult in Asia as venerating Augustus and the city of Rome, but Greek inscriptions show that the goddess Roma was worshipped. Local cults for Roma and the emperor came also into being, e.g., in Caesarea Maritima. She was depicted with a mural crown, a crested helmet, a modius, and sometimes bareheaded (van Henten 1999; for the association of Roma with Hera, see the next note). By way of exception the Antiquities report concerning the statues of Augustus and Roma is shorter than the parallel version of War (1.413). It also mentions the statues in a reversed order. The extra information in War 1.414 describes the statues: “In it was a colossal statue (κολοσσός; cf. Ant. 15.339 ἀγάλματα) of Caesar, not inferior to the Olympian Zeus, after which it was modelled, and [a statue] of Rome, matching that of Hera at Argos.” (trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a). Pheidias’ massive (12–14 m high) statue of Olympian Zeus, made in the 5th century BCE was considered one of the wonders of the ancient world. Its appearance is known from a downsized Roman copy (currently in the Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg). Zeus is clad in a heroic himation. In his right hand he holds a small winged Victory (Nike) standing on a globe, indicating his rule of the world, and in his left a sceptre. He is accompanied by his symbol, the eagle. The same museum has a statue of Augustus as Olympian Zeus, which was probably similar to the statue that Herod placed in Augustus’ temple in Caesarea. The bearded and long-haired head of Zeus is replaced by the head of the young Augustus head. Josephus states that Roma was depicted as Hera of Argos, which may be modeled on a huge sculpture made by Polycleitos (5th century BCE, Taylor 2006: 571-72).The veneration of (deceased) rulers was a Greek custom that was adapted by Octavian-Augustus to the new political situation in the Mediterranean world after Actium (31 BCE). There were 2 types of cults: (1) dynastic cults set up by the rulers themselves, which legitimized their power as rulers, and (2) cults organized by others (like individual rulers, cities, or provinces), which reciprocated the benefactions of the ruler venerated. In both cases the cults were part of a mutually advantageous relationship. Price (1984: 248) argues that “the (imperial) cult was a major part of the web of power that formed the fabric of society.” The first provincial cults for Octavian were established at Pergamum in Asia (in 29 BCE) and at Nicomedia in Bithynia shortly after his triumph at Actium, which initiatives were taken by the provinces (Tacitus, Ann. 4.37; Suetonius, Aug. 52; Cassius Dio 51.20.7). The cults were dedicated to the ruler (i.e., Augustus) and to Roma (see the previous note). In that same period Octavian himself decreed that a cult of Roma and Divus Julius (“the divine Julius [Caesar]”) had to be set up in the Roman provinces of Asia (at Ephesus) and Bithynia (at Nicea). The cults initiated by the provinces themselves were celebrated by the indigenous worshippers; the ones for Rome and Divus Julius by the Romans present in the provinces. Shortly after the incorporation of Galatia into the Roman Empire a temple for Roma and Augustus was built at Ancyra (probably around 25-20 BCE). In the western part of the empire a cult of the emperor was established in 12 BCE when the Gallic provinces dedicated an altar to Roma and Augustus at Lugdunum (Fishwick 1987-2005). Herod’s cult of Augustus in Caesarea matches the 2nd type of ruler cult, and Caesarea became the center of the cult of the emperor in Palestine (Bernett 2007a: 110-26). The temple included statues of Augustus and Dea Roma (see Ant. 15.339). Lämmer (1974: 102-03) argues on the basis of analogue cases in Pergamum and elsewhere that both Augustus and his wife Livia were venerated as protector gods during the quadrennial games at Caesarea (see 16.136-141): Augustus as Zeus Olympius and Livia as Hera-Roma. Herod also built temples for Augustus in Samaria-Sebaste, Paneas-Caesarea Philippi, and probably also at Sidon, Damascus, and Nicopolis (Braund 1984: 113; Schalit 2001: 358-65; Kienast 1999: 252; Bernett 2007a; 2007b). A dedicatory inscription on the base of a statue from Herod (OGIS no. 415) renders it plausible that the king also contributed to the building of a temple of Ba‘al Shamim at Si‘a, near Canatha-Qanawat (Richardson 1996: 184-85, 206-07; about the location, see Ant. 15.112 with the note to “Canata”). War 1.422 mentions briefly that Herod also built temples (ναούς) in Tyre and Berytus. The city was officially called Καισάρεια Σεβαστή (Caesarea Augusta; see also Ant. 15.292 with the note to “Sebaste”). The parallel version of War (1.414) mentions the homage to Augustus explicitly: “He [i.e., Herod] dedicated the city to the province, the harbor to those who sail in nearby waters, and the glory of this foundation, which he called Caesarea, to Caesar” (trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a). The alliteration of the k sound (καλλίστης καὶ τῆς ὕλης καὶ τῆς κατασκευῆς) adds emphasis to Josephus’ point that Caesarea was a most remarkable city in regard with both its building materials and architecture (cf. the polished stones of the construction [κατασκεύη] earlier in this paragraph; see the note to “the smoothest stone”).

The noun λαύρα (“passage, sewer,” LSJ s.v.; Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. The sewage system was covered (Patrich 2007: 95, 123). The verb ὑπεροικοδομέω (“be built over something” in the passive voice, Rengstorf s.v.) occurs once elsewhere in Josephus (War 5.186). The noun διάστημα (“distance, interval,” Rengstorf s.v.) also occurs in the parallel passage of War (1.414), but there it points to the grid system of the streets rather than the sewerage. For a close parallel of κατὰ σύμμετρα διαστήματα, cf. Polyaenus 2.31.4 (concerning a series of epiphanies of the Dioscuri during a nightly sacrificial assembly of Lacedaemonians) and Pseudo-Plutarch, Hom. 2.38 (ed. Kindstrand 24). The description suggests that there was one main sewer channel draining the wastewater off to the sea. The adjective ἐγκάρσιος (“transverse,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. The sewerage system transported excess rainwater and the inhabitants’ refuse. The noun λῦμα can mean “washing water, dirt” as well as “refuse” (LSJ s.v.; Rengstorf s.v.). The construction of this athwart channel apparently prevented the flooding of one or more of the other channels. The verb συνεκδίδωμι (“join in giving out, yield up together,” LSJ s.v.; Rengstorf s.v., who suggests “be washed away [together]” as meaning for this passage) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. Niese (394) reads ἐπείγηται (“intruded,” Rengstorf s.v. ἐπείγω), following MS P. The other Greek MSS read ἐπιγένηται (“was coming in”), which may have evolved out of the reading of MS P or vice versa. The description suggests that the sewerage system enabled a flow in 2 directions: the waste water went into the sea, while the sea itself could stream in (most probably during high water), so that the system was flushed. The parallel report about Caesarea in War 1 does not mention the sewerage system. The verb ὑποκλύζω (“wash from below,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus.

Herod’s theater has been excavated and is still well visible. It is located ca. 150 m from the sea, southeast of the harbor. It is relatively small and could receive between 3,500 and 5,000 spectators (Lämmer 1974: 120; Netzer 2006: 113; Patrich 2007: 115, with various calculations). It had a horseshoe-shaped cavea, an orchestra, and a stage with a scaenae frons. The diameter of the cavea was ca. 85 m and that of the orchestra ca. 35 m. The stage was ca. 9.5 m wide and ca. 50 m long (further references in Frova and Dell’Amore 1965: 157-234; Lämmer 1974: 128-30; Patrich 2002a; Netzer 2006: 112-15; Patrich 2007: 113-16). Niese (394) leaves out the phrase ἐκ πέτρας, following MS P and the Latin version, but most Greek MSS include both words. Copyists may have considered these words to be redundant since for them it was obvious that a theater was built of stone. Nevertheless, theaters could also be built of wood in Herod’s period (see Ant. 15.268 with the note to “a theater in Jerusalem”). The words make sense, therefore, and may emphasize Herod’s innovative switch from a wooden to a stone theater (Lichtenberger 2006: 290). A stone theater required a much greater effort and the import of building materials to the sandy coastal area of Caesarea. Lämmer (1974: 120-21), building on a suggestion by Ebert, proposes to transfer the καί attested after πέτρας to a position before ὄπισθεν, such that the theater would have been located south of the harbor and the amphitheater further back. This does not match the archaeological excavations, which show that the theater was furthest to the south. The parallel report of War (1.415) mentions, in addition to a theater and an amphitheater, also marketplaces. The amphitheater was most probably a hippodrome stadium building that was named ἀμφιθέατρον by Josephus because of its elongated form and U-turn (see also Ant. 15.268 with the note to “a huge amphitheater”; cf. War 2.172, which mentions a stadium). The hippodrome stadium (briefly “hippo-stadium,” a term coined by Humphrey 1996) has been excavated in the 90’s of the previous century. It was located northwest of the theater and had a maximum length (including the U-turn) of ca. 310 m; its width was ca. 68 m. The arena was 300 m long and 50.35 m wide. There were 12 rows with seats along the eastern, southern, and western sides. The starting gates were at the north side and contained 12 cells in Herod’s time, for races of 12 horses or chariots (Lämmer 1973: 216 n. 47; 1974: 115-27; Humphrey 1996; Patrich 2001; 2002a; 2007: 116-20). The stadium was built for the games held at the completion of Caesarea (Netzer 2006: 117; for the games, see Ant. 16.136-141). Life 277 offers a rather similar phrase concerning the synagogue of Capernaum: “… able to accommodate a large crowd (πολὺν ὄχλον ἐπιδέξασθαι δυνάμενον)” (trans. Mason in BJP 9 on Life 277). War 1.415 mentions that Herod built the theater, amphitheater, and marketplaces in a manner worthy of the name of the city (i.e., the emperor’s name). The parallel report of War (1.415) mentions in addition Caesarea’s marketplaces (ἀγοράς; or the singular “marketplace” according to some MSS). The verb ἀποπτεύω echoes the adjective ἄποπτος (“visible,” Rengstorf s.v.) in Ant. 15.339 and is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. Josephus also refers to the completion of the building activities in Ant. 16.136 and mentions 10 years in that connection: “The entire building project was finished in its tenth year (δεκάτῳ ἔτει πρὸς τέλος ἐλθούσης; my trans.).” This implies that there is a discrepancy between the period that the building activities lasted given here (i.e., 12 years) and that given in Ant. 16.136 (i.e., the 10th year).Josephus mentions in 16.136 that the completion of Caesarea coincided with Herod’s 28th regnal year and the 192nd Olympiad (i.e., summer 12-summer 8 BCE). He also reports in book 16 that the completion was followed by the foundation of quadrennial games (16.137). War 1.415 dates the foundation of these games to the 192nd Olympiad. Otto (1913: 78), Schürer-Vermes (1.291, 293), Stern (1974b: 257), Levine (1975: 11 with n. 53), Foerster (1976: 986), Richardson (1996: 231 n. 48; 2004: 267), and Netzer (2006: 94) take the capture of Jerusalem (mostly dated to 37 BCE) as the starting point for the conversion of the 28th year and conclude that the 12 years concern the period 23/22-10/9 BCE. Kokkinos (1998: 370) proposes 23-13 BCE (according to the 10 years mentioned in Ant. 16.136) or less likely 24-12 BCE (further references in Mahieu 2012: 166). Mahieu herself (pp. 166-78) argues that Herod chose the date of his capture of Jerusalem (5 March [36 BCE] in her opinion) as Caesarea’s dedication day, and that only 5 March 8 BCE matches Josephus’ references to the 28th regnal year (counted from 36 BCE) and the 192nd Olympiad. In Mahieu’s opinion there would be no discrepancy between the 12 years and the 10th year: the 10th year would mark the start of the work in 20 BCE (reckoned from Augustus and Herod’s meeting in Syria at the end of 30 BCE)—instead of marking its duration— with the work ending 12 years later, in 8 BCE (pp. 178-80). The word ἐργασία (“work, construction”) also occurs in Ant. 15.332, in connection with the building of Caesarea’s harbor. The expenses (δαπάναι) are also emphasized in Ant. 15.332. The parallel report of War (1.415) continues with a brief description of the foundation of the quadrennial games at Caesarea. Such a description is absent here but is given in Ant. 16.136-141.

Josephus switches here to a new cluster of events via a transition that indicates the time frame of the events. The expression “these [activities]” refers in the present context to the building of Caesarea (see Ant. 15.331-341). The subsequent time reference mentions the building of Samaria-Sebaste (see the next note). The combination of both time markers is somewhat misleading since there was a considerable gap between the building of Caesarea and that of Samaria-Sebaste. The time setting of the section Ant. 15.342-364, which starts with the report of Herod sending his sons Alexander and Aristobulus IV to Rome (15.342-343), matches the period in which Samaria-Sebaste was built (see the next note) better than the time in which Caesarea was constructed.The main figure in the section 15.342-364 is a local ruler named Zenodorus (15.344). Ant. 15.343-349 relates Zenodorus’ attack on the inhabitants of Damascus and the transfer of his territory of Trachonitis, Batanea, and Auranitis to Herod; Ant. 15.350-353 reports about Herod’s conflict with the Gadarenes, in which Zenodorus played a prominent role; and Ant. 15.354-364 concerns Augustus’ grant of Zenodorus’ dominion to Herod, Zenodorus’ death, and the building of a temple near Paneion, in Zenodorus’ territory. Caesarea and Samaria-Sebaste have been mentioned together several times in the preceding paragraphs (Ant. 15.292-293), although Samaria-Sebaste was built much earlier, starting from 27 BCE or a few years later (see 15.292 with the note to “Sebaste”).The verb πολίζω (“build a city,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. Mahieu (2012: 133 n. 41) suggests “found” as translation; she notes that the fact that Samaria was called Sebaste in 27 BCE does not necessarily imply that the building activities were finished in that year. Josephus does not refer to a specific year here, and his phrase “built as a city” can perhaps be interpreted as a reference to the refoundation of Samaria and the start of Herod’s building activities as a consequence. This is the first time that these two sons of Herod by Mariamme I are mentioned in Antiquities. They will figure prominently in book 16, from 16.11 onward. The precise dates of their births are unknown. The eldest, Alexander, was plausibly born in 36 BCE and Aristobulus IV in 35 BCE at the earliest given that Herod married Mariamme in 37 BCE (see 15.23 with the note to “living in wedlock with Herod”; Hoehner 1972: 13 n. 4; Kokkinos 1998: 213-14; Mahieu 2012: 187-88). The purpose of the visit was meeting Augustus according to the next phrase, but parallel passages of War indicate that the boys stayed in Rome for a long period and mention their education explicitly in passing (1.435, 445). Herod, therefore, sent his sons to Rome to provide them with a proper elite education. The full cycle of this education included the ludus litterarius (reading, writing, and arithmetic) from the age of 7 until the age of 11 or 12, the ludus grammaticus (Latin and Greek grammar) from the age of 11 or 12 until usually 15, and the schola rhetoris (rhetoric) until the age of 18 to 20 (Bonner 1977: 34-75; Eyben 1993: 128-31).War 1.435 refers to an anonymous 3rd son, the youngest of the three, who died during his education in Rome. Archelaus, Philip, Antipas, and Herod junior were educated in Rome as well (War 1.602-603; Ant. 17.20-21, 80). Agrippa I was brought up in Rome together with Drusus the Younger, Tiberius’ son (Ant. 18.143). The variant reading ἐντευξομένους of E (Niese 394) can mean “meet with” but also “get an interview with” (LSJ s.v. ἐντυγχάνω 4). The education of the sons of friendly kings in Rome became standard practice under Augustus (Braund 1984: 9-17), as a passage in Suetonius (Aug. 48) that describes Augustus’ policy concerning friendly kings indicates: “He [i.e., Augustus] also united the kings with whom he was in alliance by mutual ties, and was very ready to propose or favour intermarriages or friendship among them. He never failed to treat them with all consideration as integral parts of his empire, regularly appointing a guardian for such as were too young to rule or whose minds were affected until they grew up or recovered; and he brought up the children of many of them and educated them with his own (plurimorum [i.e., regum] liberos et educavit simul cum suis et instituit; trans. Rolfe). Cassius Dio (51.15.5-6) notes that Juba II stayed with Augustus, and Plutarch (Ant. 87.1) and Suetonius (Aug. 17.5) report that, apart from Caesarion, Cleopatra’s children also stayed with him. Some kings even sent their sons to Rome already in the 2nd cent. BCE. Ariarathes IV of Cappadocia sent his son, the future Ariarathes V, immediately before Rome’s victory at Pydna in 168 BCE (Livy 42.19). According to Livy the purpose was education, although this may be a projection of the Augustan practice into earlier times (Braund 1984: 17 n. 9). In 167 BCE Prusias II of Bithynia brought his son, the future Nicomedes II, to Rome, accompanied by a large retinue (Livy 45.44).Education seems to have been the main purpose of these stays in Rome, but the kings often had other motives as well, e.g., carrying over the relationship with Rome to the next generation and preparing a son’s future rule; there was a close connection between being educated in Rome and taking over the throne at home (Braund 1984: 11; Smallwood 1976: 102). Moreover, these “royal students” were potential hostages from a Roman perspective (Braund 1984: 12): the Parthian king Phraates IV sent 4 sons (2 with their wives) and 4 grandsons to Rome as hostages in 10 BCE; the young among them were educated in Rome at the same time (Res gest. divi Aug. 32; Strabo 16.1.28; further references in Braund 1984: 9-21; Kienast 1999: 316 n. 356 and 501-02; Kasher 2007: 207-08).According to the context of the narrative the trip of Herod’s sons to Rome fell between the refoundation of Samaria-Sebaste (probably in 27 BCE, with 16 January 27 BCE as terminus post quem; see Ant. 15.292 with the note to “Sebaste”) and Augustus’ grant of Trachonitis, Batanea, and Auranitis to Herod (which has been dated between 27 and 22 BCE). Schürer-Vermes (1.291, 321) and several other scholars date the trip to 23 BCE (Braund 1984: 10; Schalit 2001: 423, 588; Günther 2005: 129, 154, 258). Kokkinos (1998: 369) argues for 24 BCE; Otto (1913: 68-71), Hoehner (1972: 9 with n. 4), and Richardson (1996: 231) for 22 BCE, in line with Caesarea’s refoundation in (supposedly) 22 BCE. Mahieu (2012: 186-89) argues for 27 BCE, immediately after the refoundation of Samaria-Sebaste: Augustus was in Rome from August 29 BCE until the early summer of 27 BCE, and the year 27 BCE would match the ages of Alexander and Aristobulus in relation to their primary education (see the note to “Rome” above). Such an early date is possible, although the boys could also have met with Augustus after his return to Rome from his trip to Gaul and Spain (in 24 BCE). Moreover, War 1.435 refers to a 3rd son, who was younger than Alexander and Aristobulus IV. This implies that, if the trip occurred a few years later than 27 BCE, the ages of the 3 boys would still roughly fit the customary age for the ludus litterarius. On the other hand, Josephus doesn’t specify in War 1.435 that the 3 sons were sent simultaneously to Rome and the fact that Antiquities mentions only 2 sons here may imply that the 3rd son was sent to Rome at a later time.Alexander and Aristobulus lived in Rome until 18 or 17 BCE (see War 1.445 and Ant. 16.6 with notes; Schürer-Vermes 1.321).

The noun καταγωγή (“landing, accommodation”) occurs twice in the report about the building of Caesarea (Ant. 15.332, 337, see 15.332 with the note to “internal landing places”). Alexander and Aristobulus could have stayed in Augustus’ palace (see the note to “Caesar’s residence” below), but Herod apparently decided lodge them with Pollio (for different spellings of his name in the MSS, see Niese 394). Pollio is a Latin family name (a cognomen), which was common in several Roman clans (e.g., the Asinii). Josephus does not specify which Pollio is concerned here. Several scholars opt for C. Asinius Pollio (mentioned in Ant. 14.138), who had been consul in 40 BCE and may have had a great interest in Judaism (Otto 1913: 69; Feldman 1953; 1958-59; 1985; Marcus-Wikgren 165 n. g; Kienast 1999: 312). Bowersock (1965: 55 n. 3), Grant (1971: 145), and Smallwood (1976: 89 with n. 103) argue that P. Vedius Pollio may have been the boys’ host; he was a rich friend of Augustus (further references concerning both proposals in Richardson 1996: 231 n. 49). Willrich (1929: 184-85) and Braund (1983; 1984: 10) argue that Pollio was merely a Jew residing in Rome (cf. Pollio as the name of a Jew in Ant. 15.3-4, 370). In that case Pollio may have been both the host and the tutor of the boys. The phrase μάλιστα σπουδάζω περί (“do his utmost for, favor [someone] most eagerly”) also occurs in War 1.432; Ant. 1.265, 277. This friendship with Herod is open to several interpretations. It may concern a personal friendship—especially if a high Roman official like C. Asinius Pollio or P. Vedius Pollio is meant—or a clientela relationship with Herod, in which case Pollio was plausibly a prominent Roman Jew (for proposed identifications of Pollio, see the note to “in the house of Pollio” above).For a close parallel of σπουδασάντων περὶ τὴν φιλίαν, see Strabo 16.1.28 about the Parthian king Phraates IV: “Phraates, his successor, was so eager for friendship with Caesar Augustus (τοσούτον ἐσπούδασε περὶ τὴν φιλίαν τὴν πρὸς Καίσαρα τὸν Σεβαστόν) that he even sent him the trophies …” (trans. Jones). For the context of Josephus’ remark, see Ant. 15.11 with the note to “the Parthians,” and for another parallel, Appian, Hist. rom. 11.23. Assuming that Pollio was the boys’ host, as the beginning of this paragraph implies (see the note to “in the house of Pollio” above), this remark either means that Herod’s sons received permission to stay at Augustus’ place but did not do so (except for some visits) or that they stayed part of the time with Augustus. Kienast (1999: 312 n. 338) concludes that the boys frequently stayed at the emperor’s palace and met there the freedman Celadus, who was highly esteemed by the emperor (cf. War 2.106-107; Ant. 17.332; Suetonius, Aug. 67.1; PIR2 2.142 no. 616). Richardson (1996: 231) argues that the boys stayed first with Pollio and then with Augustus. Augustus’ benevolence towards Herod’s sons demonstrates the good relationship that existed between Herod and the emperor in this period. The refoundation of Samaria as Sebaste shortly before (see Ant. 15.292 with the note to “Sebaste”) demonstrates how import this relationship was for Herod. The right to choose one’s own successor may have been exceptional in the context of Augustus’ friendly kings (Otto 1913: 62-64). Josephus refers to this right again in War 1.454, 458; Ant. 16.92, 129. Schalit (2001: 159-60) relativizes the scope of this right by arguing that Herod could only put forward a successor. Archelaus’ journey to Rome to receive Augustus’ approval for being Herod’s successor (Ant. 17.202, 219-223) supports his view. Batanea is a section of the territory that is called Bashan in the Bible, with Ashtaroth and Edrei being its main cities. It is located east of the Sea of Galilee and the Golan area, and west of Trachonitis and Auranitis (Schürer-Vermes 1.336-37; Möller and Schmitt 1976: 38; Richardson 1996: 141). Its broad and fertile plains were suitable for cattle, agriculture, and the production of timber.Auranitis is the Greek name for the Hauran region (mentioned already in Ezek 47:16, 18), i.e., the mountainous area around the peak of Jebel Hauran, east of Batanea and south of Trachonitis. Nabateans were living in the southern part of this region (see Ant. 15.111 with the note to “Arabia”; Schürer-Vermes 1.337; Richardson 1996: 141). Part of Auranitis was apt for agriculture because of its fertile volcanic soil.For Trachonitis, see Ant. 15.344 with the note to “Trachonitis.” After Herod’s death the territory of Trachonitis, Batanea, and Auranitis was given to Herod’s son Philip (War 2.95; Ant. 17.319). I.e., Herod (see the next note). MSS WE and an excerpt by Constantine Porphyrogenitus (Legat. 369) do not have the participle παραλαβών (“having taken over”). The omission of παραλαβών is understandable because this participle requires a switch of subject (Herod in stead of Augustus), which is awkward. The participle is missing in the parallel passage of War (1.398). MSS WE and Constantine’s excerpt imply a smoother reading: “… he [i.e., Augustus] also gave him the territory of Trachon, Batanea, and Auranitis for the following reason.” The parallel passage of War (1.398) introduces the reason for the grant with a similar phrase (ἐξ αἰτίας τοιᾶσδε “the reason for this was as follows”) and dates this grant “after the first Actiad,” i.e., after the first period of the Actian era and the first Actian Games, which implies a date after September 27 BCE: the first Actian cycle (lasting 4 years) was September 31-September 27 BCE, and the first Actian Games were probably celebrated in September 27 BCE (Lämmer 1974: 109 with n. 110; Kasher 2007: 206; Mahieu 2012: 134-35; see also Ant. 15.109 with the note to “the Battle of Actium” and 15.268 with the note to “an athletic contest”). Mahieu (2012: 133-37) argues for 27 BCE as the date of the grant. Other scholars date the grant a few years later: Schürer-Vermes (1.256, 291, 319) dates it from the end of 24 or the beginning of 23 BCE (cf. Richardson 1996: 232, 24/23 BCE) to ca. 23 BCE or 23/22 BCE; Avi-Yonah (1974: 92), Stern (1974b: 236), Kasher (1988: 157), and Schalit (2001: 423) opt for 23 BCE; Shatzman (1991: 170-71) and Günther (2005: 258) for 23/22 BCE; Otto (1913: 68-69 with n. *) and Hoehner (1972: 9 with n. 4) for 22 BCE.

About Zenodorus, see the next note. Josephus explains in a flashback (Ant. 15.344-348) why Augustus granted Zenodorus’ territory of Trachonitis, Batanea, and Auranitis to Herod: Trachonitis was a robbers’ den and Zenodorus had struck a deal with the robbers rather than controlling them (see also the next note). The much briefer parallel passage of War (1.398-400) begins in a similar way: first Josephus mentions the grant of Trachonitis, Batanea, and Auranitis and then he explains this gift by referring to Zenodorus. The parallel passage of War (1.398) similarly reads: “Zenodorus, who had contracted for Lysanias’ estate (Ζηνόδωρος ὁ τὸν Λυσανίου μεμισθωμένος οἶκον) …” (trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a). Lysanias of Chalcis, who was also king of the Itureans, is meant (further references in Ant. 15.92 with the note to “Lysanias, the son of Ptolemy”). Josephus specifies Lysanias’ territory in 15.360: “Ulatha, Paneas and the country surrounding it” (see 15.360 with notes). Trachonitis, mentioned in the next subclause, was located east of this region. The context of Augustus’ grant of Trachonitis, Batanea, and Auranitis to Herod (15.344, 348) and the deposition of Zenodorus (15.349) imply that these regions were part of Zenodorus’ dominion (see also 15.349 with the note to “because his territory was taken away from him”). They may have partly overlapped with “Ulatha, Paneas and the country surrounding it” (see above). After Lysanias’ death (15.92), in 36 or 34 BCE, Zenodorus (who was probably a member of the Iturean elite) had leased Lysanias’ territory from Cleopatra. Cassius Dio (54.9.3) refers to a tetrarchy of Zenodorus (possibly Trachonitis, Batanea, and Auranitis), and an inscription from Heliopolis-Baalbek (CIG no. 4523) mentions a “Zenodorus, son of the tetrarch Lysanias.” Several coins refer to a tetrarch and high priest named Zenodorus (BMC 20.281). In all these cases it may concern the Zenodorus mentioned in Josephus, although not all scholars agree with this identification (discussion in Schürer-Vermes 1.565-67; Mahieu 2012: 136). The references to Zenodorus’ ἐπαρχία (“territory”) in Ant. 15.349, 352 and the coins referring to Zenodorus as tetrarch may imply that Zenodorus had been appointed tetrarch by Octavian after Actium (Smallwood 1976: 86), but this is not stated explicitly by Josephus or other sources. Zenodorus died in 20 BCE (Ant. 15.359; further discussion in Kasher 1988: 143-44, 157-60; 2007: 206; Shatzman 1991: 170-71, 293-98; Overman, Olive, and Nelson 2007: 180-82). Like Lysanias, Zenodorus had the task of controlling the gangs of robbers in this area (Buchheim 1960: 19; Schürer-Vermes 1.565-66; Kasher 1988: 151; Shatzman 1991: 292-94). Zenodorus had to earn at least enough money to pay the sum of the lease (see the note to “leased the estate of Lysanias” above). This detail is missing in the parallel passage of War (1.398), and Josephus does not provide further specifics, apart from the information that Zenodorus cooperated with the robbers in order to enhance his income. The noun πρόσοδος (“income”) links up with the plural προσόδους (“revenues”) in the previous subclause and emphasizes that Zenodorus struck a deal with the robbers for financial reasons. Vogel (2002: 140) suggests that Zenodorus’ motive was greediness. The name (of the area) Trachon (ὁ Τράχων “the Rough Area,” see below; cf. War 1.398; Ant. 13.427; the standard Graecized form is ἡ Τραχωνῖτις, e.g., War 2.215; Ant. 1.145; 17.25; Schalit 1968: 119) refers to a region in the neighborhood of Damascus (Strabo 16.2.20, who refers to 2 hills called Τραχῶνες [“the Roughed Ones”]). It is located northeast of Batanea and north of Auranitis (see Ant. 15.343 with the note to “the territory of Trachon, Batanea, and Auranitis”). Eusebius (Onom. s.v. ’Ιτουραία) and several rabbinic passages note that Trachonitis bordered the city of Bostra (Schürer-Vermes 1.337). As the Greek name implies (τράχων means “rugged, stony,” LSJ s.v.), it was a rough region, with many small volcanic cones (see also the description in Ant. 15.346-348), and hardly suitable for settlement (Schürer-Vermes 1.337; Möller and Schmitt 1976: 184-85; Richardson 1996: 141). The rugged area together with its lack of inhabitants was a perfect base of operation for robbers. The parallel passage of War (1.398) and Ant. 16.285, 347; 17.26 (also Strabo 16.2.20) also note that robbers were living in Trachonitis. These people apparently had no other option but to live as freebooters and join gangs of robbers. One can think of criminals, runaway slaves, impoverished mercenaries, veterans, and Nabateans (cf. Ant. 15.352 referring to raids by them). Josephus describes them in greater detail in 15.346. The noun δαμασκηνός (“inhabitant of Damascus”) also occurs in the parallel passage of War (1.398). The rather vague passage may imply that the robbers operated in the city of Damascus and/or plundered the caravan trade on the roads to and from Damascus. The parallel passage of War (1.398) is much briefer and only notes that Zenodorus was “continually sending (οὐ διέλειπεν) out the brigands of Trachonitis (τοὺς ἐκ τοῦ Τράχωνος λῃστάς) against the inhabitants of Damascus.” (trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a).

This phrase (οἱ πλησιόχωροι) can be synonymous with “the Damascenes” in the previous paragraph (as War 1.398 implies), but it can also have a more general meaning, in which case it may refer to the inhabitants of the city of Bostra (south of Trachonitis), Batanea, and Auranitis (see Ant. 15.343 with the note to “the territory of Trachon, Batanea, and Auranitis”). The phrase κακῶς πάσχω (“suffer badly”) occurs several times in Josephus and only in Antiquities (see 15.118 with the note to “were faring badly”). An alternative translation would be “called upon Varro … for help” (LSJ s.v. καταβοάω IV). A governor with the name Varro is also mentioned in the parallel passage of War (1.398-399). The identification of this Varro depends on the date when his office started. Dabrowa (1998: 17-18) and Eck (2002a: 1130) assume that it began in 25 or 24 BCE, in which case he may be identified with Marcus Terentius Varro, who subdued the Salassi in the Alps in 25 BCE (Strabo 4.6.7; Cassius Dio 53.25.3-5; Schürer-Vermes 1.256). If the grant of Trachonitis, Batanea, and Auranitis took place in 27 BCE (as argued by Mahieu 2012: 133-37; see Ant. 15.343 with the note to “for the following reason”), Varro would have become governor in 27 BCE. Mahieu (2008: 189; 2012: 137-38) considers it likely that Varro started his governorship right after the change of the Roman administration of the provinces in 27 BCE, when Augustus divided the provinces between the Senate and himself. Augustus had to appoint legates in his name after this change and Varro may have been one of them. This earlier date would render the identification with Marcus Terentius Varro impossible. Varro remained in office until 23 BCE, when Marcus Agrippa succeeded him (Schürer-Vermes 1.256).War 1.398 notes that the inhabitants of Damascus turned to Varro for help (καταφυγόντες; cf. κατεβόων here in Ant.). The verb ἡγεμονεύω means to “be the (Roman) governor (of Syria)” in this passage (see the previous note and cf. explicitly War 7.59). War 1.398 refers to Varro as ὁ ἡγεμών τῆς Συρίας (“the governor of Syria”). This implies that Zenodorus’ deal with the robbers from Trachonitis was common knowledge. The inhabitants of Damascus and/or the people living in the neighborhood of Trachonitis apparently asked Varro to file a complaint with the emperor, which assumption is confirmed by the reference to Augustus’ response in the next sentence. War 1.398 is slightly less specific: the Damascenes asked Varro “to report their unfortunate situation to Caesar” (trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a). The first part of Augustus’ response to the complaint (see the previous note) concerns his order to Varro to eliminate the robbers (likewise in War 1.398, which shares the verb ἐξαιρέω [“remove, take out”] with Ant.).The expression τὰ λῃστήρια (“the bands of robbers”) repeats the vocabulary of Ant. 15.344. War 1.398 uses the singular of this same noun. I.e., Trachonitis, Batanea, and Auranitis (see Ant. 15.343-344). The second element of Augustus’ response reports Zenodorus’ punishment: his land was taken away and allotted to Herod. The continuation of the narrative indicates that Augustus expected Herod to stop the brigandage in the area (cf. Ant. 16.285, 347; 17.26). The War report (1.399) is slightly different: it indicates that Varro undertook a campaign against the robbers (likewise Strabo 16.2.20), purged Trachonitis of them, and took away this territory from Zenodorus, and that Augustus only later (ὕστερον) gave it to Herod. The ὡς in this clause may introduce indirect speech referring to Augustus’ letter of response (LSJ s.v. ὡς III I.2). See also Ant. 15.348. War 1.399 reports that Varro took action against the robbers (see the note to “Herod” above).The phrase οἱ πλησίον (literally “those who are nearby”) links up with the expression οἱ πλησιόχωροι at the beginning of this paragraph (see the note to “people living in the adjacent areas”). The phrase also occurs in Ant. 15.305, 348. In War 7.260 it means “one’s fellow men” (Rengstorf s.v.).

Ant. 15.346-348 explains why it was complicated to combat the robbery.For a similar combination of ῥᾴδιον ἐστιν (“it is easy”) and ἐπέχω (“stop”) in a different context, see Plutarch, Mor. (Cohib. ira) 454e. The geographical conditions made it hard to survive as farmers in this region (Shatzman 1991: 173 with n. 10). The noun βίος means “livelihood” here (Rengstorf s.v.). Ant. 15.346-347 offers a detailed description of the home base of the robbers in Trachonitis, which is absent in War. Josephus may have taken his information from a source (cf. several words in 15.347 are unique). The passage matches other statements about the region of Trachonitis in Josephus (see 15.344 with the note to “Trachonitis”) and explains why there were hardly any other inhabitants than the robbers This particular situation gave the robbers free play in preparing their hiding places and raids. Strabo (16.2.20) confirms that there were deep caves in Trachonitis, owing to volcanic activity in the past (Huguet 1985: 9). This detail emphasizes the robbers’ very basic lifestyle (cf. Ant. 10.216, 242 [paraphrasing Dan 4] about Nebuchadnezzar living temporarily with the wild beasts and Mark 1:13 about Jesus living with the wild beasts in the wilderness for 40 days). The plural of συναγωγή refers to devices for the collecting of water here (Rengstorf s.v.). The noun προπαρασκευή means “preparation” in War 2.604, but here, in combination with σιτίων, “stores (of grain)” (Rengstorf s.v.; less likely, though also possible, “pre-prepared [food]”). There are no further occurrences of this word in Josephus. The translation follows Niese (395), who reads αἵ with MS P. Most Greek MSS have καί instead of αἵ, which results in a slightly different translation: “… so that they were able (to) ….” The caves in Trachonitis were apparently the permanent places to which the robbers could fall back. They needed such shelter since they had no option but to rob for making a living, as the beginning of this paragraph reports. Their “job” implied that they had to secure supplies of water and food in order to survive during periods in which they were unable to make raids or had to hide for armed groups searching for them.

Similar vocabulary in Eusebius, Comm. Ps. (PG 23.129). Strabo (16.2.20) notes that a famous cave in the area could host 4,000 persons. This suggests that the robbers constructed large spaces inside the caves, which seems implausible, although they may have adapted the caves here and there to enhance their comfort. The apparent exaggeration highlights the robbers’ determination and toughness, in accordance with the beginning of Ant. 15.346, which emphasizes that it was difficult to stop the robberies. Josephus states twice, in different words, that there was no elevation of the ground above the robbers’ dwellings, which may highlight that the dwellings in the caves were invisible to somebody standing above them. The adjective δύσοδος (“difficult of access, impassable,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus The noun τρίβος (“path,” Rengstorf s.v.) is also a hapax legomenon in Josephus. The noun ὁδηγία (“showing the way,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a further hapax legomenon in Josephus (Rengstorf s.v.). The verb ἐξελίττω (“unroll, unfold,” LSJ s.v.) is again a hapax legomenon in Josephus. The alliteration of the l sound in the concluding phrase ἀλλὰ πολλὰς ἕλικας ἐξελίττονται draws attention to the uniqueness of the landscape and emphasizes that it was absolutely inhospitable.

Cf. Ant. 17.26 about the robbers from Trachonitis, which passage shares the noun λῃστεία (“robbery”) with Ant. 15.348 and has the verb κακουργέω (“cause harm”) instead of the noun κακούργημα (“offence, crime”). The phrase οἱ πλησίον (“their neighbors”) repeats the vocabulary of Ant. 15.345 (see the note to “the people of the neighborhood”). This concluding statement forms the climax of the description of the robbers and their home base in Trachonitis and characterizes Trachonitis as a hotbed of crime and anarchy. The adverbial phrase ἐν τούτῳ (“in the meantime,” LSJ s.v. οὗτος C.VIII.6b) is idiomatic and anticipates Herod’s action against the robbers narrated in the subsequent part of this paragraph. The phrase constitutes the very end of the flashback about Zenodorus and the robbers that starts in Ant. 15.344 (see the note to “A certain Zenodorus”). Ant. 15.348 continues the narrative of 15.343, with 15.344-348 being a flashback in between.The noun χάρις means “grant” here (LSJ s.v. III.1b). It concerns Augustus’ grant of Trachonitis, Batanea, and Auranitis (Ant. 15.343). Herod himself dealt with the robbers, as he had done much earlier with Ezekias and his fellow brigands, who were active in parts of Syria (War 1.204; cf. Ant. 14.159). The verb παρέρχομαι (“pass, enter”) also occurs in the description of the entrances of the caves in which the robbers were living. The word ὁδηγός (“guide”) echoes the noun ὁδηγία (“showing the way”) in Ant. 15.347. The verb πονηρεύομαι (“do evil,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. The phrase οἱ πέριξ (“the surrounding people”) links up with οἱ πλησίον referring to the robbers’ neighbors in Ant. 15.345 and at the beginning of this paragraph. Herod apparently fulfilled the former task of Zenodorus, i.e., controlling the gangs of robbers (see 15.344 with the note to “A certain Zenodorus”), with great success.The Antiquities report differs in certain details from the much briefer description in War (1.398-399), in which Varro takes action against the robbers (see 15.345 with the note to “Varro”). Antiquities, therefore, presents Herod in a more positive light than War does in this respect.

Concerning Zenodorus, see Ant. 15.344 with the note to “A certain Zenodorus.” The noun ἐπαρχία can mean “province” but also more generally “territory” in the Imperial period. Marcus-Wikgren (168 n. a) argue that it refers to Zenodorus’ tetrarchy. Zenodorus’ dominion most probably included Trachonitis, Batanea, and Auranitis (see Ant. 15.344 with the note to “the estate of Lysanias”) and “Ulatha, Paneas and the country surrounding it” (15.360, laying [partly] west of the former territories). Since the latter territories were given to Herod after Zenodorus’ death, the noun ἐπαρχία refers here to Trachonitis, Batanea, and Auranitis. Zenodorus and Herod were competitors, being both friendly kings of the Romans in roughly the same region (Braund 1984). The context explains Zenodorus’ jealousy: Augustus clearly had much more goodwill for Herod than for Zenodorus and appointed Herod as ruler over Zenodorus’ territory (see also the next note). This remark confirms that Trachonitis, Batanea, and Auranitis were parts of Zenodorus’ territory that had been granted by Augustus to Herod (see the note to “because his territory was taken away from him” above and Ant. 15.344). The much shorter parallel narrative of War (1.399) reports that Zenodorus’ territory was later given to Herod. I.e., Herod. Zenodorus attempted to change Augustus’ decision and apparently had no other means of doing so but to bring an accusation against Herod, plausibly after the robbers had been subdued. Josephus does not inform us about the kind of accusation, but it goes without saying that he complained of extremely severe actions by Herod. Since Augustus must have known that Herod was successful in dealing with the robbers, as Ant. 15.348 implies, he probably turned a blind eye to Herod’s measures in Trachonitis. The precise date of Zenodorus’ visit to Rome is unknown. See the previous note. The praesens historicum ἀναστρέφει (“he returned”) helps to enliven the narrative (Blass, Debrunner, and Rehkopf 1976: 265-66; cf. the verbal form πέμπεται in the next paragraph), while the succinct final clause with the alliteration of the a sound (ἄπρακτος ἀναστρέφει) adds emphasis to the unsuccessfulness of Zenodorus’ trip.

The section Ant. 15.350-359, starting with a reference to Agrippa, concerns complains of the Gadarenes against Herod. This Agrippa is Marcus Agrippa, who has been previously mentioned in Ant. 15.318 (for further references in Josephus, see Schalit 1968: 3). Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa was born in Dalmatia in 64/63 BCE. He became acquainted with Octavian-Augustus in Rome at the school of rhetoric, accompanied him on his trips to Spain and Apollonia (in Illyria) in 46-44 BCE, and fulfilled many important tasks afterwards. In 23 BCE Augustus, who was very ill at that time, handed his signet ring over to Agrippa. Somewhat later Agrippa married Augustus’ daughter, Julia. Telling is a statement of Mecaenas to Augustus about Agrippa: “You have made him so great that he must either become your son-in-law or be slain” (Cassius Dio 54.6.5, trans. Cary; further references in Reinhold 1933; Roddaz 1984 and the next note). Agrippa received, probably in 23 BCE, the privilege to act as Augustus’ deputy in the provinces attributed to him, such that his authority (imperium) went beyond that of all others except Augustus’. The details of his imperium are unknown (discussion in Kienast 1999: 108-09). I.e., to the East. The Ionian Sea is a part of the Mediterranean Sea, south of the Adriatic Sea, between Epirus and Italy. The name ’Ιόνιος derives from Io, the daughter of Inachus, who swam across this sea (Aeschylus, Prom. 840; see LSJ s.v.). The Ionian Sea is also mentioned in War 1.183; Ant. 14.123. Mytilene (also mentioned in Ant. 16.20; Josephus writes Μιτυλήνη instead of the usual spelling Μυτιλήνη) is the name of the main city on the island of Lesbos, near the Hellespont. Marcus Agrippa probably stayed in Mytilene from 23 until 21 BCE (Tacitus, Ann. 14.53; Suetonius, Aug. 66.3; Suetonius, Tib. 10.1; Cassius Dio 53.32.1; 54.6; Schürer-Vermes 1.256; Kienast 1999: 72). Herod’s visit may, therefore, be dated to the winter of 23/22 or of 22/21 BCE (Shatzman 1991: 293; Günther 2005: 132). Several scholars prefer the winter of 23/22 BCE, assuming that Herod was keen to show his loyalty to Agrippa as soon as it was feasible (Schürer-Vermes 1.291 n. 11; Kasher 1988: 159 n. 76; Richardson 1996: 232; differently Otto 1913: 70; Schalit 2001: 424; Günther 2005: 132; Mahieu 2012: 135).Kokkinos (1998: 221-22) and Kasher (2007: 207) argue that there is a close connection between the grant (mentioned in Ant. 15.343) and Herod’s visit to Agrippa (15.350), but this is not necessarily the case: the grant could have been assigned already at the end of 27 BCE and the visit taken place in the winter of 23/22 or 22/21 BCE (Mahieu 2008: 188; 2012: 135-36). The Greek subclause indicating the close relationship between Herod and Marcus Agrippa is a parenthesis introduced by ἦν γάρ (for similar parentheses, see Ant. 15.325 with the note to “—water is absent in this area—”).Agrippa was the most important person after Augustus in the Roman Empire at that time (see the note to “Agrippa” above and 15.361 with the note to “Agrippa”). Josephus’ remark about Herod being Agrippa’s friend and companion (φίλος καὶ συνήθης; for the same pair of words, see War 1.544; Life 180, 192, 204; Mason in BJP 9 on Life 180), which is further qualified with the phrase εἰς τὰ μάλιστα (literally “to the most”), suggests that this relationship went beyond “business” and that they really were close. Such a friendship is confirmed by other passages (e.g., Ant. 15.318, 361 and 16.12-15 about Agrippa’s visit to Jerusalem; Richardson 1996: 232-33; and also the note to “did not even give them the opportunity to speak” below). Herod’s intervention on behalf of the citizens of Ilios-Troy in 16 or 15 BCE, when Agrippa wanted to punish them because his wife, Julia, had almost been drowned in their city (Nicolaus of Damascus, FGH 90 F 134; cf. Ant. 16.26), also points to a close relationship between Herod and Agrippa (Richardson 1996: 233). Most Greek MSS read the praesens historicum ἀναστρέφει (“he returned”), which is also found at the end of Ant. 15.349, but Niese (396) reads the imperfect ἀνέστρεφεν with MS P and E.

I.e., the citizens of the Decapolis city of Gadara, which was located south-east of Lake Gennesaret. Since Gadara was added to Herod’s territory by Octavian in 30 BCE (War 1.396; Ant. 15.217; see also 15.354), Herod had been ruling over the city for ca. 7 years thus far. Given that Josephus does not indicate a change of place for Agrippa, the Gadarenes probably visited Agrippa in Mytilene, like Herod had done (Ant. 15.350). I.e., Herod. Niese (396) reads αὐτοῦ (“him”) with MS P and E, but the other MSS read Ἡρώδου (“Herod”), which is the easier and therefore probably the secondary reading.Josephus does not give the content of the accusation. Günther (2005: 132) argues that it was similar to a later accusation before Augustus (Ant. 15.354), which refers explicitly to severe commands and a tyrannical rule. There is a certain analogy between Zenodorus accusing Herod before Augustus (15.349) and the Gadarenes accusing the king before Agrippa (cf. the repetition of the verb κατηγορέω in 15.349, 351; see also 15.357). Agrippa apparently reasoned that the Gadarenes were under Herod’s authority and that their complaint meant that they did not recognize the king’s position. He therefore sent them to Herod in chains, which implies once again that Agrippa and Herod had a close relationship (Richardson 1996: 233; Vogel 2002: 141; see Ant. 15.350 with the note to “a very close friend and companion” and 15.361 with the note to “Agrippa”). The later flashback (Ant. 15.356) to this episode adds that Herod did not do any harm to these Gadarenes and released them. “The Arabs” probably refers to the Nabateans in general (see Ant. 15.107 with the note to “The Arab”) or a specific group among them, in particular those Nabateans who were living in Auranitis and/or its neighborhood (Shatzman 1991: 294). In previous sections Josephus describes several hostilities between Herod and the Nabateans (see Ant. 15.106-108 concerning Malichus I’s slowness in paying back Herod; 15.111-160 concerning several battles between Herod and the Nabateans; and 15.165-178 concerning Malichus I’s possible involvement in treason by Hyrcanus II).The phrase δυσμενῶς ἔχω (“be hostile [to]”) also occurs in Ant. 1.166; 2.322; 13.432; 15.365; 16.90. Shatzman (1991: 294) argues that the narrative refers here to the battles described in Ant. 15.111-160 and that it at the same time implies that part of the Nabateans had become subjects of Herod, as the continuation of the narrative shows (see the note to “revolt against his administration” below). If so, the passage may link up with Ant. 15.159, which states that the Nabateans acclaimed Herod patron (or ruler) after their defeat by him. The exact meaning of 15.159, however, remains unclear (see the note to “acclaimed him patron of their people”). Another possibility is that Josephus refers here to the Nabateans who were living within Herod’s kingdom, e.g., in Auranitis, which had previously been part of Zenodorus’ territory (15.343-344, 349, 352). Shatzman (1991: 294) also points to the selling off of the private property of Herod’s son Archelaus (Ant. 17.344, 355; 18.26) and argues that Auranitis was the private property of Zenodorus. The expression τὰ πράγματα can mean, among other things, “power, government, administration” (see Ant. 15.32 and 15.189 with the note to “the Commonwealth would fall to him”). The combination of εὔλογος (“justified, plausible”) and αἰτία (“reason”) also occurs in Ant. 7.388, concerning David’s instructions to find a good reason to kill his enemy Sumuis (biblical name: Shimei), the son of Gera.

For similar cases of a participle of ἀπογινώσκω plus ἤδη (“despairing already of”), cf. Diodorus 15.71.6; 16.13.1; 18.21.3; Appian, Bell. civ. 1.10.90. This remark is obvious in the light of the previous information about Zenodorus: he had been deprived of Trachonitis, Batanea, and Auranitis (Ant. 15.343-344, 349) and unsuccessful in his accusation against Herod before Augustus (15.349). Zenodorus apparently had been in desperate need of money (cf. Ant. 15.344) and he most probably had struck his deal with the Nabateans without permission from Augustus (with Shatzman 1991: 294); otherwise Augustus would have taken arrangements for the Nabateans when he made his grant to Herod.The verb ἀποδίδωμι can mean, among other things, “lease (to)” as well as “sell” (Rengstorf s.v.). Most scholars assume that the Nabateans bought Auranitis from Zenodorus (e.g., Kasher 1988: 159; Schalit 2001: 327), although the meaning “leased” seems more plausible in the light of the 50 talents mentioned further on (see the note to “fifty talents”; cf. Günther 2005: 130-31, who argues that the deal was different from a sale). I.e., the “Arabs” mentioned in Ant. 15.351 (referring to Nabateans; see the note to “the Arabs”). The noun ἐπαρχία (“territory”) also occurs in Ant. 15.349 referring to Zenodorus’ territory (l.c. with the note to “because his territory was taken away from him”). That Auranitis was part of Zenodorus’ territory is confirmed by Ant. 15.343-344 (see 15.351 with the note to “for a long time”). The amount of 50 talents is a reasonable sum for an annual lease of this territory (cf. the 200 [or 400] talents for the territories that Herod leased from Cleopatra; see Ant. 15.96, 106-107). I.e., Augustus’ grant of Trachonitis, Batanea, and Auranitis to Herod (Ant. 15.343). Günther (2005: 131) argues that the Nabateans had become self-confident following Aelius Gallus’ defeat in South Arabia (see Ant. 15.317 with the note to “the Red Sea”) and the severe drought in the Syrian region (15.299-316).The verb διαμφισβητέω (“dispute,” Rengstorf s.v.) occurs once elsewhere in Josephus (Ant. 14.38). From the perspective of the Nabateans, Augustus’ grant of Auranitis to Herod could easily have been perceived as unfair since they were obliged to pay Zenodorus 50 talents for the lease (see above with the note to “fifty talents”). Even if this lease contract was annulled, Herod may have forced them to pay (as a tribute) considerably more than 50 talents. The unfairness would have been even greater if Zenodorus had sold the territory to them. Shatzman (1991: 294) argues that these raids were undertaken in Auranitis. This description is quite vague. The Nabateans apparently used various means to acquire what they thought was their rightful position in Auranitis (see also the previous and the next note). Since the Nabateans clearly rejected Augustus’ grant of Auranitis to Herod, they were not recognizing the emperor’s authority. They clearly did not accept Herod as their ruler either. This seems to have been a reckless strategy, but Herod did not punish them for that and tried to appease them (see Ant. 15.353). Again the description is tantalizing vague. Which court could this have been? Not one of the courts in Herod’s kingdom since the Nabateans did not accept Herod’s authority (see the previous note). They could have appealed to Marcus Agrippa, like the Gadarenes did (see Ant. 15.351; Kasher 1988: 159 assumes that they actually did so), but that does not seem smart at all because they apparently did not accept the emperor’s authority either (see the previous note). Josephus’ information is too limited for developing a plausible interpretation of what actually happened. He may even have invented the story in order to present a further case (in addition to the Gadarenes’, 15.351) of non-Jewish subjects who were most unhappy with Herod as their ruler.

Obviously poor soldiers were dissatisfied and thus an easy prey for opponents who wanted to start a rebellion. Shatzman (1991: 190) rightly concludes that this passage does not necessarily mean that Herod’s soldiers were badly paid; the soldiers may have been poor before joining the king’s army. Herod’s rule depended heavily on a loyal army, which renders it plausible that Herod’s soldiers were paid reasonably well. For similar vocabulary, cf. Diodorus 33.21a.1. Kasher (1988: 159) argues that part of these soldiers were Nabateans who had enrolled in Herod’s army after having been defeated by him during the rule of Malichus I (see War 1.384; Ant. 15.156), which would explain their hostility: they may have had no other option but to enroll in Herod’s army and remained hostile to him because of their defeat. With Niese (396), who reads ἐπελπίζοντες ἀεί (cf. Polybius 4.35.6). MSS FLAM read ἐπελπίζοντες ἀεί (“[who were] always hoping”). For νεωτερισμός (“uprising”), see Ant. 15.30 with the note to “a new regime.” This is one of Josephus’ truisms, which reflect his own voice (see especially “success breeds envy,” which expression is repeated in various forms: War 1.208; Ant. 10.250; Life 122; cf. War 1.77; Ant. 13.288; Mason in BJP 9 on Life 122). Other truisms in Josephus are “Good people are made better by hope of a reward after death; wicked persons are restrained by fear of punishment” (War 2.157), “No one should be called happy before his death” (War 5.461, echoing a statement by Solon in Herodotus 1.32.7), and “Some children are not like their parents: kind and moderate ones can come from vile parents, just as those born from good parents sometimes show themselves depraved” (Ant. 6.33; I owe these references to Steve Mason, Aberdeen; cf. Ant. 15.42 with the note to “as is likely in a case of reconciliation”). The vague time indication implies that the Nabateans were undertaking activities against Herod’s rule for a considerable period, which echoes Josephus’ remark in Ant. 15.351: “And the Arabs who had been hostile (δυσμενῶς ἔχοντες; cf. 15.353: δυσμενεῖς ἦσαν) to Herod’s rule for a long time”; the reason for their hostility given by Josephus is Augustus’ grant of Auranitis to Herod (Ant. 15.343, 351-352). The next time marker in the narrative concerns Augustus’ visit of Judea in Herod’s 17th year (probably in 20 BCE; see 15.354 with the note to “reign”), such that “for a long time” would mean at least a few years. Josephus uses the adjective δυσμενής with variant meanings in this paragraph: in connection with the soldiers mentioned previously the word means “hostile” (cf. δυσμενῶς ἔχειν in Ant. 15.351 concerning “the Arabs”), while here it is used as a substantive meaning “forcible measures” (Rengstorf s.v. δυσμενής). For a similar prudent response, cf. Herod’s reaction to the protest against the trophies in Jerusalem (Ant. 15.277), which shares the verb παρηγορέω (“comfort, appease”) with this passage. Günther (2005: 133) supposes a connection between the actions of the Nabateans against Herod (Ant. 15.351-353) and the complaints of the Gadarenes (15.351, 354); Ant. 15.354 would suggest that Herod did retaliate the Nabateans’ actions.The noun ἐπιλογισμός (“calculation, prudence,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus (for the phrase ἐξ ἐπιλογισμοῦ, cf. Philo, Leg. 3.102; Plant. 123; Sacr. 35; Somn. 1.75; Plutarch, Mor. [Fat.] 571d). The phrase ἀφορμὰς ἐνδίδωμι (“provide a pretext, give reason”) also occurs in Ant. 18.333 (cf. Philo, Spec. 2.93; Plutarch, Per. 33). This statement is surprising: it is inconsistent with the preceding narrative, which suggests that the Nabateans caused disturbances (Ant. 15.351), made raids, and approached Herod’s soldiers (15.352-353).For the motif of ταραχή (“disorder, disturbance, [internal] rebellion”) in the Herod narrative of Antiquities, see 15.30 with the note to “war and disorder”; 15.72-73, 239, 326 (with the note to “disturbances in his kingdom”; also van Henten 2011b).

Herod’s 17th year can be 24/23 BCE or 21/20 BCE, depending on whether one takes Herod’s appointment in 40 BCE or his capture of Jerusalem in 37 BCE as point of departure. Most scholars assume that the year concerns Nisan (March/April) 21/Nisan 20 BCE (e.g., Schwartz 1907: 265-66; Schürer-Vermes 1.291-92; Smallwood 1976: 88 n. 97). Mahieu (2012: 146-47) argues for March 20/March 19 BCE, in consequence of her argument that Herod captured Jerusalem in 36 rather than 37 BCE (pp. 60-64). With Niese (396), who reads προελθόντος with MSS PFLAM. MS V and E have παρελθόντος (“had passed”), and MS W προσελθόντος (“had come”). Marcus-Wikgren (170), Schürer-Vermes (1.292), and Kokkinos (1998: 167 n. 60), among others, prefer the reading of MS V and E, which has the advantage that Augustus’ visit can be easily combined with the reference to Herod’s 17th year. The visit took place after the spring of 20 BCE (see the next note), i.e., after the 17th year had already passed. However, the reading of MS V and E seems to be the lectio facilior. Niese’s reading can imply a contradiction between the date of Augustus’ visit and Herod’s 17th year, but this is not the case if Mahieu’s year conversion is followed (see the previous note). Cassius Dio (54.7.4-6) situates Augustus’ visit to Syria in the spring of 20 BCE (Kasher 1988: 159; Richardson 1996: 233; Schalit 2001: 274 n. 435; Mahieu 2012: 146). In War 1.399 Josephus notes that the visit occurred in the 10th year after Augustus’ first visit to Syria (which took place in 30 BCE, Ant. 15.199-201). Unfortunately Josephus does not specify Augustus’ itinerary. Richardson (1996: 234) makes a calculated guess and thinks that Herod entertained Augustus at Paneas (15.363-364) and organized a royal procession to Samaria-Sebaste, with its temple of Augustus and Roma. Afterwards he would have arranged a visit to Caesarea, where another temple of Augustus and Roma was located. It is plausible that Augustus visited Gadara during this trip (see 15.357-358 with the note to “prepared to defend himself”). With this phrase Josephus connects the Gadarenes’ complaint against Herod (Ant. 15.353-359) with Augustus’ visit to Syria of 20 BCE. Thematically the complaint is connected with 2 previous sections (15.343-349 about Augustus’ grant of Trachonitis, Batanea, and Auranitis to Herod, and 15.350-353 about Herod’s visit to Marcus Agrippa). Both sections are related to Josephus’ description of Herod’s final problems with Zenodorus (15.354-360), which are connected with the complaint. The thematic connections do not necessarily imply, however, that the events described occur in the same period (Mahieu 2008: 188 and see 15.350 with the note to “Mytilene”). Compare Josephus’ description of the Gadarenes’ earlier complaint against Herod, before Agrippa, which refers to “some of the Gadarenes.” The change from “some” to “most” suggests that Herod’s rule had become more severe during the few years between the visits of Agrippa and Augustus. Gadara is one of the Decapolis cities. It is located on a hill south of the Yarmuk River, ca. 10 km southeast of Lake Gennesaret. The city was included in Octavian’s grant of several territories and cities to Herod after the defeat of Mark Antony and Cleopatra (War 1.396; Ant. 15.217). This is the second complaint against Herod before a high Roman official by a group of Gadarenes narrated by Josephus (see Ant. 15.351 about the complaint before Marcus Agrippa).The verb καταβοάω (“complain”) also occurs in 15.345, concerning the people living in the neighborhood of Trachonitis who suffered from the robbers and complained before Varro. See also Ant. 15.357, which passage indicates that the Gadarenes accused Herod of outrageous acts, robberies, and destructions of temples. Both this very serious accusation and the present strong complaint about Herod’s tyrannical rule are contradicted by a detail in the continuation of the narrative: in 15.356 Josephus notes that Herod had not punished the Gadarenes whom Agrippa had sent to him as prisoners. The complaint does match, however, a trend in Josephus’ presentation of Herod as ruler; it is in line with brief references in Antiquities that point to Herod’s supposed tyrannical rule and behavior. E.g., Ant. 14.165: “But the chief Jews were in great fear when they saw how violent and bold Herod was, and how much he longed for a rule as a tyrant (τυραννίδος γλιχόμενον)” (trans. Marcus); 15.70 about the thoughts of Mariamme I and Alexandra: “Yet the women, as is likely, did not grasp the affection of Herod’s disposition to them but the cruelty of it: if he would die, they would not escape destruction and a tyrannical death (θανάτου τυραννικοῦ). So they considered the deeper sense of what was said to be cruel”; 15.321 concerning Herod marrying Mariamme II: “Yet he rejected the thought of accomplishing everything by using his authority, suspecting, which was true, that he would be accused of using force as well as of tyrannical behavior (εἰς βίαν καὶ τυραννίδα διαβληθήσεσθαι). Therefore he considered it better to marry the maiden”; 16.4 in connection with Herod’s new law concerning burglary: “That the punishment, as it was laid down then, became hard and unlawful, demonstrated his arrogance; whereby he was keen on imposing the punishment not in a king-like but in a tyrannical way (τυραννικῶς), neglectful of the public interest of his subjects” (my trans.). Josephus becomes much more explicit about this when he describes the last period of Herod’s life (further discussion in van Henten 2011b; cf. Schalit 2001: 305, who argues that 15.354-359 implies that Herod treated the Greek cities in his kingdom as harsh as the Jewish ones).

Concerning Zenodorus, see Ant. 15.344 with the notes to “A certain Zenodorus” and “had leased the estate of Lysanias.” Zenodorus’ behavior is understandable in the light of the previous paragraphs in which Josephus reports that Zenodorus was angry with Herod and jealous as well because Augustus had given his territory to the king (Ant. 15.343-349). In 15.349 Josephus notes that Zenodorus even went to Rome in order to accuse Herod. Zenodorus and the Gadarenes apparently had a common enemy in the person of Herod. That they were in touch with each other is obvious; Zenodorus’ former territory (Trachonitis, Batanea, and Auranitis, 15.344) was close to Gadara.Cf. Ant. 15.193-194, 201. The aim of the Gadarenes to be disconnected again from Herod’s kingdom becomes obvious here and should be considered in the light of their accusation and of the fact that they had become part of the kingdom only ca. 10 years earlier (see Ant. 15.351 with the note to “some of the Gadarenes”). Zenodorus no doubt acted out of self-interest by setting himself up as the supporter of the Gadarenes’ cause: it helped him to weaken Herod’s position and he could have benefited had the charges against Herod been declared valid by the Romans. Niese (397) considers the Greek text with the infinitive προσθήσειν (“add”) to be corrupt (see also the next note). This seems to imply that Gadara wanted to become part of the Roman province of Syria (Stern 1974b: 251), which actually happened after Herod’s death (see Ant. 17.320).

For a similar phrase with a passive participle aorist of ἀναπείθω and the demonstrative pronoun τούτοις, cf. War 2.183 about Herod Antipas, who let himself be persuaded by his wife Herodias to travel to the emperor Gaius Caligula in order to be elevated to the status of a king. Antipas’ trip had the opposite result: he was exiled to Spain (cf. Ant. 18.247-252; Mason in BJP 1b on War 2.183). Here the phrase anticipates perhaps already the remark that the Gadarenes were ill-advised (15.358). Ant. 15.64 offers a similar phrase (τούτοις ἀναπειθόμενος “having been persuaded by these [words]”) about Cleopatra’s advice to Mark Antony to punish Herod for having Aristobulus III killed. The phrase οὐ μικρὰν καταβοὴν ἐποιήσαντο (literally “made not a small outcry”) is a case of litotes. Niese (397) reads διιέντος (from διΐημι “release,” LSJ s.v. II.3; Rengstorf s.v.) following MS P. MSS FAMV read διαφέντος (“dismissed”), and MSS LW διαφέροντος (“carried over”). This passage links up with Josephus’ reference to the previous complaint by the Gadarenes (Ant. 15.351), in which he briefly notes that Agrippa did not even offer them the opportunity to speak and sent them in chains to Herod (see also 15.354 with the note to “most”). This remark contradicts the Gadarenes’ complaint about Herod being a tyrannical ruler (Ant. 15.354, 357) and suggests a particularly merciful attitude of the king towards the Gadarenes. For other occurrences of the phrase (μηδὲν) κακὸν ἐργάζομαι (“do [no] harm”) in Josephus, see Ant. 7.51; 9.58, also 6.353; 7.235; 10.124; 11.114. For phrases similar to εἴ τις καὶ ἄλλος (“more than anyone [or ‘anything’] else”), see Xenophon, Anab. 1.4.15; Philo, Ios. 69; Prob. 53; Spec. 1.327; 4.101; Plutarch, Ages. 25.3; Diogenes Laertius 4.62; Athenaeus 14.23. The adjective δυσπαραίτητος (“inexorable, relentless,” Rengstorf s.v.) occurs once elsewhere in Josephus (Ant. 16.151, which is a further passage in which Josephus characterizes Herod as a ruler and as a person). The phrase οἱ οἰκεῖοι frequently refers to Herod’s relatives or household in Josephus’ Herod narratives (e.g., War 1.263, 281, 292-294 in connection with Herod’s flight from Jerusalem, also Ant. 16.156, 159). Sometimes the phrase has a broader meaning, indicating fellow Jews (Rengstorf s.v.), which meaning is probable here because of the opposition “his own people”—“foreigners” (οἱ ἀλλότριοι). Concerning the adjective μεγαλόψυχος (“high-minded, magnanimous, liberal,” Rengstorf s.v.), cf. the related noun μεγαλοψυχία (“greatness of mind, generosity,” Rengstorf s.v.) in Ant. 16.153. For further references to this trait of Herod in Josephus, see 15.48 with the note to “magnanimity.” Josephus’ general statement about Herod’s different attitudes towards Jews and non-Jews here is remarkable in the context of the Gadarenes’ complaint. It most probably stems from Josephus himself since it matches another long statement about Herod’s differing attitudes towards fellow Jews and non-Jews (Ant. 16.150-159; see below). If the statement here is accurate, the complaint by the Gadarenes becomes hard to understand because there would be not much to complain about. The discrepancies in this section (see also 15.354, 357 with notes) may be explained by the assumption that Josephus adapted his source’s text (probably from Nicolaus of Damascus) about this episode by changing Herod’s depiction as a ruler in such a way that it better fitted his overall presentation of Herod.There is a significant parallel to this statement in 16.150-159, which passage follows a description of Herod’s benefactions to people outside his kingdom (16.146-149) and points to the alleged ambiguity of Herod’s behavior (16.150-151) towards subjects and non-subjects: the king was very generous towards non-subjects, while harsh towards the Jewish people in his kingdom. Josephus’ own view largely supports this ambiguity and he gives his own explanation for it (16.152-159; see further the commentary on that passage). The connection between 15.356 and 16.150-159 is supported by the correspondences of the vocabulary in both passages (δυσπαραίτητος in 15.356 and 16.151, οἱ οἰκεῖοι in 15.356 and 16.156, and μεγαλόψυχος/μεγαλοψυχία in 15.356 and 16.153; see also the previous notes). The verb ἀφίημι means “leave unpunished, pardon” here (Rengstorf s.v.; cf. Ant. 15.371). With these last words Josephus returns again to the situation of the Gadarenes.

There is no other passage in Josephus mentioning explicitly outrageous acts (ὕβρεις) by Herod (similar vocabulary in Strabo 15.1.64). There are no other passages in Josephus referring to robberies (ἅρπαγες) by Herod; War 1.355 and Ant. 14.484 even report that Herod attempted to prevent the plundering of Jerusalem (τὰς κατὰ τὴν πόλιν ἅρπαγας, Ant. 14.484) by Sosius’ soldiers. The combination of outrageous acts, robberies, and destructions of temples must at least be a gross overstatement (see also the 2 previous notes) since it is improbable that Herod committed all these wicked acts at Gadara (cf. Richardson 1996: 233 n. 61, who considers the destructions of temples at Gadara to be “particularly odd”). The accusation doesn’t fit Josephus’ previous statement about Herod’s lenient attitude towards the Gadarenes (see Ant. 15.356 with the note to “he had not done them any harm”), but it does match elements of the tyrannical stereotype, which often includes accusations of outrageous acts (also towards the gods or God), plundering, and destructions of temples, as passages about Cambyses, Antiochus IV, Nero, and Domitian show (e.g., Sib. Or. 5.107-110, 150-151, 226 about Nero; more references and further discussion in van Henten 2000; 2011b). Josephus’ portrayal of Cleopatra incorporates elements of this stereotype, referring, among other things, to her violations of temples and tombs (Ant. 15.90; Apion 2.58; van Henten 2005a). Herod’s calmness presupposes a prudent and self-assured attitude, which is at odds with the accusation of the Gadarenes and the presentation of Herod as a tyrannical ruler. The verb ἀταρακτέω (“remain calm,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. Herod apparently had anticipated the accusation of the Gadarenes and prepared his defense before Augustus, which again suggests that he was a clever ruler. Being well-prepared for one’s defense is a virtue according to 1 Pet 3:15: “Always be ready to make your defense (ἕτοιμοι ἀεὶ πρὸς ἀπολογίαν) to anyone who demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in you ….” Augustus’ benevolence (εὔνοια) towards Herod is mentioned for the first time in Ant. 15.193-194, concerning Herod’s journey to Octavian after the Battle of Actium. The tumult (ταραχή) of the crowd of Gadarenes could easily have irritated Augustus, not only because unrest was always something bad, but also because it might have indicated that Herod did not succeed in his task of guaranteeing peace and order in the territories that had been added to his kingdom (see Ant. 15.5 with the note to “a gift to Antony”). The combination of ταραχή (“tumult, disturbance”) and πλῆθος (“crowd, masses”) occurs several times in Josephus (see 15.231 with the note to “disturbances of the masses”).

The vocabulary in Ant. 15.358 (οἱ λόγοι “the speeches” and ἡ διάγνωσις “the inquiry”) suggests that there was a court meeting, apparently at Gadara (see the continuation of the narrative and 15.354). “The speeches” probably refer to speeches elaborating the accusation against Herod by legal representatives of the Gadarenes as well as the defense by the king. In contradistinction to the earlier complaint, when Marcus Agrippa did not even give the Gadarenes a hearing (15.351), the Gadarenes were now allowed to speak during the meeting. The noun διάγνωσις can mean “(judicial) inquiry” (LSJ s.v. II; Rengstorf s.v.) and is sometimes the equivalent of the Latin cognitio (“judicial inquiry”), as the governor Festus’ explanation to King Agrippa (concerning Paul’s appeal to the emperor) in Acts 25:21 shows: “But when Paul had appealed to be kept in custody for the decision (εἰς τὴν τοῦ Σεβαστοῦ διάγνωσιν) of his Imperial Majesty, I ordered him to be held until I could send him to the emperor” (see also Ant. 15.77). The noun ῥοπή (“turn of the scale, change”) can also mean “decision” (LSJ s.v. I). Rengstorf (s.v.) suggests the meaning “inclination” here. The council (συνέδριον, Latin consilium) of the emperor was a flexible institution with varying staffing, dependent on the occasion. The emperor’s friends as well as senators and members of the equestrian rank served as its members (cf. War 2.81 and Ant. 17.301; further references in War 2.25, 93; Ant. 17.317). It had a political as well as a juridical function. Augustus founded this consilium principis (Cassius Dio 52.15), and his successors maintained it (Suetonius, Tib. 55; Crook 1955: 31-55; Kienast 1999: 181; Mason in BJP 1b on War 2.25). This expectation seems plausible in the light of the result of the Gadarenes’ previous complaint against Herod before Marcus Agrippa, who decided to send the complainants as prisoners to Herod. The extreme reaction of the Gadarenes to their failure in persuading Augustus is hardly explained in the narrative. Their fear that Herod would torture them is curious in the light of Herod’s reaction to their earlier complaint: Herod decided not to punish them (Ant. 15.356). Although it is implausible that Herod would have had the Gadarenes getting off scot-free for a second time, their fear and various ways of committing suicide seem out of proportion in connection with Herod’s attitude towards them sofar. The reaction of the Gadarenes would be understandable in an utterly hopeless situation, in which they would rather commit suicide than be at the mercy of a cruel enemy. The inconsistencies in the narrative may be explained by the assumption that Josephus himself invented the self-killings of the Gadarenes in order to enhance the drama in his description of Herod’s dealings with them; they match Josephus’ depiction of Herod as a tyrannical ruler perfectly (see 15.354 with the note to “tyrannical”). The suicides of the Gadarenes are only understandable in a context in which the Gadarenes were doomed to die anyway (see also the previous note), such that they decided to commit suicide rather than be executed by the enemy or be sold as slaves (cf. Phasael’s suicide reported in Ant. 14.367, and the Masada suicide in War 7.389-401; further discussion in van Henten 2007a). Hurling oneself down from a wall, building, or mountain ridge was a well-known type of suicide in antiquity. Cecrops’ daughter Agraulos (also named Aglaulus) plunged herself from a wall and sacrificed herself for her fatherland Attica in this way (Philochorus, FGH 328 F 105). Menoeceus thrust his sword through his throat and jumped from the walls of Thebes in order to save his city from the people of Argos (Euripides, Phoen. 1090-1092; Statius, Theb. 10.756-779). The elder Razis committed suicide in a similar way in 2 Macc 14:37-46 (van Henten 1997: 144-50). The suicide of the inhabitants of Gamla during the first war against Rome (War 4.79-80) deserves special attention: since there was no hope of salvation, the males first threw their wives and children and then themselves down from a ridge (see also the next note). Drowning oneself was another well-known way of committing suicide in antiquity. A famous case is the death of Hadrian’s friend Antinous, who drowned himself voluntarily in the Nile in order to save Hadrian’s life (Cassius Dio 69.11; Historia Augusta, Hadr. 14.5-7; further discussion and references about hurling oneself down and drowning as self-killings in Schwenn 1915: 29-31, 42-43, 127, 131-32, 152, 154, 182-84; Schmitt 1921: 96-97; Versnel 1981: 152-56). As the example of Gamla suggests (see the previous note), the inhabitants of a city besieged by the Romans in their hopeless situation sometimes opted for collective suicide rather than undergoing a brutal punishment by the Romans (discussion and references in Cohen 1982).

The suicides of the Gadarenes were apparently interpreted as proof that their accusation against Herod was unjustified. The noun κατάγνωσις (“[moral] condemnation, disapproval,” LSJ s.v. I-II; Rengstorf s.v.) occurs twice elsewhere in the Herod narrative of Antiquities: once in connection with Herod’s plan to murder Cleopatra, which act would have showed Herod’s stubbornness and condemnation (κατάγνωσις) of Antony’s behavior (15.101), and once concerning the disapproval of Alexandra’s disgraceful behavior at the time of Mariamme’s execution (15.234). The noun προπέτεια (“rashness”) occurs in Antiquities only in the Herod narrative, several times concerning Herod himself (e.g., 16.255; see 15.100 with the note to “out of rashness”). Rengstorf (s.v.) proposes the translation “impudence” for this passage. The conjecture καὶ οὐχ ἁμαρτίας (“and not of wrongdoing”) by Richards and Shutt (1939: 174), instead of the reading καὶ ἁμαρτίας (attested by the MSS; Niese 397), is unnecessary because the phrase refers to the Gadarenes and not to Herod (in contrast to Richards and Shutt’s assumption). The translation follows the reading ὅθεν (“whence”), attested by E and favored by Niese minor (317). The reading ἔνθεν (“thence”) of the other MSS is probably a scribal error for ὅθεν. Josephus does not inform us about Herod’s speech of defense, apart from his remark in Ant. 15.357 that the king was well-prepared to defend himself. The sequence of events may imply that Herod or his lawyer had produced a successful speech of defense (cf. 15.358 and Günther 2005: 133), but a plausible motive for Augustus’ decision is his faith in Herod as a successful guarantor of order in this unstable region.For ἀπολύω with the meaning “acquit (of a charge),” see LSJ s.v. I.2b and Ant. 12.263. Otto (1913: 71) and Schürer-Vermes (2.134 n. 249) refer to city coins from Gadara from the year 44 of the city’s era (= 21/20 BCE) displaying the head of Augustus, which coins F. de Saulcy interpreted in 1875 as being minted by Herod in gratitude for Augustus’ support. For the verb μέλλω having the meaning “delay” (frequently with a negation), see LSJ s.v. III. This phrase (literally “not moderate”) is a case of litotes. Zenodorus’ illness described in the next sub-clauses is taken as a fortunate coincidence for Herod.The rare verb ἐπισυμπίπτω (“happen further,” Rengstorf s.v.; cf. Philo, Spec. 1.62, though with a different meaning) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. A ruptured intestine is a lethal illness if no surgery is undertaken; it causes infection of the abdominal cavity. Josephus does not mention medical treatment of Zenodorus, who was doomed to die with such an illness. He does not explicitly say that Zenodorus’ illness was considered to be a punishment for his misdeeds, although this type of illness could easily have been associated with a divine punishment of a wicked person (cf. 2 Macc 9:5 concerning Antiochus IV: “But the all-seeing Lord, the God of Israel, struck him with an incurable and invisible blow. As soon as he stopped speaking, he was seized with a pain in his bowels [τῶν σπλάγχνων ἀλγηδών], for which there was no relief, and with sharp internal tortures …”). Rengstorf (s.v.) suggests the translation “be lost” for ὑποχωρέω (“go back”) here. The parallel passage of War (1.400) is much briefer and does not specify in which way Zenodorus died. The phrase ἐκλείπω τὸν βίον (“depart life, pass away”) also occurs in Ant. 19.356; 20.26 (cf. Polybius 38.1.7; Diodorus 1.72.2; Philo, QG 4.169; Plutarch, Mor. [Cons. Apoll.] 107e, [Apoph. lac.] 234e). I.e., Antioch on the Orontes (see also Ant. 17.24). Josephus does not inform us why Zenodorus was in Antioch when he died. It is possible that Augustus’ council mentioned in 15.358 assembled in Antioch and that Zenodorus wanted to be at that same place in order to act quickly if the accusation of the Gadarenes was found justified.

The noun μοῖρα can mean “portion of land, part of a region” in Josephus (Rengstorf s.v.; see also War 2.382; 3.56, 445; Ant. 1.136; 2.190; 20.159). Kasher (1988: 160) argues that Augustus’ grant of the remaining territory of Zenodorus (for Augustus’ previous grant of a part of Zenodorus’ territory—Trachonitis, Batanea, and Auranitis—to Herod, see Ant. 15.343) was given in by political pragmatism and demographic developments: Herod had proved to be successful in controlling rough territories where robbers were hiding, and Jews as well as converted Itureans were living in Zenodorus’ territory. Later Herod strengthened the Jewish connection by founding a military colony of Babylonian Jews in Batanea (17.23-29) and settling 3,000 Idumeans in Trachonitis (16.285; see also Shatzman 1991: 171; Günther 2005: 132). For a similar grant of a portion of land by an emperor to a Jewish king, cf. Nero’s grant of a part of Galilee to Agrippa II (καὶ τὸν ’Αγρίππαν δὲ δωρεῖται μοίρᾳ τινὶ τῆς Γαλιλαίας, 20.159). Concerning the name and the location of Trachonitis, see Ant. 15.344 with the note to “Trachonitis.” The parallel passage of War (1.400) has a similar Greek formulation. Ulatha (Οὐλάθα) is only mentioned here in Josephus (Schalit 1968: 94; in Ant. 17.25 the same name indicates a place near Antioch on the Orontes). It is unclear whether Ulatha refers to a town or region. The context implies that the name refers either to the Hula Valley (including Lake Hula), north of the Sea of Galilee, or to a town or village in its neighborhood (Möller and Schmitt 1976: 192). Paneas (Πανεάς; the Greek MSS read τὴν Πανιάδε [from Πανιάς]; Niese 397) is the name of a territory near the source of the Jordan River (currently named Banyas; for the name, see War 2.168; Ant. 17.189; 18.28; Schalit 1968: 96; Möller and Schmitt 1976: 115; Berlin 1999: 27-28; Overman, Olive, and Nelson 2007: 189-92; see also Ant. 15.363 with the note to “the place called Paneion”). Herod’s son Philip (re)founded the city Paneas of this area as Caesarea Philippi, probably in 3 or 2 BCE (War 2.168; Ant. 18.28; Schürer-Vermes 2.169-71; differently Mahieu 2012: 258-59, 398). King Agrippa II refounded the city as Neronias in 60/61 CE. The grant probably consisted of the territory of Paneas, the Hula Valley (Ulatha), and the Golan area (i.e., Gaulanitis; Avi-Yonah 1974: 92). In War 1.400 Josephus does not mention Ulatha and Paneas but simply states that Augustus gave Herod all the land between Trachonitis and Galilee, i.e., the area around Paneas, Gaulanitis, and Batanea, which had already previously been given to Herod according to Ant. 15.343. Schürer-Vermes (1.566) argue that the territory referred to here is identical with the “estate” of Lysanias mentioned in 15.344. Kokkinos (1998: 281 with n. 64) argues that “the country surrounding it” refers to Mount Hermon and possibly also Abilene. Niese (397) reads αὐτήν (“her, it,” probably referring to μοῖρα [“portion of land”] at the beginning of the sentence) with MS P. He assumes that the reading αὐτόν (“him,” i.e., Herod) attested by the other Greek MSS (supported by the Latin version) can hardly be correct and that there is a lacuna in the Greek text. Nevertheless, the reading αὐτόν makes sense, although it causes a historical problem concerning Herod’s financial authority in Syria (see the note to “the procurators of Syria” below). The verb ἐγκαταμίγνυμι (“intermingle/associate with,” Rengstorf s.v.) occurs once elsewhere in Josephus (War 2.176: Pilate orders his soldiers to mix, in common clothing, with the Jewish crowd). The verb ἐπιτροπεύω (“administer, be governor”) can refer to the Roman office of procurator (LSJ s.v. 4; similarly ἐπίτροπος can be the equivalent of the Latin term procurator; Mason 1974: 49; 142-43; Eck 2008). The title procurator can refer to several Roman offices (survey in Eck 2001); here it refers to officials in the imperial Roman provinces who were responsible for the imperial possessions and funds in the provinces as well as the payments of the soldiers. They were appointed by the emperor and reported back to him as his private agents (Goodman 1997: 108-09; Udoh 2005: 134). Augustus’ decision implies that the procurators of the province of Syria were to cooperate closely with Herod, such that Herod had an important say in the financial matters of the province. Several scholars doubt whether this decision is historical and whether it had to be taken literally by the Syrian procurators (e.g., Schürer-Vermes 1.319). It was perhaps only an honorary matter that reflected Herod’s status as the most important local ruler in the region in consequence of the expansion of his kingdom with Zenodorus’ territories (War 1.398-399; Ant. 15.343-348, 360; see Braund 1984: 84-85, 90 n. 97, who notes that Herod’s new status in Syria is sandwiched by references to Augustus’ donations of Zenodorus’ territories to Herod, likewise Udoh 2005: 149-50, 192 with nn. 188 and 386). Schürer-Vermes (1.319 n. 122) argue that this passage derives from Nicolaus of Damascus and reflects his overstatement of Herod’s power and status. Gabba (1990) argues that Herod was involved in tax-collecting activities. Cimma (1976: 311) argues that the decision implied that the procurators of Syria had to ask for Herod’s permission to act against bandits (cf. Richardson 1996: 234). Braund (1984: 84-85) points to conventions concerning friendly kings and to the analogies between the positions of friendly kings and Roman officials, such that they sometimes could switch position. Lucceius Albinus was governor of Mauretania in 69 CE and assumed the royal insignia, taking the name Juba (Tacitus, Hist. 2.58); Juba had been the name of 2 kings (Juba I of Numidia and Juba II of Mauretania). There is also an example of the opposite move: following the Roman conquest of the Cottian Alps in 14 BCE, King Donnus no longer ruled this territory, but Donnus’ son Cottius I was appointed prefect there (in 44 CE Claudius bestowed the royal title again, on Donnus’ grandson Cottius II; ILS nos. 94 and 848; Cassius Dio 60.24.4). The parallel passage of War (1.399) mentions the appointment of Herod as being even more important; the king would have become procurator of all Syria: “Then, when he [i.e., Caesar] came back to this province ten years later, he also made him [i.e., Herod] procurator of all Syria (Συρίας ὅλης ἐπίτροπον), so that the [other] procurators (τοις ἐπιτρόποις) were permitted to take no action without obtaining the latter’s [i.e., Herod’s] consent” (trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a). Kasher (1988: 160) considers this appointment to be improbable. Several scholars emend Συρίας ὅλης in War 1.399 into Συρίας κοιλῆς, such that Herod would have been the procurator not of Syria but of Coele-Syria (Otto 1913: 71-72 with n. *; Marcus-Wikgren 175 n. c; Schürer-Vermes 1.319; Braund 1984: 89 n. 92).

Herod’s fortune (εὐτυχία) as a ruler is a recurring motif in the Herod narrative of Antiquities (see 15.255, 376; 16.64, 76-77, and cf. a similar statement in different words in the parallel passage of War [1.400]; see also Ant. 6.129 about Saul), but several passages emphasize that his success as a ruler was in strong contrast with the disastrous events within his family (see especially 16.76-77; cf. 17.94-95). Here Josephus refers in passing to the greatness of the Roman empire. For a similar statement, see War 7.132-133 (τῆς Ῥωμαίων ἡγεμονίας … τὸ μέγεθος, 7.133), which emphasizes the greatness of the Roman imperium as the main point of the Flavian triumphal procession celebrating the victory over the Jewish people (Beard 2003; Eberhardt 2005). About the motif of the greatness of Rome, cf. Polybius 2.22.2; Appian, Hist. rom. preface 43; Cassius Dio 62.7.Mason (2003: 573-89) discusses other Josephan passages about the Roman political system in which Josephus compares that system with the Jewish constitution. I.e., Augustus (references in Ant. 15.109 with the note to “Caesar”). Instead of μετ’ αὐτόν (“next to him”), attested by MSS FLVE (Niese 398), Richards and Shutt (1939: 174) read μετ’ αὐτοῦ (“with him”) on the basis of the Latin version. I.e., Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa, who became Augustus’ deputy probably in 23 BCE (with imperium proconsulare in the East; see Ant. 15.350 with the notes to “Agrippa” and “Caesar’s deputy”). Agrippa was designated successor to Augustus (Cassius Dio 53-54) and in 21 BCE he married Augustus’ daughter Julia, who later gave birth to 3 possible successors for Augustus: Gaius, Lucius, and Agrippa Postumus (Richardson 1996: 232-33). I.e., Augustus’ affection for Agrippa. The phrase κατὰ τὴν πρὸς αὐτὸν εὔνοιαν echoes Ant. 15.193-194 concerning the relationship between Octavian and Herod (cf. 15.194 τῆς πρὸς ἐκεῖνον εὐνοίας referring to Octavian’s benevolence towards Herod and 15.387). The context implies that εὔνοια has a different nuance than goodwill or loyalty here because it presupposes an intimate relationship between Augustus and Agrippa. The word may, therefore, be translated by “affection, love” or “attachment” (Rengstorf s.v.). This passage suggests that for Augustus Herod was the third person in importance within the Roman empire, i.e., after Augustus himself and Marcus Agrippa, which implies that Augustus had great confidence in Herod’s capabilities as a friendly king (about friendly kings, see Ant. 15.5 with the note to “a gift to Antony”). Other details in the Herod narrative can be interpreted in support of such a close relationship between Herod and Augustus, e.g., the education of Herod’s sons in Rome (15.342-343) and Herod’s legacies of 1,000 talents to Augustus and of 500 talents to Augustus’ wife (Julia), children, friends, and freed persons (17.146; cf. 17.190). However, this is not ample evidence; one could even argue that both the education of Herod’s son and the legacies only confirm the mutual beneficial relationship between Augustus and Herod. Richardson (1996: 234) doubts whether Augustus and Herod were close friends and states that there is not enough evidence to prove this. Two undated honorary inscriptions call Herod Friend of Caesar (φιλοκαίσαρ) and Friend of Rome (φιλορώμαιος): IG II2 no. 3440 (= OGIS no. 414) and IG II2 no. 3441 (= OGIS no. 427; Smallwood 1976: 71; Kienast 1999: 309, although the identification with Herod the Great is not entirely certain.The verb προτιμάω means “honor above others” here (Rengstorf s.v.; see also 15.209 with the note to “specially”). This links up with Ant. 15.350, which passage calls Herod a very close friend and companion (εἰς τὰ μάλιστα φίλος καὶ συνήθης) of Agrippa (see the note to “he was a very close friend and companion”). The parallel passage of War (1.400) likewise tells us that Herod enjoyed Augustus’ and Agrippa’s special favors (ἐφιλεῖτο). Richardson (1996: 233) argues that Agrippa and Herod were indeed close friends, not only because they had to cooperate with each other (since Agrippa was Augustus’ deputy in the East), but also because they had a lot in common: both were coming from the countryside, very wealthy, ambitious patrons of public works, successful military commanders, and keen supporters of Augustus.For the phrase “assigned the first place of friendship” (πρῶτον ἀπεδίδου φιλίας τόπον), cf. Ant. 15.21 concerning Herod’s treatment of Hyrcanus II, who received special honors from Herod and was given “the first place (τὸν πρῶτον ἔνεμε τόπον) in the assemblies.” The repetitive vocabulary with various phrases of μετά plus an accusative (“after, next to”) and the pairs Caesar—Agrippa, Caesar—Agrippa, and Agrippa—Caesar together emphasize not only that Augustus and Agrippa were numbers one and two in the empire, but also that they shared the same attitude towards Herod since they considered him to be the third most important person after themselves. Cf. the similar but simpler statement in the parallel passage of War (1.400): “But what was greater than all this in Herod’s eyes was that next after Agrippa, he enjoyed Caesar’s special favor (ἐφιλεῖτο), and next after Caesar, he enjoyed Agrippa’s [special favor]” (trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a).

Herod’s apparent close relationship with both Augustus and Marcus Agrippa allowed him to discuss important matters of administration with them. E.g., the arrangement of a tetrarchy for Pheroras (see the next notes) required a change in the arrangement of Herod’s territory. For the territory of Pheroras’ tetrarchy, see the note to “from the kingdom” below. A tetrarchy (τετραρχία) usually concerns a relatively small territory, and a tetrarch (ruling in theory over one fourth of the territory; see SIG 3 no. 274; Euripides, Alc. 1154; Demosthenes, Or. 9.26) basically had a lesser status than a king (Schürer-Vermes 1.334). Many rulers in the East were called tetrarchs in the periods of the Late Republic and the Early Empire. For a list of tetrarchies in the regions of the Decapolis and Inner Syria, see Pliny the Elder 5.74, 81-82. Mark Antony had appointed both Phasael and Herod tetrarchs of Judea (War 1.244; Ant. 14.326). Pheroras was Herod’s youngest brother (see Ant. 15.184 with the note to “Pheroras”). Herod apparently arranged for a fixed revenue for Pheroras’ tetrarchy in order to secure his brother’s income, as the continuation of the narrative also implies. Concerning Herod’s procedure of assigning revenue to Pheroras, cf. Ant. 16.250 about a comparable assignment by Herod to his son Antipater: “And a letter … was also found, in which he [i.e., Antipater’s stepbrother Alexander] blamed their father [i.e., Herod] for acting unjustly by assigning a territory (χώραν ἀπονέμοντα) to Antipater that yielded a revenue of two hundred talents (πρόσοδον διακοσίων ταλάντων φέρουσαν; cf. 15.362 πρόσοδον ἑκατὸν ταλάντων)” (my trans.). This addition seems unclear at a first glance, but the parallel passage of War (1.483) indicates that Herod arranged for a fixed income of 100 talents per year, which was paid (or guaranteed; see below) out of the royal treasury. War 1.483 implies that Pheroras received not only the 100 talents, but also the revenues of the territory across the Jordan given to him by Herod (as Udoh 2005: 144 n. 158, 183-84 rightly notes). This territory was most probably identical with Perea (War 1.586), which was part of Herod’s kingdom (as presupposed in Ant. 15.294). Ant. 15.362 could therefore, contrary to War 1.483, indicate that Herod assigned Perea to his brother Pheroras with a guaranteed income of 100 talents (i.e., the revenues from Perea no longer went to Herod but to Pheroras). Such a move may have preceded Herod’s request to Augustus to have his brother appointed as tetrarch. Momigliano (1934: 46-48) prefers Josephus’ information in Antiquities to the, in his view, clumsy passage of War 1.483 and concludes that Pheroras only received the 100 talents. Josephus hints with this phrase (εἰ καί τι πάσχοι) at an unforeseen development that could lead to Herod’s death. For passages with the same implication and with similar vocabulary, see Ant. 15.65, 69, 85 (in the context of a possible punishment of Herod by Mark Antony) and 15.164, 204 (hinting at a punishment by Octavian; see also 17.67, 83). I.e., the territory of Pheroras’ tetrarchy, Perea (see the note to “from the kingdom” above). The translation follows Niese (398), who reads αὐτῆς with MS P. The other MSS read αὐτοῦ (“his”), referring to Herod’s sons. This reading could imply a translation like “that his sons would not get hold [of it]” or “that his sons would not be ruler” (for this meaning of κρατέω, see Rengstorf s.v.). The latter meaning matches a later passage in the Herod narrative of Antiquities (17.67), referring to Pheroras and Herod’s son Antipater: “For even now, he [i.e., Antipater] lamented, Herod would rather order for the power to be given to his brother [i.e., Pheroras] than to his son [i.e., Antipater] if he [i.e., Herod] would suffer something (εἴ τι πάσχειν αὐτόν)” (my trans.).

The verb ἐπανήκω (“return, come back,” Rengstorf s.v.) implies that Herod returned home (probably to Jerusalem), likely from a place outside of his kingdom (cf. War 1.442 about Herod’s return from his journey to Mark Antony and Ant. 16.271 about the king’s return from a trip to Rome). The last geographic information mentioned concerns Gadara (15.354), such that the meeting of Augustus’ council (15.357-358) may have taken place there (Antioch is another option, see 15.359 with the note to “Antioch in Syria”). Gadara had been part of Herod’s kingdom since 30 BCE (see 15.217 with the note to “Gadara”). Josephus does not specify the places from where (possibly Gadara; see the previous note) and whereto (on the coast) Herod escorted Augustus (concerning προπέμπω [“escort”], cf. Ant. 15.103 with the note to “escorted her to Egypt”). We do know that Augustus traveled to Samos and Athens afterwards, before arriving back in Rome on 12 October 19 BCE (Res gest. divi Aug. 11; Cassius Dio 54.10; Kokkinos 1998: 167 n. 60). The place on the coast could have been Caesarea (cf. Richardson 1996: 234) or Ptolemais (cf. Ant. 15.199). Herod’s temple built in honor of Augustus (see the note to “for him” below) is also mentioned in the parallel passage of War (1.404). Contrary to Herod’s (re)building of Samaria-Sebaste (see Ant. 15.296-298) and Caesarea Maritima (15.331-341), which both concerned a cluster of buildings, Josephus only mentions Herod’s building of a temple in the Paneion area (see the note to “the place called Paneion” below).The precise location of the temple in honor of Augustus is debated. Ma’oz (1993; 1996) argues, partly on the basis of the finding of pottery from the Augustean period, that it was situated directly in front of the grotto described by Josephus (see 15.364 with the note to “cave in the mountain”). Lichtenberger (1999: 150-53), Netzer (2006: 221-22), and Bernett (2007b: 226) argue for a location on a terrace west of the grotto, referring to remains of the so-called opus reticulatum technique (elsewhere also used by Herod) and the reconstructed set up of the building. Overman, Olive, and Nelson (2007) argue that the remains of a possibly Herodean building at the 2 locations close to the grotto are scant and that it is much more probable that the temple was located 3.5 km southwest of Paneas-Caesarea Philippi, at Horvat Omrit. At this location a temple complex has been excavated, of which one phase closely reflects the style of temples built in honor of Augustus elsewhere (e.g., the Augusteum at Pula). This temple (called by the excavators “temple I”) was ca. 20 m high and stood upon a high podium in Corinthian order with a plaza around it; it had a prostyle and a tetrastyle. This form closely resembles the representation of the front of the temple on the famous coin from Banyas of Philip the tetrarch (further discussion and references in Berlin 1999; Netzer 2006: 218-22; Taylor 2006: 573; Bernett 2007a: 239-48; 2007b: 225-26; Overman and Schowalter 2011).The adjective περικαλλής (“especially beautiful,” Rengstorf s.v., here in the superlative) occurs twice elsewhere in Josephus in connection with building activities of Herod: in War 1.402 concerning the 2 large buildings in Jerusalem named after Augustus and Marcus Agrippa (cf. Ant. 15.318 with notes) and in War 1.412 concerning the Drusus Tower at the harbor of Caesarea (see Ant. 15.336, also 15.364). The parallel passage of War (1.404) states that the temple was built of white marble (see the next note). This could, though not necessarily, be implied by Ant. 15.363 as well (see 15.331 with the note to “buildings of white stone” concerning buildings in Caesarea, and Fischer and Kushnir-Stein 1994). See also Ant. 15.364. The founding of a temple in honor of Augustus (usually called an Augusteum) must mainly have been Herod’s response to the grant of additional territories from Zenodorus (15.360), as the parallel passage of War (1.404) states in rather general terms: “Furthermore, when Caesar gave him additional land, he [i.e., Herod] dedicated a temple of white marble to him (ναὸν αὐτῷ λευκῆς μαρμάρου καθιδρύσατο) there also, near the sources of the Jordan, at a place called Paneion” (trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a). Augustus’ continued support of Herod, as shown during the issue of the Gadarenes’ complaint (Ant. 15.354-359), may have been an additional reason (Overman, Olive, and Nelson 2007: 183). If the temple was Herod’s response to Augustus’ grant of Zenodorus’ territories, then the building activities probably started in 20 BCE (cf. Otto 1913: 65; Roller 1998: 190; Günther 2005: 258; Mahieu 2012: 167). I.e., Ulatha, Paneas, and the country surrounding it (Ant. 15.360). The expression τὸ Πάνειον/τὸ Πάνιον is the name of the cave where the Jordan River wells up (as implied by the parallel passage of War [1.404] and by War 3.509; Ant. 15.364; for the same name, see also War 3.513-514; Möller and Schmitt 1976: 115). Obviously the cave is part of the Paneas-Banyas area (see Ant. 15.360 with the note to “Paneas”). Paneion is mentioned for the first time in connection with Antiochus III’s defeat of Ptolemy V’s army at this location in 198 BCE (Polybius 16.18.2; see also Pliny the Elder 36.49). The name derives from the deity Pan, to whom the grotto was dedicated (Schürer-Vermes 2.169; Berlin 1999: 31-34). To the east of the cave niches in honor of Pan were hewn in the rock and below them traces of shrines have been found (Netzer 2006: 219).Herod may have chosen the location near the grotto because there was already a cult for Pan and perhaps also one for the Ptolemies or Seleucids at this place. In case Horvat Omrit was the actual location of the temple (see the note to “a most beautiful temple” above), there may have been similar reasons for Herod’s choice: it functioned already as a cult centre and it was situated—like Paneas—in the middle of the important commercial road between Tyre and Damascus as well as close to the main north-south road in this area (Günther 2005: 218-19).About Josephus’ description of Paneion, see Kushnir-Stein 2007. The name Πάνειον together with a passive form of καλέω (“call”) also occurs in the parallel passage of War (1.405).

Note the repetition of περικαλλής (“especially beautiful”) in Ant. 15.363-364 (see 15.363 with the note to “a most beautiful temple”). Josephus’ description of the location of the cave (σπήλαιον; the parallel passage of War [1.404-406] has ἄντρον) is adequate: the grotto lies on a narrow terrace measuring 250 ft, beneath one of the cliffs of Mount Hermon and above a ravine from which one of the sources of the Jordan River issues forth (Berlin 1999: 28-29). The location is currently a major tourist site. I.e., the mountain. Josephus describes the location of the cave from 2 perspectives: from the top of the mountain looking downward (ὑπ’ αὐτό) and from the cave looking up to the mountain (καθύπερθε δ’ ὄρος). The translation of the rare noun ὁλίσθημα (“slip, [land]slide,” LSJ s.v.; Rengstorf s.v.) follows the meaning given by LSJ (s.v., referring to an inscription from Priene from the 2nd cent. BCE containing the same word; Hiller von Gaertringen 1906: no. 42 ll. 10 and 42). The cave is situated at the beginning of the bed of the Jordan River (see Ant. 15.363 with the note to “to the place called Paneion”), which is part of a gorge for its first few kilometers, and at the bottom of an extremely steep mountain. The particularity of the landscape there could indeed be interpreted as a landslide. The noun ὁλίσθημα is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. The passive perfect participle of ἀπορρήγνυμι (“break off”) means “falling off steeply” here (Rengstorf s.v.). Niese (398) reads ἄβατον (“difficult to traverse, inaccessible,” Rengstorf s.v.) with MSS PW. MSS FLAMV and E read ἄφατον (“unspeakable”); the Latin version has inaccessibilis (“inaccessible”). The reading ἄφατον probably derived from a scribal error (confusing the consonants -β- and -φ-). The adjective ἄφατος occurs once elsewhere in Josephus (Apion 2.190), while ἄβατος is more common (references in Rengstorf s.v.). The alliteration of the a and p/b sounds in the phrase βάθος ἀπερρωγὸς ἄβατον (“of an abrupt and impassable depth”) emphasizes the extraordinary character of this location where the Jordan River appears above the ground. The parallel passage of War (1.405) offers a similar description in mostly different words: “There, a mountain peak (κορυφὴ τις ὄρους) rises to an overwhelming height, and, near the foot of the side of the mountain, a dark cave opens from below, through which a precipitous chasm plunges down into an immense depth (εἰς ἀμέτρητον ἀπορρῶγα βαθύνεται). No length of rope is sufficient to reach the great quantity of still water (ὕδατος ἀσαλεύτου) and measure the bottom” (trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a). The mountain is not particularly high but seems huge to somebody who is standing close to the entrance of the cave, from which position it is impossible to see the top because of the extremely steep incline. The parallel passage of War (1.406) also combines the verb ἀνατέλλω (“spring [up],” Rengstorf s.v.) with αἱ πηγαί (“the sources”): “From outside and below the cave the sources spring up (ἀνατέλλουσιν αἱ πηγαί)” (trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a; cf. War 2.168). Josephus adds in 1.406 a note that some people think that the location of the cave contains also the source of the River Jordan (which Josephus himself suggests here and in War 1.404-405; 2.168; Ant. 18.28; cf. War 3.57). He also announces in 1.406 that he will give a detailed description later on in War, which he does in 3.509-514, when he points out that the water of the Jordan River derives from Lake Phiala (Birket er-Ram, ca. 6 km east of the cave), from which it streams to the location of the cave through an underground channel. In Ant. 1.177 he explains that the neighborhood of Dan (which is close to the area of Paneas) contains one of the sources of the Jordan (associating the name Dan with the second part of the name Jor-dan; Feldman in BJP 3 on Ant. 1.177; see also Ant. 8.226). The verb προσκοσμέω (“adorn even more, enrich,” Rengstorf s.v.) occurs once elsewhere in Josephus (War 5.563, concerning donations of the Roman emperor to the Jerusalem Temple). The noun τόπος (“place”) also occurs in the parallel passage of War (1.404) but in a different way by specifying the location of the temple for Augustus (“… near the sources of the Jordan, at a place called Paneion [καλεῖται δὲ Πάνειον ὁ τόπος],” trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a). For similar vocabulary, though with a different meaning, cf. Ant. 16.165. Cf. the repetition of ναός (“temple”) in Ant. 15.363-364. The noun also occurs in the parallel passage of War (1.404). As in Caesarea (Ant. 15.339) and in Samaria-Sebaste (15.298), Herod founded the temple in Paneas in honor of Augustus, with a cult for Augustus and Roma (for Herod’s contribution to the imperial cult, see 15.339 with the note to “one of Caesar”).There are 3 further occurrences of the verb ἀφιερόω (“consecrate,” Rengstorf s.v.) in Josephus, one of which concerns the consecration of the Tabernacle (Ant. 3.201).

With a brief formula (τότε καί) Josephus synchronizes his note about Herod’s tax cut with the previous events (van Henten and Huitink 2007: 225-27), which are all associated with the date provided in Ant. 15.354 (Herod’s 17th regnal year; see 15.354 with the note to “reign”). Schürer-Vermes (1.315) and Mahieu (2012: 158) date the remission of the taxes to 20/19 BCE. Josephus means the taxes on agricultural production (Pastor 1997: 105-10; Udoh 2005: 205; other types of taxation under Herod include a sales levy and custom duties; further references in Ant. 15.303 with the note to “the revenues he received from the land”). It is impossible to calculate with certainty how much a tax reduction of one third implied since Josephus nowhere specifies the tax rate on farm produce. If Herod used the Roman rate of 12.5%, the reduction would be 4.2%, but there may have been different rates for various kinds of products (Pastor 1997: 106). For other tax cuts by Herod, see Ant. 16.64 and cf. War 1.427-428, in which passage Josephus states that going through Herod’s taking over of debts and taxes from others in detail would be never-ending, which he illustrates with a reference to Herod lightening the annual tax for several cities in Asia Minor and Syria. This implies, perhaps, that War 1.427-428 refers to a reduction of Herod’s tax income from overseas (Gabba 1990: 163; Pastor 1997: 107), but it is more plausible that the passage means that Herod paid off the debts of these cities in Asia Minor and Syria, as argued by Udoh (2005: 192-93). Herod apparently presented the tax cut (on agricultural produce; see the note to “remitted the third part of the taxes” above) as a relief after one or more bad harvests. Josephus adds, however, that the king had another motive for the cut (see the next note).Josephus uses the noun ἀφορία (“barrenness, dearth, unproductiveness,” Rengstorf s.v.) also in connection with Joseph’s explanation of Pharaoh’s dreams (Gen 41), which predicted 7 years of plenty followed by 7 years of famine (Ant. 2.85, 97; see also 7.93). For the verb ἀνακτάομαι with the meaning “win over (someone),” cf. Ant. 15.75 about Herod winning over Antony with the help of gifts. Josephus also implies elsewhere in the Herod narrative of Antiquities that the king’s subjects were hostile to him (e.g., 15.280, 291). Pastor (1997: 106) rightly notes that Josephus’ comment here shows his anti-Herodian bias. It is improbable that a tax cut would have ended the hostility of Herod’s subjects if their criticism of him was based on religious and cultural objections. For the phrase χαλεπῶς φέρω (“take badly”), see Ant. 15.24 with the note to “took the disgrace of her son badly.” The noun ἐξεργασία (“realization, carrying out,” Rengstorf s.v.) occurs once elsewhere in Josephus (War 1.18), in which passage it means “elaboration” (referring to Josephus’ report of the first war against Rome). This remark seems out of place here because it is highly implausible that Herod’s tax cut was associated with practices that went against the Jewish traditions (see also the note to “who were hostile” above).The term ἐπιτηδεύματα (“habits, practices”; see Ant. 15.267 with the note to “foreign habits”) occurs several times in the episode about the trophies in Jerusalem (15.267, 269, 275, 281), in which the reproach against Herod fits the context much better (see also 15.368 and the note to “that their worship would be put to an end” below). This motivation for the hostility of Herod’s subjects reminds one once again of the episode about the trophies (Ant. 15.267-291), especially of its introduction (15.267): “… he departed even more from the ancestral customs and gradually corrupted the [Jewish] way of life with foreign habits (ξενικοῖς ἐπιτηδεύμασιν), although it had previously remained undisturbed. Because of this we [i.e., the Jews] suffered considerable harm, also in later times, since all the matters that had previously led the masses to proper worship (ἐπὶ τὴν εὐσέβειαν) were neglected.” The noun εὐσέβεια (“worship”) occurs twice in the passage about the trophies (see 15.267 and 15.288 with the notes to “proper worship”). The verb μεταπίπτω (“change,” Rengstorf s.v.) also occurs in the report about the trophies: the protesters could not accept Herod’s change of the Jewish practices (Ant. 15.267-268, 274, 281, 288; see 15.267 with notes). Niese (398) conjectures διά (“by, through, between”) instead of δέ (“but”; see also the next note). The phrase λόγοι δὶα πάντων ἐγίνοντο is perhaps pejorative, which would imply a translation like “(So) there were mutterings by all of them” (cf. Ant. 16.373: “When he [i.e., Herod] came to Caesarea, everybody was immediately talking [γίνεται λόγος εὐθὺς ἅπασι] about his sons, and the kingdom was in suspense because the people were waiting [to see] how the case against them would turn out some day,” my trans.). The context implies that the subjects of Herod’s kingdom were provoked by the king’s actions, which is remarkable in the light of the tax cut arranged by Herod (see the note to “remitted the third part of the taxes” above).Concerning the verb παροξύνω (“incite, provoke,” Rengstorf s.v.), cf. Ant. 15.50 about Aristobulus III’s popularity among the Jewish population and Herod’s jealousy inciting the king to murder Aristobulus. For the phrase παροξύνω ἀεί (“provoke continuously”), cf. Cassius Dio 46.8.4. For the verb ταράσσω (“trouble, disturb,” Rengstorf s.v.) and its further occurrences in Josephus’ Herod narratives, see Ant. 15.82 with the note to “he was greatly disturbed” and cf. Matt 2:3 (van Henten 2008a: 104, 114-15). For the combination of παροξύνω and ταράσσω, cf. Plutarch, Mor. (Coni. praec.) 144e, (Quaest. conv.) 656e, 657a.

The noun ἐπιμέλεια (“care, attention,” Rengstorf s.v.) is ambiguous. It can have a neutral meaning (“care”; cf. Ant. 15.216), but also a negative connotation (as in 15.44 concerning Herod’s treatment of his mother-in-law Alexandra). In the general statement about Herod’s behavior towards his subjects found in 15.326, ἐπιμέλεια has a positive meaning (see the note to “through care”): “He domesticated his subjects in two ways: through fear (φόβος), by being merciless in his punishments, and through care (ἐπιμέλεια), by showing himself generous when circumstances suddenly changed.” The context implies that εὐκαιρία (“right moment, suitable time, opportunity”) concerns activities against Herod, such as Alexandra’s plans (see Ant. 15.59 with the note to “an opportunity for revenge”). It is plausible to think of attempts to revolt. Ant. 17.148 connects the destruction of the golden eagle that Herod had erected on a Temple gate with the king’s fatal illness, which apparently offered a good opportunity to stand up against Herod (van Henten 2011d; see also 15.295 about Herod’s subjects, who “continuously organized disturbances, even after a minor incitement”). Herod’s order as described here suggests that the king attempted to fully control his subjects (see the continuation of the narrative and Ant. 15.326-327) and achieve maximum security for his rule. Various Josephan passages emphasize Herod’s actions to enhance his security (e.g., 15.291-292, 295). The focus on labor here reminds one of the oppression of the Israelites by the Egyptians before the Exodus (Ant. 2.201-204; Exod 1:8-14). The noun πόνος in the plural means “work, labor” here (as in Ant. 1.33 concerning the Sabbath commandment). This is another obvious strategy to control the population. The phrase τοῖς περὶ τὴν πόλιν can refer to the inhabitants of Jerusalem (being the most important city of the kingdom), but πόλις (“city”) can also have the meaning “community of citizens” (LSJ s.v. III), which would imply that the ban concerned political meetings (either in Jerusalem or in the entire kingdom). The first meaning, however, is more probable because of the opposition “in the city”—“along the road” at the end of this paragraph. For περίπατος (“walk, promenade”), see Ant. 15.337 with the note to “a most pleasant walk.” Herod apparently decided for a general ban on gatherings, whether for political or for practical reasons. It is important to note that this harsh ban is not supported by other passages in Josephus’ Herod narratives (see also the next note).The noun δίαιτα (“daily life, [usual] food, etc.,” Rengstorf s.v.) denotes what belongs to the necessities of life. It refers to daily life in Ant. 15.43, 185, and to food or diet in 15.246, 300. There is no close parallel to this passage, but the statement matches the tenor of other Josephan passages about Herod. According to Antiquities the king was highly suspicious of opposition, also within his own family (e.g., 15.42 [see the note to “he truly did not remain without suspicion”], 183, 210, 258; 16.90, 108, 119, 223, 324, 334). This trait may be part of the tyrannical stereotype, which Josephus applies to Herod in some of his passages in Antiquities (detailed discussion in van Henten 2011b). In War 1.492-497 (cf. Ant. 15.235-254) Josephus describes Herod’s reaction to his fear that his son Alexander is plotting against him. Alexander was later executed at Herod’s command, together with his brother Aristobulus IV (War 1.551; Ant. 16.394). Herod’s suspicion frightened him terribly and made him send out spies day and night (War 1.492). In 1.586 female slaves are put to torture and testify against Antipater, another son of Herod: Antipater (who was scheming wickedly against his father) and Herod’s brother Pheroras would have said to each other that “after Alexander and Aristobulus, Herod would go after them and their wives. For after [what he did to] Mariamme and her offspring, he would spare no one. It would be better, then, to flee as far away as possible from the beast (φεύγειν ὡς πορρωτάτω τοῦ θηρίου)” (trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a; cf. Ant. 17.66-67). According to the women Antipater would also have said to Pheroras: “It is impossible, however, to escape from such a bloodthirsty beast (ἐκφυγεῖν οὕτω φονικὸν θηρίον), in whose eyes we do not even have the right to show our affection for anyone …” (War 1.589, trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a). Concerning the verb φωράω (“detect, discover,” Rengstorf s.v.) in connection with criminal behavior, cf. Ant. 15.265; 17.110, 127, 129, 143. Josephus emphasizes several times that Herod was severe in the punishments of both his subjects and his relatives (e.g., Ant. 15.326 with the note to “being merciless in his punishments”). The combination of secret and for everybody visible transports of prisoners suggests maximum deterrence: the openness sets the example, while the discovery afterwards of people having been taken away is an ominous experience. Hyrcania was a Hasmonean fortress that was destroyed by Gabinius and rebuilt by Herod. Herod used the fortress as a prison for special enemies (Ant. 14.89 and here). It is usually identified with the site of Khirbet Mird in the Judean Desert, 6 km northeast of Marsaba (Schürer-Vermes 1.268, 307, 315). Execution is an extremely hard punishment for people accused of gathering, which is the crime presupposed by the context (above). Herod’s victims at Hyrcania were perhaps guilty of other crimes, but Josephus does not inform us about that. Another explanation of this detail might be that Josephus overstates Herod’s harshness in order to depict him as a tyrant (see Ant. 15.354 with the note to “tyrannical”). I.e., Jerusalem (see the note to “the people in the city” above). The term ὁδοιπορία (“journey”) occurs 12 times in Josephus, but only in Antiquities. Here it means “open road” (Rengstorf s.v.). This information implies that some of Herod’s subjects openly defied Herod’s ban despite the obvious danger of being arrested and executed. This reminds one of the attitude of the conspirators who tried to murder Herod after the king had put up trophies in Jerusalem (Ant. 15.280-289). For the phrase σύνειμι εἰς/ἐπὶ ταὐτόν (“associate/collide with,” Rengstorf s.v.), cf. 16.9.

Josephus’ reference to the anonymous source introduces a climax, intensified by the particle ἤδη (“even,” Kühner and Gerth 1898-1904: 2.2.122). The verb ἀμελέω plus a negation literally means “not neglect to” (Rengstorf s.v.). Herod’s decision to participate in the illegal gatherings, as described in the continuation of the narrative, is remarkable. It must have been very dangerous since his opponents probably would have killed him if recognizing him (as the episode about the trophies implies; see Ant. 15.282-284). Moreover, participating in the meetings that he himself had banned would also have undermined his authority if he was discovered. The decision implies that Herod was a pathetic and lonely ruler, which matches again the tyrannical stereotype. Schalit (2001: 314) considers this story to be part of a legend that shows how unpopular Herod was. Kasher (2007: 208-09) argues that the description is reliable and that the king’s policy towards his subjects as described by Josephus reflects Herod’s actual suspicious and paranoid character. This detail is implausible since it was dangerous for Herod to mix with the crowd (see the previous and the next note). It is ironic in the light of Josephus’ repeated remark that the king was born as a commoner (see Ant. 14.489-491 and 15.2 with the note to “commoner”; 15.263 with the note to “the kings’ rule that was based on birth”).For similar phrases with (ἐν) σχήματί τινος (“in the guise of,” Rengstorf s.v.) and ἰδιώτης (“commoner”), cf. War 1.387 (concerning Herod visiting Octavian); Ant. 8.266; Diodorus 31.18.2; 38-39.1.1; Philo, QG 4.206 (“… let the king also put on the guise of a commoner [ἰδιώτου σχῆμα] if he is not able in another way to obtain benefit for his realm and his subjects,” trans. Marcus); Spec. 2.208; Dio Chrysostom 4.97; Plutarch, Mor. (Par. min.) 305f; Herodian 2.12.1. The expression καταμίγνυμι εἰς (“mingle with,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. That Herod did this at night (νύκτωρ) is obvious in the light of the danger involved in meeting with crowds consisting of his subjects (see the note to “take part in this” above). This detail is also not very plausible: Ant. 15.366 indicates that some of Herod’s subjects openly ignored his ban on gathering, which makes their criticism of the king obvious, and Ant. 15.365 states that the subjects felt continuously provoked and troubled by Herod. Moreover, Josephus’ repeated remarks that Herod built or restored several fortresses in order to enhance his security with a view to possible rebellions imply that Herod knew that his subjects were very critical of his rule (e.g., 15.291-292, 295).Several conjectures have been made in order to improve the transmitted text (Niese 399), entailing different interpretations. For the phrase πεῖραν λαμβάνω with the meaning “get to know, obtain evidence” (Rengstorf s.v.), cf. Ant. 2.60.

Josephus reports that Herod divided the population into 2 categories (cf. τοὺς μὲν … τὸ δ’ ἄλλο πλῆθος), with the obvious aim of eradicating any remaining opposition. The rare verb ἐξαυθαδίζομαι (“be rebellious/stubborn,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. Cf. the noun αὐθάδεια (“stubbornness”) in Ant. 15.101; 16.399 and the adjective αὐθάδης (“stubborn, rebellious”) in 16.79. The verb συμπεριφέρω in the passive voice means “accommodate/adapt to” (LSJ s.v. II.3). The verb also occurs in Ant. 12.65 meaning “present (itself)” and in 19.147 meaning “be” (Rengstorf s.v.). The variant reading συμπαραφέσθαι of MS V is corrupt and the reading συμπαραφύεσθαι (“grow together”) of the editio princeps (Niese 399) does not fit the context. This detail links up with the episode about the trophies (e.g., the reproach in Ant. 15.267, 275 that Herod introduced ξενικά ἐπιτηδεύματα [“foreign practices”]) and with 15.365 (see the note to “such practices”). The verb ἐπέξειμι can mean, among other things, “punish, persecute, take vengeance on” (Rengstorf s.v.). It sometimes implies in the Herod narrative of Antiquities that Herod’s enemies were or would be executed (see 15.290 and 16.106, 356 concerning Herod’s sons). For τὸ πλῆθος referring to the Jewish population of Herod’s kingdom or the Jewish people, see Ant. 15.2 with the note to “the city’s population.” Herod demanded his subjects to make an oath of loyalty to him (see the continuation of the paragraph), which oath is commonly dated to the year of Augustus’ visit, i.e., 20 BCE (Mahieu 2012: 158). Kokkinos (1998: 171 with n. 77) dates the oath to 19 BCE. The former date, among other reasons, renders it plausible that the oath was also an oath of loyalty to the emperor (as Herrmann [1968: 98-99] and Kienast [1999: 252] argue), although Josephus does not mention this (differently Braund 1984: 115, who states that an oath of allegiance to the emperor and Herod is without parallels and that it is unlikely that Augustus instructed Herod to arrange such an oath). If the oath was a confirmation of loyalty to Augustus, it was, perhaps, connected with the emperor cult (see Ant. 15.364 with the note to “that he consecrated to Caesar”).Concerning the combination of ἀξιόω (“ask, demand”), ὅρκος (“oath”), and πίστις (“pledge”; see the next note), cf. Ant. 7.24 concerning Saul’s commander Abner, who moved over to David (2 Sam 3) and asked David for a sworn pledge (παρὰ Δαυίδην λαβεῖν ὅρκους τε καὶ πίστεις ἠξίου). The noun πίστις (“trust,” Rengstorf s.v.) can have several nuances in Josephus (Lindsay 1993: 77-82), including “pledge” (see Ant. 15.69 with the note to “making assurances”), “faithfulness” (see 15.291 with the note to “this imperturbability for the sake of faithfulness to the laws”), and “trust (in someone’s loyalty).” Here it refers to the loyalty of the Jewish people to Herod (Rengstorf s.v.; Lindsay 1993: 79). Cf. 16.48, 51 concerning the loyalty of Herod’s sons to their father, as well as 17.32 concerning Antipater’s supposed loyalty to Herod. The use of the verb συναναγκάζω (“join in compelling, compel in the same time,” Rengstorf s.v.) shows Josephus’ own disapproval of this oath (cf. καταναγκάζω [“compel,” Rengstorf s.v.] in Ant. 15.369). For εὔνοια meaning “loyalty” (Rengstorf s.v.) in various contexts in the Herod narrative of Antiquities, see 15.68, 193-194, 201; 16.60, 82; 17.32, 179. The adjective ἐνώμοτος (“confirmed by oath,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus.

I.e., the oath. Cf. the repetition of ἠξίου (“he demanded”) in Ant. 15.368-369. The phrase κατὰ θεραπείαν καὶ δέος (“out of submissiveness or fear”) is unique in Josephus. It may be associated with the tyrannical stereotype (van Henten 2011b) because submissiveness and fear are obvious responses to the regime of a tyrant. The noun θεραπεία can mean, among other things, “servility, flattery” (Rengstorf s.v.). An alternative translation of φρονήμα that fits the context well would be “resoluteness” (Rengstorf s.v.). The noun can express several nuances of “pride” (cf. Ant. 15.128 “proud designs”; 15.187 with the note to “his enormous pride”; 15.287 “high spirits”). As in the report about the trophies Josephus points out that the majority of the population went along with Herod (at least in the end) and that a minority persisted in opposing the king. In the episode about the trophies they are the conspirators who tried to murder the king and were executed afterwards (Ant. 15.280-289). Josephus as narrator seems to sympathize with the minority group here; the noun θεραπεία (“submissiveness”; see the note to “submissiveness or fear” above) can easily be interpreted in a depreciating way. The vocabulary also echoes the episode about the trophies: the verb δυσχεραίνω (“be displeased,” Rengstorf s.v.) occurs in 15.276 to express that the Jews in Jerusalem were greatly displeased (οὐ μετρίως ἐδυσχέραινον) because the trophies went against the ancestral practices (see also 15.281 with the note to “being annoyed”). The phrase ἐκποδών ποιέομαι (“do away with”) is a euphemism for “murder” or “execute” someone (see Ant. 15.20 with the note to “get him out of the way”). This detail suggests again that Herod was an evil king. That Herod eliminated everybody among his Jewish subjects who stood up against him already shows that he was an extremely harsh ruler, but that he used all kinds of ways to achieve this purpose implies that he was wicked and evil. The alliteration of the p sound in the phrase παντὶ τρόπῳ ἐκποδών ἐποιεῖτο further emphasizes this.

The imperfect συνέπειθε from συμπείθω (“[seek to] persuade,” Rengstorf s.v.; see also Ant. 15.21 with the note to “to be persuaded”) is an imperfectum de conatu (Blass, Debrunner, and Rehkopf 1976: 268) since Herod obviously did not succeed in persuading this group. With this reference to Pollio and Samaias the passage links up with Ant. 15.2-3, which concerns Herod’s supporters and enemies as well as the king’s treatment of both. Pollio and Samaias are mentioned in 15.3 as persons who were greatly honored by Herod (about hypotheses to identify these 2 scholars and about their connection with the Pharisees, see 15.2-4 with notes). I.e., the Pharisees (Mason 1991: 263). The continuation of the narrative indicates that the Pharisees were opponents of Herod. This vague reference could point to the supporters or pupils of the Pharisees. The verb συνδιατρίβω means “spend time with, live constantly together” (LSJ s.v.). Rengstorf (s.v.) gives “be a disciple (/follower)” as meaning for this passage. I.e., the oath of loyalty mentioned in Ant. 15.368. There is a similar report in 17.41-45, in which Josephus also mentions that the Pharisees refused to swear loyalty to Herod. The Pharisees apparently formed an exception: although they disobeyed Herod’s command to take the oath of loyalty, they were not punished (see Ant. 15.369). The next sub-clause gives the reason for this exception. For the phrase οὔθε τοῖς ἀρνησαμένοις κολάσθηναι (or ἐκολάσθηναι) (“they were not punished … as the [others] who had refused”), cf. Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 4.12.84. This detail also links up with Ant. 15.2-4, in which episode Josephus indicates, with different vocabulary, that Herod had particularly high regard (ἐτιμῶντο μάλιστα, 15.3) for Pollio and his pupil Samaias. The passage here implies that the Pharisees opposed Herod, but that the king accepted their behavior and still favored them (Mason 1991: 263).For the noun ἐντροπή (“respect, regard”), cf. 16.187, 241, 400.

Ant. 15.371-372 is a brief transitory passage that allows Josephus to continue smoothly with his report about Manaemus the Essene (15.373-379).This is the first reference to the Essaioi ( ’Εσσαῖοι) in the Herod narrative of Antiquities. In 15.372 Josephus uses the variant name ’Εσσηνοί “Essenes” (discussion of the variants by Mason in BJP 1b on War 2.113; see also Ant. 15.372-373, 378; further references in Schalit 1968: 46). Josephus presents the Essenes as a Jewish group here (“by us” implies “by us Jews”). The name “Essene” derives perhaps from the Syriac word hase‘ (“pious”; discussion in Schürer-Vermes 2.558-60). Philo notes that there were more than 4,000 of them (Prob. 75; cf. Josephus, Ant. 18.21), living in many towns of Judea (Hyp. 1), such that they cannot be fully identical with the Qumran community. There are 2 more elaborate passages about the Essenes in Josephus (War 2.119-161 and Ant. 18.11, 19-22), in which Josephus describes the Essenes as one of the 3 philosophical schools of contemporary Judaism (War 2.119-166; Ant. 13.171-173; Life 10-12; Ant. 18.9-25 mentions a 4th philosophy, which is very different from the others and an innovation that led to disaster according to Josephus; further discussion and references in Schürer-Vermes 2.555-97; Vermes and Goodman 1989; Nodet 2005: 368, 371-79; Mason in BJP 1b on War 2.119-166).For the phrase οἱ ’Εσσαῖοι καλούμενοι (“those who are called Essaioi”), cf. Philo, Hyp. 198; Eusebius, Praep. ev. 8.11.1; George Hamartolus, Chron. 8.5 (ed. de Boor 344); idem, Chron. brev. (PG 110.408). With these words Josephus explicitly states that the Essenes formed the second group that was exempted from the obligation of the oath of loyalty (the Pharisees being the first group; see Ant. 15.370 with the note to “their group”). The story of Manaemus reported in 15.373-379 clarifies Herod’s decision to exempt the Essenes from the obligation of the vow, as 15.372 (“the reason why”) indicates, but it is hardly a satisfactory explanation. There must have been further reasons for exempting the Essenes from the oath, but we can only guess which ones. Perhaps Herod took into account that the Essenes avoided swearing oaths in general (apart from the oath when entering the community, War 2.139-142; 1QS 5.8). An additional reason may have been that the Essenes were important for their support against Hasmonean enemies (Gray 1993: 97-98).The phrase ταύτης τῆς ἀνάγκης (“this obligation”) echoes both συνηνάγκαζεν (“he forced them at one occasion”) in Ant. 15.368 and καταναγκάζεσθαι (“being compelled”) in 15.369. For ἀφίημι (here used in the passive voice: “be remitted”), cf. 15.356 with the note to “letting them go,” and for the passive of ἀφίημι with τῆς ἀνάγκης in a different context, Cassius Dio 53 (table of contents). The noun γένος (“race, offspring, descent”) can also mean “class” or “kind” (LSJ s.v. V), which could apply to a group. Rengstorf (s.v.) offers “sect, fellowship, association, movement” as meanings for this passage. An alternative interpretation would be that γένος here indicates a group with a common origin, which may be implied by the references to individuals who are called Essenes by birth or origin: War 1.78 (’Εσσαῖος ἦν γένος) and Ant. 13.311 (’Εσσηνὸν μὲν τὸ γένος) about Judas; War 2.113 (Σίμων τις ’Εσσαῖος τὸ γένος) and Ant. 17.346 (Σίμων ἀνὴρ γένος ’Εσσαῖος) about Simon the Essene. Pliny the Elder (5.73) considers the Esseni to be a distinct tribe or even a race (gens), but he also mentions their practice of adopting children of others (similarly Josephus, War 2.120), such that γένος cannot refer to an ancestral group. The contexts of similar references in War 2.119 and Ant. 13.172 indicate that the noun refers to a Jewish movement (or school; cf. the related noun αἵρεσις in War 2.118, 122) of philosophers (Mason in BJP 1b on War 2.118). The reference to Pythagoras’ way of life in the continuation of the narrative supports this interpretation. The noun δίαιτα (“diet, way of life”; see Ant. 15.366 with the note to “a meal”) sometimes refers to a specific way of life of a particular Jewish group (e.g., War 2.137-138, 151, 155, 160 concerning the Essenes and Ant. 18.12, 15 concerning the Pharisees). Mason (in BJP 1b on War 2.137) translates the noun in War 2.137-138, 151, 155, 160 with “regimen” and points out that it sometimes indicates a philosophical lifestyle (referring to Plutarch, Mor. [Virt. vit.] 100d; Epictetus, Diatr. 3.22.87; Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 5.22). An alternative translation is “taught” (Rengstorf s.v.). The verb καταδείκνυμι occurs twice elsewhere in Josephus (Ant. 10.151; 11.80). This is the only reference to Pythagoras in War and Antiquities; he is not mentioned in Josephus’ other passages about the Essenes (but cf. Apion 1.14, 162, 164; 2.14, 168). Pythagoras was born in ca. 580 BCE on the island of Samos and founded a philosophical school at Croton in Southern Italy. He is world-famous because of the mathematical proposition named after him (although it is uncertain whether he formulated it; it is very difficult to differentiate Pythagoras’ own ideas from those of the later Pythagoreans). Pythagoras paid great attention to cosmology, the symbolic meanings of numbers, and the notion of the migration and eternal existence of the soul. He assumed a close connection between one’s deeds and the posthumous fate of one’s soul. As a consequence his followers were famous for their ascetic lifestyles (further information in Riedweg 2007; for the reception of Pythagoras in Hellenistic passages, see Thesleff 1965). Pythagoras’ emphasis on one’s deeds and the particular Pythagorean lifestyle make Josephus’ association of the Essenes with Pythagoras quite understandable (see further Taylor 2004, who considers the Pythagoreans’ permanent state of high purity, with its accompanying prescriptions and prohibitions, to be the most singular feature of their lives, p. 100). Sometimes the noun “Greeks” (Ἕλληνες) refers to non-Jews, but here, as in Ant. 15.136 (with its binary opposition Greeks—barbarians) and in War 2.156, it refers to ethnic Greeks, as the additional reference to Pythagoras also implies. The verb διέξειμι (“go through”) can also mean “describe (in detail)” in Josephus (Rengstorf s.v.; cf. War 1.9, 27; 4.496). It indicates that this passage is a cross-reference to a more elaborate passage about the Essenes, Ant. 18.11, 19-22 or War 2.119-166 (although the latter passage had already been published when Josephus was writing this; for a similar function of διέξειμι, see Ant. 1.160). Niese (399) reads σαφέστερον (“more clearly”) with MSS FLV, but MSS PAMW have ἀσφαλέστερον (“more carefully/securely”), which is supported by the Latin version (certius). It seems that ἀσφαλέστερον is the more original version, not only because of the Latin version, but also because Josephus uses the verb διέξειμι twice elsewhere in connection with his work as a historian (War 1.9; 4.496) and in both of these passages he clearly refers to accuracy (ἀκρίβεια). In Ant. 18.11, 19-22 Josephus returns to the topic of the Essenes and informs his readers (18.11) that he has dealt with the Essenes in book 2 of War (i.e., in 2.119-166, which is obviously the most detailed passage about the Essenes).

The phrase εἰπεῖν ἄξιον, which is found at the end of the Greek clause, indicates that this passage is a comment by the narrator (cf. Thucydides 2.54; Strabo 1.2.7; Cassius Dio 47.17.4). The phrase τοὺς δὲ ’Εσσηνοὺς … ἐτίμα (“he held the Essenes in honor”) is repeated with slight variations in Ant. 15.378 and creates an inclusio containing the story about Manaemus the Essene (15.373-378).Being esteemed or treated with great respect (τιμάω, Rengstorf s.v.) by Herod was exceptional. Philo emphasizes several times that the Essenes were held in honor even by tyrannical rulers (Prob. 88-91; cf. Eusebius, Praep. ev. 8.11.18). In Ant. 15.40 Josephus reports that Ananel, who was appointed High Priest by Herod, was treated with respect and honored by him (τοῦτον … ἐτίμησεν; cf. War 1.576, 646; 2.7; Ant. 16.78, 303; 17.207, although τιμάω has different nuances in these passages). The phrase μεῖζον φρόνεω (literally “have over-high thoughts,” LSJ s.v. φρόνεω II.2b) also occurs in Ant. 15.123, 143, in connection with Herod’s battle against the Nabateans (cf. 1.155; 5.301). This comment emphasizes that Herod thought highly of the Essenes and also anticipates, through the hint at a supernatural dimension, the motif that the Essenes had knowledge about the future by divine revelations (see Ant. 15.373).Josephus’ vocabulary here is closely paralleled by a passage in Libanius (Prog. 11.9.3): “… I have thought too highly of human nature (μεῖζον ἐφρόνησα τῆς θνητῆς φύσεως) …” (my trans.). It also recalls a passage from Sophocles (Fragm. 590, transmitted in Stobaeus 3.22.22): “Human nature must think human thoughts (θνητὴν δὲ φύσιν χρὴ θνητὰ φρονεῖν), knowing that there is no master of the future, of what is destined to be accomplished, except Zeus” (trans. Lloyd-Jones). For λόγος meaning “story” (LSJ s.v. V.3), cf. Ant. 15.71, 258. Here Josephus claims that stories (see the previous note) do belong to the genre (γένος has the specific meaning “genre” here; Rengstorf s.v.) of historiography. The common meaning of the noun ἱστορία is “inquiry, investigation,” but the word sometimes has the specific meaning “history” (i.e., the craft of writing history) in Josephus (Rengstorf s.v., also in 2 Macc 2:24, 30, 32; see van Henten 1997: 20). The story about Manaemus is useful in the context of Josephus’ report: it exemplifies the opinion of the Jews about the Essenes, as Josephus states in the next line. The phrase τὸ τῆς ἱστορίας γένος is unique in Josephus, but a few related phrases do refer to historiographical conventions (e.g., War 1.11 ὁ τῆς ἱστορίας νόμος “the rule of historiography”; cf. 1.16; 5.10). The “rule/law of history” is a conventional phrase, which Lucian (Hist. conscr. 41) connects with Thucydides’ principle of impartiality. Cicero (De or. 2.62; Leg. 1.5) also mentions this law and connects it with telling the truth, as Josephus does in War 1.11, 16 (Mason in BJP 1a on War 1.11). Sometimes Josephus explicitly goes beyond the convention of giving accurate and truthful reports. In 1.11-12, e.g., he includes partisan lamentations in writing history (Mader 2000: 2-3; see also Ant. 15.379: “Now we have deemed it fit to make these matters clear to the readers—even though they may seem incredible—…”). Landau (2006: 123-24) argues that the story about Manaemus is a Herodotean-style anecdote, combining prophecy, the divine favor bestowed upon a young person, and “the Herodotean notion of an ever-changing fortune.” For the verb παραδηλόω (“intimate, mention in passing”), see Ant. 15.103 with the note to “by intimating.” LSJ (s.v. II.3) offer “public opinion” as meaning for ὑπόληψις. An alternative translation would be “good reputation” (Rengstorf s.v.), as in Ant. 15.264 about the Sons of Baba. The first translation seems preferable because Josephus is making a distinction in this paragraph between Herod’s high regard for the Essenes and the opinion of other Jews about them (see also 15.378-379).

The formula ἤν τις or ἤν δὲ τις (“[there] was a certain [person]”) introduces the story about Manaemus. For similar formulae introducing a key person in the narrative, see Ant. 5.257 (concerning Jephtha); 6.45 (Saul); 6.295 (Nabal); 8.236 (the false prophet of Bethel); 9.239 (Nahum); 12.265 (Mattathias, the father of the 5 Maccabean brothers) and cf. War 4.503 (Simon bar Giora). See Ant. 15.371 with the note to “Essaioi.” The Essene Manaemus (Μανάημος; MSS FM and E read Μανάιμος; Niese 400) is mentioned in Josephus only in this story (Ant. 15.373-374, 377-378). The name Μανάημος does occur elsewhere in Josephus: referring to Menahem, a king of Israel (Ant. 9.229, 232-233; cf. 2 Kgs 15:17-22), and to Menahem, a son of Judas the Galilean (War 2.433, 437, 440, 442, 446-449; Life 21, 46; Schalit 1968: 81). The form Μανάημος (in the LXX: Μαναήμ or Μαναήν) is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew name Měnaḥēm (Ilan 2002: 185-88, also for other occurrences of this name).The context of the story implies that Manaemus was not a resident of Qumran (Gray 1993: 98, who calculates that the first meeting between Manaemus and Herod took place in the 60’s of the 1st cent. BCE). Ilan (1998: 225-28) argues that Josephus’ story about Manaemus is based on Nicolaus of Damascus. The phrase ἡ προαίρεσις τοῦ βίου (“conduct of life, lifestyle”) also occurs in Apion 2.210, referring to a lifestyle in accordance with the Jewish laws. For the same phrase in various other contexts, cf. Plato, Def. 413a; Demosthenes, Or. 23.141; 48.56; Diodorus 12.19.3; Philo, Agr. 60; Cher. 32; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 5.71.2; Acts Apoll. 27. Manaemus’ deeds exemplified his moral excellence (καλοκαγαθία “excellence, uprightness, moral perfection,” Rengstorf s.v.). This term became important in self-definitions from the Sophists in Athens in the 2nd half of the 5th cent. BCE. In the 4th cent. BCE it became a status symbol for rich citizens from Athens who supported their city generously. In later passages the term expresses a common moral virtue (Bourriot 1995). Philo uses it frequently (e.g., Prob. 75, 91 in connection with the Essenes), and it also occurs in 4 Macc (1:8 [Codex Sinaiticus], 10; 3:18; 11:22; 13:25; 15:9). The notion that one’s conduct has to reflect one’s ethical views is a commonplace in popular ancient philosophy, which is re-interpreted from a Jewish perspective in 4 Maccabees. The Maccabean martyrs exemplify the philosophical proposition made in 4 Macc 1:1 (“Since I am about to discuss an eminently philosophical subject—whether pious reason is absolute master of the passions …,” trans. NETS) and are striving for excellence in line with the Jewish religion and laws (van Henten 1997: 286).The noun καλοκαγαθία occurs in Josephus only in the Herod narrative of Antiquities, with 2 of the 3 occurrences belonging to the story about Manaemus (15.373, 379; 16.178). For the combination of καλοκαγαθία and μαρτυρέω (“attest”), cf. Philo, Mos. 1.59 about Jethro giving Moses his most beautiful daughter (Zipporah) in marriage: “Accordingly, he [i.e., Jethro] gave him [i.e., Moses] the fairest of his daughters in marriage, and, by that one action, attested all his noble qualities (δι’ ἑνὸς ἔργου πάνθ’ ὅσα τῶν εἰς καλοκἀγαθίαν μαρτυρήσας), and showed that excellence standing alone deserves our love …” (trans. Colson). Manaemus’ knowledge of the future is highlighted in the Greek text (καὶ τἆλλα … καί). Elsewhere Josephus also accredits the Essenes with foreknowledge of the future (War 1.78-80; 2.159; Ant. 13.311-313; Smith 1987: 248-50; Beall 1988: 109; Gray 1993: 80-111) as well as with the explanation of dreams, which of course requires divine foreknowledge (Gnuse 1996: 132-33, 245-46, 248, 250-54). Josephus offers 2 further reports about individual Essenes predicting the future. According to War 1.78-80; Ant. 13.311-313 the Essene Judas predicted that Antigonus, the brother of Aristobulus I (104-103 BCE), would be murdered at a place called Straton’s Tower. And the Essene Simon explains the dream of Herod’s son Archelaus in War 2.112-113; Ant. 17.246.For other passages with vocabulary related to πρόγνωσιν ἐκ θεοῦ τῶν μελλόντων (“having foreknowledge from God of what was to come”), see Ant. 8.234; 13.300; 17.43, and Philo, Mos. 2.190 (cf. Somn. 2.2). Ant. 8.225-235 (cf. 1 Kgs 12:25-13:10; 2 Chr 9:29; 13:8) offers an interesting parallel. King Jeroboam had built a sanctuary at Bethel with a golden statue of a heifer and planned to offer sacrifices there. A man of God, identified as Jadon (Iddo in the Bible), stood up against Jeroboam and addressed his altar. He said that God had foretold him that someone from the line of David named Josias (Josiah in the Bible) would sacrifice upon the altar the bones of those who misled the people. As a sign the altar was broken, and when Jeroboam stretched out his hand against the prophet it became paralyzed. Ant. 8.234 says about the prophet that he possessed divine foreknowledge (θείαν ἔχοντα πρόγνωσιν). Jeroboam admired the prophet because of his self-control (ἐγκράτεια, 8.235), but he feared that the prophecy would change his fortunes. Ant. 13.300 states in a concluding note about John Hyrcanus (135/134-104 BCE) that God had given him 3 great privileges: the leadership of the Jewish nation, the High Priesthood, and the gift of prophecy (προφητεία). Josephus explains the last point: “for the Deity (τὸ θεῖον) was with him and enabled him to foresee and foretell the future (τὴν τῶν μελλόντων πρόγνωσιν παρεῖχεν αὐτῷ τε εἰδέναι καὶ προλέγειν) … (trans. Marcus).” Herod most probably received an elite education, but apparently not abroad, in contradistinction to his own sons. The reference to Herod being still a boy (παῖς; cf. Manaemus patting Herod on his buttocks in Ant. 15.374 and the considerable interval between the prophecy and Herod’s response to it in 15.377) may imply that the level of education here concerns the first cycle of education (the ludus litterarius, i.e., reading, writing, and arithmetic from the age of 7 until 11 or 12), or the second (the ludus grammaticus, i.e., Latin and Greek grammar from the age of 11 or 12 until 15; see 15.342 with the note to “with Caesar”).For φοιτάω εἰς τίνος διδάσκαλου (sc. οἶκον, “resort to a person as a teacher,” LSJ s.v. 5), cf. Aristophanes, Eq. 1235; Xenophon, Cyr. 1.2.6; 2.3.9; Plato, Alc. mai. 109d; Philo, Congr. 122. Manaemus’ addressing of Herod as King of the Jews foretold Herod’s appointment as king by the Romans (War 1.281-285; Ant. 14.379-389). The title “King of the Jews” (βασιλεύς ’Ιουδαίων or βασιλεύς τῶν ’Ιουδαίων) is mentioned in connection with Herod in Antiquities for the first time in 14.9, which passage already says that Herod would become king because of “some change of fortune” (other references to this title in War 1.282; Ant. 15.409; 16.291, 311; cf. War 6.103-104 concerning Jehoiachin; 6.439 concerning David; 7.171 concerning Alexander Janneus; Ant. 6.98 concerning Saul; 7.72 concerning David; and 14.36 concerning Aristobulus II). The same title is mentioned several times in the Passion narratives of the New Testament (e.g., Mark 15:2, 9, 12, 18, 26 and parallels; Brown 1994: 476-78, 731, 763, 823-30, 1151).

See Ant. 15.373. The verb κατειρωνεύομαι (“mock, ridicule,” Rengstorf s.v.) also occurs in War 2.26 concerning Antipater’s accusation that Archelaus was secretly making fun of Augustus, and in 2.153 about the Essenes mocking their torturers or regarding them ironically (Mason in BJP 1b on War 2.153 with Excursus 1; see especially War 2.151-158, also 4.127; 7.270 and 2.29 with a different meaning). About the motif of Herod being a commoner (ἰδιώτης), see Ant. 15.2 with the note to “commoner.” The noun also occurs in War 1.432, 665 concerning Herod (cf. also Ant. 11.31 concerning Darius, son of Hystaspes, and 13.220 concerning Tryphon; both Darius and Tryphon were not born into kingship). The noun is also used in War 1.44; Ant. 19.213, with different meanings. Manaemus’ gentle laughter fits a situation in which an adult man is trying to put a boy at ease, but the motif of his laughter may also hint at a superior status in relation to Herod. The passage that mentions that the Essenes ridiculed their tortures (War 2.153) refers to laughing at their bodily sufferings (μειδιῶντες ἐν ταῖς ἀλγηδόσιν). The famous Rabbi Aqiva was brought to trial before Turnus Rufus when it was time for the recital of the Shema; his reciting of the Shema and laughing triggered the ruler’s response that he was either a sorcerer or despised the tortures (y. Ber. 9.7; van Henten and Avemarie 2002: 151-53). This detail suggests friendly conduct from Manaemus towards Herod and also indicates that the future king was still a boy at the time, in accordance with the reference to his education in Ant. 15.373 (see the note to “going to his teacher”). The gesture functions as a prophetic sign, as Manaemus himself further on suggests: “Remember Manaemus’ pats ….” Israelite prophets sometimes combined their prophecies with prophetic signs. A classic case is Jer 19, in which chapter the prophet Jeremiah endorses his prophecy of doom by breaking a potter’s jug in front of those who accompanied him (Jer 19:10). The reference to Herod’s buttocks may, therefore, also have a symbolic meaning, hinting at Herod sitting on a throne as a king (Meyer 1940: 143 n. 16; 1968: 823).The noun γλουτός is a hapax legomenon in Josephus and means “backside” and in the plural “seat” (Rengstorf s.v.). For a parallel to τύπτων … κατὰ τῶν γλουτῶν (“patting him on his buttocks”), cf. Pseudo-Justin, Orat. gent. 3.11 (ed. von Otto 12). The Greek sequence is different: “[he] said” follows upon “But truly, you will be king,” which highlights these first words of Manaemus’ prophecy. They express the most important point; the following lines of the prophecy (Ant. 15.375-376) mention what Herod’s kingship will entail. Aune (1983: 146) classifies Manaemus’ prediction as a recognition oracle, comparing it with Josephus’ predictions to Vespasian (War 3.399-405), Samuel’s prediction of David’s kingship (1 Sam 16:11-13; Ant. 6.162-165), and Rabbi Aqiva’s proclamation of Bar Kokhba as Messiah (y. Ta‘an. 4.8; Lam. Rab. 2.4). The reading ἀπάξεις (“diverting” or “leading away”) of almost all Greek MSS does not go well with the adverb εὐδαιμόνως (“fortunately, happily”). Richards and Shutt (1937: 174) conjecture ἐπάρξεις, offering “you will have a happy reign” as translation of καὶ τὴν ἀρχὴν εὐδαιμόνως ἐπάρξεις. In support of their conjecture they note that Josephus uses the verb ἐπάρχω (“rule over”) twice in references to administrators (Ant. 9.2; 19.14). Niese (400) conjectures κατάξεις (“bringing down”) or διάξεις (“drawing apart”). The reading ἀπάρξεις (perhaps “you will begin”) of MS W is a further support of Richards and Shutt’s conjecture. The majority reading ἀπάξεις can easily have evolved out of ἀπάρξεις by dropping the -ρ-, and this form ἀπάρξεις may further derive from the accidental change of ε- into α- at the beginning of the word ἐπάρξεις. The interpretation that follows from this reading fits in with other Josephan passages about Herod, which imply that he was a successful ruler but very unfortunate in his personal life (see especially 16.75-77). Manaemus’ prophetic status (see Ant. 15.373 with the note to “had foreknowledge from God of what was to come”) allows for this claim that Herod’s kingship was decided for by God (see also the hint at the change of Herod’s fortune in 14.9 [see 15.373 with the note to “addressed him as King of the Jews”] as well as 15.198, in which passage Josephus notes that Herod’s visit to Octavian was successful because of God’s consent).For similar vocabulary, see 6.284 about Saul being counted worthy of the kingship by God (τὸν ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ βασιλείας ἀξιωθέντα) and 13.299 about John Hyrcanus. This point refers to Manaemus’ gesture of patting Herod on his buttocks mentioned shortly before. Manaemus’ explanation confirms that his gesture is symbolic (a σύμβολον “sign”; cf. Ant. 6.28 and see the note to “patted him with his hand on his buttocks” above). The noun τύχη (“fortune, chance, fate”) refers indirectly to God here, as the references to God (θεός) in the immediate context imply (Ant. 15.373-374; see also 14.9 and 15.17 with the note to “fortune”). The noun μετάπτωσις (“change”) occurs once elsewhere in Josephus, also in Antiquities (17.303, referring to a change of government).

The noun λογισμός means “reasoning” leading to virtuous behavior here (cf. the virtues mentioned by Manaemus), which is similar to the use of this noun in 4 Macc (e.g., 6:7; van Henten 1997: 270-88), although Josephus’ passage misses the philosophical setting present in 4 Macc. The construction of εἰ followed by the optative ἀγαπήσειας (“if you would love”) indicates that Manaemus first formulated a possibility that would not become true (Kühner and Gerth 1898-1904: 2.2.477-78). This part of Manaemus’ statement hints at a motif (“loving righteousness”) that is important in the LXX. Manaemus applies it to rulers, as the opening verse of the Wisdom of Solomon (1:1, 1st cent. BCE or CE) likewise does: “Love justice (ἀγαπήσατε δικαιοσύνην), you who rule the earth; be mindful of the Lord in goodness, and seek him in singleness of heart” (trans. Winston 1979: 99). The phrase καὶ εἰ δικαιοσύνην ἀγαπήσειας echoes Wis 8:7: “If one loves justice (εἰ καὶ δικαιοσύνην ἀγαπᾷ τις), the fruits of wisdom’s labor are virtues; self-control (σωφροσύνην) and understanding (φρόνησιν) are her teaching, justice (δικαιοσύνην) and courage (ἀνδρείαν), and in the life of humankind nothing is more useful than these” (trans. Winston 1979: 191). The condition “If one loves justice …” is followed by a reference to the 4 cardinal virtues (including “justice”) obtained as a consequence. Manaemus mentions only the cardinal virtue of justice and not those of self-control, understanding, and courage, but he does mention “piety” (εὐσέβεια; see the next note), which replaces “understanding” (φρόνησις) in some Jewish references to the cardinal virtues (4 Macc 1:18; 5:23; Philo, Decal. 119; Spec. 4.147; Winston 1979: 194; van Henten 1997: 277, 281-82). For other LXX passages with this motif (concerning God loving justice), see LXX 1 Chr 29:17; LXX Ps 44:8; LXX Prov 15:9; LXX Isa 61:8. LXX Ps 44:7-8 refers to the kingship of God in connection with an anointed ruler: “Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever. A rod of equity is the rod of your rule; you loved righteousness (ἠγάπησας δικαιοσύνην) and hated lawlessness. Therefore God, your God, anointed you …” (trans. NETS). For similar vocabulary, cf. Aesop 34 (title); Plato, Resp. 472b; Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 6.11.95. Manaemus mentions justice and piety (or respect, proper worship [when referring to a deity], εὐσέβεια) together because he focuses on Herod’s future kingship with respect to his citizens as well as to God. The noun εὐσέβεια (pietas in Latin) sometimes refers to worship of God in specific contexts in Josephus (see Ant. 15.267 with the note to “proper worship”), and some of the relevant passages have vocabulary similar to that in Manaemus’ statement: e.g., Ant. 9.16 refers to King Jehoshaphat’s worship as τῇ πρὸς τὸ θεῖον εὐσεβείᾳ. The distinction between one’s attitudes to humans and to God in connection with both virtues is explicit in 18.117 (about John the Baptist): “… he was a good man and had exhorted the Jews to lead righteous lives, to practice justice towards their fellows and piety towards God (τὰ πρὸς ἀλλήλους δικαιοσύνῃ καὶ πρὸς τὸν θεὸν εὐσεβείᾳ χρωμένοις)” (trans. Feldman; see also War 2.139 on the Essenes; Mason in BJP 1b on War 2.139 with Excursus 1). This distinction is made already in Classical Greek passages (with a polytheistic focus), e.g., Isocrates, Panath. 124: “For they [i.e., Athen’s ancestors] administered both the affairs of the state and their own affairs as righteously and honorably as was to be expected of men who were descended from the gods, who were the first to found a city and to make use of laws, who at all times had practiced reverence in relation to the gods and justice in relation to humankind (εὐσέβειαν περὶ τοὺς θεοὺς, δικαιοσύνη δὲ περὶ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους)” (trans. Norlin, slightly adapted). Plato (Def. 412e) defines εὐσέβεια as “justice towards the gods” (δικαιοσύνη περὶ θεούς). The combination of righteousness (δικαιοσύνη) and proper worship (εὐσέβεια) occurs often in Josephus (Ant. 6.265 concerning King Saul; 8.121 concerning King Solomon; 8.314 concerning King Asa; 8.299-300 concerning Jehu’s prophecy of warning to King Baasha; 9.16 concerning King Jehoshaphat; 9.236 concerning King Jotham of Judah; 10.49-51 concerning King Josiah; 12.56 concerning King Ptolemy II Philadelphus; 14.283 concerning Herod’s father Antipater; 18.117 concerning John the Baptist; see Gray 1993: 99-100, who argues that practicing justice and piety implies that one keeps the commandments of the Law). See also Apion 2.146, 170, 291 and cf. Isocrates, Pac. 33-34; Panath. 183; Diodorus 1.2.2; 5.8.3; Dionysius, Pomp. 6.6 (Mason 1991: 85–89; Kienast 1999: 97). “Reasonableness, generosity, magnanimity” are possible nuances of the noun ἐπιείκεια (Rengstorf s.v.), which is another virtue of good rulers. Josephus uses the noun 3 times in remarks about Hyrcanus II (Ant. 15.165 [see the note to “his reasonable character”], 177, 182; cf. 12.122 concerning the Romans; 16.367 concerning the trial of Herod’s sons; 3 Macc 3:15 concerning Ptolemy IV Philopator; and Wis 2:19; 12:18; Bar 2:27 concerning God). The phrase ἐπιείκεια πρὸς τοὺς πολίτας is paralleled by Diodorus 37.10.2. Cobet’s conjecture οἶμαι (“I think,” Naber 1888-96: 3.xlvii, 375) instead of οἶδα (“I know,” Niese 400) is unnecessary and weakens Manaemus’ statement. Manaemus knows because of divine revelation (Ant. 15.373). These words should not be taken in the absolute sense, which would imply that Manaemus compares himself to God. The context implies that the phrase means that Manaemus had knowledge about Herod’s entire future. The motif itself is a topos in various passages about persons who have special relationships with the gods or God and therefore “have knowledge of everything” (e.g., Pseudo-Clement, Hom. 2.6.1; Dio Chrysostom 33.4; van Unnik 1979; Gray 1993: 100-01).For a similar but more explicit formulation, cf. War 2.102 about the teacher of someone who pretended to be Herod’s son Alexander: “… who knew everything that happened throughout the kingdom (πάντα τὰ κατὰ τὴν βασιλείαν ἐπιστάμενος) …” (trans. Mason in BJP 1b). The continuation of the prophecy mentions why Herod would not be a good ruler, emphasizing, among other things, that he would forget about justice and proper worship (Ant. 15.376).

Herod’s being fortunate (εὐτυχία “fortune”) as a ruler is a recurring motif in Antiquities (see 15.361 with the note to “this state of fortune”). Here Manaemus at least intends that Herod would become fortunate as a king because of God’s interference since he indicates at the end of this paragraph that God would punish Herod at the end of his rule. God’s support for Herod is mentioned much more explicitly in 14.462-464, reporting Herod’s rescue from a murder attempt following his victory over Pappus, Antigonus’ commander. Josephus notes there that Herod escaped “by the providence of God” (κατὰ θεοῦ πρόνοιαν, 14.462). In another brief report Josephus emphasizes twice that Herod was rescued by God’s interference (15.455). Schalit (2001: 459-60) considers these references to be propaganda for Herod suggesting that he was chosen king by God. Cf. Plutarch, Mor. (Alex. fort.) 344a about Alexander the Great as a fortunate king (εὐτυχὴς βασιλεύς) because he was protected by Fortune (Τύχη). For similar vocabulary, cf. Dio Chrysostom 39.2: “for it is fitting that those whose city was founded by the gods … prove to be … to some extent superior to the others in good fortune (διοίσουσί τι τῶν ἄλλων εὐτυχία)” (trans. Crosby). The term εὐτυχία is absent in War. Various passages in the Herod narrative of Antiquities imply that Herod was keen on having a good reputation, also for posterity (see 15.330 with notes); he “loved honor” (for passages with φιλοτιμία [“ambition” or “love of honor”], see 15.271 with the note to “ambition”). The phrase λήθην ἔχειν (“forget,” Rengstorf s.v.) also occurs in Ant. 3.14; 11.52. This takes up Manaemus’ earlier point about loving justice and proper worship as being proof of a good ruler (Ant. 15.375). Manaemus’ statement implies that Herod would not be a good ruler. War 1.400 depicts Herod in a different way: “Then he advanced to the greatest prosperity; his high-mindedness rose even more, and the better part of his noble character was directed towards piety (τὸ πλέον τῆς μεγαλονοίας ἐπέτεινεν εἰς εὐσέβειαν)” (trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a). There is a Greek word play in Manaemus’ statement, contrasting Herod’s forgetting (λήθην ἕξεις) about justice and proper worship with this behavior not escaping God’s notice (οὐκ ἂν λάθοι τὸν θεόν). For other occurrences of λανθάνω (“escape notice, etc.”) referring to God in Josephus, see Ant. 2.129; 8.269; Life 83. The combination ἡ καταστροφή τοῦ βίου (“the end of life,” of a certain person) is a fixed expression in Josephus (Ant. 2.154; 10.241; cf. 16.72) and also frequently appears in other Greek authors (e.g., Polybius 5.54.4-5; Diodorus 1.58.3; 4.34.5; Strabo 6.3.9). Manaemus announces that God will punish Herod for his behaving as a bad ruler. This prediction is taken up again in the Herod narratives about Herod’s final period, particularly in Antiquities, which work hints at God’s interference during Herod’s final days of tremendous physical sufferings (17.168-173; see especially 17.168 and cf. War 1.656-659). Schalit (2001: 459 n. 1069) surmises that the original version of Manaemus’ prophecy only contained the prediction of Herod’s kingdom.

Here Josephus switches from Manaemus’ prophecy to Herod’s reaction upon it. He points to a double response by Herod: an immediate reaction (introduced by αὐτίκα; see also the next note) and a second one after Herod had become king (“after he had been … exalted”). The phrase προσέχω τὸν νοῦν (here “note,” Rengstorf s.v.) also occurs in Ant. 16.233, with a different meaning. That Herod did not pay much attention to Manaemus’ prophecy is what one would expect of a boy (cf. Ant. 15.373-374), being focused on mundane matters. It is plausible that at that time Herod did not know who Manaemus was. It is an obvious thing after having tasted the power of kingship to ask how long it will last. That Herod apparently did this at the height of his power (ἐν τῷ μεγέθει τῆς ἀρχῆς) implies perhaps that it was at a crucial moment. Cf. Philo, Plant. 92: “It is a strong bulwark of cheerfulness of spirit and freedom from danger to have reposed our confidence in a King [i.e., God] who is not urged by the greatness of his dominion (βασιλεῖ δὲ πεπιστευκέναι μὴ τῷ μεγέθει τῆς ἀρχῆς) to inflict injuries on his subjects, but whose love for humankind makes it his delight to supply what is lacking to each one” (trans. Colson and Whitaker, slightly adapted; cf. Appian, Hist. rom. 11.7.3 about Antiochus III; Cassius Dio 66.1 [ed. Boissevain 1.295] about Alexander the Great).Mahieu (2012: 303) argues that “the height of his power” points to Augustus’ confirmation of Herod’s rule in 30 BCE. Herod’s question “whether there would be ten more years of rule” (Ant. 15.378) would match the fact that Herod had been ruling for 10 years thus far (40-30 BCE; see also Ant. 15.378 with the note to “even twenty”). The infinitive βασιλεύειν (“be king”) echoes Manaemus’ term of address “King (βασιλέα) of the Jews” in Ant. 15.373 and his prophecy in 15.374 that Herod would become king (βασιλεύσεις). Herod’s fortune as a ruler makes him realize in Josephus’ presentation that Manaemus’ prophecy had become true, which is indicated by εὐτυχεῖν (“enjoy good fortune”) linking up with εὐτυχία (“fortune”) in Ant. 15.376 (see the note to “the amount of fortune you have” and the previous note). That Herod summoned Manaemus implies that the sage was still alive and that Herod remembered his prophecy. As an adult Herod apparently knew Manaemus, which is plausible in the light of Manaemus being introduced in Ant. 15.373 as an Essene with an exemplary way of life and receiving divine revelations. The meeting may have taken place at the court in Jerusalem or in one of Herod’s palaces elsewhere. There is no indication that Manaemus served at the court (Gray 1993: 98). The verb διαπυνθάνομαι (“question, find out,” Rengstorf s.v.) occurs twice elsewhere in Josephus (War 1.244; 4.415).

Josephus does not specify why Manaemus remained silent. The silence could either express disinterest, or be a signal that the prophecy was clear enough, or show contempt for Herod. The second option is perhaps confirmed by the answer that Manaemus ultimately gives: he does not give an indication of the duration of Herod’s rule, which matches his prophecy further on not mentioning the length of the rule either (Mahieu [2012: 302-03], however, interprets the reference to 20 and 30 years in Ant. 15.378 as an indication of a duration; see the note to “even twenty” below). The third interpretation can be associated with a characteristic of certain martyrdom accounts in which the martyrs remain silent during interrogations by foreign rulers, which behavior causes a reversal of the power relations between the 2 antagonists (e.g., 2 Macc 7:25; 4 Macc 6:5, 9-11; b. Ber. 61b about Rabbi Aqiva; cf. Jesus’ silence in front of Herod Antipas in Luke 23:8-9; van Henten 2009). Manaemus’ silence is emphasized by the alliteration of the s and p sounds in τὸ μὲν σύμπαν οὐκ εἶπεν· ὡς δὲ σιωπῶντος αὐτοῦ. The verb προσπυνθάνομαι (“put an additional question”) links up with διαπυνθάνομαι (“question”) in Ant. 15.377. This verb occurs once elsewhere in Josephus, also in the Herod narrative of Antiquities (16.223), in which case it means “ask (someone else) besides” (Rengstorf s.v.). Richardson (1996: 257 n. 69) concludes that if this reference is reliable, the meeting of Manaemus and Herod should have taken place before 21 (or perhaps 18) BCE, i.e., before Herod’s 20th year as king (reckoned from Herod’s appointment in 40 BCE or his capture of Jerusalem in 37 [or 36] BCE). This would be supported by the reference to Herod’s 18th year in Ant. 15.380, which passage follows shortly after the present one. Gray (1993: 95, 98) points out that the context of the story suggests a setting in ca. 20 BCE (see 15.354 with the notes to “reign” and “Syria”) and dates this second meeting between 23 and 20 BCE. Mahieu (2012: 302-03) situates the meeting in 30 BCE (see 15.377 with the note to “at the height of his power”) and argues that the 20 and 30 years were still to come: Herod would still rule for 20 years (30-10 BCE) until his falling into Augustus’ disgrace in 10 BCE, and for 30 years (30 BCE-1 CE) until his death (which she situates in 1 CE). The phrase ὅρον ἐπιτίθημι (“put a limit to”) also occurs in War 4.348, referring to a limit to transgressions. The leaping point of this passage seems to be that Manaemus does not indicate the end of Herod’s rule. In the light of the preceding narrative, one can surmise that Manaemus must have known for how long Herod would rule, but apparently he was not willing to disclose this to the king. This puts the king in his place and suggests that Herod had to resign himself to God’s will. Mahieu (2012: 303), however, argues that Josephus himself added the phrase that Manaemus “did not put a limit to the complete period” in order to justify the discrepancy with his own chronology, which did not have 20 or 30 years between the meeting and Herod’s death (which Josephus would situate in 3 BCE). The phrase καὶ τούτοις implies that Manaemus’ answer can hardly have been optimal from Herod’s perspective since the sage did not indicate the precise period, but the reference to 20 or even 30 years of kingship seems to have been reassuring enough for Herod. Josephus leaves it open whether Herod picked up Manaemus’ putting the king’s power into perspective or not. If not, Herod appears to be a simple-minded person who was happy with Manaemus’ prediction that he would rule for a long period of at least 20 or 30 years. The king seems in any case to have forgotten the negative points of the previous prophecy referred to in 15.376.For the phrase καὶ τούτοις ἀρκεσθείς (“even with this [answer] (Herod) was satisfied”), cf. War 2.116 about Glaphyra’s various marriages: “Although the marriage in Libya was enough for you, not being satisfied with this (οὐκ ἀρκεσθεῖσα τούτῳ) you double back to my hearth—a third husband …” (trans. Mason in BJP 1b). Given the context the verb δεξιόομαι cannot mean “greet” or “welcome (friendly)” here. It probably indicates that Herod entertained Manaemus hospitably (Rengstorf s.v.; cf. Ant. 2.123 about Joseph receiving his brothers) or perhaps that Herod paid respect to Manaemus (LSJ [s.v.] also give the meaning “honor” with respect to the gods). The phrase ἀπ’ ἐκείνου (“from that … on”) is elliptical for ἀπ’ ἐκείνου τοῦ χρόνου (“from that date”; cf. Apion 1.11). This point links up with the introduction of the story about Manaemus (Ant. 15.372): “It is worthwhile telling the reason why Herod held the Essenes in honor (τοὺς δὲ ’Εσσηνοὺς ἀφ’ ὅιας αἰτίας ἐτίμα).” Note the repetition of the verb τιμάω (“[hold in] honor”) in 15.372, 378 with the Essenes (τοὺς ’Εσσηνούς) as object. The combination of διατελέω (“continue to”) and the participle τιμῶν also occurs in 8.194; 17.200 (concerning Archelaus paying respect to his father); Life 423.

The conclusion of the story about Manaemus implies more clearly that the readers may benefit from this story (see also the next note). This would be in line with Josephus’ pragmatic approach to history (Attridge 1976: 41-70; Villalba i Varneda 1986), paying attention to the moral implications of the history told. The preface of Antiquities, e.g., highlights that God “grants a happy life to those who follow Him and surrounds with great misfortunes those who transgress virtue” (trans. Feldman in BJP 3 on Ant. 1.20). Another example is the conclusion of the section about the dreams of Archelaus and Glaphyra at the end of book 17: “Therefore, I thought it was good to speak about such things. Let anyone for whom these things are unbelievable benefit from his own view, but let there be no hindrance to anybody who takes them into account for the sake of virtue” (my trans.).For other references to the readers (οἱ ἐντυγχάνοντες, literally “those who encounter”) of (one of) Josephus’ works, see Ant. 1.15, 129; 4.196-197; 8.26; 20.258; Life 345; Apion 1.1, 220; 2.136, 147. The verb ἐντυγχάνω (“encounter, come across”) can mean “read” in the context of writing and books (almost synonymous with ἀναγινώσκω, “read”), but it should be noted that reading practices in antiquity often differed from our practice of silent reading. An alternative translation of παράδοξος is “unusual,” but “unbelievable” or “incredible” are the preferable meanings here since they match the references to the supernatural factor in the story about Manaemus, the role of God (Ant. 15.372, 374-376). This unusual nature of the account also links up with its introduction, which raises the issue whether Manaemus’ story would fit the genre of historiography (see 15.372 with the note to “unseemly in the genre of history”). Cf. similar statements in the introductions to the stories about the Essene Judas (War 1.78-80; Ant. 13.311-313), which passages note that the reader may be astonished by the story he is going to tell (Ant. 13.311 μάλιστα δ’ ἄν τις θαυμάσειε; Gray 1993: 94).The remarkable aspect of the story here most probably concerns the key person Manaemus, who is a model because of his moral excellence (see 15.373 with the note to “attested in every way to his excellence”). Gray (1993: 100) concludes that Manaemus, unlike Herod, did live according to the key virtues of justice and proper worship highlighted in 15.376. In War 2.139 Josephus mentions that the entrance vow of the Essenes focused on justice and proper worship: “… first, that he will observe piety toward the deity (εὐσεβήσειν τὸ θεῖον); then, that he will maintain just actions toward humanity (τὰ πρὸς ἀνθρώπους δίκαια φυλάξειν) …” (trans. Mason in BJP 1b). Jewish readers could associate Manaemus with the prophets of Israel; Graeco-Roman readers with sages like the Sibyls, who predicted the future by their oracles (further references about these as well as other oracles in Burkert 1985: 114-18).For phrases similar to εἰ καὶ παράδοξα (“even if they may seem unusual”), cf. Aelius Aristides, Pan. 108, 176; Lucian, Dial. mort. 19.1; Galen, Diff. resp. (ed. Kühn 7.851.17). An alternative but less likely translation of τῶν παρ’ ἡμῖν (literally “the matters among us”) would be “the persons among us.” The phrase can theoretically indicate persons, although persons are usually specified in such phrases in Josephus (e.g., τῶν παρ’ ἡμῖν ἀρχιερέων [“our High Priests”] in Ant. 1.11 or τῶν πρώτων ἀνδρῶν παρ’ ἡμῖν [“the most prominent men among us”] in 18.64). There is a close parallel in Ant. 1.9: “Moreover, besides these considerations that I have stated, I took into account, not incidentally, both whether our ancestors were willing to transmit and whether some of the Greeks themselves were eager to know about our affairs (γνῶναι τὰ παρ’ ἡμῖν)” (trans. Feldman in BJP 3). This passage concerns considerations whether Jews and non-Jews were willing to communicate about the history of the Jews (see also the next note). The reference here focuses, of course, on the acts of Manaemus, as the final lines of the paragraph also indicate.Since Herod behaved like a foreign king (as several Josephan passages suggest; e.g., 15.267-268, 275, 281 with notes) and thus did not belong to those “among us,” the Herod narrative of Antiquities should perhaps not be considered to be Jewish history. However, this point is not made explicit here. The crux of this concluding passage is the question to what or whom the phrase πολλοί διὰ τοιούτων (“many persons are through [or ‘during’] such events” or “many persons are through such persons”), which phrase is attested by all MSS except MS P (Niese 401), refers. In the immediate context there is only one phrase that connects with the plural διὰ τοιούτων: the phrase τῶν παρ’ ἡμῖν, which probably denotes events (see the previous note). In line with this, the passage may be translated as “This is because many persons by their excellence are through [or ‘during’] such events awarded knowledge about the divine things.” The “many persons” must refer to special persons since they are awarded knowledge of the divine. Taking the context (Ant. 15.372) into account, this probably refers to the Essenes, who like Manaemus (15.373) had access to divine knowledge. This interpretation is supported by other references to Essenes having predictive powers in Josephus (see 15.373 with the note to “foreknowledge from God of what was to come”). Although understandable, the attested reading πολλοί διὰ τοιούτων remains far from smooth. This explains why many commentators and translators (e.g., Niese 401; Marcus-Wikgren 182) follow Coccejus’ conjecture erasing διά. This simplifies the text and implies a translation like the one given by Marcus-Wikgren (183): “… because many of these men …” (codex P reads τούτων [“these”] instead of τοιούτων [“such”]). “Many of such [persons]” would then most probably refer to the Essenes. The noun καλοκαγαθία (“excellence”) also occurs in the introduction of Manaemus in Ant. 15.373 (see the note to “attested in every way to his excellence”). Whether Coccejus’ conjecture is followed or not (see the note to “Because many persons” above), Josephus’ point seems to be that many more Jewish persons (i.e., other Essenes) due to their excellence were deemed worthy of knowledge of divine things, which implies that the Jewish nation was special because of its many prophetic figures.The rare phrase ἡ τῶν θείων ἐμπειρία (“the knowledge about the divine things”) also occurs in Marcus Aurelius 3.1.1 and cf. ἐμπειρία θείων καὶ ἀνθρωπίνων (“knowledge about divine and human things”) in the Scholia on Sophocles’ Oed. tyr. 300 (ed. Papageorgius 179). Gray (1993: 101) interprets it as “esoteric knowledge of an all-encompassing sort.”

The final section of book 15 of Antiquities (15.380-425) focuses on Herod’s renovation of the Jerusalem Temple, highlighting not only the former glory of the city of Jerusalem but also Herod’s fame as an ambitious builder (as the introduction in 15.380 states; cf. 15.382, 384 and the much briefer report about Herod’s renovation of the Temple in War 1.401). The focus on the Herodian Temple in the concluding section of book 15 corresponds with the importance of the Temple elsewhere in Antiquities, which is also shown by the Temple-orientated ring composition of this work (Mason in BJP 3 xx-xxii; BJP 9 xxiii-xxiv; Mason 2003; Landau 2006: 124; differently Bilde 1988: 89-92, who interprets Ant. 1-10 and 11-20 as constituting 2 parallel halves, each ending with a destruction of the Temple).The section 15.380-425 includes a speech by Herod that prepares the citizens for the Temple project and also expresses the king’s motivation for it (15.381-387). Ant. 15.388 describes the response of the Jerusalemites to Herod’s plan, focusing on their concern that the existing Temple has to be destroyed for the realization of Herod’s project. Ant. 15.389-390 describes Herod’s reaction to the Jerusalemites’ response as well as his preparations, and forms the transition to the subsequent description of the Temple project. The next paragraphs (15.391-425) are remarkable from a narratological point of view because Josephus combines the report of the building activities with descriptions of various parts of the Temple complex (van Henten and Huitink 2012). Josephus’ account displays a complex technique here, moving from the center to the periphery and vice versa (Shahar 2004: 232-35). He starts with the renewal of the foundations of the sanctuary, located in the center of the complex, and with the description of this building (15.391-395). In 15.396 he moves on to the outside of the complex with the porticoes along the exterior walls. In 15.397 he once again changes the perspective and describes Herod adapting the Temple Mount in order to create several flat platforms, moving from the outside to the area around the sanctuary (15.397-401). From 15.402 (note the vocabulary switching from νεώς/ναός [“sanctuary”] to ἱερόν [“Temple”]) until 15.417 the focus is on the entire Temple complex, describing its exterior from various angles. Josephus starts with the Antonia Fortress at the Temple’s northwest corner (15.403, 409) and adds an excursus about the location where the robe of the High Priest was kept (15.403-408). In 15.410 he moves on to a description of the west side with its 4 gates. Ant. 15.411-416 concerns the south side with the 2 main gates and the Royal Portico, which is described in detail. From 15.417 onwards Josephus zooms in, moving from the outer precinct to the precinct only accessible to Jews, and then on to the women’s court and the inner enclosure in which the sanctuary was located (15.417-419). In 15.420 he notes that the exterior sections of the Temple were rebuilt in 8 years, and in 15.421 he switches for the last time to the sanctuary and informs that it was rebuilt in 1 year and 5 months. He continues with a description of the celebrations held after the completion of the renovation, which festival coincided with the celebration of the king’s accession to the throne (15.421-423). Ant. 15.424 focuses on the secret tunnel that gave Herod access to the sanctuary area from the Antonia Fortress. Ant. 15.425 forms the conclusion of book 15 and highlights God’s interference in the renovation activities. The word τότε (“at that time”) sometimes functions as a brief formula in Josephus to introduce a report about something happening in roughly the same period as the other events narrated, implying that Josephus synchronizes all these events (van Henten and Huitink 2007: 225-27). The same word occurs in Ant. 15.365 in the introduction to the report about Herod’s tax remittance. The previous date indication given by Josephus is the 17th year of Herod’s reign in 15.354 (see the note to that year), which together with the τότε formula of 15.365 implies that the events described in 15.354-379 are to be situated in Herod’s 17th regnal year. The 18th year of Herod’s reign could be 23/22 BCE or 20/19 BCE, depending on whether Herod’s appointment as king in 40 BCE or his capture of Jerusalem in 37 BCE (or 36 BCE, with Mahieu 2012) is the point of departure for the calculation of Herod’s regnal years. Most scholars believe that the 18th year corresponds to 20/19 BCE (e.g., Otto 1913: 83-84; Simons 1952: 399; Schürer-Vermes 1.292; Smallwood 1976: 92 n. 112; Schalit 2001: 372). Mahieu (2012: 147-49) proposes 19/18 BCE, arguing that Herod captured Jerusalem in 36 rather than 37 BCE (2012: 60-64; cf. Roller 1998: 260, who concludes that the rebuilding started in 18 BCE).War 1.401 dates the renovation of the Temple to Herod’s 15th instead of his 18th regnal year. The difference is sometimes attributed to differing points of departure from which the years were counted: the 18th year mentioned in Ant. 15.380 would be reckoned from Herod’s appointment in 40 BCE, while the 15th year in War 1.401 from his capture of Jerusalem in 37(36) BCE (Corbishley 1935: 26-27; see above). However, this explanation is implausible because the context in Antiquities mentions Herod’s 17th year in connection with Augustus’ visit of 20 BCE (15.354 with notes), such that Antiquities seems to reckoned Herod’s years from 37(36) BCE; reckoning the 18th year from 40 BCE would also situate the work at the Temple before that visit (Mahieu 2012: 147-48). The date of Ant. 15.380 should apparently be preferred and the reference to Herod’s 15th regnal year in War 1.401 may be a mistake, as several scholars argue (Otto 1913: 81-82; Schürer-Vermes 1.292 n. 12; Schalit 2001: 372-73 with n. 776; differently Vogel 2002: 161, who follows War 1.401 and dates the beginning of the building activities to 23/22 BCE). Mahieu (2012: 148-49), however, claims that the 15th year dates the building activities at the outer sections, while the 18th year those at the Temple building. The first works would have started in 26/25 BCE (Herod’s 15th year reckoned from 40 BCE), while the latter in 19/18 BCE (the 18th year reckoned from 36 BCE; see above). Both initiatives would have been completed in 18/17 BCE: the outer sections in 8 years (26/25-18/17 BCE; cf. the 8 years mentioned in Ant. 15.420) and the Temple building in 1½ year (19/18-18/17 BCE; cf. the 1½ years mentioned in Ant. 15.421). This phrase points to the chronological order of the narrative, which is confirmed by the preceding reference to Herod’s 18th regnal year. About the basic chronological set up of War and Antiquities, see van Henten and Huitink 2007: 215-16.For phrases similar to τὰς προειρημένας πράξεις (literally “the deeds mentioned before”), see Ant. 5.197; 7.316. For Josephus’ use of an aorist participle of τυγχάνω (“happen to be at”) with the negation οὐ and an article, see Ant. 15.33 with the note to “extraordinary dangers.” Niese (401) reads δι’ αὐτοῦ (“by him[self]”) with most of the MSS, which reading is paralleled by Ant. 15.292 concerning the construction of the Antonia Fortress: “… the stronghold near the citadel, which was called Antonia and built by himself (κατασκευασθὲν δι’ αὐτοῦ according to MS P; cf. 15.380: δι’ αὐτοῦ κατασκευάσασθαι).” Marcus-Wikgren (184) read δι’ αὑτοῦ (“by himself alone,” LSJ s.v. III.1a) with MS A, i.e., “at his own expense.” This implication is perhaps also intended by the reading δι’ αὐτοῦ. In that case Josephus emphasizes that Herod himself financed the renovation of the Temple and did not put the burden upon his subjects (e.g., by raising taxes), nor used money from the Temple treasury (Richardson [1996: 247] argues that Herod used his own as well as state money but not resources from the Temple; cf. Applebaum 1976: 666; for discussions of Herod’s personal resources, see Schalit 2001: 257-98; Udoh 2005: 190-206). Although the section Ant. 15.380-425 deals with the renovation of the entire Temple complex, the phrase ὁ νεώς/ναός τοῦ θεοῦ (“God’s sanctuary,” War 4.151; Ant. 8.119, 139; 9.5, 161, 254; 11.6, 14, 58; 18.261; cf. Ant. 12.257; Apion 2.193) actually refers to the inner sanctuary of the Temple (Jouön 1935: 331-36; Simons 1952: 392; Rengstorf s.v.; see also Ant. 15.380, 385-386, 389, 391-392, 394, 396, 401, 419, 421, 423, 425). For discussions of Herod’s renovation of the Temple, see Simons 1952: 393-403; Schalit 2001: 372-97; Netzer 2006: 137-78; Patrich 2009. The adjective περίβολος used as a substantive means “surrounding wall” or an area protected by such a wall, including a “temple area” (cf. Ant. 15.338, 410, 417; Rengstorf s.v.). A problem in this section about the Temple (15.380-425) is which area exactly is intended in each of the occurrences of the word περίβολος. Sometimes, as is the case here, it denotes the entire Temple precinct (see also 15.410, 417; cf. 15.420), other times rather an inner enclosure (e.g., in 15.417-418 it refers to 2 inner enclosures within the Temple complex; for still other passages attesting this word in this section, see 15.400, 416-418, 420; cf. 17.259). Niese (401) reads ἀξιοπρεπέστερον (“more fitting”) with MS P and Zonaras, while the other MSS read ἀξιοπρεπέστατον (“most fitting”). The adjective ἀξιοπρεπής (“in keeping with dignity, fitting”) occurs twice elsewhere in Josephus (Ant. 11.356; 17.81). The verb ἐκτελέω (“complete, perform,” Rengstorf s.v.) also occurs in Ant. 15.341, in connection with the completion of Caesarea. The adjective περίσημος (“remarkable, magnificent,” here in the comparative περισημότερον) is repeated in Ant. 15.423 and does not occur elsewhere in Josephus. MSS FLV read the comparative ἐπισημότερον (“most glorious/famous”), which may derive from the rather similar word περισημότερον since the adjective ἐπίσημος is much more common than περίσημος in Josephus (Rengstorf s.v.). In War 1.401 Josephus also highlights the splendor of the Temple. This short comment by Josephus already anticipates the successful achievement of Herod’s plan to renovate the Temple and implies at the same time that the renovation of the Temple was Herod’s greatest project as a builder. Other passages also emphasize Herod’s eagerness to be remembered for eternity, which ambition he pursued, among other things, by leaving behind magnificent buildings (e.g., War 1.403, 419, 427; Ant. 15.298, 328-330; 16.153; 17.163; Schalit 2001: 341). In 15.298 Josephus notes in connection with Herod’s building activities at Samaria-Sebaste that he “also made it look good in order to leave behind for later times memorials to his benevolence (μνημεῖα φιλανθρωπίας) that resulted from his love of beauty” (see also the summary in 15.330: “In short, he was aiming for his own [glory] or even seeking the honor of leaving behind for posterity monuments of his reign [μνημεῖα τῆς ἀρχῆς] that were [even] bigger. Because of this he let himself be induced to the restoration of cities, and he went to the greatest expense for this [goal]”). Richardson (1996: 247) argues that Josephus’ description of Herod’s motive for rebuilding the Temple is plausible (cf. Roller 1998: 260, who assumes that the subsequent speech derives from Herod’s memoirs or from Nicolaus of Damascus and that it reflects Herod’s actual motivation).The phrase μνήμη αἰώνιος (“everlasting remembrance”) occurs several times in Josephus, but only in Antiquities (1.235; 6.343; 10.266; 13.63; cf. 11.83; see especially 6.343-344 and 10.266 concerning King Saul and the Prophet Daniel as model figures, as well as 13.63 about the High Priest Onias building a temple at Leontopolis in order to acquire everlasting fame and glory for himself [μνήμην καὶ δόξαν αἰώνιον]).

Like Polybius and several other historians Josephus uses the phrase τὸ πλῆθος (“the multitude”) in a mildly pejorative or at least pitying way, which implies a translation such as “the mass/mob” or “the rabble” (Mason in BJP 9 on Life 31). On the basis of Josephus’ previous information about the Jews’ responses to Herod’s measures (e.g., Ant. 15.267, 274-275, 277, 368), it is fully understandable that they would be suspicious about any action by Herod that concerned the Temple. Concerning the phrase οὐχ ἕτοιμον τὸ πλῆθος (“the people were not prepared”), cf. the (inverse) attitude of the Israelites towards Moses described in 3.212: “… he [i.e., Moses] saw that the people were ready (τὸ πλῆθος … ἕτοιμον) to confer on him” (trans. Feldman in BJP 3). The Temple complex covered an area of more than 14 ha (= 35 acres). The western wall was ca. 485 m long and the eastern wall ca. 470 m. The northern and southern walls were shorter, measuring ca. 315 and 280 m respectively (Netzer 2006: 160; cf. Sanders 1994: 57-58, who gives 488, 466, 315, and 281 m as the lengths of these walls). Sanders (1994: 58) compares the size of Herod’s Temple complex with those of famous ancient temples and notes that the Acropolis at Athens was considerably smaller: 240 m long and 120 m wide in the middle. The temple complex at Olympia was 210 m long and 170 m wide (for similar comparisons, see Patrich 2009: 54). The vocabulary indicating the huge scale of Herod’s enterprise here is taken up again later in this section: the noun μέγεθος (“greatness, size”) reappears in Ant. 15.385-388, 392, 395, 399 (see also 15.386 with the note to “on the same scale” and the noun ἐπιχείρησις [“enterprise, undertaking”] in 15.384). The verb προκαθίστημι (“appoint/prepare previously,” Rengstorf s.v.) occurs 3 times in Josephus (Ant. 15.34, 284, 381). That Herod decided to give a speech to the mob shows, according to Josephus’ presentation, the king’s self-confidence that he would persuade his subjects of his project being worthwhile to undertake. The passage may also reflect Josephus’ ambivalent attitude toward speechifying; the mob needs speeches to be moved in one direction or another (Mason 2011).Speeches imply a change of rhythm in the narratives, which almost come to a stand-still. Josephus applies this device many times (Runnalls 1971; 1999; Mason 2011). Ancient speeches also often mark important events and highlight persons or forces that determine these events (Michel 1984: 945; a good example of this function is Herod’s commander speech in Ant. 15.127-146; see van Henten and Huitink 2007: 227-28). Herod’s speech in 15.382-387 highlights the main event of the final section of book 15, the renovation of the Temple (Richardson 1996: 247). In Ant. 16.132 Herod also assembles the population in order to deliver a speech on a special occasion (cf. War 2.1-3; Ant. 17.200-205; Schalit 2001: 304). The verb συγκαλέω (“call together, convoke, summon,” Rengstorf s.v.) frequently occurs in phrases that introduce a direct or indirect speech, sometimes combined with a verb meaning “say” (here ἔλεγε). See Ant. 3.75 concerning Moses addressing the multitude of the Israelites before ascending Mount Sinai (συγκαλέσας τὴν πληθὺν … ἔλεγεν), also 3.84; 6.40, 60, 251; 7.26-27, 228, 370; 8.226; 9.260 (concerning Hezekiah addressing the people, the priests, and the Levites when he came to power [συγκαλέσας τὸν λαὸν … ἐδημηγόρησεν … λέγων]); 11.168; 12.357; 13.197; 18.279; 19.78 (concerning Cherea and his accomplices [συγκαλέσας τοὺς συνωμότας … εἶπεν]).

Herod’s reference to his other deeds during his reign puts the project to renovate the Temple explicitly in the light of his achievements as a king, which is elaborated in the continuation of the speech. The body of the speech (Ant. 15.383-387) briefly mentions the benefits of Herod’s rule and his building activities and then focuses on the new project of restoring the Temple to its original splendor. Herod’s term of address ἄνδρες ὁμόφυλοι (“fellow countrymen,” literally “compatriot men”) refers to his fellow Jews. According to ancient gender conventions women were frequently not referred to in such titles (cf. Peter addressing the crowd in Acts: 2:14 ἄνδρες ’Ιουδαῖοι καὶ οἱ κατοικοῦντες Ἱερουσαλημ [“Men of Judea and all who live in Jerusalem”; 2:22 ἄνδρες ’Ισραηλῖται [“Men, Israelites”]). The word ὁμόφυλος (“of the same descent, belonging to the same tribe”) occurs in Josephus mostly in Israelite or Jewish contexts (although in Ant. 6.187 it refers to the Philistines and in War 2.210 to the Romans). A number of times the meaning of the word is generic: people of the same nation should know each other (Ant. 4.204) and preserve each other’s lives rather than harm each other (7.17; 8.223); compatriot bloodshed is the most horrific kind of bloodshed (War 1.27; 2.210, 466, 483; cf. Ant. 9.231; 19.330). The combination ἄνδρες ὁμόφυλοι also occurs elsewhere in Josephus as a term of address (Ant. 6.251; 8.227; Life 141). The beginning of Herod’s speech is a nice example of apophasis, i.e., attracting attention to something by saying that it is unnecessary to mention it (Lausberg 1998: 186). In fact the speech continues with a comment concerning the consequences of his deeds for himself as well as his subjects, which means that the phrase highlights his achievements rather than passing over them. Herod complains that the Jewish people did not honor him enough for his achievements. For metaphorical meanings of κόσμος (“honor, credit”), see LSJ (s.v. II.2) and the next note. Elsewhere the Herod narrative of Antiquities implies that many subjects were very critical about their king (e.g., 15.280, 291, 365 with notes). The main point of Herod’s argument, in Josephus’ presentation, is that he acted for the benefit of his subjects rather than out of self-interest (Schalit 2001: 470-71, who assumes that this reflects Herod’s own view and his attempt to imitate Augustus in this respect). Herod’s focusing on the achieved security (ἀσφάλεια) ties in with security being the motive alleged for several of his building activities in the Herod narrative of Antiquities (see 15.291-292, 295-296, 298 about the building of the royal palace in Jerusalem, the Antonia Fortress, and the city of Samaria-Sebaste; 15.324 about the Herodium Fortress; 15.409 about the Antonia; 16.143-144 about the Cyprus Fortress near Jericho and the Phasael Tower in Jerusalem; and 17.23 about the Jewish military settlement in Batanea). Some of these passages, however, suggest that these fortified places served Herod’s own security rather than the people’s (e.g., 15.291, 295-296). Providing security for subjects is highlighted as an important task of rulers in 1 Macc 14:29, 33-34, 36 (about Simon the Maccabee’s protection of the Temple as well as his fortification of the towns of Judah, Joppa, and Gazara; discussion and further references in van Henten 2007b: 266-69).

This statement about Herod’s previous support in times of crisis links up with the disasters narrated in Ant. 15.299-316: a period of severe drought resulted in illnesses and famine among the population (15.299-304), and Herod provided efficient support to his subjects (15.305-316). Several words in 15.383 echo passages of the section 15.299-316 (15.306: ἀμελέω “neglect”; 15.316: δυσχερής “difficult”; 15.303, 307, 313, 316: χρεία “need”). Concerning the security motif, see the note to the last phrase in Ant. 15.382. This passage is ironic if one connects it with statements that emphasize Herod’s ambition and eagerness for fame in relation to his building projects (see 15.380 with the note to “everlasting remembrance”).The extremely rare adjective ἀνεπηρέαστος (“unmolested, unimpaired, unattacked,” Rengstorf s.v.), which is attested only once before Josephus’ work (Diodorus 31.8.7), occurs in Antiquities only in the context of official statements (see 13.53 concerning Demetrius I’s decree setting the Jewish inhabitants of his realm free and guaranteeing they will be not molested; 14.204 concerning Julius Caesar’s decree that the Jews will be free from any kind of molestation; and 16.60 concerning Marcus Agrippa’s confirmation that the Jews in Ionia can observe their own practices without being molested, also 16.63). This motif is connected with the end of the previous paragraph stating that the building projects (κατασκευάσματα) were to provide security for Herod’s subjects (see the last note to Ant. 15.382). The noun κατασκεύασμα (“[artistically produced] object/building,” Rengstorf s.v.) also occurs in 16.19, concerning Herod supporting the restoration of the portico of Chios (cf. 16.183, with the same word referring to David’s tomb in Jerusalem). For the phrase τὸ ’Ιουδαίων ἔθνος (“the nation of the Jews”), see Ant. 15.15 with the note to “nation of the Jews.” Herod’s claim of divine support links up with Manaemus’ predictions narrated in Ant. 15.373-379 (especially 15.374) and is taken up again in 15.387. Herod also refers to God’s support in his commander speech before the decisive battle with the Nabateans in 31(30) BCE (15.127-146, especially 15.130, 135-136, 138, 144); in 15.135 Josephus has Herod say: “So, is there still any question for you [i.e., Herod’s soldiers] as to whether these wrongdoers [i.e., the Nabateans] ought to be punished, when God, too, wants this (τοῦτο καὶ τοῦ θεοῦ βουλομένου) and always commands us to hate insolence and wrongdoing?” The combination of βούλησις (“will”) and (τοῦ) θεοῦ (“of God”) occurs frequently in Antiquities (Ant. 1.157, 170, 223, 254; 2.161, 171, 232, 347; 3.208; 4.67, 109, 127, 235; 5.120, 278; 6.137; 7.90; 8.2, 218, 241, 295, 328, 389; 9.132; 10.7; 11.55, 237; 12.26; once in Apion: 2.184) and never in War or Life. The noun εὐδαιμονία can mean, among other things, “good fortune” and “prosperity” (Rengstorf s.v.). Schalit (2001: 326 n. 634, 457 n. 1062) assumes that Josephus renders Herod’s intention truthfully here and concludes that Herod aimed at his citizens’ happiness as well as their prosperity. This self-confident claim about the people’s unprecedented prosperity in a context referring to Herod’s building projects (see also the next paragraph) implies that these projects contributed significantly to the nation’s welfare. This claim makes sense since the projects must have attracted all kinds of economic activity and created many jobs. The construction of the Temple as well as the other activities may have boosted the economy of the kingdom and provided work to thousands of laborers (Richardson 1996: 193-94, 223, 236-37; Pastor 1997: 110-27). In Ant. 20.219 Josephus mentions that more than 18,000 workers became unemployed when the Temple was finally completed (in the emperor Nero’s day). Nevertheless, the claim contrasts sharply with the opinion of many scholars that Herod’s rule was particularly harsh for his subjects, which is also suggested by passages in Josephus (e.g., 17.304-310 about the complaints expressed before Augustus after Herod’s death; in 17.307 the Jewish delegation states that Herod had reduced the nation to poverty). Udoh (2005: 113-206 with references), however, argues that Josephus’ very negative view of Herod’s rule and the supposed harsh taxations by him are not supported by serious evidence and therefore implausible.The phrase ἄγω πρὸς εὐδαιμονίαν (“bring to [a situation of] happiness”) also occurs in Xenophon, Mem. 2.1.11; Philo, Contempl. 12; Mos. 2.189; Plant. 38.

Herod connects the prosperity of his subjects with his building projects (the κατασκευάσματα mentioned in Ant. 15.383; see the note to “building projects”). He does not mention them specifically, which would not fit in with a speech, but previous narrative sections report several building projects, including in Jerusalem, Samaria-Sebaste, Herodium, and Caesarea (15.296-298, 318, 323-325, 331-341; surveys in Roller 1998; Netzer 2006).The phrase κατὰ μέρος ἐξεργάζομαι (“accomplish one after the other”) also occurs in Polybius 3.26.5; Galen, Hipp. aphor. (ed. Kühn 17b.608.16). I.e., military settlements like Gaba in Galilee (Ant. 15.294) as well as fortified places like Herodium (15.323-325), Alexandrium (15.185), and Masada (15.184). I.e., cities like Samaria-Sebaste and Caesarea Maritima, and probably also those of Agrippias, Antipatris, and Phasaelis (Bernett 2007a: 162 n. 468). The Herod narrative of Antiquities reports building activities in the territories that were added to Herod’s kingdom (e.g., 15.363-364 about the temple in Augustus’ honor near Paneion).The adjective ἐπίκτητος (“newly acquired,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. The reading ὑμῶν (“your”) of MS V implies that Herod was not regarded as belonging to the Jewish people. The alliteration in the phrase κόσμῳ τῷ καλλίστῳ emphasizes the splendor of the people. Note also the repetition of κόσμος in Ant. 15.382, 384, with different nuances (“credit” and “splendor”). For a close parallel to περίεργά μοι δοκεῖ λέγειν (“It seems superfluous to me to tell”), see Demosthenes, Or. 43.21 (περίεργον δή μοι δοκεῖ λέγειν) and cf. Isaeus 1.17, 32; Aristotle, Pol. 1315a; Anaximenes of Lampsacus 29.7; Hermogenes, Stat. 1 (ed. Rabe 34.18). Herod’s argument that it is unnecessary to elaborate on his building projects is obvious; he could assume that his subjects were familiar with them. The Herod narrative of Antiquities confirms that he undertook prestigious building projects (see several of the previous notes). The adjective περίεργος (“unnecessary,” Rengstorf s.v.) occurs once elsewhere in Josephus (Apion 1.16, in a different context). The alliteration and repetition in the phrase τὸ δὲ τῆς ἐπιχειρήσεως, ᾗ νῦν ἐπιχειρεῖν ἐπιβάλλομαι (cf. ἐπιχείρησις in Ant. 15.381) can hardly be rendered literally in English. The phrase creates a climax and focuses the attention of the audience (and the readers) on the grand new project, the renovation of the Temple. The MSS read παντός (“of all”), which is erroneous. Bekker proposes πάντως (“at any rate, absolutely”) or πάντων (“of all [enterprises]”; see Niese 402). Via a unique combination of the superlatives εὐσεβέστατον καὶ κάλλιστατον Herod characterizes the renovation as a splendid and most pious enterprise. The combination of these superlatives is found only here (but see Ant. 7.374 and Apion 2.293 for a combination of their root terms). The superlative κάλλιστατον echoes the adjective καλλίστῳ in the preceding sentence. The term εὐσεβέστατον (“most pious”) is appropriate since the Temple housed the sacrificial cult for the God of Israel, and its magnificence demonstrated the Jews’ high regard for God (for εὐσέβεια and related terms, see Ant. 15.267 with the note to “proper worship”; the noun occurs 3 times in 15.386-387 in references to the Temple; for the importance of this word in Josephus, see Mason 1991: 85-90).Landau (2006: 139) considers Herod’s statement to be highly ironic. It may be indeed an exaggeration to a certain extent, but Herod’s Temple was, as a matter of fact, an extraordinary building given its size and adornments (Sanders 1994: 51-69; see also 15.381 with the note to “the immense size of the enterprise”). The phrase ἐφ’ ἡμῶν can mean “among us” (i.e., indicating the location) as well as “in our time” (perhaps even “of our rule,” LSJ s.v. ἐπί A.I-II).

After 3 paragraphs of introduction (with a climax at the end of the last paragraph) Herod now discloses that his grandest project concerns the Jerusalem Temple. The noun τὸν ναόν, referring to the (inner) sanctuary of the Temple, links up with the phrase τὸν ναόν τοῦ θεοῦ in Ant. 15.380 (see the note to “sanctuary”). Herod refers here to the Second Temple (see the next note). The continuation of the speech indicates that Herod does not refer to the First Temple, built by Solomon (1 Kgs 5-8; 2 Chr 2-7), but to the Second Temple, built after the return from the Babylonian captivity. The Book of Ezra attributes the construction of this Temple to Zerubbabel and situates it in the reign of an unspecified king Darius (Ezra 4:1-5, 24; 5:1-2; 6:1-15; cf. Hag 1:1, 15; 2:1, 10; Zech 1:1, 7; see also Ezra 1 concerning Cyrus’ involvement). Ezra 6:15 reports that the building was finished on the 3rd day of Adar in the 6th year of King Darius. Scholars usually date the reconstruction to 520-515 BCE, during the reign of the Persian king Darius I (522-486 BCE; cf. infra), but there are chronological difficulties concerning this date (I thank Bieke Mahieu, Leuven, for pointing this out to me). For instance, the king Darius mentioned in Ezra is supposed to have reigned after King Ahasuerus-Xerxes (Ezra 4:6, 24), but Darius I (522-486 BCE) ruled before Xerxes I (486-465 BCE). Josephus presents the Jewish history during the Persian period in a clear chronological order (Ant. 11.1-320; van Henten and Huitink 2007: 215-16) and indicates that King Cyrus (II) gave permission to rebuild the Temple (11.12-18), but that neighboring peoples, especially the Cutheans (who had settled in Samaria), hindered the building activities (11.19-20). The reconstruction of the Temple was completed by Zerubbabel and Jeshua during the reign of King Darius, the son of Hystaspes (Ant. 11.31-32, 59, 62-63, 79-119), i.e., Darius I (Herodotus 3.71; further discussion and references in Grabbe 2004-08: 1.216-18, 276-85; on the chronological problems and alternative dates, see also Dequeker 1993; 1997). The greatest God (ὁ μέγιστος θεός) as name for the God of Israel occurs frequently in Antiquities (6.86; 7.353; 9.133, 211, 288, 289; 10.68; 11.90 [referring to the Jerusalem Temple]; 12.257 [the Samaritan temple on Mount Gerizim]; 13.64, 67 [the Jewish temple at Leontopolis]; cf. also 11.3) but not in the other Josephan works. The phrase μετὰ τὴν ἐκ Βαβυλῶνος ἐπάνοδον (MSS FVE read … ἀνάστασιν [“rising”]; Niese 402) is a fixed expression for the Judeans’ return from the Babylonian captivity, which departure was permitted by the Persian king Cyrus II in his first year (539-538 BCE, 2 Chr 36:22-23; Ezra 1; 3:7; 4:3; 5:13-17; 6:3-5; Josephus, Ant. 11.1). Josephus uses the same vocabulary in Ant. 13.5 in another short-hand reference to that return. Similar phrases occur in early Christian passages (Pseudo-Justin, Quaest. resp. 484a [ed. von Otto 222]; Epiphanius, Haer. 8.6.1; 10.5; 42.11.15.26 [ed. Holl 1.191, 204; 2.136]; frequently in Eusebius, e.g., Hist. eccl. 1.6.6; Praep. ev. 10.9.2). An interesting reference concerns the end of the Life of Zechariah in Codex Coislianus (205), which notes that David composed, through prophetic inspiration, the Hallel Psalms (i.e., Ps 113-118) for the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, so that with these psalms they could start praising God for the return from Babylon (περὶ τῆς ἐπανόδου ἀπὸ Βαβυλῶνος; Schwemer 1995-96: 2.174). The cubit (πῆχυς) is traditionally the distance between a man’s elbow and the end of his middle finger. The Greeks had a wide range of standards for the foot (πούς) and for the cubit. The Roman foot (pes) was fixed as 11.65 modern inches (= 29.6 cm). “The Roman cubit (cubitus) was 1.5 ft (= 44.5 cm), such that 60 cubits were 90 ft. The “royal” or Egyptian cubit was ca. 20.6 inches (= 52.3 cm). Ritmeyer (2006: 170-73) argues that several cubit measurements were at use in Judea.” This number of 60 cubits is huge (cf. MS V and E read “seven” instead of “sixty,” Niese 402). Since in Ant. 8.64-65 Josephus gives the height of Solomon’s Temple as 120 cubits (Simons [1952: 397] concludes that Josephus’ description of Solomon’s Temple reflects Herod’s Temple), the height of Zerubbabel’s Temple would have been only half of that of Solomon’s Temple (see the next note). 1 Kgs 6:2 indicates that Solomon’s Temple was 60 cubits long, 20 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high. Other references concerning the Second Temple mention a breadth and height of 60 cubits (Ezra 6:3; likewise 1 Esd 6:25; Josephus, Ant. 11.13, 99). In contrast to Herod’s claim here, the biblical data suggest that the Second Temple was double as high as the First Temple. Here Herod refers to the First Temple, built by Solomon (1 Kgs 5-8; 2 Chr 2-7; Josephus, Ant. 8.57-123; see also the first 2 notes to this paragraph). The difference in height between the First and Second Temples is 60 cubits according to this passage, which fits in with Solomon’s Temple being 120 cubits high (Ant. 8.64-65) and the Second Temple 60 cubits (Ezra 6:3). Ant. 8.64 gives the total height of Solomon’s Temple as 120 cubits, and Ant. 8.65 that of the vestibule in front of the sanctuary likewise as 120 cubits: “Thus the height [of the structure; i.e., of the sanctuary] was sixty cubits (ὕψος ἦν ἑξήκοντα πηχῶν) …. On top of this was raised up another [building] of equal dimensions, so that the total height of the sanctuary was 120 cubits (τὸ πᾶν ὕψος τῷ ναῷ πηχῶν ἑκατὸν καὶ εἴκοσι) …. They set up its [i.e., the sanctuary’s] vestibule in front, [this being] twenty cubits in length; it extended the width of the building. Its breadth was ten cubits and it was erected to a height of 120 cubits” (8.64; trans. Begg in BJP 5). Marcus-Wikgren (186 n. a) suggest that the information in 8.64 is based on the height of the porch in front of the sanctuary given by 2 Chr 3:4 (see also Begg in BJP 5 on Ant. 8.64-65). Herod’s point that the Second Temple was half the height of Solomon’s underpins the contrast between the Second Temple and Herod’s (see Ant. 15.387).

I.e., those who built the Second Temple (see the beginning of Ant. 15.385). The phrase τῶν πατέρων (“the ancestors”) links up with the words πατέρες ἡμέτεροι (“our ancestors”) in 15.385. This statement links up with the content of the previous paragraph, in which the Second Temple is presented as being lower than the First Temple. The continuation of Herod’s speech indicates that the ancestors were not to be blamed for the smaller size of the Second Temple. The noun εὐσέβεια (“proper veneration”) echoes the adjective εὐσεβέστατον (“most pious”) of Ant. 15.384, which is also used in connection with the Temple. For the phrase ἀμέλεια εὐσεβείας (“neglect of proper veneration”), cf. the accusation against Herod in 15.267 (ἀμεληθέντων ὅσα πρότερον ἐπὶ τὴν εὐσέβειαν “all the matters that had previously [led the masses] to proper worship were neglected”); also 15.375-376. For the expression ὁ ναός (“the sanctuary”), see Ant. 15.380 with the note to “sanctuary.” I.e., Cyrus II (see Ant. 15.385 with the note to “Babylon” and the next notes). I.e., Darius I (see Ant. 15.385 with the note to “ancestors” and the next note). “Darius, the son of Hystaspes” is also mentioned in Ant. 11.31 and War 1.476 (in connection with Glaphyra’s descent, although this passage refers perhaps to another Darius, who also had a Hystaspes as father). The additional information in Josephus’ report on the Persian period (11.31) that Darius is called “the son of Hystaspes” implies that he is referring to Darius I. As a consequence the Cyrus mentioned here must concern Cyrus II. The Book of Ezra mentions a king Cyrus as well as a king Darius in connection with the rebuilding of the Second Temple (see Ant. 15.385 with the note to “ancestors”). Ezra 6:3-4 and Josephus (Ant. 11.13, 99) state that King Cyrus determined the measures of the new Temple, with a height and breadth of 60 cubits each (see also 1 Esd 6:24-25). King Darius may have been added here by Josephus because the Temple was completed during his reign (Ezra 6). That the Judean Jews were subjected to the Persian rule after the Babylonian captivity must have been well known among the Jews, also through the Books of Ezra-Nehemiah and Daniel (Grabbe 2004-08: 1.1-360). Josephus may have added this detail for non-Jewish readers, who were hardly or not at all familiar with Jewish history. I.e., Alexander the Great and his successors. Alexander created a new empire after his victory over the Persians; Palestine first became part of the Ptolemaic kingdom and subsequently of the Seleucid kingdom (details in Schürer-Vermes 1.125-36; Grabbe 2004-08: 2.1-224). Alexander’s takeover also appears in other Josephan passages (see especially Ant. 11.304-347, which passage reports a sacrifice made by Alexander in the Jerusalem Temple [11.326-339]). The name Μακεδόνες (“Macedonians”) occurs, among other passages, in 11.304 (referring to Alexander’s father Philip as King of the Macedonians), 313, 315-316, 326. The builders of the Second Temple being subject to the Persian rule and the size of their Temple being determined by the Persian kings (see the previous notes to this paragraph) account for the Second Temple being smaller and therefore less glorious than the First Temple.The noun εὐκαιρία (“right moment, opportunity,” Rengstorf s.v.) occurs 7 times in Josephus and only in Antiquities; 6 occurrences of which belong to the Herod narrative (15.59, 315, 327, 366, 386; 16.301; cf. 18.54). The rare phrase τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας ἀρχέτυπον refers to the First Temple as the place of worship of the God of Israel (for εὐσέβεια, see Ant. 15.384 with the note to “pious and wonderful” as well as 15.267 with the note to “proper worship”). So far Herod has only indicated the measures of the Second Temple (see 15.385-386). The noun ἀρχέτυπον (“archetype, model,” LSJ s.v.; Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus, while a favorite word in Philo. Phrases similar to ἀρχέτυπον τῆς εὐσεβείας, however, only occur in patristic literature, although never in connection with the Temple (John Chrysostom, Hom. 2 Tim. [PG 62.643]; Theodoretus, Int. Dan. [PG 81.1313, 1345]; Int. ep. Paul. [PG 82.632, 769]). The smaller size of the Second Temple is the main point in Herod’s argument and subsequently makes him contrast the fortunate circumstances for his initiative with the limited possibilities for the builders of the Second Temple. The noun μέγεθος (“size, greatness”) applies here to the size of the Second Temple and occurs already in the introduction of the speech (Ant. 15.381), referring to the size of Herod’s enterprise. The word reoccurs in 15.388, 395, 399 in connection with Herod’s own project (cf. 15.392 about the sizes of the stones).

A combination of particles (ἐπειδὴ δὲ νῦν) introduces Herod’s motivation for his project and creates a contrast between his rule and that of those responsible for the Second Temple. By focusing upon himself Herod also expresses that there are no foreign overlords at this moment and that he is the ideal leader to carry out the ambitious plan of renovating the Temple because he has the financial resources to do it and is supported by God as well as the Romans, as he explains in the next lines. The phrase ἄρχω θεοῦ βουλήσει links up with σὺν τῇ τοῦ θεοῦ βουλήσει in Ant. 15.383 (see the note to “with God’s will”). Herod’s claim that he is ruling with God’s assent seems bold in the light of the criticism by his subjects (see, e.g., 15.368), but it is supported by the episode about Manaemus (15.373-379). Herod does not refer to that episode in his speech; he simply claims in a self-confident way to enjoy God’s support, which statement is elaborated in the continuation of the speech by pointing out that the king is a most successful ruler. This claim would have appealed to Herod’s Roman patrons. A stable period of peace is an ideal situation according to both Jewish and non-Jewish writings. 2 Macc 3:1 describes the situation in Judea during the leadership of the High Priest Onias III as follows: “While the holy city was inhabited in unbroken peace (μετὰ πάσης εἰρήνης) and the laws were strictly observed because of the piety (εὐσέβεια) of the high priest Onias and his hatred of wickedness.” 1 Macc 14:8-12 describes another peaceful situation, during the rule of Simon the Hasmonean (143/142-135/134 BCE), which section includes allusions to biblical passages: “(8) They tilled their land in peace; the ground gave its increase, and the trees of the plains their fruit. (9) Old men sat in the streets, they all talked together of good things …. (11) He established peace in the land, and Israel rejoiced with great joy. (12) All the people sat under their own vines and fig trees, and there was no one to make them afraid” (cf. 1 Macc 14:4; Mic 4:4; Zech 8:4-5). According to the Roman ideology the emperor was the guarantor of peace and order (e.g., Dio Chrysostom 1.73-75; Aelius Aristides, Rom. [ed. Dindorf 335-36]). Wealth was important for ancient rulers since many projects depended on their benefactions (Danker 1982). Other Josephan passages depict Herod as a generous benefactor, especially towards non-Jews (see Ant. 15.19 with the note to “gifts,” also 15.37, 233, 326-330, 356; 16.24, 146-149). War 1.205 expresses the gratefulness of the Syrians towards Herod for restoring peace and saving their possessions (ὡς εἰρήνην αὐτοῖς καὶ τὰς κτήσεις ἀνασεσωκώς). The eulogy for the Hasmonean leader Simon in 1 Macc 14:4-15 (see the previous note) also focuses on Simon’s personal wealth, which enabled him to support his subjects and enhance the glory of the Temple: “(10) He supplied the towns with food, and furnished them with the means of defense …. (14) He gave help to all the humble among his people …. (15) He made the sanctuary glorious, and added to the vessels of the sanctuary” (cf. the decree in recognition of Simon in 1 Macc 14:25-49, especially 14:32-34). Herod’s income resulted from taxes (taxes on agricultural production, sales levies, and custom duties; see Ant. 15.365 with the note to “taxes”) and from revenues from the production of rare products like dates and balsam in the area of Jericho (15.96).The phrase κτῆσις χρημάτων (“possession of wealth”) is common from Thucydides onward (e.g., 1.8.3; 1.13.1, also Dio Chrysostom 4.100; 55.9; Plutarch, Mor. [Lib. ed.] 4e, [Frat. amor.] 484c). Highlighting the importance of the Romans in a speech to the Jewish people also puts the focus upon Herod as the leader of the Jews (see also the continuation of the narrative: “the Romans … are my friends”), because the current friendship with the Romans was based upon the relationship between Herod and Augustus, who was the king’s Roman patron at this stage of his career (see Ant. 15.193, 195, 199, 217, 361 with notes; cf. 15.409). The friendship between the Romans and the entire Jewish people was, in fact, much older: the first treaty of friendship between the 2 nations dates from the period of Judas Maccabeus (1 Macc 8:17-32; Josephus, War 1.38; Ant. 12.419; see also War 1.48; Ant. 13.259-266; 14.143-148, 265-267, 320). The reference to the Romans’ friendship with the Jews as being the most important factor for the prosperity of the Jews may also be connected with Josephus’ broader purposes and his audience in Rome, in which case it would emphasize that the well-being of the Jewish people is highly dependent on a good relationship between Jews and Romans (for Josephus’ aim and purposes in Antiquities, see Mason 1998; 2003). The formula ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν (“so to speak, almost,” LSJ s.v. ἔπος II.4; Rengstorf s.v.) is unique in Josephus but common in Greek literature starting from Plato (Apol. 22d; Phaed. 66a; Heb 7:9; cf. Polybius 1.1.2; 1.64.3 etc.; Dionysius, Pomp. 6.4; Plutarch, Arist. 26.5; Rom. 9.7, and frequently in Philo, e.g., Det. 73; Opif. 13, 88). The noun ἔπος (“word”) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. This statement links up with Ant. 15.361 (see the note to “big”) about the greatness of Rome. Many passages in the Herod narratives of War and Antiquities support this point: Herod was a friend of his first patron, Mark Antony (War 1.386, 390; Ant. 15.131, 162, 183, 189, 195, 409), and afterwards a friend of Augustus (Ant. 15.193, 195, 199, 217, 361). The word “friend” has first and foremost a political meaning in this connection (see 15.5 with the note to “the friends around him”), although War 1.400 and Ant. 15.361, among other passages, also suggest that Herod had special relationships with Augustus and Marcus Agrippa. This detail may hint at Herod’s good relationship with Augustus. The Herod narrative of Antiquities mentions several times Augustus’ loyalty (εὔνοια) towards Herod. The report about Herod’s journey during which he successfully moved over to Octavian-Augustus as his patron (15.187-198) already mentions Octavian’s loyalty towards Herod (15.193-194). The report about Herod’s conflicts with the Gadarenes (15.351-359) likewise refers to this loyalty of the emperor (15.357). Another passage about the relationship between Herod and Augustus (15.361) also includes the term εὔνοια, but there the word means “affection” rather than “loyalty,” which presupposes a close relationship between both men. Concerning the loyalty of other Romans towards Herod, cf. 14.274 about Herod becoming friendly with Cassius. A few further passages emphasize the loyalty of Jewish leaders towards the Romans (War 1.284; Ant. 14.212, 384). For the phrase δι’ εὐνοίας (“out of loyalty”) in the context of friendship, see Thucydides 2.40.4. The verb παραμελέω (“disregard, overlook,” Rengstorf s.v.) occurs once elsewhere in Josephus (Ant. 10.90). I.e., subjection (δουλεία) to foreign rulers. Herod refers briefly again to the period following the return from Babylon, when the Judeans were subjected to the Persian rule. Herod presses home the point prepared for in Ant. 15.386 that the Temple renovated by him will outdo the Second Temple, which was smaller than Solomon’s because the Persian kings had determined its size. The connection is strengthened by means of the noun δουλεία echoing the participle δουλεύσαντες (“being subject”) found in 15.386. However, Josephus may hint at the same time at “slavery,” the more literal and common sense of δουλεία. Greek and Roman political discourses are full of the freedom—slavery dialectic. It also pervades Josephus’ War, in which δουλεία clearly means political enslavement in contrast to “freedom” (ἐλευθερία; see, e.g., the speech of Agrippa II in War 2.346-401 [Mason in BJP 1b on War 2.346, 349, 355-356] and 2.87, 259). The verb ἀποδίδωμι plus an object and an adjective means “make something (so and so)” (LSJ s.v. I.5). The noun εὐσέβεια (“[proper] worship”) is a key word in this speech and refers to the worship in the Temple (see Ant. 15.384, 386 with the notes to “pious and wonderful” and “proper worship”). Interestingly, Herod himself confirms here that he received his kingdom because of God’s interference, which is an important theme in the Manaemus episode (Ant. 15.373-379, especially 15.374-376; see 15.383 with the note to “with God’s will”).Building or enlarging a temple was a conventional way among rulers to express gratitude towards a patron deity. Thus Augustus expanded the temple of Apollo at Nicopolis (near Actium) following his triumph of 31 BCE; he also built a new temple for his patron deity on the Palatine Hill (Suetonius, Aug. 18.2; Cassius Dio 51.1.1-3).

Similar formula including ταῦτα and the aorist εἶπεν (or similar forms, “he/she said these things”) frequently conclude a passage of direct speech in Josephus (War 1.80, 84, 466, 598; 2.212, 474; 3.355, 403; 6.58; Ant. 1.317; 2.166, 287; 3.89; 4.35, 51, 194; 5.99; 6.22, 92, 174; 7.52, 221, 257, 271; 8.30, 229, 233, 245, 323; 9.37, 263; 10.178; 11.58, 95, 172, 336; 12.24, 271; 13.318; 18.186, 233, 338; 20.28, 60; Life 136, 388). The response to Herod’s speech matches the king’s awareness in Ant. 15.380-381 that the people had to be prepared for the huge enterprise of renovating and expanding the Temple.The phrase τοὺς πολλούς can also be translated with “the multitude” and links up with Josephus’ introduction of Herod’s speech in Ant. 15.382 (cf. τὸ πλῆθος in 15.381 and its note to “the mob”). Rengstorf (s.v.) gives “to come up (suddenly) for discussion” as meaning for ἐμπίπτω here (cf. Ant. 16.400). The rare phrase τὸ τῆς ἐλπίδος ἄπιστον (“the incredibility of his hoped for project”) echoes a passage in Euripides (Suppl. 479: ἐλπὶς γάρ ἐστ’ ἄπιστον “hope is delusive,” trans. Way; cf. Heliodorus 10.13.1). The adjective ἄπιστος (“incredible”) is repeated in Ant. 15.416, 425. The alliteration of the p sound in the phrase τὸ … τῆς ἐλπίδος ἄπιστον οὐκ ἐπήγειρεν adds emphasis to Herod’s daring project of renovating the Temple. I.e., the Temple, as specified in Ant. 15.389. The multitude apparently assumed that Herod would not succeed in rebuilding the Temple, such that a destroyed Second Temple would be the only outcome, which was totally unacceptable for most of Herod’s subjects.For a phrase related to πρὸς τέλος ἀγαγεῖν τὴν προαίρεσιν (“bring his plan to completion”), see Ant. 16.392 concerning Herod’s plan to execute his sons (τέλος ἐπιθεῖναι τῇ προαιρέσει “[he finally hastened now] to bring his plan to fulfillment”; cf. 12.110 and Hecataeus of Abdera, FGH 264 F 25.54 [ed. Jacoby 3A.37]; Diodorus 1.64.13; 14.17.2). The phrase τὸ μέγεθος τῆς ἐπιβολῆς (“the size of the enterprise”) is a variant of τὸ μέγεθος τῆς ἐπιχειρήσεως of Ant. 15.381 (note the repetition of μέγεθος). Once more the size of Herod’s Temple is emphasized. The adjective δυσεγχείρητος (“difficult to carry out/realize,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. The word is extremely rare; this is the only occurrence in literature before the 3rd cent. CE.

Phrases with a participle of διάκειμαι plus a personal pronoun and οὕτως (“person X being in a certain state/mood”) also occur elsewhere in Josephus (Ant. 3.83; 8.257; cf. War 3.184-185; Ant. 14.172). Ant. 3.83 summarizes the gloomy mood of the Israelites following God’s theophany at Mount Sinai (3.79-82), leading up to the climax of Moses’ comforting return (3.83). Here the phrase similarly marks a contrast between the mood of the people and that of their leader. The verb παραθαρσύνω/παραθαρρύνω (“encourage”) occurs in Josephus only in Antiquities (15 times). The introduction of Herod’s commander speech in 15.126 includes this verb, with Herod as subject. This phrase connects with the words καταλῦσαι τὸ πᾶν ἔργον (“tearing down the entire work”) of Ant. 15.388. Concerning the noun ναός denoting the inner sanctuary of the Temple, see 15.380 with the note to “sanctuary.” Herod responds self-confidently to the multitude’s fear that the Second Temple would be torn down and not rebuilt (as formulated in Ant. 15.388). Josephus’ clear-cut statement not only implies that Herod would be successful with his project but also anticipates the report about Herod’s renovation of the Temple (Ant. 15.391-421).Concerning the phrase οὐκ ἐψεύσατο (“he did not lie”) combined with the verb προλέγω (“promise”), cf. Xenophon, Ages. 1.29; Hell. 3.4.21; Libanius, Ep. 278.1.

This huge number of wagons may be exaggerated; it points, though, to the gigantic scale of Herod’s enterprise (cf. Ant. 15.380-381, 388). The claim becomes still more impressive if one takes into consideration the sizes of the stones (see 15.396). The round numbers 1,000, 10,000, and again 1,000 in this paragraph render it plausible that Josephus adapted or even invented them (but see the next note). The noun ἅμαξα (“carriage, wagon”) occurs in Josephus only in Antiquities (10 times). See the previous note. Warszawski and Peretz (1992) make a detailed estimation of the labor force needed for Herod’s Temple renovation, arguing that it involved 50,000 man-years of labor, such that a permanent crew of 7,000-8,000 laborers was employed, to which 2,000-3,000 extra workers have to be added for support and transportation. Hence the number of 10,000 laborers may be fairly adequate. In Ant. 20.219 Josephus mentions that when the renovation of the Temple was completed, during Albinus’ governorship (62-64 CE), 18,000 laborers became unemployed. Pastor (2003: 163) uses these numbers as the basis for his calculation that Jerusalem had a population of ca. 40,000 persons or more (see also 15.383 with the note to “as it did not have before”). The alliteration of the r, p, and m sounds in the phrase ἐργάτας δὲ μυρίους τοὺς ἐμπειροτάτους ἐπιλεξάμενος adds emphasis to Josephus’ note about the workers. Concerning the number of 1,000 priestly vestments (see the note to “a thousand wagons” above), cf. 1 Esd 5:44-45, which passage mentions that some heads of the families that returned from the Babylonian captivity vowed, when they came to the area of the Temple, that “they would erect the house on its site, and that they would give to the sacred treasury for the work a thousand minas of gold, five thousand minas of silver, and one hundred priests vestments.” The combination of ἱερατικός (“priestly”) and στολή (“robe”) occurs, apart from the History of Alexander the Great (Pseudo-Callisthenes), only in Jewish and Christian writings, including Josephus (Ant. 3.107, 279; 6.359; 8.93; 9.223; 15.403, also 6.359) and 1 Esd 4:54; 5:44; 2 Macc 3:15. This detail seems to indicate that Herod himself instructed the craftsmen, which contradicts the previous statement that Herod selected “the most experienced workers.” It may therefore mean that Herod took the initiative for these activities. However, although Herod is clearly the central figure in this section and presented as the main organizer, it is implausible that he executed some of the tasks himself (in contrast to what this passage and Ant. 15.391 seem to imply). Montacutius and Cotelerius read ἐπιτάξας (“commanding”) or διατάξας (“ordering”) instead of διδάξας (“instructing”), but there is no need to change the transmitted text (Niese 403; Marcus-Wikgren 188). The noun τέκτων does not necessarily mean “carpenter,” although most scholars assume this meaning in reference to the trade of Jesus’ father Joseph (Matt 13:55; Mark 6:3). The word can have a more general meaning like “craftsman” or “builder” (Rengstorf s.v.). Like 15.390, Ant. 7.66 mentions “builders” or “masons” (οἰκοδόμους) and “craftsmen” or “carpenters” (τέκτονας) together, in a reference to the building of King David’s palace in Jerusalem. Ilan (1998) argues that such analogies between Herod and David were created by Nicolaus of Damascus, whose work Josephus used as a source. The verb προευτρεπίζω (“make ready before, prepare [someone] for,” Rengstorf s.v.) occurs twice elsewhere in Josephus (Ant. 20.85, 136). It links up with the verb εὐτρεπίζω (“prepare”) at the beginning of this paragraph. The final sub-clause again adds emphasis through alliteration (of the p sound).

Although Josephus continues with a description of the renovation of the sanctuary, he first focuses on the new foundations since these were necessary for the entire Temple complex, Herod’s Temple being much larger than its predecessor and covering an area of more than 14 ha (Netzer 2006: 160; see also Ant. 15.381 with the note to “size of the enterprise”). This passage implies that the foundations of the sanctuary were replaced. The paragraph later connects this replacement with the danger of subsidence. The phrase … θεμελίους καὶ καταβαλόμενος ἑτέρους (“… foundations and laying other ones”) echoes Ant. 11.93, concerning Sanabasarus-Sheshbazzar, who laid the foundations of the Second Temple. The phrase τὸν ναὸν ἤγειρε (“he erected the sanctuary”) also occurs in Ant. 20.228, concerning Solomon erecting the First Temple. Niese (403), Marcus-Wikgren (188-89), and other scholars assume that several words are missing here. Dindorf indicates that the lacuna in the Greek text (see the previous note) begins after the word εἴκοσι (“twenty,” Niese [403]). This passage implies that the sanctuary’s height was 120 cubits. The Latin version (altitudine centum viginti [cubitorum]) confirms this height of 120 cubits (Niese 403). In War 5.207 (belonging to an elaborate passage about the Temple) Josephus indicates that the height and breadth of Herod’s sanctuary were 100 cubits, which matches m. Mid. 4.6 referring to a length, breadth, and height of 100 cubits (Netzer 2006: 143, 150, who concludes that these numbers are accurate). In War 5.36-37 Josephus mentions that King Agrippa II (50-92/93 CE) took preparations to expand the height to 120 cubits at the demand of the Jewish people and the leading priests. This height of 120 cubits matches the height of Solomon’s Temple according to Josephus’ calculation (see Ant. 15.385 with notes). War 5.215 mentions that the height of the inside of the sanctuary (from the ground floor to the top) was 60 cubits. Josephus seems to suggest that Agrippa II’s additional 20 cubits were meant to restore the original height of Herod’s sanctuary; the foundations had gone down in the course of time.The verb συνίζω (“sink, settle” [in relation to foundations], Rengstorf s.v.) occurs once elsewhere in Josephus (Ant. 4.51, with the meaning “sink,” referring to the earth opening up and swallowing those rebelling against God; cf. Num 16:31-32). Literally “this.” The “we” is surprising and may proleptically refer to the Jewish people and priests who decided to expand the height of the sanctuary by 20 cubits in Josephus’ day (War 5.36; see Ant. 15.391 with the note to “extra”; Marcus-Wikgren 190 n. a). This interpretation fits the reference to Nero’s reign (54-68 CE).

“White stone” (λευκός λιθός) is sometimes interpreted as denoting (white) marble (cf. Rengstorf s.v.), but the phrase need not refer to marble: Josephus mentions twice that various buildings in Herod’s harbor city of Caesarea were made of white stone (War 1.408, 414); the archaeological findings show that most of them were made out of local kurkar, which was plastered and sometimes also provided with stucco (Patrich 2007: 100-01). Josephus states that Solomon’s Temple and palace were built of white stone (Ant. 8.64, 139; see also War 7.286 concerning Masada; Ant. 12.230 concerning the Trans-Jordanian palace of the Tobiad Hyrcanus; 13.211 concerning the mausoleum of the Maccabees; and 20.221-222 concerning Solomon’s Temple and the paving of Jerusalem). In War 5.190 Josephus explicitly refers to white marble in connection with the pillars of the Temple porticoes (μονόλιθοι λευκοτάτης μαρμάρου). The masonry for the Temple was quarried in the area of Jerusalem and mostly consisted of hard limestone known as meleke (“royal”; Netzer 2006: 160-02). These sizes are huge; 25 cubits are more than 12 m (ca. 37.5 ft). In War 5.163 Josephus gives this same number of 25 cubits for the length and breadth of the Hippicus Tower and in 5.190 for the height of the pillars of the Temple porticoes. He refers to even higher numbers in connection with the stones of the sanctuary: some of them were 45 cubits long, 5 cubits high, and 6 cubits wide (5.224), while the stones of the foundation measured 40 cubits (5.189). The largest stone found so far, at the western side north of Wilson’s Arch, is 12 m long, 3 m high, and ca. 4 m thick (the weight of this stone is estimated at 400 metric tons, Patrich 2009: 50).

Josephus switches to a description of the entire Temple complex by taking a panoramic viewpoint. He first focuses on the sanctuary (cf. the sentence beginning with καὶ παντὸς αὐτοῦ [literally “of the entire of it [i.e., the sanctuary]”]) in the way it would appear to somebody looking down on it from one of the neighboring hills, e.g., from the Mount of Olives (cf. the continuation of this paragraph; for Josephus’ use of space as a narrative tool, see van Henten and Huitink 2012). After offering a picture of the sanctuary Josephus zooms in on other specific parts of the complex. The shape of the sanctuary is compared to a lion in m. Mid. 4.7. In War 5.208 Josephus mentions 100 cubits as the height and width of the sanctuary’s front and notes that the building was 40 cubits less wide behind the front. Josephus uses the phrase ἡ βασίλειος στοά (“the Royal Portico”) only here and in Ant. 15.411, when he is giving a detailed description of this portico (15.411-416; see also War 5.220-221). The name derives perhaps from the fact that Herod ordered this portico to be built, possibly as a compensation for the fact that he, as a non-priest, could not enter the inner enclosure of the sanctuary (Netzer 2006: 170). Since this explanation faces the problem that Herod ordered the construction of the other porticoes as well, we may think of another reason: the name of the portico may be connected with its function, Herod may have been meeting with people as king in the portico (cf. Pausanias 1.3.1 concerning the district of Cerameicus in Athens: “First on the right is what is called the Royal Portico, where sits the king when holding the yearly office called the kingship …,” trans. Jones; Simons 1952: 401 with n. 1; Schalit 2001: 382 with n. 810).The name “Royal Portico” is common in Greek literature (e.g., Aristotle, Ath. pol. 7.1; Demosthenes, Or. 25.23; Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 4.20), but the form of Herod’s colonnaded hall (see the description in Ant. 15.411-416) is that of a Roman civil basilica (i.e., an oblong colonnaded hall; Netzer 2006: 165-71). The oldest specimens of such halls date from the 2nd cent. BCE (e.g., the Basilica Porcia in Rome, built in 184 BCE). Herod’s Royal Portico may, therefore, have had a similar function as a Roman basilica, i.e., assembling people for the sale of sacrificial items, money changing, and court meetings (Patrich 2009: 61-62, 68-69 with references). I.e., the sanctuary itself, which stood within the priestly court. It is described in greater detail in Ant. 15.421-423. For another occurrence of περίοπτος (“highly visible”) with persons in the dative as the indirect object, see War 3.232 concerning the brave self-sacrifice of Eleazar during the capture of Jotapata-Yodfat (“his bravery was visible for all,” trans. Thackeray). The ancient length measure of the stadion (στάδιον) equals ca. 185 m (see Ant. 15.168 with the note to “stadia”). Josephus thus clearly indicates that the sanctuary was visible from a long distance. Josephus refers here to the countryside (χώρα) of Jerusalem (see Ant. 15.293 with the note to “countryside”). Josephus is evidently speaking about the dominant presence of the Temple from his own experience. “To live opposite” the Temple would visually apply best to people living in the Upper City, to the west of the Temple. One can also think of people living on nearby hills (see also the first note to this paragraph), especially at the City of David, the Mount of Olives, or Mount Scopus. From all these locations, which are higher than the Temple Mount, the sanctuary was a clear focal point. This note continues the evocation of a visual experience, this time that by travelers approaching Jerusalem by one of the ancient roads, e.g., the roads coming from Joppe-Jafo, Samaria, Jericho, Antipatris, or Beersheva (Beauvery 1957; Wilkinson 1975; Har-El 1981; Roll 1983; Fischer, Isaac, and Roll 1996).

Josephus resumes his tour along the marvels of the Temple. The reference to “the doors at the entrance” takes the perspective of someone standing in front of the sanctuary, viewing through the vestibule unto the doors of the sanctuary. There was a portal without doors in the front side of the vestibule and 2 sets of folding doors at its end side, giving access to the sanctuary. These doors measured 55 x 16 cubits according to Josephus (War 5.211) and 20 x 10 cubits according to the Mishnah (m. Mid. 4.1; Netzer 2006: 148). Josephus must be referring to these doors (see also the next notes). The vestibule is described in greater detail in War 5.208-209.Josephus’ description of the sanctuary’s entrance foregoes the entrance to the vestibule (i.e., the portal without doors), perhaps because a position right in front of the sanctuary seems to be the point of departure for the description. This portal measured 70 x 25 cubits according to War 5.208 and 40 x 20 cubits according to m. Mid. 3.7. It was the sanctuary’s main source of light. The word ὑπερθύριον (“lintel,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. According to the height of the sanctuary given in Ant. 15.391, the doors (together with their lintels) that gave access to the sanctuary would thus have been 120 cubits high. However, other sources give the height of the sanctuary as 100 cubits (see 15.391 with the note to “extra”). The noun ἐμπέτασμα (“curtain”) occurs once elsewhere in Josephus (Ant. 12.318). Several MSS read ἐκπέτασμα (literally “that which is spread out,” Rengstorf s.v.), which is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. The related and more elaborated passage of War (5.212) mentions 1 curtain (καταπέτασμα) hanging in front of the doors, being as long as the doors and woven in various colors (cf. ποικίλοις [“multicolored”] in Ant. 15.394 with ποικιλτός [“woven in various colors”] in War 5.212), including purple. Josephus interprets the 4 colors (white, violet, scarlet red, and purple) mentioned in War symbolically (5.213-214). The curtains were placed every morning in front of the doors of the sanctuary (Netzer 2006: 151). The noun ἄνθος is poly-interpretable here: it can mean “flower” or “floral design” as well as “(brilliant) color” (Rengstorf s.v.; cf. Marcus-Wikgren 193, who translate “[with purple] colours”). Cf. Josephus’ description of the priestly robes, which have flowers woven in to them (ἄνθη … ἐνύφανται), embroidered with scarlet and purple together with hyacinth and fine linen (Ant. 3.154). The curtain of the Tabernacle also has all kinds of flowers on it (3.126: ἄνθεσι παντοίοις). The word ἁλουργής (“purple, purple-colored”) occurs twice elsewhere in Josephus (Ant. 8.183 referring to purple-colored garments sent as a gift to Solomon and 17.197 referring to the purple cover of Herod’s bier). Niese minor (322) notes that the reading ἐνυφασμένους (entailing a rather loose connection between the curtains and the columns) transmitted by the MSS is corrupt. The editio princeps offers the reading ἐνυφασμένοις and implies that the curtains had (a design of) columns woven into them, which is the most plausible case and which may be inspired by Josephus’ description of the Tabernacle: in Ant. 3.124 he states that 5 golden pillars (κίονες; cf. κίονας in 15.394) stood at the entrance of the Tabernacle: “In front, through which they had made the entrance, stood golden pillars, resting on bronze bases, five in number. They covered the Tent with curtains (ὕφεσι) of fine linen in which purple, hyacinth, and scarlet hues were blended” (trans. Feldman in BJP 3; cf. Exod 26:32). The Latin version refers to golden flowers surrounding the relevant columns (aureos flores ambientes columnas, Niese 403).

The translation follows Selden’s conjecture (below). The MSS, with one minor exception, read τριχώμασιν (from τρίχωμα “[heavy] hairiness,” Rengstorf s.v.; one further occurrence in Josephus: Ant. 1.258; see also Euripides, Iph. taur. 73). Since this word does not make sense, it is most probably corrupt. Selden (Niese 403) conjectures θριγχώμασιν (“cornice,” LSJ s.v. θρίγχωμα; LSJ [Suppl. 72] give the spelling θρίγκωμα; cf. Plutarch, Mor. [Quaest. conv.] 685b), which is taken over by Niese minor 322 (with a variant spelling); LSJ s.v. θρίγχωμα; Marcus-Wikgren 190 and others. Here Josephus refers to 1 golden vine, while in the parallel passage of War (5.210) he mentions that golden vines covered the sanctuary’s vestibule (εἶχε δὲ καὶ τὰς χρυσᾶς ὑπὲρ αὐτῆς ἀμπέλους). Tacitus (Hist. 5.5) confirms the singular form and rejects the interpretation made by some that the vine implies that the Jews venerated Bacchus. The Mishnah also mentions 1 golden vine (m. Mid. 3.8), from which leafs and berries donated by visitors were hanging.The vine at the entrance of the sanctuary may imply that Herod’s architects were familiar with the Neo-Attic vine-scroll motif, which was introduced during Augustus’ rule and became an integral part of the ornamental repertoire of the Corinthian style in the Imperial period. It was used in entablature friezes and soffit panels and sometimes also in capitals and great panels (e.g., in the Ara Pacis). Vine scrolls are displayed in the friezes of several Augustan temples, including the temple of Mars Ultor on the Augustan forum in Rome (Emerick 1998: 242-44).The application of a Roman architectural convention does not exclude the possibility that the vine had at the same time a symbolic meaning, although we can only speculate about this by comparing it with Jewish and non-Jewish parallels. Designs of vines and grapes were used in several Jewish contexts: they are found on tombs, ossuaries, coins, and later also in synagogues (Michel-Bauernfeind 2.253-54; Hachlili 2005: 46-47, 133-46, 154-55, 289; Patrich 1993-94). Symbolic interpretations often focus on the association of Israel with a vine, attested in several biblical passages (e.g., in Ps 80:8-19 Israel is the vine brought from Egypt by God, also Jer 2:21; Hayward 1996: 161). Ezek 17:5-10 probably links a vine with the Judean king Zedekiah. Goodenough interprets a vine found at Palmyra as symbolizing the anticipation of future life (1953-68: 6.67-68) and he associates the vine at Herod’s Temple with the ritual of drinking wine (1953-68: 5.103). In Matthew’s version of the New Testament parable of the wicked tenants the vine imagery symbolizes the Kingdom of God, focusing on the fruits produced by the vineyard: “Therefore I [i.e., Jesus] tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a people that produces the fruits of the kingdom” (Matt 21:43).Associations of golden vines with the power of rulers are found in various non-Jewish contexts. In Ant. 14.34-36 Josephus reports that Aristobulus II sent a golden vine worth 500 talents to Pompey, who was on his way to Coele-Syria. Josephus states that Strabo confirms this gift (although Strabo refers to either a vine or a garden) and that he himself has seen this gift in the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus (14.36). As precious decorations golden vines were also part of the royal paraphernalia of the Persian kings, the precise symbolic meaning of which is unknown according to Kuhrt (2007: 473). Briant (2002: 236-37), however, argues that the vines functioned as symbols of fecundity and refers in this connection to a dream of the Median king Astyages shortly after his daughter Mandane had married the Persian Cambyses I (Herodotus 1.108). In the dream a vine grew from Mandane’s private parts and spread over Asia. The Magi interpreted this as predicting that Mandane’s son would usurp the Median throne. Herodotus (7.27) also records that an extremely rich Lydian, called Pythius, offered to the Persian king Darius a golden plane tree and a golden vine. Diodorus (19.48.7) relates that Antigonus Monophthalmus found a golden climbing vine in the citadel of Susa after he had captured this stronghold in 316 BCE. Pseudo-Callisthenes (3.28.10-14) relates that one of the buildings belonging to the palace of the Persian king in Egypt contained a golden eagle and a golden vine. The bunches of grapes (βότρυες) are also mentioned in War 5.210 (for m. Mid. 3.8, see the previous note). The verb ἀπαιωρέω (“hold up, let hang down”; “hang down” in the passive voice) occurs once elsewhere in Josephus (Ant. 11.234, in another context). The verb is first and foremost attested in the middle/passive voice; its active voice is found in Josephus (11.234) and Alciphron (LSJ s.v.). A passive form in combination with βότρυς also occurs in Gregory of Nyssa, Vit. Mos. 2.267 (ed. Daniélou 288). Josephus uses a similar combination of both magnitude (μέγεθος) and artistry (τέχνη) when describing the remarkable sight of the statues of the gods in Vespasian’s triumphal march in Rome (War 7.136). The detail τοῖς ἰδοῦσιν (“those who saw”) once again suggests that Josephus is attempting to visualize the Temple for his readers (see the first note to Ant. 15.393). In both War and Antiquities Josephus emphasizes several times that Herod’s building projects used expensive materials (cf. πολυτέλεια [“costliness”] in War 1.401 concerning Herod’s restoration of the Antonia fortress; 1.418 concerning the Phasael Tower; 2.49 concerning the colonnades of the Temple; Ant. 15.199 concerning the 150 residences in Jerusalem; and 15.268 concerning the amphitheater in Jerusalem). The phrase πολυτέλεια τῆς ὕλης (“costliness of material”) also occurs in Ant. 12.77, concerning the table of shewbread donated to the Temple by Ptolemy II Philadelphus (cf. also Philo, Spec. 1.276).

The noun νεώς/ναός usually refers to the sanctuary. Since this paragraph focuses on the entire Temple complex, Simons (1952: 392) argues that ναός has a wider meaning here (and perhaps also in Ant. 15.401). Nevertheless, Josephus’ statement still makes sense if the word refers to the sanctuary, which was located more or less in the middle of the porticoes along the outer walls. Josephus switches the view from the sanctuary to another part of the Temple complex, the colonnades along the walls. On the south side stood the more elaborate Royal Portico (mentioned in Ant. 15.393), while the other 3 sides had double colonnades (see also War 1.401; 5.190 and cf. Ant. 8.98; Netzer 2006: 164-71). It is not exactly clear what the phrase ἅπαντα πρὸς τὴν ἀναλογίαν ἐπιτηδεύων means. The noun ἀναλογία (“[mathematical] proportion,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus and has a range of further meanings (“[grammatical] analogy, relation, resemblance,” LSJ s.v.). The Royal Portico on the south side was larger and more elaborate than the 3 porticoes on the west, north, and east sides (see Ant. 15.411-416). These latter 3 porticoes all looked identical and consisted of double colonnades with a width of ca. 15 m and a height of ca. 12.5 m; their lengths varied in accordance with the differing lengths of the outer walls of the Temple complex, on which they were standing (calculations by Netzer 2006: 164, based on Josephus’ measures given in War 5.190-192; see also the previous note and 15.381 with the note to “the immense size of the enterprise”). On the basis of War 6.166 and the lack of evidence that Herod used roof tiles, Netzer (2006: 164 with n. 97) argues that the roofs of the 3 porticoes were flat, but this is far from conclusive. At the northwestern corner the Antonia Fortress was attached to the wall, while at the other 3 corners the walls had higher and wider sections (Netzer 2006: 163-64). This comment clarifies the introductory remark in Ant. 15.380 that Herod’s construction of God’s sanctuary was “his own” (or built “by himself”) since it shows that he financed the project. In taking care of the expenses for the Temple construction Herod apparently surpassed the investments of the builders of the First and Second Temples. If the notice specifically concerns the payment of the porticoes, as the context suggests, it may also mean that the Temple had (partial) colonnades in its earlier stages (Netzer 2006: 165 n. 100). Other Josephan passages likewise emphasize that Herod spent great sums of money on his projects (15.330, 332, 341; 16.13, 24, 154, 182; cf. also 15.274). The problem here is to what the word ἄμφω (“both”) refers. The immediate context speaks about 2 items: the sanctuary and its surrounding porticoes. The simplest reading is therefore that “both” refers to the sanctuary and the porticoes, implying that both were “with a wall” or “with the wall” (according to MS P; see the next notes). The word “both” is sometimes interpreted as referring to 2 colonnades (e.g., Marcus-Wikgren 193; Meijer-Wes 3.207), but that would be at odds with the information that all 4 sides of the Temple complex had colonnades along the wall. If the linking of “both” with colonnades is nevertheless correct, it perhaps refers to the double rows of columns in the porticoes on the west, north, and east sides (the Royal Portico had 4 rows of columns); War 5.190 indicates that all the porticoes had double rows of columns: “All porticoes (αἱ στοαὶ πᾶσαι) had double rows (διπλαῖ) …” (trans. Thackeray). There is still another explanation: in Ant. 20.221 Josephus attributes the construction of the eastern portico to Solomon (see also War 5.184-185; the passages John 10:23; Acts 3:11; 5:12 also refer to “Solomon’s Portico”; see also Ant. 15.401 with the note to “double portico”). This would imply that Herod built only 2 double porticoes (the porticoes on the north and west sides; communication by Prof. Joseph Patrich [Jerusalem], see also Simons 1952: 401). According to the Latin version 2 porticoes were supported by large walls (porticus autem duae maximis parietibus fulciebantur, Niese 404) Niese minor (322) notes that the transmitted Greek text is corrupt. Marcus-Wikgren (192 n. 2) state that a verb is missing after ἦσαν. The translation follows Niese (404), who reads μετὰ τοῦ τείχος with MS P. The other MSS read μεγάλου τείχος (“of a big wall”), which probably derives from the reading of MS P, changing the first τ into γ and the second τ into λ. Marcus-Wikgren (192) conjecture μετὰ μεγάλου τείχος (“combined with a big wall”), supposing a case of haplography, which is unlikely. In Ant. 15.396-400 Josephus focuses on this surrounding wall, another conspicuous item of the Temple complex (Netzer 2006: 162-64). The sanctuary was standing on a platform surrounded by an outer wall; the porticoes were standing on that wall (Busink 1970: 68). Constructing the wall of the Temple complex must have been an enormous project because Herod had to expand the plateau on which the Temple was standing; the shape of the Temple Mount had to be adapted before the wall could be built, as Josephus indicates in the next paragraphs.Concerning the phrase ἐργον μέγιστον ἀνθρώποις ἀκουσθῆναι (“[the wall itself] was the greatest work heard about by humans”), cf. Aelius Aristides, Pan. Cyz. (τὸ ἐργον μέγιστον τῶν εἰς ὂψιν ἐλθόντων ἀνθρώποις, ed. Dindorf 1.382).

I.e., the Temple Mount. Josephus switches his focus once again, concentrating now on Herod’s adaptation of the hill. The adjective ἀνάντης (“uphill, steep,” LSJ s.v.; “sloping upwards,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. War 5.184 indicates that the hill was precipitous and steep (κατάντης) from all sides. The verb ὑπτιόομαι (“slope upwards,” a verb always used in the passive, Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. It is extremely rare and attested before Josephus only in Aeschylus, Pers. 418-419 (“the hulls of our vessels rolled over [ὑπτιοῦτο] …,” trans. Smyth). The attribute ἠρέμα (“gentle”) hardly matches the rockiness and difficult access of the Temple Mount that Josephus emphasizes elsewhere, but the word is adequate if it refers to the situation after Herod’s adaptation of the hill, when the Temple became easily accessible from the east side (see Ant. 15.410). The Temple was located in the eastern part of the city. The adjective ἑῷος (“eastern”) occurs 5 times in Josephus, 4 of which belong to Ant. 15-17 (War 7.293; Ant. 15.397, 401, 411; 17.255; note that 15.401 and 15.411 also concern the description of the Temple).

The reference to Solomon as “our king” implies that Josephus associates himself with the Jewish people and at the same time that his audience included non-Jews. In Ant. 1.5-12 Josephus identifies himself as a Jewish (or Judean) spokesman to the non-Jewish (or non-Judean) world (further discussion by Mason in BJP 3 xvii-xx). Josephus here interrupts his visual tour of the Temple and inserts a short excursus about the construction of the outer wall (Ant. 15.398-400) in order to give his readers further reasons to admire Herod’s extraordinary project, although he starts with Solomon, the builder of the First Temple. Solomon’s and Herod’s building activities were partly identical: both kings had to create a platform on which the Temple complex could stand, but Herod’s platform was considerably bigger; he expanded the platform (having already been expanded by the Hasmoneans) to the north and south and more modestly to the west, but not to the east (Sanders 1994: 56; Netzer 2006: 160). Simons (1952: 394, 397) argues that Josephus presents Solomon’s Temple as the model for Herod’s (see also 15.385 with the note to “in height”).The MSS read ὁ πρῶτος ἡμῶν βασιλεὺς Σολομών (“our first king Solomon”), which is incorrect since Saul was the first king of the Israelites (1 Sam 9-10). Holwerda therefore suggests to erase the article ὁ (Niese 404), so that πρῶτος can be interpreted as “[our King Solomon] first” (see also Marcus-Wikgren 192 n. b). The noun ἐπιφροσύνη (“wisdom, inspiration,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. Niese (404) leaves out the words τοῦ θεοῦ (“from God, God’s”) after κατ’ ἐπιφροσύνην because they are absent in MS P. However, they are attested by the other Greek MSS and the Latin version. The words make explicit what is probably intended by MS P as well, namely that Solomon adjusted the Temple Mount according to God’s wise plan. The expression κατ’ ἐπιφροσύνην θεοῦ (“according to God’s wisdom”) occurs twice in Philo (Agr. 169; Mos. 1.85; cf. Migr. 123; QG 3.18; Sobr. 18). Perhaps “fortification works” (with LSJ s.v. ἐργασία II.5). In order to get a rectangular platform Solomon had to flatten the top of the hill and to add enormous amounts of soil and stones at the foot. Since there is no change of subject in the Greek text, the subject must be Solomon (if the transmitted text is reliable). However, given that the gigantic stones are obviously more typical of Herod’s platform (cf. Ant. 15.392), Herod would make a better subject for this clause. Such a change of subject is possible if one follows Holwerda’s conjecture (see the note to “first king Solomon”). Simons (1952: 394) argues that the Greek text originally mentioned Herod as subject. The walls were built of ashlars laid in courses of 0.75-1.40 m high (on the average 1-1.2 m). There were courses of headers, courses of stretchers, and mixed courses (a “header” is a brick laid in such a way that only its end is visible; a “stretcher” is a brick laid so that its side is visible). The lengths of the headers were usually 0.80-1.10 m, while those of the stretchers 2-4 m. The largest stone, found in a course ca. 10 m below the platform level, was more than 12 m long and 3 m high (Netzer 2006: 162). Instead of the reading ἡλιβάτοις (“huge, steep,” Rengstorf s.v.) attested by MS M, MSS PLW read κατὰ λίβα ταῖς (“in/to the southwest the …”; similarly the Latin version), which makes no sense (Simons 1952: 394 with n. 1) and may derive from the reading ἡλιβάτοις. The adjective ἡλίβατος is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. This detail is not supported by the archaeological findings: the outer wall surrounding the Temple was most probably built dry, without any bonding materials, neither lead nor iron; there is no bonding material whatsoever seen on the extant remains of the entire outer wall (Netzer 2006: 162; communication by Prof. Joseph Patrich, Jerusalem). The detail may have been added by Josephus to emphasize the strength of the walls.The word μόλιβδος (“lead,” LSJ s.v.: μόλυβδος) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus, but there are several close cognates (War 5.275; 6.278; 7.299; Apion 1.307). To the east of the Temple complex lies the Kidron Valley, which is called a “deep ravine” (βαθεῖα φάραγξ) in War 5.70 (cf. 5.141; Ant. 14.57, 61) and “the eastern ravine” in Ant. 15.411. It is a steep valley running from north to southeast and south of the Temple complex (see also the description in 20.221 referring to the Temple’s eastern portico: “This portico was part of the outer temple, and was situated in a deep ravine [κειμένη ἐν φάραγγι βαθείᾳ],” trans. Feldman). Niese (404) and Marcus-Wikgren (192) read ἀπολαμβάνων αἰεί τι (“taking something continuously from”) with Hudson’s conjecture. The present translation is based on the reading ἀπολαμβάνων αἰεί τε (“and taking continuously from”) of MSS PFLAMW, which is elliptical (the object—soil or stones—is implied). The archaeological analysis shows that the builders moved blocks of stone (communication by Prof. Joseph Patrich, Jerusalem).

The reference to the square dimension of the Temple complex implies that Josephus returns here to his visual description, as the next clause explicitly says. Standing in front of one section of the wall, one indeed perceived the complex as a square structure owing to the high and vertical wall and to the flat surface of the wall on which the porticoes were standing. A view from one of the hills nearby would also imply a square appearance because the platform was more or less rectangular with corners of ca. 90 ° (cf. in War 6.311 Josephus states that when the Antonia was demolished the Jews turned the Temple into a square [τετράγωνος] construction). This comment is accurate if one takes the actual size of the Temple complex into account (see Ant. 15.381 with the note to “the immense size of the enterprise”). On the sizes of the stones, see Ant. 15.398 with the note to “huge stones” (about the material of the stones, see 15.392 with the note to “white and mighty stones”). The phrase κατὰ τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν (“at the surface”) occurs twice in Josephus: here and in the next paragraph. Once more Josephus invites his readers to take the perspective of somebody standing in front of one of the marvels of the Temple, this time before its outer wall (see the note to “square” above as well as Ant. 15.394, 401 with notes). Josephus returns here to his excursus on the construction of the Temple wall and the platform. The verb διασφαλίζομαι (“secure [firmly],” Rengstorf s.v.) occurs once elsewhere in Josephus (War 4.442, in a military context). In contradistinction to Josephus’ remark about the huge stones of the precinct being connected by lead in Ant. 15.398 (which may refer to Solomon’s Temple), Josephus states here that the stones of the outer Temple wall were joined together by iron (σίδηρος). Archaeology reveals, though, that the ashlars were laid next to each other without any binding material (see 15.398 with the note to “bound together with lead”). The noun ἁρμογή (“joining, joint,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus.

I.e., the construction of the wall. The word ἐργασία (“work”) also occurs in Ant. 15.398. In both cases it means “construction, construction (work)” (Rengstorf s.v.). Josephus rounds off his excursus on the construction of the Temple wall and moves on to the top of the complex, on which the sanctuary was standing. The noun λόφος (“hill, mountain”) also refers to the Temple Mount in Ant. 15.397. The context implies that the top of the Temple Mount was leveled (see Ant. 15.398 with notes), although it is uncertain whether the verb ἀπεργάζομαι has the specific meaning of “level”; it can mean, among other things, “finish, complete” (LSJ s.v.; Rengstorf [s.v.] offers “level off, plane” as meanings here). The empty space between the wall and the top of the hill had to be filled up in order to construct the flat platform on which the sanctuary was standing (see the next sub-clause). The adjective ἰσόπεδος (“of the same level, equally high,” Rengstorf s.v.) occurs twice elsewhere in Josephus, both times in connection with the Temple (War 5.197 concerning the inner court of the sanctuary; Ant. 8.97 referring to the platform of Solomon’s Temple). For the description of a similar procedure in connection with the construction of Solomon’s Temple, see Ant. 8.97, which passage shares the words φάραγξ, βαθύς/βάθος, ἰσόπεδος, and κορυφή with 15.400. Note the alliteration of the p sound in this clause. According to the context the phrase τὸ πᾶν περίβολος (“the entire enclosed area”) would not refer to the entire Herodian Temple precinct (differently Simons 1952: 395, who argues that the clause must refer to the outer wall of the Temple). The indications that the circumference was 4 stadia long and that each side was 1 stadion long (see the next note) do not fit the measures of the entire complex (see the next note and cf. War 5.192 mentioning 6 stadia). Josephus probably describes the leveled enclosed area at the summit, which was confined by a barrier, the sôreg (m. Mid. 2.3; see Ant. 15.417 with the note to “stone partition”), and surrounded the sanctuary of the Temple and the ăzārâ (the Priests’ Court). The adjective πᾶν should therefore be understood in a relative sense, referring to the “entire” area within this barrier (Netzer 2006: 140). Patrich (2011) argues that this space corresponds to the area created by the High Priest Simeon the Just that is mentioned in Sir 50:2 in a reference to the renovations Simeon made to the Temple: “He [i.e., the High Priest Simon] laid the foundations for the high double walls, the high retaining walls for the temple enclosure (ἀνάλημμα ὑψηλὸν περιβόλου ἱεροῦ).” The porticoes that Simon built around this Temple “enclosure” are identical with the sôreg surrounding the precinct. Josephus refers to the precinct forbidden to the Gentiles (probably Simeon’s precinct) as a περίβολος in Ant. 12.145. This area was surrounded by porticoes (12.141). It was fortified by Judas Maccabeus, destroyed by Antiochus V, and refortified by the Hasmonean leader Jonathan (13.181; see also 14.5 and cf. the plural τοὺς τῶν ἁγίων περιβόλους in War 4.182). The ancient length standard of the Greek stadion (στάδιον) has several conversions (see Ant. 15.168 with the note to “stadia”). If it equals ca. 185 m here, in line with the Roman stadium, the complex was square and ca. 185 m long and wide. A similar square form is mentioned in m. Mid. 2.1, referring to a length and width of 500 cubits (= ca. 222 m according to the Roman cubit, or ca. 261 m according to the royal or Egyptian cubit), which measure equals the size given in Ezek 45:2 for the square plot around the sanctuary. Busink (1970: 63 with n. 400) argues that the size of the square form in Ant. 15.400 is taken from Ezek 45:2, despite the fact that Ezekiel mentions 500 cubits, whereas 1 stadion equals roughly 400 cubits. Busink (1970: 38-39) and Schalit (2001: 376) argue that the 4 stadia concern the size of Solomon’s Temple. For a discussion of the area that may be referred to, see the previous note. The measure of 1 stadion (equaling 185 m) deviates considerably from the length of every side of the Temple complex based upon archeological data (see Ant. 15.381 with the note to “enterprise”). The notion of a square surface is valuable, though: looking from one of the hills opposite the eastern wall, e.g., from the Mount of Olives (see 15.393 with the note to “The sides of the entire [sanctuary]”) one has the impression that the complex was square. Some sources do suggest such a square construction (e.g., m. Mid. 2.1; see the previous note). Nevertheless, since the measure of 1 stadion hardly fits the real measures of the Temple complex, the reference apparently concerns a smaller square area, most probably the area forbidden to the Gentiles (see the note to “the entire enclosed area”).

I.e., within the “enclosed area” mentioned in Ant. 15.400. The same verbal form περιθεῖ (from περιθέω, “run about/around”) occurs in Ant. 15.398 referring to the deep ravine. Since the verb occurs elsewhere in Josephus only in War 1.412; 4.223; Ant. 3.140, the present case may be another example of Josephus’ practice of re-using a word in a short space and then dropping it (see Mason in BJP 9 lii-liii). This was the inner, rectangular enclosure, called ăzārâ in Hebrew, which surrounded the sanctuary, the Court of the Priests, and the Court of the Men and was located to the west of the Court of the Women (Netzer 2006: 142-59; cf. Simons 1952: 395). If the bîrâ (“fortress”) mentioned in Neh (2:8; 7:2) refers to this area, there may have been already such a wall from Nehemiah’s time onward (as argued by Patrich 2011: 569). In War 5.196 Josephus mentions that this wall was 25 cubits high measured from the inside and 40 cubits high measured from the surface of the outer court. I.e., the side of the wall at the eastern ridge of the Temple Mount, which is confirmed by the final subclause of this paragraph. The word ῥάχις (“ridge,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. This description implies that the eastern wall around the inner court (ăzārâ) included a double portico, which is confirmed by the Mishnah mentioning 2 roofed strips facing the sanctuary on the east side, which were both 11 cubits broad and 135 cubits long and were called the Court of Israel (ăzārat yiśrā’ēl) and the Court of the Priests (ăzārat hakkōhănîm; m. Mid. 2.5-6; see also Ant. 15.419 with the note to “third precinct”). The roofs of both strips must have been supported by a portico each, which matches Josephus’ reference to a double portico (I owe this reference to Prof. J. Patrich, Jerusalem). The rather specific phrase στοά διπλή (“double portico,” i.e., a portico with a double colonnade, like the porticoes standing on the northern and western walls of the Temple; see 15.396 and War 5.190) occurs twice elsewhere in Josephus: in Ant. 8.98 it refers to the porticoes of the (outer) precinct of Solomon’s Temple; in War 5.190 to the porticoes on the walls of Herod’s Temple. There is evidence for another portico, probably from the Hasmonean period, which was located on the inside of the eastern outer wall, on a lower level than the Herodian court (the Herodian eastern wall was an extension of the Hasmonean precinct). Josephus attributes this portico to Solomon (Ant. 20.220-221). It is mentioned several times in the New Testament as “Solomon’s Portico” (Patrich 2011: 570; see also 15.396 with the note to “Both”). The adjective ἰσομήκης (“equally long,” Rengstorf s.v.) occurs twice elsewhere in Josephus (see War 1.425 concerning the portico of Antioch’s main street, which was financed by Herod, and 5.212 concerning the curtain at the entrance of the Temple sanctuary). The construction of the inner enclosure with the Court of the Women in front of it must have looked symmetrical. For somebody standing on the east side, in front of the gate of the inner enclosure or the gate of the Women’s Court, the sanctuary was in the middle of the enclosure (see Netzer 2006: 142-45, with a reconstruction of the plan of the inner enclosure on pp. 144-45). Concerning the doors of the sanctuary, see Ant. 15.394 with the note to “doors at the entrance.” This detail confirms that it concerns the eastern part of the wall of the inner enclosure, which had a gate that enabled someone to see the entrance of the sanctuary. The center of that eastern wall formed a straight line with the entrance of the sanctuary’s vestibule (see also the previous note). The verb κατασκευάζω means “decorate” here (Rengstorf s.v.; see also Ant. 15.318). The fact that former kings had contributed something to the decoration of this portico implies that it already existed before Herod’s renovation (Simons 1952: 395). Non-Jewish kings honored the Temple with gifts, as several biblical and Hellenistic-Jewish passages indicate: the First Book of Kings mentions gifts by King Hiram of Tyre and the Queen of Sheba (1 Kgs 7:13-46; 9:11-14; 10:1-10). 2 Macc 3:2 reports that foreign kings honored the Temple and glorified it with the finest presents during the High Priesthood of Onias III (see also War 2.412-413; Let. Aris. 42, 51-82; 2 Macc 2:13; 5:17; Philo, Legat. 157, 317-319).

Cf. the inscriptions and trophies in Augustus’ honor, which were located “all around” (κύκλῳ) Herod’s theater in Jerusalem (Ant. 15.272). Josephus switches his perspective once again, which is also apparent from the vocabulary: in the previous paragraph he uses the word ναός/νεώς (“sanctuary,” referring to the sanctuary within the inner enclosure of the Temple; see Ant. 15.380 with the note to “sanctuary”), while here he uses the word ἱερόν (“temple,” referring to the entire Temple complex). Hence the spoils were located at accessible areas along the outer walls. Such spoils (σκῦλα) were usually weapons taken from enemy soldiers, or reliefs (i.e., trophies) representing spoils (Diodorus 14.29; Plutarch, Tim. 29.6; see also Ant. 15.272 with the note to “trophies” and the next note). Or “from barbarians.” The spoils were apparently taken from non-Jews and put in or near the Temple already before Herod’s time (Simons 1952: 395). They commemorated the Jews’ military victories over foreign enemies (cf. Herod’s defeat of the Nabateans mentioned in the next sentence and described in Ant. 15.147-160). The adjective βαρβαρικός (“of speaking a foreign language, pertaining to a foreign people,” Rengstorf s.v.) sometimes has the pejorative meaning “barbaric.” It has this meaning in War 4.45, in which passage it includes the Jews. The only other occurrence in Josephus is Ant. 1.93, referring to foreign histories written by non-Greeks. Here the word seems to have a neutral meaning (“foreign,” i.e., “non-Jewish”). In some instances Josephus re-interprets the common distinction between Greeks and foreigners/barbarians (Ἕλληνες—βάρβαροι) as a differentiation between Jews and non-Jews (see the noun βάρβαρος in Ant. 15.136 and van Henten 2011a).For the phrase σκῦλα βαρβαρικά (“spoils from foreigners”), see Plutarch, Tim. 29.6 and cf. Euripides, Elec. 7; Diodorus 14.29.4. Josephus does not specify the exact location of the spoils. Netzer (2006: 165 n. 100) argues that they were affixed to the rear wall of the colonnades (mentioned in Ant. 15.396) or to the outer faces of the surrounding walls of the Temple complex. Herod is mentioned several times with his label “King” in this section (see also Ant. 15.404, 409, 420). About this title referring to Herod, see 15.1 with the note to “captive,” 15.5 with the note to “gold,” and 15.9 with the note to “king.” An alternative translation would be “dedicated [to God]” (with Simons 1952: 395 n. 2). The verb ἀνατίθημι can mean, among other things, “set up, set up as (a votive offering)” or “offer (a gift to God)” (Rengstorf s.v.). The last meaning occurs frequently in Josephus (e.g., Ant. 3.219 and 6.192, 244 referring to Goliath’s sword dedicated to God by David; cf. 1 Sam 21:9; see also War 1.357; Ant. 7.104, 108; 8.259; 14.488 and Apion 2.48 referring to votive offerings to God by Ptolemy III Euergetes in order to commemorate a victory over the Seleucids). Since Josephus is describing the location of the spoils, the meaning “set up as (a votive offering)” seems more plausible. This probably refers to the spoils that Herod took from the Nabateans during the decisive battle against them (Ant. 15.147-160).

The viewpoint remains on the outside of the Temple, focusing now on the Antonia Fortress (Ant. 15.409) located on the north side of the precinct. Josephus also mentions the Antonia in 15.406, 424 (for further information about this fortress, see 15.292 with the notes to “Antonia” and “built by himself”).The phrase ἡ βόρειος πλευρά (“the north side”) does not occur elsewhere in Josephus (but see Hecataeus of Abdera, FGH 264 F 25.63 [ed. Jacoby 3A.43]; Diodorus 1.64.8; Strabo 2.1.14, 27). The word εὐερκής (“strongly fortified,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. Herod’s predecessors, i.e., the rulers of the Hasmonean dynasty (see the next note), were exceptional because they were both the political and religious leaders of the Jews. The key document about the Hasmonean ideology of rulership is the honorary decree for Simon and his sons transmitted in 1 Macc 14:25-49 (set in 140 BCE). Simon the Hasmonean is not called a king in this decree, but the document presents his power in the ideological framework of the Hellenistic kings. It reconfirms that Simon was the Jews’ political and military leader as well as their High Priest (14:35, 38, 41-42). 1 Macc 14:41 reports the Jews’ decision to appoint Simon to these positions forever, or at least, “until a trustworthy prophet should arise” (further discussion in van Henten 2001; 2007b). The noun Hasmonean (’Ασαμωναῖος, also War 1.19, 36; Ant. 11.11; 12.265; 14.490-491; 16.187; 17.162; 20.190, 238, 247, 249) refers to a member of the dynasty of the Jewish Hasmonean leaders, who were also called “the Maccabees” (e.g., Eusebius, Dem. ev. 8.2.93). The latter name derives from Judah/Judas the Maccabee, one of the members of this family, while the name Hasmonean derives from Hashmon, the great-grandfather of the priest Mattathias who began the rebellion against the Seleucids (Ant. 12.265; further references in Schürer-Vermes 1.156-242; Sievers 1990; van Henten and Joubert 1996). 1 Maccabees describes how this family rebelled against Antiochus IV, starting with Mattathias’ refusal to participate in a sacrifice ordered by Antiochus (1 Macc 2:15-28, also Ant. 12.265-272). Mattathias belonged to the priestly tribe of Yehoyarib (1 Chr 24:7). 1 Maccabees is the most important source for the first 3 generations of the Hasmonean dynasty (i.e., Mattathias, his 5 sons [including Judas], and John Hyrcanus [one of Mattathias’ grandsons]). Josephus describes their rules in Ant. 12.265-14.491. Goldstein (1976: 17-20) argues that the absence of the name Hasmonean from 1 Maccabees implies that it had a derogatory connotation. Differently in Ant. 15.292 (see the note to “built by himself”). The former name (Baris) of the fortress also occurs in War 1.75, 118, 353; Ant. 13.307; 14.481; 15.409; 18.91-92. It derives from the Greek noun βᾶρις, which means “large house, tower, stronghold” in Hellenistic-Jewish passages (see 2 Chr 36:19; Dan 8:2 in Theodotion’s version; Josephus, Life 246; LSJ s.v. 2; GELS s.v.). It sometimes corresponds to the Hebrew/Aramaic noun bîrâ (“fortress,” e.g., Ezra 6:2; Neh 2:8; Esth 8:14; see Ant. 15.401 with the note to “wall”). Contrary to 15.292 Josephus here seems to identify the Baris Fortress with the Antonia (see 15.406), which is incorrect according to Ritmeyer (see 15.292 with the notes to “Antonia” and “built by himself”). The phrase ἱερατικός στολή (“priestly robe”) also occurs in Ant. 15.390 (see the note to “priestly robes”; cf. 15.405: ἱερὰ στολή). For similar vocabulary, cf. 18.93: τῆς στολῆς τοῦ ἀρχιερέως ἀποκειμένης. The High Priest wore magnificent garments during the performance of his priestly duties. Biblical and non-biblical passages offer descriptions of his vestments (e.g., Exod 28; Sir 45:7-13; 50:5-11; Philo, Mos. 2.109-126, 135). Josephus describes them in War 5.231-236; Ant. 3.159-187 (details in Feldman in BJP 3 on Ant. 3.159-187). On the Day of Atonement the High Priest wore a simpler, but still costly, white garment (Lev 16:4; Josephus, War 5.136; Schürer-Vermes 2.276 n. 7).

Exactly the same title (Ἡρώδης ὁ βασιλεύς) occurs in War 2.266 in a reference to Herod’s construction of Caesarea Maritima (see also Ant. 15.409 and in general Goodblatt 1998: 19-23). Ant. 15.404-409 offers a proleptic excursus about the location where the high priestly garments were kept and about those having the authority over them. The Antonia was the safest place in the Temple area. In Ant. 18.91-92 Josephus reports that the Hasmoneans kept the high priestly garments in the Antonia (see also 15.403 and cf. 15.292 with the note to “built by himself”) and that they were the custodians of them. Herod retained them in the fortress and apparently acted as their custodian until his death (see also the next note). Otto (1913: 111-13) and Schalit (2001: 312-13) argue that taking custody of the high priestly garments was part of Herod’s strategy to control the priesthood and the Temple (with its treasury). I.e., in 4 BCE (or 1 BCE or 1 CE). On the one hand Josephus states here that the high priestly robe was under the control of the Romans starting from Herod’s death (without specifying whether this was directly after the king’s death) until Tiberius’ day (see the last note to this paragraph). On the other hand in Ant. 18.93 he reports that Archelaus kept the garments in the Antonia as his father had done and that the Romans took over the supervision when they removed Archelaus from his office (in 6 CE), which seems more plausible. Ant. 15.405 implies that the Romans guarded the high priestly garments starting from Herod’s death up to Vitellius’ visit (cf. the previous note). Ant. 18.93-94 offers additional information: the Romans apparently removed the garments from the Antonia and kept them in a stone building (the vocabulary is clearly different from that referring to the Antonia). Ant. 15.406 (see the note to “Antonia”) likewise implies that another location is meant. During their stay in this building the seal of the priests and the treasurers protected the garments. Ant. 18.93-94 further implies that the Romans restricted the use of the garments to the 3 main holidays (i.e., Passover/Pesach, Pentecost/Shavuot, and Tabernacles/Sukkot) and to the Day of Atonement (Schürer-Vermes 1.379). The emperor Tiberius ruled from 19 August 14 CE to 16 March 37 CE (Kienast 1996: 76-79). His full name was Tiberius Claudius Nero (for other references to him in Josephus, see Schalit 1968: 118).

I.e., the reign of Tiberius (see the previous note). Lucius Vitellius was born before 5 BCE and died in or after 51 CE. He was the youngest son of Publius Vitellius, a knight from Luceria (in Southern Italy). He served as a steward under Augustus and became close with Antonia, the daughter of Mark Antony and the widow of Augustus’ adoptive son Drusus, which granted him access to the imperial court. He was consul in 34 CE and appointed governor of Syria in 35 CE (Ant. 18.88; Tacitus, Ann. 6.32, 41). He suspended Pontius Pilate as governor of Judea in the winter of 36/37 CE, or in the subsequent spring, and was recalled to Italy by Caligula, probably in 39 CE (Schürer-Vermes 1.262-63, 386-88; Eck 2002b; Mahieu 2012: 405-07). Vitellius is mentioned frequently in book 18 of Antiquities (references in Schalit 1968: 94; see also 15.407 with the note to “Vitellius”). The word ἡγεμών means “governor of a province” here (Rengstorf s.v.). Syria became a province of Augustus in January 27 BCE, from which time on Augustus and his successors appointed its governor, who was called a legatus (“envoy [of the emperor]”; Millar 1993b: 31-32; for Vitellius, see the previous note as well as Ant. 18.88; for the Roman province of Syria, Millar 1993b: 31-38). This visit must have taken place soon after Pontius Pilate’s deposition as governor in 36/37 CE. Ant. 18.90 and 18.95 offer a slightly more elaborate description of the visit and connect it with the Feast of Passover (probably in 37 CE, with Schwartz 1990: 62, 64; differently Mahieu 2012: 404-05: Passover 36 CE). For a similar combination of the verb ἐπιδημέω (“visit for a while, sojourn”) and τοῖς Ἱεροσολύμοις, see Life 200. Similarly Ant. 18.90, with different vocabulary. Josephus does not explain why Vitellius received a splendid reception from the Jerusalemites. It was perhaps due to Vitellius’ good reputation as an administrator. If Mahieu’s argumentation (2012: 407) is correct that Vitellius came to visit Palestine because the tetrarchy of Herod’s son Philip had recently become an annex to the province of Syria, the Jerusalemites may have welcomed him as the new ruler of an adjacent, related district. This detail remains implicit in Ant. 18.90. This request may have been given in by a wish for autonomy in religious matters; its approval would allow the High Priest to use his garments every day and not only during the 3 main festivals and on the Day of Atonement (see Ant. 15.404 with the note to “Romans”).The vocabulary here (τὴν ἱερὰν στολὴν ὑπὸ τὴν αὑτῶν ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν “have the priestly robe under their own authority”) is almost identical to that of Ant. 20.7 concerning a request to Fadus (see 15.406). In 18.90 Josephus formulates the change concerning the high priestly garments in slightly different terms, indicating that the garments and ornaments would be kept in the Temple under the custody of the priests, as had been the case before. He further adds that Vitellius also remitted the taxes on the sale of agricultural products. Such a letter is not mentioned in Ant. 18.90, which paragraph merely states that Vitellius agreed that the High Priest’s garments and ornaments would be kept in the Temple under the custody of the priests. A letter to the emperor may not have been strictly necessary, but it was common practice for governors to request the emperor for advice, and for emperors to send out instructions (mandata) to governors, whether or not as responses to requests (Goodman 1997: 109-10). The words ἐξουσία (“authority”) and στολή (“robe”) also occur in the request of the Jerusalemites previously formulated in this paragraph (see also Ant. 20.7). Other passages imply that King Agrippa I is meant here. This is the first reference to Agrippa I in Antiquities. He figures prominently in book 18 (references in Schalit 1968: 3; cf. War 2.178-220). Agrippa was the grandson of Herod and Mariamme I, and the son of Aristobulus IV (who was executed together with his brother Alexander by Herod) and Berenice (War 1.552). He was born in 11 or 10 BCE and was educated in Rome, where he became close with Tiberius’ son Drusus. In 37 CE Caligula gave him the tetrarchy of Philip and that of Lysanias and allowed him to use the title “king.” Gaius Caligula added Herod Antipas’ tetrarchy to Agrippa’s territory in 39 (or 40) CE (Mahieu [2012: 272-73] argues for 39 CE). Claudius appointed him king of Judea and Samaria in 41 CE, such that his territory became basically the same as that of his grandfather Herod the Great (further information in Schürer-Vermes 1.442-53; Schwartz 1990; Kokkinos 1998: 271-304). Agrippa’s death is described in Josephus (Ant. 19.343-352) and Acts (12:19-23). These passages show strong similarities: both suggest that a flattering crowd deified Agrippa, that he did not reject this, and that his painful death was a consequential, divine punishment (Acts 12:23 states that his body was eaten by worms). Most scholars argue that Agrippa died in Caesarea Maritima in March 44 CE during or shortly after a festival in honor of the emperor (e.g., Schwartz 1907: 262-67; Schürer-Vermes 1.452-53; Smallwood 1976: 199; Kokkinos 1998: 300-02). Schwartz (1990: 107-11, 145-49) argues for an earlier date, between September/October 43 CE and January/February 44 CE, by preference at the beginning of this period, when the quadrennial festival founded by Herod the Great would have been celebrated in Caesarea (see Ant. 16.138). Kokkinos (1998: 302 with nn. 134-35) criticizes Schwartz, noting that Agrippa was still alive when Marcus Julius Alexander, the husband of his daughter Berenice, died (A.J. 19.277), while Alexander died after 25 January 44 CE. On the basis of an ostracon from Myos Hormos dated between 26 May and 25 June 44 CE and referring to Marcus Julius Alexander, Mahieu (2012: 172-74) argues against March 44 CE; she proposes early August 44 CE as the probable date of Agrippa’s death. For other references to Agrippa’s death in Josephus including the verb τελευτάω (“die”), see Ant. 18.194; 20.1, 9, 15.

Literally “after this (one),” i.e., after Agrippa I. G. Cassius Longinus was the governor of Syria from 44/45 until 49/50 CE, being the successor of Vibius Marsus. He was a famous jurist and a consul suffectus in 30 CE (Schürer-Vermes 1.264). He is also mentioned in Ant. 20.1, together with a reference to the death of Agrippa I (see also 20.7). The verb διοικέω means “be governor” or “administer” here (see the next note and Rengstorf s.v.). On the office of the governor of Syria, see Ant. 15.405 with the note to “governor of Syria.” After the death of Agrippa, Cuspius Fadus was sent as a procurator to Judea (War 2.220). He was succeeded by Tiberius Julius Alexander, most probably in 46 CE. For the scarce information about the cognomen Fadus and the family name Cuspius, see Mason in BJP 1b on War 2.220 with the note to “Cuspius Fadus.” In Ant. 19.363-366 Josephus reports that one of the reasons for sending Fadus to Judea was preventing the Syrian governor Marsus, who had had a conflict with Agrippa, to be present in Judea. Fadus is also mentioned as the procurator of Judea (ὁ τῆς ’Ιουδαίας ἐπίτροπος) in Ant. 20.2, 97. Josephus mentions the same episode in Ant. 20.6, specifying that Fadus sent for the chief priests and the leaders of the Jerusalemites and urged them to deposit the full-length tunic and the sacred robe (τὸν ποδήρη χιτῶνα καὶ τὴν ἱερὰν στολήν) of the High Priest in the Antonia under the authority of the Romans. I.e., the Fortress Antonia, where Herod had previously kept the robe (see Ant. 15.404 and for further references, 15.292 with the note to “Antonia”). This implies that the Jews kept the high priestly garments at another place during the interval between Vitellius’ (see 15.405) and Fadus’ governorships, or even during the interval between the rule of Herod the Great or his son Archelaus and that of Fadus. Ant. 18.93-94 seems to confirm this: the Romans apparently removed the high priestly garments from the Antonia and kept them in a stone building (the vocabulary concerning this building is clearly different from that referring to the Antonia here). Schwartz (1990: 64-65) argues that Fadus wished to restore the status quo ante, i.e., the situation before Vitellius’ concession and adds that Fadus probably had a political motive for doing so: the control of the high priestly garments was an important means to supervise potentially dangerous competitors.

The Greek infinitive construction indicates that it concerns indirect speech by Longinus and Fadus. They are expressing their reason for returning the authority over the priestly garments to the Romans. This point of view implies that Longinus and Fadus were of the opinion that the Roman rule over Judea included the control over the garments of the High Priest, who was the most important Jewish leader following Agrippa’s death. In retaking this authority they undid the concession made by Vitellius (see Ant. 15.405). Cf. Ant. 20.6, in which case Josephus only mentions Fadus and suggests that Fadus wanted to restore the previous situation (see the note to Vitellius further on in this paragraph about Schwartz’ interpretation of the events; cf. καθὼς καὶ πρότερον ἦσαν [“as they were before”] here with καθὰ δὴ καὶ πρότερον ἦν [“as they had been in the past”] in 20.6). The article is missing in the Greek text, although one would expect it since Josephus is referring to “the Jews” (τοὺς ’Ιουδαίους) in the previous paragraph. Implied articles are quite common in Josephus (e.g., War 1.1, 151, etc.). Without the article the text literally means “[some of the] Jews,” which does not fit the context because it is implausible that envoys were sent by some of the Jews. In the majuscule MSS the article (ΟΙ) may easily have been left out by haplography in the reading ΟΥΝΟΙΙΟΥΔΑΙΟΙ (I owe this explanation to Omert J. Schrier, Amsterdam). MS P has a long lacuna, starting from this sentence (which in the Greek text begins with πέμπουσιν) until the end of Ant. 15.408, such that it completely lacks the section about the Jews’ petition. I.e., the emperor Claudius (41-54 CE), whose full name at birth was probably Tiberius Claudius Drusus (Kienast 1996: 90-92) and at his accession Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus. Claudius is mentioned frequently in War 2 and Ant. 19-20 (references in Schalit 1968: 75). The verb παρακαλέω (“petition, appeal to”; see Rengstorf s.v.; Mason in BJP 9 on Life 62; and the next note) with the emperor Claudius as object occurs with a slightly different meaning in Ant. 20.9 about Agrippa II entreating Caesar (παρακαλεῖ τὸν Καίσαρα). The authority over the high priestly garments must have been a sensitive matter, which is confirmed by the more elaborate version of this episode in Ant. 20.6-14 (see below).The phrase “petition … about these matters (περὶ τούτων παρακαλέσοντας)” links up with the Jews’ request to Vitellius (15.405) through the repetition of the verb παρακαλέω (“beseech, appeal to,” among other meanings). Since Longinus and Fadus wanted to undo the concession made by Vitellius, the Jews petitioned the emperor. According to 20.7 the chief priests and the leaders of the people petitioned (παρεκάλουν) Fadus and Longinus. The latter had come to Jerusalem with a large force out of fear that the Jews would revolt. Fadus and Longinus allowed the Jewish leaders to send a delegation to Rome and accepted to wait for the emperor’s decision on the condition that their children would be hostages of the Romans (20.7-8). I.e., the envoys in Rome. I.e., Agrippa II. Agrippa II was the son of Agrippa I and Cyprus (War 2.220). His full name was Marcus Julius Agrippa. He was born in 27/28 CE and educated in Rome in Claudius’ house (Ant. 19.363; 20.9, 12), so that he knew the emperor quite well. Most scholars conclude that Agrippa II died in 92/93 CE, but Kokkinos argues on the basis of Photius (Bibl. 33), inscriptions, and numismatic evidence that he died in 100 CE. Claudius wanted to give Agrippa II the kingdom of his father at the latter’s death in 44 CE, but Agrippa II was considered to be still too young (Ant. 19.360-362). In 50 CE (according to Kokkinos [1998: 318] in late 48 CE) Claudius appointed Agrippa II King of Chalcis and also granted him the right to nominate and depose the High Priests. In 53 CE he gave him the tetrarchy of Philip (Batanea, Trachonitis, and Gaulanitis) as a replacement for the kingdom of Chalcis. Nero added the cities of Tiberias, Tarichea, and Julias (with their surrounding areas). Agrippa II is mentioned frequently in War 2-3, Ant. 20, and Life (references in Schalit 1968: 3). During his early years in Rome he used his excellent connections at the imperial court to support the cases of Jews (apart from this passage, see also Ant. 20.134-136 concerning the conflict with Cumanus and the Samaritans; further discussion and references about Agrippa II in Schürer-Vermes 1.471-83; Kokkinos 1998: 317-42, 396-99). Agrippa II, who was probably ca. 16 years old at the time of this petition, lived in Rome until he received the kingdom of Chalcis (see the previous note). I.e., the authority (ἐξουσία) over the high priestly garments (see Ant. 15.405-406 with notes). The same request appears in 20.9. This implies that Claudius restored the situation as implemented by Vitellius, which is confirmed by Ant. 20.12 (about Vitellius’ concession, see 15.405). Josephus does not inform us of Claudius’ motive; it was probably his good relationship with Agrippa II (see the note to “who happened to be in Rome” above). The reference to Vitellius as the governor of Syria, found in all the MSS, is anachronistic: Vitellius was no longer governor of Syria at the death of Agrippa I (in 43 or 44 CE; see Ant. 15.405 with the note to “until King Agrippa died”); Caligula (37-41 CE) had replaced him by Publius Petronius (Ant. 19.316; 20.1; Schürer-Vermes 1.263), probably in 39 CE (see Ant. 15.405 with the note to “Vitellius”). Vitellius became a very prominent administrator in Rome: he was consul in the years 43 and 47 CE and took care of the government during Claudius’ invasion of Britain in 43 CE (Suetonius, Vit. 2; Eck 2002b). Schwartz (2013: 34-36) notes that the Greek text is authentic, but wrong. Josephus either is mixing up the governor Vitellius with another governor (the Syrian governor Longinus, mentioned in Ant. 15.406, or the Judean procurator Fadus, 20.9, 14), or he is referring to Vitellius’ actions in Rome. The first option is confirmed by the more elaborate parallel passage found in 20.6-14, in which Josephus connects Longinus and Fadus with the petition (20.7, as the context of 15.407 likewise implies; see 15.406). Ant. 20.6-14 quotes a letter from Claudius (20.11-14), which refers to the emperor’s instructions to Fadus about this matter (20.14) and to the precedent set by Vitellius (20.12). The latter passage perhaps caused the confusion of Vitellius with Longinus/Fadus. Niese (405) reads ἀντιστρατήγῳ (“propraetor, someone who acts as governor,” LSJ s.v. ἀντιστράτηγος) with MS W, which reading reflects the official title of the governor of Syria, i.e., legatus Augusti pro praetore (in Greek πρεσβευτής Σεβαστοῦ ἀντιστράτηγος; Mason 1974: 106-08). The other MSS read ὄντι στρατηγῷ (“being governor”; στράτηγος means, among other things, “governor of a province,” Rengstorf s.v.). The one reading can easily have resulted from the other by an exchange of the first letters α and ο (in either direction).

It is not immediately clear which period is meant by Josephus. If the adverb “previously” links up with Ant. 15.404 (concerning Herod storing the high priestly robe in the Antonia), Ant. 15.408 would refer to the period before Herod’s rule. If the word is connected with the immediate context (15.407), it has to refer to the period before Claudius granting the Jews themselves the custody of the high priestly garments, probably to Vitellius’ concession (see 15.405 with the note to “under their own authority” and 15.406 with the note to “in the Antonia”). I.e., the robe of the High Priest (see Ant. 15.406 and 18.93). The seal guaranteed that the robe remained in its protected place until it was removed by those entitled to do so, as the continuation of the narrative indicates; the seal assured the priests that nobody had touched the high priestly robe while being stored (cf. the subsequent reference to the treasurers inspecting the seal before picking up the robe). The sealed storage place may also have been important to the Romans by ensuring that the robe was not taken elsewhere (cf. Longinus’ fear that the Jews would revolt because of Fadus’ request to bring the high priestly robe and tunic under the Romans’ control, Ant. 20.7). Dan 6:17 describes a similar purpose for King Darius’ seal (an imprint of the king’s signet ring in clay); it prevented that someone would open the lion’s den (and interfere with Daniel’s punishment) before the king ordered to open it. The parallel passage found in Ant. 18.93 has a slightly different formulation and refers to the seal of the priests (ὑπὸ σφραγῖδι τῶν τε ἱερέων). Likewise in Ant. 18.93. Josephus refers here to the treasurers (γαζοφύλακες) of the Temple, who were of priestly decent (11.136) and in charge of the treasury of the Temple (τὸ γαζοφυλάκιον, Neh 10:38; 1 Macc 14:49; 2 Macc 3:6; John 8:20). In Herod’s Temple the treasury, which consisted of a cluster of magnificent storage rooms, was located on the north side of the Court of the Women (War 5.200; cf. Ant. 19.294; m. Šeqal. 6.5-6). For the treasurers, see the previous note. Ant. 18.94 indicates, with similar vocabulary, that the robe was removed from its storage 7 days before one of the main festivals and on the Day of Atonement (see Ant. 15.404 with the note to “under the supervision of the Romans”). Until the First Jewish-Roman War one auxiliary Roman force was stationed in Judea, recruited from non-Jewish local inhabitants, e.g., from Samaria and Caesarea Maritima (Schürer-Vermes 1.362-67). One cohort was stationed in Jerusalem, with a tribune or commander of 1,000 (χιλίαρχος) as its commander (War 2.11, 224; John 18:12; Acts 21:31; see Mason in BJP 1b on War 2.224 with the note to “cohort”). This commander is probably identical with the φρούραρχος (“commander of a garrison”) mentioned here and in Ant. 18.93-95 (Schürer-Vermes 1.366). Since the Antonia Fortress was the quarters of this cohort (War 5.244), the present sentence may imply that the robe was stored in the Antonia, as it had been during Herod’s rule. Ant. 18.94 indicates that the commander of the garrison returned the robe to the priests and treasurers before the festivals (see Ant. 15.404 with the note to “Romans”). The robe was then purified, before the High Priest put it on. Ant. 18.94 mentions with partially the same vocabulary (τῆς ἑορτῆς and αὖθις) that the High Priest himself returned the robe. Josephus does not specify the location, but the reference to the commander of the Roman garrison stationed in Jerusalem may imply that it concerns the Antonia (see Ant. 15.404, 407 with notes), in contradistinction to 18.93-94 referring to a stone building apparently different from the Antonia (see 15.404 with the note to “under the supervision of the Romans” and 15.406 with the note to “Antonia”). In the light of the previous information this description implies that a new seal, identical to the previous one, was attached to the storage place to guarantee that the robe would remain in its place.

With this sentence Josephus rounds off the digression found in Ant. 15.404-409 about the storage of the high priestly garments.For the verb παραδηλόω (meaning, among other things, “mention in passing”), see 15.103 with the note to “intimating.” The excursus of Ant. 15.404-409 indicates that the authority over the high priestly garments was very important to the Jews and their leaders (see 15.405, 407 with notes), such that the switch from Jewish to Roman authority—as described in the previous paragraphs—must have been painful for them, which engenders the translation “painful experiences”; the noun πάθος can have many nuances (Rengstorf s.v.). Other renditions of πάθος that fit the context well are “disaster, misfortune,” meanings which occur several times elsewhere in the Herod narrative of Antiquities (e.g., 15.57, 142). Landau (2006: 169) characterizes this passage as a short intervention creating anticipation and suspense. Josephus reveals the most important aspects of these events in the summary found in Ant. 15.404-409. He deals more elaborately with them in 18.92-95 and 20.6-14, i.e., at the proper places (according to a chronological order). With this time marker Josephus returns to the description of Herod’s renovation of the Temple, focusing once again on the Antonia, which has been mentioned already in Ant. 15.403. The royal title ὁ τῶν ’Ιουδαίων βασιλεύς Ἡρώδης links up with Herod’s title mentioned in Ant. 15.404 (Ἡρώδης ὁ βασιλεύς). The 2 titles together form an inclusio concerning the digression about the High Priest’s garments. The expression “this fortress” refers back to the fortress mentioned in Ant. 15.403. Josephus uses the common noun βᾶρις (“fortress”), which at the same time also alludes to the “Baris” Fortress (later renamed “Antonia”; see 15.403). The protection of the Temple at its north side was Herod’s most important security concern because that side lacked a natural protection (like the Kidron Valley on the east side) and a city wall (as a defense line). The plain located north of the Temple turned that side into the obvious place to start an attack on the Temple. The remark that the Antonia was to protect the Temple differs from the motif highlighted elsewhere that Herod constructed fortified places in order to protect himself from the Jewish people (e.g., Ant. 15.291, also 15.292, in which case the Antonia is mentioned as well, and 15.296, 298).The combination of ἀσφάλεια and φυλακή (“security and protection”) also occurs, in various contexts, in War 3.440; 5.484; Ant. 5.57, 90; 11.156; 14.169; 15.295. See Ant. 15.292 with the note to “Antonia.” I.e., Mark Antony (see Ant. 15.5 with the note to “Antony”). In War 1.401; Ant. 18.92 Josephus likewise notes that the fortress was named Antonia as a token of Herod’s friendship with Antony. The phrase χαριζόμενος … ’Αντωνίῳ (“as a favor to Antony”) also occurs in Ant. 14.383, concerning Octavian doing a favor to Antony in agreeing with Herod’s appointment as king. Mark Antony was actually Herod’s “friend” (we would say “patron”; see Ant. 15.5 with the note to “Antony”). For Herod being a political “friend” of Antony, see 15.5 with the note to “the friends around him,” and for other references to this friendship, War 1.386; Ant. 15.131, 162, 189; 18.92. At the same time this friendship was also a close personal relationship (15.161-162, 183, 189). Mark Antony was one of the triumvirs following Julius Caesar’s death and the most powerful Roman official in the East during the years before the Battle of Actium (in 31 BCE; see Ant. 15.5 with the note to “Antony”). Braund (1984: 119 n. 65) notes that it is remarkable that Herod did not rename the fortress after Antony’s defeat by Octavian. Herod apparently did not want to cover up his previous great loyalty to Antony (cf. also War 1.387-389; Ant. 15.187-196).

The viewpoint in the description switches from the north side of the Temple complex to its west side. The combination of ἑσπέριος and μέρος (“western section,” here in the plural) also occurs in Apion 1.67 concerning the Ibyrians occupying a large section of the western world (τοσοῦτο μέρος τῆς ἑσπερίου γῆς). The word περίβολος refers to the entire Temple complex here, as in Ant. 15.380 (see the note to “precinct”) and 15.417 (cf. 15.420). This description is confirmed by archaeological evidence (Netzer 2006: 172-73; Patrich 2009: 59-61). The gates can be identified (from north to south) as Warren’s Gate, the gate above Wilson’s Arch, Barclay’s Gate, and the gate above Robinson’s Arch (see the next notes). This remark perhaps refers to Herod’s palace in the western section of the city, at the location of the 3 towers Hippicus, Phasael, and Mariamme. The western and northern walls of that palace were incorporated into the city wall of the west side of Jerusalem. Netzer (2006: 172) argues that the palace meant is the Hasmonean palace, located opposite the Temple Mount, which is plausible since the text implies proximity between the gate (see the next note) and the palace. The gate that gave access to the Hasmonean (or perhaps Herod’s) palace has not been preserved. It was called the Coponius Gate in antiquity and located at the spot where the Gate of the Chain has been since the time of the Crusaders. The passageway connecting the Temple with the royal palace crossed the Tyropoeon Valley (the Valley of the Cheesemakers [see Ant. 15.318 with the note to “the Upper City”], War 5.140) to the west and south-west of the Temple complex. Remains of a viaduct are still visible at the place where a bridge ended in Herod’s time. This bridge served as a major connection between the Temple and the Upper City (Netzer 2006: 172). The viaduct, dating from after 70 CE, is called Wilson’s Arch after its discoverer, Sir Charles Wilson (Marcus-Wikgren 198 n. a). The verb ἀπολαμβάνω (“take from, receive”) in the passive voice probably has the not very common meaning “bridge, traverse” here (Rengstorf s.v.). These 2 gates are Warren’s Gate (the most northern gate, located 230 m north of the Temple Mount’s southwest corner and ca. 50 m north of Wilson’s Arch) and Barclay’s Gate (located south of Wilson’s Arch and ca. 80 m north of the Temple Mount’s southwest corner, Netzer 2006: 172-73). Both gates were located in the lower parts of the outer wall, accessible to pedestrians walking down the shop-lined avenue (see the next note). Warren’s Gate was already damaged in antiquity, but the corridor leading directly up from it to the paved square around the sanctuary is still extant. It was 5.5 m wide and ca. 26 m long and contained a flight of stairs, following the slope eastward up to the Temple platform (Netzer 2006: 172). Barclay’s Gate gave access to the square around the sanctuary through a corridor being 5.8 m wide. After ca. 21 m heading east from the gate, it continues southward for more than 13 m. The huge monolithic lintel (7.5 m long and 2.1 m high) above the gate has survived and can still partly be seen near the southeastern corner of the western wall (Patrich 2009: 59-60 with illustration 32). Archaeological evidence confirms that both gates, being lower than the ones at Wilson’s and Robinson’s Arches, opened on to the lower avenue with shops that ran along the western wall of the Temple complex (Patrich 2009: 59-60 with a drawing), which avenue led from the city to the suburb (τὸ προάστειον) of Bezetha, located north of the city wall in Herod’s time (Simons 1952: 58). I.e., the gate above Robinson’s Arch, which was 15.5 m wide (Ritmeyer 2006: 46) and located directly opposite the west end of the Royal Portico (see Ant. 15.411). The arch known as Robinson’s Arch was a huge monumental stairway that connected the Temple complex with the avenue that ran along the foot of the western wall. It was built on arches and included several shops. The continuation of the description implies that Josephus is referring to the City of David on Mount Ophel, located south of the Temple (see also the next notes). The phrase ἡ ἄλλη πόλις (“the rest of the city, the other city”) also occurs in War 5.335; 6.413; Ant. 20.165. The stairs on Robinson’s Arch first descended in a westerly direction and then made a turn to the south, going down to the Tyropoeon Valley. I.e., the Tyropoeon Valley referred to a few lines earlier (as “the ravine in the middle”). In its southern direction the passage, after crossing the Tyropoeon Valley, went uphill again and provided access to the City of David. Sections of a Herodian street leading from Robinson’s Arch to the Pool of Siloam (located in the very south of the City of David) have been excavated (Patrich 2009: 59, 62, 65). Viewed from the western wall the main city was indeed situated opposite the Temple. This is another example of a simile that helps the reader to imagine the specifics of a location described by Josephus (cf. the comparison of Gamla with the back of a camel in War 4.5 and that of Herodium with a woman’s breast in Ant. 15.324; see the note there to “form of a breast”). The comparison makes sense if the Temple is seen as the stage of the theater. The adjective θεατροειδής (“theatric,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus, but the word does occur in non-Jewish contemporary authors (Posidonius, FGH 87 F 70; Diodorus 2.10.2; 16.76.2; 19.45.3; 20.83.2; Strabo 4.1.4; 9.3.3; 14.2.15; 16.2.41). This ravine is the Hinnom Valley, located south of Jerusalem. The phrase βαθεῖα φάραγξ (“deep ravine”) also occurs in Ant. 15.398, referring to the Kidron Valley.

Josephus does not refer explicitly to the 3 other sides in the previous paragraphs, but he does move from the east part of the sanctuary (Ant. 15.401) to the north side (15.403), and from the north side to the west section (15.410). When he now switches to the south side, he comes to the fourth side according to his changes of perspective. The alliteration of the m sound in this sentence (μέτωπον … μεσημβρίαν … μὲν … μέσον) perhaps highlights the magnificent construction of the south side, with its extensive layout of stairs, plazas, and gates (see the next note). Its gates constituted the main entrance to the Temple, through which thousands of pilgrims reached the Temple during the 3 main holidays (see 15.404 with the note to “Romans”). Josephus does not specify the number of the gates in the southern Temple wall. M. Mid. 2.2 and archeological data indicate that there were 2 (the so-called Huldah Gates): the Double Gate (ca. 12 m wide) lies ca. 110 m east of the southwest corner of the Temple complex, and the Triple Gate (measures unknown Ritmeyer 2006: 77 gives 51 ft [ca. 15.5 m] for the present Triple Gate and states [p. 79]: “Its present width is greater than that of the Double Gate and may reflect, as we shall see, that of the original Herodian gate”; he proposes 50 ft [ca. 15.1 m] for Herod’s gate [p. 79]) ca. 90 m west of the southeast corner. Netzer (2006: 174) argues that both gates were originally double gates and that the east gate received a third opening in the Middle Ages. Ritmeyer (2006: 79-80) argues that Herod built a double and a triple gate (i.e., the current Triple Gate), because the latter gate is wider than that of the Double Gate and therefore this gate has to have been a triple gate from its origin onward. From both gates underground passages with decorated ceilings gave access to the precinct; the 2 underground corridors of the Double Gate were separated by a colonnade. In front of the gates, plazas were located, which were constructed on top of a large fill. Two broad stairways led up from the plazas to the gates. The one leading to the Double Gate was ca. 65 m wide and the one to the Triple Gate ca. 15 m. Remains of the staircase leading up to the Double Gate can still be seen (Netzer 2006: 173-75; Patrich 2009: 59-66). The Royal Portico has already been mentioned in Ant. 15.393 (see the note to “the Royal Portico”). Netzer (2006: 166-67) and Patrich (2009: 62) conclude that the portico’s structure was similar to that of a Roman civil basilica (further references in Ant. 15.393 with the note to “the Royal Portico”). The adjective τριπλοῦς (“threefold”) occurs once elsewhere in Josephus (War 3.262, in a very different context). The portico was constructed along the southern wall from the west to the east corners (as the next phrases also indicate) since the 2 ravines mentioned ran adjacent to the southwest and southeast corners. This ravine (φάραγξ) is the Kidron Valley (see Ant. 15.398 with the note to “a deep ravine runs”). Josephus mentions this ravine (i.e., the Tyropoeon Valley) also in Ant. 15.410 (see the note to “the ravine in the middle” and cf. the repetition of the adjective ἑσπέριος [“western”] in 15.410-411). The 2 ravines, which were quite steep at the portico’s location, made an extension of the portico very difficult, if not impossible.

This superlative links up with similar vocabulary concerning the Temple (see Ant. 15.380, 384; for similar superlative references to other buildings of Herod, cf. 15.268, 296-298, 318).The rare adjective ἀξιαφήγητος (“remarkable,” literally “worth speaking of,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. There are a few occurrences in non-Jewish authors, from a (slightly) later period (e.g., Appian, Bell. civ. 4.3.16; Athenaeus 2.1.75; Cassius Dio 48.50.4; 63.3). The Royal Portico, which was accessible to Jews and non-Jews alike, was probably the most magnificent secular building of Herod (Netzer 2006: 170). Josephus uses the same phrase τῶν ὑφ’ ἡλίῳ (“of those under the sun”) in War 2.365 concerning the Greeks being the most noble persons on earth: “They (i.e., the Hellenes), who take first place in nobility of all those under the sun” (trans. Mason in BJP 1b; cf. 2.380). With a slightly different phrase (τῶν ὑπὸ τὸν ἥλιον), Josephus interprets Balaam’s oracle in Ant. 4.115 as a prophecy that the Israelites may become the happiest people on earth (see also 8.49; 18.46; for further references about the sun and being under the sun in Josephus, see Mason in BJP 1b on War 2.128).The phrase “those under the sun” is perhaps an allusion to the Book of Ecclesiastes (Qohelet), which includes ca. 25 expressions containing the words “under the sun” (ὑπὸ τὸν ἥλιον, e.g., Eccl 1:3, 9, 14; 2:3, 11), which vocabulary in the Bible is peculiar to this book. It refers to all kinds of sublunary things and is paralleled by the expressions “under heaven” (1:13; 2:3; 3:1) and “upon the earth” (8:14, 16; 11:2). However, such an allusion to Ecclesiastes is far from certain; non-Jewish authors also use this phrase (already Homer, Il. 4.44; 5.267; Od. 2.181; 11.498, 619; 15.349; Euripides [Alc. 151] characterizes Alcestis, who sacrifices her life for her husband Admetus, as the noblest woman by far under the sun [γυνή τ’ ἀρίστη τῶν ὑφ’ ἡλίωι μακρῶι]). The difference in height between the top of the Royal Portico and the bottom of the southern wall of the precinct bordered by both ravines must have been huge. Netzer (2006: 162) notes that the construction of the 2 southern corners was an enormous job. He calculates that the southwestern corner was founded on bedrock ca. 31.5 m below the level of the platform on which the sanctuary was standing, and the southeastern ca. 41.5 m below it. The height of the portico still has to be added to these measures (i.e., more than 15 m on the side and more than 30 m in the middle; see Ant. 15.415 with notes). Josephus changes the viewpoint to someone standing on the edge of the portico and looking straight down, highlighting in this way the heights of the portico and the wall below it. The verb εἰσκύπτω (“lean over, bend forward,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. Instead of εἰσκύπτοι MSS AM read ἐκκύπτοι (“peeped out of,” Niese 407), which reading does not change the meaning much and can easily have resulted from εἰσκύπτοι. The verb ἐκκύπτω does not occur elsewhere in Josephus (Rengstorf s.v.), but it is found in writings with which Josephus shows affinities (LXX, 1 Maccabees, Diodorus, Strabo, Philo, and Plutarch). Being unable to look down because of the height can easily be associated with a dizzying effect or fear of height (see the continuation of this paragraph). I.e., from the bottom. It is remarkable that Josephus once again invites the reader to look down from the top of the Royal Portico (likewise again via a phrase introduced by εἴ τις [“if someone”] followed by a verb in the optative mood), but this time he describes the consequences more elaborately than in the previous sentence. The verb διοπτεύω (“look down,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. The Greek text given by Niese (407, ἀπ’ ἄκρου τοῦ ταύτης τέγους) is understandable but strange and probably corrupt. Richards and Shutt (1937: 174) conjecture ἀπ’ ἄκρας τοῦ τρίτου τέγους (“from the top of the third roof”) on the basis of the Latin version. The verb σκοτοδινιάω (“be overcome by dizziness,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus (cf. Philo, Ios. 142; Opif. 71; Spec. 1.38). The word βυθός (“depth, bottom”) is repeated from the previous sentence. In Ant. 15.413-415 Josephus provides details about the measures of the Royal Portico.

The adjective τέτραρχα (“fourfold,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. The adjective ἀντίστοιχος (“ranged opposite in rows, standing over against,” LSJ s.v.; Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. Niese (407) reads στοῖχος (“row of columns,” Rengstorf s.v.) with MS L, while all the other Greek MSS read τοῖχος (“wall,” which noun also occurs in Ant. 15.416 and other passages in Josephus). The noun στοῖχος is a hapax legomenon in Josephus, but it fits the context much better than the word τοῖχος (which reading must have resulted from the omission of the σ, either by accident or because τοῖχος is the more common word in Josephus). The adjective λιθοδόμητος (“built of stone,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. There were 3 freestanding rows; the fourth row concerned columns built into the south wall of the Temple precinct (Netzer 2006: 166). The diameter of the columns was, according to Josephus’ information, ca. 5.55 m. The noun ὀργυιά (literally “the length of the outstretched arms,” LSJ s.v.; see also War 1.411; Ant. 15.334) indicates a measure that equals 6 ft (ca. 1.85 m; see Ant. 15.334 with the note to “twenty fathoms”). If the formulation is to be taken literally, it would emphasize the size of the columns clearly; it is very easy to imagine the size if one thinks of 3 persons standing with outstretched arms next to each other. However, this detail cannot be correct; Netzer (2006: 167-69) states that the diameter of the columns was 1.5 m (on the basis of the remains of the gates in the south wall and the proportions of the colonnades in other Herodian and Nabatean buildings) and that the intercolumniation (i.e., the measure at the bottom of the shaft from one heart of a column to another) was ca. 6 m. This number results with 40 columns per row in a total length of 240 m. I.e., ca. 9 m if the foot (πούς), which was a common unit of length in antiquity, equals ca. 30 cm in Josephus (see Ant. 15.334-335 with the note to “fifty feet”). Netzer (2006: 167) argues that the number should be corrected to 47 ft (ca. 15.7 m) since it does not match the classical proportions (45-50 ft) nor the height of the aisles given by Josephus (“more than fifty feet”). Many of the other measures of the Temple are given in cubits (see, e.g., Ant. 15.385, 391-392). Schalit (2001: 381-82) concludes that Josephus exaggerates some of the measures of the Royal Portico. The translation is based upon the reading ὑπειλημμένης of MSS FL, a perfect passive participle from ὑπολαμβάνω. The verb can mean “bear up, support” (LSJ s.v. I.1b). Josephus uses a similar participle of this verb in Apion 1.162 (in a different context). Niese (407) conjectures ὑπειλημένης, a participle from the rare verb ὑπειλέομαι (“creep under,” LSJ s.v.; “to run underneath,” Rengstorf s.v.), which verb would be a hapax legomenon in Josephus. This conjecture implies a slight change of the reading of MSS FL and seems to be unnecessary.

Netzer (2006: 167) argues that the actual number of the columns was 160 since the 4 rows suggest that the total number of the columns was divisible by 4. The noun κιονόκρανον (“capital [of a column],” Rengstorf s.v.) occurs twice elsewhere in Josephus (Ant. 3.109-110, referring to the capitals of the bronze shafts of the tabernacle). The verb ἐπεξέργαζω (“fashion artfully,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. The Corinthian style was one of the common types of architecture in antiquity, together with the Doric and Ionic orders. Corinthian-style capitals of columns (i.e., the space between the shaft and the abacus) were the most ornate, with their typical vegetal shape consisting of a bell-shaped molding (echinus) adorned with spirals and vegetal motifs; acanthus leaves reached up the bell to cover the capital (Biers 1980: 200-02; Wilson Jones 1989; 1991). The noun γλυφή (“sculpture, carving”) also occurs in Ant. 15.416 as well as in 19.7 (concerning sculptures of Greek temples) and 19.185 (concerning a gem with Caligula’s image). The phrase ἔκπληξιν ἐμποιέω (“cause perplexity/consternation/admiration”) also occurs in Ant. 15.261, in a different context. Cf. the 7 pyramids built by the Hasmonean Simon for his parents and brothers, which were “made as to excite wonder by their size and beauty (εἰς ἔκπληξιν μεγέθους τε ἕνεκα καὶ κάλλους πεποιημένας)” (13.211, trans. Marcus; see also 7.176; 8.170). This links up with the superlatives in Ant. 15.412 (references in 15.411 at the note to “Royal Portico”). The noun μεγαλουργία (“great achievement, magnificence”) also occurs in the description of Caesarea Maritima (15.332), a further impressive specimen of Herod’s building projects.

Likewise in Ant. 15.413. The 4 rows of columns create 3 spaces from the perspective of the longitudinal axis. Ca. 10 m (see Ant. 15.413 with the note to “feet”). Ca. 185 m (see Ant. 15.168 with the note to “stades”). The actual length of the portico must have been more. Netzer (2006: 167, 169) calculates that it was close to 240 m (see 15.413 with the note to “joining each other”). The Latin version attests 3 stades (Niese 407), but this does not match the length of the southern wall of the Temple precinct, which was ca. 280 m (see 15.381 with the note to “enterprise”). Josephus also refers to the stade (στάδιον) as a measure in 15.393, 400. I.e., more than ca. 15 m (1 ft equals ca. 30 cm). Netzer (2006: 169) assigns 17 m to the overall height of the aisles. The other 2 spaces being 30 ft wide, the middle one must have measured 45 ft (ca. 13.5 m). The adjective ἡμιόλιος (“one and a half,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. I.e., more than 30 m. Netzer (2006: 169) gives 27 m as the overall height of the portico’s central hall. Netzer (2006: 169) tentatively suggests that there was a second level in the middle, created by rows of columns (ca. 9 m high) on top of the others. Through the open spaces between these columns plenty of light shone into the portico (Netzer 2006: 166). Resuming all the numbers given by Josephus, the portico was 105 ft (ca. 33 m) wide, 1 stade (ca. 185 m) long, and in the middle section more than 90 ft (ca. 27.7 m) high.

There are no remains of roof tiles from Herod’s buildings. Netzer (2006: 169) assumes the roofs of the portico were flat (cf. Schalit 2001: 381-82 with n. 806 and 15.396 with the note to “building everything in proportion”). The translation is based upon the reading βαθυξύλοις of most MSS. The adjective βαθύξυλος (“with deep wood, deeply carved” [concerning coffered ceilings], LSJ s.v. [referring to this passage]; Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. Niese (407) reads ξύλοις (“wood”). The plural γλυφαί (“carvings”) also occurs in Ant. 15.414 (see the note to “carvings”) concerning the portico’s capitals in the Corinthian style. There are no remains of the ceilings. Fragments found from other sections of the building were decorated with delicate stucco (Ben-Dov 1985: 124-25, and 126-27 for a drawing of the interior of the Portico; Netzer 2006: 170), such that the ceilings might have been as well. For the meaning “raise” (i.e., “erect [a wall or a building]”) of the verb ἐγείρω, see Ant. 15.296 with the note to “erect something new.” Josephus probably refers to the south side of the Royal Portico, a wall with built-in columns (located at the south wall of the Temple precinct, near the main gates). Netzer (2006: 169), however, concludes that this front wall is the wall on top of the first level of the Royal Portico, which was likewise a wall with built-in columns. The adjective προμετωπίδιος (“front-,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. MSS FV read περιτετμημένου (“cut all around”), which seems to be the more difficult and therefore the preferable reading (with Marcus-Wikgren 202-03). Niese (407) follows the reading περιδεδομημένου (“built all around”) of MSS PLAMW and MS F (a marginal reading). The verb περιδομέω does not occur elsewhere in Josephus (Rengstorf s.v.), while the verb περιτέμνω (“cut around, circumcise”) is quite common. The one reading could easily have evolved into the other, especially in minuscule writing. The verb περιτέμνω is likely the original one since the participle ἐνδεδομημένους (“built in”) attested a few lines later may have caused a change from περιτετμημένου into περιδεδομημένου. The “architrave” (ἐπιστύλιον, Rengstorf s.v.) is the lintel or beam that rests on the capitals of columns. Josephus’ formulation implies that there was a continuous architrave all around the portico. The word is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. The verb ἐνδομέω (“build into,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. A few other passages concerning Herod’s building projects refer to hewn or polished (ξεστός) stone (see War 1.425; Ant. 16.148 concerning the main street of Antioch, where Herod provided a portico and polished marble for a length of 20 stades, also Ant. 15.324 about the stairs at Herodium). The formulation is elliptical; it is unclear to what the plural ἄπιστα (“unbelievable”) is referring. The exceptional beauty of the south side of the Temple complex is further highlighted via rhetorical means making explicit what the effect was for 2 categories of people: those familiar with its magnificence (the persons mentioned later on in the sentence) and those who were not. Niese (407) reads τοῖς οὐκ εἰδόσι (“for those who do not know it”) with the Greek MSS. Cocceius (followed by Naber 1888-96: 3.xlviii, 382; Marcus-Wikgren 202) conjectures τοῖς οὐκ ἰδοῦσι (“for those who did not see it”), which makes the entire statement even more coherent (note the correspondence between “those who did not see it” and “those who happened to see it”). Although the conjectured reading ἄπιστα τοῖς οὐκ ἰδοῦσι is paralleled by a few other passages (Agatharchides, Mar. Erythr. 35; Photius, Bibl. 250), it seems unnecessary here since the transmitted text makes perfect sense (for vocabulary similar to ἄπιστα τοῖς οὐκ εἰδόσι, cf. Hippolytus, Haer. 5.16.15). The perplexity caused by the sight of the south side of the Temple complex is also highlighted in Ant. 15.414, which paragraph focuses on the columns of the Royal Portico (note the repetition of ἔκπληξις [“perplexity”] in 15.414, 416). The adjective θεατός (“seen, observed,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus.

This formula indicates a further switch of perspective. From Ant. 15.402 to 15.416 the focus is on the outside of the Temple (as signaled by the word ἱερόν [“Temple”] in 15.402), describing it from the viewpoints going from the north/northwest side to the west and south sides. Hence this “first precinct” must be the entire precinct of the Temple (for the various meanings of περίβολος, see 15.380, 400 with notes). The phrase πρῶτος περίβολος (“first precinct, first surrounding wall”) also occurs in War 4.204; 6.150 (in both cases referring to the Jerusalem Temple). This precinct was accessible to Jews and non-Jews alike. Schwartz (2013: 163-64 with footnote 120) connects the description of the inside of the Temple complex in Ant. 15.417-419 and the phrase “in the middle” (ἐν μέσῳ) with the idea that the Holy of Holies (located in the sanctuary of the Temple) was the holiest center of a series of concentric circles of holiness, as expressed in the Mishnah (m. Kel. 1.6-8). Other passages in Josephus also reflect this notion (War 5.207, 227; Apion 1.198; 2.102-104). In Apion 1.198 Josephus notes that the Temple was “roughly in the middle of the city” (κατὰ μέσον), which may quote Pseudo-Hecataeus and perhaps should be taken symbolically (Barclay in BJP 10 on Ap. 1.198). Similarly in War 5.207 Josephus indicates that the sanctuary was roughly in the middle of the Temple complex (ὁ ναὸς κατὰ μέσον κείμενος). As Josephus explains in the next lines of this paragraph, this second precinct was an area accessible to Jews only. This court was surrounded by a balustrade called the sôreg in Hebrew (m. Mid. 2.3; see also Ant. 15.400 with the note to “the entire enclosed area”). It was higher than the level of the outer court (cf. War 5.187; Patrich 2011: 571 n. 30). According to the Mishnah it measured 500 x 500 cubits (ca. 222 x 222 m; Netzer 2006: 140). The sanctuary was located within this enclosure, but not exactly in its center. M. Mid. 2.1 indicates that the space south of the sanctuary, within this enclosure, was the largest. The east side of the enclosure probably consisted of the eastern wall of the Temple complex. Most scholars argue that the northern boundary aligned with the current northern edge of the platform on which the Dome of the Rock (the al-Haram ash-Sharif) is standing, and the western boundary with the western side of that platform (Netzer 2006: 176 with references). This enclosure was perhaps identical with the platform of 500 x 500 cubits created by the High Priest Simeon the Just (Simeon II), which was maintained by the Hasmoneans (Patrich 2009: 43, 47; 2011; Ritmeyer [2006: 146-64] discusses several other proposals concerning the location and history of the 500 x 500 cubits square). The vocabulary here echoes that found in Ant. 15.410 (cf. προσβατός [“accessible”] here with πρόσβασις [“ascending, access”] in 15.410; the word βαθμίς [“step”] occurs in both passages), and there is a close parallel in 19.216 (προσβατὸν ὀλίγαις βαθμῖσι, in a different context). The rare noun ἑρκίον (“enclosure, wall,” Rengstorf s.v.), referring to the sôreg (see the note to “second [precinct]” above), is a hapax legomenon in Josephus (cf. Homer, Il. 9.476; Od. 18.102; Apollonius of Rhodes, Arg. 2.1073). The word is a diminutive of ἕρκος (“fence, enclosure”; cf. Philo of Byblos, Verb. sign. 61). The noun δρύφακτος (“barrier, fence,” Rengstorf s.v.) also occurs in War 5.193 (likewise together with the adjective λίθινος [“stone”], referring to the same barrier); 6.124 (in Titus’ ironic reference to the barrier); Ant. 13.373 (about a wooden barrier around the altar and the sanctuary, put there at the order of Alexander Janneus). Cf. the related word τρύφακτος in the extant warning inscriptions of the Temple (see the note to “inscription” below and Llewelyn and van Beek 2011: 18). The barrier was constructed with pillars and stone plates. It was 3 cubits (ca. 1.35 m) high (War 5.194; Patrich 2009: 55). In War 5.194 Josephus uses the word ἀλλόφυλος instead of ἀλλοεθνής when referring to these inscriptions (see the next note). These adjectives are a combination of ἄλλο- (“different”) with -φυλος (deriving from φυλή [“tribe, nation”]) or -εθνής (deriving from ἔθνος [“people”]) and mean “foreign, belonging to a different people.” The extant inscriptions (see the next note) use a different but closely related word (ἀλλογενής “of alien descent, non-Jew,” Llewelyn and van Beek 2011: 17). The sôreg bore inscriptions warning non-Jews that they were not allowed to enter the area (with the death penalty as the sanction; see the next note); they probably were located near the gates. Josephus refers elsewhere to these inscriptions (War 5.194; 6.125-126; cf. 4.182; Ant. 12.145; Philo, Legat. 212; Acts 21:26-29) and indicates there that the inscriptions were in Greek and Latin script. Epigraphic evidence confirms the existence of such inscriptions: 2 copies of the Greek inscription have been found (CIIP no. 2 [see I.1.42-45]; CIJ no. 400; OGIS no. 598; Llewelyn and van Beek 2011), but no copies of the Latin one. The most complete inscription reads: “No foreigner is to enter within the balustrade (τρυφάκτου) and forecourt around (περιβόλου) the sacred precinct. Whoever is caught will himself be responsible for (his) consequent death (ἑαυτῶι αἴτιος ἔσται διὰ τὸ ἐξακολουθεῖν θάνατον)” (trans. Price in CIIP). It is unclear when the sôreg was constructed. Patrich (2011) argues that it was an innovation by Simeon the Just, which may have been triggered by Ptolemy IV’s attempt to enter the Holy of Holies (see also the note to “a second [precinct]” above). Schürer-Vermes (1.175-76 with n. 6) doubt whether it existed before the time of Alexander Janneus (103-76 BCE). The preserved text of the warning inscription (see the previous note) as well as War 6.126 indicate that the death penalty was the sanction put on the violation of this ban. Titus states in 6.126 that the Romans had given the Jews the authority to execute violators. The adjective θανατικός (“fatal,” Rengstorf s.v.) occurs once elsewhere in Josephus (3.103 concerning laws that prescribe the death penalty).

The phrase ὁ ἐντὸς περίβολος (“the inner precinct”; cf. War 5.7: ὁ ἐνδότερος τοῦ νεὼ περίβολος “the inner enclosure of the sanctuary”) can, by itself, refer to either the area enclosed by the sôreg (see the previous paragraph with notes) or to the inner court of the Temple complex (i.e., the area surrounding the sanctuary, containing the Court of the Women, the Court of Israel, and the Court of the Priests; see Ant. 15.419 with notes). The context implies that Josephus means the latter (as in War 5.7). The wall of this inner enclosure was 25 cubits (ca. 12 m) high, measured from the inside, and 40 cubits (ca. 18 m) high, measured from the outer court (War 5.196). This area also included the altar on which the animals were slaughtered (in front of the sanctuary; see Ant. 15.420), offices and porticoes on the north and south sides, and a walkway (the ḥêl in Hebrew) around the wall on the north, west, south, and (part of the) east sides of this area (Netzer 2006: 139-40 and see below). War 5.195-198 indicates that 14 steps were leading up from the second enclosure (i.e., the one surrounded by the sôreg) at a distance of 10 cubits (ca. 4.5 m) from the wall of the inner enclosure. There were 5 more steps in front of the 6 gates leading to the sanctuary (see the next note). The platform on which the sanctuary was standing (including the ḥêl) was 15 cubits (ca. 6.7 m) higher than the second enclosure (War 5.196). There are variations among the readings of the MSS, but basically without significant differences in meaning. The translation is based on Niese’s text τριστοίχους πυλῶνας (408), which probably implies that both the northern and southern walls around the sanctuary had 3 gates at equal distance from each other. Schalit (2001: 386 with n. 826) offers an alternative interpretation of τρίστοιχος (“triple”), each gateway having 3 entrances, the main one in the middle and 2 smaller ones on the sides. The 6 gates in the northern and southern walls of the inner enclosure were part of gatehouses. The portals expanded behind the entrances, which were huge. In War 5.202 Josephus states that each of them had 2 doors (θύραι) being 15 cubits wide and 30 cubits high (i.e., together 30 x 30 cubits, ca. 13.3 x 13.3 m). M. Mid. 2.3 gives 10 x 20 cubits as measures (ca. 4.5 x 9 m; Netzer 2006: 154-55). M. Mid. 1.4-5 lists these gates and names them (also mentioning the Nicanor Gate (ša‘ar niqqannôr): House of the Hearth (bêt hammôqēd), Gate of Light (ša‘ar hannîṣôṣ), Water Gate (ša‘ar hammāyim), Fuel Gate (ša‘ar haddeleq), Gate of the Sacrifice (ša‘ar haqqorbān), and Gate of the First Born (ša‘ar habbĕkôrôt). Netzer (2006: 158-59) wonders whether the last 3 gates ever served as entrances and argues that they were rather added to create a uniform and esthetically satisfying appearance. In War 5.200 Josephus indicates that there were no gates in the western wall and in 5.198-200 he provides different numbers for the gates in the northern and southern walls: there were 4 gates on each of the northern and southern sides of the inner precinct (i.e., 8 in total), 2 of which did not give access to the inner enclosure (the area directly around the sanctuary) but to the Court of the Women. This latter court lay in front of the entrance to the sanctuary, at its eastern side, being ca. 7.5 cubits (ca. 3.4 m) lower than the area of the inner enclosure (Netzer 2006: 156). In 5.198 Josephus indicates that the inner enclosure had 10 gates in total; in addition to the 8 gates mentioned above (on the northern and southern sides), there were 2 on the eastern side: the gate that gave access to the Court of the Women (the Beautiful Gate; see the note to “large gateway” below and Ant. 15.424 with the note to “its eastern gate”) and the so-called Nicanor Gate (giving access to the Court of Israel from the Court of the Women). The 9 outer gates (i.e., not the Nicanor Gate), with their jambs and lintels, were plated in gold and silver donated by Alexander, the brother of Philo of Alexandria (further details in War 5.201-206; Ant. 18.259; Patrich 2009: 55). For a similar phrase, cf. Ant. 15.410 (κατὰ … τὸ νότιον κλίμα “along the southern side”). The phrase ἀλλήλων διεστῶτας (“standing at equal distances from each other,” Rengstorf s.v.) is paralleled by War 7.189 (ἀλλήλων ὀλίγῳ διεστῶτας, concerning 2 closeby hills near Baaras-Baaru, east of the Dead Sea). It is not immediately clear to which gate this remark refers if it is to be connected with the final words of the paragraph. The “large gateway” may denote the gate that gave access to the Court of the Women (see below) or, more probably, the so-called Nicanor Gate. The Nicanor Gate was much larger than the other 9 gates and crafted from differing material, of Corinthian bronze (War 5.201; m. Mid. 2.3). It was named after a wealthy Alexandrian Jew, whose family tomb was found on Mount Scopus (Patrich 2009: 55). A semicircular flight of 15 stairs gave access to the Nicanor Gate (m. Mid. 2.5; Netzer 2006: 157). It formed the passage from the Court of the Women to the Court of Israel. Since women were usually not allowed to pass through this gate (War 5.199), whereas Josephus states at the end of this paragraph that Jewish women were allowed to pass through the relevant gate, scholars have concluded that Josephus is meaning the gate that gave access to the Court of the Women. This latter gate may be identical with the Beautiful Gate mentioned in Acts 3:2, 10. Spiess (1881: 74-75) emends the text so that it refers to both gates (likewise Schalit 2001: 390-91 with n. 842). However, given that the size of the gate is highlighted, Josephus is probably describing the Nicanor Gate and may simply have made a mistake concerning the access of the women (see also Ant. 15.419 with the note to “women”). Literally “in the direction of the sun beams” (κατὰ ἡλίου βολάς, Rengstorf s.v.), which echoes the vocabulary from tragic poets (especially Euripides, Orest. 1259; cf. Euripides, Bacch. 458; Ion 1134; Sophocles, Aj. 877; Lucian, Anach. 16). I.e., ritually clean (ἁγνοί). In War 5.227 and Apion 2.103 Josephus specifies that menstruating women were not allowed to enter the Temple. Men who had not completely purified themselves were not allowed to enter the inner precinct (War 5.227; Apion 2.104). In War 5.227 he adds that priests were also not allowed to enter that precinct if they had not recently undertaken a ritual cleaning, and in Apion 2.104 that the priests could enter the Priestly Court only if they were wearing their priestly vestments, and that the High Priest could enter the inner sanctuary only in the high priestly garments (see Bauckham 1996 and Barclay in BJP 10 on Ap. 2.103-104). Even more specific is m. Kel. 1.6-9, which points to several levels of purity connected with differing areas of the Temple (see also Ant. 15.417 with the note to “in the middle”). No man suffering from spermatorrhoea (cf. Lev 15:1-18; Deut 23:10-11) and no woman being impure because of menstruation or childbirth were to enter the Temple. The area directly inside the barrier (see Ant. 15.418 with the note to “inner precinct”) was inaccessible to the Gentiles and those unclean because of contact with a corpse. The Court of the Women was forbidden to those of “this day’s immersed” (i.e., those who only after the last sunset had taken a ritual bath to purify themselves). The Court of the Israelites was forbidden to those who were “un-atoned” (i.e., those who had not made the sacrifice prescribed in the case of an offence; Schürer-Vermes 2.285 n. 58; Bauckham 1996: 330). For a detailed discussion of the differences between Ant. 15.418-419, Apion 2.102-104, and m. Kel. 1.6-9 concerning the restrictions on entering the various areas of the Temple, see Bauckham 1996: 328-34. If this detail is correct, Josephus is referring to the Court of the Women (see the note to “large gateway” above). This court was a square, enclosed forecourt attached to the inner enclosure’s eastern side (see the next note). According to the Mishnah (m. Kel. 1.8; m. Mid. 2.5) it measured 135 x 135 cubits (ca. 60 x 60 m). It had 4 segregated areas of 40 x 40 cubits at the corners, used for various purposes connected with the sacrificial cult, and was entered through 3 gates: one at the northern, one at the southern, and one at the eastern side. The Nicanor Gate at the western side connected the Court of the Women with the Court of Israel (Netzer 2006: 140, 160; see also the notes to “triple gateways” and “one large gateway” above).The name “Court of the Women” is somewhat misleading since the Jewish men also came to this court for various sacrificial purposes and had to cross this court on the way to the Court of Israel and the Court of the Priests.

Josephus is referring to the inner precinct mentioned in Ant. 15.418, i.e., the area surrounding the sanctuary (including the Court of Israel and the Court of the Priests; see the next notes). In calling the area of the inner enclosure “the sacred area” (τὸ ἱερόν), Josephus implies that this area was more sacred than the other parts of the Temple complex. In War 5.207 he calls the sanctuary “the holy sacred area” (τὸ ἅγιον ἱερόν; for the idea of increasing levels of sacredness, see Ant. 15.417 with the note to “in the middle” and 15.418 with the note to “clean”). Since the next description concerns the area deeper inside the precinct, accessible only to the priests, Josephus is probably referring to the Court of Israel here (called ăzārat yiśrā’ēl in Hebrew; see Ant. 15.400-401 with notes and the next note). Women were allowed to enter this area for specific reasons. After childbirth they sacrificed burnt and sin offerings there (t. ‘Arak. 2:1; cf. Luke 2:24; Schürer-Vermes 2.261 with n. 11). Women who wanted to bring a thank-offering (in Hebrew šelem, plural šelāmîm), a voluntary offering (nedābâ), or a burnt offering (‘ōlâ), or who desired to make a nazirite vow, had to perform this in person in the relevant court. They also entered the court for prayer and penitence. There was a special gate giving them access to it, called the Women’s Gate (m. Mid. 2.6; m. Šeqal. 6.3; I owe these references to Prof. J. Patrich, Jerusalem). The number “third,” together with the reference to the priests further on in the sentence, confirms that Josephus is referring to the 3 distinct, well-known, enclosed areas near the sanctuary: the Court of the Women, the Court of Israel, and the Court of the Priests. The latter court (called ăzārat hakkōhănîm in Hebrew) was part of the open space surrounding the sanctuary, which area on its eastern side included 2 roofed strips with porticoes: one for the priests and the other for the Jewish men (i.e., the Court of Israel). Both strips were 11 cubits (ca. 5 m) wide (see Ant. 15.401 with the note to “a double portico”). Most parts of the Court of the Priests were only accessible to priests and Levites. It was located on the highest point of the Temple Mount, on a square platform built partly on the bedrock and partly on the fills. It was ca. 3.5 m higher than its surroundings. According to m. Mid. 2.6 the court measured from its western to its eastern sides 187 cubits (ca. 83.5 m) and from its northern to its southern sides 135 cubits (ca. 60 m). The main part of the court was located in front of the sanctuary, at its eastern side (an area of 135 x 76 cubits, ca. 60 x 34 m). The 6 gatehouses at the northern and southern walls (see Ant. 15.418 with the note to “triple gateways”) occupied considerable space within the court. Offices and porticoes were built between the gatehouses (War 5.200; further details in Netzer 2006: 138-42, 153-55; Patrich 2009: 55). This confirms that Josephus is referring to the Court of the Priests (see the note to “third precinct” above). Josephus briefly returns to the sanctuary (ὁ ναός; for the vocabulary, see Ant. 15.380 with the note to “sanctuary”), which he describes in greater detail in 15.392-395. I.e., the inner enclosure of the Court of the Priests. The words “the sanctuary was within this [precinct]” (ὁ ναός ἐν τούτῳ) are missing in the important MS P as well as in the Latin version. Niese (408) doubts whether the words were part of the original text and puts them in square brackets, although he includes them without any further notice in his minor edition (326). The continuation of the sentence (καὶ πρὸ αὐτοῦ “and in front of it”) implies that the words were part of the original text: they make sense if “it” refers to the sanctuary, in front of which the altar was standing; if “it” refers to the inner enclosure, they become problematic because the altar was inside of that enclosure (see also the next notes). The altar was a square, stepped construction, 8 cubits (ca. 3.6 m) high. It measured 32 x 32 cubits (ca. 14.2 x 14.2 m) at its bottom and 26 x 26 cubits (ca. 11.6 x 11.6 m) at its top. It had horns at its 4 corners and was approached from the south via a ramp that was 34 cubits (ca. 15.1 m) long. The sacrificial animals were prepared and slaughtered at the north side of this platform (Netzer 2006: 154). Burnt offerings are mentioned frequently in the Bible, but Josephus’ exact vocabulary here (τὰς θυσίας ὁλοκαυτέω “burn the offerings completely, offer the burnt offerings,” Rengstorf s.v.) does not occur in the LXX. A burnt offering (in Hebrew ‘ōlâ), sometimes also called a whole offering (kālîl), has an atoning function according to Lev 1 (cf. Exod 29:15-18): “You shall lay your hand on the head of the burnt-offering, and it shall be acceptable in your behalf as atonement for you” (Lev 1:4). The group of animals that were sacrificed as burnt offerings consisted of bulls, he-goats, rams, and doves. Their blood was splashed or poured out against the altar, and subsequently the corpses were burned (Miller 2000: 107-09). Exod 29:18 and Lev 1:9, 13, 17 both imply that burnt offerings were considered to be offerings whose fire spread an odor pleasing to God. In Ant. 9.155 (in connection with King David; cf. 10.53) Josephus indicates that the priests twice a day brought burnt and incense offerings.

About this title, see Ant. 15.402 with the note to “King Herod.” The context at first glance suggests that Josephus is referring to 3 courts (cf. the translation in Marcus-Wikgren 205: “Into none of these courts …”—ignoring the word “three”): the Court of the Women, the Court of Israel, and the Court of the Priests (described in Ant. 15.418-419). However, the next sentence and the fact that Herod had access to the Court of Israel imply that the 3 areas mentioned in 15.419 are intended: the inner enclosure (i.e., the Court of the Priests), the sanctuary itself, and the area of the altar. This observation offers an additional reason to consider the phrase “the sanctuary was within this [precinct]” to be part of the original text (see 15.419 with the note to “this [precinct]”). Unlike his Hasmonean predecessors Herod was neither a priest nor of royal descent (see Ant. 15.2 with the note to “commoner”). The description of the Temple precincts switches here to a brief narration concerning the building process of the Temple (on the combination of narrative and descriptive passages in the section Ant. 15.380-425, see 15.380 with the note to “Now”).The areas that were accessible to Herod were renovated by the king himself according to this paragraph, which remark once again puts emphasis on Herod’s personal involvement in the rebuilding of the Temple. The passage has been interpreted as evidence that Herod himself acted as an architect, but this is not necessarily the case (Roller 1998: 261 with n. 47). The relevant porticoes are the Royal Portico along the south wall of the Temple complex (15.393, 411-416) and the 3 double colonnades along its other exterior walls (15.396). The plural οἱ ἔξω περίβολοι (“the outer enclosed areas”; cf. Ant. 17.259: ὁ ἔξω περίβολος referring to the outer court of the Temple) probably denotes the outer court of the Temple complex as well as the area enclosed by the sôreg. Both areas are clearly distinguished in the previous description (for the outer court, see 15.417, and for the area enclosed by the sôreg, 15.400, 417). The construction of the outer court with its porticoes was a prominent part of Herod’s Temple project. If Herod’s 18th year, in which the building activities began (Ant. 15.380), corresponds to the year 20/19 BCE—as most scholars think (see the note to “the eighteenth year of Herod’s rule”) —the exterior parts of the Temple were completed in the year 12/11 BCE (i.e., Herod’s 26th year).

Josephus abandons the description of the Temple for a moment and focuses instead on the completion of the building activities and the festivities that accompanied it (Ant. 15.421-423).Most of the area of the sanctuary (ὁ νεώς/ναός; see 15.380 with the note to “sanctuary”) was inaccessible to non-priests (see 15.419 with notes), such that the priests themselves had to act as the builders. The order of presentation clearly suggests that the outer sections of the Temple complex were built first and the sanctuary afterwards. Some scholars suggest, however, that the work started with the sanctuary (Perowne 1956: 177, who refers to the worries of the population formulated in 15.388-389 that Herod would not complete the project and their joy here that it was completed so quickly; Günther 2005: 210-11; Schürer-Vermes [1.292 n. 12] mention this possibility). Other scholars conclude that both building projects overlapped (discussion in Mahieu 2012: 149-50; cf. Simons 1952: 399). See the previous note. Although Josephus does not say so explicitly, this note seems to imply that the entire renovation of the Temple complex was completed at that moment. The renovation took 9 years and 5 (or perhaps 6) months, if the number given here and the 8 years mentioned in 15.420 are to be added to each other. The combination with the reference to Herod’s 18th year as the starting point for the building activities (Ant. 15.380) situates the completion of the work in Herod’s 27th or 28th year (i.e., in the period 11-9 BCE; see also 15.420 with the note to “eight years”). Otto (1913: 81) dates the completion to 10 BCE, Schalit (2001: 372-73) to 9/8 BCE. Mahieu (2012: 147-52) proposes that the entire building project took 8 years and that it started in Herod’s 15th regnal year, which results in 18/17 BCE as the year of the completion; other passages such as Marcus Agrippa’s visit to Jerusalem in the autumn of 15 BCE, with his sacrifice of a hecatomb at the Temple (Ant. 16.12-15), and Herod’s trip to Rome in 12 BCE, with the Temple being presented as having been built already (16.115), would suggest that the renovation of the Temple was already finished before these 2 events. Mahieu also argues that both the outer parts and the sanctuary were completed at the end of the 8 years (mentioned in 15.420) because there was only one festival that commemorated the completion of the Temple. This is not a compelling argument, however: other traditions about festivals commemorating the dedication or re-dedication of the Temple do not differentiate between a festival for the sanctuary and one for the rest of the Temple complex (see 15.422 with the note to “the king sacrificed three hundred oxen to God”); it is very well possible that the building of the sanctuary took place after the rest of the building activities had been finished and that there was only one festival of commemoration, at the final completion. Smallwood (1976: 282 n. 89) argues that John 2:20 may indicate that the building activities were still ongoing 46 years after the work had started; only the main structures would have been completed during Herod’s reign. Ant. 20.219 also indicates a much later date (see 15.390 with the note to “ten thousand”).Niese (408) reads καὶ μησὶν πέντε (“and five months”) with MS P and the Latin version, while the other Greek MSS read καὶ μησὶν ἕξ (“and six months”), as Marcus-Wikgren (204) do. Niese’s reading is preferable as the lectio difficilior: it is more probable that scribes changed “a year and five months” into “a year and six months” accidentally (assuming that the more round number of 1½ years was meant) than the other way around (see also Schalit 2001: 373 n. 776; Mahieu 2012: 157 n. 146). The people’s joy is obvious; the rebuilding of the Temple was completed (see the previous note). Its reaction is somewhat ironic in view of its skepticism (described in Ant. 15.388) about Herod’s enterprise.For similar vocabulary (a passive form of πληρόω with a genitive of χαρά [“be filled with joy”]), cf. 2 Macc 3:30 concerning the Jerusalemites’ response to God’s punishment of Heliodorus, who tried to plunder the Temple: “And the temple … was filled with joy and gladness (χᾶρας καὶ εὐφροσύνης ἐπεπλήρωτο), now that the Almighty Lord had appeared” (cf. War 3.28, with an active form of πληρόω). Niese (408) reads τὰς εὐχαριστηρίους (from the adjective εὐχαριστηρίος “expressing gratitude,” LSJ s.v.) instead of τὰς εὐχαριστίας (attested by MSS FLAMWV and followed by Marcus-Wikgren 204). Niese’s reading is found only in MS P and has no parallels in Josephus’ corpus. It is the lectio difficilior, but it has the disadvantage of being elliptical; it requires an additional noun in the plural, e.g., θυσίας (“sacrifices,” resulting in a translation of τὰς εὐχαριστηρίους θυσίας like “the thank-offerings”). Such a noun is present in related phrases (Heliodorus 10.2.1; John Chrysostom, Hom. Gen. [PG 53.252]; see also the sacrifices described in Ant. 15.422). The reading τὰς εὐχαριστίας attested by the other Greek MSS (supported by the Latin version) is the lectio facilior and seems to be secondary; the rare phrase τὰς εὐχαριστηρίους was obviously adapted to a more common one (probably by accident, perhaps by omitting -ηρίους θυσ- in the phrase τὰς εὐχαριστηρίους θυσίας). The expression εὐχαριστίας ποιοῦμαι (“give thanks”) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus, but it is common in Philo (Spec. 1.97, 144, 210, 229). A translation based on MSS FLAMWV may be: “They first brought thanks to God for the swiftness [of the renovation] and afterwards also for the king’s enthusiasm, and then they feted and applauded the restoration.” God is thanked first by the Jerusalemites, which matches Josephus’ own view that God was responsible for Herod’s success, as several other passages in the Herod narrative of Antiquities indicate (e.g., 15.373-374; cf. 1.20). God’s role in the rebuilding is highlighted once again in the concluding paragraph of this section (see 15.425 with the note to “God in view”). The matter that was swiftly executed is unspecified in the Greek text, but the context indicates that it concerns the rebuilding of the Temple. This links up with Ant. 15.388 expressing the population’s fear that Herod would never finish his project. The phrase τῆς προθυμίας τοῦ βασιλέως (literally “[of/for] the eagerness of the king”) is problematic; it does not connect well with the subsequent Greek words in this sentence. Several interpreters connect it with the verbal expression εὐχαριστίας ποιοῦμαι of MSS FLAMWV (see the previous notes), such that the people would have thanked God for both his swift action in the Temple renovation and Herod’s enthusiasm for it, which means that God was responsible for Herod’s acting. The variant reading τῇ προθυμίᾳ attested by MSS FLAMWV (probably an adaptation influenced by the preceding dative τῷ θεῷ) may denote that both God and Herod were thanked, God first. However, the Greek text does not really make sense this way: it is problematic to take προθυμία as the indirect object of τὰς εὐχαριστηρίους ποιοῦμαι or τὰς εὐχαριστίας ποιοῦμαι. It is also implausible to interpret the phrase τῆς προθυμίας τοῦ βασιλέως as the object of the participle ἑορτάζοντες since the verb ἑορτάζω usually goes with the accusative (LSJ s.v.). The verb κατευφημέω (“applaud, extol,” LSJ s.v.; Rengstorf s.v., who offers “to praise [/celebrate] with blessings [/with cries of joy?]” as meaning) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus and has only 17 occurrences attested in the TLG. It occurs, however, in several writings roughly contemporaneous with Josephus (Let. Aris., 3 Maccabees, Dionysius, and 4 times in Plutarch). In 3 Macc 7:13 the verb occurs in the Jews’ reaction to the Ptolemaic king’s permission to destroy everywhere in his kingdom those who had transgressed the Law of God (7:12): “When they had applauded him (κατευφημήσαντες αὐτόν) in fitting manner, their priests and the whole multitude shouted the Hallelujah and joyfully departed” (7:13, trans. NRSV). The noun ἀνάκτισις (“reconstruction, restoration,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. This is the oldest attested usage; the other occurrences appear in early and late-antique Christian literature.

Josephus does not specify what kind of sacrifice Herod offered. One could think of a thank-offering, which seems appropriate and also fits the context. Thank-offerings are described in Lev 7:12-18; 22:18-30 (see also Ps 22:22 with the reference to the midst of the congregation). However, since they were basically individual sacrifices (although performed in a public setting; Miller 2000: 104-05, 118-21, 129), it is preferable to interpret Herod’s sacrifice in line with the tradition of the (Israelite or Judean) kings offering a sacrifice during a (re-)dedication of the Temple, usually during a festival (Pesach, Sukkot, or Hanukkah). Solomon set the trend during the dedication of the First Temple. 1 Kgs 8:62-64 describes his sacrifices as follows: “(62) Then the king, and all Israel with him, offered sacrifice before the Lord. (63) Solomon offered as sacrifices of well-being (šelāmîm; LXX: τὰς θυσίας τῶν εἰρηνικῶν) to the Lord twenty-two thousand oxen (βοῶν δύο καὶ εἴκοσι χιλιάδας) and one hundred twenty thousand sheep. So the king and all the people of Israel dedicated the house of the Lord. (64) The same day the king consecrated the middle of the court that was in front of the house of the Lord; for there he offered the burnt-offerings and the grain offerings and the fat pieces of the sacrifices of well-being, because the bronze altar that was before the Lord was too small to receive the burnt offerings and the grain offerings and the fat pieces of the sacrifices of well-being.” 2 Chr 7:1-5 describes the same sacrifice, adding that fire came down from heaven consuming the burnt offering and that the glory of the Lord filled the Temple (7:1). Ezra 3:2-6 indicates that the High Priest Jeshua together with his fellow priests and Zerubbabel (the grandson of the Judean king Jehoiachin) rebuilt the altar and offered burnt offerings (‘ōlôt; LXX: ὁλοκαυτώσεις; cf. also 1 Esd 1:1-22; 1 Macc 4:53; 2 Macc 10:3) during the dedication of the Second Temple. Burnt offerings consisted of bulls according to Lev 1:5 but of oxen according to Ant. 3.226. The number here of 300 oxen sacrificed by Herod is huge; however, it pales into insignificance when compared with the 22,000 oxen sacrificed by Solomon (1 Kgs 8:63; 2 Chr 7:5). Josephus’ reference to Solomon’s dedication of the Temple mentions 12,000 calves and 120,000 sheep (cf. also King Hezekiah sacrificing 70 oxen during Passover in Ant. 9.270). I.e., the other Jews. The priests were obviously the officials to coordinate the sacrifices, but Josephus is contrasting the king, who paid for a lavish sacrifice, with the others (the non-kings, i.e., the people), who furnished only what they could. This passage may build on traditions concerning (re-)dedications of the Temple (see the previous note); the fact that both the king and the Jewish population are mentioned here as the ones who participate in the sacrifices is in line with these traditions: 1 Kgs 8:62-64 indicates that not only Solomon performed sacrifices during the dedication of the First Temple but also the rest of the people (“all Israel,” i.e., “a great assembly, people from Lebo-hamath to the Wadi of Egypt …,” 1 Kgs 8:65). 2 Chr 7:3-5 refers to “all the people of Israel” and “all the people” in addition to Solomon and “the priests” (7:1-2). 1 Macc 4:42, 52-56 refer to blameless priests sacrificing during the re-dedication of the altar, during which “all the people” worshiped and blessed God (4:55). In 2 Macc 10:1-8 this re-dedication is performed by “Maccabeus [i.e., Judas the Maccabee] and his followers” (10:1). The Greek text of the subclause “and the others [sacrificed animals] according to their means” is elliptical: a verb is missing, and the article οἱ is dangling. The narrative does not specify the kind of animals; their categories and numbers plausibly varied at this occasion. Lev 1 describes the procedures concerning burnt offerings and mentions bulls, he-goats, rams, and doves as the animals that could be sacrificed as burnt offerings (see Ant. 15.419 with the note to “bring the burnt offerings to God”). The implication of this cliché is that the sacrifices brought by the other Jews were innumerable. For a similar statement concerning the number of the Israelites who stayed behind in Mesopotamia when Ezra and his fellows returned to Jerusalem, cf. Ant. 11.133. The note that the sacrifices brought by the Jewish population were so high in number (see the previous note) that it is impossible to give the exact number can be connected with Josephus’ aim to present a trustworthy and precise report of the events (War 1.3, 6, 9, 25-26; 7.454-455; Ant. 3.230; 8.56; 9.208; Mader 2000: 6-7).The verb ἐκφεύγω means “elude” here (Rengstorf s.v.).

This paragraph explains why there were so many sacrifices (Ant. 15.422). Josephus does not specify this day (but see the next 2 notes).The noun προθεσμία (“time appointed beforehand, fixed date,” Rengstorf s.v.) occurs 12 times in Josephus (8 times in the Herod narrative of Antiquities: 15.108, 378, 423; 16.136, 279, 282, 343, 348). Sometimes this word indicates the end of a period, as in the discussion between Herod and Manaemus about the duration of Herod’s rule (15.377-378; see also 16.279, 282, 343). The fact that the sanctuary is mentioned here specifically (ὁ ναός; see Ant. 15.380 with the note to “sanctuary”) implies, together with the chronological order (see 15.421 with the note to “sanctuary”), that the sanctuary was finished last (for other opinions, see the same note). Josephus mentions in passing in 20.219 that the Temple renovation was only completed during the governorship of Albinus (62-64 CE). Like the “appointed day,” Josephus does not specify this day either. It is plausible to assume that it refers either to the day on which Herod was appointed king by the Romans or to the day on which he captured Jerusalem (Schürer-Vermes [1.287, 292 n. 12] opts for the latter possibility). The former is mentioned specifically as “the first day” of Herod’s rule in War 1.285, in connection with a banquet given by Mark Antony: “On the first day of Herod’s kingship (τὴν δὲ πρώτην Ἡρώδῃ τῆς βασιλείας ἡμέραν), Antony entertained [him] with a banquet” (trans. Sievers/Forte in BJP 1a). It is referred to in Ant 14.389 (τὴν πρώτην ἡμέραν τῆς βασιλείας ἡμέραν) in connection with festivities organized by Mark Antony. Mahieu (2012: 54-60, 67-68, 75-84) argues for 18 November as the day commemorating Herod’s appointment (linking it to the New Year’s Day of the Tyrian calendar) and for 5 March as the day commemorating his capture of Jerusalem. She considers the first option to be more probable for Herod’s Temple dedication because the vocabulary here echoes that of the episodes describing Herod’s appointment in Rome (2012: 152-53). It cannot be excluded, however, that the date celebrating Herod’s accession was an invented day, simply because a day had to be chosen. The day on which a king acceded to the throne was often a public holiday in the Hellenistic period (concerning the Ptolemaic kings, see the Memphis decree of 196 BCE commemorating the coronation of Ptolemy V Epiphanes, inscribed on the famous Rosetta Stone; Greek version in OGIS no. 90; SB nos. 8232 and 8299; SEG 8 nos. 463 and 784; 16 no. 855; 33 no. 1357; also Hölbl 1994: 73, 76; van Henten 2007b: 273-74). Herod apparently followed this convention. Matt 14:6 and Mark 6:21 mention a holiday (γενέσια) of Herod Antipas, during which he gave a banquet for his courtiers, officers, and the leaders of Galilee. This day was either his actual birthday or, as some scholars think, the anniversary of his accession to the throne (Hoehner 1972: 160-61 with n. 5; Schürer-Vermes 1.346-48 with n. 26; Schwartz 2013: 16-18). The festival commemorating the completion of the Temple construction was apparently set on Herod’s accession day (i.e., probably on the day he was appointed king by the Romans; see the note to “throne” above). Former completions or renovations of (parts of) the Temple had likewise been celebrated with festivals of dedication (e.g., the Festival of Hanukkah, celebrated from 25 Kislev until 2 or 3 Tevet, 1 Macc 4:59; 2 Macc 1:9, 18; 10:1-8). Such a celebration sometimes coincided with another festival. Thus the dedication of the First Temple followed the celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles (held from 15 until 22 Tishri, 2 Chr 7:8-10; cf. LXX 3 Kgs 8:65). Some 2 centuries later King Hezekiah invited all Israel and Judah, and Ephraim and Manasse, to participate in the Passover Festival in order to celebrate a purification and dedication of the Temple (2 Chr 30:1). This Passover Feast did exceptionally not take place in the month of Nisan but during 2 cycles of 7 days starting on 14 Iyar (2 Chr 30:13, 15, 23). The dedication of the altar under the supervision of Jeshua and Zerubbabel, which preceded the building of the Second Temple, was connected with the Festival of Tabernacles (Ezra 3:1-5). The later, new Festival of Dedication (also called Hanukkah) was modeled after the Feast of Tabernacles (2 Macc 1:9, 18; 10:5-6). Mahieu (2012: 147-53; see also the note to “throne” above) argues that the festival was celebrated on 18 November 18 BCE.

Josephus is returning to his description of the Temple complex. The relevant passage was most probably a tunnel (cf. the phrase “underground passage” further on in this sentence). For phrases similar to κρυπτὴ διώρυξ (“secret passage”), see Herodotus 3.146; Strabo 5.3.11; 5.4.7; Cassius Dio 71.18. I.e., the fortress at the northwest corner of the Temple precinct (see Ant. 15.403, 406, 409 with the relevant notes). I.e., the area containing the sanctuary, described in Ant. 15.391-395, 417-419. The eastern gate of the sanctuary may be identical with the gate that gave access to the Court of the Women (Patrich 2009: 68-69 with n. 81) or with the Nicanor Gate (see Ant. 15.418 with the note to “large gateway”). Especially the latter gate, having a tower on top of it (see the next note), provided Herod with a superb view over the sanctuary area. At the same time Herod himself may have been visible to many persons present in the area. Once again Herod’s personal involvement in the building activities is emphasized, but here it concerns Herod’s own interest (see the next notes). I.e., the tower on top of the gate (see the previous notes). I.e., the secret passage mentioned previously. This remark probably refers to the underground passage that enabled Herod to enter the area of the sanctuary without passing through the crowd. This detail is connected with the security motif highlighted by Josephus in several other passages of book 15 of Antiquities (e.g., 15.291-298). Josephus once again mentions that the Jewish people intended to revolt against Herod, or, at least, that Herod was afraid that the Jews would do so. This motif occurs already in Herod’s response to Antony’s request to send Aristobulus over (Ant. 15.30) and is especially present in Antiquities (van Henten 2011d).

The introductory formula λέγεται (literally “it is said that”) occurs 13 times in Josephus (War 7.300; Ant. 1.93, 239; 8.349; 13.282, 321; 14.36, 138; 15.425; 19.9, 269; Apion 1.165, 250). It introduces anonymous traditions, e.g., about an expedition by Abraham’s grandson Eophren (Ant. 1.239), about Moses receiving the Law at Mount Sinai (8.349), and the explanation of Aristobulus I’s hatred of his son Alexander Janneus (13.321; cf. Apion 1.165 concerning Pythagoras [see Barclay in BJP 10 on Ap. 1.165] and anonymous introductions of traditions found in rabbinic passages, e.g., about John Hyrcanus hearing a divine voice in the Temple saying that his sons had defeated Antiochus Cyzicenus [t. Soṭ. 13.5; cf. Ant. 13.282]; see Cohen 1986: 7-8; Schwartz 2013: 107-08). I.e., in the period of 1 year and 5 (or 6) months (Ant. 15.421). In Israel rain falls in autumn, winter, and (early) spring, such that the miracle lasted for one or two rain seasons, depending on the starting point of the building activities. The tradition mentioned here is supported by the Babylonian Talmud: “Likewise we find [what] happened in the days of Herod when the people were occupied with the rebuilding of the Temple. [At that time] rain fell during the night but in the morning the wind blew and the clouds dispersed and the sun shone so that the people were able to go out to their work, and then they knew that they were engaged in sacred work” (b. Ta‘an. 23a, trans. Rabbinowitz, slightly adapted; see Malter 1967: 334-35; Cohen 1986: 8). The rare verb κωλυσιεργέω (“impede work,” Rengstorf s.v.) is a hapax legomenon in Josephus. Outside Josephus it is attested only 5 times: once in Polybius (6.15.5) and 4 times in Philo (Conf. 163; Gig. 31; Leg. 1.103; Post. 79). It is one of many cases in which Josephus uses conspicuously “Philonic” language, see the Philo index by Mason in BJP 1b p. 476-78]. When Josephus is not referring to immediate parents, the most common meaning of the plural οἱ πατέρες (literally “the fathers”) in Jewish contexts is “the/our ancestors.” Obviously the ancestors were generally held in great honor, and Josephus also mentions them in a honorific sense (e.g., War 5.382-386; Ant. 4.54, 295; 5.171; 6.89). The noun πατήρ sometimes functions as an honorary title in Josephus (Rengstorf s.v.), like its equivalent ’āb in the Hebrew Bible (e.g., 2 Kgs 2:12; KBL s.v.). The latter meaning is common in 2 rabbinic writings (m. ’Abot and ’Abot R. Nat.; Jastrow 1.1-2), in which “fathers” is synonymous with “sages.” It is possible that Josephus is hinting at a similar meaning here. The idea that the ancestors transmitted important traditions occurs already in Ps 44:2 (LXX 43:2); 78:3 (LXX 77:3). In this concluding paragraph, with its reference to the other manifestations of God (τὰς ἄλλας ἐμφανείας τοῦ θεοῦ), Josephus points out once again that God was responsible for the events during Herod’s reign (see also Ant. 15.4 and 15.373-374 with notes and van Henten 2011c). Divine providence is also a favorite theme in other passages of Antiquities: military defeats are considered to be caused by God (e.g., 8.279-280; 12.307; 15.137-138, 144-146; cf. War 7.323-336). The word ἐμφάνεια (“manifestation”) occurs once elsewhere in Josephus (Ant. 15.136), in Herod’s commander speech (concerning heavenly messengers who make God known [εἰς εμφάνειαν ἄγειν] to humans). The concluding sentence focuses on the rebuilding of the sanctuary (for the Temple section being a mixture of narrative and description, see the first note at Ant. 15.380). The sanctuary is mentioned at the end of the section, probably because its renovation was the last phase of the building activities (see 15.421 with the note to “sanctuary”) and because the miracle of the rain, which manifested God’s role (see the previous note), was specifically connected with the sanctuary.

Quirinius’s census has been studied intensively, especially because it is mentioned at Luke 2:2, among the circumstances of the birth of Jesus: Luke states the census happened to be carried out just as Mary was about to give birth, and that is what occasioned Joseph and Mary’s visit to Bethlehem then, since the census required each person to be in his ancestral residence, and the family of Joseph, Mary’s husband, was thought to be Davidic, hence from Bethlehem (see Matthew 2:5–6, quoting Micah 5:2). Two data supplied by Luke, when compared with Josephus’s data, create the so-called “Quirinius Problem”: since at Luke 1:5 Luke dates his story to “the days of Herod” and Mary becomes pregnant in ch. 1 but gives birth in ch. 2, at the time of the census, it follows that Luke dates Quirinius’s census, and the birth of Jesus, to the days of Herod (or very shortly after his death), just as Matthew 2 (which does not mention the census) clearly dates Jesus’s birth to the days of Herod. But Josephus just as clearly puts Quirinius’s census after the end of Archelaus’s decade-long rule of Judea after Herod’s death; see esp. §26 and, for Archelaus’s decade-long tenure, War 2.111–113, Ant. 17.342, 345–347, and Life 5. For some of the huge bibliography on this contradiction concerning the date of the census, and discussions of the question that conclude that the dating of the census in Herod’s reign is impossible, if only because a Roman governor would not have conducted a census in the kingdom of an autonomous vassal king, see Schürer’s classic demonstration that Herod died in 4 bce and discussion of Quirinius’s census (hjp 1.326–328, n. 165, and 399–427), also Ogg 1967/68; Boffo 1994: 182–203; Sherwin-White 1963: 162–171; Stern 1974a: 372–374; Schreckenberg 1980: 186; Fitzmyer 1981: 400–405; Syme 1984: 881–883; Brown 1993: 547–556; Dąbrowa 2011; Rhoads 2011; Gertoux 2015; and Mahieu 2012: 447–463, together with Sievers 2014. It might be that the simplest explanation of the genesis of the problem is the hypothesis that the section on Mary in Luke 1 is secondary, introduced in order to clarify (as Matt 3:13–17 and John 1:1–34 do in other ways), in accordance with Christian needs, that, from the earliest possible point in the story, John recognized Jesus’s superiority; see D. R. Schwartz 2013: 110–115. Opening a book of Antiquities with δέ is usual for Josephus, whether it answers a μέν at the end of the preceding book (as at Ant. 19.1) or, as here (as also at 20.1), does not. So too, for example, the opening of Xenophon’s Hellenica and of the sixth and seventh books of Dionysius of Halicarnassus (cited by Schalit 1979:1–2). For discussion of the precise sense (continuative? adversative? emphatic?), see Verdenius 1974 and van der Horst 1979. Here it seems simply to be a way of underlining the name of the character on whom the story will now focus; compare the note on “to Agrippa” at §195. I.e., a senator; for the longwinded way of formulating that, cf. on “administrator of justice” later in this paragraph. For the use of βουλή for the Roman Senate, see gtri 121 and, for Josephus, ThLJ 108. For Quirinius’s career, including his consulship in 12 bce and his governorship of Galatia-Pamphylia ca. 5–3 bce, see Tacitus’s summary in Ann. 3.48.1–2, also hjp 1.258–259, and Dąbrowa 1998: 27–30. Dąbrowa 1998 gives many examples of the careers of the governors of Syria in the first two centuries; on their high status, reflected by the stationing of three or four legions in the province (see the note on “Roman” at §262), see Rey-Coquais 1978: 62 and Nitschke 2006: 93–95. As Nitschke emphasizes, virtually all were former consuls and in most cases the Syrian appointment was the peak of their careers. That itself constitutes an argument in the long debate (inspired by a desire to justify Luke 2:2) as to whether ils 918 makes it likely that the governorship mentioned here was Quirinius’s second in Syria; for that debate, see also hjp 1.425–426. For the same expression with a different verb, see Ant. 19.32. In 12 bce. For the use of ὕπατος of a Roman consul, see gtri 165–171. For this sense of σύν ὀλίγοις, see also 19.20, 125 and lsj 1215, s.v. ὀλίγος, §3b. It is nevertheless possible that Josephus meant, as Whiston (1878: 470) thought, that Quirinius came to Syria “with a few” in his entourage; cf. the fuller, and unambiguous, formulation at §49: σὺν ὀλίγοις τοῖς περὶ αὐτόν, also §107. But in the present case it is difficult to see what the point of that observation would be. As with “who had been admitted to the Senate” instead of “a senator,” above, so too δικαιοδότης (which appears only here in Josephus) seems to be no more than a fancy formulation for “governor”; see Stern 1974a: 373. Here Stern responds to the suggestion that Josephus does not mean that Quirinius was governor of Syria at the time of this census, a notion that could open up the possibility that the time when Quirinius conducted a census as governor of Syria (as indicated more explicitly at Luke 2:2) was earlier, in the days of Herod, as Luke suggests, with Quirinius then having only some special assignment; Stern writes that that “seems far-fetched.” For epigraphic evidence for the use of the term of provincial governors, see gtri 37, s.v. δικαιοδότης, §4.

τάγματος τῶν ἱππέων; for this formulation, see gtri 57, s.v. ἱππεύς. By introducing Coponius (who, apart from the brief parallel at War 2.107, is otherwise unknown) as an equite, paralleling his introduction of Quirinius as a senator, Josephus clarifies to his readers that the secondary status of Judea, in contrast to Syria, was paralleled by the difference in ranks of those sent to administer them. For the contrast between senators and equites, see the note on “was chosen” at 19.3. Despite the preceding context, which sounds as if Quirinius were just administering the initial evaluation but Coponius was given full authority in Judea, the next sentence shows this is not what Josephus meant. Rather, the parallel narrative at War 2.117 explains what “full” means: the authority even to put subjects to death. See hjp 1.367–372 and 2.219–223; Bammel 1974b; Lémonon 2007: 70–86; Martin 2006: 175; and Mason 2008: 80–81, n. 722, also the note on “approval” at 20.202. For ἐξουσία as legal authority, ius, see gtri 44. This formulation, which echoes that of 17.355, seems to be contradicted by that in War 2.117, according to which Judea became a province. But that account also makes no reference to the fact that the Roman census of Judea in 6 ce was administered by the Roman governor of Syria—a point that supports the present formulation. Hence, it seems that the formulation in War should be viewed as a general statement, whereas here we learn that, although Judea had a separate administrator, who usually functioned as a governor, Judea was under the general supervision of the Roman governor of Syria. In any case, it is clear, from War as well (e.g., 2.185, 239–244, paralleled below at §261 and 20.125–133), that the governors of Syria exercised such a role when needed, as is only to be expected, given their higher rank and prestige and the legions at their disposal; this point leaves the question, whether Judea was part of Syria, largely formal. In general, see Ghiretti 1985; Cotton 1999: 76–81, who argues that Judea did not become “an independent province” until after the death of Agrippa I; and Eck 2007: 1–51, who puts that off until the revolt of 66, when (in 67) Vespasian, an ex-consul, was sent directly to Judea by the emperor, not by the Roman governor of Syria. See also Mason 2008: 78–79, n. 718, and idem 2016c: 239–245. Lit. “their.” The use of “their” with reference to “Judea,” as also “they” at the beginning of §3, indicates the assumption that Ioudaioi are to be understood, here, as “Judeans.” For a similar passage, see §196. The same two goals of Quirinius’s mission are mentioned at §26, as already at 17.355. On property owned by Herod and inherited by Archelaus (termed “Archelaus’s house/estate” in the same context at 17.355), see War 2.96–97//Ant. 17.319–320, also Wilker 2007: 76–78. On the sense of χρήματα, cf. the note on “labor” at §319. As for Luke’s reference to what Quirinius did as an imperial census (ἀπογραφή) of “the entire inhabited world” (Luke 2:1), rather than as a measure related to Rome’s particular needs in Judea after Archelaus’s exile, note a Roman officer’s report, preserved in an inscription (originally from Beirut?) found in Venice (Boffo 1994, no. 23 = ils 2683), that he conducted a census (“censum egi”) in Apamea on Quirinius’s orders. This suggests that Quirinius, upon his arrival in Syria (to which Judea was now attached), conducted a census throughout all of its borders, and that could account for Luke’s impression that it was universal.

For ἐν δεινῷ φέροντες see also, for example §§261, 354. This verb, ὑποκαταβαίνω, appears elsewhere in Josephus only once, in a literal sense of “coming down” from the mountains to the coast (Apion 1.180). This reference to Joazar as high priest is problematic, because according to Ant. 17.339 he was deposed about a decade earlier. This problem cannot be avoided by reference to the fact that Josephus and the New Testament often identify someone as “high priest” in the sense of belonging to that class, especially (but not only) if the individual was once the high priest, as is the case in such passages as 20.180–181, 207 and Acts 4:6 (on that general usage see Stern 1976: 600–603), for §26 reports that, in the wake of the present episode, Joazar was removed from office and replaced by another. That is, here Josephus means he was the incumbent. Perhaps he was reinstated sometime after the abovementioned deposition and Josephus failed to report that; this might be a case in which Josephus’s move from Nicolaus (followed down to the end of Ant. 17) to other sources entailed some roughness. See VanderKam 2004: 417–419. “Son of Boethus” probably means “of the clan of Boethus”—a well-known family of Alexandrian origin that rose to prominence in Herod’s days (Ant. 15.320–322); see esp. 19.297, also Smallwood 1962: 15 and 32–34; Stern 1976: 604–606; and Hachlili 1983/84: 202–203. Joazar’s precise identity depends on the interpretation of Ant. 17.164. See VanderKam 2004: 413–414 and below, Appendix 2. Josephus uses ἐνδοιάζω frequently in these books, usually, as here, with a negation (§§97, 132, 231, 329; 19.108, 242).

Better known as “Judas the Galilean”; that is how the leader of this rebellion, explicitly linked to the time of Quirinius’s census, is named at 18.23; 20.102; War 2.433; and Acts 5:37. The fact that Josephus identifies him here as a Golanite, despite that usual practice and despite the fact that usually Josephus is content to refer generally to Gamala as if it were part of the nearby Galilee (see the note on “Gamala” later in this paragraph), seems to indicate a need specific to the present context: the desire to indicate to readers that this rebellious Judas is not to be identified with the Galilean rebel of about a decade earlier, Judas the son of Ezekias, to whom Josephus devoted several lines not too far back (Ant. 17.271–272). Josephus’s efforts have not, of course, stopped historians from wondering whether the two were not in fact one; see Mason 2016c: 246, n. 171. By adding “a city named” Josephus recognizes that his readers might not have heard of the city. Indeed, Josephus might not have remembered ever mentioning the city in Antiquities; the last (and only) times it is mentioned in the work are at 13.394, 396. Cf. the notes on “are called” at §11 and on “Nazirites” at 19.294. Which was indeed in the Golan, as Josephus also states at War 4.2. Elsewhere, however, Josephus more generally includes Gamala in the Galilee: he includes Vespasian’s conquest of Gamala (War 4.1–83) within his account of the fighting in the Galilee (see esp. ibid. 84 and 120), just as his survey of Gamala’s affairs in Life 46–61 comes within his account of the cities of the Galilee (see Life 30, 61). Indeed, at War 2.568 Josephus roundly defines Gamala as the largest city of the Galilee. On Gamala and Josephus’s accounts of it, see Aviam 2007. This conforms to Josephus’s statement at §23 that the fourth philosophy, founded by Judas, agreed with the Pharisees about most things. For ἄντικρυς in such a metaphorical sense (“downright, outright”), see also §302 and Ant. 4.150; ThLJ 53. For its basic locative sense (“opposite”), see 20.169 and Life 248. For echoes of Thucydides in the present phrase and the next paragraphs (§§5–8), see Feldman 1965: 6–7, n. a. Cf. the note on “slavery” at §47. The basic notion seems to be that the assessment would allow for Roman taxation and that would be the embodiment of enslavement. But it should be noted that the very notion of the census itself, which patently reduces people to the status of objects, could easily be associated with enslavement, as in 3 Macc 2:28 (“reduced to laographia and servile status”; cf. Kasher 1985: 226–228). For Judas’s fight being a refusal to accept “slavery,” see the opening of his grandson’s (?) speech at Masada, War 7.323, also, more generally, the first main section of Agrippa ii’s great anti-rebellion speech at War 2.348–357. For similar usage of ἀντίληψις, see §215, also the use of the verb, ἀντιλαμβάνω, in the same sense, at 19.238. “Liberty” is, of course, the standard opposite of “slavery”; see, for example, 12.434/13.1; 13.213; 19.42; 20.121; and War 7.255. Although sometimes, such as Ant. 12.281, 302–303 and 13.198 (in his paraphrase of 1 Maccabees), Josephus presents the freedom to live according to Jewish law as all the “liberty” the Jews want, here, as elsewhere, Josephus freely admits that, insofar as government is concerned, Roman rule means the end of the Jews’ freedom. Affirmation of this conclusion, but with the call upon Jews to accept it and stop dreaming of “liberty,” is a prime theme of Agrippa ii’s speech in War 2.345–401, just as both of Eleazar ben Yair’s speeches at Masada argue repeatedly that those who want to remain free by evading Roman rule can do so only via suicide (7.326, 334, 344, 386). On Josephus on “liberty” see Gafni 2019: 21–22 and D. R. Schwartz 2002; on “Israel’s freedom” more generally, see Hengel 1989: 110–122.

Such positive usage of μεγαλόφρονος, of those who undertake rebellion, followed up by μεγάλων (“great things”) later in this paragraph, is probably to be understood ironically, in light of the condemnation that begins more explicitly with the reference to “murder” at the end of the paragraph. Cf. 20.176 and Life 17, 43, where Josephus condemns rebels as μέγα φρονοῦντες, people who are “thinking (too) big,” i.e., out of line, with arrogance or hubris, like Herodias at §255. By using τὸ θεῖον rather than ὁ θεός, Josephus chooses a more universal-sounding nomenclature, as is appropriate for the presentation of Judaism as a “philosophy” (§§9, 11, 25) See also the notes on “deity” at §288 and 20.41. As Shutt (1980: 173–179) concludes his discussion, “The above investigation supports the conclusion that usually to theion is used by Josephus to mean ‘the deity,’ without necessarily any reference to the God of Israel.” Correspondingly, note Haaland 1999: 46, n. 53: τὸ θεῖον is “underrepresented” in Against Apion, where Josephus avoids presenting Judaism as a philosophy (see the note on “philosophy” at §9). On such “synergetism,” rather than waiting for God to act himself, see Byron 2003: 84. The idea that God helps them who help themselves is akin to that ascribed to Chaerea at 19.56, 233; note also 18.363. Reading φόνου, with the witnesses. Hudson, followed by Niese and Schalit, emended this into πόνου (suffering, burden), probably on the assumption that Josephus would not ascribe to Judas and Sadok such a pejorative designation of what their men would need to do. However, Josephus’s point seems to be bitterly ironic, namely, that these wicked demagogues could convince their gullible followers that even murder is necessary; so too at §23. Ιn §7, in contrast, it is the innocent who endure πόνος.

Here Josephus moves from his ironic presentation of the elevated formulations of the rebel leaders to their tragic consequences. On “receiving with pleasure,” see the note on “pleasure” at §63. For audacity (τόλμα/τόλμημα, θράσος) and the related verbs and adjectives as characteristic of rebels, see, for example, War 2.238, 267, 303, 409, 412, as below, in what Mason (2008: 219, n. 1693) terms “the build-up to war” in Ant. 20 (§§108, 114, 165, 180–181, 199, 206, 213). Josephus considers it to be especially characteristic of youths; see 19.45 and the note on “youths” at §10. Here I translate ἐπιβουλή, as in the main witnesses, and as in the same phrase at §181. Niese, here as in his conjecture at 16.332 (Niese 1890a: 55) and (in his editio minor) at War 4.154 (Niese 1895: 276), prefers ἐπιβολή, which, in the sense of “attack, undertaking, project, plan, intention” (the relevant definitions of ἐπιβολή in ccfj 2.151), comes close to what we would expect. However, it only comes close; we would expect something like “movement.” Given the near-unanimity of the witnesses, we should perhaps prefer to understand that Josephus is chacterizing the rebels as conspiring against both Rome and the Judean commonweal. Josephus likes this collocation; see for example §§142, 181, 340. For ἀναπίμπλημι (lit. “fill up”) in the sense of “infect,” “defile,” see ThLJ 41 (s.v. ἀναπιμπλάναι, §3) and, for example, Feldman’s translations of 19.172 and 20.160 (Feldman 1965: 295, 477). For similar usage with ἀναπίμπλημι see 20.160; with plain πίμπλημι, see also 20.124, 215. For the comparison of a state’s deterioration to its suffering from a disease, cf. §25 and 20.214.

Josephus uses this verb, ἐπελαφρύνω, only one other time—Life 284. Here Josephus may well have been thinking of Ananus, son of Ananus; see his eulogy of him in War 4.321, where Josephus emphasizes that had he not been murdered he would either have brought the war to an end or else postponed the Roman victory. For his murder as the main turning-point of the war, according to Josephus, and therefore of Josephus’s War, see esp. Mason 2016b: 22–23. For λῃσταί and bands of them (λῃστήρια) as heinous criminals (the Romans’ “latrones”) very familiar to Josephus’s readers, see Grünewald 2004 (esp. 91–109 on Judea), also Brighton 2009: 60–62; Sharon 2017: 361–377; and Grabbe 2021: 138–145. Whatever the truth about them was (nationalist rebels? self-seeking criminals?, “social bandits”?), it is clear that Josephus’s terminology is quite pejorative. Note, however, that this is the only time Josephus refers to λῃσταί or λῃστήρια in Book 18 or 19, whereas in Book 20 they appear quite often and, indeed, references to their becoming more and more widespread are something of a refrain that marks steps along the way to the final catastrophe. Note esp. 20.124, 160, 172, 210, 215, 255–256. Thus this passage contributes significantly to the function of this introduction as an opening bracket meant to portray the start of direct Roman rule as the beginning of the end. Like many authors, Josephus frequently contrasts the way things seem to the way they really are. Compare, for example, §260; 17.163, 241; and 19.101, 130, 156–157, 246; Apion 2.281. This is especially useful when, as here, it points up the falsity of villains’ claimed justifications for their self-serving actions; so, for example, at 19.40–41, 130. The theme is prominent in the Life, which is full of double games, and in the long account of Gaius’s assassination in Book 19, where the very nature of tyranny imposes on ruler (as here) and ruled the need for dissimulation; see the note on “ostensibly” at 19.157. For more on the Greco-Roman distinction between word and deed, see Danker 1982: 339–343.

True, στάσις “can best be defined as internal war between local groups of citizens” (Berger 1992: 10), and often Josephus indeed uses it that way, for factional violence within cities; see, for example, 18.374; 19.278; and 20.173 (on Seleucia, Alexandria, and Caesarea). In other cases, however, such as §63 and 20.227, and perhaps here as well, Josephus uses the term more broadly, of “rebellion”—the result being the portrayal of Jewish rebellion against Rome as the work of only a faction among the Jews, one that, as he insists in the present passage as elsewhere, in no way represents the Jews as a whole. On Josephus on “stasis,” although especially in War, see Mason 2008: 319–320, n. 2627; Price 2011; and Chapman 2019. For Josephus’s frequent interpretation of events in Antiquities in terms of “stasis” (e.g. 1.117, 4.140, 225; 13.291, 299), along with the argument that he did so in order to appeal to the interests of non-Jews and Jews who were familiar with the topos (e.g. from Thucydides’s famous account of Corcyra [3.82–84]), see Feldman 1998a: 140–143. This is the only occurrence of ἀναισχυντία in Josephus. For the hunger and shamelessness that characterized the depths of suffering during the Roman siege, see War 6.199 (ἀναίδεια) and the terrible story introduced there (§§201–213); on it, see D. R. Schwartz 2013: 87–89. This move to very Jewish terminology, referring to “God” rather than “the deity” (see the note on “deity” at §5) and to the “Temple of God” rather than “the Temple of the Jews” (so Gaius at §297) or as “the Temple” simpliciter, as usual, is, just as the lesson stated in the next line, a clear self-positioning of Josephus as a Jewish author bespeaking the Jewish religion; so too 20.49, where he reflects the attitude of a Jewish pilgrim.

The same principle, that innovation with regard to ancestral practice is heinous and brings on catastrophe, reappears at 20.218, at the very eve of the end of the story. Together with the present passage, it thus frames the whole period of direct Roman rule. Cf. the Introduction, at n. 32. Other statements of this principle include 5.306; 15.267, 281. For the general ancient assumption that old things were legitimate and the concomitant condemnation of innovation, see Pilhofer 1990. Note also Apion 2.182–183 and 2.222, where Josephus condemns those who depend on “saying new things” (καινολογεῖν) to mislead fools, just as Acts 17:21 similarly pokes fun at Athenians who have nothing to do but talk all day about whatever happens to be new (there the condemnation of innovation comes along with scorn for Greek wordiness; cf. the note on “desire it” at 20.204). For the way Josephus’s condemnation of innovation and proclaimed devotion (in the immediate continuation) to the ancestral laws resonated with Roman ideals, see esp. Goodman 1994: 334–335. On the equation of “new” gods with “strange, foreign” gods, especially in the imperial period, cf. Norden (1913b): 53, n. 3. For Josephus’s use of τὰ πάτρια, see esp. Schröder 1996. Usually it refers to the ancestral laws. Here, Josephus’s polemic against the rebels is premised upon his account of them as a philosophy, one that claimed to be a variety of the Jewish religion, which allows him to denounce it as as such and to set it as a bracket parallel to the one supplied by another violation of the Jewish religion at 20.216–218. It could well be that the Sicarii would have been puzzled or amused by Josephus’s presentation of them as a group of the same genus as the schools of Jewish religious philosophy, but for Josephus, who by Antiquities was tending to view “being Jewish” as a matter of religion, which has various philosophies, that was the only point of view from which he could posit or condemn varieties of Jews. For this image, see also §349 and 19.144. I have translated τοῖς συνελθοῦσιν in accordance with the use of the verb at §20. Note that Josephus states only that punishment falls upon the perpetrators. In fact, however, his story frequently reports, both in War (e.g., 2.455) and the present volume (e.g., §§62, 84), that rebels’ clashes with the government bring down suffering on innocent bystandbyers as well, if only because they failed to intervene; see the notes on “did not” at §62 and on “with them” at 20.180. Here in contrast, in this programmatic introduction, Josephus prefers to sign onto a simpler religious statement. For a thorough demonstration that ἐπείσακτος, for Josephus and others, means “brought in from elsewhere” (compare, for example, the similar use of ἐπεισάγω for the introduction of foreign practices at 15.281), which in matters of religion, and customary practice in general, of course constitutes a condemnation, as is stated here, see van der Horst 2012. For Josephus’s use of φιλοσοφία and the verb φιλοσοφέω and φιλόσοφος, see Haaland 1999: 289–290. As he summarizes, “we see that in Bellum and Antiquitates the ‘philosophy words’ are almost exclusively employed in descriptions of Jews and Judaism.” For Antiquities, see, apart from here, 13.289 (on the Pharisees) and 1.25; 8.44; 12.37, 99 (where the Jews engage in “philosophizing” with the king); 16.398. In Against Apion, in contrast, such words are used almost only of others: Greeks, Egyptians, and Chaldaeans. This is part of a general anti-Greek orientation of Josephus in Against Apion; note that some witnesses give the work’s title as Against the Greeks. In other words, in the Antiquities Josephus enjoys portraying the Jews as having philosophies, for it makes them as respectable as the Greeks, while in Against Apion, in which he generally takes an anti-Greek stance (except for when it’s convenient to cite Greeks who approve of the Jews), he portrays “philosophy” superciliously, as the type of prattle that would appeal only to Greeks, who excel in such nonsense but have little regard for truth, while the Jews, like Romans, are serious and honest people. See esp. Apion 2.225, also Life 40, Acts 17:18–21 and Plutarch, Life of Cato the Elder, chs. 22–23. For thoughts as to what might have engendered such a move within what must have been no more than a couple of years (Domitian’s persecution of philosophers?; Greek criticism of Josephus’s Antiquities?), see Haaland 2005. Josephus’s use of τὸ παρόν (“the present”) of 6 ce here means “their present” (cf. the fuller phrasing in 20.61), in contrast to the later period to which he next alludes. In Ant. 17–20 Josephus often uses θόρυβος and θορυβέω to describe Jewish violence that he condemns; see the note on “tumult for the Jews” at §65. This statement is seconded at the opening of §11, which grounds the other, legimitate, philosophies in “the earliest times.” Josephus achieves the same deligitimizing end in War 2.118 by asserting that Judas’s teachings had nothing to do with those of other Jewish schools (οὐδὲν τοῖς ἄλλοις προσεοικώς)—of which, he emphasizes at the opening of the excursus that follows that paragraph, as here at §11, there were three.

Namely, about the fourth philosophy. Josephus frequently asserts that it was the intemperate nature of youths that brought about rebellion and, in its wake, suffering and destruction; see esp. War 2. 225, 284, 290, and 4.128, as well as Levine 1974: 394–395, n. 94; Eckstein 1990: 192–193 (esp. on the theme’s Polybian background); and Mason 2008: 313, n. 2567. Both of the latter cite comparable material from elsewhere. Note that this is not a problem of Jewish youth alone; see Ant. 19.300. This is a useful apologetic claim, for it means that the older Jews, who were also wiser (on the need of youths to get idealism and extremism out of their system, see esp. Josephus, Life 12, also ibid. §80) and more representative of Judaism, tried to prevent rebelliousness. See, for example, War 2.290, 410–411; Ant. 20.123. Cf. Ant. 4.152 (on Phinehas): if a youth was hotheaded and violent for a good cause, he was exceptional. I.e., for Judas and Sadok. Holwerda (1853: 113) suggested emending αὐτῶν into αὐτήν, which would have the advantage of describing the rebels of the 66–70 as devotees of the fourth philosophy, not of its founders, and would also allow us to avoid the problem that κατά with the genitive usually means “against.” As so often, one wonders whether there is enough justification for the assumption that Josephus wrote a text better than the one that has come down to us—in this case, without variants (Niese 1890a: 141). As is the case with the long excursus on the Jewish sects (as they are conventionally termed) at War 2.119–166, which is introduced at the same place in the narrative, after mentioning Judas’s rebellion against Rome in 6 ce, the basic point of the present excursus is to emphasize that Judas’s approach was an illegitmate innovation, a departure from what was accepted, and therefore legitimate, among the Jews. But if that excursus began with a long account of the Essenes, who are presented, implicitly, as respectable Jewish versions of Spartans/Romans (see Mason 2007a), the current one opens with the Pharisees and then follows it with an account of the Sadducees, who—as is especially shown by Main 1990—serve as foils for them. This highlighting of the Pharisees, whose devotion to the traditions and laws is emphasized, corresponds both to the local context (as opposed to the rebels’ penchant for innovation, emphasized at §9) and, more generally, to a basic theme of Antiquities—the emphasis on Jewish law.The massive corpus of scholarly literature on ancient Jewish “sects” (as they are conventionally termed) is closely linked to literature on Josephus’s accounts of them—their sources, their functions, and their worth as evidence. On the function of Josephus’s excurses on the sects, see Haaland 2007. In general, on Josephus and the sects, see Feldman’s bibliographical survey (Feldman and Hata 1989: 420–429), McLaren 2000, Goodman 2007b: 33–46, and A. I. Baumgarten 2016. For Josephus on specific sects see, on the Pharisees, Mason 1991 and 2021 and Baumbach 1997; on the Sadducees, Main 1990, Poehlmann 1992, and virtually all studies of the Pharisees; on the Essenes, Beall 1988, Bergmeier 1993, Mason 2007a, Mason 2008: 84–95, Collins 2009, Krause 2017: 207–220. On the similarity of Josephus’s account of the Essenes to those of Philo (Hypothetica 11.1–8; Quod omnis probus liber sit 75–91), which leads to hypotheses that Josephus followed Philo or they both followed a common source, see Collins 2009: 52–54, 58–60.

I.e., legitimately; see the note on “innovation” at §9. For Josephus’s penchant for presenting topics dialectically under three headings, of which frequently one is in the middle and one on either side, see, for example, Ant. 13.171–173 (on these three sects, of which, as here, the Sadducees ascribe all to free will, the Essenes ascribe nothing to it, and the Pharisees take a middle position); there were three conspiracies against Gaius (19.17) and three murdered by the avenging Germans (19.123–126); War 5.539 (of the Romans some disdained the appeals of Jews who offered to surrender, some disbelieved them, but the majority simply ignored them); 6.237–241 (some wanted to destroy the Temple, some to preserve it, and some had a middle view); and Life 32, 124 (some favored war, some favored peace, some dissimulated). Cf. the note on “largest part” at §145. See the note on “philosophy” at §9. In the Greek, “as they are called” (λεγόμενοι) comes at the end of the sentence, but probably should be taken to relate to the names of all three sects. By using words like λεγόμενοι, Josephus reassures his readers, as it were, that indeed the word is strange and they are “allowed” not to know it. For similar usage, see e.g., §§4, 22, 90–91, 159. Αs Mason notes (2008: 89), when writing of Essenes in the plural Josephus always uses Ἐσσηνοί, as here and at §18, while when referring to them in the singular he prefers Ἔσσαῖος. While Bergmeier (1993) made this part of a source-critical analysis, probably we need see here only a matter of euphony, as is suggested by Mason. For further discussion of Bergmeier’s analysis, see Frey 2022: esp. 335–346. As for what the name might mean: Josephus gives the topic no attention, and it still seems to be anyone’s guess; see Kampen 1986 and Frey 2022: 349–351. War 2.119–166. Although much of the narrative of War 1–2 is paralleled in Ant. 12–20, there are, alongside 13.72 and a possible hint at 18.129, only three passages in Ant. 12–20 in which Josephus refers explicitly to War. One comes at the end of Antiquities (20.257–258), where Josephus concludes his narrative in 66 ce and refers his readers to War, as a whole, for the continuation of the story, but the other two (13.171–173; 13.298) are, as the present one, cross-references to his detailed account of the sects in War 2 that are added to brief passages about them. It seems that this topic was especially salient in Josephus’s mind as one on which he had written something of a monograph in War 2. In one of his usual exasperating inconsistencies, however, at Ant. 15.371 he refers to the Essenes, promises to write about them sometime in the future, but fails to refer to his account in War 2. After promising at §10 to say more about the fourth philosophy, it is surprising that Josephus first announces and offers an account of the other three. Apparently, his tactic is similar to the one announced explicitly at §65, namely, that readers will understand the promised account the way he wants them to if he first presents something else, in light of which the promised account should be read.

On the meaning of “Pharisee,” see A. I. Baumgarten 1982 and Morrison 2021. Josephus opens his account of each of the three sects he presents as ancient and legitimate by referring to its λόγος (§§12, 16, 18). Ηis failure to do so concerning the so-called “fourth philosophy” (§§23–25) is part of his case for its illegitimacy. The verb here, παραδίδωμι, points to the Pharisaic adherence to their “tradition,” paradosis; see the note on “indeed” at §16. Josephus’s emphasis on the Pharisees’ adherence to tradition and abhorrence of deviation from it (those who do so are arrogant, “exalting themselves”) makes them the precise opposite of the rebels he has been describing and condemning until now; see esp. §9. His use of the rare περιμάχητον binds this account, of the Pharisees, to that of the Essenes (§18). Their doctrine. Which should make them very respectable in Roman eyes and, by implication, set up the Sadducees, who like to contradict their teachers (§16), for the opposite evaluation. Compare, for example, Ovid’s account at Fasti 5.57–78 of the way the elderly were respected in the good old days (cited by Parkin 2003: 100–107, along with a number of texts that express the widespread image of the Senate as an instiution in which old men [“senes”], who are wise and experienced, rule Rome. Parkin’s doubts about the degree to which practice differed from the ideal do not matter here.) Apparently: the teachings mentioned earlier in this difficult passage. Reading according to Niese’s conjecture (1890a: 142; 1890b: 123), ἤ, instead of the manuscripts’ οἱ. Others (including Feldman 1965: 10, followed by Mason 1991: 288) simply omit these letters (as does the Epitome [Niese 1887–1896: 300]), rendering a simpler text: “nor are they inclined boldly to contradict the things that were introduced [scil. by them].” But if that were the original text, it would be difficult to explain what generated the received text; it is easier to imagine the omission of this small word, especially if a copyist did not understand what two options Josephus was delineating. It seems, however, that Josephus means to distinguish between the Pharisees’ failure both to reject things (probably he means laws) introduced by their elders and to argue with their elders out of insolence—and thereby sets them up as a match for the Sadducees, who, according to §16, do both: not only do they oppose laws introduced by their teachers (because they only accept laws, i.e. biblical laws [cf. the note on “laws” at §16]); they also consider it laudable to argue with their teachers. Here, within the context of this excursus on sects, Josephus is preparing a contrast with the Sadducees; see §16. But readers of this book may also recall Josephus’s emphasis on the youth of the rebels he condemned at §10; cf. esp. War 2.417, where the young rebels arrogantly reject the advice of their elders.

On εἱμαρμένη, and the fundamental correspondence of Josephus’s report about the Pharisees and rabbinic notions, see Moore 1929; Shutt 1980: 183–186; Maier 1981; and Klawans 2012: 44–91. For a survey and critique of “scholarly interpretations of Josephus on fate and free will,” see Mason 1991: 384–398. On the construction here (τοῦ ἀνθρωπείου τὸ βουλόμενον), note Richards’s complaint (1939: 37): “The neuter article with adj[ective] or participle is an overdone idiom in xvii–xix. Its use is pushed so far as to make the phrase govern a genitive [as here, drs]. This is a solecism not to be attributed to a Greek assistant … Here J[osephus] seems to go astray in his desperate effort to improve his style” (original emphases). Here I translate the text of the codices, ἀπ’ αὐτῆς, on the assumption Josephus means that although, indeed, fate does set things into motion, the Pharisees do not deny all room for human will, a claim that he will explain in the remainder of the sentence. Niese (1890a: 142), followed by Thackeray (1932) and Feldman (1965: 13), reads ἐπ’ αὐτοῖς with the Epitome (Niese 1887–1896: 2). Reading κρᾶσιν, with three manuscripts and Feldman; cf. War 5.212 and 7.298. On the reading and translation here, see Mason 1991: 295 and Klawans 2012: 254–255, n. 94. Ambrosianus, followed here by Niese (1890a: 142), reads κρίσιν (judgment, decision), but, as Thackeray (who translates “a coalition”) observed (1932: 93, n. 1), applying the lectio difficilior rule, “‘transcriptional probability’ (Hort’s phrase) confirms this reading: κρίσιν would not have been altered to κρᾶσιν.” I.e., fate’s. That is, Josephus portrays the relationship between human will and fate as something of a debate in a council-chamber. For literal usage of βουλευτήριον, see for example 17.280 and 19.60.

This sounds as if Josephus is now turning to another doctrine of the Pharisees, having completed his discussion of free will vs. fate. But since the only importance of immortality, in his discussion here (as more explicitly in War 2.156–157), is the fact that it inspires concern for rewards and punishment for virtue and vice, his use, later in this paragraph, of the same two terms that concluded §13 (ἀρετῆς ἢ κακίας) links the two together. For ἐπιτήδευσις as “striving after” virtue (ἀρετή), see also §§15, 66 and 19.49, also the note on “strove” at 19.32. For Josephus on the sects’ views of the afterlife, see Klawans 2012: 92–136.

For Mason’s argument, based partly on comparison with other passages (such as 13.288; 17.41) where Josephus is critical of the Pharisees, that τυγχάνουσιν here means “happen to be,” which he takes to mean “as merely a matter of chance,” see Mason 1991: 301, 304. As he emphasizes, however, even if translated that way there is here no explicit criticism of the Pharisees, such as that found elsewhere, for Josephus’s intention, here, is to present the Pharisees, as the Sadducees and Essenes, as respectable representatives of legitimate Judaism, as opposed to Judas’s fourth philosophy. Moreover, τυγχάνω frequently means (as Mason recognizes) nothing more than “is” (see, for example, §§11, 27), and even if one insists on “happen to be,” that can be insistent, as in Feldman’s translation: “they are, as a matter of fact” (Feldman 1965: 13). It seems that the fact that Josephus points, here, to their teachings as the reason for the Pharisees’ popularity argues against a reading that has the latter coming about “as merely a matter of chance.” Cf. below, the note on “better” later in this paragraph. For this respectable translation of δήμοι, in line with the reference to “cities” later in this paragraph, see gtri 35, also ThLJ 134–135 and Mason 2008: 213, n. 1651. Contrast below, at §17, where, in the context of his account of the Sadducees, who are said to be “first in rank,” the Pharisees’ followers are instead characterized as being supported by the “masses,” as aristocrats prefer (see the note on “multitude” at §26). Josephus, that is, is concerned to make each of the three sects appear respectable, so as to leave the “Fourth Philosophy” a total outsider. For the insistence that a reference to “citizens” (even in something as formal as 20.11, alongside ἄρχουσι βουλῇ) need not entail the notion that Jerusalem was a polis, according to Greek standards, see Tcherikover 1964: 66. But Josephus and others regularly refer to Jerusalem as a city (polis, urbs), whatever the institutional details. For ἐξήγησις meaning not “exegesis” (of a text or tradition) but, rather, declaration (of law), see Mandel 2017: 145–168. Of the use of the plural, when it is difficult to imagine Josephus was thinking of any city apart from Jerusalem, Horsley (2022: 83–84) comments that Josephus could mean towns and villages as well and observes that this formulation “is … just one more example of how Josephus is couching his account in terms typical of Hellenistic urban life in which various philosophies had influence across many cities.” Cf. Life 12, where Josephus reports that after trying out different sects he eventually returned to the city (Jerusalem) and began to live like a Pharisee. Cf. Mason 1991: 304–305, who deliberates whether κρείσσονος here means “better” or, rather, “more influential, predominant,” a sense that is indeed easily documented; see, inter alia, 19.97, 112, 146, 173, 207 and 20.89. If, as Mason prefers, that translation is adopted, Josephus would not be recommending the Pharisees here, but only recognizing their influence, just as elsewhere in his work there are passages in which he recognizes their influence and complains about it; see esp. 13.288, 401–402, and 17.41. However, this passage does not complain about it, and in light of the explanation that their status derives from recognition of their virtue, the picture it gives is basically positive. Here Josephus assumes that Judaism, like other philosophies, has two main elements: practices and doctrines. So too, for example, at Apion 2.179, 181. In the present context, which refers to Pharisaism as one of the Jews’ “philosophies,” readers should understand this as reflecting the standard distinction between theoretical and practical philosophy; see, for a prominent precedent, Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 2.2. (1103b). By evaluating the Pharisaic way as better than all others, Josephus sets us up for the coming account of the Sadducees, which is built to contrast them with the Pharisees.

Although there have been some other suggestions (see hjp 2.405–407), it is usually assumed that the name derives from Ṣadoq, the name of the high priest in the days of David and Solomon, whose progeny supplied high priests for centuries (see 1 Chronicles 6:8–15//Ant. 10.151–153). This hypothesis is based especially on the evidence for a close relationship between Sadducees and high priests; see the note on “rank” at §17. I have used this heavy translation of δέ because the coming account is evidently built specifically to parallel that of the Pharisees. True, Josephus sometimes treats all three sects together; so in his three main accounts of them (here; War 2.119–166, and Ant. 13.171–173) and in Life 10. Nevertheless, just as a few passages in the New Testament (which never mentions Essenes) portray the Pharisees and Sadducees in parallel and in conflict with each other (Matthew 22; Acts 5:17//33 and 23:6–9), so too Josephus takes them as a pair; so explicitly at Ant. 13.288–298 and implicitly at 20.199 (see the note there on “reported”). The same also emerges from War 2, where his long account of the Essenes (§§119–161) is followed by a very short one (§§162–166) that discusses the Pharisees and Sadducees, weaving them together as a pair of opposites. Lit. “makes the souls disappear,” a forceful formulation that sets readers up for the just as striking, but contrary, formulation about the Essenes at §18: they “make the souls immortal.” On the Sadducean denial of life after death, see Klawans 2012: 101–106. It is mentioned frequently in New Testament references to their hostility to the early Christians, whose belief focused on the resurrection of Jesus; see the note on “high priests of God” at 20.198. Cf. the note on “along with itself” at 19.325. I.e., the written laws of the Torah, as opposed to traditions; see esp. Ant. 12.297. For a rabbinic claim, nonetheless, that the Sadducees also had other written laws (as opposed to the Pharisees, who kept their extra-biblical laws oral), see the scholion to Megillat Ta’anit to 4 Tammuz (Noam 2003: 77–79, with discussion at 206–216), along with Le Moyne 1972: 219–223. By this use of γάρ to link the Sadducees’ refusal to observe anything not ordained by “the laws” to their approbation of contradicting their teachers, Josephus makes it clear that his account of the Pharisees, at §12, which posits “tradition” as a source of legal authority apart from “the laws,” refers to traditions beyond the written laws of Moses. So too Ant. 13.297. Cf. A. I. Baumgarten 1987. For such non-numerical use of ἀριθμέω, see also §210 and 19.62 According to Thackeray (ThLJ 30), ἀμφιλογεῖν is not found elsewhere in Greek literature. But similar forms are found; see lsj 92. For Josephus’s propensity to assert that Jewish laws embody wisdom, see also below, §§59, 81; cf. 19.172, on Roman laws. I have supplemented and translated in line with Josephus’s usage at 20.199. For another nuance of μέτειμι, see 19.253.

Here Josephus seems to be alluding to the high-priestly class; cf. the opening of his Life and, on the class in general, Stern 1976. The assumption that the Sadducees are indeed, in general, to be associated with the rich high-priestly aristocracy, depends: on the derivation of “Sadducee” from Ṣadoq (“Zadok”), the name of the high priest in the days of David and Solomon and head of the high-priestly dynasty that lasted until the Hasmoneans (see inter alia Ben Sira 51 [ms B: “praise Him who chose the House of Zadok to serve as priests,” parallel to the choice of David to be king]), and which is frequently associated with priests (e.g., Ezek 44:15; 1qs 5:2, 9); on such texts as Acts 4:1 and 5:17, Ant. 20.199–200 (high priests and Sadducees), Assumption of Moses 7 and Avot de Rabbi Natan A5 (ed. Schechter, 26) (rich Sadducees), Ant. 20.206–207 and b. Pesaḥim 57a//t. Menaḥot 13:18–21 (ed. Zuckermandel, 533) (rich and powerful high priests); and on Sadducean legal positions that appear to be congenial to interests of the rich and high-priestly; see, for example, Finkelstein 1962: 1.138–141, 283–284 on Sadducean willingness to divide large estates and to view slaves as similar to animals, and ibid. 2.637–753 on their pro-priestly views. It is usually assumed, for example by Magness (2002: 93–94), that the rich who inhabited many of the opulent residences in the Herodian Quarter of Jerusalem’s Old City were Sadducees. For a maximalist case about the relationship between Sadducees and the high priesthood, see Kokkinos 1998: 383–384. Presumably Josephus is referring to the high priesthood; see the preceding note. For use of τιμή of a respected office, see, for example, §326; Josephus uses it frequently of the high priesthood (e.g. §§26, 35; 19.297; 20.16, 103, 225). As the present passage, so too b.Yoma 19b, as some others in rabbinic literature, claims that the Pharisees indeed enforced their will upon Sadducean high priests. But the historicity of these texts is not beyond doubt; many religious establishments like to claim that their authority was accepted by all in the good old days. True, at War 2.411 Josephus includes “the notables among the Pharisees,” alongside the “powerful men” and the chief priests, among those who tried to dissuade the rebels from introducing a fateful change in the Temple praxis. Nevertheless, while in the rabbinic version of that story (b. Giṭṭin 56a) a rabbi is said to have been in charge and no priests are mentioned, Josephus’s report (War 2.409), more plausibly, says that it was the high priest’s son, who was serving as “captain of the Temple,” who convinced those ministering in the Temple (§409) to take the decision, despite the opinions of the “chief priests and notables” (§410) and the priestly experts (§417); it is clear that they are in charge, and if the Pharisees really participated alongside of them, it was only in a secondary role, “part of the élite’s effort to reach and calm the masses by every available means” (Mason 2008: 315, n. 2583). The same is indicated by the equation of priests and decision-makers at §§29–30 and by Vitellius’s decision, when relinquishing Roman authority over the high priests, to transfer the sacred vestments to the custody of the priests (§§90–95). Interesting vignettes illustrating continued priestly authority despite competition are supplied by m. Rosh HaShana 1:7 (courts of priests and of sages operating in Jerusalem at the same time, each following its own rules but making determinations about the same calendrical issue) and m. Ketubbot 1:5 (a “court of priests” making decisions, about marriage arrangments, which were not approved of by “the sages.” For other sources on such a court, see D. Tropper 1972/73; he concludes that “the priests themselves directed the ritual ceremonials in the Second Temple at Jerusalem” [220]). In general, for the notion that the priests retained much of their religious authority until the Temple was destroyed, see Mason 1988. That goes hand in hand with a broad movement in modern scholarship that limits the influence of the Pharisees. See, for example, Goodblatt 1989. Given the way Josephus makes his account of the Sadducees contrast with that of the Pharisees, we should probably infer that the vague references at §17 should be interpreted by §15: Josephus is referring to the conduct of divine rites. This singular form is strange, and sounds resentful and menacing: “the best people” have views but “the Pharisee” stands in the way of implementing them, due to his popularity among those who, in the next line, are termed “the masses.” That is not at all as respectful as the formulation at §15, where it is the “the citizens” and “the cities” that are loyal to the Pharisees. For such mass support of the Pharisees (παρὰ τῷ πλήθει) being taken as threatening, see also Ant. 13.288, 401–402 (along with the nasty passage at 17.41–45, where the Pharisees, who are hostile to Herod, are said to be very influential with another type of people unworthy of respect: women [see the note at §255 on “womanly words”]). Those passages seem to derive from Nicolaus of Damascus (D. R. Schwartz 1983b), and denounce the Pharisees, in harsh terms, as using their influence in opposition to properly established government. In the present case, in contrast, the Pharisees’ influence (which, as Mason notes [1991: 304], is reported “in a resigned way”), is illustrated only with regard to religion, not state. For the aristocratic disdain evinced by πλῆθος here, see the note on “multitude” at §26.

For Josephus’s use of φιλέω, which Feldman renders here as “is wont to,” see ccfj 4.299–300. The use of such a qualified verb, as opposed to the expected round statement as to what they believe (which some translators supply here), such as those given above for the Pharisees and Sadducees, is surprising. Note, for example, Josephus’s use of φιλέω in his observation about what is usual in romance (15.84) and his snobbish references to the way crowds tend to behave (see the note on “mob” at 19.130); no one would suggest that those are rules as firm as philosophical doctrines are expected to be. One may suspect that Josephus is hedging in order to mitigate the contradiction between the present statement, about leaving everything to God, and the continuation of the sentence; see the note on “believing, as they do.” For this belief in Qumran see, for example, “For a man’s way is [not] his own, and a man cannot direct his own steps, for judgment is God’s and perfection of way is from his hand” (Manual of Discipline 11:9–11, echoing Jeremiah 10:23; see D. R. Schwartz 2013: 43–46). In general, see Sanders 1992: 373–376 and Klawans 2010a. I render this δέ heavily in order to make clear (as, apparently, with Josephus’s use of φιλέω just above) that there is some tension between attributing everything to God, on the one hand, and demanding that people strive for something, on the other. On that tension, or contradiction, and the ancient Jewish debates about “compatibilism” (the belief that the two can be reconciled, one way or another), see Wächter 1969, Klawans 2009, and a somewhat revised version of the latter: Klawans 2012: 44–91. Here Josephus posits that the Essenes’ belief in immortality is meant to motivate people to strive for it, by doing what the righteous do. The same point about the moral implication of the belief (of Essenes as also Greeks) in immortality is made at greater length at War 2.154–157. Lit. “they make the souls immortal”; see the note on “disappear” at §16. On Essene beliefs concerning the afterlife, see esp. Puech 1993. Here I take the circumstantial participle ἡγούμενοι to be explaining the reason for their belief in immortality; compare, for example, 19.100. As Wächter (1969: 109) notes, attributing all to God could imply that the Essenes divested themselves of responsibility for their own actions, thus laying them open to a charge of “Libertinismus”; Josephus, who portrays the Essenes so positively, is carefully avoiding that by stating what it is for which they must strive, even at the cost of somewhat contradicting his opening statement. Translators differ as to whether τὴν πρόσοδον here means “approach” or “reward.” But “reward” is a stretch; the closest we come to that meaning is “profit” or “income” (as, for example, at §§22, 287, 293; 20.23). For “approach” see 17.292; 19.198. So too J. Strugnell (1958: 109) and Feldman (1965: 15–16). For a long compilation of Josephus’s use of τὸ δίκαιον for righteousness or justice, as for example at 19.273 and 20.181, see ThLJ 177–178, s.v. δίκαιος, §3. . Note that H. Lewy (1920–1945: 124) added after τὴν πρόσοδον, in a penciled interlineal note in his edition of Niese’s editio minor, the gloss “sc[ilicet] τῆς ἀθανασίας.” That apparently means that he derived τοῦ δικαίου from ὁ δίκαιος (which too is frequent; see ThLJ loc. cit.) and took Josephus to mean that the Essenes thought a righteous man should strive to approach immortality, i.e., to be worthy of attaining immortality. However, there is little reason to think Josephus would think that the Essenes prescribed only what the righteous should do, and at War 2.154–155 he states they believed that the souls of all people are immortal, the difference being between the comfort of the virtuous ones and the suffering of the wicked ones. Another option was taken by J. M. Baumgarten (2022: 166): he suggested that τοῦ δικαίου τὴν πρόσοδον means “approach of [= by] Righteousness,” pointing to the personification of Ṣedeq (righteousness) in some Qumran texts. However, especially given the absence of capitalization, but even without it, it appears that Josephus could hardly expect his readers to understand that. For more on this difficult passage, see D. R. Schwartz 2024c. Here, by using περιμάχητον, Josephus reminds readers to contrast the Essenes with the Pharisees (§12).

On ἀναθήματα see A. I. Baumgarten 1994: 174–175, also the note on “installation of the statue” at §272. Reading θυσίας ἐπιτελοῦσιν in accordance with most witnesses (for the standard collocation see, for example, 10.43; 12.253; 18.234; 19.71), without the negation supplied by the Epitome (Niese 1887–1896: 300: οὐκ ἐπιτελοῦσι) and the Latin (“non celebrant”). For a defense of the omission of the negation, see esp. Hölscher 1916: 1991–1992, n. **. As J. Strugnell has shown (1958: 113–5), however, even if we add in the negation, the meaning hardly changes: since the end of the sentence clearly states the Essenes offered sacrifices, even if we read the negative here, the text could mean only that the Essenes do not execute sacrifices there, in the Temple, but rather—as the sentence goes on to explain—elsewhere, “by themselves.” See D. R. Schwartz 2013: 58–60. By noting that the Essenes send votive offerings to the Temple, by stating that their refusal to sacrifice in it derives merely from different details concerning purity, and by claiming that the Essenes nevertheless sacrifice just as other Jews do, although by themselves, Josephus minimizes the extent to which they differ from other Jews concerning this central institution of Judaism. This reflects Josephus’s general tendency to portray unity among the Jews, a tendency that passages like this pit against his desire to show that we too have our schools of philosophy. See M. Goodman 2007b: 33–46. For this sense of νομίζομαι see, for example, §30. For the argument that εἰργόμενοι here must be translated as reflexive (“sich absondernd”), for it is unlikely that the Temple police would have excluded (i.e., that Josephus would imply that they would exclude) pious people only because they did lustrations differently from others, see Hölscher 1916: 1991–1992, n. **. Others, however, assert that the middle of this verb is always passive, not reflexive, in Josephus; so Marcus 1954: 158, probably based on the data assembled at ThLJ 220, s.v. εἴργειν; see also the data assembled, in support of the same conclusion, by A. I. Baumgarten 1994: 171, including 19.267. That leads them to infer that “Essene exclusion from the Temple was a punishment imposed on them by those in charge” (A. I. Baumgarten, ibid.; original emphasis). That conclusion, however, creates a conundrum, “a paradoxical situation” as Baumgarten puts it: can we really imagine that the Essenes would go on sending votive offerings to the Temple, which amounts to recognizing its legitimacy, if the authorities of the Temple refused to allow the Essenes to perform their cult there and so they maintained a complete sacrificial cult elsewhere, as is indicated by ἐφ’ αὑτῶν τὰς θυσίας ἐπιτελοῦσιν at the end of the present text? Baumgarten goes on to mitigate the problem by suggesting that the Essenes did not maintain a complete sacrificial cult elsewhere, but only sacrificed Red Heifers (Numbers 19), in order to take care of their purification needs. However, there is no apparent justification to so limit θυσίας, and anyway “understanding Josephus in this manner does not eliminate the paradox” (A. I. Baumgarten 1994: 180). Accordingly, it seems better to go another route: to recognize that often it is difficult to distinguish between reflexive and passive senses of the Greek middle, and—despite Baumgarten’s doubts in his n. 8—one cannot really exclude the notion that Josephus means that the Essenes excluded themselves because they understood that the law—including their own law—prevents them from sacrificing along with everyone else. For the law as an external authority voluntarily taken upon themselves by Jews, see Ant. 17.151. Note also Josephus’s formulations elsewhere, about what “the Law allows us” to do, e.g., §§55, 264. In light of the generally spiritual nature of the Essenes it has been suggested that Josephus is referring, here, to some sort of metaphorical sacrifices for “worship” in general. However, the fact that the very same words appear in the first part of the sentence, with reference to real sacrifices, seems to exclude that possibility. For their usual usage with regard to real sacrifices, see also such passages as 10.43 and 19.71. See, in general, J. M. Baumgarten 1977: 52–54 (originally published in 1953) and 57–74, and A. I. Baumgarten 1994. The contrast between “common” and “by themselves” clearly means that the Essenes did not sacrifice in the common court of the Temple but did do so by themselves, in a separate part of the Temple. So, for example, J. M. Baumgarten 1977: 62–63, 66. But since it is impossible to imagine a separate altar for their use within the Temple, and since anyway those who sacrificed at the Temple did not do so themselves but only passed on their sacrifices to the officiating priests, all Josephus need mean is that a separate section of the courtyard was set aside for the Essenes, so that, when they came to bring sacrifices, and when they ate those parts of them consumed by the offerers, they could avoid contact with other Jews, whom they considered to be impure (and who may have considered the Essenes impure). Whether this is indeed true, historically, is another question, but it is not difficult to imagine even temporary arrangements for such a separation, on occasion. So too Taylor 2012: 97–99. As she notes, perhaps the mysterious “Essenes’ Gate,” mentioned at War 5.145, had something to do with such special arrangements. As A. I. Baumgarten (1994: 170–171) notes, this ἄλλως implies that the previous statement, about the Essenes’ sacrifices, amounted to criticism—a point that he takes to contribute to his interpretation of that statement. For Josephus’s use of ἄλλως to indicate a contrast, compare, for example, 17.273, 278; see also Baumgarten, loc. cit, n. 5, and ThLJ 25 s.v. ἄλλως. However, given the continuation here, this criticism is very mild, as is noted by Hölscher (1916: 1992, n. **, cited by Baumgarten) and by Taylor 2012: 99. Moreover, criticism of the Essenes for observing different rules of purity does not entail any conclusion about where they sacrificed “by themselves.” For this topos of the industrious and irenic life of agriculture, cf. also §283 and Apion 2.294; on its resonance in Rome, see Barclay 2007: 367.

Same phrase: §278. Cf. the similar phrasing at §14. A favorite Josephan way of referring to all of humanity. See, for example, Ant. 1.107; 4.12; 8.284; 15.136; 16.176. Cf. Galatians 3:28. The Essenes’ antiquity, which endows them with legitimacy (see the note on “innovation” at §9), was emphasized by Pliny as well (nh 5.73 [glajj, no. 204]): “per saeculorum milia—incredibile dictum—gens aeterna est.” On the sharing of property among the Essenes, see also War 2.122, 127 and Philo, Hypothetica 11.4–5. At Qumran the central text is Manual of Discipline 6:18–23. In general, see Mealand 1975; Taylor 2001; and Mason 2008: 101, n. 762. That is, Josephus emphasizes the Essenes’ ability to adhere to common ownership of property although there are so many of them. The same number appears in Philo’s account of the Essenes: Quod Omnis Probus Liber Sit 75. For the possibility of a common source (or of Josephus using Philo), see hjp 2.562, n. 1; Smith 1958: 279; Taylor 2012: 96. Some common points and vocabulary will be noted in the comimg notes. Given the size of the settlement and its water supply, it is normally assumed that no more than two hundred resided in Qumran itself at any given time, perhaps even fewer (see Meyers 2010: 32). Those who assume the Qumran=Essene equation suggest that the number here includes the numbers of Essenes in other “encampments” (as they are called in cd 7:6) as well; indeed, both Josephus (War 2.124) and Philo (Hypothetica 11.1) state that the Essenes live in many different cities and villages. But one may doubt that either of them had access to any hard data.

This is usually translated as if it refers to Essene abstinence from marriage; see the next note. However, the phrasing here, οὔτε γαμετὰς εἰσάγονται, which (as noted in ThLJ 222, s.v. εἰσάγειν) refers to “bringing in” (admitting) wives (not women), apparently includes the broader notion, that although married people might enter the sect, they could not bring their wives with them into the community. Cf. War 2.151 (on elderly Essenes) and 2.160–161 (even marrying Essenes separate from their wive when they are pregnant, which suggests they would do the same when they can no longer become pregnant), along with Damascus Document 6:11–7:6 as explained by J. M. Baumgarten 2022: 115–118. In the wake of Guillaumont 1971, Baumgarten also compares the traditions (that build on Exod 18:2) concerning Moses, who was at first married but renounced conjugal relations when he became a prophet. The structure is apparently chiastic (as above, §14): slavery engenders injustice and marriage engenders internal strife. For Philo’s fuller expression of the latter point (marriage creates family units that disrupt the unity of the commune), see Hypothetica 11.14–17. For Josephus on slavery as unjust, see Gibbs and Feldman 1985/86; for it being the opposite of “liberty,” see the notes on “enslavement” and “liberty” at 18.4. On women as troublemakers, see the note on “demands” at §42. Essene celibacy (although qualified at War 2.160–161), posited also by Philo (loc. cit.) and by Pliny (nh 5.73 [glajj, no. 204]), is usually taken to be one of the main arguments for identifying the Qumran sect as Essene. However, debate continues about whether the Qumran sect was celibate. See, for example, J. M. Baumgarten 2022: 109–119; Regev 2008; and Cohen-Matlofsky 2020. Note also Moehring 1961. This is the only occurrence of ἐπιχράομαι in Josephus. Niese suggested emending it into the more common ἀποχράομαι. The obvious implication is that wives and slaves are meant to serve their masters. As we see, Josephus considers that to be unjust in the case of slaves; apparently he realizes that a free man today might be a slave tomorrow. As for women, however, Josephus apparently saw no such problem, for they are baser than men; see Apion 2.201, along with Barclay 2007: 284, nn. 805–806. The only problem, as Josephus saw it, was that all too often they fail to know their place, and, as a result, create strife and other calamities; see, for example, §§41, 255, 360–362, also Ant. 13.431.

Αs Josephus, Philo too (Hypothetica 11.10) uses χειροτονέω (lit. “stretching the hand,” as in pointing or voting) of the choosing of the Essenes’ treasurers. The verb could refer to appointment or election; I have preferred the latter both because no officials who might “appoint” have been mentioned, and because of the wordplay at §§264–265. At War 2.123 as well, in this same context, χειροτονητός spparently refers to election; see Mason 2008: 102–103, n. 779. This is the only case of ἀποδέκτης in Josephus. For the Essenes’ eschewal of money among themselves but willingness to take it from others, see J. M. Baumgarten 2022: 175–179. Josephus distinguishes between the administration of property and the preparation of food; the entrustment of the latter to priests apparently reflects considerations of ritual purity, such as those implied at §19. This is, along with War 2.131, which also comes in the context of the Essene’s food, the only place in which Josephus’s narratives on the Essenes refer especially to priests, although they figure so prominently in the writings of the Qumran sect, including with regard to governance and property: “only the sons of Aaron shall rule with regard to law and property” (Community Rule 9:7). Which is exotic, so Josephus feels the need to defend them by showing that it is not without parallel in the Greco-Roman world. Apart from 11.217, such usage of παραλλάσσω reappears in the second half of Antiquities only in the next paragraph. For writers who “get stuck” on a word for a while, cf. Mason 2001: lii. This is the only occurrence of ἐμφέρω in Josephus. The manuscripts, followed by Niese (1890a: 144), read “the majority (πλείστοις) of the Dacians,” and that, in light of Qumran usage of harabbim (“the many”) of the members of the community, has led some to think that Josephus is comparing the Essenes to the Qumran sect. But that does not account for the reference to the Dacians (a Thracian people mentioned in War 2.369), nor have Josephus’s readers heard of the Qumran “many.” Accordingly, it seems preferable to adopt one of the emendations—of “Ktistae” or “Dacians” or both—that have been proposed; see Kruse 1959; Schalit 1968: 104, s.v. Σάκαι; and Mason 2011b: 239–240. As Feldman (1965: 20–21), here I have followed Ortelius’s suggestion to leave “Dacians” in place but replace πλείστοις with Κτίσταις, based upon Strabo’s reference (Geog. 7.3.3, citing Posidonius) to some exotic Thracians called “Ktistae,” who live without wives; for this suggestion, see Beall 1988: 122 and Feldman 1984a: 616–617. True, our knowledge concerning Josephus’s familiarity with Strabo’s writings applies only to his Historica Hypomnemata (see Albert 1902 and Stern, glajj 1.261–262), but it may be either that Josephus was nevertheless familiar with the Geographica or that he heard about the “Ktistae” some other way. Another possibility, Mason’s emendation of ΔΑΚΩΝ into ΛΑΚΩΝΩΝ, according to which Josephus compared the Essenes to “what are said to be the majority of the Spartans,” has the advantage of linking this passage up with Josephus’s apparent tendency to compare the Essenes to the Spartans (see Mason 2007a). However, it departs from Josephus’s usual use of λεγόμενοι as “so-called” modifying an unfamiliar proper noun; see the note on “called” at §11. Moreover, although Λάκων does appear twice (War 1.513; 2.381), in the large majority of his references to Spartans Josephus calls them Λακεδαιμόνοι. Finally, however much Josephus compares the Essenes to Spartans with regard to their discipline and toughness, readers would be hard put to accept the statement that the Essenes’ way of life, including their celibacy, was quite similar to that of the Spartans.

This fourth philosophy seems to be the movement that Josephus later condemns as the Sicarii; see the coming note on “manners” and the note on “Sicarii” at 20.186. Judas is the only sectarian leader mentioned by name in this excursus on sects; by giving the name, Josephus reminds his readers of the historical context that occasioned the excursus. It is, however, surprising that he terms him “Judas the Galilean,” for at §4 he introduced him as a Golanite. But elsewhere too he is termed a Galilean; see the note on “the Golanite” at §4. Probably Josephus was careful to be precise in his first reference to Judas, but later used his more usual sobriquet—which might reflect where he grew up, or was active, or perhaps some general notion that equated “Galilean” with “rebel”; for such a notion, see Loftus 1977/78, Hengel 1989: 56–59, and, more recently, Thiel 2020. That is, he not only began a rebellion in 6 ce, as was reported in §§4–8, and founded a corresponding philosophy (§9); he also stood at its head. This statement agrees with Josephus’s reports that Judas’s partner was a Pharisee (§4) and that in general the Pharisees’ views were most popular (§§15, 17). But it contradicts the claim of War 2.118 that Judas of Galilee’s new school had nothing in common with the others. Cf. Mason 2008: 83, n. 731. The manuscripts read δυσκίνητος, but Niese (1890a: 144) adopted Bekker’s (1856: 128) emendation: δυσνίκητος. As Anthony Ellis points out, however, the former fits the present context well, and the fact that it seems to be very rare (see lsj 457–458, s.v.) suggests that it is the lectio difficilior. The same notion, that they cannot be moved, is expressed in another way in §24. For the argument that Josephus, here and elsewhere, has fashioned Judas as a straw man who held this view and is therefore to be condemned, a tactic Josephus employed in order to deflect criticism from himself and his fellow priests and others who in fact (as argued esp. by Goodblatt 1996) adhered to the same tenet at the beginning of the rebellion, see McLaren 2004. For a response, see Rappaport 2011: 332; while Rappaport may have gone too far in asserting that “James McLaren fiercely denies the historicity of Judas … pure invention,” McLaren comes very close to that insofar as he asserts that Josephus made up, for his own reasons, just about everything he reports about Judas. The present passage (§§23–24), with its reference to all sorts of tortures, to the rebels’ refusal to acknowledge any man as “ruler” (δεσπότης [see the next note]), and to the reaction of spectators, sounds as if Josephus is specifically thinking of War 7.417–418, where the reference is explicitly to Sicarii. The same theme, namely, that even when they are rebellious and thus in the wrong, nevertheless Jewish rebels show no cowardice, reappears at §62. On bizarre Roman modes of torture and execution, see the note on “the entire city” at 20.136. On Josephus’s use of δεσπότης, often with reference to God, see ThLJ 130, s.v., also Fischer 1958/59; cf. the note on “despot’s orders” at 19.68. There is something ironic and bitter about the passage, in this short sentence, from evident praise of them for their courageous willingness to die hard deaths to their willingness to let others pay the price of their own constancy. Cf. the note on “murder” at §5, on their willingness to justify murder.

I have translated ὑπόστασις, according to lsj 1895, s.v., §ii.B.4. Elsewhere it appears in Josephus only in the opening paragraph of Apion. While Barclay (2007: 4, n. 9) renders it as a philosophical term, “essence,” Siegert et al. (2008: 1.99) offer Eigenständigkeit (“independence”), which is close to “steadfastness.” For that sense of ὑπόστασις see also Polybius 4.50.10 (on the resolute resistance of the population of Byzantium to the Rhodians) and 6.55.2 (of Horatius at the bridge). A point especially underlined at War 7.417–419.

See the note on “infected” at §6. Here Josephus apparently means that the problem that was born already in 6 ce grew to catastrophic proportions sixty years later. Here Josephus apportions responsibility for the rebellion. In his view, here, the Fourth Philosophy’s innovative (and therefore: reprehensible; see the note on “innovation” at §9) teaching, about accepting no man as a ruler, was a mania, but what allowed its teaching to engender a rebellion was the abusive behavior of a Roman governor; see also the note on “four men” at §84. By inserting this reference at the end of this excursus, which basically ends the prologue of this book, Josephus adumbrates the end of his story, where Florus is introduced in the narrative’s final chapter (20.252–258), thus suggesting—as does the reminder at the very end of Book 19 (§366)—that readers should view Ant. 18–20, namely his account of direct Roman rule in Judea, as a single unit. See the Introduction, at n. 32.

Here, by using ἀποδόμενος …ἀποτιμήσεων, Josephus reminds readers of the two assignments mentioned at §2, in a Wiederaufnahme that indicates to readers that he is reverting to that story after an interval during which they were completed. By inserting the long excursus about sects Josephus allowed his readers to feel, as it were, the passage of time needed for Quirinius to accomplish his assignments. For similar cases, see the Introduction, at n. 13. On 2 September 31 bce. For dating according to the Actian era see also War 1.398 (and for memorialization of Actium in Judea, see on 19.343). For use of the Actian era on coins, with regard to Roman governors of Syria, see hjp 1.257, 259–260. In context, especially after the reference to Actium reminds readers of the Roman conquest of Egypt, readers might understand Josephus to be reminding them that Rome instituted direct rule in Judea only long after it did so in Judea’s two massive neighbors: Syria (represented here by Quirinius) and Egypt. Although sometimes neutral, as for example at §123, πλῆθος often conveys contempt, à la “mob,” hoi polloi. Note, for example the contrast at §17 between the high-class few and the πλῆθος, also 19.202 and the pathetically gullible “urban multitude” at 20.169; cf. the note on “multitude” at 19.138. That is, although Josephus had reported at §3 that the Jews, in general, accepted Joazar’s call and abstained from opposing the assessment of their possessions, enough opposed him to produce the rebellion led by Judas—reason enough for Quirinius to have him replaced. See Bammel 1974a. The witnesses split here between Σεθί and Σεέ. Stern (1976: 606) suggests that Ananus was the brother of Joshua the son of Σεέ, who was high priest prior to Joazar (Ant. 17.341). At 20.198 Josephus remarks on this Ananus’s five sons who were to be high priests. On this family of high priests (known as “The House of Anan” in the list of high-priestly houses preserved in b. Pesaḥim 57a), see Stern 1976: 606–607 and VanderKam 2004: 422–424.

Herod’s sons. It is usually assumed that their mothers were, respectively, Malthace and Cleopatra, although there is some room for doubt about the former; see the note on “the high priest” at §109. On them, see esp. hjp 1.336–353; Hoehner 1972; and Wilker 2007. Much of what is reported about them, in the next two paragraphs as also at §§36–38, has to do with their building of cities, as their father before them; what else was allowed to a client ruler? For a general survey of that long-term project and their role in it, cf. A. H. M. Jones 1931. Josephus’s shift of focus from the high priesthood to the affairs of the Herodians is jarring (note that Feldman 1965: 23 adds “meanwhile.”). It seems to indicate that, from Josephus’s point of view, he is merely bringing us up to date concerning topics ancillary to his main narrative, with no expectation of a continuous narrative; see our next note. For a similarly jarring passage, see 20.103–104. They began their service in 4/3 bce, after Augustus arranged the affairs of Herod’s kingdom; see §106, where 33/34 ce is termed Philip’s 37th year, just as his latest coin is dated to his 37th year; see Meshorer 2001: 85–90 and Strickert 1995. Similarly, Herod Antipas’s dated coins go down to his 43rd year, and §§255–256 show, correspondingly, that his rule came to an end in 39 or 40; see Kogon and Fontanille 2018: 16–20. That is, having completed his story of Judea down to 6 ce, Josephus is now catching up on events—even as early as 2 bce (see the opening note at 18.2.4 [§39])—that he considered peripheral to his main story but nevertheless important for it; see the table in D. R. Schwartz 1992: 189. This seems to be the sense of πρόσχημα (usually: “ornament”/“outward appearance,” as at 14.302, or “pretence/pretext,” as at 4.146). See Kokkinos 2008: 241 “the pretence of every Galilean (i.e. in claiming primacy over othe cities).” On the competition between Sepphoris and Tiberias, which latter Josephus was happy to denigrate at §§36–38, see Life 37–38 and Miller 1987. Cf. War 2.511: Sepphoris was “the strongest city in Galilee,” and War 3.34: “the largest of the cities of Galilee, fortified in the strongest possible position.” For Sepphoris in the first century, see Nagy 1996, Meyers 1998, Chancey 2001, and Weiss 2007: 392–407. There seems to be no other evidence for this name. As Sepphoris’s coins show, by the sixties it renamed itself Neronias and Eirenopolis (“city of peace”), but by the mid-second century both would be replaced by “Diocaesarea.” See Meshorer 1985: 36–37, 113, and Chancey 2005: 102. Augustus. In this translation I have, as a rule, used “emperor” for αὐτοκράτωρ, as is conventional. Cf. the note on “ancestors” at 19.23. I.e., Livia, called “Julia” after she was adopted into the Julian gens in 14 ce. It appears that this city was originally called Livias (so Pliny, nh 13.44), and its name changed with hers; see hjp 2.176–178 and Stern, glajj 1.494. Note that in the parallel to this passage at War 2.168, this Julias is specifically said to have been in the Perea; that differentiates it from the Julias mentioned in the next paragraph, but identifies it with the Perean Julias mentioned at 20.159. Cf. M. D. Smith 1999.

Although κατασκευάζω can refer to the construction of buildings, as for example at §§91, 338 (where there is a clear contrast between forts that were newly built and those that already existed and were only fortified), 15.234 and 20.211 (theaters), and cultic buildings (20.228, 237), with regard to cities it seems to refer to something more secondary than the foundation and construction of a new city. Indeed, at 20.211 Josephus uses it of Agrippa ii’s work in the same city discussed here, and also qualifies it as μείζονα … κατασκευάσας (“greatly built up”? “enlarged”?). Perhaps the reference is to the type of improvements Herod Antipas introduced in the cities mentioned in §27. For Herod’s work in Paneas prior to Philip, see Ant. 15.363–364//War 1.404–406. For the archaeological evidence, which basically begins with Herod, see V. Tzaferis in neaehl 5.1687–1592. On this claim, which Josephus repeats at War 1.404 and 2.168 but apparently doubts at War 1.406 and explicitly contradicts at War 3.509–515, see D. R. Schwartz 2020b. On Caesarea Philippi, as it was called to distinguish it from other Caesareas, see hjp 2.169–171. For its foundation in 3/2 bce, see Kokkinos 2008: 241. On its coins, of which one terms Philip as “founder” (κτίστης) and its era is clearly 3 bce, see Meshorer 1984/85: esp. 38–40. On this polis (which is how it is defined at 20.159 as well), where Philip would eventually die (§108), see Arav and Freund 1995–2009; Strickert 2010 and 2011; Ellens 2014; and Kuhn 2015. As Kokkinos (2008: 243) paraphrased: “Philip provided (παρασχὼν) Bethsaida, previously a mere village (κώμην), with some status (ἀξίωμα), evidently city status, by adding multiple settlers (πλὴθει οἰκητόρων) and some other strength (καὶ τῇ ἄλλῇ δυνάμει), either constitutional or of resources. A village-to-city upgrade would be the appropriate interpretation, with the important renaming after the Emperor’s daughter.” The city is not known to have minted coins. For the argument that δύναμις here refers to a military garrison, see M. D. Smith 1999: 338–339. Augustus’s daughter was disgraced and exiled in 2 bce, so that would be a terminus ad quem for this foundation. As has been noted by Kokkinos (2008: 245–246), who defends that date, Julia’s fall must have taken Philip by surprise. The lack of evidence for the name in the coming decades may indicate that he found it wise to avoid it as long as Augustus and Tiberius were alive; the Gospels, referring to the 30s, call the city Bethsaida. For another possibility, namely, that Josephus meant to say the city was named after Augustus’s wife, Livia Julia, see M. D. Smith 1999 and Strickert 2002 and 2010. That would go together well with the recognition that in fact Augustus’s daughter was in disgrace well before her exile, at least since Tiberius divorced her in 6 bce, so it is unlikely that anyone would have founded a city in honor of her after that. See Mason 2008: 137–138, n. 1046.

For διέπω of ruling a province, as also at §150 and 19.316, see esp. gtri 131–132. In general, on Josephus’s use of numerous terms and verbs to denote provincial governors, see Eck 2008, also Eck 2007: 27–31 (assemblage of data) and 39–45 (complaints about Josephus’s ignorance, sloppiness, and “völlig chaotische Verwendung von Begriffe”). At §2. On this incident, see Pummer 2009: 222–230 and—on a rabbinic memory (m. ‘Eduyyot 8:5) of bones once having been found in the Temple, which may or may not have to do with this incident—Y. Fisch in Ilan and Noam 2017: 1.485–492. Josephus pedantically makes this equation numerous times, including 14.21; 17.213; 20.106. For Josephus on Passover, see esp. Colautti 2002. For τὸ ἱερόν in the general sense of “the Temple,” not the inner courts, see, for example, §§8, 19, 60, 82; Joüon 1935. In this case it is clear, from the continuation, that the gates in question allowed entry to the porticos, not the inner sanctuary. Cf. the notes on “God” at §261 and on “sanctuary” at 20.233. Apparently this reflects the large numbers of pilgrims expected; see the note on “twenty thousand” at 20.112. Presumably, however, whatever the logistical reason, pilgrims would have understood such a midnight procedure in light of Exodus 12:29—which would heighten the intensity of the moment and, therefore, exacerbate the outrage concerning the offense reported here.

For Josephus’s general hostility toward the Samaritans, see Ant. 9.288–291; 11.323, 340–347; 12.257–264; 13.74–79; 20.118–136; Pummer 2009. Pummer (2009: 226–227), however, doubts that Josephus means the perpetrators were Samaritans, for they too, as observers of biblical law, should have been concerned to keep away from human bones; this consideration leads him to discuss the possibility that Josephus’s ἄνδρες Σαμαρεῖται means something else. However, one need not touch bones to be able to scatter them, and if they were bothered by the consideration, the Samaritans could have recruited perpetrators who were already impure. In any case, if readers do not take the reference to be to Samaritans, of whose hostility to Judeans and competition with the Temple in Jerusalem they have often read (see esp. 9.291; 11.114, 323, 340–346; 12.10, 257–264; 13.74–79), they will be at a loss to understand what motivated the perpetrators. In general, note that although modern scholars at times tend to distinguish between “Samarians” (who reside in Samaria) and “Samaritans” by religion, Josephus’s nomenclature makes no such distinction; see, for example, Ant. 9.290 and 11.97 with 11.114–119. “Secretly” presumably means they had hidden their identity as Samaritans. Accordingly, it appears to be unjustified to depend upon the present story as evidence for the latter half of the following statement: “Jerusalem hated Shechem, but since a Samaritan was a follower of the Torah he was admitted into the temple of Herod” (Bickerman 2007: 1.488). Rather, it seems that this story indicates that Samaritans were excluded from the Temple—which would correspond, in a general way, with the story at Ant. 11.306–310, that presumes that even a full-fledged Jewish priest, who married a Samaritan woman, would be excluded from ministering in the Temple. More specifically, moreover, we know that inscriptions forbade the entry of a “foreigner” (ἀλλογενής; ogis 598 = Boffo 1994, no. 32; cf. hjp 2.285, n. 57) into the central court of the Temple. For Jewish use of ἀλλογενής of a Samaritan, see Luke 17:18; cf. the note on “by birth” at 19.332. In general, on the Samaritans’ status in the eyes of Jews in antiquity, see Schiffman 1984/85. Although Clearchus of Soli is said to have quoted Aristotle as commenting that the Greek name of Jerusalem (which he gives in transliteration, Ἱερουσαλήμη) is very odd (Apion 1.179), I have rendered the usual Hellenized form employed by Josephus, Ἱεροσόλυμα, by “Jerusalem” rather than a transliteration, on the assumption that by the late first century, after the Judean war and the ensuing Flavian triumph and propaganda, it (as its Latin equivalent, Hierosolyma) was as familiar to Josephus’s readers as “Jerusalem” is to modern readers. See, for example, the references to Pliny and Tacitus in the note on “humanity” at 20.49. On the forms of the toponym, which have aroused interest especially in New Testament scholarship, see the data and bibliography assembled by Danker 2000: 470–471. This is the only occurrence of διάρριψις in Josephus. Which engender the most severe type of impurity according to biblical law; see Num 19, esp. v. 16; below, §38; and the commentaries to Luke 10:30. For the severity of this defilement of the Temple in Josephus’s eyes, cf. the note on “impiety” at 20.165. The Temple was surrounded by porticoes, στοαί, which, as is said at 20.192, 221, were in the outer part of the complex (the ἔξωθεν ἱερόν). Of them, “the Royal Stoa,” on the south, was particularly impressive, and it was next to the main gates in the southern wall of the Temple enclosure. See War 5.190–192; Ant. 15.412–416; Schalit 2001: 380–382; van Henten 2014: 313–316; and Peleg-Barkat 2017. Something about the discovery of the bones and reaction to it seems to be missing at this point; Niese (1890b: 126) suspects a lacuna. Perhaps there was reference both to greater care concerning Samaritans as well as more generally intensified supervision. For Temple police, see the next note. Mathieu and Herrmann (1929: 139) fill in the text here so as to have it refer here to an unprecedented prohibition of entry by Samaritans. However, Josephus’s statement that in this case they entered Jerusalem “secretly” suggests that even earlier, before things were tightened up, they would have been excluded had their identity been known; see just above, the note on “to Jerusalem.” Cf. Appendix 3, n. 3. Apparently: the priests, mentioned at §29. On the Temple police, whose primary responsibility was to keep out people who are not allowed to enter, see esp. Philo, Spec. leg. 1.156 (Levites on guard duty at entrances and patrolling day and night); m. Middot 1:2; Acts 5:24, 26; Fragment Oxyrhynchus 840 (Bovon 2000); and Safrai 1976: 872–873.

On the early years of Roman provincial rule, see hjp 1.357–398 and Lémonon 2007. The term “governor” is conventional, corresponding to Josephus’s general ἡγεμών (e.g. §§25, 55–56); for their precise status, as “prefects” subordinate to the governor of Syria, see especially Eck 2007: 1–51. I use “prefect” for ἔπαρχος, “procurator” for ἐπίτροπος, and “governor” for ἡγεμών; cf. the note on “prefect” at §33. Of the terms of office of the first governors, prior to Pontius Pilate, very little is known (hjp 1.382–383; Smallwood 1981: 156–160; and Krieger 1993a), and Josephus skips them in his parallel narrative in War 2, where he goes straight from his account of the sects (§§119–166) to that about Herod’s heirs (§§167–168) and then to Pilate (§169–177). It has frequently been pointed out that Josephus’s narrative of the period from the death of Herod to the reign of Agrippa i is quite meager; see, for example, Täubler 1904: 5–6; hjp 1.51. This probably has to do with the end of Nicolaus’s narrative in the wake of Herod’s death. Although Josephus need not use everything his sources offered, he could not use what they did not offer, and—as Bammel (1974a: 61) points out—Josephus, born in 37 (Ant. 20.267), could not yet depend on his memory, nor hardly on that of his father (b. 5/6 ce [Life 5]), for those early decades of the first century. We have no data concerning the length of the tenure of the first three Roman governors, mentioned here and in the next paragraph, who served between 6 and the death of Augustus (§32). The conventional allocation of three years to each (6–9; 9–12; 12–15; hjp 1.382) is only a guess. Cf. the note on “Tiberius Alexander” at 20.103. This is Niese’s conjecture, adopted in his editio minor (1890b: 126) and followed by others, including Feldman (1965: 26). The manuscripts read Ambibouchos. This καί apparently means “in addition to his being governor.” Cf. the notes on “also” at §39 and 20.223. On Salome, see Kokkinos 1998: 177–192 and D. W. Roller 2018: 59–78. She was born in the 50s bce and, according to the present passage, died ca. 10 ce. On Jamneia (Jabneh) see hjp 2.109–110. For its status, deriving from its special history described here, as an imperial enclave with its own procurator, see the note on “Jamneia” at §158. Augustus’s wife Livia, as is noted at §33. If, as is often assumed, Marcus Ambivulus served only until 12 ce, Josephus’s nomenclature is somewhat anachronistic here, for Livia’s name changed to Julia only in 14 ce, according to the terms of Augustus’s will which had her adopted into the Julian gens; see the note on “wife” at §27. I.e., the Jordan valley. For the location of Phasaelis, north of Jericho, see hjp 2.168–169. On Archelais, which too was north of Jericho (but south of Phasaelis), see hjp 1.355, n. 12, and H. Hizmi in neaehl 1.181–182 and 5.1600–1602. This probably includes Phasaelis too, as is made clearer by the parallel at War 2.167 (which ignores Archelais and mentions only Phasaelis and its palm-groves) and Pliny, nh 13.44 (glajj, no. 214), where the palms of both sites are mentioned. This is the only occurrence of φύτευσις (“planting”) in Josephus.

Including Julius Caesar, as does, for example, Suetonius in his Twelve Caesars. So too below, §224. Augustus died on 19 August 14. Josephus apparently counts, fairly accurately, from the death of Julius Caesar on 15 March 44 bce, which was actually closer to 57 years and five months before Augustus’s death. Below, Josephus will continue to keep track of such detailed data: see §224 (Tiberius), 19.201 (Gaius), 20.148 (Claudius), also War 4.491 (Nero). Apparently Josephus again begins his reckoning from Caesar’s death (15 March 44), and takes it down to Antonius’s suicide on 1 August 30. Actually, he died shortly before his seventy-sixth birthday, as is noted by Suetonius (Aug. 100), who earlier (ibid. 5) reported that he was born on 23 September 63 bce.

This is the usual translation of ἔπαρχος; see gtri 45, 138–140. Indeed, that the title of Gratus’s successor, Pontius Pilate, was praefectus Iudaeae is shown by the Caesarean inscription that mentions him; see the opening note at §55. Presumably the same was the case for other governors of Judea whom Josephus termed ἔπαρχος (19.363; 20.193, 197). Elsewhere, however, in Antiquities with regard to governors in the days of Claudius (20.2, 132, 162, along with the verb at 20.97, 147), and more generally in War (2.117, 169, 220, 247, 252; 6.238; 7.216), Josephus often uses ἐπίτροπος (“procurator” [gtri 49]) for Roman governors of Judea. One can debate whether this indicates a change in titulature (from one that sounds military to one that is more administrative) beginning with Claudius (for which perhaps other evidence can be adduced; see Jones 1968: 115–125; hjp 1.358–360) or only Josephan carelessness about titles (see gtri 142–143; Eck 2008; Mason 2008: 79–80, n. 720). Perhaps, indeed, we should conclude that, in Josephus’s world, which lacked capital letters and italics, his predilection for varying his vocabulary applied even to such terms. The latter is suggested both by his use of several other terms for governors (such as ἡγεμών [§55]) and by his use of different terms even for the same individual, even within the same book; see 19.363/20.2.

Apart from this passage, which uses ἱερᾶσθαι (as Niese notes, Eusebius, in quoting our passage at Demonstration of the Gospel 8.2 [399a, ed. Heikel, 386], reads instead a more exact verb: ἀρχιερᾶσθαι, which Josephus uses at 17.207), Josephus uses no such verb in Book 18: although the book reports the appointment and removal from office of numerous high priests, it does not interest Josephus to characterize them as having served as high priests. Rather, this book is organized according to the terms of Roman governors, and one of the things they did was appoint high priests. Contrast the high-priestly chronicle preserved at the end of Book 20, where ἀρχιερατεύω appears regularly (§§225, 228, 242, 243, 250) and the high priests are said to have “ruled” (see the note on “ruled” at 20.238). That illustrates that text’s inner-Jewish orientation. Ananus’s appointment was recorded at §26. This Ishmael b. Phabes is not to be confused with a later high priest of the same name; see the note on “Phabes” at 20.179. It seems that the Phiabi family (as it is called in Hebrew sources), like at least one other family of high priests that appeared under Herod (see the note on “Boethus” at §3), was of Egyptian origin. That reflected Herod’s need, as a non-Aaronite who ousted the Hasmoneans, to foster a new high-priestly class without ties to the Hasmoneans—a class whose members, as Jews of the Diaspora, would have no deep ties in Judea and were used to keeping their religion apart from the affairs of the state. See Stern 1974c: 274 and VanderKam 2004: 406. That is, after a short interruption, Ananus’s son was appointed to succeed him—the first of five of his sons to be appointed to the post, as is noted at 20.198. For the other four, see the note there, on “high priests of God.” The fact that Josephus makes no comment on this here, and that he refers to Ananus as “Ananus the high priest” rather than as plain “Ananus” or “the aforementioned Ananus,” as we would expect in a freely-composed narrative, suggests that Josephus is dependent here on a high-priestly chronicle with successive formal entries about high priests but no narrative. On such entries, see the note on “Theophilus” at §123. Switching high priests after a year was contrary not only to the ancient practice, which lasted until the Hasmonean period, according to which high priests served until death (Numbers 35:25; Josephus, Ant. 15.41), but even to Herod’s practice of appointing and removing high priests at will; some of them lasted for several years. But, as the present passage, various sources of the Roman period reflect the notion that high priests were appointed for one year; so John 11:49, 51; 18:3 (“the high priest of that year”) and b.Yoma 8b (“for they would give money for the [high] priesthood and switch them every twelve months”). This may have not been a rule, but it was common enough to affect the image of the high priesthood, tarnishing its prestige (cf. 2 Macc 11:2–3!); see b. Yoma 9a, where it is claimed that there were so many high priests in the Second Temple period that, with a few exceptions, none lasted even a year, thus illustrating the biblical promise that “the years of the wicked will be short” (Proverbs 10:27). In general, see Holzmeister 1920 and Alon 1977: 61–65, 86. The result was the development of the notion, in this period, of a class of “high priests” rather than a single one for each generation; see the the note on “Joazar” at 18.3. It may be that such frequent switching of high priests was among the complaints of Judeans that had to be handled by Germanicus in 19 ce (see Tacitus, Ann. 2.42.5 [glajj, no. 283]). That could explain the remarkable fact that, in contrast to Gratus, Pontius Pilate made no appointments at all to the high priesthood, Caiaphas lasting throughout his entire governorship. On Simon b. Camith, see VanderKam 2004: 425–426. Like others, VanderKam supposes that this Simon is identical with the “Simon b. Qimḥit” mentioned in rabbinic sources, such as t. Yoma 3:20 (ed. Lieberman, 248), where Qimḥit, a woman’s name, is apparently the name of the high priest’s mother. See Ilan 1992. It may well be that Simon was of the same clan as Joseph b. Camei, whose appointment to the high priesthood is mentioned at 20.16, as well as Joseph b. Simon (Ant. 20.196), thus pointing to another family of the high-priestly oligarchy, Qimḥit, alongsde the better-known families of Boethus, Ananus, and Phiabi; see Schalit 1968: 70; Stern 1976: 608–609; Ilan 2002: 425–426.

“Caiaphas” is, apparently, an Aramaic version of the surname Cantheras (“porter,” “carrier of burdens”), which is known both from Josephus and from an epigraphic find (see Greenhut 1992); see the note on “Ananus” at 19.297. On Caiaphas, who stayed in office for some eighteen years (see §95), see Bond 2004; VanderKam 2004: 426–436; and Metzner 2010. On the dating of his tenure, see the next note. On his family, see Appendix 2. Although Niese (1890a: 146) noted no variants, the number “eleven” is quite surprising, for the account of Gratus’s governorship, which consists of the successive appointments of four high priests—one upon his own arrival in Judea, one “not long after” and two more after a year each—instead leads readers to expect perhaps “three” or “four.” This point is part of the dossier that leads to the suggestion that Gratus was in fact replaced in 18 or 19 ce, not 26; see the opening note at 18.3.1 (§55).

Herod Antipas; on him, see esp. Hoehner 1972; Jensen 2007 and 2010; Wilker 2007; and Kogon and Fontanille 2018. Josephus already gave a report of some of Antipas’s building projects at §§27–28. The fact that Josephus broke up his narrative of this tetrarch’s foundations and placed this item here suggests that he wanted to date it specifically to this part of his story; for a similar procedure, cf. Ant. 12.237, 387–388, and 13.62. For such phrases, compare §§168 and 289, also 20.205. The theme of “cultivating” friends in high places is one that interests Josephus; see also §§161, 165–167, 19.66, 211; 20.205. In fact, however, we seem to have no evidence for any close relationship between Antipas and Tiberius, and the story at §245 suggests he was content to keep his distance. For Josephus’s description of the Galilee, see War 3.35–48 and Weiss 2007. On Tiberias in the first century, see Weiss 2007: 387–392. For the foundation of the city between 19 and 21 ce, established by numismatic evidence, see Avi-Yonah 1950/51; Jensen 2010: 136; Mahieu 2012: 410–413 (she defines the possible range as 16–22 ce); and Kogon and Fontanille 2018: 21–22. The fact that Josephus places the story here is part of the argument for the chronological suggestion made in the opening note at 18.3.1 (§55). On the Ḥammat springs, just south of Tiberias, of which Josephus had bad memories from his days in the Galilee (see War 2.614//Life 85), see hjp 2.178–179, n. 512. On pre-Niese readings of the text here, which gave rise to hypotheses about another location, “in Tiberias” rather than near it (as here), see Schürer 1890: 645.

Greek σύγκλυδες; cf. 19.243. For the interpretation of Josephus’s hostile account of the population of Tiberias on the background of his own problems with the city in 66/67 ce, recorded in great detail in his Life, beginning with the hostile presentation of the city at §§32–42, and colored by his personal competition with Justus of Tiberias, see Cohen 1979: 140 and Miller 2001. See also the note on “also” at §39. This is the only occurrence of ἀναγκαστός in Josephus. It is not clear whether Josephus means that even among the higher echelons of the newly founded Tiberias (the οἱ ἐν τέλει—often used of rulers, e.g., §284; 20.121; Life 79) there could be found riffraff and people forced to live there, or, rather, that he is admitting that among those forced to move to Tiberias there were some more aristocratic types. In the latter case, this would be a qualification of his general condemnation of the population of Tiberias, perhaps added so as to allow himself the option of denying that his statement was meant to be totally inclusive. For Josephus’s recognition that the population of Tiberias was not homogenous, see Life 32–36. Which made them despicable by definition, in Josephus’s aristocratic eyes; cf. §315. I.e., including fugitive slaves.

True, it is possible to imagine taking ἀναιρέω to mean that, before building the city, they “carried off” the bones and relocated them elsewhere. However, were that the case, readers would assume the problem had been solved. Since it is evident that Josephus had no desire to imply the problem had been solved respectably, we should probably conclude, instead, that he means that graves were simply destroyed, but left in place, during the building of Tiberias. On the senses of ἀναιρέω, see ThJL 36, s.v. (where our passage is aptly brought alongside 15.391, where Thackeray suggests “demolish” for Josephus’s report that Herod ἀνελῶν ancient foundations on the Temple Mount and then built in their stead). On the sense of τὸ νόμιμον, see the note on “regulations” at §274. See Numbers 19:11, 16, and above, §30. Josephus assumes here that readers know that the Torah requires those who come in contact with human bones to be impure for seven days and then to undergo a purification ceremony—which means that continual contact with such bones is totally unacceptable. Compare the rabbinic story of the purification of Tiberias, in Genesis Rabbah 79 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, 941–945) and parallels, on which see esp. Levine 1978. For sensitivity to the possibility that there might be human remains in a building-site, see m. Oholoth, chs. 16–18. For Josephus on the impurity of those who come into contact with corpses, see Ant. 4.262 and Apion 2.203, 205. For the following story, see von Gutschmid 1888: 116–119; Debevoise 1938: 143–153; and (on Thesmousa) Bigwood 2004; Gregoratti 2012: 184–187, and D. W. Roller 2018: 123–127. The story opens with the death of Phraates iv in 3/2 bce, long before the foundation of Tiberias ca. 20 ce (see the note on “Lake Gennesaritis” at §36), not “around this time.” Rather, Josephus is still filling in events peripheral to the period of Judean history that he has just narrated, down to the end of the governorship of Valerius Gratus (§35): after leaving the history of Judea there, he then turned to Herod’s other sons, bringing their story down to the foundation of Tiberias; now he is turning to other ancillary events of the same period, this time—in Parthia. For this usual system, also followed, for example, in the long story about Parthia at the end of this book (see the note on heading “this tragedy” at §310), see D. R. Schwartz 1992: 188–198.

For this convenient way (“das bekannte Verzahnungsstück” [Laqueur 1913: 199]) of stringing together narratives otherwise unconnected one to another, as for example already at Gen 38:1, and, for example, Ant. 20.179, 189, 211, see D. R. Schwartz 1981/82. The fact that the narratives are not otherwise connected often suggests—no more, but no less—that that they derive from different sources. This καί seems to be meant to lend some continuity to the narrative by adding yet another death to those of Salome and Augustus (§§31–32). For such moves on Josephus’s part, cf. §53 (the beginning of the very next story), §310, and, for example, 5.175 (“It happened that similar suffering also befell the tribe of Dan …,” just as it befell the tribe of Benjamin in the preceding story) and 11.302 (“he too had a brother,” just as his predecessor). If so, however, that suggests that Josephus clumsily inserted the intervening stories, one on the basis of a high-priestly chronicle (§§33–35; cf. the note on “high priesthood” at §34) and one on the founding of Tiberias (§§36–38), into a text which went from §32 to §39. Composition critics who suspect the attack on Tiberias is part of Josephus’s response to Justus, whose work appeared only twenty years after he wrote it (Life 360) and, therefore, probably after the composition of Antiquities, or at least of its first draft, may put this observation into the appropriate dossier. See the note on “rabble” at §37. As the context will make clear, Josephus refers here to Phraates iv—who death came in 2 bce. See Schippmann 2016. According to Debevoise (1938: 143), this is a diminuitive for Phraates. For Josephus’s use of this formula (with αἰτία for “circumstances” or “details”) to introduce a new story concerning a topic unconnected with the preceding context, in which case he often, as here, prefaces the story with a brief summary of it, compare §§91, 152, 310; 20.17, 141. Frequently, and especially when as here it comes together with “around this time” (see the first note on this paragraph), this reflects the insertion of material based upon a discrete source, as if Josephus thought it useful to summarize the story, which he treated as a closed unit, before giving its details; see Williamson 1977: esp. 50–55 and D. R. Schwartz 1992: 271, n. 76. That is probably the case here as well. For the source’s Roman nature, see the note on “by nature unstable” at §47.

That is, children by his wife. For such usage of γνήσιος, which, when used of offspring, clearly distinguishes such “legitimate” children from those born to servants or concubines, see, for example, Ant. 1.153, 344. Of siblings, it refers to those who share both parents, as at 19.204 and Life 8. On the adjective see, in general, Spicq 1994: 1.296–299. Something is rough here, and Niese (1890a: 147) marks a lacuna. I have adopted Petersen’s emendation recorded by Feldman (1965: 32, n. 4): ἥρα, for without such a new verb, the Greek (Φραάτης παίδων αὐτῷ γενομένων γνησίων Ἰταλικῆς παιδίσκης ὄνομα αὐτῇ Θεσμοῦσα) would mean that Phraates already had legitimate children by the Italian concubine. It is clear that Josephus means to contrast legitimate children to those borne by the concubine. On the different forms of her name, here and at §42, see Bigwood 2004: 38. On coins she appears as Μοῦσα—a name that is common enough among slaves. Accordingly, Josephus’s text, which offers θεσμοῦσα or θερμοῦσα, seems to reflect the use of the titleθεά (“divine”) which accompanies her name on coins. Apparently a slip for Augustus; see the next note. This came in the context of the Roman-Parthian arrangements of 20 bce (see E. Strugnell 2008), or perhaps a few years earlier (Bigwood 2004: 39–40). For such contemptuous use of ἄνθρωπος, see also §349, 351 and, apparently, War 1.578. Cf. the note on “poor woman” at §71. Bigwood (2004: 40) notes that the fact that “Theamousa” figures as “queen” (βασίλισσα) on coins supports the claim that she was promoted to Phraates’s “official wife.”

Josephus likes to use μηχανή and μηχανάομαι not only of the plain way/mean/method of doing something (as, for example, at §§51, 125, 276), but, rather, specifically of the underhanded machinations of villains (e.g. 17.17; 20.153, 163, 239, 248). Although usually ἀποσκευή refers to “baggage,” as at §377, here Josephus uses it in a sense frequently indicated by the verb (ἀποσκευάζομαι): she meant to have the other sons killed (so ἀποσκευασάμενος at §306) or otherwise eliminated (cf. 19.274); cf. ThLJ 75 (“get rid of, make away of, kill”). That would be routine in royal families; see the note on “his death” at §187. But introducing the pushy and villainous mother makes this part of a special complex Josephus loves: Thesmousa is almost as wicked as Agrippina at 20.151, in contrast to the virtuous Helena at 20.29–30. As Bigwood notes (2004, 41), it seems that Phraates was allowed to choose his successor. But we can understand that Thesmousa might fear that legitimate sons had better chances than hers.

This way of explaining the sending of royal hostages to Rome, as if it were part of a scheming woman’s machinations, fits the nature of this story, just as it fits Josephus’s stereotyping of women; see the note on “demands” later in this paragraph. But it does not make much sense, for sending sons to Rome does not eliminate them; rather, it could allow them to establish connections that would help pave their way to the throne or otherwise be useful (see esp. §52). In fact, the education of foreign princes in Rome—as for example, Agrippa i (§143) and perhaps Agrippa ii (20.135)—was quite regular practice, with advantages for both sides. See Braund 1984: 9–21 (“The Making of the King: Education”), Allen 2006: 149–177, Wheeler 2007, and Nabel 2017. For other sources on Phraates iv’s children in Rome, beginning with rgda 6.32, see Debevoise 1938: 144. The husband who gives in to his pushy wife’s nagging despite his own better judgment, and pays the price, is a favorite theme in this book; cf. §§241–246 (Herodias) and §§360–362 (Mithridates’s wife), also §§343–352 on Anileus’s wife. On nagging women, see also 15.239 (Mariamme brought on her own death by her “disproportionate freedom of speech”) and Plato, Laws 5.731d; cf. 20.145, where Josephus condemns Berenice for manipulating Polemo to serve her own purposes. For Josephus on women, see also the note on “contemptible women” at 19.129. More generally, see Eder 2022. As the continuation shows, we should understand that they not only “plotted against” Phraates but also killed him. As “some say … the more generally held account” at §45, this seems to indicate that Josephus heard the story from more than one source. As at 19.193 and 20.143, the present formulation also serves to allow Josephus to repeat a juicy and nasty story, such as he likes to tell about women, without taking responsibility for it. This is something of the ultimate sin (“not found even among pagans,” according to Paul in 1 Corinthians 5:1), one that, even concerning Nero and Agrippina, Cassius Dio (61.11) is prepared to report, but not to vouch for its veracity. One may, therefore, understand Bigwood’s inclination (2004: 43–47), after reviewing the lack of other evidence for such a union and the propensity of authors to tell such stories in order to denigrate their enemies and amuse their readers, to view it as “a piece of slander concocted by Phraatakes’s enemies. He certainly had plenty of those” (as Josephus goes on to report). Even the fact that she appears as “queen” in Phraataces’s days need not imply they were married, for it could simply be a continuation of the title established in Phraates’s days; see the note on “status” at §40.

For such use of ἐκπίπτω with πραγμάτῶν, see also 15.191 (and 15.189). For similar formulations with ἐκπίπτω and other nouns, see inter alia 10.216; 13,328; 20.66. τὰ πράγματα in the sense of “the state” is standard Hellenistic usage; see Bikerman 1938: 4. In 4 ce, the year of his last coins, together with “Theamousa”; see Bigwood 2004: 36–37.

Reading, δέοι δὲ βασιλεύοντος—an emendation suggested by von Gutschmid, in his private copy of Josephus (see Niese 1892: lv; 1890a: 148) and adopted by Mathieu and Herrmann 1929: 141, Schalit 1963: 285, and Feldman 1965: 36. Niese retains the manuscripts’ reading, οἱ δὲ τοῦ βασιλεύοντος, which is difficult to construe but, if anything, probably means the same. This consideration might be merely novelistic. Note, however, that at Ann. 2.1, in telling the next stage of this story, namely Vonones’s fall from favor, Tacitus summarized that, although he was of Parthian royal stock his Parthian subjects scorned him as if he were a foreigner (“quamvis gentis Arsacidarum, ut externum aspernabantur”). Cf. below, §47. The plural here (τῶν γενέσεων) is surprising. Orodes iii. The details of his lineage are as unknown as the events of his short reign; see Olbrycht 2014: 92. After the reference to Orodes something is wrong with the text; Niese first (1890a: 148) offered the mysterious εἰς δάν and listed a number of readings and suggested emendations, then (1890b: 128) contented himself with an obelisk (indicating a lacuna) between the two words. This is the only occurrence of ὑπαίτιος in Josephus. For this same collocation of cruelty and brutality, see 9.232; 19.201, on Gaius Caligula, is similar. On Josephus’s usage of σκαιός, see the note on “invidious” at 20.266.

In 6 ce, according to Debevoise 1938: 151. Apparently this means that it was usual to carry swords even at dinner. For illustration from depictions of Parthian banquets, see Heyn 2008: 179 (to which I was kindly referred by Peter Zilberg). Unfortunately, Josephus’s account is (according to Lenschau 1939) the only surviving testimony concerning the death of Orodes.

That is, the legitimate sons of Phraates (above, §42). Augustus took personal credit for this (rgda 6.33: “A me …”).

See the note on “supporting him” at §48. That is, barbarians in general are like the mob among cultured peoples. Instability as characteristic of the hoi polloi is a constant theme in Life; see §§40, 77, 103, 113, 149, etc., along with Mason 2001: 45, n. 242. This, together with the reference to the Parthians as “barbarians,” sounds like a clear expression of Roman disdain; cf. the note on “sent up” at §51. Destinon (1904: 31) proposes emending Niese’s ἀντὶ δουλείας into ἄντικρυς δουλείαν, as above §4: the Parthians considered being a hostage tantamount to slavery. Tacitus (Ann. 2.2) has the Parthians complaining that those who had defeated Crassus and driven Antonius away were now reduced to accepting the Roman emperor’s lackey (“mancipium Caesaris”).

Artabanus ii, who reigned ca. 10/11–38 ce. In the past he was numbered Artabanus iii. He will figure prominently below, §§96–103, 326–353, also at 20.37–69. On him, see Debevoise 1938: 152–166; Kahrstedt 1950; and Schippmann 2011. This seems to indicate that the opposition to Vonones mentioned in §47 was mainly among the aristocrats. So too at §44, it is the aristocrats who insist on criteria for kings.

On Seleucia, see below, §372. His usual winter quarters (§377), located on the Tigris south of modern Baghdad. On Josephus’s use of ἀναχωρέω and ἀναχώρησις, see ThLJ 44–45.

Neither this nor the reason supplied by the next words is recorded anywhere else. Apparently the lack of manhood was Vonones’s, demonstrated by his defeat and flight. But it is possible that Josephus means that Tiberius was unmanly insofar as he feared Artabanus’s threats, mentioned in the next line. This is the only instance of ἀναπρεσβεύω in Josephus, and, like the references to “barbarians” (§§47, 49)—expresses a Roman point of view. Cf. ἀναπέμπω at 20.131 and the note on “up to Rome” at §246. For such use of μηχανή (“means, tactic, device, contrivance”), compare §§276, 281; 20.153. Here I follow Feldman (1965: 40), who reads μηχανή … ἑτέρα, following two manuscripts. Niese (1890a: 149), following other witnesses, read μηχανή … ἑτέρας βασιλειάς, as if Josephus were noting that Vonones could not find another kingdom to rule. That seems less likely.

On Q. Caecilius Metellus Creticus Silanus, consul in 7 ce and governor of Syria 11/12–17, see hjp 1.259–60 and Dąbrowa 1998: 30–32. For this sense of κατὰ αἰδῶ, see Ant. 7.230 and 14.375. See above, §42. For κομιδή here as “upbringing,” see ccfj 2.516, s.v. According to Tacitus, Vonones was allowed to live in royal style, but witihin a few years was moved to Cilicia and then, in 19 ce, killed by his guards when trying to escape custody; see Ann. 2.4, 58, 68. On this Orodes, hardly known from other sources, see Täubler 1904: 9–10. It seems that Orodes reigned until 18 ce, so this Parthian story has taken us to about the same time as the history of Judea (the appointment of Caiaphas in 18 or 19—§35) and of Herod Antipas (the foundation of Tiberias in 19—§§36–38). So does the very next story. See the opening note on 18.3.1 (§55).

This formulation affords the next narrative, which too is extraneous from the point of view of Jewish history, some semblance of continuity with the preceding story, since both deal with Roman relations with the East. Cf. the note on “also” at §39. Antiochus iii of Commagene, d. 17 ce. Tacitus too (Ann. 2.42–43) reports that his death was among the circumstances that occasioned Germanicus’s mission to the East. See Sullivan 1977a: 783–785; Sartre 2005: 75. To Rome; the fact that this need not be said reflects the same point of view as ἀναπρεσβεύω at §51. See also the next note. I.e., similarly, a Roman province. For similar usage, note “legions” at War 1.157, which apparently reflects the Roman point of view of Josephus’s editors for War (see Apion 1.50), as opposed to Nicolaus’s Syrian point of view preserved at Ant. 14.79 (“Roman legions”), just as, a few lines earlier in both works, Ant. 14.76 has plain “province” for Syria while War 1.157 has “the Syrian province”; see D. R. Schwartz 2013: 18–22. Sullivan (1977a: 784–785) thinks the local unrest reported by Tacitus (Ann. 2.42.5) probably reflects the same attitude. For a similar split between aristocrats and the population at large with regard to the annexation of Judea by Rome, compare 17.304–314 (and War 2.84–91), where we read, in the context of 4 bce, of Jewish aristocrats who urged Augustus to establish provincial rule in Judea after Herod’s death, to 17.271–285 and 18.1–9, where we read of contemporary rebels aspiring to kingship and of popular opposition to Roman rule when it was in fact established ten years later.

On Germanicus (son of Drusus the Elder, brother of Claudius, father of Gaius Caligula), his mission to the East, and his death in 19, see Koestermann 1958; Weingärtner 1969; Levick 1999: 154–156; Barrett 2019: 19–32; Lott 2012: 340–345; and Powell 2013. Josephus frequently allows τύχη a role, for example at §§197, 239, 267. See esp. Lindner 1972: 89–94; Shutt 1980: 183–186; Villalba 1986: 51–58; and Klawans 2012: 85–86, 189–190. On Piso, the Roman governor of Syria ca. 17–19, see hjp 1.260 and the Senatus Consultum de Cn. Pisone Patre published in 1996; for the latter, see Yakobson 1998; the studies in ajp 120/1 (Spring 1999); and Lott 2012: 125–157 (text and translation), 255–311 (commentary). For the rumor that Tiberius was behind the murder, see Tacitus, Ann. 2.43 and Suetonius, Tiberius 52 and Caligula 2. The way Josephus refers to Piso here, as if readers know who is meant, without explaining that he was the governor of Syria (nor even that he had replaced the last-named incumbent in that position, §52), indicates Josephus’s dependence here on a Roman source—such as those to which he alludes at the end of this paragraph. Thus, Josephus’s procedure here is very similar to that at Ant. 11.305; in that case too, as also at 20.154–157, Josephus refers to other authors in abstaining from going into any more detail about something that is extraneous to Jewish history. Germanicus died on 10 October 19. His popularity (reflected at 18.206–210; 19.217, 223) engendered massive mourning upon his death; see Barrett 2019: 31 and esp. Fraschetti 1991. The main extant literary sources concerning his death (Suetonius, Cal. 3.2; Tacitus, Ann. 2.55–72; Cassius Dio 57.18) are later than Josephus, so his reference to “elsewhere” must be to their sources, which did not survive. On Pilate, who is well known from the Gospels, and who is mentioned by Philo (Leg. 299–305; see the note on “Caesar” later in this paragraph), by Tacitus (Ann. 15.44), and by an inscription from Caesarea (Boffo 1994, no. 23 = cii/pii, no. 1277) that names him “praefectus Iudaeae,” and for whose Judean governorship there is also numismatic evidence (Meshorer 2001: 170–173), see hjp 1.383–387, 438–440, Bond 1998, Boffo 1994: 217–233, and Lémonon 1992 and 2007. For relatively recent finds, see Szanton et al. 2019, concerning a monumental street in Jerusalem from Pilate’s time and Amorai-Stark et al. 2018, concering a finger-ring thought to bear Pilate’s name; for doubts about the latter, see Eck and Ecker 2023. Pilate’s appointment, to replace Gratus, was mentioned at §35. The fact that Josephus postpones his narrative of Pilate’s term of office until he finishes his account of events in 18–19 ce (down to the foundation of Tiberias and the deaths of Orodes of Armenia, Antiochus iii of Commagene, and Germanicus) is, along with the fact that Roman events of §§65–84 are dated by Tacitus (Ann. 2.84) to 19 ce, part of the argument for dating Pilate’s appointment to that time. For that argument, see Mason 2008: 139, n. 1054, and D. R. Schwartz 2013: 139–145. On the literary effect of the postponement, to reflect the time it took Pilate to make his way to Judea, see the note on “completed” at §26. On the “tumultuous” nature of Pilate’s governorship, according to the present account, see the note on “tumult” at §58. On Josephus’s account of Pilate in War 2, see Mason 2008: 138–150 and Stowasser 2008. For the suggestion that the account (§§55–62) is a Josephan revision of an originally pro-Pilate report, perhaps prepared in connection with some hearing in Rome (see §89), which aimed to portray the Judeans as tumultuous so as to justify Pilate’s measures to maintain order, and which survived better in War 2.169–177, see several of the annotations on these stories and D. R. Schwartz 2007b: 132–143.

I.e., Caesarea Maritima, the Roman capital of Judea. Since the days of Herod’s massive work there it was one of Palestine’s two antipodes, over against Jerusalem, the Jewish capital; cf. Lémonon 2007: 113–114 (“Une province à deux centres”) and Eck 2007:14–18; Beebe 1983: 206–207. Hence Pilate’s move to Jerusalem of what was fine in Caesarea had, whether or not intended, special significance, as is indicated by the end of the story at §59. For the same contrast of the two centers in other contexts, cf. Acts 23–25 (Jewish Jerusalem, which is hostile to Paul, is repeatedly contrasted with Roman Caesarea, which protects him) and b. Megillah 6a (“Caesarea and Jerusalem—if someone tells you they are both desolate or both inhabited, do not believe him; [but if it is said that] Caesarea is desolate but Jerusalem inhabited, or Jerusalem desolate but Caesearea inhabited, believe him”). For Josephus’s account of Caesarea’s construction, which (like the city’s name) makes its Roman orientation clear, see Ant. 15.331–341. On the history of Caesarea, see hjp 2.116–118; Levine 1975; Ringel 1975; Lifshitz 1977; Patrich 2011, also below, 20.173–178. With the exception of a suggested emendation at 3.289, this is the only occurrence of μεθιδρύω in Josephus. But ἰδρύω is common enough, including in the next paragraph. Josephus does not say why Pilate would undertake such a goal. Nor, indeed, does Josephus state that Pilate realized that bringing the busts into Jerusalem would be construed as abrogating Jewish regulations. Perhaps he did not know that; perhaps he thought it would not ruffle Jewish sensitivies if the busts were confined to the army’s quarters; perhaps he thought the Jews did not care if non-Jews made images (see the note on “images”); perhaps he thought the Jews would not even know about the busts in the army’s quarters (see the note on “night” at §56). Thus, translations of ἐφρόνησε such as “took a bold step in subversion” (Feldman 1965: 43) or “conspired to violate” (Schalit 1963: 286) go too far. What is important for Josephus here is only that, once Pilate brought the busts in, for whatever reason, it was difficult to back down in the face of protest, but that he nevertheless did so, in the end, in recognition of the Jews’ sincerity. For Roman military standards and such busts, see esp. Domaszewski 1885. At Leg. 299–305, Philo has Agrippa i tell a similar story, but Agrippa emphatically denies the iconic nature of what Pilate brought into the city and, further differing from Josephus’s story, has the emperor, Tiberius, personally involved in the story. For a comparison of Philo’s and Josephus’s accounts, see Smallwood 1987: 126–127; she concludes that “The differences between these two stories are so obvious that they cannot be treated as variants of a single story.” That is true, but one may nonetheless ask whether these different stories relate to two different events or, rather, to the same event. Usually the former option is adopted; so, for example, Smallwood, ibid., also Smallwood 1981: 161–167; hjp 1.384–386; Stern 1974a: 351–352; Lémonon 2007: 127–148, 188–213; and Mason 2008: 140, n. 1057. However, it appears likelier that Philo’s story relates to the same event, but has been skewed to allow it to be rhetorically useful for Agrippa in the role he played in the story as told by Philo: Agrippa was referring to the episode in the context of his attempt to convince Gaius to back down from erecting a statue of himself in the Temple of Jerusalem (see below, §§261–309). Philo’s way of doing that was by portraying Pilate’s action as less heinous than it really was, and then by involving Tiberius and attributing to him a response that was very harsh, thus indicating to Gaius, in an argumentum e minore ad maius Philo makes explicit at §306, that the introduction of something iconic is all the more reprehensible. Such an argument would have lacked all force if the concession had been made, as Josephus reports, by a governor, not an emperor. See D. R. Schwartz 1983a and 2013: 115–121, including discussion of other cases, at Leg. 261 and Flacc. 26ff., in which Philo plays fast and loose with the facts in order to serve some greater purpose. For a similar case, see also the note on “be used” at §95. For some further discussion, which, however, seems not to take Philo’s rhetorical needs, and willingness to serve them, sufficiently into account, see Lémonon 1992: 759–760, 765–768. Note that Josephus’s formulation here does not fit the case, for the fact that Jewish law (the Second Commandment [Exod 20:4–5//Deut 5:8–9]) forbids Jews not only to worship images but even to make them (a prohibition observed very widely during the late Second Temple period [Levine 2005b; Levine 2012: 37–61]) does not explain why or how Jews would claim that Roman soldiers could not carry images into Jerusalem. What is needed is something like what Josephus wrote in the parallel account in War 2.170, where it is said that such images were not allowed in the city. For another case of the same contrast between War and Antiquities, see the note on “to us” at §264. The fact that Josephus’s formulations link the prohibition to the Jews rather than (as in War) to a place, Judea, reflects his becoming a Jew of the Diaspora between his two works. On that theme, see Tuval 2013 and D. R. Schwartz 2014: 49–61.

For a similar claim, about all Judea and not only Jerusalem, see §121. Josephus likes to report that sneaky moves were made under the cover of darkness; so, for example, at §§159, 355, 370; 20.208. See Drüner 1896: 45–46, on such Josephan embellishments of his versions of stories in the Pentateuch and 1 Maccabees. Note, however, that while Josephus apparently means us to understand that Pilate was deliberatively provocative and exploited the darkness in order to create a fait accompli, it might be that, as Eck suggests (2007: 57–59), Pilate brought the images into the city at night so as to avoid Jewish knowledge of them; after all, the images were to be set up in the soldiers’ quarters and perhaps he could hope that the Jews would not become aware of them—thus allowing him both to do his duty to the emperor and to avoid riling his subjects.

This verb, ἐξαναχωρέω, appears elsewhere in Josephus only at §245. As Quadratus at 20.130; cf. Philip’s “throne” (§107). On the hippodrome/“stadium” in Caesarea, see Patrich 2001 and Weiss 2014: 24–28. For other evidence for use of stadiums for public meetings, such as War 2.618, see ibid. 202–203.

θάνατον ἐπιθήσειν ζημίαν; the formulation is virtually the same as at §226. ἐκ τοῦ ὀξέος is quite common in Books 17–19, whether by itself, as here and at §§170–171, 173, 236, 277, 294, 299 (also 17.23, 256, 344; 18.170, 173, 236, 277; 19.47) or in combination with μηδὲν εἰς ἀναβολάς (as at 17.187, 312; 18.309; 19.197; see the note on “immediately” at 19.197). This is the first appearance of θορυβ- in Josephus’s account of Pilate; it recurs at §§62, 65, 85, 88 and, as §65 suggests, probably figured in the original version of §§63–64 as well. It well reflects the Roman point of view that focuses not on the issue that gave rise to the protest but, rather, on disorder, delegitimizing the protestors as if they were merely a mob. Especially Norden (1913a: 638–645) underlined this leitmotif, “tumult(ous),” of Josephus’s narrative on Pilate. For its function, in leading readers to think of “turbulent times” and thus prepare them for the final catastrophe, see especially McLaren 1998. Note that it is not found in the parallel narrative of Pilate’s days in War 2.169–177; there, instead, the leitmotif is ταραχή (§§170, 175, 176).

It is not clear how prostrate people can bare their throats. Perhaps we should understand the two as sequential, or perhaps we should take σφαγή more generally as “neck,” as is suggested at ccfj 4.138, s.v. (“the spot where the sword strikes the neck, the throat”). In any case, here as at §271 the scene sounds very impressive, and that is the point. For willingness to die rather than violate the laws, a diasporic motif that is very prominent in Antiquities, see also §§264–266, also, for example, 12.304; 14.66–68; 17.152; 20.116; Apion 2.271–272. Cf. the note on “people” at §278. On the wisdom of the laws, see the note on “wisdom” at §16. This point, so important for Josephus in Antiquities (see the preceding note and the note on “law” at §222), makes the juxtaposition of this story to the next one into a diptych: Jews who remain firm in their devotion to their own values, even up to willingness to die for them, win Roman respect, while Jews who misbehave and evince scorn for Rome and its representatives, as in the next story (§60), get what they deserve. For a similar point, see the note on “provoking them” at 20.175. The contrast between the two stories is made even more stark by the fact that while it is clear why the Jews opposed the introduction of busts of the emperor into the city, it is not at all clear why they opposed the use of sacred funds for the aqueduct (see the note below, on “water.”)

That is, money that had been donated to the Temple, whether as special gifts or as part of the regular Temple-tax. Cf. Ant. 14.72, 105–113, also below, §§82, 312 and 20.220–222; Stern, glajj 1.274; Mason 2008: 34, n. 304; and the note on “to God” at §312. At War 2.75 the length is said to have been four hundred furlongs. For Josephus’s furlong (“stade”) being around 200 meters, and attempts to identify the remnants of this aqueduct, see Mason 2008: 147–148, n. 1103; for the latter, see also Yechezkel et al. 2021. Note both that, as Mason observes, the length of an aqueduct can be, due to terrain, much longer than the distance as the crow flies, and that Josephus does not say that Pilate built along the entire distance; it may be that he only built an aqueduct along one section of the route. The aqueduct studied by Yechezkel et al. brought water from the Biar Spring (some fifteen km. southwest of Jerusalem) to “Solomon’s Pools” south of Bethlehem (for a map of aqueducts around Jerusalem, see ibid. 2). ἀμφί is one of the words that appear in Antiquities only in Books 17–19, often for those “around” someone (18.165, 248, 276; 19.70) but also a few times, as here, apparently, for “concerning” (17.172, 325, 354; 18.196). It may be that this vague term, rather than “they did not like the project,” implies that their objection regarded something peripheral to the project itself; see the next note. Josephus does not explain why the Jews opposed Pilate’s project, which apparently served the public interest; if Agrippa ii could be applauded for using sacred funds in order to pave Jerusalem’s streets and thereby support indigent workers (20.219–222), why should Jews oppose Pilate’s use of sacred funds to build an aqueduct that brings water to Jerusalem? To say that was because Pilate was using the money “for his own secular purposes” (Feldman 1965: 46–47, n. b) is hardly fair. For the use of temple funds for public works, 20.220–222 and m. Sheqalim 4:2 (which even specifically mentions “water-channel” [aqueduct?]). Perhaps the issue vis-à-vis Pilate had more to do with the question of principle and procedure, namely, who was entitled to decide how to use the funds; so Lémonon 2007: 154–155. Or perhaps there was some particular problem involved; for the possibility that the aqueduct went through a graveyard and that some Jews thought that desecrated the graves and/or impugned the water’s purity (which would especially be a problem insofar as the water was used in the Temple cult), see the discussion in Patrich 1982. In any case, the very lack of reason for the Jews’ opposition is among the reasons to think that the story, as we have it, goes back to a brief meant to defend Pilate; see the opening note at 18.3.1 (§55). In Josephus’s narrative, however, it contributes to building the diptych: if in the first story, the Jews protested on account of a plain violation of their law, in the present story they are not said to have any good reason. Josephus likes this hyperbole; cf. §§270, 277, 279, 287, 313, 366 and 20.211. Another major contrast with the first story, where the Jews’ protest focuses on their own principles, not on denigrating Pilate. For this pejorative connotation of ὅμιλος, cf. 4.37 and 19.222. Josephus, an aristocrat, expresses similar scorn for “mobs” elsewhere as well; see the note on “the mob” at 19.130.

Apparently: the Jews’ style of clothing. In the parallel at War 2.176, they are described as being ἐσθῆσιν ἰδιωτικαῖς—clothing which, whether Jewish or Roman, did not identify them as soldiers, a measure that was probably meant to avoid instilling panic in the crowd, such as that which ensued in a similar scene at 20.110–111. This, as the next item, that they carried only clubs (a point esp. underlined in the parallel in War; see the next note), contributes to the picture of Pilate as moderate but responsible, attempting to avoide provocation but nevertheless being prepared to use force if required. Together with the fact that the text condemns the Jews as having behaved like a mob and persisted in vilifying the Romans, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, claims that when the Roman soldiers turned to violence they went beyond their orders, the whole narrative sounds like it is based on an account composed in order to defend Pilate by blaming both the Jews and, for the abuses, insubordinate soldiers. See also the next annotation. For the proposal that such an account derives, ultimately, from materials prepared by or for Pilate in the context of the hearing for which he was sent to Rome (§89), see D. R. Schwartz 2007b: 132–143 (where the same suggestion is also made concerning Josephus’s narrative on Cumanus in Book 20; see the note on “festival” at 20.109). This is the only occurrence of σκυτύλη in Josephus. Note that in the parallel passage, at War 2.176, Josephus has specifically wooden clubs and emphasizes that Pilate ordered the soldiers not to use their swords. In both cases, that appears to reflect a defense of Pilate as having been restrained, which has been toned down here; see the preceding note. The use of ἀποδίδωμι suggests that Pilate, despite the provocation, held the fatal order back as long as he could. See the preceding notation.

In his reports about clashes with the Roman forces, and warnings against them, Josephus frequently emphasizes that, once they begin, the victims are not limited to the villains who brought them on. See, for some examples, 20.123; War 2.305–307, 399, also below, the end of §84. See the note on “bizarre manners” at §23. The next two paragraphs, §§63–64, constitute the so-called TestimoniumFlavianum, the most famous passage in Josephus. Although quoted as early as the fourth century, by Eusebius (Church History 1.11.7–8; Demonstration of the Gospel 3.5, 124), its authenticity has been the subject of debate for centuries; see Bardet 2002, Whealey 2003, and, for briefer surveys, Winter 1973, van Voorst 2000: 81–104, Mason 2003b: 225–236, and van Henten 2020, also above, Introduction, at nn. 18–19. For detailed comparison of its vocabulary and style to Josephus’s, see esp. van Liempt 1927 and Gramaglia 1998. Basically, there are three options: it is authentic (so, for example, Harnack 1913 and Victor 2010); it is wholly inauthentic (so, for example, Olson 1999 and 2013, who ascribes it to Eusebius); or it is what is left after an originally authentic text underwent revision by Christian editors and/or copyists. Total authenticity seems to be ruled out not only by the general consideration, that the plain expression of Christian belief about Jesus, if authentic, would mean that Josephus had become a Christian; the suggestion that that is the case, although argued by Whiston (see Feingold 2015: 26–28), garnered virtually no support, for it has, apparently, no other support in his oeuvre. Total authenticity is also ruled out by a specific literary consideration, noted especially by Norden (1913a): the opening of §65 indicates that it follows a story that (as those that precede the Testimonium; see the note on “tumult” at §58), culminated in a “tumult.” That is not the case for the Testimonium as we have it, but could well be imagined, given such texts as Luke 13:1, 23:2, and 24:21//Acts 1:6–8, and the very fact that Pilate had Jesus killed; probably he had good Roman reason to do that. However, it is likely that Josephus did write something about Jesus, for his readers would know Christianity came from Judea and expect him to say something about it, and that likelihood is supported not only by the reference to Jesus as 20.200, which is usually taken to be authentic (see the note there on “Christ”), but also by the appearance of various Josephan phrases in the Testimonium; see van Liempt 1927 and, for a list of fifteen words or phrases in the Testimonium that are common in Ant. 17–19 and not typical of Eusebius, Mason 2022a: 169. In general, moreover, we should prefer a more conservative conjecture, if possible. That is, the third option seems to be the likeliest, namely, that Josephus wrote something about Jesus, which probably included something about tumults associated with him (cf. Luke 13:1) but did not make affirmative statements about Jesus’s messiahship and resurrection but rather reflected them as what Christians believed—and Christian copyists refashioned the text to their liking. Indeed, “the majority view still is that Josephus did write a passage about Jesus, which was later adapted by a Christian scribe or editor” (van Henten 2020: 365).

“Receive with pleasure” (δέχομαι ἡδονῇ) is, as Mason notes, a collocation that is distinctively characteristic of Books 17–19 (17.329; 18. 6, 59, 63, 70, 236; 19.127, 185; cf. the note on “endure” at 19.28), and so has often been seen as an indication that the Testimonium began as a Josephan composition. And even if “ἡδονή normally denotes sensual pleasure” (Winter 1973: 436), the abovementioned passages show that that is often not the case, and so there is little reason to see here any hint of criticism. Van Liempt (1927: 111–112) lists forty occurrences of ἐπάγεσθαι in Josephus’s writings and adds that it is not found in ancient Christian literature. That corresponds to von Gutschmid’s (1893: 352–353) remark that the phrase πολλοὺς δὲ καὶ τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ ἐπηγάγετο has “ganz Josephische Färbung … [and is] ganz Josephisch,” just as Thackeray (1929: 146) would later comment that “the repetition of ‘many,’ the neuter τὸ Ἑλλεηνικόν, and the use of ἐπάγεσθαι for ‘win converts’ are all thoroughly Josephan.” There seems, however, to be no good reason to follow Th. Reinach (1897: 7) and Eisler (1929/30: 1.39) in reinforcing Josephan authorship here by ascribing a hostile sense (“mislead,” “seduce”) to ἐπάγεσθαι here; for details, and an explanation of how Reinach came to offer that interpretation, see D. R. Schwartz 2023. Rather, Josephus could well express pride in the popularity of this outgrowth of Judaism even if he did not subscribe to it, just as, at Ant. 20.197–203, he expresses outrage at Sadducean maltreatment of its devotees. This statement, which cannot be justified on the basis of New Testament evidence concerning Jesus for, despite some ambiguities, his mission seems to have been confined to Jews (Matthew 10:6; 15:24; Acts 10; cf. Jeremias 1982 and Bird 2006), has been adduced as proof that it was composed by an outsider, such as Josephus. But it could just as well be an anachronistic statement by a Christian writer, who knew of and approved of the inclusion of gentiles and, aware or unaware of the anachronism, pointed to Jesus himself as its author. For discussion of this argument as part of the case for identifying Eusebius as the Testimonium’s author, see Olson 2013: 105–108 and Vitelli 2018: 12. Or perhaps it was inserted craftily by a Christian forger who wanted to make it look like a mistake that only an outsider, such as Josephus, could make. Arguments such as these can go on endlessly. The plain unqualified nature of this declaration, in contrast to “Jesus called Christ” in the reference to him in connection with his brother James at 20.200, is among the reasons to assume the present text has undergone Christian editing.

Lit. “punished on a cross” (σταυρῷ ἐπιτετιμηκότος). Although this could refer to impalement or hanging on/from a pale or wooden beam (see esp. J. M. Baumgarten 1982, and Hadas-Lebel 2002—both in connection with ἀνασταυρῶσαι in Ant. 13.380), in the Roman period it typically referred to crucifixion. See Danker 2000: 72, s.v. ἀνασταυρόω (“always simply crucify”), and 941, s.vv. σταυρός, σταυρόω. The Crucifixion is usually dated to 30 or 33 ce; see Brown 1994: 2.1373–1376 and Visi 2020: 16–19. Often the use of ἔνδειξις and ἐνδείκνυμι implies the denunciation was malicious and/or unfounded; see, for example, 17.3l 19.33, 133. And this is especially the case if, as here, no reason has been supplied that might justify an indictment. This can function as an argument against the authenticity of the Testimonium, whether we assume that the original text supplied a good reason for the indictment (such as inciting insurrection; see the note on “the Jews” at §65) and a Christian scribe left that out, or because the original text did not blame the Jewish dignitaries but a Christian scribe did. Note (with Eisler 1929/30: 42, n. 2) that whoever produced the text of the Testimonium used by Jerome (De viris illustribus 13 [on Josephus]), which says instead that Pilate executed Jesus on account of the envy (invidia) of the leading Jews, was, apparently, reacting to this problem. Niese (1894: v) saw here (παρ’ ἡμῖν) evidence of non-authenticity, because, he observed, apart from introductory and closing passages (such as 1.4 and 20.259, 264) Josephus usually speaks of the Jews in the third-person plural. However, as van Liempt (1927: 112–113) and others responded, Josephus uses the first-person plural often enough to neutralize this argument. See, for example, §55, also 3.248; 14.77–78; 20.198; Life 10. For belief in Jesus’s resurrection on the third day after his crucifixion, see, for example, Luke 24:46, Acts 10:40, 1 Corinthians 15:4. For his appearance to his disciples on that same day, see Mark 16:9–14 (only in the longer ending of the gospel) and Luke 24. For prophesy of resurrection on the third day, see Hosea 6:2 and 1 Corinthians 15:4, also Matthew 12:40, which alludes to Jonah 1:17; Cook 2019. Josephus’s use of φῦλον here has been the object of much attention, for it is usually translated “tribe” and taken to be derisive, and since that would not be expected from a Christian forger or reviser, it is usually taken to be an argument for the text’s authenticity. See, for example, Harnack 1913: 1048–1049, 1057; Winter 1973: 434. I accept the argument that the term is not to be expected from a Christian, but, in leaving it Josephan, I do not see good reason to assume it is derisive. Rather, I would translate φῦλον here as “adherents of a religion,” on the basis of such passages as Ant. 12.23, where Josephus has Aristeas emphasize that he is not a Jew by birth nor is he the Jews’ ὁμόφυλος; that must mean he is a Jew neither by descent nor by religion. Similarly, at Ant. 14.115 Josephus quotes Strabo’s complaint that the Jews’ φῦλον has “taken over” all around the world; since Jews cannot impose their descent upon others, it must be their religion that is meant. So too Ant. 16.2, where Josephus refers to ἀλλόφυλοι as those who do things differently than Jews do and can require Jews enslaved to them to violate their own “religion,” and 12.145//War 5.194, where, with regard to non-Jews excluded from the Temple, Josephus carefully replaces ἀλλογενής (the term used in the inscriptions in the Temple; see the note on “secretly” at §30) by ἀλλόφυλος, which avoids the implication that proselytes (who are of foreign birth but share the Jews’ religion) were excluded. See also the note on “own community” at 19.330. That is, Josephus is stating that Christianity is not a type of Judaism; it is another religion. For more on this, in the context of the Testimonium, see D. R. Schwartz 2002. According to Acts 11:26, the name “Christians” appeared for the first time in Antioch, sometime in the fourth or fifth decade of the first century; cf. Bickerman 2007: 2.794–808. Among Roman sources, see esp. Tacitus, Ann. 15.44.2–3, along with Stern, glajj 2.91–92.

As usual, these words serve to link together stories that are otherwise quite unconnected. Cf. above, §39. The Roman events reported in the next two stories (§§65–84) belong to 19 ce, as is clearly indicated by Tacitus, Ann. 2.85 (where, as here, promiscuity, Egyptians, and Jews are all juxtaposed) and is supported by the placement of the brief report in Cassius Dio 57.18.5a; see Stern, glajj 2.70. True, it is often thought that the opening of the present story, and the placement of these stories, are incorrect, for Pilate’s tenure is usually thought to have begun only in 26 ce, as emerges from the present text of 18.35. However, it seems more likely that Pilate began his governorship already in 19 ce, and that Josephus’s placement of these Roman stories here actually supports that, alongside other considerations; see the opening note at 18.3.1 (§55). This opening line implies that the preceding story was about some terrible thing that caused a tumult—which gives us an idea of what Josephus’s original account of Jesus reported; see the introductory note on 3.3 (the Testimonium) at §63. It also emphasizes, for readers, that all of Josephus’s narrative on Pilate is characterized by “tumult,” whether as verb or as noun; see the note on “tumult” at §58. In this case, Josephus’s move involves some craft, insofar as this opening reference to a “tumult” among the Ἰουδαῖοι allows readers to accept it without second thought as if they were about to read another item in the narrative about Pilate. It is only fifteen paragraphs later (§80) that they will be told that it actually pertains not to Judeans but, rather, to the Jews of Rome and so (although Josephus does not point this out) has nothing to do with Pilate. Cf. the note on “also” at §310. The double negative (“litotes”) intensifies: the acts were very shameful. Compare, for example, “not at all unwilling” at §68, “not at all unfamiliar” at §259, “not at all disobliging” at 19.24, and “not at all averse” at 19.58, also the use of οὐκ ἄσημον at 16.243, 201; 20.247; and Life 1, along with Paul’s similar reference to Tarsus according to Acts 21:39. Four temples of Isis are known in first-centuryRome. Apparently the reference here, as also at War 7.123, is to the largest of them, namely, the one in the Campus Martius, which was paired with a Serapeum; so Gasparini 2017: 387. On Isis in Rome, see Takács 1995, with pp. 80–86 on the present story. That is, Josephus will give the extraneous material first so as to allow his narrative to return, thereafter, to its main topic. For a similar case, cf. 5.341, where Josephus, having reported a prophecy to Eli and Samuel without earlier mention of Samuel, announces that he will then digress in order to introduce the prophet before continuing with the main story. In this case, the arrangement has an apologetic point: by telling the Isis story first, and at much greater length, Josephus allows the Jews’ misdeeds to pale in comparison. For a similar move, see the note on “as well” at §11. Apart from setting up readers for the following story, it has been suggested that the present story is also meant to mock the preceding one, about Jesus, whether by mocking belief in the virgin birth by referring to faked intercourse with a god (Bell 1976/77) or by mocking those who believe in resurrection by referring to gullible dupes who will believe anything (Gasparini 2017).

Reading τῷ τε with Hudson and Havercamp (1726: 1.877), followed by Feldman (1965: 52), rather than the manuscripts’ τῶν, which was retained by Niese (1890a: 152) but is difficult to construe. As so often, in his editio minor (1890b: 131) Niese too adopted the emendation; see the Introduction, at n. 69. For this phrase, cf. §§14, 20, 278. For Josephus’s notion of the usual overweening behavior of married women, cf. §§241–245 and 360–362. For Josephus’s assumption that there are ages at which one tends to misbehave, cf. Life 80, also the note on “youths” at §10. For this virtue (σωφρονέω, σωφροσύνη as at §§73, 76), cf. 19.210 and, in general, North 1966 and Spicq 1994: 3.359–365 (esp. 363–365 esp. on women, as at §180 and at 6.296, concerning whom it corresponds to Latin pudicitia—modesty, chastity, virtue). Cf. the note on “chastity” at §180. Paulina and Saturninus seem to be otherwise unknown; see the note on “Saturninus” at §83. This is the only occurrence of ἀντισόομαι in Josephus.

It is usually assumed that 6000 drachmas = 1 talent = about 26 kilograms on the Attic standard, so 200,000 drachmas would be around 33 talents—a huge sum; see Mason 2008: 34–35, n. 306.

On such usage of the verb, which amounts to “quite prepared,” see ThLJ 59, s.v. ἀπαλλάσσειν, §2.

Ida’s role in this story is very similar to that played, according to Plutarch, Parallela minora 22, by Myrrha’s nurse in the story to which Josephus refers at 19.94.

Cf. the note on “pleasure” at §63.

Here, as at §112 (as also at 15.231 and 19.34), the use of ἄνθρωπος of a woman seems to express sympathy rather than contempt. For the latter, see the note on “wench” at §40.

On Anubis in the Greco-Roman world, see Gasparro 2018 (on the present story: 541, n. 79).

This is the only occurrence of εἰσαγγέλλω in Josephus.

This is the only occurrence of ἐλλαμπρύνομαι in Josephus.

Lit. “looked at” (ὁρῶντες), answered “on the other hand” by ἀπίδοιεν (“turned their gaze”) later in this sentence.

Here the witnesses differ. The translation follows Niese (1890a: 154; 1890b: 133), who adopted Ambrosianus’s αὐτῷ (“for him”); this preserves the third person used earlier in the sentence (“to insult Mundus”) and, despite the intervening use of first-person singular (μοι … ἐθέμην), apparently winks at Mundus’s joke of pretending he is not Mundus. Feldman (1965: 56–57) prefers the more pedestrian ἐμαυτῷ (“for me”), supplied by two other witnesses.

For the wife’s exemption from punishment because she was deceived, see Digesta 48.5.11.12. Niese (1890a: 154; 1890b: 133) suggests emending the manuscripts’ ἐπεσήμηνε into ἀπεσήμηνε, whether simply because Josephus uses the latter much more frequently or also so as to make the phrasing here conform to that of the next story (§83), since Josephus treats the two stories—and perhaps received them—as a matched pair.

Under the terms of the Lex Julia de Adulteriis (Digesta 48.5.9–10); see Rogers 1932: 253–254.

As Lembi (2001: 55) notes, this novelistic motif, that being overcome by passion can excuse criminal behavior, reappears in the story of Asineus and Anileus (§350); it also recurs in that of Izates (20.22). (On the general theme of a man being enslaved by his passion for a woman, see the note on “passions for her” at 19.193.) As a matter of fact, Rogers (1932: 254) states that Mundus’s exile was simply the regular punishment for adultery imposed by Augustus’s Lex Julia (Paulus, Sententiae 2.26.14), which also mandates the confiscation of half the offender’s property. See, in general, Corbett 1930: 139–143. However, the present case, in which the woman was misled, would seem to be more heinous than the usual adultery, and so might have been expected to entail a more severe punishment, especially if, as Josephus reports, those who merely facilitated the crime were executed. At §65. This is the only occurrence of προαποσημαίνω in Josephus. For formulation with the agent in the dative, cf. §§142, 202, 209, 222, 225, etc. For such use of λόγος, see the note on “work” at §307. On the Jews of ancient Rome see Leon 1995; Noy 1995; Barclay 1996; Rutgers 1998; and Rocca 2022.

For such use of τῆς αὐτοῦ cf. τῆς αὐτῶν at §97. As at §196, the country is defined by the man being called a Ἲουδαῖος, hence “Judean.” On καὶ δή as a way to introduce something that illustrates the preceding statement, see the note on “for example” at §257. On Josephus’s use of ἐξηγητής, for authoritative legal authorities rather than “exegetes” who interpret texts, see the note on “teaching” at §15. For Josephus’s emphasis on the wisdom of the laws, see the note on “wisdom” at §16.

On such “sympathizers” or “judaizers,” who adopted Jewish practices, concerning which there is a huge literature, especially since the appearance of Reynolds and Tannenbaum 1987, see esp. Stern, glajj 2.103–106 (a large collection of evidence apropos of Juvenal’s complaint about such people at Satires 14.96–106) and Cohen 1999: 140–197. Cf. the notes on “revere” at 20.34 and on “god-fearing” at 20.195. On the great value attached to purple dye and material in antiquity, see Reinhold 1970. For valuable purple tapestries among the Roman booty from the destruction of the Temple, see War 7.134, 162. On such donations to the Temple, see for example Ant. 14.110. On donations specifically by gentiles, see hjp 2.312–313. For Roman outrage at Jewish success in encouraging others to donate to the Temple in Jerusalem, which will have created fertile soil for suspicions that the money would in fact be used to pad private pockets, cf. Tacitus, Hist. 5.5.1.

It is strange that Fulvia’s husband has the same name as Paulina’s (§66). For the somewhat speculative argument that the two women were one and the same, see Rogers 1932. Syme (1964: 165) prefers to content himself with “The problem of identities is puzzling.” As Stern notes (1991: 511, n. 46), the text might simply be confused; one should not expect too much accuracy from a Skandalchronik (see the Introduction, n. 44). Much has been written about Tiberius’s “friends,” especially occasioned by John 19:12; see Spicq 1994: 3.458–461. At times it seems to refer more to a semi-official position; see the note on “companions” at 19.268. In a gossipy text like this one, however, we probably should not assign the term any specific meaning. Tiberius’s expulsion of the Jews from Rome is mentioned by several ancient writers, especially Tacitus, Ann. 2.85 (who clearly dates the event to 19 ce) and Suetonius, Tiberius 36; both of them, like Josephus, juxtapose the punishment of the Jews to that of the Egyptians. According to Josephus, all the Jews were expelled, while some of them were also conscripted into army service or punished if they refused it. On this expulsion, see Stern, glajj 2.68–73; Rutgers 1994; Gruen 2002: 29–36; and Lans 2015. For τὸ Ἰουδαϊκὸν τῆς Ῥώμης compare Josephus’s use of the same term for the Jewish population of a given city: for example, War 2.105 (Rome); 399; 478 (Syrian cities); 487, 492, 495 (Alexandria). On this usage, see D. R. Schwartz 2005: 76–77 and Mason 2008: 347, n. 2937. Cf. cpj 1.5, n. 14, on a quarter called Συροπερσικόν in Memphis.

According to Tacitus (Ann. 2.85 [glajj, no. 284]), they were sent to Sardinia to fight “bandits” there, on the assumption that if they failed and perished, little would be lost. On bandits in Sardinia, see Hengel 1989: 26. However, Woods (2008: 271–272) doubts that there was much of a problem there in 19 ce, and suggests, instead, that Tiberius’s conscription of Jews into the army, however Josephus and Tacitus for their own reasons preferred to portray it, was actually part of a more general mobilization of forces to deal with a rebellion in Africa. Sardinia would then have been only a station along their way. On Jews in the Roman army, see Schoenfeld 2006; González Salinero 2022: 40–45. It is not clear whether Josephus means that of those who were sent to Sardinia many were punished for this reason, or, rather, that apart from those who were sent there for army service there were many others who, for this reason, refused to go and were therefore punished. What was important for Josephus was to underscore the Jews’ devotion to their laws even when that brings punishment upon them; cf. the note on “people” at §278. Since this sentence concludes the entire story, it seems that “they” refers to “all of Roman Jewry” (§83), not only to those mentioned earlier in the present paragraph: Jews sent to Sardinia or those who refused service. Here Josephus underlines just how unfair the collective punishment was: most Jews were guilty of no crime, and those few who were guilty were criminals from a Jewish point of view too (§81!), and, therefore, were not representative of the Jews of Rome at large. This is all in contrast to the story about the cult of Isis, where, as Josephus tells it, the criminals included the most representative figures of the cult: the priests themselves. For similar comments about the way disproportionate suffering can result from the misconduct of a single individual (in that case: a Roman), see 20.112 and War 2.399. This is all part of Josephus’s general thesis, that the clashes—and eventual war—between Jews and Romans occurred because too much influence was achieved by a few Jewish troublemakers, who were not representative of the Jews, and by a few corrupt and cruel governors, who were not representative of the Romans. Compare §62’s insistence that once a clash with the Romans begins there is no distinction between innocent and guilty, and esp. Agrippa ii’s speech at War 2.350–354: if only the responsible Jewish leaders (such as those of War 2.410–411 and of Ant. 18.121, 273; 20.123), and responsible Roman governors, such as Festus according to War 2.271 and Albinus according to Ant. 20.204, were allowed to control affairs, peace and stability would prevail. That is, there was nothing inherently wrong about Roman rule of Judea, as the rest of the world; things went wrong only due to glitches, when non-representative types, such as Jewish “bad apples,” or corrupt secondary officials (but not the emperor), or people who, like Caligula, were simply insane, are, exceptionally, in control for some time. This thesis, shared by the author of 2 Maccabees with regard to Seleucid domination of Judea, is a prime element of diasporic historiography; see D. R. Schwartz 2008: 243–244.

On the present episode, see M. F. Collins 1972 and Pummer 2009: 230–243. It posed a problem for Josephus, for although he usually likes to condemn the Samaritans (see the note on “Samaritan men” at §30), here the needs of this “tumultuous” chapter require him to present them as Pilate’s innocent victims. This designation of the Samaritans as a separate ἔθνος is not to be taken for granted. Contrast 2 Macc 5:22–23 and 6:2, where the author considers them part of the same nation (γένος) as the Jews, although they worship at different temples; so too an inscription from Delos characterizes Samaritans as “Israelites who sacrifice at Mt. Gerizim” (Boffo 1994: 47–60). Probably the former should be understood as reflecting the diasporic author’s lack of interest in the Temple of Jerusalem and therefore his lack of concern about its competition (see D. R. Schwartz 2008: 46–47), while the latter expresses the Samaritans’s self-identification. Josephus, in contrast, formulates as we should expect from a priest of Jerusalem, just as elsewhere he mocks the Samaritans for claiming to be Jews only when that is convenient (9.290–291; 11.341; 12.257–264). On this leitmotif of Josephus’s account concerning Pilate, see the note on “tumult” at §58. The notion that Moses buried vessels on Mt. Gerizim is strange for two reasons: according to the Bible he died in Transjordan (Deuteronomy 34) and so never was near Mt. Gerizim, and stories about hidden Temple vessels make sense only on the background of the destruction of a Temple. Note, however, that in one of the earliest and most detailed versions of such stories, at 2 Macc 2:4–8, we read that, just prior to the destruction of the First Temple, Jeremiah brought the Ark of the Covenant and the altar of incense from Jerusalem to the mountain from which Moses saw the land before he died and hid them there, to await the day of God’s mercy and restoration of the Temple. Although that mountain was in Transjordan, according to Deuteronomy 34, this juxtaposition of Moses-on-a-mountain and the hiding of Temple appurtenances, together with the competition between Gerizim and Jerusalem, might have been enough to generate the belief reflected by the present story—and, as elsewhere (e.g. 20.97–99, 167–172), the Roman government could well be worried about subjects who thought that the day of God’s intervention was near. For a detailed study and a similar suggestion, see Collins 1972.

Other readings include “Tirathaba” or the like. “It is generally assumed that the place is to be identified with et-Tire, 6 km. south-west of Shechem” (Pummer 2009: 233, along with bibliography and discussion of possibly related later traditions).

This is a standard way to round out a battle report; compare, for example, §324; 8.294; 14.95; 20.79.

On the use of ὑπατικός for a vir consularis, in this case (as at §§104, 150) for a provincial governor of consular rank, see Mason, gtri 169–171. On L. Vitellius, consul in 34, proconsul of Syria between 35 and 39 ce, and father of one of the emperors in the Vierkaiserjahr (68/69 ce), see hjp 1.262–263 and Dąbrowa 1998: 38–41. There is a little cynicism here, because in fact, according to Josephus’s story, the Samaritans had gone to Tirathana in the hopes of finding sacred vessels hidden by Moses. Compare 20.125–126; there too, the Samaritans are portrayed as telling the Romans what it was useful to say, not the truth.

On a Roman governor’s friends (amici), as also at §§122, 269 and 20.117, see Walker 2000: 87. Josephus’s choice of ἐπιμελητής here, which otherwise he does not use of Roman governors of Judea, might well indicate that Marcellus, who is otherwise unknown, was considered a substitute pending Tiberius’s decision concerning Pilate. In Roman contexts, the term usually refers to some type of “curator”; see gtri 46–47, s.v.; for the usual Greek terms for Roman governors, see ibid. 142–143 and the note on “prefect” at §33. On Marcellus, including on the possibility that he is the same as Marullus (§237), see Appendix 1. Presumably he would have had to defend himself against complaints from Jews as well; in a case like this, just as in those described at 17.342 and 20.132, every additional complaint would help, and the Samaritans will have been happy to join forces with them and throw the whole book at the governor. For the suggestion that Josephus’s text reflects Pilate’s efforts to defend himself against the Jews’ accusations, see the note on “clothing” at §61. Josephus’s statement that Pilate served ten years, together with §35’s statement that his predecessor served eleven, corresponds well with his statement at §177 that together these two governors filled out Tiberius’s entire tenure as emperor, which began after Augustus’s death in August 14 and ended with Tiberius’s in March 37. However, we have seen reasons to prefer the possibility that Pilate’s term in fact began ca. 19 ce; see the opening note at 18.3.1 (§55). Cassius Dio reports at 53.15.6 that governors were required to return to Rome within three months after the end of their tenures. Indeed, Smallwood notes (1954: 15) that Pilate will have wanted to hurry to Rome, so as to get there before his accusers. Tiberius died on 16 March 37, and so we may infer that Vitelliuis sent Pilate not more than a few months earlier; had he been sent much earlier, he should have arrived at the capital prior to Tiberius’s death. For discussion of the chronological issue, see the note on “Judea” at §90. Josephus does not mention Pilate any more, but subsequent legends more than made up for that. See Maier 1971 and Lémonon 2007: 231–254. This reference to what Tiberius did, rather than to his death having intervened, sounds like a little joke: Pilate hurried but Tiberius finished the race sooner, by dying. For the competitive implication of φθάνω, see esp. Life 15 and Daube 1980: 18–20. For similar cases, in which the emperor’s death intervened just in the nick of time, cf. §§305–309 and 19.10, 107. A second report of a visit by Vitellius begins at §120. For the question, whether the two reports concen the same visit or two separate visits, see the next note.

This formulation is surprising, for nothing in the narrative has led us to expect Vitellius to visit Judea now. Such a visit is explained, however, by the narrative at §120ff.—which too culminates in a visit to Jerusalem during a Jewish festival, in the course of which news of Tiberius’s death reached Vitellius (§124). It appears that what seem to be two visits are one and the same, Josephus supplying us with reports about it from two points of view: the first reflects the interests and notions of Jerusalemite priests and the second focuses upon Herod Antipas. This conclusion is invited by the chronological conundrum that confounds all efforts to allow for two such visits if we accept Josephus’s statement here that the first of the two visits occurred on a Passover. In brief, that conundrum is as follows. If that Passover was that of 37 ce, which, we may assume, was ca. 20 April, then the second visit must have been on the next holiday, Pentecost (Shavuot). But that was fifty days later (Leviticus 23:15–16//Ant. 3.252), so in early June, and it is impossible to imagine that Rome’s highest official in the East would not have heard, by then, of Tiberius’s death in mid-March. Moreover, the report of the second visit apparently refers to the fourth day of the festival, and Pentecost was only one day long (Numbers 28:26; Ant. 13.251–252). But if, in order to allow the second visit to be on Passover 37, we suppose the first visit was on Passover 36, it would be impossible to accept Josephus’s statement at §89 that Pilate, who set off to Rome before the visit, hurried to Rome but nevertheless failed to arrive prior to Tiberius’s death in March 37; but it is indeed likely that he would want to hurry (see the note on “hurried” at §89). As War 2.203 shows, even three months would be long. So it is no easier to place the first visit on Passover 36 than on Passover 37. While various scholars suggest rejecting one or another of the data that construct this conundrum, as noted above it seems, as Otto (1913: 192–194, n. *) and Krieger 1992 recognized, simpler to think that there was only one visit, on Passover 37, of which Josephus offers two accounts. For objections, see the notes on “agreed” at §90 and on “Theophilus”at §123. On this problem see Holzmeister 1932; Smallwood 1954; Stern 1974b: 68–70; D. R. Schwartz 1992: 202–217; and idem 2013: 101–106. As at §122 and 20.164–165, also e.g. 11.89, 93, 325; 16.169, 171; 18.313; War 2.16, 40, 244; etc., this is a standard phrase for travel to Jerusalem or the Temple, whether in general (e.g. m. Taanit 4:2) or specifically with regard to pilgrimage (e.g. Micah 4:2//Isaiah 2:3; Jeremiah 31:6; m. Hallah 4:11 and m. Nedarim 3:10). Cf. the note on “went down” at 20.50 and Mason 2008: 16, n. 109 (on War 2.16). Passover; see the note on “Pascha” at §29. Compare a similar Passover visit by one of Vitellius’s successors, after he in his turn put down violence between Judeans and Samaritans; Ant. 20.133 and War 2.244. Just as at §123, where Vitellius’s visit is reported along with its circumstances. On such receptions of visiting rulers, see the note there on “multitude.” For Josephus’s use of ἀνιέναι for remitting taxes, see ThLJ 49, s.v., §3. Compare especially Archelaus’s remission of taxes of various kinds, reported at War 2.4//Ant.17.204–205. It too came around the time of Passover (War 2.10//Ant. 17.213) and was not necessarily meant to extend beyond the holiday week. See also 12.142–144; 15.365; 16.64–65; 19.299; and Keddie 2019: 135–137. Assuming that the tax was in fact paid by the seller, Naber (1893: xix) suggested emending Niese’s ὠνουμένων, for which the apparatus shows no variants, into πωλουμένων. However, while it is true that it was easier for tax-collectors (“publicans”) to collect from vendors, whose stores and stands were known and stationary, it does not seem difficult to understand the statement to mean that a tax on purchases was collected from vendors. Schalit, for example, translates (1963: 289) according to Naber but, when quoting the Greek text (2001: 287, n. 491), retains Niese’s. For discussion of this tax and its precedents (including in the days of Archelaus [17.205]), see Schalit 2001: 286–288 and Udoh 2020: 175–177. In a reference to this event at 15.405, in the course of a survey of the history of the custody of the vestments, Josephus states that Vitellius agreed only after first writing Tiberius about the issue and obtaining his approval. If so, Vitellius could not have agreed during the course of his visit, when the issue was first raised. If the datum is true, it could impact upon the chronological issue discussed in the note on “in Judea” at §90, allowing for the hypothesis that the visit reported at §§90–95 occurred well before Pilate was deposed from office, with Josephus telescoping events by reporting already there Vitellius’s eventual approval of the gesture, which in fact occurred (with Tiberius’s approval) only during his next visit, reported at §§123–124. However, on the one hand the report at 15.405 is riddled by mistakes (note its references to Vitellius instead of Longinus at §407 and to “one day” before each festival at §408 rather than seven; see the note on “holiday” at §94), and on the other hand the fact that 20.12 has Claudius rely on the precedent set by Vitellius, not by Tiberius, positively contradicts the report at 15.405. For the suggestion that the report at 15.505 reflects a lost account by Philo (the lost end of the Legatio?), who, in arguing with Gaius Caligula about his plan to defile the Temple, had every interest to credit earlier emperors (and not merely governors) with respect for the Temple, see D. R. Schwartz 1992: 214–217, also the note on “Caesar” at §55. For the high priest’s special vestments, termed “golden vestments” (e.g., m. Yoma 3:4 and 7:3), see Exod 28; War 5.230–237; and Ant. 3.159–178. Much symbolic significance was attached to them; cf. Wisdom of Solomon 18:24 and esp. Philo, Life of Moses 2.109–135 and Special Laws 1.84–97, also Schorch 2010: 191–194. For Josephus on the (high)-priestly vestments, see Grünbaum 1887: 37–55, Sanders 1992: 92–192, Castelli 2002: 263–272, and Gußmann 2008: 369–408. For some iconic representations of them, see Taylor 2016.

I.e., John Hyrcanus (son of Simon), a Hasmonean ruler and high priest ca. 135–104 bce. But he did not have “many” successors of that name, but only one: his grandson, Hyrcanus ii. See the note on “Hyrcanus” at 20.240. On the meaning of baris (fortress? large house?), which is apparently here, as at Ant. 20.85, a common noun (but is a proper noun in War 1.75, 118, where it appears, as here, in the identification of the Antonia), see Welles 1934: 320–321 and Mandel 1992.

Although, as at §194, βασιλεύσας need not mean “[immediately] upon becoming king,” nevertheless it is probable that Herod began working on it in the early years of his reign, while Antony was alive and perhaps even before he and Octavian became enemies. Schalit (2001: 366) places its construction in the mid-30s and van Henten (2014: 210, n. 1938) points to the Battle of Actium (31 bce) as a definitive terminus ad quem. On this fortress, which figures frequently in Josephus’s writings, see Busink 1970–1980: 2.838–841 and Netzer 2018: 123–125. The φιλία between Herod and Antonius is underlined at Ant. 15.162, 183, 189, where Josephus has Herod tell Augustus that he had had the greatest friendship (φιλίαν… μεγίστην) with Antonius, and also at 15.409, in the context of naming the fortress, as here. For the background, see inter aliaAnt. 14.324–329, 381–387. That is, Herod held the vestments hostage to the people’s, and also the particular high priest’s, good behavior.

Actually, Archelaus was not a “king,” only an “ethnarch,” and the difference was important (and is preserved, for example, at 20.251); Herod had recommended that Archelaus be enthroned as king after him but Augustus explicitly decided against that and appointed Archelaus ethnarch, although holding out hope that he might promote him to king at some later time (Ant. 17.317; War 2.93). Josephus’s usage here is loose—just as Matthew 2:22 speaks of Archelaus as “reigning as a king” and Mark 6:14 speaks of Herod Antipas as “king.” Use of the term here conforms well to the hypothesis that Josephus’s source here was one with parochial Jewish interests, not so interested in the details of Roman rule and titles of Herodians. See D. R. Schwartz 1992: 207–209. This phrasing is peculiar, both because Josephus does not tell us why this detail matters and because he has already told us that the garment was stored in the Antonia, which was a well-known fortress—so why refer to it this way here, and obliquely, as “the house, where it had previously been,” in the next paragraph? It seems that Josephus’s source here, which was very interested in priestly affairs but not in Roman and Herodian titulature and the like, assumes a readership familiar with some details of the Jewish cult, such as the rule that stone does not contract impurity (see Deines 1993; Magness 2011: 70–73; Miller 2015: 153–183) and the fact that one of the chambers of the Temple wascalled “house of stone” (beit even). Note especially m.Parah 3:1, which records that the high priest was sequestered there seven days prior to the preparation of the Red Heifer (on which see Numbers 19 and Ant. 4.79–81). It is likely that the high priest was also sequestered there in preparation for other appearances that required purity, such as the liturgy of the Day of Atonement. See D. R. Schwartz 2006. The fact that no effort is made to explain this (which is evidently meant to be an expression of respect), is, as the above reference to “house built of stones,” an aspect of the “insider” priestly nature of this account.

Cf. the preparations of the high priest “seven days before the Day of Atonement” (m. Yoma 1:1) and “seven days before the burning of the red heifer” (m. Parah 3:1). Cf. Ant. 15.408 and the note on “agreed” at §90. Feldman (1965: 67) renders μετὰ μίαν τῆς ἑορτῆς ἡμέραν “after the first day of the festival” but given the facts that Josephus uses μίαν rather than πρώτην, and that of the holidays two (Pentecost and the Day of Atonement) were only one day long so it would be strange to speak of their “first” days, it seems preferable to translate as above; so too Mathieu and Herrmann 1929: 150 and Schalit 1963: 290. I.e., the Day of Atonement; for such usage of the definite article, see also War 5.236, Acts 27:9, and several other passages noted by Sharon 2014a: 198. Although the present passage suggests that the high priest usually officiated only on festivals, and War 5.230 agrees that the high priest did not officiate daily, the latter states he served not only on festivals but also on Sabbaths and new moons. Moreover, note that according to Lev 16:4 and m. Yoma 3:6–7 the high priest did not wear the “golden vestments” (but rather only linen ones) when entering the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement; on War 5.236, which seems to imply that he did, see D. R. Schwartz 2010. If, as the Mishnah reports, the linen garments he wore were indeed very expensive, it may be that they too were stored together with the “golden vestments.”

On the “benefaction” (εὐεργεσία) expected from good rulers, as for example at §306 and 19.328, see Danker 1982; Spicq 1994: 1.107–113; Rajak 2001: 373–391; and Gardner 2007. On Josephus on euergetism, see S. Schwartz 2009. On Caiaphas, see the note on “Caiaphas” at §35. It may be that his long tenure indicates that he got along especially well with Pilate, and so now fell along with him. See Metzner 2010: 74–88, 167–171. I.e., a brother of Eleazar (§34); on the family, see the note on “high priesthood” at §34. Jonathan was not to last long; see §123 and the note on “once” at 19.314. On Rome’s eastern front late in Tiberius’s days, after King Artaxias iii of Armenia died without an heir in 34/35 ce, inviting competing moves by Parthia and Rome, see Täubler 1904: 29–62; Debevoise 1938: 158–163; Garzetti 1956; Levick 1999: 145–147; Olbrycht 2012; and Schlude 2020: 92–115. Vitellius’s meeting with Artabanus ii, which is the main topic of the following section, is dated by Suetonius (Gaius 14.3) and Cassius Dio (59.27.3) to the reign of Gaius, and the same might be indicated by the fact that Tacitus does not mention the event, although his account of Tiberius’s reign survives completely; that suggests that he too ascribed it to the days of Gaius, for which his account is lost. Josephus’s dating of it to the days of Tiberius has, therefore, led to much scholarly debate, the three possibilities being ascription of the event to Tiberius’s reign, to Gaius’s, or to both, that is, given the fact that in any case Josephus’s report comes near the end of Tiberius’s reign (see §§89, 124), perhaps Vitellius began the negotiations under Tiberius but concluded them under Gaius. Some of those who ascribe the event to the days of Tiberius surmise that those who ascribed it to Gaius did so out of hostility to Tiberius, while those who prefer to date it to the days of Gaius point, inter alia, to Josephus’s account of Antipas’s and Vitellius’s activities in Palestine as reason to think they could not have been at the Euphrates late in Tiberius’s days. For a thorough review of the issues, see Garzetti 1956; he concludes by preferring the later date (as he puts it, at the end of his article, he prefers Tacitus’s silence to Josephus’s confusion). So do hjp 1.351 and Olbrycht 2012: 228–299. Täubler (1904: 39–62), followed by Stern (1974c: 285, n.2), upholds Josephus’s dating, while Levick (1999: 147) took something of the middle position: “These negotiations came at the very end of Tiberius’ principate, so near his death that they could be ascribed to the reign of Gaius [here she refers to Suetonius and Dio, as above. drs]. But Tiberius deserves the credit.”

True, Tiberius’s death was reported, in the context of Judean history, at §89. Now Josephus is reverting to some external events of the preceding period. This is his usual procedure; see the notes on “Herod and Philip” at §27 and the opening note at 18.2.4 (§39). For such use of γράμματα of a single letter, Danker (2000: 205, s.v. γράμμα, 2a) cites several passages, including Diodorus Siculus 13.93 and Acts 28:21, but neither of those is unambiguous. It is, however, frequent in Josephus, who at times (as Thackeray notes; see ThLJ 117, s.v. γράμμα, 2) uses it as the equivalent of singular ἐπιστολή; see, for example, Ant. 8.50–53, 9.99–100, 11.26–27. Cf. the note on “letter” at §105. Artabanus ii; see the note on “Arsacid line” at §48. Although readers might think this picks up the story from §§50–52, which left Artabanus in control of Armenia in 18–19 ce, in fact that story had a continuation that is not offered by Josephus: one of the outcomes of Germanicus’s tour of the East (to which Josephus refers only cursorily at §§53–54) was to oust Artabanus’s son, Orodes, from Armenia. Instead of him, a Roman protégé, Artaxias iii, was installed. The latter remained on the throne until his death in 35 ce, whereupon Artabanus made a new move, installing another son on the Armenian throne; see the note on “the king’s son” at §98. It is that which elicited Tiberius’s response described here. See Dąbrowa 2012: 174. The present story will fill in that background in the following paragraphs, culminating with Artabanus’s reestablishment of his rule over Armenia (§100). See the note on “Artabanus” at §101. Named Darius (§103).

It appears, however, that the events recounted from here until §100 occurred prior to, and explain, the peace initiative reported at §96 and detailed beginning at §101; see the note on “Artabanus” at §101. For “convincing with money,” see also §97 and 20.119, 164, 183. States just east of the Black Sea, in modern Georgia. This supplement seems to be required by the continuation. Täubler (1904: 32), whose understanding of the continuation differs, takes ἀντεῖχον to mean they fought. But the absence of an object, and the apparent contrast with the Alani (οἱ δέ …Ἀλανοί δέ), who did something on behalf of the Romans (apparently), supports the interpretation that these two kings did nothing. On the Alani, see esp. War 7.244–251, where Josephus, with reference to the seventies of the first century, characterizes them as Scythians and locates them north of Parthia in the region of the Don River and the Sea of Azov. The text of this passage is somewhat doubtful. I have translated according to Niese (1890a: 158), who reads Ἀλανοί in accordance with the manuscripts (but in 1890b: 136 marks a lacuna after it). Cf. Täubler 1904: 31, n. 2 and Feldman 1965: 70–71, n. a, who argue for Ἀλανούς, that is, that the other kings let the Alani through the Caspian Gates. That fits the geography better, as Feldman notes, but collides not only with the manuscripts; it also makes “through their land” problematic, since “lands” or “realms” is expected for two kings. It is not at all clear that it is justified to give these considerations less weight than to an assumption of Josephus’s accuracy concerning details of eastern geography and history and our desire to let his story be closer to Tacitus’s (Ann. 6.33). At the southeastern corner of the Caspian Sea. Josephus himself (War 7.245) seems to be the oldest source for the story that Alexander built iron gates to close off a pass there—a story that would have a long history because of the belief that identified the people of Gog and Magog as Scythians (Ant. 1.123) and explained that the gates were built to keep them out. See Feldman 2000: 43–44, n. 319, and Bietenholz 1994: 121–126.

This expresses a Roman point of view: the Roman protectorate was restored. See Dąbrowa 2012: 174. Cf. the note on “devastation” at §275. Named generically by the dynastic name, Arsaces, in the more detailed account in Tacitus, Ann. 6.31 (for such generic usage, see, for example, Diodorus 34/35.18–19 and 1 Macc 14:2–3). His death is alluded to at 6.33.

“Upper” means inland, in the mountainous regions far from the sea; cf. the note on “went down” at 20.50. Usually αἱ ἄνω σατραπεῖαι is used without differentiation simply to mean “faroff hinterland” (12.147, 197; 13.185), and the addition of τι makes it all the more vague; why should Roman readers care where, precisely, in the remote Asian outback, Artabanus sought refuge? Details of this stage of the story, down to Artabanus’s flight, are supplied by Tacitus, Ann. 6.36. What seems to be another version of Artabanus’s flight appears in Book 20; see the note on “if he could” at 20.54. For the juxtaposition of these peoples, at home east of the Caspian Sea, see also 20.91. According to Tacitus, Ann. 2.3.1, Artabanus had grown up among the Dahae, but at 6.41.2—among the Scythians, “which means the same in this context” (Olbrycht 2014: 95). Strabo, in fact, says most Scythians were called Dahae (Geog. 11.8.2). Probably many Romans saw no need to distinguish between all those Asians. Over Armenia; this is the takeover alluded to at §96. See the next note.

As Lewy carefully noted in the margin of his copy (1920–1945: 136: “96=101; §96/101 Vorgeschichte”), this opening, which repeats the terms of §96, clarifies that the intervening story provides the background of the order announced at §96—and the story in between was a flashback to explain the circumstances. That is, §§97–100 are a flashback within a flashback (see the note on “Armenia” at §96).

Compare an eyewitness account of a meeting in the middle of the Euphrates, in 1 ce, between Gaius Caesar (Augustus’s grandson) and King Phraataces of Parthia (on whom see above, §§39–43): Velleius Paterculus 2.101, quoted and commented upon by E. Strugnell 2008. (For such a solution to the diplomatic issue, compare the signing of the 1807 Treaty of Tilsit between Napoleon and Czar Alexander on a fancy raft in the middle of the Nemen River.) Suetonius (Cal. 14.3), however, specifically says that Artabanus crossed the Euphrates and adds that he paid homage to the Roman standards and busts of the Caesars. This translation of καὶ λόγων αὐτοῖς συμβατικῶν γενομένων is based esp. on 14.60, where Pompey offered such terms to the defenders of Jerusalem. Cf. Thucydides 5.76.1 and 6.103.3. Josephus does not actually report that an agreement was reached, but the continuation clearly implies that, and Cassius Dio 59.27.3 explicitly refers to Vitellius having compelled Αrtabanus to make a treaty that was advantageous to the Romans (σπονδάς … πρὸς τὸ τῶν ‘Ρωμαίων σύμφορον δοῦς). Usually ἐπισκήπτω means “make to fall upon, direct against, charge” (ccfj 2.174), for which reason Richards and Shutt (1939: 182) suggest emending ἐπισκηψάμενος here into ἐπισκεπασάμενος—“having covered over.” Although that verb nowhere appears in Josephus, he does use σκέπη (“covering”) some fifteen times; see, for example, its use of a shelter at War 3.169. This is the only occurrence of σκηνίς in Josephus; usually he uses σκηνή.

On a young Parthian hostage of this name in Rome in the days of Gaius, see Suetonius, Caligula 19. In general, see the note on “hostages” at §42. He might well be the Jewish giant seen by Columella, as he reports at De re rustica 3.8.2 (glajj 1.426–428), which seems to have been completed in the seventh decade of the first century (Forster 1950: 123). Josephus frequently identifies individuals as something “by descent,” often so as to distinguish between their descent and their current status, between which there is some tension. See D. R. Schwartz 1981 and Cohen 1994. So, for example, at 10.22 Josephus refers to a servant of a Judean king who was, surprisingly enough, of Ethiopian descent. Since there is nothing surprising about a Parthian king owning a Jew, it may be that, in the present case, Josephus is, as at 10.22, alluding to the surprising gap between the slave’s place of origin and his current location. Hence the translation of Ἰουδαῖος here as “Judean.” For such usage, see the note on “descent” at §314. That is, “Giant.”

The use of ἐπὶ τούτοις points more to the reason than the timing; so too at 20.267. See lsj 622a, §ii; Haenchen 1971: 62–63, n. 6; and the note on “his” at 20.101. Debevoise (1938: 163, n. 70) takes this to refer to the city of Babylon and thinks Seleucia must be intended; see ibid. 12, n. 51, where he states this error is frequent in later sources. But while Josephus often uses the short form, Βαβυλών, as the Hebrew babel, both for Babylonia (see Schalit 1968: 22) and for the city of Babylon (as at §§359, 373), it seems that when, as here (with Niese [1890a: 159] listing no variants), he uses the long form, Βαβυλωνία, he means Babylonia; cf. esp. §§313, 318, 337, along with the very fact that the story at §§310–379 uses Βαβυλωνία regularly but Βαβυλών only twice (§§359, 373), both of the latter regarding the city. Josephus uses λῆψις only twice, both in Ant. 18 (here and §294). See the note on “consular status” at §88.

Such use of ἐπιστολαί, in the plural, of only a single letter, is rare in this period; see Danker 2000: 381, s.v. ἐπιστολή. But it is not impossible. See, for example, 10.15–16 (where the biblical text, 2 Kings 19:9–13, has only one letter), 12.330–331 (where there is no reason to imagine more than one letter), and van Henten’s (2014: 116, n. 1029) uncertainty concerning 15.175. Here, moreover, it corresponds to the plural γράμματα at §96; see the note on “letter” there. That is, his resentment was greater than what was justified. This assessment betrays a point of view sympathetic to Antipas; for the use of a source here, cf. the note on “Romans” in the next sentence. For the same focus on Antipas, cf. the note on “Herod’s brother” at §106. For this sense of μετέρχομαι, see ccfj 3.98, s.v. Gaius took over the empire after Tiberius’s death in March 37. Josephus never tells us about any such revenge by Vitellius. Perhaps we should assume that Vitellius, who as governor of Syria was responsible for Rome’s Parthian front, seconded Agrippa’s accusation against Antipas reported at §§250–251. For another guess, see hjp 1.351: Vitellius took his revenge by abrogating his campaign in support of Antipas at the earliest possible opportunity (§124). In any case, it is difficult to imagine that whoever was behind this line did not go on to report the sequel, although Josephus did not. Thus, this case is similar to cases in which Josephus explicitly promises sequels and fails to report them and the possibility arises that the reference has been taken over from the source he was using; see the Introduction, at nn. 25–27.

On Philip, see hjp 1.336–340 and Wilker 2007: 92–93. His coins: Strickert 1995; Meshorer 2001: 85–90. This use of plain “Herod” for Herod Antipas reflects very clearly the fact that this whole chapter is devoted to the affairs of that tetrarch. Equation of Philip’s thirty-seventh year—which is also the date of his latest dated coin (see Strickert 1995)—with Tiberius’s twentieth (33/34 ce) indicates a counting that began in 4/3 bce, in the wake of Herod’s death in 4 bce. The use of that era is what we would normally expect, and the resultant early dating avoids the problem that would have arisen had Philip founded a city in honor of Augustus’s daughter after her exile in 2 bce; see the note on “daughter” at §28. That Philip’s years were counted from Herod’s death or shortly thereafter is also supported, indirectly, by the fact that that is how Herod Antipas’s years were counted, as is shown by his coins: his latest coins are dated to his forty-third year and we know he was dethroned in 39 ce. See the note on “took them over” at §27. True, the Latin version here (Niese 1890a: 160) reads uicesimosecundo (“twenty-second”), a reading that is found in many early printed versions; see Steinmann 2009: 23–25. Placing the event in Tiberius’s twenty-second year is attractive, insofar as it would make the present passage fit better into its chronological context, since the events reported before it and after it happened around the death of Tiberius in 37 ce. However, there is no Greek support for this reading, and it may have originated in a scribe’s desire to make the events fit into their context. For further discussion of this, and defense of the Greek reading, see Jachowski 2015. Some Latin witnesses read 32 or 35; the latter fits the reading “twentieth year of Tiberius’s reign” and the assumption (undercut by the preceding note), that Philip counted from 1 bce, but the former does not seem to fit anything else. On Philip’s territories, see the note on “Philip’s tetrarchy” at 20.138. Cf. the similar formulation at §256—but if Gaius was moderate and high-minded, Philip was moderate and ἀπράγμων (“inactive”), which more or less means that he was not cut out to be a ruler. Josephus uses this especially of Hyrcanus ii (Ant. 13.408; 14.6, 13), and thus explains (presumably following Nicolaus of Damascus, who in turn was following a Thucydidean model [Marcus 1943: 432, n. a]) why it was justified and necessary that Antipater and his sons took over in his stead; see D. R. Schwartz 1994. Similarly, this criticism of Philip, along with the notice that he died childless, is part of Antiquities’ account of how and why it happened that none of Herod’s three heirs managed to maintain Herodian rule in Palestine and therefore it was a son of one of their deceased half-brothers, Agrippa I, who took over. As for the other two: even apart from the fact that Archelaus and Antipas were both guilty of incest (Ant. 17.341; 18.110), Archelaus proved to be a failure as a ruler (17.342) and Antipas was brought down by his pushy wife (18.240–246, 255). Readers will note, and understand, that both were exiled to Gaul (17.344; 18.252). So it happened that Agrippa I came to be the only available Herodian heir, as Josephus will also flesh out from another point of view beginning at §126.

Josephus uses οὐδὲν εἰς ἀναβολάς in Ant. 17–19, but, apart from 7.224, nowhere else: see the note on “immediately” at §58.

Apparently his capital; see above, §28. On his wife, Salome, see §137. The same phrasing that Josephus used of Judea at §2. That is, Tiberius did not finalize the status of Philip’s territory, instead attaching it administratively to Syria but leaving the question of its future status undecided. Perhaps this indicates thoughts about restoring some measure of Herodian rule, as eventually happened; see §237. For the notion of a longterm Roman plan for Judea, worked out stage after stage by the three emperors who, one after another, gave Agrippa thirds of his grandfather’s kingdom, see esp. Ciaceri 1916/17.

I.e., Aretas iv, king of the Nabateans, ca. 9 bce–40 ce. On him, see Ant. 16.294–299, 337–355, also von Gutschmid 1885: 84–85, 87–89; hjp 1.581–583; and Barkay 2018. On this combination of “at this time” and “for the following reason,” see the first and last notes on §39. This full identification, after he was just referred to as plain “Herod,” seems to be meant to differentiate the tetrarch from his homonymous brother mentioned in the next sentence. For an attempt to identify her on the basis of epigraphic and numismatic evidence, see Kokkinos 1998: 230–231. Josephus gives no reason for his trip, which is of no import for his story. For some discussion of possibilities, see Saulnier 1984: 367–368. As Saulnier notes, the issue is potentially linked to the chronological one discussed in the note on “John” at §116. That is, this Herod, who was visited by Antipas, had been born to Herod the Great and Mariamme ii, the daughter of Simon ben Boethus (as is also reported at §136 and 17.19); Kokkinos (1998: 222–223) terms him “Herod iii.” Herod Antipas, correctly identified here as his half-brother, is usually assumed to have been the son of Herod the Great and his Samaritan wife, Malthace, hence Archelaus’s full-blood brother, as is said explicitly in the genealogical list at War 1.562 and its parallel at Ant. 17.20. However, a few passages seem to assume that Antipas and Archelaus had different mothers: Ant. 17.188–9 (refers to Antipas, Archelaus, and Philip in that order and then notes that Philip was Archelaus’s full brother), War 2.14, 21//Ant. 17.219, 225 (Archelaus and Antipas travel separately to Rome, each with his mother), War 2.39//Ant. 17.250 (in the context of the dispute between Archelaus and Antipas we read that “Archelaus’s mother” died), and Nicolaus of Damascus’s autobiography (Stern, glajj 1.252, line 71) reports an appeal to Archelaus and Antipas to stop fighting in deference to their love for their common father. Whatever the truth, this difference may have source-critical implications; see D. R. Schwartz 2018.

On her, see esp. Gillman 2003 and Strickert 2014. As is stated at §136 and War 1.552. I.e., their half-brother, born to Herod the Great and the Hasmonean Mariamme i and executed in 7 bce. That is, Herodias married first one uncle and then another. On marriages with nieces in Jewish antiquity, see the note on “brother Herod” at 19.277. Given the desire to define Herodias’s genealogy precisely here, this, and not “Agrippa the Great,” seems to be the meaning of Ἀγρίππου … τοῦ μεγάλου here, as for example 20.104, where it serves to distinguish “the elder” from “the younger” Agrippa. Cf. the note on “the elder” at §142. Josephus’s formulation, μετοικίζασθαι, which stops short of defining her planned relationship with Herod Antipas as marriage, corresponds to other passages in which he denies the legitimacy of their marriage; see §§136, 148, and 240. For Josephus’s concern with the distinction between legitimate marriage and lesser liaisons, see also §§40, 344.

Repeating the same verb as at §109. On Machaerus, which was a fortress near the east coast of the Dead Sea, approximately at its middle, see Josephus’s description in War 7.164–177; Netzer 2018: 75–76. Similarly, War 7.172 states that Machaerus was in Herod’s kingdom but adjacent to Arabia, and the same emerges from War 3.46–47. On the nuances of Josephus’s use of “Arabia,” at times as here of the kingdom in the south, and at time more broadly, up toward Damascus, see D. R. Schwartz 2024b.

Cf. the note on “poor woman” at §71. I have translated according to Niese’s text here, εἰς τὸν Μαχαιροῦντα τῷ τε πατρὶ αὐτῆς ὑποτελεῖ, which follows the manuscripts, as opposed to the text in the first (1544) edition (which still appeared in Dindorf 1865: 704): εἰς τὸν Μαχαιροῦντα τότε πατρὶ αὐτῆς ὑποτελῆ. Niese’s text here was welcomed enthusiastically by Schürer (1890: 644–645), because by eliminating τότε and separating (via τε) Machaerus from the statement about being subject it eliminated the problematic statement of earlier editions, based on the first edition, that Machaerus was then subject to Aretas. That statement, Schürer argued, made little sense here (would Antipas, without suspecting anything, have let his wife go to a fortress outside of his domain?!) and also conflicts with the evidence of §119, that Machaerus was subject to Antipas at the time. Moreover, it has been claimed that archaeological evidence too indicates that Machaerus, although on the frontier, was ruled by Antipas; see Hoehner 1972: 143–144 and hjp 1.344–345, n. 20 (both citing publications by Nelson Glueck). Following Niese’s text, Josephus seems to mean that she wrote ahead not only to Machaerus, which was under her husband’s control, but also to the first of the series of her father’s governors who, according to the next lines, took care of her along her way to Petra. Nonetheless, Mathieu and Herrmann (1929: 154), Feldman (1965: 78–79), and Schalit (1963: 291) ignore Niese’s resurrection of the manuscripts’ reading. For discussion of the text and its implications, cf. Visi 2020: 8, n. 18. On Aretas iv’s governors (including the “ethnarch” mentioned in 2 Corinthians 11:32–33), and for first-century epigraphic evidence for Nabatean usage of the loanword ’strg for governors, corresponding to Josephus’s use of στρατηγοί here, see Taylor 1992: 722. In Petra, some two hundred km. south of Machaerus. For ᾗ τάχος cf. §§168, 321, also 17.261, 265; Life 65.

Note that Josephus does not say that Aretas immediately attacked, and the reference to a border dispute also raises the possibility that hostilities did not begin merely on account of, and immediately upon, his daughter’s arrival—a possibility that may relate to the chronological issue discussed in the note on “John” at §116. The text here is quite uncertain, the suggested readings reflecting attempts to identify the contested location; see Feldman 1965: 80–81, n. a, and the detailed discussions in Schalit 1968: 32 (s.v. Γαμαλιτική) and Hoehner 1972: 254–255, n. 4. Feldman reads ἐν γῇ τῇ Γαβαλίτιδι, following a conjecture by Jones, and sees here a reference to Gabala. That reading is defended by Hoehner as well. However, Ant. 2.6 places Gabala in Idumea and Schalit doubts that Antipas could have claimed something so far to the south of the Perea (of which the southern boundary was at Machaerus; see War 3.46–47). Hence he prefers to stay closer to Niese’s text (ἐν γῇ τῇ Γαμαλικῇ) and suggests identifying the area in dispute as that of Beth Gamul (Jeremiah 48:23), which Judeans might have claimed as having once been part of the territory of the Reubenites, before being conquered by Moab.

It is unclear whether this means “since they came from Philip’s territory” or, rather, “although they came from Philip’s tetrarchy.” As at §105 (see the note there on “Romans”), the detail seems to imply knowledge (or perhaps: a prejudice) of which Josephus’s readers are unaware, and thus points to a source that focuses on Antipas. For the suggestion that the men from Philip’s territories, of which the population was mostly non-Jewish (hjp 1.448–338), tended to support their “Arab brethren,” see Hoehner 1972: 255.

For Josephus’s frequent use of ἀνάγω of being “brought up” to trial and punishment, as at 19.154 and 20.102, 168, 246, see ThLJ 32, s.v., §5. So too ἀναπέμπω; see gtri 21 and D. R. Schwartz 2017: 379, n. 12. But see the next note. Presumably the coming reference to the sending of Aretas’s head to Rome indicates that here too that is what is meant; for similar practice, see 20.131, 161. For “going up” as a standard Roman formulation for travel to Rome, see the note on “sent up” at §51. On this passage, which is usually assumed to be basically authentic, see Nodet 1985; Hartmann 2001: 254–355; Mason 2003b: 214–225; Tromp 2008, and D. R. Schwartz 2013: 106–109. For doubts, see Nir 2009. Note that the passage fails to suggest any connection between John and Jesus. Since, as especially Tromp argues, early Christians, who had to admit John’s chronological precedence, were concerned to overcome its apparent implication of superiority by arguing that John was in fact only paving the way for Jesus, à la Isa 40:3–5 (Mark 1:2–3; Luke 1:76 and 3:4–6; Matt 3:3; John 1; see esp. Tromp 2008 and D. R. Schwartz 2013: 66–70), the absence of such concerns here is one of the major reasons to assume the passage is basically authentic.

Some, for example Tromp 2008 and Visi 2020, would take the notional causal relationship between the death of John, on the one hand, and Antipas’s defeat at the hands of Aretas ca. 36 ce, on the other, to indicate that the former came close to the latter, half a decade or more later than Tiberius’s fifteenth year (28/29 ce), to which Luke dated John’s appearance and imprisonment (Luke 3:1, 19–20), which presumably was soon followed by his death. Indeed, the dating of the defeat to the mid-30s is required by Vitellius’s involvement (since his term as governor of Syria began only after his consulate in 34) and the reference to Tiberius’s death in March 37 (§124). But it is very difficult to move John’s death to the mid-30s for, as Visi admits (2020: 29), “Broadly speaking, the synoptic gospels are committed to the idea that John’s mission and death preceded Jesus’ mission and death,” and that is very explicit at Mark 6:14–16, so moving John’s death down to the mid-30s would entail making Jesus’s career and death later than is usually assumed; for good reason, Jesus’s death is usually placed in 30 or 33 (see the note on “crucifixion” at §64). Therefore it appears to be simpler to posit that even if John died in the late 20s, observers could view Antipas’s defeat in 36 as divine punishment. God is allowed to be long-forbearing, so punishments can come long after crimes. Compare, for two examples, Genesis 42:21 (with ibid. 37:2 and 41:46) and the widespread Christian belief, beginning with Justin Martyr (Clements 2012), that the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 ce was divine punishment of the Jews for their role in the Crucifixion some four decades earlier. Note, however, that if John’s criticism of Antipas focused on Antipas’s illicit marriage, as the Gospels report (see the note on “words” at §118), it follows that, despite the way the story flows here, a good number of years went by between Antipas’s marriage to Herodias and the outbreak of his war with Aretas. The same also derives from the fact that Antipas and Herodias were already married when Agrippa returned from Rome to Judea after the death of Drusus the Younger in 23. See the notes on “departure” at §113 and on “together” at §148. For such telescoping, which can create temporal and causal connections between events that are separated by years, cf. the Introduction, at n. 12.

This is the only occurrence of ἐπασκέω in Josephus. This is the only instance of ἀποδεκτός in Josephus.

Reading ἤρθησαν with the manuscripts (and Feldman 1965: 82), rather than Niese’s (1890a: 162) ἥσθησαν (“delighted”). Niese thought that the latter was offered by Eusebius in his citation of this text at Church History 1.11.5. However, as Nodet (1985: 325–326) noted, the gcs edition of the latter (ed. Schwartz 1903: 78), which appeared around a decade after Niese’s edition, shows that most witnesses, as those to Josephus here, read ἤρθησαν. Were Josephus thinking of delight or pleasure, we would have expected the collocation “receive with”; see the note on “pleasure” at §63. For the suggestion that there was, originally, no verb here, only the statement that many gathered together because of John’s words, cf. Richards and Shutt 1937: 176. Which, according to the Gospels (Matt 14:3–4//Mark 6:17–18//Luke 3:19–20), centered on condemnation of Antipas for marrying his brother’s wife. It is noteworthy that Josephus, who in the preceding paragraphs recounted that outright violation of propriety and law (Lev 18:16; 20:21), does not link it directly to John’s teaching, thus leaving readers in the dark as to what, in John’s innocuous message (§117), could have aroused Antipas’s fear. This, however, corresponds to Josephus’s usual diasporic approach in the Antiquities: Jewish religious leaders, especially those of whom he approves, are made to appear as unthreatening as possible to the state’s authorities, even at the cost of leaving readers perplexed when the latter do, in fact, move against them. For other cases, see below, 20.97–99, 167–172. This point joins others (Thackeray 1929: 132; Mason 2003b: 214–215; D. R. Schwartz 2013: 107–108), that show that, whatever his source concerning John the Baptist (and one may well think of Baptists or Christians in Rome), Josephus was seriously involved in the formulation of this passage on John. For the trope of rulers who are threatened by antagonistic religious leaders who are so influential with the masses, or with other dupes, that they enjoy support even if their charges are false, cf. 13.288 and 17.41. For this type of consideration, cf. §318.

§111. As is also reported at Matthew 14:3–1//Mark 6:17–30.

Of the three or four at his command; see the note on “two legions” at §262. A more usual translation of ἔσχε would be “occupied,” and so it is translated by Feldman and others. However, there was no need for Ptolemais to be occupied; contrast §262, where Vitellius’s successor, Petronius, simply “comes” (παρῆν) with his army to Ptolemais. Hence, I have translated here as at §89. Acco (Acre). On it see, in general, hjp 2.121–125. For this port being the first stop of later Roman generals invading Palestine from Syria, see §262 and War 2.501; 3.29.

The issue is the same as at §55.

Probably the Esdraelon, as, for example, at 20.118. That is, Vitellius planned to have the army march south-eastward across Palestine, cross the Jordan around Scythopolis and Pella, and then continue southward. See Udoh 2002: 133–135. After quoting scholars (such as hjp 1.388, n. 247) who propose just that, in accordance with Josephus’s usual usage of “great plain” (see esp. Ant. 8.36 and War 3.39), Udoh asserts that although that is “plausible,” nevertheless, “Vitellius could also have continued to march his troops from Ptolemais down the coastal plain,” of which the northern part is the Sharon, which would then be what is meant by “great plain” here. I do not see what justifies his move from that to his statement, a page later, that the latter is “likely.” While it is true that Josephus also uses “great plain” for the Jordan Valley, that is not a possibility here, and Udoh’s case for it ever being used of the Sharon is quite weak; see the chart on pp. 131–132 of his article, also Sharon 2017: 129–131 This is the standard formulation; see the note on “up” at §90. Josephus likes to report such expressions of respect for the Jewish Temple and God on the part of gentile dignitaries. See hjp 2.309–313 and and Krauter 2007. Indeed, he likes it so much that he tends to hide its problematic nature from a monotheistic point of view; see D. R. Schwartz 1992: 102–116. This is a strangely vague formulation. It might well reflect the fact that Josephus’s source referred to Passover but he, on the false assumption that the present passage describes a visit later than the one mentioned at §§90–95, decided to leave the reference vague. See the note on “in Judea” at §90. For similar recourse to vagueness elsewhere, such as Ant. 11.22, 74, 326–339, and 14.285, see D. R. Schwartz 2013: 126.

Just as splendidly as Antiochus iii (Ant. 12.138) and Antiochus iv (2 Macc 4:21–22) were welcomed to Jerusalem, and Jonathan to various cities including Ascalon (Ant. 13.148–149, elaborating on 1 Macc 11:60). On such “adventus” ceremonies, which demonstrate to rulers (and readers) the loyalty of Jewish subjects, see esp. Cohen 1982/83: 45–49, apropos of Alexander the Great’s reception reported at Ant. 11.327–331. No reason is stated for this move; for some guesses, see Smallwood 1981: 173. In any case, this item, if true, is the most concrete argument in favor of the thesis that Josephus’s two accounts of Vitellius in Jerusalem indeed refer to two separate visits, for Jonathan was appointed during the first visit (§95). On this question, see the note on “Judea” at §90, where I explain my preference for the conclusion that there was only one visit. It seems that while Josephus was convinced that these were two visits, the two sources that he used did not include the details concerning the high-priestly appointments. Rather, as Krieger (1993a: 22–23) pointed out, Josephus seems to have had a list that recorded, in order, appointments and removals of high priests, giving the name of the relevant authority but no further narrative context; “associating these entries with other historical data was up to Josephus himself, and it is apparent that he was not always capable of doing so properly” (my translation). Note also the Introduction, at n. 9; the note on “high priesthood” at §34; and Krieger 2002: 91: “A synopsis can show us that the list of high priests, used by Josephus when he wrote Antiquities and unknown to him when writing War, had only an internal, not an absolute chronology.” So if the list included successive items reporting Vitellius’s two interventions and Josephus thought he knew of two separate visits to Jerusalem, it was only natural for him to place one item in his account of each visit. If, however, we tend to conclude there was only one such visit, we must assume that while one intervention probably took place during that visit, we do not know whether the other one too took place during that same visit, or during another (unrecorded) visit, or from afar.

On 16 March 37. This statement, that news of the emperor’s death reached Vitellius only in the course of this visit, is one of the horns of the chronological dilemma discussed in the note on “in Judea” at §90, which leads to the conclusion that this visit is the same as the one described there, during Passover 37. That Vitellius received the news of Gaius’s death during a visit to Jerusalem is corroborated by Philo (Leg. 231). Although this somewhat vague term (πληθύς) often corresponds to Latin plebs (gtri 76), and although Philo (Leg. 231), referring explicitly to Vitellius’s presence in Jerusalem when news of Gaius’s accession arrived, claims that the news was welcomed enthusiastically in Jerusalem, and although Josephus used πλῆθος of the Jewish “multitude” as recently as the preceding paragraph (§123), nevertheless it is perhaps simpler to assume that “the versatile word“ (Mason 2008: 55, n. 494) refers, here as often elsewhere (e.g. §§48–49), to the army. On the one hand, we certainly would expect to hear that Vitellius administered the oath to his troops, and, on the other hand, had Josephus meant that all the Jerusalemites were asked to take the oath, we would expect—especially on the background of earlier reports of resistance to an oath of loyalty to Herod (15.368–371; 17.42) and to the introduction of symbols of the emperor in Jerusalem (§§55–59)—to hear how the Jews responded. Cf. §258, where Apion is said to have been able to point to general Jewish refusal to swear by the emperor. For the point that it was the soldiers’ oaths that were especially important (as at 19.247 and War 4.617, also Suetonius, Claud. 10.3–4), so if the present oath was demanded of the local population too it was probably in connection with the administration of the oath to the army, see Herrmann 1968: 106, 111. For oaths of loyalty to emperors, which became routine beginning with Tiberius (as at Tacitus, Ann. 1.7), as at 19.247, 259, see Herrmann 1969, Briscoe 1971, and Wardle 1997. Literally εὔνοια is “goodwill,” and so it can function with regard to free agents (so, for example, at §§206, 220; 20.20), but it is required of subjects (and wives—§254), hence “loyalty,” as also at 19.151; see Spicq 1994: 2.123–128; Danker 1982: 327–328; and Herrmann 1968: 49, n. 99. Note, for example, the beginning and end of Nero’s proclamation of freedom for the Greeks (67 ce [sig 814]): in order to requite the Greeks for their εὐνοία to him, he acts out of εὐνοία toward them. Quite properly, Johnson, Coleman-Norton and Bourne (1961: 147) render the first “loyalty” and the second “goodwill.” For English translations of two loyalty oaths at the opening of Gaius’s reign, one from Portugal and one from the Troad (Smallwood 1967, nos. 32–33 = ils 190 and sig 797), see Johnson, Coleman-Norton and Bourne 1961: 136; for one to Augustus, in Paphlagonia in 3 bce, see ibid. 127 (ogis 532). Τhe latter two, which are in Greek, use the verb εὐνοέω. Because the verb opens with ἐκ, Feldman rendered πόλεμον ἐκφέρειν “to make war abroad,” as if Vitellius’s consideration applied specifically to the fact that he was acting outside of his own province, Syria. However, Josephus frequently uses the phrase in the simple sense of “wage war”; so, for example, at Ant. 5.186, 8.401, and 12.327. Cf. War 4.498. For Schürer’s conjecture about Vitellius, cf. the note on “the Romans” at §105.

This is the only occurrence of οἰωνοσκοπέω in Josephus. Frequently it is not clear whether this and related terms refer to augury in general, or rather, following the literal sense, to that based specifically upon observation of the flight of birds. On Greek and Roman ornithoscopy, see Bar-Kochva 1996: 57–69. Tiberius. Vitellius, using the same verb as at the opening of §121. This translation follows Niese’s text, which has the text refer to Tiberius, Vitellius, and Aretas himself, all three preceded by “or” (ἢ). Feldman (1965: 86–87, n. b) objects that that entails “the unlikely possibility of Aretas foretelling the possibility of his own death, an event which surely would not keep the Romans out of Petra,” and therefore recommends an emendation suggested by H. Petersen. In fact, however, it seems that the war was essentially a private affair between Herod Antipas and Aretas, and might well have ended upon the latter’s demise.

See the note on “sent up” at §51. Tiberius died on 16 March 37. On the date of Agrippa’s trip, see the note on “governing Syria” at §150. I have translated as Mathieu and Herrmann (1929: 156) and Schalit (1963: 292), following the order of the clauses. Feldman (1965: 87), in contrast, took δύναμις to refer to “the means” that allowed Agrippa to make his trip to Rome.

On Herodian genealogy see esp. Kokkinos 1998. For detailed family trees, see hjp 1.614 and the foldout tables after p. 589 of jlcl 8 (1963) and in the back of Schalit 2001. The following summary of Herodian genealogy picks up precisely at the point the last major snippet ended—with the marriages of Mariamme I’s two daughters (Ant. 17.22//War 1.566). Such an orientation of the summary is obviously built according to the interests of Agrippa’s family, since Agrippa i’s wife, Cypros, was the daughter of one of Mariamme’s daughters, Salampsio, as is stated at §131, and Agrippa ii was the product of that union. Thus, this list links Agrippa ii to Mariamme, and so to the Hasmoneans, via both his father (of whom Mariamme was paternal grandmother) and his mother (of whom Mariamme was maternal grandmother). See D. R. Schwartz 2018. Compare esp. Samuel’s speech at 6.21, where the prophet preaches (in line with Josephus’s main thesis in Antiquities; see the next note) that righteousness and proper worship of God, not arms or physical prowess (σωμάτων ἀλκαῖς), will bring prosperity and other blessings. On ἀλκή, see also §323, This is, Josephus stated at Ant. 1.14, the basic point of the entire work, one that is reiterated, although with reference to the ancestral tradition rather than “the divine,” at the opening of this book too (§9), as at the beginning of the main story of the next one (19.16).

For Josephus’s explicit hope to improve humanity by narrating object lessons related to God, cf. 1.14–15; 17.60; and 19.16, also the note on “suffering” at 20.166.

If this, as it seems, refers only to Josephus’s account of Agrippa i in War 2 (beginning at §178), it is puzzling, for much of what is recorded in Ant. 18–20 has its parallels in War 2, but Josephus mentions this only here. Nevertheless, it does seem that the “compressed” account in War 2 (Mason 2008: 150, n. 1124) is based on the same sources Josephus used for this fuller account; see D. R. Schwartz 1990a: 1–38. This usage of ἀκριβῶς, which does not mean that previously he was inaccurate but, rather, that previously he wrote more generally, is a good example of the sense “in detail.” See A. I. Baumgarten 1982, Oakley 2019: 141–142 (“fullness and precision”), and esp. Fantasia 2004: 60–61, to which I was kindly referred by David Friedman.

I.e., “Herod the Great.” See the note on “the Elder” at §142. This opening of the list is clearly tailored to its point here—the genealogy of Agrippa, who, as Josephus will now explain, was born to the daughter of one of the two daughters mentioned here. This list is a direct continuation of the one presented in Ant. 17.19–22 (and its parallel at War 1.562–566), which begins as a table of Herod’s nine wives and culminates with Mariamme i’s two daughters. There, however, the list does not function well in its context, for it is presented as if it illustrates the fact that Herod had such a large family that he could easily find a new fiancée for Alexander’s son, but in fact the list mentions no such woman and the question of that son’s marriage arrangements simply disappears. Thus, we may conclude that Josephus had a summary of Agrippa’s ancestry and he brought one segment of it, concerning Herod’s wives and children, in Ant. 17 and the next segment here, when he turned to telling the story of Agrippa himself. Probably the same text supplied information used later as well, such as Josephus’s notices at 19.277 and 20.104 about the subsequent history of Herod of Chalcis; note that those passages deal with him as Agrippa’s brother, not as Aristobulus’s son. In general, cf. D. R. Schwartz 2018. Actually, she was the granddaughter of Hyrcanus ii, born to his son Alexander. The same mistake appears elsewhere too (War 1.262). Probably it reflects both the fact that Alexander died long before Hyrcanus, in 49 bce (14.125), and the tendency of pro-Agrippan tradition to link Herod to the last Hasmonean ruler. So too at 17.230 and War 1.566 he is identified merely as Salome’s son. Schalit’s (2001) detailed genealogical table lists him as the son of her first husband, Joseph, but Kokkinos (1998: 192) points instead to Salome’s second husband, Costobar.

This specific meaning of παῖδες here seems implied by the contrast to “daughters” later in the sentence. That is, Agrippa i married his cousin Cypros; she was the daughter of Salampsio, who was a full sister of Agrippa’s father, Aristobulus.

As Thackeray notes (ThLJ 84–85, s.v. ἄρρην/ἄρσην), this adjective (“male”) appears often in the sense of “son,” especially when opposed, as here, to “daughter”—whether accompanied by a noun (such as παῖς at 20.92, also, for example 1.186 and 6.129; so too Revelation 12:5 and m. Ketubbot 4:10–11) or, as here, as a substantive, without any noun (7.190 and 14.300). Perhaps the formulation reflects the sense that υἱός might be used more generally and inclusively of members of a family; see the note on “Boethus” at §3. Drusus was named in honor or in memory of Tiberius’s son, with whom Agrippa was close; see §143. Probably πρὶν ἡβῆσαι means before reaching marriageable age, which is what would be of interest in a genealogical account such as this. So too ἡβήσαντες at §134.

Having followed Cypros until now, and having introduced Agrippa as her spouse at §§131–132, Josephus now turns to him. This switch is somewhat confusing; Niese (1890b: 164) marked a lacuna here and Schalit (1963: 293) would fill it by inserting eight words; Feldman (1965: 90) has eight notes on the text, cataloguing manuscripts and emendations; and Kokkinos (1998: 188, n. 52) offers a radically revised text, beginning by turning the opening reference to Agrippa, which Niese has in the dative, τῷ δὲ πατρὶ τούτων Ἀγρίππας ἐτρέφετο …, into the nominative: ὁ δὲ πατῆρ τούτων Ἀγρίππας. My translation, perforce a guess, retains Niese’s opening text but assumes that the supplying of information about who “raised” Agrippa and his brothers reflects knowledge of their father’s execution when they were young (as is recalled in the next paragraph), hence it cannot be that Josephus meant to say (as Feldman has it) that they were raised by their father. Rather, they were raised for their father, namely, by Berenice, their mother. I have begun a new paragraph here, since the next lines follow each of Agrippa i’s siblings: Herod, Aristobulus, Herodias. Note, with Stern (glajj 2.368 and 3.65), that we do not know which of them was the eldest. Agrippa’s father, Herod’s son Aristobulus, was executed in 7 bce, as Josephus reminds his readers in the next paragraph.

In the final chapter of Ant. 16. Usually known as Herod of Chalcis (see 19.277). This identification, just as that at the opening of §135, shows again that this list is focused on Agrippa i; contrast, for example, the identification of Philip at §106, where the focus is on Antipas.

I.e., the third of the brothers, who was Agrippa’s second brother. See §133a. On this king of Emesa, see also Ant. 19.338; Sullivan 1977b: 212–214. It is not clear whether κωφός means “mute” (as at Apion 2.173—its only other occurrence in Josephus) or deaf-mute; cf. lsj 1019–1020 s.v. In rabbinic Hebrew too, a single word, ḥereš, can serve for both; note esp. m. Terumot 1:2. Namely, the male children of Aristobulus and Berenice.

On this Herod, see the note on “high priest” at §109. This Salome is usually thought to be the unnamed dancing daughter of Herodias mentioned in Mark 6:22, as emerges from her description there as Herodias’s daughter, i.e., not the daughter of Herodias’s current husband, Herod Antipas. See Hoehner 1972: 151–156, also Kokkinos 1998: 232–233. Antipas. For Josephus’s account of their scandalous marriage, see §§109–110. Here Josephus apparently condemns Herodias for two sins. First, she left her husband, rather than being freed from him by divorce or death; as Josephus emphasizes at 4.253 and 15.259, Jewish law (Deuteronomy 24:1–3) requires that divorce be effected by the husband. This is a standard item in Josephus’s condemnations of Herodian women; see the note on “ancestral rules” at 20.143. Second, Herodias married her husband’s brother, although that is forbidden by Lev 18:16 and 20:21, also Ant. 17.341 (and see the note on “his words” at §118); the only exclusion from the latter prohibition recognized by Jewish law is that at Deut 25:5–10//Ant. 4.254–256 (cf. Mark 12:19), which allows, even requires, the “levirate” marriage of a childless widow to her late husband’s brother. Perhaps Josephus had that in mind when emphasizing, here, that Herodias left her first husband while he was still alive, although one may doubt that many non-Jewish readers would realize that fine point. More generally, note that neither of the two sins delineated above was so heinous in Roman eyes. Divorce by the wife might have been acceptable to Roman readers (see Jackson 2005: 359) and marriage to one’s former husband’s brother was not forbidden by Roman law until the fourth century; see Codex Theodosianus 3.12.2 and Codex Justinianus 5.5.5. My thanks for those references to Ranon Katzoff, who also commented that this is “an example of the effect Jewish law had on Roman law via Christianity.” That is, Josephus, who refers here to “a gross violation of ancestral usage,” seems to be writing here more as a Jew and for Jews, or to have forgotten that he was writing for Romans. Cf. Introduction, at n. 34. By noting that Herodias abandoned her first husband for one who had a tetrarchy, Josephus implies that that was the reason, thus condemning Herodias as a faithless gold-digger. Indeed, readers who realize that even a tetrarchy is only a second-rate realm might start to wonder where things might go from here. Such readers, if patient enough to wait for §240, will not be disappointed.

As we read at §108. Thus the names of Herodias’s three sons were the same as those of her three brothers.

Here Josephus reverts to the very opening of this family tree (§130) and begins to follow the second line mentioned there, which begins with the report that Herod’s daughter Cypros married her first cousin, Salome’s son Antipater. But as opposed to the first line, to which Josephus devoted seven-eight paragraphs, the second receives only four—two on childless death and two on apostasy. By ending the whole list this way, Josephus gives the impression of fulfilling his opening promise about showing how the line disappeared (§§127–129). In fact, however, his account of the first line ends (at §137) with Salome bearing three sons and no indication that they disappeared. Since that first line is Agrippa’s, one might imagine that Josephus received these details from that part of the family, which had little interest in documenting its distant cousins. Cf. Life 364–366. This earlier Alexas was a “friend” of Herod (War 1.566) and executor of his will (War 1.660; Ant. 17.175), who eventually married Herod’s sister Salome (17.10). In the present passage we read that one of his sons, evidently from an earlier marriage, here identified as “Alexas, who was also called Helcias,” married Cypros, who was the granddaughter of both Herod and Salome. On the family, which would play an important role in the 30s (§273) and 40s (19.353), as also, apparently, the fifties and sixties (20.194) and even later (Apion 1.51), see Stern 1976: 612–613 and Kokkinos 1998: 185–186. Josephus mentioned Herod and Alexander at §131. From here until the end of this account, Josephus assembles evidence for his opening generalization (§127–129), that much of Herod’s house disappeared within a century.

Actually, he was deposed by 12 ce, so Josephus formulated here “minus accurate” (pir1 3.318); Tacitus, more accurately, refers to him, in the context of his downfall, as “Armenia quondam potitus.” See the next note. This sounds as if he was executed, and, indeed, Tacitus’s report of his punishment (Ann. 6.40), although it refers only generally to punishment, comes in a list of deaths. See Kokkinos 1998: 262 and Stern, glajj 2.73.

Here I follow Wilhelm 1894, as did Feldman (1965: 95, n. c); see also Kokkinos 1998: 253. Niese (1890a: 165) gives ἡσιοδός and lists a number of suggested emendations; at 1890b: 142, however, he adopts νήσιδος, the genitive of νησίς (“islet,” as for example at Polybius 16.2.8), originally proposed by Εrnesti 1795: 161. But an “islet” does not sound like much of a kingdom, and, as Wilhelm (1894: 5–6) noted, anyway it seems more natural to expect a proper noun denoting the kingdom; he suggested that the reference is to the Cilician tribe/people (“natio”) to which Tacitus refers as Cietae or Clitae at Ann. 6.41 and 12.55, which is also known from epigraphic and numismatic evidence. Wilhelm concludes that the relevant kingdom included most of western Cilicia.

Namely, those mentioned at §§139–140. For detailed accounts of them, see Stern 1991: 242–244 and Kokkinos 1998: 246–263. This is, therefore, a summary statement about this part of Herod’s line. (As Kokkinos notes in his n. 37, it is just possible that Josephus is referring, here, to the children of the last-named Alexander, not to Herod the Great’s son. But it seems to be superfluous to note that the children of a King of Cetis, who himself was married to a Commagenian princess and was the son of a king of Armenia, had no Jewish connections.) Feldman renders εὐθὺς ἅμα τῷ φυῆναι “immediately from birth,” so too Schalit (1963: 294), but Kokkinos (1998: 255, n. 37) suggests “as soon as they were physically developed” and ccfj 4.340 offers “from earliest youth.” Cf. ἔτι φυομένους κωλῦσαι (“nip in the bud”) at §318. Josephus’s terminology concerning what we would call “conversion” and “apostasy” is usually quite tangible, focusing on practice. That is, rather than referring to a change of religion, he often focuses on practice, referring to “ancestral” practices (πάτρια), “customs” (ἔθη), quasi-legal practices (νόμιμα), or laws (νόμοι). Thus, here he refers to those who adopted Greek πάτρια, at 20.100 it is the Jews’ “ancestral customs” (πατρίοις … ἔθεσιν) that Philo’s nephew abandoned, at §82 it was Jewish νόμιμα to which Fulvia had “gone over” (προσεληλυῖαν!), at 20.34 we read of a Jew who taught the women of the court of Adiabene “to revere God as it was πάτριον for the Jews,” and a little later (§38), looking back at that, we read that Izates learned that his mother was pleased with Jewish customs (ἔθη). Similarly, at Ant. 13.257–258 Josephus writes that the Samaritans adopted “circumcision and Jewish laws,” which is then paraphrased as “circumcision and the rest of the Jewish way of life (δίαιταν)”; in contrast, Sylleus could not marry Herod’s daughter because he refused to “be enrolled in” Jewish ἔθη (16.225). So too, for example, Philo, Life of Moses 2.19–20: it is the Jews’ νόμιμα that attract others. Although Josephus does seem to use the term θρησκεία to mean “religion” (see the note on “religion’s” at §287), and can even refer to those who had “gone over” to it (War 2.560), such usage is rare; and although the abstract concept “Judaism” already existed by Josephus’s day (2 Macc 2:21; 8:1; 14:38; Galatians 1:13–14), it was not yet very popular; neither Philo nor Josephus uses it. Indeed, it has been argued that even when it does appear, it refers not to “Judaism” but, rather, to “Judaizing” others; see Mason 2007b, along with the response in D. R. Schwartz 2014: 91–112. Be that as it may, it would take time before more inclusive and abstract concepts of conversion and apostasy would develop and become widespread. See esp. Cohen 1987 (on Josephus’s usage) and, more generally, Cohen 1999 and Lavee 2018. Josephus’s failure to conceptualize conversion as a change of an individual’s identity should also be understood in light of his pride in his priestly descent (Ant. 16.187; War 1.3; 3.352; Life 1–6, 80; Apion 1.54; Tuval 2013: 260 [“Josephus’ priestly status and origins seem to have constituted the most important ingredients of his self-identity …”]), for the more one ascribes significance to pedigree, the harder it is to admit a born gentile could become a Jew. Indeed, “neither the De Bello Judaico nor the Antiquitates Judaicae states that a ‘convert’ is equal to the native born or somehow joins the larger Jewish community” (Cohen 1987: 412). For the priests’ difficulty with conversion, see also the note on “by birth” at 19.332. Roxane and Salome ii, daughters, respectively, of Herod’s wives Phaedra and Elpis (Kokkinos 1998: 242). Both had been married to sons of Herod’s brother, Pheroras (Ant. 17.322).

So, not “the Great”; the intention is to distinguish Agrippa i from Agrippa ii; so too at §110; note also 20.9, 135, where Agrippa ii is ‘the younger Agrippa.” Similarly, the use of μέγας of Herod seems to mean “Herod the Elder,” as Otto noted (1913: 149–150), apparently to distinguish him from Antipas; the fact that the title appears only here (§§139, 133, 136), in this genealogical context, but nowhere else, argues against its meaning “the Great” (although I have retained that conventional title for Herod in my own prose). See also the note on “the Elder” at §273. True, there is evidence for the use of βασιλεύς μέγας not only of Agrippa i (Ant. 20.104) but also of Agrippa ii (ogis, nos. 419–421; Life 33), who could not have been termed “the elder.” See D. R. Schwartz 1990a: 136, also, more generally on the title, Wilhelm 1943: 160–162. But such usage, where μέγας modifies βασιλεύς rather than a proper name, is not what we have here, and even at 20.104, where we do have Agrippa i as βασιλεύς μέγας, the juxtaposition of father and son, of whom the latter is termed “the younger,” makes it likelier that Josephus was distinguishing between them as elder and younger, rather than giving one an honorific title and denying it to the other. See D. R. Schwartz 1990a: 136 and Mason 2001: 40–41, n. 204 (on Life 33).

For bibliography, see the note on “He” at 19.293. Drusus the Younger, son of Tiberius and Vipsania Agrippina. On him, see the note on “deceased son” at §146. I.e., Antonia Minor—daughter of Marcus Antonius; wife of Tiberius’s brother, Drusus the Elder; mother of Claudius and Germanicus, and grandmother of Gaius. See Kokkinos 1992. Born in 36 BCE, she was a grand old Roman matron by this time (§126); on her status, see §§180–182. After Aristobulus was executed, in 7 bce, Berenice took the children to Rome, and there they were raised in the highest circles. Indeed, according to §165, Agrippa was “raised together” with Claudius, the son of Antonia Minor; both were born ca. 10 bce. Probably something similar could be said of Agrippa’s brothers as well; see 20.13. For Berenice’s closeness to Claudius’s mother, Antonia Minor, see also §§156, 165, also the note on “friends” at 19.288. Antonia also took numerous other eastern princes under her wing; see Levick 1999: 268, n. 63 and Kokkinos 1992: 25. Cf. cpj 156d, col. iii, lines 11–12, where an Alexandrian anti-Semite is said to have accused Claudius of being a “cast-off son of the Jewess Salome”—a slur that probably builds on common knowledge of his mother’s closeness to the Herodian family.

According to Richards and Shutt 1939: 182, “μέγας cannot be right. μεγαλόφρων is probable.” Although “cannot” might be overstated (and see μειζόνως, apparently in the same sense, at §194), it is the case that μεγαλόφρων, including in the sense of “generous,” which fits the context here and in the next paragraph quite well, is common in Book 18 (§§5, 254, 255, 256). For this translation of τὸ θέλον, here, see ccfj 2.12, s.v. ἐθέλω.

For this pejorative sense of ἀναλίσκω, required by the context here, see the note on “squandering” at 20.211. For such tripartite divisions (τά … τά … τά), in which Josephus points to two options (here: spending on himself and on gifts for others) and then focuses on a third (here: bribes to freedmen), cf. §§178, 239–240; 19.1–2, 19–21; Apion 1.3; War 5.539; and the extreme case that begins at War 2.119. On Tiberius’s freedmen, and their growing influence after the death of Drusus in 23 (mentioned in the next paragraph), see Levick 1999: 117. Richards and Shutt (1939: 182) would eliminate the need for this parenthetical explanation by emending πραξέως into συμπραξέως.

Drusus Caesar (“Drusus the Younger”) died in 23 ce. On him, and his death (which some included in the charges against Sejanus [see §181]), see Lott 2012: 345–347. Although Suetonius (Tib. 52) prefers to claim that Tiberius was unaffected by Drusus’s death—a standard slur, similar to those that Gaius showed no respect for Tiberius or Antonia upon their deaths; see Charlesworth 1933: 107–109. For Tiberius’s oration at Drusus’s funeral, see Tacitus, Ann. 4.12.

ἀλεωρά (evasion, escape) appears in Josephus elsewhere only at War 3.163. Apparently an abandoned fort that had once been part of Herod’s defenses of the southern border of his kingdom. For the archaeological remains at Malatha (identified as Tell el-Milḥ), see Beit-Arieh 2008 and Beit-Arieh and Freud 2015; on the Roman period, see O. Tal, ibid. 18. For “towers” in this region see already 1 Macc 5:65 and Jubilees 36:20. Malatha was about twenty-three km. east of Beersheva, thirty-six south of Hebron. It is noteworthy that a grandson of Herod, even one with quarter-Hasmonean lineage, sought refuge in Idumea; cf. Herod’s flight to Idumea in 40 bce (Ant. 14.353//War 1.263). For the conjecture that the fort remained from an estate that had belonged to Agrippa’s Idumean ancestors, see Rappaport 2013: 366. This is the only occurrence of περίνοια in Josephus. Attentive readers might recall the similar story about Elijah at 8.348, where too Josephus mentions Idumea although his biblical source (1 Kings 19:3–4) does not.

Here we have the first piece of Josephus’s contrast between Cypros and Herodias: the former urges her husband to avoid despair and death, while the latter will urge her husband to abandon tranquility and thereby drive him to his downfall (§§240–255). Note also §159. Josephus is unwilling to call Herodias Herod Antipas’s wife (γαμετή—cf. e.g., §§21, 40, 341, 344) because of the egregious illegality of their marriage, which he underlines at §136. See the note on “to him” at §110. The present notice, that Antipas was already married to Herodias shortly after Agrippa’s return to Judea in the wake of Drusus’s death in 23 ce, is part of the argument offered in the note on “John” at §116, that their marriage came long before the war between Antipas and Aretas.

This translation follows Niese (1890a: 167), καὶ ταῦτα ἐξ ὁμοίων ἀφορμῶν. That is, Cypros emphasizes that she is doing her best to help her husband although her resources were the same as his, i.e. very meager. For this meaning of ἀφορμή see for example, Ant. 13.429; ThLJ 99, s.v. Her reference to her own lack of resources is meant, of course, to encourage Herodias (and Antipas), whose resources are greater, to step in and help. The text would be simpler if, with Mathieu and Herrmann (1929: 160), Schalit (1963: 294), and Feldman (1965: 98), we accept the negation (οὐκ) that appears in two witnesses after ταῦτα. That reading makes Cypros’s point somewhat more explicit: in her appeal to Herodias she states that she is supporting her husband “although she does not have the same resources,” inviting her to realize that it was only politeness that brought her not to complete the thought with “as you.” On the agoranomos (market supervisor) in Roman Palestine, see Sperber 1977 and Erdkamp 2005: 302–305. For lead weights of the agoronomoi of Tiberias, one perhaps of Agrippa i himself (and, if so, his full Roman name was Gaius Julius Agrippa), see Qedar 1986/87, Stein 1992, and Sigismund 2007: 332–334.

This is a remarkable case of parti pris that contributes to the characterization of Josephus’s narrative (source?) as pro-Agrippan. For although the details of the story, in the next lines, amount to two men getting drunk and angry at each other and one stalking off, the present summary puts all of the blame on Antipas, who failed to adhere to his agreement with Agrippa, which anyway had been unfairly in his own favor, and was also arrogantly abusive. Cf. the notes on “stolen them” at §169 and “later” at §194. On L. Pomponius Flaccus, governor of Syria since 32 ce, see Schürer, hjp 1.262, and Dąbrowa 1998: 37–38; specifically on the dating of his death, see also D. R. Schwartz 1990a: 183–184 and Stein 1992: 146–147. A consul ordinarius in 17 ce, he must have been more than a decade older than Agrippa, so one may wonder how close their friendship was. The reference to him here supplies a terminus ad quem for this story, for Tacitus reports, at Ann. 6.27, that Flaccus died in 33 ce. True, Schürer argued that, despite Tacitus’s clear statement, Flaccus in fact served until 35. But, on the one hand, Tacitus’s notice appears sandwiched between items explicitly said to have happened in that very year (“extremo anni … eodem anno”), so it seems that Tacitus was quite aware of chronology when he wrote it. On the other hand, Schürer’s three arguments for 35 appear to be inconclusive. One argument is that since Vitellius was appointed only in 35 (Tacitus, Ann. 6.32), dating Flaccus’s death to 33 would entail the governorship of Syria being vacant for a year. However, Tacitus in fact has Tiberius complaining, precisely in the context of Flaccus’s death (Ann. 6.27), about the dearth of willing candidates for such positions, so Dąbrowa (1998: 38) lives easily with the hiatus in this case. Schürer’s second argument is that if Agrippa arrived in Rome only in 36 (§126), after leaving Flaccus (see §§155–161), it is unlikely that he left no later than the end of 33. However, this point is, just as well or better, one of two arguments in support of the hypothesis that in fact Agrippa returned to Rome in 33/34, making a round trip prior to the one mentioned at §126 (the other argument being the time-consuming events that we would have to fit into half a year if Agrippa returned to Rome only a year before Tiberius’s death and spent the last six months of Tiberius’s reign in prison; see D. R. Schwartz 1990a: 51). Finally, Schürer argued that since Tacitus (Ann. 6.27), when reporting Flaccus’s death, notes that at that time a decade (“decimum annum”) had passed since the appointment of L. Arruntius as governor of Hispania Citerior, while we know from Ann. 4.45 that L. Piso was governor there in 25, it follows that Arruntius was appointed later than that and so Flaccus died no earlier than 35. However, “decimum annum” might be a round datum, and anyway, as the new Schürer (loc. cit.) itself notes, Syme (1956: 20–21) has shown that Piso was not a governor but only a substitute, so it might be that Arruntius was appointed earlier.

Apparently: Flaccus (see the next note). This is also suggested by the repetition of Agrippa’s name in the next line, as if otherwise “his brother” would refer to Flaccus’s brother. That is (it seems): Flaccus’s attentions had already been given to Aristobulus. I have translated according to Niese’s conjecture in his apparatus criticus (1890a: 167), προκατεσχηκότος; see lsj 1485, s.v. κατέχω. Τhe manuscripts (followed by Niese, loc. cit.) read παρακατεσχηκότος, which is rendered “checked” by Feldman (1965: 100, n. a), in accordance with lsj 1312, s.v. παρακατέχω: “keep back,” “detain.” The manuscripts’ reading makes sense, insofar as the statement that Aristobulus “checked” Agrippa is immediately explained by the notice that Aristobulus was hostile to Agrippa. However, that reading is nonetheless jarring, for readers do not know that Aristobulus was already staying with Flaccus. To solve that problem, Feldman (1965: 100) adopted the Epitome’s reading, προκατειληφότος (Niese 1887–1996: 311), which Feldman renders “had been anticipated by.” That would make sense, but, as ccfj 3.533 shows, it is quite difficult to justify that translation; after listing such meanings as “conquer (occupy) previously,” “to seize first” for other appearances of προκαταλαμβάνω in Josephus, it offers only a question mark for the verb’s meaning here. Hence it appears to be preferable to solve the same problem by adopting Niese’s emendation, at least as the best of some bad options. Note, however, that, contrary to his frequent practice (see the Introduction, at n. 69), Niese did not adopt it in his editio minor (1890b: 144). No reason is stated for the hostility. Given the fact that other elements in this story reflect the application to Agrippa of the biblical story of Joseph and his brothers (see the note on “in common” at §201), it may be that readers were expected to read this in light of Gen 37:2–4, or, more generally, in light of general expectations about jealousy among brothers, especially in royal families; cf. 18.41–42 and 20.29, 37.

περιωθέω appears in Antiquities only in Books 17–18, including below, at §§362, 375. On this port city, see the note on “Ptolemais” at §120.

Reading τῆς ἐκείνης, Niese’s conjecture; see Niese 1890b: 144, followed by Feldman 1965: 102. The manuscripts, followed by Niese 1890a:168, read ἐκείνου, but that masculine form is quite difficult to construe, if only because Marsyas and Protos are both still alive. Perhaps, as Deborah L. Gera suggested, if pressed we could take the masculine form to be a genitive of possession or contents (“by virtue of [the provision] of the testament that relates to him”), but that would require us not only to accept such an elliptic formulation but also to assume that Josephus did not tell us, explicitly, whose testament it was. Hence the emendation is very attractive. But see the next note. On διαθήκη of a will (testament), which occurs very often in Josephus’s accounts of Herod’s in War 1 and Ant. 17, see Danker 2000: 228–229. As Danker indicates, whereas in the Hellenistic period the term meant exclusively “last will and testament,” in the Roman period there is some evidence for “compact, contract.” That could open up new possibilities about how Protos came to be Antonia’s. But that meaning seems not to be found in Josephus. See ThLJ 143–144. On Antonia Minor, see the note on “Antonia” at §143.

That is, he lent the money at 14% interest, somewhat higher than the usual 12–12.5%. For manifold evidence for the latter, see cpr 7 (1979): 162–163.

A port near Gaza; see hjp 2.104. As is reported at 17.189, 321 and 18.31, Jamneia (Jabneh), located near the coast between Tel-Aviv and Ashdod, had a history of its own; see hjp 2.109–110 and Kletter, Ziffer, and Zwickel 2011. Herod left it to Salome, she left it to Augustus’s wife, Livia, and from the latter it eventually became a special domain of the imperial house, with its own procurator. On such procurators of imperial estates, see Jones 1968: 123–124. Here we see him functioning outside of his bailiwick, which gives some support to Philo’s more general characterization of him as “collector of the imperial revenues in Judea” (Leg. 199). Capito, who is mentioned here and at §163, and is also known from an inscription (ae 1941: no. 105 = Smallwood 1967: no. 255) on a silver bust of Tiberius, which fills out his name as Gaius Herennius Capito, figures in a central role in Philo’s Legatio (§§199–202), in his account of the antecedents of Gaius’s attempt to Romanize the Temple of Jerusalem; cf. the note on “for example” at §257. So too §163. But at §159 Agrippa asks for a loan of only 200,000.

Philo’s brother, according to §259. “Alabarch” (which also appears in ogis 674) probably means “Arabarch,” i.e., Alexander was responsible for the collection of customs on traffic with Arabia, which was very lucrative (see Tcherikover in cpj 1.49, n. 4; Evans 1995: 590; and Schimanowski 2007: 123); and then there was also the family’s import-export business, on which see A. Fuks in cpj 2.197–200. For the resultant wealth, see also Ant. 20.100, War 5.205, and cpj 420; for the family’s links with Agrippa’s, see 19.276–277, perhaps also 20.147. On Alexander, see esp. Evans 1995. On the family, see also Appelbaum 2018 and Sterling 2020; the latter doubts the identification of “alabarch” and “arabarch” but tends to agree he was some sort of customs official. Presumably drachmas; see the note on “drachmas” at §67. As above, §148.

That is, about 30,000 drachmas, leaving 170,000 to be turned over later. Dicearcheia is the Greek name for Puteoli, as Josephus explains at Life 16. See the next note.

It is quite strange that Josephus uses this Latin name after using the Greek name in the preceding paragraph, without explaining to his readers that they denote the same city. Contrast Life 16, where Josephus uses both names and explains that they refer to the same city. For the argument that the text here (just as the story of Agrippa’s finances; see the note on “Tiberius’s friendship” at §164) reflects the splicing of materials from two different sources, see D. R. Schwartz 2007b: 127–130. Tiberius spent much of his last years in Capri; see Houston 1985.

Such an otiose but emphatic collocation (οἴχοιτο φυγάς), with an effect like “skedaddled,” is common, beginning with Homer; see lsj 1211, s.v. ὄιχομαι, §i.

Here is a clear case of “Caesar” turning from a name into a title; so too below, at §194. As Mason (2008: 153, n. 1147 and 172, n. 1294) notes with regard to War 2.181, 206, this usage reflects Josephus’s own times, in an age in which, since the days of Gaius, “Caesar” was no longer part of the emperor’s name. The transformation is usually seen as complete by the “Four-Caesar-Year” (68/69).

The fact that Josephus makes no further reference to the 170,000 drachmas Agrippa was to collect in Dicearcheia, promised him by Alexander the Alabarch (§160), seems to point, as does the move from “Dicearcheia” to “Puteoli,” to a shift of sources between §160 and §161. It is easy to understand the discrepancy about the loan, for 19.276 reports that Alexander the Alabarch was the guardian of Antonia’s estate. That suggests that the money Alexander promised to lend Agrippa was actually Antonia’s, which Alexander, knowing of Antonia’s friendship for Berenice and Agrippa, or for some other reason, agreed to lend Agrippa. Some recalled that as Alexander’s loan; others, as Antonia’s. On this friendship, see the note on “along” at §143.

The use of Τιβέριος ὁ Καῖσαρ is strange, coming as it does after several references to Tiberius simpliciter. It is likely that the present notice (§166a) was added by Josephus secondarily in order to adumbrate the report at §188. Tiberius Gemellus, the son of Tiberius’s late son, Drusus (on whom see §46). I have used this strong translation of Ἀγρίππας δέ and added in “(instead)” because, as §188 clearly indicates, Agrippa’s preference for Antonia’s grandson was contrary to Tiberius’s recommendation of his own grandson. Josephus likes to recall Germanicus’s popularity; cf. §206 and 19.217, 223.

Reading ἄλλος, with the manuscripts, followed by Niese (1890a: 170) and Feldman (1965: 107–108, n. f). On the assumption that this means “another Samaritan,” this has been thought a problem, for no Samaritan was mentioned previously. That spurred scholars (such as Hudson and Havercamp 1726: 1.889) to emend the text into the proper name Θαλλός—the name of a first-century (?) historian cited by Julius Africanus, Eusebius, and several other Christian writers; see Stern, glajj 3.38–42; Holladay 1983:343–369; and van Voorst 2000: 20–22. However, on the one hand there is no apparent reason to think Thallos was a Samaritan or rich enough to make this loan, and on the other hand the text may be punctuated and translated as above, the reference being to “another” freedman, like Protos (§156), to whom Agrippa could turn for help. As at §§144–145, 160; Josephus reminds us that this is what Agrippa did with money whenever he had it. For such use of θεραπεύω of a calculated self-serving service of others, see also §§188, 294, 20.205, etc. On the phenomenon, see 6.341 and the note on “considerably” at §36.

For κατ’ εὐχὰς τραπομένου compare 3.25 and 6.22.

Confidence about this, and the desire to record it emphatically, may point to a source close to Agrippa. Cf. the note on “himself” at §150. The praefectus urbi (gtri 98, s.v. φύλαξ); so too below, §235. He was something like a manager of Rome and the surrounding territory, responsible for public order, water and grain supplies, and fire safety. On this Piso, who had been a consul in 27, see hjp 1.261. This characterization of Tiberius is often adduced in connection with Tacitus’s account, at Ann. 1.7 and 1.11–12, of his succession to the empire following Augustus’s death, with scholarly discussion of it focusing on whether Tacitus’s characterization of Tiberius’s cunctatio (indecision) in that context was meant to be general or pertained only to that episode, and whether Tacitus was serious or, rather, ironic. See, for example, the discussion in Woodman 1998: 40–69.

Or even when they did; see §108. On this characterization of Tiberius’s policy and practice concerning provincial governors, which was often explained as betraying a weakness of character, see esp. Tacitus, Ann. 1.80, also Gray 1972. Some, however, such as Levick 1999: 127–128, would interpret it more favorably—as Josephus has Tiberius himself suggest in the next lines. The manuscripts read περίοπτος (“conspicuous” [as e.g. 13.211]) but that hardly fits the context, hence Ernesti’s emendation, based upon Thucydides 1.41: ἀπερίοπτος (“unregarding, reckless” [lsj 186, s.v.]). So too at §272 and 19.72. See the Introduction, at n. 76.

To Rome; on the Roman perspective revealed here, as at §§51, 53, see the Introduction, at n. 36. Here ὄχλος—which is echoed in the parable at §175—might retain something of its usual nuance: “mass” (of bothersome embassies that would have to be handled).

For Tiberius’s policy of allowing governors to remain long in office, and whether and to what degree it worked to the advantage of the provincial subjects, see Brunt 1961: 210–211, Orth 1970: 71–81, and Levick 1999: 125. Cf. Powell 1936: he would emend the present passage, reading ἀïδίους (“everlasting,” “eternal”), as at §§14, 252 and 19.16, instead of the manuscripts’ αἰδοῦς (“regard”) and taking the passage to refer to appointments “for life,” as suggested by §170. I.e., inherited and therefore held throughout one’s lifetime. Compare 15.40–41 and 20.235. For doubts concerning the assumption that governors who lasted for long terms were less predatory, see Brunt 1961: 210–211. After reviewing the evidence, he concludes that “Long tenures may have satiated the avarice of the governors; they also postponed the day of reckoning. It is merely an a priori assumption that in themselves they testify to the worth of the men who enjoyed them.” For similar debates today, as to whether shorter terms (for the officeholders are afraid of prosecution) or rather longer terms (as Tiberius would have it) better deter corruption, see Tsur 2021.

This adjective, ἀμβλύς, appears elsewhere in Josephus only at 19.206, there too in the comparative and applied to a sluggish ruler. Lit. “immediately”; see the note on “immediately” at §58. On the sense of ἀναστροφή, see the note on “recovery” at §359. Reading ὑποδιδοῖέν, with Niese 1890a: 171. But as with the other appearance of this verb in Ant. (17.111), neither the text nor the sense is certain. See ccfj 4.253, s.v. ὑποδίδωμι.

For Josephus’s use of παράδειγμα not merely for “illustration” or “model” but in a stronger sense, as “proof on the basis of an example,” see §§251, 304, 328.

This reference to his condition as κακοῦ τοῦ ἐφεστηκοτος recalls Tiberius’s reference to governors who ἐφεστήκασιν εἰς πλέον (§173a). By phrasing the problem this way (μειζόνως γὰρ ἂν ἀδικοῖς με), rather than more generally “you would put me in a worse position” (Feldman 1965: 113), Tiberius’s parable reminds readers of the real issue the parable is meant to illustrate. This ὄχλον echoes ὄχλος at §171, to link Tiberius’s claim to that of the protagonist in the parable. For governments that cruelly “exhaust” their subjects, cf. 19.246 (ὠμότητι τετρῦσθαι).

Reading according to Niese’s conjecture, καὐτῷ (1890b: 148), rather than καὐτός (Niese 1890a: 172), which is retained by Feldman 1965: 112.

For this tendency of Tiberius, see the note on “maintain them” at §172. This datum will have forced anyone who undertook to adjust the length of Gratus’s and Pilate’s terms of office to keep their sum constant; see the note on “eleven” at §35.

The third category of delay listed at §170, kept for the end because it is the most relevant in the present context. Cf. the note on “largest part” at §145. The text of this paragraph is quite difficult, but the general sense is clear. It is closely paralleled by Philo’s account, in Flacc. 128–129, of the deliberate delays of the trial of someone who had been accused of maiestas toward Tiberius.

On Tiberius’s villa in Tusculum, southeast of Rome, where he stayed intermittently between 29 and 34, see McCracken 1940. At about five furlongs per km. (see the note on “away” at §60), this comes to twenty km., which is quite accurate.

On the translation of ἀρετῇ τοῦ σώφρονος see the note on “self-restraint” at §73. For the widespread notion that it was virtuous for a widow to remain unmarried, for a woman should ideally be univira, see Ant. 17.352, also, for example, Tacitus, Germania 19.2, Plutarch, Tiberius Gracchus 1.4, and much additional material assembled by Walcot 1991. Drusus the Elder died in 9 bce, when Antonia was twenty-seven. For Josephus’s approval of such loyalty to late husbands, cf. 17.352. For Augustus’s encouragement of widows to remarry, as part of his general policy concerning marriage, see also Suetonius, Augustus 34 and Kokkinos 1992: 15–16.

Cf. the note on “benefit” at §95. On L. Aelius Sejanus, who was praetorian prefect under Tiberius and consul in 31 but executed for conspiracy that same year, see esp. Nicols 1975 and Hennig 1975. Nicols, who notes that according to Tacitus (Ann. 6.3) and Suetonius (Tiberius 61) it was against Germanicus’s children, including Gaius Caligula, that Sejanus had been plotting, suggests that it was only post-Caligulan historiography, which did not want to arouse any sympathy for the tyrant, that preferred to recall Sejanus’s conspiracy as one against Tiberius; perhaps, for example, it was only in that context that the murder of Drusus Caesar was added to the charges against him (see Lott 2012: 347). But see the opening of Suetonius, Tiberius 65, also Philo, Leg. 160. For doubts that Antonia had anything to do with Sejanus’s downfall, mainly on the basis of the fact that the other sources make no mention of it, see Nicols 1975. Nicols suggests that the story derives, ultimately, from Agrippa’s family tradition, which was interested in glorifying the memory of Antonia. For a similar attempt to profit from Sejanus’s downfall, note Philo’s claim (Leg. 159–160) that Sejanus conspired not only against Tiberius but also, and therefore, against the Jews of Rome, for he knew they were the emperor’s most loyal supporters.

As also §325 and 20.163; cf. §205. On the former, an influential Greek in Rome who in 31 was still a slave but was soon to be freed and to remain at the heights of court life in Rome until his death in 62, see Oost 1958 (p. 15 on the present episode, which indeed shows Antonia’s great trust in him). Pallas will reappear at 20.137, 182. This is the only occurrence of συνεπίβουλος in Josephus. For a single appearance of the verb, συνεπιβουλεύω, see 13.308.

Frequently βασανίζω involves torture (e.g., 19.34–35), but in this case we hear of none, just as at §154 it is used simply for the investigation of a matter. See ThLJ 102, s.v.

Q. Naevius Cordus Sutorius Macro, praetorian prefect after Sejanus. See van der Horst 2003a: 102–103. For a long account of his close relationship with Gaius, which led to his downfall and death by early in 38 (Smallwood 1970: 185–186; Bastianini 1975: 271), see Philo, Leg. 32–61. As stated at §168, Eutychus was Agrippa’s freedman.

This is apparently the sense of the dual here, τοῖν ποδοῖν; Eutychus’s point, apparently, is to emphasize that he could hear both halves of the conversation. This use of μεθίστημι is, it seems, meant to represent Eutychus as employing clever innuendo. For while at §168 Josephus had Agrippa referring to the possibility of Tiberius abdicating, here he has Eutychus using a verb that could imply that Agrippa was actually expressing the hope that Tiberius would soon die; see, for example, §§31, 89, 147, 352, and note that Mathieu and Herrmann (1929: 166) simply render “en quittant la vie.” That, of course, makes the offense all the more heinous. Nevertheless, the verb is ambiguous, and that, together with the fact that Eutychus has Agrippa go on to state the hope that Tiberius would appoint Gaius, would allow Eutychus deniability should anyone accuse him of explicitly and falsely ascribing to Agrippa the hope that Tiberius would soon die. See the note on “earth and sea” at 19.1. On Tiberius Gemellus, see the note on “grandson” at §166. That this would be the natural corollary of Gaius’s rise to the throne is apparently taken for granted; so too at §215. Compare §41, 5.234 (//Judges 9:5), 7.350 (//1 Kings 1:12, 21), and 20.29, along with Diodorus Siculus 17.5.4, Philo, Leg. 67–68 and Plutarch, Life of Demetrius 3.4: writing not long after Josephus, Plutarch declared that the rule, that rulers should kill off their brothers, is as hard and fast as the postulates assumed by geometricians. Cf. §215 and 20.29. In the Ottoman Empire such practice was even legalized (Ekinci 2018).

See §166.

On καὶ μὴν δέ, see Denniston 1954: 356–357.

Drusus, who was born ca. 13 bce, was a little older than Agrippa (b. 10 bce). For their close friendship, see §143. That is, Agrippa argued that Tiberius was wrong to assume that he had ignored Tiberius Gemellus. But Josephus has already told us that he did (§166). Josephus has no problem about reporting Agrippa’s willingness to lie, or otherwise to play around with words, when that was useful; it conforms to his more general portrayal of Agrippa as one who knows how to get along with important people. Cf. the note on “ours” at 19.243. On purple as a sign of nobility, see the note on “purple” at §82.

This episode is quite similar to Josephus’s account, at 20.54–68, of the relations between Izates and Artabanus.

At this point Ambrosianus and the Latin version supply an additional short sentence: “Rather, he did repay him.” Niese first bracketed it (1890a: 175) and then omitted it (1890b: 150). Indeed, it adds nothing to the preceding sentence. Cf. the note on “brought to him” at 20.5. Cf. above, note on “caesar” at §164. On the sense of μειζόνως here, see the note on “magnanimous” at §144. On such coupling of Agrippa ii and Berenice, see the note on “her brother” at 20.145. All this attention to Thaumastus and first-hand knowledge about his career have engendered the hypothesis that he lies behind much of this material; see Schemann 1887: 4 and Feldman 1962: 333. In any case, it is the kind of story Josephus likes, about turns of fortune, just like Agrippa’s own story.

Ἀγρίππας δέ. For such toggling between one protagonist and another, compare §§205, 289, also the notes on “turning now” at §1 and “with Petronius” at §288. An owl, more specifically: eagle-owl. In antiquity it had a reputation for wisdom (and as such accompanied Athena). Of particular relevance here is its reputation as harbinger of death: appearance of owls presaged, it was said, inter alia, Crassus’s debacle at Carrhae, the assassination of Julius Caesar, and the deaths of Claudius and Augustus, for, in general, “the bubo is a funereal bird, and is regarded as an extremely bad omen, especially at public auspices” (Pliny, nh 10.34, trans. H. Rackham [lcl]). This was especially the case insofar as it was a nocturnal bird, so daytime appearances were unsettling. For numerous sources on the Roman period, see Pease 1935: 375–377 and Swan 2004: 301. As Opelt (1966: 892–893) noted, in contrast, this motif is not at all common in Greek literature. Thus, with the help of a bird (cf. Gen 40:17–19!), Josephus has included a very Roman element in this story, one that meshes comfortably with the Jewish ones that are so prominent (see the note on “in common” at §201).

As with “they” after “Judea” at §§2–3, the use of “there” after Ioudaios here means it should be translated “Judean.” Such chaining together is also mentioned by Seneca, Epistle 5.7 and Atheneus 5.213b; see Mommsen 1899: 300, n. 2. Cf. Acts 12:6.

For Josephus on divine providence, see the note on “of man” at 19.61. The qualification of the calamity as τοῦ ἐφεσηκότος might be merely temporal, as it is rendered by Feldman (1965: 123 [“present’]) and Schalit (1963: 299 [“of this hour”]). But literally, as C. Seeman kindly pointed out to me, it indicates that the calamity has “come upon” Agrippa, namely from somewhere/someone, and so in the present context, as elsewhere in Josephus where it is used of revelatory visions (such as Ant. 17.351 and Life 208), it may suggest divine involvement. See Spilsbury and Seeman 2017: 106, n. 999.

Reading ὄλβον, with most manuscripts. For this type of blessing, cf. 1.234. For a scene similar to this one, see 20.59.

It seems obvious that this scene and speech, including the reference to the bird above Agrippa’s head and the request that Agrippa, upon release, attempt to help his fellow prisoners, is meant to recall the exchanges between Joseph and Pharaoh’s officials in Genesis 40; note especially vv. 13–15, 17–19. The Joseph story is echoed elsewhere too in Josephus’s account of Agrippa: §237a (cf. Gen 41:14), 237b (Gen 41:42), and 19.321 (cf. Gen 40:20); cf. the note on “hostile to him” at §151. On such typology in Josephus, including at 20.20–21, see Daube 1980. Apart from Josephus’s love for the biblical Joseph story in general, perhaps on the background of the shared name or because he believed that he too was saved just as providentially as Joseph (Gen 45:5–8//War 3.351, 354, 404, cf. Life 204, 208–209; Ant. 11.237, and Daube 1976), here there is also a special point: Agrippa, just like Joseph, was a Judean Wunderkind who, after various troubles including imprisonment in the imperial capital, eventually, with the help of divine providence, received from the king an extremely high position. But we may doubt that Josephus’s non-Jewish readers would recognize the allusions. See the Introduction, at n. 37. They might, however, remember Josephus’s own prophecy to Vespasian (War 3.399–408, recalled in Suetonius, Vespasian 5.6 and Cassius Dio 66.1 [glajj, nos. 313, 429]) and the fact that the Flavian emperors rewarded him graciously (Life 413–429).

This translation is an attempt to follow Niese’s suggestion (1890a: 177), approved by Destinon 1904: 28, that we read some noun, such as ἐκφρόντισιν, as the object of εὑρίσκετο (“found,” “obtained”). The manuscripts read ἐν φρόντισιν, which is difficult to construe; cf. ccfj 4.324, which offers two suggestions with question marks for this passage. But ἐκφρόντισιν too is not simple (which is probably why Niese hedges his conjecture with “vel sim.” and does not adopt it in his editio minor), for although the verb ἐκφροντίζω appears at 18.290 and 19.171, there it means “think up,” “devise,” which hardly fit here, and the noun ἐκφρόντισις appears nowhere in Josephus and, indeed, there is no entry for it in lsj. Destinon (1904: 28–29), who assumed that the received text, συνδέτο (“chained together”), meant Agrippa was chained to a centurion who was a fellow prisoner, and considering that impossible, proposed to emend the text here into συνετοῦ (“intelligent,” “clever”). That is, Antonia arranged for a supervisor who was smart enough to look the other way and allow Agrippa the special treatment reported in the next lines. It appears, however, that the other evidence for chaining a prisoner to a guard (see the note on “was chained” at §196) eliminates the difficulty.

I.e., as bedding. For the same procedure and phrasing, cf. 9.111//2 Kings 9:13. As Mommsen (1899: 303, n. 6) documents, such private arrangements were not rare. Apparently the last six months of Tiberius’s life; he died on 16 March 37.

Τιβέριος δ’—cf. the note on “Agrippa” at §195. In this case, it is likely that the turn to another character reflects a shift of sources as well; see the notes on “Gemellus” at §206 and on “Euodos” at §211. Cf. the note on “most trusted” at §182. Perhaps to be identified with the freedman of the same name mentioned by Tacitus (Ann. 11.37) in the days of Claudius. On Tiberius’s attempt to arrange for his succession, see Barrett 2019: 51–53.

Here, as the continuation shows, the use of παῖδες γνήσιοι is meant to contrast the deceased Drusus (above, §146) with the two grandchildren—the former natural (unless one believed—as Suetonius [Tiberius, 62.3] states Tiberius did—rumors that he was the product of an adulterous affair of his mother, Livilla), the latter adopted. For other nuances of γνήσιος, see the note on “legitimate” at §40 and on “full sister” at 19.204. Already in 35, Tiberius had appointed them both as his heirs (Suetonius, Tiberius 76), thus postponing the decision that now had to be made. The fact that he is fully identified here, although referred to a few times in the preceding narrative, which focused on Agrippa (see §§166, 187–188), suggests that the present detailed story about Tiberius’s attempt to arrange for his own heir, which is quite detailed but makes no reference to Agrippa or Jews, is from a different source. Germanicus was “the son of Tiberius’s brother,” Drusus the Elder. By taking the quoted words to be a parenthetical identification of Germanicus, rather than applying to Gaius, we may avoid the need, felt by Feldman (1965: 128, n. 1), to emend “son” (given by all the manuscripts) into “grandson.” Gaius, born in 12 ce, was around 25 when Tiberius died. For such usage of νεανίας, compare 20.144, where Josephus refers to Drusilla’s son Agrippa as a νεανίας at the time of his death in 79 ce. Since Agrippa was the fruit of Drusilla’s marriage to Felix (20.141), which came after her first marriage to Azizus no earlier than 53 ce (20.139), this Agrippa will have been in his mid-twenties in 79 ce. For νεανίας of men at the seventh of eight stages of life between infancy and being a “full adult” (τέλειος ἀνήρ), see Philo (Cherubim 114). Danker (2000: 667, s.v.), citing additional sources and discussions, assigns it generally to men between about 24 and 40.

Germanicus, as is made clear by the opening of §209. “This is only the second attestation of the adjective ἀνεπαχθής, after Philo’s lone example (Ebr. 215). Josephus will use the cognate adverb at 18.209, just below, and the adjective again at 19.218, of Claudius. It is part of the distinctive lexicon of this part of Antiquities. Since the adverb occurs once in Thucydides (2.37.3), and only there before Josephus except in ps-Dionysius (Ars rhet. 5.6), Thucydides is the likely inspiration” (Steve Mason).

In October of 19; see above, §§53–54. On the expressions of grief over the death of Germanicus, see the note on “elsewhere” at §54. As at §207. Cf. 19.218, about Germanicus’s brother, Claudius.

On the young Gaius’s popularity with the soldiers, see Suetonius, Cal. 9. Compare Ant. 19.217, where the soldiers termed Claudius “Germanicus” and thereby explained why he should rule.

Here, after the intervening explanatory digression, Josephus reverts to the story he began at §205. This is the only occurrence of πρόφαντος in Josephus, but the same notion is picked up by ἀποφανούμενον at the end of this paragraph. I.e., to Gemellus. In fact, however, the sources are not at all unanimous as to which heir Tiberius preferred, and it may be that he had no clear preference. See the note on “before he died” at §205. As at §212, I have translated Josephus’s reference to ὁ θεός, especially in light of the power Josephus attributes to him, the way a Jew would refer to him. Josephus’s easy passage here from “gods” (a few lines earlier) to “God” is noteworthy. True, polytheistic authors were entirely capable of referring to ὁ θεός in the singular, apparently in a collective sense; see Nilsson 1958 (a reference kindly supplied by Anthony Ellis). Similarly, there is nothing surprising about Josephus, although Jewish, referring to Tiberius’s ancient gods, in the plural, as already at §186 and at §§219–221; for similar practice, cf. §§198–199 along with numerous cases in the Parthian history that concludes Book 18 (§§328, 334, 344, 348, 361) and the long Roman story in Book 19 (§§167, 169, 175, 182, 219, 233). But the passage from plural to singular here is jarring and, presumably reflects Josephus’s monotheistic belief about the realities of divine power, as opposed to Tiberius’s belief.

In accordance with his general tendency; see §§216–217. This is the only appearance of οἰώνισμα in Josephus, just as οἰώνισις at §218.

The implication is that, had he known, Euodos would have found a way to keep Gaius out. Tiberius was, of course, not Gaius’s father; he was the brother of Gaius’s paternal grandfather, Drusus the Elder. But a few years after Drusus’s death in 9 bce Tiberius adopted Drusus’s son, Germanicus, who was Gaius’s father, and that could perhaps justify the use of “father” here; on such general usage, to express endearment and respect, see old 1308, s.v. pater, §5. Here, Euodos’s use of “father,” which (whether or not he is thought to have intended it) implies succession, functions as part of the narrative’s basic claim, namely, that Tiberius’s appointment of Gaius to succeed him was the product of forces beyond his control.

This scene is very reminiscent of Ant. 13.322–323, where John Hyrcanus attempts to prevent the fulfillment of God’s will that his son Alexander Janneus would become king, but God had his way. I.e, from on high, from the deity.

Reading Bekker’s (1856: 161) emendation, εἰσηγησαμένων, with Niese 1890b: 154; Naber 1893: 195; and Feldman 1965: 132. Niese 1890a: 179 retains, as usual, the manuscripts’ reading, εἰσηγησαμένω—a dual form (?) that appears to be impossible to construe here. It is, however, not clear how to translate εἰσηγησαμένων. Thackeray (ThLJ 223, s.v.εἰσηγεῖσθαι), who too follows Bekker here, and whom I have followed faute de mieux, suggests “consider” for the present passage, in line with the usual collocation of ἡγέομαι with ἀνεκτόν, as at §§150, 348; but he qualified his suggestion with a question mark in recognition of the fact that, as he shows, the usual meaning of the compound verb is rather “introduce,” “propose” (so, for example, at §§12, 332). ccfj 2.42 goes one further, offering only a question mark for our passage. This compound verb, ἀντεπιβουλέω, appears elsewhere in Josephus only once (War 4.59), just as Josephus employs (creates?) many such compounds with ἀντε- and uses them once or twice each; ccfj 1.138–139. This formulation assumes readers will think of Gaius as plotting against Tiberius. That, already in 35, when he appointed them both heirs, Tiberius predicted that Gaius would kill Gemellus, is reported in a quotable anecdote preserved by both Tacitus (Ann. 6.46) and Cassius Dio 58.23; cf. the note on “his death” at §187. Indeed, the young Gemellus was murdered shortly into Gaius’s reign; see §223. For “laying claim” (ἀντίληψις), see the note on “lay claim” at §4. Josephus’s insight here, that it is likely that potential heirs will plot against a king (especially, but not only, if, as in this case, they could think their own claims to the throne more legitimate than that of the incumbent), and that it is therefore likely that they will be suspected of such plotting, so that, in consequence, even if they did not tend to plot it is likely that they would be forced to do so in order to protect themselves, is well illustrated by his account of Herod and his sons during the king’s final decade.

On Tiberius’s predilection for astrology, see Potter 1994: 158–160. “The noun γενεθλιαλογία occurs only here in Josephus and is found before him only in fragments of astrological writers. Rare cognates appear in Philo (2) and Strabo (1)” (Steve Mason). Galba was indeed emperor for about seven months in 68/69 ce. This prediction is mentioned by other writers as well: Suetonius, Galba 4; Tacitus, Ann. 6.20.2; Cassius Dio 57.19.4.

Naber (1893: 176) and Feldman (1965: 134) read αὑτοῦ with rough breathing, which appears to be preferable.

The plural here is somewhat puzzling. Perhaps it reflects the assumption that whoever succeeds to the imperial throne will eventually be succeeded by his own son. Same phrase: §362. Νiese’s text (1890a: 189) has Tiberius telling Gaius that Tiberius Gemellus μοι συγγενεστέρου ἤ κατὰ σέ, but what is meant is not “although Tiberius (Gemellus) is more closely related to me than to you” but, rather, that “although Tiberius (Gemellus) is more closely related to me than you are.” Hence Niese’s conjectural reading of τοῦ instead of ἤ, adopted in his editio minor (1890b: 154). Tiberius Gemellus was Tiberius’s grandson, the son of his son Drusus the Younger, while Gaius was Tiberius’s grandnephew, the grandson of Tiberius’s brother, Drusus the Elder.

I.e., with Tiberius Gemellus, Gaius’s second cousin. Apparently: the gods. Tiberius’s point seems to be that since it was his own devotion to the gods that brought Gaius his good fortune, Gaius too should be devoted to the gods and behave properly, which includes abstaining from murdering his own cousin. The same image reoccurs below, at §253. Cf. War 2.454—προοίμιον ἁλώσεως. These are the only two occurrences of προοίμιον in Josephus (here spelled: φροίμιον).

Here Josephus has Tiberius warn Gaius not only about the wickedness of murder but also about the moral perils faced by those who rule alone. This hints at Josephus’s more general preference for aristocracy rather than monarchy, which tends to tyranny; see Mason 2012: 140–152. Commenting on the use of the singular here (τοῦ νόμου), which he takes to be an obvious (“offenbar”) allusion to the Jewish law, Free (2017: 600) sees here a statement by Josephus that even the Roman emperor must obey the law of the God of the Jews (“Mehr noch als auf die römische Rechtsordnung verweist Tiberius an dieser Stelle auf göttliches Recht im Sinne jüdischer Vorstellung. Auch ein römischer Herrscher hat sich somit dem einen wahren Gott unterzuordnen”). That seems to be overdone, and not only because of the reference to “gods” in the plural in this and the preceding paragraph; the use of “the law” is not absolute here, for the continuation indicates which specific law Tiberius means. But it does seem that, as Free argues, more generally in Antiquities 18–19 Josephus contrasts Tiberius, who recognizes that he is subject to the gods, to Gaius, who sets himself up as a god. The present passage, which more or less echoes Josephus’s own statements about the Jews, their God and his laws (Ant. 1.14, 20, 23, 72; 6.307; 7.93; 17.60; 18.127; 19.16), is part of that.

Summarized at §215; cf. the note on “to his death” at §187. Tiberius Gemellus was killed late in 37; see Philo, Leg. 23–31; Dio 59.8.2; Suetonius, Caligula 23.3; Barrett 2019: 109–110. It is quite remarkable that Josephus does not promise, here, to recount that story, which he does at such length in Ant. 19; contrast §307 and see the Introduction, at n. 11.

The Latin translator felt a need to explain here, as Niese (1890a: 189) records, that the preceding lines had gotten ahead of the story (“sed haec postea, tunc autem”). In fact, in this case it does not seem to be difficult for readers to realize that. The notice illustrates, however, the ancient reader’s assumption that the story is normally told in strict chronological order—an assumption that, in other cases, creates confusion that is much worse. Tiberius died on 16 March 37, according to Suetonius, Tiberius 73 and Tacitus, Ann. 6.50. In War 2.180 Josephus gives the same figure as here, differing only about the months (here five, there six, as is also the reading [vi] of the Latin here, according to Niese [1890a: 180]). That difference could be an error, or perhaps reflects a lack of clarity about what date should be considered the beginning of Tiberius’s rule, see Mason 2008: 153, n. 1145. Josephus likes to keep track of such things. See §33 and 20.148.

For similar difficulties, see §§231–232 and, after the death of Gaius, 19.132–133.

On Josephus’s aristocratic tendency to depict the persecution of the well-born (εὐπατρίδες) as a hallmark of tyranny, see the note on “good birth” at 19.2. It seems, however, that the accusation that Tiberius was guilty of massive abuse of maiestas proceedings, depending on informants in order to run roughshod over his enemies, is in large measure a matter of hostile historiography, the type that may be seen so luridly in Suetonius. For a more balanced picture, see Levick 1999: 182–200, Rutledge 2001: 89–103, and Yakobson 2003. For Josephus’s contrast between trivial offences and those that deserve the death penalty, cf. 13.294 and 20.215. Note, however, that at Apion 2.215 Josephus, in his effort to make Jewish law appear to be very strict and uncompromising (i.e., so Roman, in contrast to wishy-washy Greeks), insists that most violations of Jewish law entail the death penalty.

For Josephus’s use of δεῖμα (also in Ant. 19.49 and 20.78), see ThLJ 122, s.v.

How this was meant to refer to the emperor is not clear. Lewy (1920–1945: 156) and Lembi (2001: 64) suggested that the point is the similarity of the Hebrew ’aryeh to the latter half of “Tiberius.” That is possible, but it might suffice to note the natural comparison between the lion, as “king of beasts,” and the emperor—although it is difficult to find evidence for that title prior to the second century; see Aelian, Nature of Animals 5.39, the opening line of the first chapter of the Physiologus, and b. Ḥagigah 13b.

That is, he had overall responsibility; see §233 on the guards he posted.

Same phrase as at §3.

For such usage of ἀναμάσσω (which reappears in Josephus only at 16.26), ThLJ 39, s.v. refers to Homer, Od. 19.92: “that thy blood not be on thy head for this.”

Interestingly, θροέω appears in Josephus only here and at 19.137—where too the context is one of fearful uncertainty as to whether the emperor was really dead.

See the note on “guardian of the city” at §169. I take αὐτῆς to refer to his house.

On the funeral, see Levick 1999: 219–220. True, as Charlesworth notes (1933: 107–108), Dio (59.3) makes it seem as if Gaius showed little respect for the dead Tiberius, bringing his body to Rome at night and laying it out at daybreak, but that is only part of his usual calumny of Gaius. In fact, epigraphic evidence shows that five days elapsed between the arrival of Tiberius’s body on 29 March and his state funeral on 3 April; Suetonius (Caligula 15) says Gaius buried Tiberius in grand style and with much weeping; and there is epigraphic evidence that Gaius sacrificed in Tiberius’s memory (Arval Acta for 25 May 38; ed. Henzen, xliv). Thus, whatever Gaius thought privately, in public he showed Tiberius due respect—as Josephus too indicates. Both Dio (59.3) and Suetonius (Caligula 15.2; 23.2; 29.1) report that, after first honoring Antonia, Gaius then turned to humiliating her and drove her to suicide—which came already on 1 May 37, not much more than a month after Gaius rose to the throne. Thus, if indeed Gaius originally treated his grandmother with favor, that lasted, as Kokkinos (1992: 27–28) notes, only a few weeks.

Although such attention to hygiene and appearance was certainly in order when visiting the emperor, Josephus’s need to report these details seems obviously meant to compare Agrippa to Joseph, upon his release from prison and first audience with Pharaoh; see Gen 41:14. As in other such cases, however, presumably non-Jewish readers would miss the point. See the note on “in common” at §201. Which had been awaiting a permanent solution since 34 ce; see above, §108. Abila, on which see hjp 1.567–569 and Boffo 1994: 172–174. Note also the more detailed wording at 19.275: “Lysanias’s Abila.” But it may well be that Josephus was wrong to include Abila here (just as indeed it is not mentioned in the parallel at War 2.181); see the note on “had given him” at 19.274. This too is reminiscent of Joseph—Gen 41:42. So too Daniel (Dan 5:16//Ant. 10.240) and Mordechai (Ant. 11.254); this is part of the Jew-makes-good-in-a-foreign-court complex. See Meinhold 1976 and Wills 1990. Some would emend ἱππάρχην, although supplied unanimously by the manuscripts and seconded by the Latin “magistrum equitum,” into a term that more clearly denotes a governor (ἔπαρχον or ὕπαρχον, i.e. prefect or subordinate commander; see Niese 1890a: 183), on the assumptions that Gaius would not be involved in the appointment of a mere commander of cavalry and that Judea needed a governor. So too H. Mason (gtri 56, s.v. ἵππάρχης) brands the reading here (as at 19.279, 299) a “falsa lectio.” (Indeed, of the ten occurrences of ὕπαρχον listed in ccfj 4.237, six are alternate readings for ἱππάρχης.) It seems, however, that after Pontius Pilate’s stormy regime in Judea no new governor was appointed in his stead, and that the Roman governor of Syria administered affairs in Judea with the help of secondary officials—such as this commander of cavalry and the “tax-collector of Judea” mentioned by Philo at Leg. 199. See D. R. Schwartz 2013: 47–50. Given the absence of reference to commanders of infantry and other forces, however, it is likely that this “cavalry commander” enjoyed broader authority, just as, at 19.299, Silas is said, by most witnesses, to have been the ἵππαρχος of the entire army; see the note there, on “cavalry commander.” Marullus is never heard of again; cf. the note on “administrator” at §89. For the heading, cf. §340. Traditionally the next two paragraphs (§§238–239) are the end of ch. 6 and a new chapter begins with §240. However, as Lewy (1920–1945: 157) noted, in fact we have here a triad of the type mentioned in the note on “the largest part” at §145: some reacted this way, some that way, but the reaction that interests us in particular is the third, Herodias’s jealousy.

I.e., in the spring or summer of 38 ce. According to Philo’s Flacc. 26, Agrippa sailed from Italy when the summer winds began. The specific references to the emperor’s permission and to sailing by ship suggest that Josephus is aware of Philo’s In Flaccum, which carefully tells the story of Agrippa’s sea voyage to Judea in a way calculated to show that it was not Agrippa who was responsible for the violence that was occasioned by his visit to Alexandria. Philo emphasizes (§§25–28) that Agrippa went via Alexandria (once the favorable summer winds began) only because the emperor recommended that, and that Agrippa took care for his ship to remain out of the harbor until after nightfall, so as to ensure that the Alexandrians would not be aware of his visit—but Philo’s story is patently unbelievable, if only because he is so emphatic about Agrippa’s measures that he leaves us with no explanation of how his visit became known, much less how it elicited complaints and parodies concerning his flashy and pompous parading around the city (Flacc. 30, 39). See D. R. Schwartz 1989/90: 113–117. Josephus goes even further: he simply ignores Agrippa’s role in the episode. On this issue, see esp. Sanders 2016.

This heavy translation of δέ seems to be warranted here, as it moves us from the two general outlying options (some unnamed people believed and were happy, some disbelieved) to the specific middle one upon which Josephus desires to focus: Herodias believed but was unhappy. Cf. the notes on “the largest part” at §145 and on “especially Rome” at 19.2. Josephus’s formulation, συνοικοῦσα, apparently expresses his denial of the legitimacy of their marriage; so too above, §§110 and 136. Perea was the Jewish region of Transjordan, roughly between the Dead Sea and the Sea of Galilee, described at War 3.46–47 (between Machaerus and Pella, with Philadelphia’s hinterland as its eastern border). On the extent of Antipas’s territories, see Hoehner 1972: 43–51, 277–290. For Josephus, jealousy of one’s success, whether on the part of one’s enemies or some general impersonal fate, is frequently that which moves things along; see e.g., War 1.208, Life 84–85, and Ant. 13.288, along with Shatzman 2002, who assembles more evidence for the motif in ancient literature. In the present instance, Josephus emphasizes it by mentioning it again at the conclusion of this episode (§255). Note also §340. Contrast the note on “envy” at 20.75.

Usually, μνηστεία and μνηστεύω are used of a man’s “wooing” or betrothing a woman (e.g. 1.242, 245, 255; 4.246, 298; 17.15; Apion 2.200), so there is something abrasive, and therefore comical, about a woman urging her husband to do it vis-a-vis someone else. This contributes to Josephus’s portrayal of her plan as misguided, even “frivolous” (§255).

Namely, upon them; see §§149–150. For ἐπικουφίζω in connection with tax relief, see 17.204 and 19.25. I.e., Antipas. At this point Josephus moves from indirect speech to the speech itself. This is not rare; at jlcl 3.32, n. 1, on War 4.102, Thackeray notes that “speeches tend to drift into oratio recta at the close.” See, for example, §§263–264, §279, 294–295; 13.400–404; 19.40–41, 45.

For such usage of γοῦν, as also at §349 and 19.169, see ThLJ 117, s.v. Here is a good expression of the aristocratic assumption that wealthy people deserve their wealth since it points to their ἀρετή (“nobility” or “virtue”); cf. Apion 1.30. On Josephus’s use of ἀρετή, see the note on “virtuous power” at §266. For this collocation, (ἐ)χθὲς καὶ πρῴην, see also 2.348 and Apion 1.7; 2.14, 154.

This round phrasing says it all; to “go to Rome” is to try “to make it big.” Cf. Acts 28:15.

Josephus is happy to make the nagging wife responsible for her husband’s decision against his better judgment; cf. the note on “demands” at §42. For this common phrasing, which betrays a Roman point of view, which may or may not have source-critical implications, compare 17.345; 18.51, 115, 126; 20.131, 134, 161, 182, also D. R. Schwartz 2017. The last words sound ironic, as if now, having pushed him around until she got what she wanted, she played the role of the dutiful wife accompanying her husband.

So they would not hear of his own move. For such usage of ᾗ καιρός, see also §313, 17.51 and 19.99.

Although plain κατάγω is frequent in Josephus, this is the only occurrence of ἐπικατάγω. For the nuance, which emphasizes the competition between the two missions to the emperor, see Thucydides 3.49.4.

This is the only occurrence of πολύδριον in Josephus. Josephus’s furlong (stade) was roughly 200 meters; see the note on “away” at §60. The real distance by land is, in fact 5–6 km., so the present datum, approximately a kilometer, is “grossly underestimated” (Barrett 2019: 243). Since 18.179 and 19.6 show that Josephus was fairly familiar with distances in Italy, perhaps the text has been corrupted in transmission. The remains of their efforts are now submerged under water; see Maione 2016. Reading ἀνιόντα with mw and ThLJ 49, s.v. ἀνιέναι, rather than Niese’s ἀνιέντα. The town had the reputation of a center of vice and debauchery. See, for example, Sextus Propertius, Elegies 1.11 (“corruptas Baias”) and esp. Seneca, Moral Letters to Lucilius 51 (“On Baiae and Morals”).

See the note on “Sejanus” at §181. For Gaius’s generally good relations with Artabanus ii, see Wilkinson 2005: 31–34. Hoehner (1972: 362–262) accepts the possibility that Antipas was in some alliance with Artabanus, but perhaps we should prefer to imagine that the accusation reflected no more than Agrippa’s—or a vengeful Vitellius’s (see §105)—extrapolation of a halfway credible accusation from Antipas’s pushy intervention in Roman-Parthian relations a few years earlier (§§102–105).

See the note on “to prove” at §174.

Presumably Josephus means that while Antipas would have lied had it at all been possible, in this case the evidence was too clearcut. But according to War 2.183 he was exiled to Spain. One can either compromise by concluding that he was exiled to Lugdunum Covenarum, which was in Gaul but on the Spanish border, and supposing that Josephus was either trying to reflect that or perhaps confused about the detail; or, given the fact that that Lugdunum was relatively obscure and plain “Lugdunum” normally referred to the much larger one, namely Lyon (capital of Gallia Lugdunensis), simply reject the datum in War and perhaps infer that Josephus is here correcting a mistake of which he became aware sometime after writing the latter. For the second option see Braund 1983: 241–242, followed by Lembi 2001: 65. For a survey of the issue, see Mason 2008: 156, n. 1165.

Having grown up so closely with Agrippa, it is unlikely that he first learned this now. But it is possible that it was only now that he learned that she was Antipas’s wife. In any case, the story is better this way. Reading Niese’s conjecture, νομίσαι (Νiese 1890b: 160), adopted by Feldman (1965: 150) too. The manuscripts, and so Niese 1890a: 185, have νομίσας, which can hardly be construed. Same image as §221.

On this sense of εὔνοια, cf. the note on “to Gaius” at §124.

This is quite striking: after Herodias opened her speech at §254 by praising the emperor for acting μεγαλοφρόνως, and at §256 Josephus himself will praise Gaius for acting that way, here Gaius condemns Herodias for doing the same. As at §362, the difference is, of course, that what is appropriate for a man, and especially for a ruler, is not appropriate for a woman—for whom “thinking big” can be rebellious, thinking too big; cf. the note on “emboldened” at 20.176. On magnanimity as an appropriate characteristic for rulers, see also the notes on “valor” at §326 and “wrath” at 19.334 and Arnhart 1983. On Josephus’s usage see, in general, D. R. Schwartz 2025. Here Josephus rounds out this narrative by repeating the leitmotif used at its outset (§240). The theme is basically the same in the shorter parallel at War 2.181–183, but that makes no reference to God. This is typical of the contrast between War and Antiquities. See D. R. Schwartz 2014: 56–57. This reference to women as characterized by κουφολογία (as already at 17.121), coming right after the condemnation of Herodias as having been too pushy, is reminiscent of 4.219, where Josephus points to the “frivolous” and overly “bold” (διὰ κουφότητα καὶ θράσος) nature of women as explaining why they are not allowed to give testimony in legal processes. Cf. 18.21 and the note on “contemptible women” at 19.129. This formulation is similar to that at Ant. 1.49, where Josephus explains that God punished Adam for listening to Eve’s γυναικείας συμβουλίας. At this point Antipas drops out of history, all the more so insofar as, it seems, he left no sons (Kokkinos 1998: 232).

On this episode, which opens here and ends at §309, see Bilde 1978; Smallwood 1987: 120–125; D. R. Schwartz 1990a: 77–89; Bernett 2007: 277–287; Gruen 2016; and—on a rabbinic echo of it (Megillat Ta‘anit for 22 Shevat and its scholion [Noam 2003: 112–114])—V. Noam in Ilan and Noam 2017: 453–492. See the note on “high spirit” at §255. As did Philip (§106), but he was a do-nothing, not a “big thinker”; see the note there on “inactive style.” For the widespread notion that Gaius started off well but eventually, whether because of a disease or because power simply went to his head, took a severe turn for the worse, see also Philo, Leg. 8–14, 22, 67; Suetonius, Cal. 22; Cassius Dio 59.8.1; Sidwell 2010; and Barrett 2019: 312–313. Contrast 19.201.

For καὶ δή introducing something that illustrates the preceding statement or what it implies, corresponding to “for example” or “indeed,” see also 19.332 and 20.16, 81, 257; for the nuances in classical usage, cf. Denniston 1954: 248–253. These words, which make all of Gaius’s actions derive from his self-deification, correspond to Josephus’s omission of all reference both to Agrippa’s visit to Alexandria, which (according to Philo, Flacc. 26ff.) touched off the violence reported by Josephus at §§257–260, and to the Jewish provocation in Jamneia, which (according to Philo, Leg. 199–203) touched off Gaius’s attempt to erect his statue in the Temple, of which we shall now read in detail. See D. R. Schwartz 2012a and Sanders 2016. On Gaius’s self-deification, see the note on “mortal” at 19.4. Josephus introduces Apion without τις (“a certain Apion”) or the like, as if he assumes his readers know the name. On Apion, who was a prominent Alexandrian scholar, rhetor, and politician in the first half of the first century, one whose ability to make noise already brought Tiberius (according to Pliny, nh, preface §25) to call him cymbalum mundi and who achieved some notoriety teaching in Rome after this delegation, see Stern, glajj 1.389–90 and Barclay 2007: 170–171, n. 7.

On the imperial cult in the eastern provinces in the days of Gaius, see Barrett 2019: 192–194; Gruen 2016: 404. Concerning the West, however, Fishwick (1978: 1215) roundly states that “no trace is discernible in the West of the absolutist tendencies of Gaius reported by the literary authorities,” and, accordingly, his emperor-by-emperor survey has no chapter on Gaius. There is, in any case, no need to suppose that Apion’s generalization was based on research rather than antagonism. Nor, for that matter, is there much room for confidence that Josephus’s report—perhaps ultimately from Philo?—accurately preserves Apion’s argument.

For Philo’s role as a Jewish community leader, see esp. Goodenough 1926 and Birnbaum 2004. On Alexander, see the note on “Alabarch” at §159. On such a double negative, see the note on “not at all devoid” at §65. For “not unfamiliar (φιλοσοφίας … οὐκ ἄπειρος) with philosophy,” cf. Life 40, where Josephus writes that Justus was “not unfamiliar (οὐδ’ ἄπειρος) with Greek culture,” which is, in the context there that condemns Justus, an extremely backhanded compliment. However, Josephus’s focus concerning Justus was on rhetorical virtuosity as opposed to truth; cf. the notes on “philosophy” at §9 and on “desire it” at 20.264. Concerning Philo, however, the present comment sounds wholly positive. On the question, whether Josephus was familiar with any of his writings, see esp. Barclay 2007: 353–361, along with the note on “four thousand” at 18.20. This translation of οἷός τε ἦν fits the context. Feldman (1965: 154) translates similarly, “was prepared to,” but, perhaps in deference to the distinction suggested by lsj (1209, s.v. οἷος, §§ιιι.1b vs. iii.2) between οἷος ἦν (“intended … was on the point of doing”) and οἷός τε ἦν (“was fit or able to do”), omits τε; correspondingly, Mathieu and Herrmann (1929: 177) and Schalit (1963: 305) have Philo being “capable” of responding. However, the opening of §260 assumes that Philo was not only capable of responding but also that he was about to do so, and Josephus’s usage of οἷός τε ἦν at 14.105 and at Life 401 shows that such a distinction with regard to τε need not be assumed: in the former Crassus was about to strip all of the Temple’s gold, were it not for the intervention of a Jewish priest, and in the latter Sulla was about to pursue Josephus’s troops when Josephus sprang an ambush on him.

This is the only occurrence of περιοργής in Josephus. For Philo’s account of his disastrous meeting with Gaius, see Leg. 349–367. For this type of distinction, cf. the note on “private gain” at §7. For a similar formulation, see 20.108.

For this usage of πρεσβευτής, see gtri 153. On Publius Petronius, governor of Syria 39–42 ce, see hjp and Dąbrowa 1998: 42–43. Not much is known about him apart from his dealings with the Judeans, which are described at great length by Josephus (here, at 19.301–311 and War 2.184–203) and Philo, Leg. 207–260. For a detailed account of Gaius’s recall of Vitellius, see Cassius Dio 59.27. For such usage of χείρ, see also 10.85 12.398; 17.156, 20.91. The fact that the coming story makes no mention of any Roman governor of Judea reinforces the conclusion that neither Marcellus (18.89) nor Marullus (18.237) served in that position. Rather, they were secondary Roman officials during the reign of Gaius, who preferred to allow the governor of Syria direct authority in Judea. See D. R. Schwartz 1990a: 62–66. Cf. the note on “Syria” at §2. Although War 2.185 refers, instead, to “statues,” as does one version of the scholion to Megillat Ta’anit for 22 Shebat (Noam 2003: 283), Tacitus (Hist. 5.9.2) and Philo (Leg. 188) agree that one statue was planned, and so too the Mishnah (Ta’anit 4.6) refers to a single “image.” Acording to Philo (Leg. 188, 346), it was to be named after Zeus: “Gaius, the New Zeus made manifest.” On these varying formulations, see Stern, glajj 2.51. For Gaius’s self-equation with Zeus, see 19.4–5. As here, so too the continuation of his story, at §§280 and 309, refers specifically to the ναός. For Josephus’s use of this term for the hekhal, the inner sanctuary, as opposed to the Temple in general, see the note on “sanctuary” at 20.233. So too rabbinic versions of the present episode, beginning with m. Ta’anit 4:6, refer consistently to the hekhal; on those versions, see the note on “Gaius” at §256. Philo (Leg. 188, 306), ever the dramatist (D. R. Schwartz 1989/90), went one further, claiming that Gaius planned to have the statue erected in the innermost shrine, the “Holy of Holies.” On ἀγνωμοσύνη, see ThLJ 5, s.v. Here, as at 12.167 (where “arrogance” is suggested by Marcus at jlcl 7.83), the word expresses how the ruling power regards the obdurate refusal of subjects to accept its authority. So too, for example, 14.101.

Here and at §266 Niese has the text refer to ἐπιστολαί, lit. “letters.” Some would prefer ἐντολαί (“orders”; so the Epitome here [Niese 1887–1896: 320] and Naber at §266), but a letter from an emperor is obviously a command and such usage seems to be usual enough; see Schreckenberg 1977: 124. See, for example, 19.279, where Claudius “ordered” (ἐπιστέλλει) the prefect of Egypt to do something, and esp. 19.292 where he “ordered via writings” (διὰ γραμμάτων ἐπιστείλας); had ἐπιστέλλω meant “sent,” “writings” would have been the object, not the means. Cf. the note on “orders” at §294. Normally four were stationed in Syria in the first century; see Tacitus, Ann. 4.5; hjp 1.362, n. 42; Rey-Coquais 1978: 67. The statement here, that two legions were taken, conforms to Philo’s statement (Leg. 207) that Petronius took “half the army of the Euphrates.” War 2.186 states, instead, for whatever reason, that he took three legions; see Mason 2008: 158, n. 1185. The need for the adjective here is to distinguish these legions from the auxiliary units. For a similar case, cf. 19.365. Otherwise (and even in some similar cases, such as 18.120), usually plain “legions” suffices for Josephus. I.e., he would already be in Palestine, not have first to bring his troops down from Syria. Cf. §120 and War 2.499–500: Gallus’s move of his troops, from Antioch to Ptolemais, at the outbreak of the rebellion of 66.

Although violation (παρανομία) of law and transgression (παράβασις) sound synonymous, it appears that Josephus distinguishes here between law and ancestral practice (esp. if we end the sentence with πατρίου, as in all manuscripts apart from Ambrosianus, which adds νόμου). This distinction reappears at §264b: Jewish law was given by the lawgiver but ratified by the ancestors. See the note there on “adopted.” It is, however, possible that the reference to παρανομία might (also?) refer to Roman law, namely, that the Jewish spokesmen allude to the possibility of rebellion, similar to the warning about banditry at §274. For such ambiguity, which can be useful for subjects of an empire, cf. Acts 18:13–15.

This argument, about what is forbidden to Jews, is not really apposite here for the Jews were not being asked to do anything. Contrast the parallel at War 2.195, where Josephus has the Jewish protesters assert, relevantly, that the prohibition applied to the place, not to the perpetrators: it was not allowed for there to be such an image “not only in the Sanctuary but even in any non-sacred place within the country.” The move in Antiquities, even at the price of making the story less coherent, from what is forbidden in a particular place to what is forbidden to particular people, reflects Josephus’s move, between War and Antiquities, from a Judean orientation to a Judaic, diasporic one—from a stance that endows one particular land with special religious significance to one that does not. For another instance of this, see the note on “make images” at §55. Here, by using χειροτονέω (as, for example, at §22), Josephus implies that the laws oblige the Jews because they decided (“voted”) to undertake them. So too at 17.151: the Law forbids those who choose to live according to it to erect images. See D. R. Schwartz 2014: 55–56. The present formulation is answered by Petronius’s in the next paragraph.

For Jewish law’s being meant to foster virtue (ἀρετή), see also, for example, Apion 2.226, 278, 286 and Letter of Aristeas 144, 150. On the same theme in Philo and its Platonic background, see Annas 2017. For the same concerning Roman law, see 19.57. This is the only occurrence of προαναψηφίζω in Josephus. By having Petronius use, with reference to the emperor’s order, language properly used of decrees (ψηφίζματα) “voted upon” by citizens or a representative body (in Roman context: of senatus consultum, decretum decurionum, or plebiscitum [GTRI 100]), Josephus artfully makes the legate respond directly to the Jews’ claim at the end of §264. This use of the comparative (ἀνηκεστοτέραν) seems to indicate that Petronius means the suffering that would be imposed upon him, if he disobeys, is worse than that which the Jews would suffer by witnessing the desecration of their temple. This is the only occurrence of παρακρόασις in Josephus and the only evidence for this noun in lsj 1314, s. v. The verb, παρακροάομαι, appears at §§188, 279, and that too is the only evidence for it cited in lsj, ibid.

For Josephus’s use of ἀρετή, see ThLJ 81–82 and ccfj 1.223–226. Usually, of course, it means “goodness, excellence, virtue” or the like, and that is how it is usually translated here too. However, in context, here, it must entail the implication that God not only is virtuous but also has the power to protect those who remain loyal to him, and will do so. Note, in this connection, that Philo’s Embassy to Gaius, dedicated to the present episode, was actually transmitted under the title Φίλωνος Ἀρετῶν πρῶτον (“Philo’s First Work on ‘Virtues’”), see already Eusebius, Church History 2.6.3; 2.18.8. On that meaning (“the specifically Jewish sense of ἀρετή = θεία δύναμις” [Smallwood 1970: 39–40]), see Danker 2000: 130 (“manifestation of divine power, miracle”) and Reiter 1927; inter alia, Reiter points also to Ant. 17.130, where Josephus uses ἀρετή in parallel to ἰσχύς (“strength”). For the phrase ἀγαθοῦ ῥοπή, cf. §293—ῥωπή εὐδαίμονος, also Mason 2008: 37, n. 323 (on War 2.52).

Such an easy move between the sanctity of the Temple and that of the city was natural, for the sanctity of “the holy city” (see the note on “holy city” at 20.118) derived from that of the Temple (“the house of God”). But phrasing of the threat as one to the polis would also resonate well among Josephus’s Greek readers; cf. D. R. Schwartz 2008: 50–51 and Carlier 2008. The same phrase appears verbatim at War 2.196 as well. While this suggests that Josephus was using War here, or a common source (Schemann 1887: 28–29), such verbal agreement is so rare, and this passage is so quotable, that, as Cohen (1979: 59–60) notes, it is possible that Josephus simply remembered the line. For similar cases, see the notes on “festivity” at 20.112, on “benefactor” at 20.253, and the Introduction, at nn. 23–24. The use of “the laws” here, rather than “our laws,” functions to explain both halves of their response. For an unsuccessful Jewish attempt to exploit the same ambiguity, cf. Acts 18:13–15. See the note on “baring their throats” at §59.

That is, in the autumn (indeed, late enough in it that people could be worrying about a drought—§285); so too War 2.200. This contradicts Philo’s report at Leg. 249, which places what seem to be the same negotiations at the time of the wheat-harvest, i.e. in the spring. The obvious solutions (one or the other is wrong, they refer to different events, they refer to a harvest in the fall or a sowing in the spring) have all been proposed; see Smallwood 1970: 281–283, D. R. Schwartz 1990a: 78–80, and Mason 2008: 166–167, n. 1258. I have translated ἀνάθεσιν τοῦ ἀνδριάντος literally, with regard to physical introduction, for presumably the Jewish protesters, here as at 19.300, did not care whether the setting up of the statue was accompanied by a dedication of any sort. Nevertheless, this term was regularly used of “dedications”; see the note on “votive offerings” at §19, also ThLJ 35, s.vv. ἀνάθεσις, ἀνάθημα; 43, s.v. ἀνατιθέναι.

He was a member of the Herodian “house” (see immediately below) by marriage; see §138 and Stern 1976: 613. For his continued prominence in the days of Agrippa i, see 19.353. The use of “the Elder” here, which is evidently meant to distinguish this Helcias from a son of the same name (see the note on “the Elder” at §142), is the main reason to assume, as does Kokkinos (1998: 200), that the Helcias mentioned in 20.194, evidently an appointee of Agrippa ii in his capacity of supervisor of the Temple (Ant. 20.16, 216–218) was his son. Another son of Helcias the Elder was Archelaus, mentioned at Apion 1.51 as prominent alongside Agrippa ii; indeed, for a while the two were brothers-in-law (19.355; 20.140, 147). As is indicated by §276, the “house” is Aristobulus’s, or, more generally, the Herodian house. At Leg. 300, with regard to a similar but earlier episode, in the days of Pilate, Philo reports a similar appeal by “the king’s [= Herod’s] four sons.” That report is, however, somewhat puzzling, for it is not easy to think who Philo was thinking of, apart from Antipas and Philip. For an attempt, see Smallwood 1970: 302–303.

As Richards and Shutt (1937: 176) note, γράφω + the accusative in the sense of “write about something’ is rare. Therefore, in view of §281, and adducing the Latin translation, which indicates a participle, they suspect that διασαφοῦντα has fallen out. This suggestion is discussed in Part vi of the Introduction. Probably the Jews’ spokesmen would prefer “resolutely,” but τὸ ἀνήκεστον, which is repeated at §278 in the description of Petronius’s letter, has a more negative valence; Thackeray (ThLJ 47–48) offers “incurable, fatal, relentless.” Although frequently ἀφίστημι refers to rebellion, here the Jews’ spokesmen would not present things that way, and the contrast with “sitting” in the continuation of the verse seems to indicate a contrast such as that denoted by “upped.” It is interesting that Josephus has Petronius proposing to explain the Jews’ refusal to fight as deriving merely from inability, rather than from a willing acceptance of Roman rule. This is a theme that characterized Josephus himself in War. See esp. Stern 1987: 74–77; he emphasizes that Josephus avoids, in anti-war speeches in War, the claim—found elsewhere, e.g., in Aeliuis Aristides’s “Roman Oration” and in Philo’s Leg. 143–158—that Roman rule was beneficial for its subjects. Rather, he focuses on the unavoidability of Roman rule, hence on the folly of opposing it. That line apparently corresponded to what Romans wanted to hear from someone reflecting the thoughts of a people that had recently rebelled against them, and here Josephus has Petronius ascribe the Judeans the same position. In the Antiquities, in contrast, as Stern notes (1987: 77, pointing especially to the numerous documents in the Antiquities that testify to Roman protection of Jewish rights), Josephus himself tends more to the position that Roman rule was good for the Jews. Cf. the conclusion of Schalit’s introduction to Antiquities: “Antiquities is the first composition after the destruction of the Second Temple that sees the future of the Jewish people in the West as a positive political program” (Schalit 1944: lxxxi). At times, especially when alongside νόμοι, νόμιμα can be used to denote norms of a lower and hence less-binding status; Philo (Hypothetica 7.6), for example, distinguishes among “unwritten practices, νόμιμα, and the νόμοι themselves.” So too, at Ant. 13.297 Josephus explains that since the νόμιμα observed by the Pharisees are not written among the Mosaic νόμοι, but rest only on ancestral tradition, the Sadducees hold them not to be binding. But in the present passage there is, obviously, no reason to emphasize the second-rate status of νόμιμα. Rather, the case is like that at 14.65, 67, where νόμιμα are synonymous with νόμοι and Jews are ready to die rather than violate them. Similarly, the Jews’ claim here is basically the same as at §59, but there νόμοι is used. Indeed, even at Ant. 13.297 Josephus says the Sadducean claim is that only written νόμιμα need be observed—a formulation that does not distinguish between them and νόμοι. For another case in which, for a different reason, no distinction is made, see the note on “customs” at 19.290. Concerning this threat, cf. the note on “practice” at §263, also Tacitus’s report (Hist. 5.9) that the Jews indeed took up arms against Gaius’s project, until his death made that superfluous. For the normal assumption that people who could not pay taxes would flee and became bandits, or would at least be so defined by the ruling power, see Safrai 1963, McGing 1998: 172 (“the step from tax flight to banditry was a small one”), and Kloppenborg 2009: 471–479. On Roman taxes in Judea in this period, see Lémonon 2007: 91–94 and Udoh 2020.

For this sense of ἀνάστασις, see 16.278, also ἀνάστατος at §§98, 368; ThLJ 42. Note that §301 uses the same term to refer to the “installation” of the statue, thus making clear the starkly polar options in the present episode. Although it is not clear whether this refers to Petronius or Gaius, the latter seems likelier, namely, that the Jews urged Petronius to refuse to carry out the orders and let Gaius fulfill them himself, if he wanted to persist. Cf. §278.

This is the only occurrence of ἀντιπαράταξις in Josephus. But the corresponding verb (ἀντιπαρατάσσω) appears often. For Josephus’s use of ἐλπίς, see ThLJ 249–250. Although usually it means “hope” (see esp. Spicq 1994: 1.480–492), often, as here, “expectation”—which can include the expectation of something unhoped for but nevertheless expected—is more appropriate. So, for example, Ant. 2.211 (destruction), 19.57 (suffering), 138 (destruction); see also 19.57, 138. For the fear of post-mortem suffering for crimes during one’s lifetime, see also §287. The text of this sentence is very uncertain; Niese (1890a: 190) indicates a lacuna after τὸ ἀνήκεστον αὐτῶν and others have emended. The main question is whether τὸ ἀνήκεστον (implacability) is the Jews’ (as in two manuscripts, which read αὐτῶν, as already at §274), or rather Gaius’s (emending to αὐτοῦ [so Feldman 1965: 162], as at §§265, 282, and 19.65). I have adopted the former option and, accordingly, added in “about.” In any case, the diction points up how impossible Petronius’s position was. Cf. the note on “taking care” at §280.

Apparently: Gaius. See the next note. As the Jewish spokesmen suggested (§275), but if there it was possible to understand that they contemplate Petronius persisting against them, here, apparently, he associates himself with the Judeans, as the next words show. Compare Philo’s claim, at more or less the same juncture in the story (Leg. 245), that Petronius had some interest in Jewish philosophy and piety. We know of no further data to support the claim, and in general it appears that Romans had next to no notion of Jewish literature (see the Introduction, at n. 37). Probably, therefore, Philo’s statement about Petronius is simply the way a philosopher chooses to compliment a good man; so too, at Leg. 310 Philo has Agrippa underline Augustus’s accomplishments as a philosopher. Same phrase: §20. The willingness to die for one’s values is a consistent theme in Antiquities, even as opposed to War; see esp. Gafni 2019: 22–24, who, referring to such passages as 12.267, 281–282, 304, 314–315 and 13.5–6, shows how, in his rewriting of 1 Maccabees, Josephus emphasizes the Hasmoneans’ willingness to die as opposed their willingness to fight. See also, inter alia, Ant. 14.66–68; 18.59; and Apion 2.218–219. This emphasis on martyrdom, especially when the choice is violation of Jewish law, which Antiquities shares with 2 Maccabees as opposed to 1 Maccabees, is part of their diasporic orientation; see D. R. Schwartz 2014: 16–17 (on martyrdom in 1 and 2 Maccabees) and 59–60 (on Ant. 14.63–67), also Tuval 2013: 171, n. 177, on Ant. 6.149 (Josephus’s addition to 1 Sam 15:17–23).

Reading προστάγμασι, as suggested by Thackeray (cited and followed by Feldman 1965: 164), rather than the manuscripts’ πράγμασιν. In the parallel account in War 2, πρόσταγμα is Josephus’s usual term for Gaius’s order to erect the statue (§§186, 202, 203). Αs Anthony Ellis notes, probably γνώμῃ is to be understood after τῇ ἐκείνου; note the contrast with Petronius’s own γνώμη, which is mentioned explicitly ealier in this paragraph.

Reading διακονουμένων (rather than διακνούμενον, as the mss.), with Hudson and Cocceji, cited by Niese (1890a: 190) and followed by Feldman 1965: 164. This use of this verb is striking here, as it is the same used numerous times of the expectation that Petronius would “carry out” Gaius’s order (§§262, 265, 269, 277 [bis]). Same move: §283. Cf. the note on “his orders” at §277. Refusal to “ignore” (περιορά) ὕβρις is common, e.g., at War 2.116 and Ant. 5.145; 7.120; and 18.360.

The last half of this sentence is somewhat opaque, and has invited emendations; my translation is no more than a guess. See Feldman’s apparatus and notes (1965: 164–165). Here Josephus has Petronius speak reassuringly to the Jews, using their nomenclature; cf. §288, where Josephus has Petronius instead use “the deity” when writing to Gaius. For such usage of μηχανή, cf. the note on “means” at §51. For such usage of πρυτανεύω, see also §198. For παρὰ γνώμην as “against the wishes,” see for example 13.102; 14.245, 435; Life 67. Usually the person whose wishes are flouted is named, hence my parenthetical expansion. Perhaps Petronius hints that he himself is also among those who desire that God continue to receive his customary honors.

This is the only occurrence of τλάω in Josephus.

For this being the way a ruler formulates his expectation that a restive or rebellious population give it up and return to its routine way of life, compare, for some examples, 2 Macc 12:1 (with 11:23, 26, 29 on “tending to their own affairs”), War 4.84; Ant. 16.271; 17.193; and the amnesty for those who are “living quietly and attending to their own farming” in a 154 CE edict of a Roman governor of Egypt: Wilcken 1912: 33 (no. 19, col. 2, lines 13–15), in English in Johnson, Coleman-Norton, and Bourne 1961: 214. See the note on “taking care” at §280.

For such use of προμηθέομαι, cf. §§286, 360 and 19.153. Reading παρρησίαν with the manuscripts and Niese (1890a: 191). Thackeray 1919: 86, n. 2, who limits παρρησία to “frankness,” which does not fit here, prefers instead to read παρουσίαν, “presence” with the Epitome (Niese 1887–1896: 321) and the Latin (“praesentiam”). However, for a broader sense of παρρησία see 15.198 and 16.293, where, respectively, van Henten (2014: 132) and Marcus and Wikgren (1963: 327) rendered “freedom of action.” Feldman (1965: 167) renders καὶ τὴν ἐπὶ τοῖς ὅλοις σύλληψιν “and would lend His aid in all matters.” However, although συλλαμβάνω (middle) can mean “to aid,” in all other cases Josephus uses the noun σύλληψις for “capture,” just as Philo regularly uses it for “arrest” (Flacc. 108, 116, 119, 145). Given that, and the fact that the immediate continuation, which justifies this statement (§285—γάρ), shows God’s control of all, not his aid for Petronius, I have preferred to translate σύλληψις in a way close to Josephus’s usual usage.

As in the case of the similar miracle reported at Herodotus 1.87.

See lsj 556, s.v. ἐναργής: “esp. of the gods appearing in their own forms.” For God’s control of rain and his use of it to communicate his pleasure or the opposite, as already in the Bible (Lev 26: 4, 19; Deut 11:14, 17; 1 Sam 12:17–18; 1 Kings 18), compare Ant. 14.22, 390–391, and 15.425; of the last three, the first and third have rabbinic parallels (m. Ta‘anit 3:8 and b. Ta‘anit 23a), discussed in Ilan and Noam 2017: 1.318–340, 411–416. The motif is not at all limited to Jews; see, for example, Herodotus 1.87, Diodorus Siculus 17.49.3–4, and Cassius Dio 72(71).8 (in the days of Croesus, Alexander the Great, and Marcus Aurelius, respectively). For a long list of Greek and Roman instances, see Kovács 2009: 145–147.

For the translation of θρησκεία (and so θρησκεύω) in this general sense (not just “cult”), see Spicq 1994: 2.200–204 and D. R. Schwartz 2014: 91–102. See also, however, the notes on “practices” at §141 and on “religions” at 19.270. The text is evidently corrupt; see Feldman’s (1965: 168) critical apparatus and Richards and Shutt 1939: 182. For a similar notion of future retribution, see §277.

Note that above, at §§284–286, Josephus, in his own Jewish voice as narrator, states that it was God (ὁ θεός) who had demonstrated his providential care for the Jews. Now, in reporting a Roman governor’s letter to the emperor, Josephus artfully has him use the less personal τὸ θεῖον. For Josephus’s use of the latter, which as a reference to God is usually translated as “the deity” rather than “God,” see the note on “deity” at §5. Statements like this, which wrap up a stage of the story (καὶnnἐν τούτοις ἦν) and thus prepare us, often (as here) with the aid of μέν … δέ, to a switch of view to another setting but with the implied promise to return to the first one, are quite common in Josephus. See, for example, 7.232; 8.354, 393; 13.267, 283;18.379/19.1; 19.263; 20.68, 99. Cf. the note on “To return to Agrippa” at §195.

Josephus frequently alludes to Agrippa’s success in making friends in high places—§§145, 151, 167–168 (just as, in general, he likes the theme of “cultivating” such people; see the note on “considerably” at §36). His friendship with Gaius is also mentioned by Cassius Dio 59.24.1, who reports that the Romans viewed Agrippa, and Antiochus of Commagene as two “tyrant trainers.” The coming story of Agrippa’s dinner for Gaius, the latter’s offer of any gift Agrippa might choose to request, Agrippa’s first refusal and finally his request that a decree against the Jews be abrogated, is meant to recall chs. 5–7 of the biblical story of Esther. That story too, as that of Joseph (on which see the note on “have in common” at §201), was a paradigmatic example, for Jews (who read the Book of Esther every year, on Purim), of how Jews could succeed in the Diaspora. Cf. Meinhold 1976, Wills 1990, and Hacham 2007. One may wonder how many of Josephus’s non-Jewish readers would notice the allusion, which would require them to recall it from Josephus’s version of the story at 11.240–243, 260–268.

The text of this last clause is in doubt; Niese (1890b: 186) inserts an obelisk (indicating a “crux”) before ἢ Καίσαρος ἐκφροντίσας and, as Niese (1890a: 193, first note) and Feldman (1965: 168, nn. 6–7) detail, witnesses differ concerning both ἐκφροντίσας and Καίσαρ. I have translated according to Hudson’s emendation, Καίσαρι, which they cite. ἐκφροντίζω appears in Josephus only here and 19.171; cf. the note on “agreement” at §203.

The same point, that he used money ὑπὲρ δύναμιν, is repeated by Gaius at §292. It, and Agrippa’s chronic impecuniousness, is a frequent theme in Josephus’s account of Agrippa’s early life; see §§144–147, 150, 154–160, 164–165. I.e., to give a toast, as, for example, at Flacc. 113. On such ancient toasting, often with each participant of the symposium having a turn, see Cairns 2012: 264 (in connection with Horace, Odes 1.27); especially with regard to a guest’s desire to praise a generous host, see Korzeniewski 1974. More generally, on drinking at Roman banquets (often alluded to as “comissatio”—reveling), see M. B. Roller 2017: 181–188.

On the translation of εὔνοια, see the note on “loyalty to Gaius” at §124. The reference is to Agrippa’s imprisonment after he was overheard expressing the hope that Tiberius soon die and be succeeded by Gaius; see above, §§186–189.

For ῥοπὴν … τοῦ εὐδαίμονος, cf. the note on “measures of goodness” at §266. Τhat is, Josephus has Gaius assuming that Agrippa would want to enlarge his income from land, either by enlarging his own kingdom or by giving him the income from other cities. For the first option, as Feldman (1965: 170), I have adopted the Epitome’s reading: τῆς προσόρου (Niese 1887–1896: 322). In his editio maior, Niese (1890a: 193) retains the manuscripts’ τῆς προσόδου but comments that the Epitome’s reading is possibly or probably correct (“fort. recte”), just as he inserts an obelisk here in his editio minor (1890b: 186). Schalit (1963: 308) retains Niese’s text and renders “land of great income,” but that is difficult, as is also the repetition of “income” later in the sentence: if both options mentioned “income,” we would expect a formulation that includes the two options under that general heading. Cf. §300, where the two options mentioned here are formulated as the enlargement of his realm by enlarging either his monetary revenues or his other power; that bolsters the notion that only one of the two options was formulated as greater income, while the other was a gift in kind (such as the enlargement of his kingdom). For the practice of bestowing the income of a city or a territory upon a recipient of royal favor, see, for example, Ant. 12.154; 19.276; 20.138; 1 Macc 10:39, 89; 2 Macc 4:30; von Gutschmid 1885: 85.

For such building up of the tension, cf. 11.242–243//Esther 5:6–8. Josephus refers here, literally, to Tiberius’s letters (τὰς Τιβερίου ἐπιστολάς), but §§166 and 185, where the request is mentioned, make no reference to anything in writing. So we have to choose here among three possibilities: either we should infer that Tiberius wrote Agrippa; or we should read ἐντολάς, with several witnesses; or we should infer that Josephus used ἐπιστολαί for “orders” even if not written. Cf. the note on “orders” at §262. Jοsephus uses λήψις only here and at §194.

This is the only occurrence of ἐνδιαπρέπω in Josephus.

Lit. “doing.” Cf. πράττειν διενοεὶτο at 17.4 and διανοοῖτο πράσσειν in Life 72. If at §8 and at 20.49 Josephus, as a Jewish author and reflecting Helena’s attitude as a Jewish pilgrim, refers to the Temple as the “Temple of God,” here he uses language that Gaius would have used.

For such use of κύβον ἀναρριπτεῖν, cf. Plutarch’s Life of Caesar 32.6, whose Greek version of Caesar’s famous “alea iacta est” at the crossing of the Rubicon was ἀνερρίφθω κύβος; as Plutarch comments, it was an image “with which men usually prelude their plunge into desperate and daring fortunes” (trans. Perrin, lcl). Presumably the only other appearance of ἀναρριπτέω in Josephus, at War 4.217, points to the same image. Dice games were very popular in Rome (and Claudius even wrote a treatise about them, according to Suetonius, Claud. 33); see Purcell 1995 and D. G. Schwartz 2006: 25–28.

Other participants in this dinner. See the note on “insist” at 19.229.

In his editio maior, Niese (1890a: 194) read only ἐν ὀλίγῳ, but it appears that a verb, such as τίθημι (as at §23) or ποιέω (as at §367), is missing; accordingly, in his editio minor (1890b: 167) he noted a lacuna here. See the list of suggestions in Feldman 1965: 172–173, n. 6. On the first formulation of these options, see the note on “bordering” at §293. Since §302 states that when Gaius wrote this letter he had not yet read Petronius’s letter that implored him to back down (§§287–288), it must be that Gaius’s praise mentioned here pertains to another, earlier, letter by Petronius—namely, the one mentioned at §262. Indeed, according to §262 that letter pertained to the army and its preparations, which fits the present reference. True, according to §262 Gaius answered that letter immediately. But that would not prevent the emperor from again referring to that letter when now writing Petronius to cancel his original order. For another reference to that letter, see Philo, Leg. 333. Philo, however, prefers to portray Gaius as being insincere, rather than to have him change his mind upon receipt of Petronius’s next letter.

I.e., his new letter cited in §§287–288. Niese marks a lacuna after ἐντύχεῖν, here, one that should be filled by something like what the Epitome (Niese 1887–1896: 322) supplies: ταῖς αὐτοῦ ἐπιστολαῖς. Τhis verb, καταδοκέω (or, as Thackeray conjectures, καταδοξάζω), appears only here in Josephus. Both Whiston (1878: 490) and Schalit (1963: 309) take the text to mean that Petronius’s letter informed Gaius that the Jews were hurrying into rebellion, but it seems that, in context, Josephus must mean that was a false inference, something like διαλαμβάνω in 2 Macc 5:11. For this sense of ἄντικρυς, see the note on “outright” at §4.

For ἐπὶ πᾶσιν, cf. 17.147. For παρ’ ὁντινοῦν compare 19.65, 208.

For suicide so as to avoid judgment, see van Hooff 1990: esp. 111–114.

Philo does not report this second letter, but he too reports that Gaius changed his mind. According to Philo (Leg. 338), Gaius decided to have a new statue made and be brought secretly and suddenly to Jerusalem during a trip he was planning to make to the East; on the plan for such a trip, see the note on “Egypt” at 19.81. What both stories have in common, as Bilde (1978: 86–89) emphasizes, is the knowledge that Agrippa’s intervention, one way or the other, brought Gaius to back down, along with the claim that he changed his mind again—so it was only the murder of Gaius that put an end to his project. As Bilde concludes, we may believe the part about Agrippa’s success, but have doubts about Gaius again changing his mind. The latter may well be only the way tradition, although not forgetting what really happened (Agrippa’s successful intervention), managed to maintain its schematic assessment of Gaius as having been so wicked that only the assassination could put an end to his plans. Moreover, for pious storytellers that put God back into the picture; the story would have been far less wondrous had Gaius himself backed down. Cf. War 4.75–76 and 7.317–319: at both Gamala and Masada the besieged Judeans were defeated not because of overwhelming Roman power, but rather because, at a critical point, a supernatural power changed the direction of the wind. For other cases in which Gaius’s death is said to have saved someone’s life just in the nick of time, see 19.10 and Cassius Dio 59.29.4. Readers so inclined can read such cases in line with Josephus’s explanation, which follows immediately.

For these two objects of Petronius’s attention, see above §280. But note esp. that a few lines later, at §309, Josephus rephrases the two as the Temple and the Jews. For such a close identification of the Temple with God, see also 20.108, 166. This verb, χρεολυτέω, appears in Josephus only here and at Ant. 7.387. Niese (1890a: 196) marks a lacuna after this infinitive; my bracketed addition is an attempt to fill out the sense and flow. Reading συνευεργετεῖται, as suggested by Niese ad loc. (1890b: 196). This is the only reference for συνευεργετέω cited in lsj 1713, s.v., but nevertheless it approves it as probable. lsj translates “join in doing good to.” However, it seems likelier that the sense is “joined in proclaiming/considering him a benefactor” (εὐεργέτης); cf. the use of εὐργετέω of a person in the sense “proclaim as εὐεργέτης” in a first-century inscription from Patara (Hicks 1889: 76–77, cited in lsj 712, s.v.). But there seems to be no literary or epigraphic evidence to bear out Josephus’s statement here. In general, cf. the note on “benefit” at §95. As Josephus will emphasize at 19.2; see the note there on “the Senate.”

I.e, in Book 19. For such use of λόγος, cf. §80; 3.218; Life 40; Acts 1:1. See the note on “circumstances” at §39.

As often, this closing reference to divine providence indicates the point of the story. Cf. the note on “of man” at 19.61. For virtually the same phrase, οὐδὲν/μηδὲν εἰς ἀναβολὰς ἀλλ’ ἐκ τοῦ ὀξέος, see the note on “without delay” at §107. On ναός, see the note on “God” at §261. This is the only occurrence of τοπάζω in Josephus. For similar comments, as here summarizing narratives, see 19.334 and Life 394.

That is: just like the Jews of Judea. Josephus likes to coordinate chapters of his work with the help of such small words. Cf. the note on “also” at §39. Moreover, note that although these two Babylonian stories have nothing to do with Gaius, their very presence here, in the midst of Josephus’s Gaius narrative, reinforces the impression that Gaius’s days were terrible for the Jews; so too at 19.1. That was not an unwelcome outcome for Josephus. For a similar procedure concerning Pilate, cf. the note on “for the Jews” at §65. Cf. also the note on “others” at 19.193: when Josephus hates someone, insinuation, for which no responsibility need be taken, is an easy option. On their history in this period, see Neusner 1984 and Herman 2012. For such hyperbole, cf. the note on “recorded” at 19.1. Here it refers to the closing episode of the coming narrative—the massacre in Seleucia (§376). See the note on “circumstances” at §39. On the following two stories (§§310–370 on Asineus and Anileus; §§371–379 on the Jews of Seleucia), see Schalit 1965; N. G. Cohen 1975/76; Neusner 1984: 53–61; Goodblatt 1987a; Shaw 1993: 179–184; Lembi 2001; Rajak 2001: 280–286; Herman 2006. The second story, culminating in the massacre in Seleucia, is dated fairly firmly to ca. 41 (see the note on “no troubles there” at §373), which is why these stories appear here, following the death of Gaius in 41. For the same procedure regarding the preceding narrative on Parthian affairs, see the opening note at 18.2.4 (§39). However, note that although the story of Asineus and Anileus is placed here as if it preceded that of the massacre in Seleucia, the latter flowing from the former, Goodblatt (1987a: 616–622) argued that, in fact, their historical order is the opposite, for the anarchic conditions in Parthia, which the former reflects, more likely reflect the period after 41 than that before it. Goodblatt argues that the two stories are originally of different origins, and it was Josephus who juxtaposed them—a presumption that can also build on some other differences between the two stories, especially two, noted by Goodblatt 1987a: 620–621 and Herman 2006: 267–268: (a) the story of Asineus and Anileus has novelistic features and also biblical allusions, while the one about Seleucia does not, and (b) the first story terms Parthian non-Jews “Parthians” (thirteen times between §313 and §362) or “Babylonians” (at §§318, 339, 368, 369, 370, 371 [bis], and the seam at §372), the second—“Syrians” (§§372, 374, 375, 378). Indeed, in the second story there is no reference to “Parthians” and only one (§378) to “Babylonians,” while in the first story there is only one reference to a “Syrian,” at §355—and note that he is, in fact, friendly to the Jews (giving them information to use against the Babylonians), as opposed to the “Syrians” of the second story. See also the note on “Babylonians” at §371, which is the clumsy beginning of the seam between the second stories.

Chora (χώρα)— the land surrounding a city and belonging to it. On Nehardea, on the east bank of the Euphrates some forty km. west of Baghdad, which was a major Jewish center until the mid-third century, see Oppenheimer 1983: 276–293.

Given the details here about its location, this Nisibis is to be distinguished from the famous city of the same name hundreds of miles to the north. According to Oppenheimer (1983: 333–334), “there are no other sources having clear reference to the Nisibis near Nehardə’a, though some of the talmudic ones could apply to that place.” See also Oppenheimer 2005: 356–373. Lit. “in it” (ταύτῃ), but the end of this sentence makes it clear that both cities were used. I.e., two-drachma coin, the equivalent of a half a shekel (Exod 30:13) on the Tyrian standard (see War 2.592), which was the standard currency used in the Temple; see Mason 2008: 397, n. 3551; hjp 2.66–67, n. 210. On this tax, see esp. Mandell 1984. For other evidence concerning Jews from Babylonia making the pilgrimage to Jerusalem, see Ant. 17.26, Philo, Leg. 216, Acts 2:9, m. Yoma 6:4.

For this translation of καιρός see also §247 and 17.51; for similar usage, see §321. “Many myriads” is a favorite phrase; cf. the note on “myriads” at §60. Nevertheless, see the note on “twenty thousand” at 20.112. For the fear of brigands who might attack Babylonian Jewish pilgrims to Jerusalem, see esp. Ant. 17.23–28, where we read of Babylonian Jewish cavlarymen settled by Herod in the vicinity of Trachonitis in order to protect them. On brigands in that same general region, see also 16.271–281 and ogis 424.

The latter name may well have been recognizable as a Jewish name; for the evidence, see Ilan 2002: 384. Beginning at §319, however, it will become apparent that they are Jews. Here that is taken for granted, as is suggested by the focus on Jews beginning in §312, as well, perhaps, by the name of at least one of the two brothers (see the preceding note). For Josephus’s use of τὸ γένος, when introducing a character, to indicate place of birth, see, for example, 13.131 and 20.142, 252, also Gruen 2020: 167–172. Elsewhere it refers, instead, to familial or ethnic descent; see the note on “by birth” at 19.332. Josephus otiosely defines them as “brothers of each other,” perhaps to create some balance alongside the preceding clause: καὶ ἦσαν γὰρ Ἀσιναῖος καὶ Ἀνιλαῖος—Νεερδᾶται μὲν τὸ γένος, ἀλλήλων δὲ ἀδελφοί. Lit. “the manufacture of looms” (ἱστῶν), but the end of the sentence indicates that it is not such carpentry but, rather, working with looms, i.e. weaving, that is meant. Naber (1893: xxiv, 94) would solve the problem by reading ἱστίων (“of sails”), which is somewhat supported by the Latin: “ut nauium operarentur uelamina” (Niese 1890a: 197). But it is not likely that sails were made of wool or that readers would think they were. See Feldman 1965: 131–135, n. d. This is the only occurrence of ταλασιουργέω in Josephus. Josephus’s point here is somewhat ambiguous; on the one hand he explains how it could be that the boys’ mother could apprentice them to a weaver, but on the other hand, §338 will show that is this is to be understood as a lowly beginning. Herman (2006: 251) shows that, indeed, weaving was considered very unmanly in Parthia—and therefore suspects that the statement here is a misunderstanding on the part of the tradent. Perhaps, however, it is sarcastic. In any case, the statement that in Parthia it is thought to be respectable for men to weave would be well-received by Roman readers who would be happy to learn how unmanly the Parthians were. For a very comparable passage, Mason points to Herodotus 2.35, where, with the same effect, a list of what are meant to be read as shocking role-reversals between Egyptian men and women includes men sitting at home and weaving; according to Lloyd (1976: 148), extant representations of weaving in Greece depict only women weavers. Probably we should assume that at War 7.438, where Josephus reports that a certain villain who informed against him was a weaver, that datum serves as part of Josephus’s condemnation of the man. Cf. Vegetius 1.7 (Stelten 1990: 18–19: linen-weavers and all those who seem to have womanly professions [linteontes omnesque, qui aliquid tractasse videbuntur ad gynaeces pertinens] should not be inducted into military service) and John Chrysostomus’s complaint (Homily 34 on 1 Corinthians, §7; Chrysostomus 1839: 480) about men who weave: “For it is God Himself who gave to woman-kind skill in woven work. Woe be it … for men’s general effeminacy hath gone so far as to introduce our men to the looms. …” The point of the last clause is not clear. Perhaps Josephus means that one could have expected the master-weaver would be nicer to them, given the length of their relationship, and that is why they took the punishment to be outrageous, as he reports in the next sentence.

This is the only occurrence of διάρρηξις in Josephus. This is the only occurrence of χιλός in Josephus. As already at §37, being poor implies moral depravity. And being young made them all the worse; see the note on “our youths” at §10. Cf. the note on “inexperienced” at §367. This is the only occurrence of φράγνυμι in Josephus.

Note that the same verb, ἐλαύνω, is used in the next paragraph of the satrap’s forces, and in that case §320 makes it clear that they came on horseback.

This follows Niese’s text (1890a: 198), which adopts von Gutschmid’s conjecture, ἔτι φυομένους; for this metaphor, cf. Life 193, also below, §324, and the note on “growing up” at §141. For the same idea, cf. §118.

By ἕλος, Josephus is probably referring to what is known in Aramaic as ’agma’; see Sokoloff 2002: 79, s.v. I have translated παντὸς χρήματος literally; ccfj 4.366 gives “matter, object, thing” as the main translation for χρῆμα in the singular, about the same as lsj 2005, §ii (“thing, matter, affair”). However, it may be that the Greek text reflects some misunderstanding, for Josephus and his readers know that Jews do not abstain from everything on the sabbath; it is, specifically, certain actions, defined as labor, from which they abstain. As H. Weiss (1998: 365) observed, “Josephus does not tire from reminding his readers that on the seventh day Jews ‘abstain from labor’ and ‘rest from all work’”; nowhere is Josephus so vague as to refer to abstinence from “everything” or “all things” or the like. Moreover, “rest” (ἀργία) would not apply to abstaining from most “things.” The closest Josephus comes to such vagueness comes, it appears, at War 2.396, and even there it is “actions” from which Jews are said to abstain. Usually, ἔργον (“work”) is specified (1.35; 3.91, 281; 12.274), and elsewhere Josephus speaks either of the general requirement of “rest” (12.4; 18.354; War 2.456) or of specific prohibitions (engaging in warfare or marching—12.274–277; 13.252; 14.63, 226; War 2.392; appearance in court —16.163, 168). Moreover, many readers would presumably know the same from what they see of Jewish life, if not from literature; on the Jewish sabbath in Roman literature, see Michael 1924; Goldenberg 1979; and Stern, glajj 2.102–103, 106–107. Accordingly, ccfj (ibid.) suggests “undertaking” for this passage, as also for 19.67, 75. But that is quite a stretch from the usual meanings of the term, and it is possible to render with “matter” at 19.67, 75, as I shall. Elsewhere, Josephus uses χρῆμα in in the singular only a few times: five times where “thing” or the like is appropriate (11.56; 13.211; 15.336; 19.67, 75) and one or perhaps two that refer to money (18.158 and, perhaps, 4.285, given the latter’s dependence on Exod 22:7, which opens with a reference to money). The latter meaning, which is also found at Acts 4:47, is related to the overwhelming usage of χρῆμα, which is in the plural and relates to money; note that Danker (2000: 1089, s.v) offers only such meanings: “wealth in gener[al], property, wealth, means, any kind of currency, money.” This is found hundreds of times in Joephus’s oeuvre; see, for example, §§225, 252, 253, 291, 300. 313. But “money” does not fit the present text any better than “matter, object, thing.” Given the fact that the usual translations of χρῆμα (“thing,” “money”) do not work here, and given the possibility that the story derives from an eastern Jewish source, and especially given the juxtaposition here with “all” (ἀπὸ παντὸς χρήματος), one may wonder if the Greek text here is not a mistranslation of an original Hebrew text, which used the standard Hebrew collocation that denotes what is to be abstained from on the Sabbath: kol melakhah (“all labor,” as in Exod 12:16; 20:1//Deut 5:14; Lev 23:30). Since melakhah, apart from “work,” also has the sense of “property” (as in Exod 22:8, 11 [rsv: “goods,” “property”]; 2 Chr 17:13 [rsv: “great stores”]), that could explain the mistranslation here. Even if the text was originally in Aramaic (see the note on “dead man” at §343), one might expect Jews to retain that Hebrew term. But if they used an Aramaic equivalent, the situation would be the same, for the likely term, ‘avida, has both senses. See Sokoloff 1992: 393 (“work, service, profession, trade, merchandise, needs [?]”). My thanks to Robert Brody for help with this note. So (“little by little”) lsj 329, s.v. βραχύς, §2, citing the same phrase in Thucydides 1.64. While it is perhaps remarkable that the satrap assumed that Jewish outlaws would be scrupulous about observing the Sabbath, it is not surprising that he thought scrupulous Jews would abstain even from defending themselves when attacked. For although the Hasmoneans had adopted a policy that allowed fighting in self-defense on the Sabbath (1 Macc 2:29–41//Ant. 12.275–277), gentiles might not have heard of that, and they may well have heard stories about Jews refusing to defend themselves on the Sabbath, whether totally (see Ant. 12.3–6 //Apion 1.209–211) or partially (Ant. 14.63). In general, see Goodman and Holladay 1986: 167–171.

This is the only occurrence of χρεμετισμός in Josephus. This is the only occurrence of ἀνάκρουσις in Josephus.

Cf. the note on “opportunity” at §313. This is the only occurrence of εἰκαστής in Josephus.

Reading ἀλκῇ with the Epitome (Niese 1887–1896: 323), followed by Niese 1890b: 171 and Feldman 1965: 186. The manuscripts, followed by Niese 1890a: 199, have ἀλκῆς, which is difficult to construe. On ἀλκή, see the note on “prowess” at §127. I.e., for valor similar to his own.

As stated, using something of the same image, at §318.

Apparently the reference is to Artabanus ii; see the note on “Arsacid line” at §48. A ruler’s ability and willingness to be large enough to ignore offense is, for Josephus, a standard example of “magnanimity” (μεγαλοφροσύνη); see 2.141; 12.122, 128. Cf. the note on “high spirit” at §255. On this binding gesture, see the note on “for visitors” at §328. The present case is recalled at §334. Perhaps τιμή means “an office,” as often; see the note on “some office” at §17.

As he promised in his letter (§326). For the evidence for this, see Herman 2006: 252. However, although the gesture is frequently mentioned in an eastern context (e.g. 8.387; 20.62; Tacitus, Ann. 11.9; Mason 2022b: 13–14, n. 16), Josephus takes it for granted in the Greco-Roman world as well; see, for example, War 2.451; 6.356, 378, 433; 7.102. It may be, therefore, that here he means that the gesture was respected even among the barbarians—a comment that betrays an outsider’s point of view, be it Josephus’s or that of his source. Cf. Shaw 1993: 192.

In the Greek there is, here, quite anomalously, no article; contrast, for example, at §§317, 325, 344, 377. But so too at §359, and often enough elsewhere in Josephus (even where it could not be rendered by an indirect article, as at 6.67 and, perhaps, below at §360) to appear not to be mere scribal carelessness; so, for example, 2.101, 167; 10.6; 17.20, 36. Perhaps, as Anthony Ellis suggests, it is a remnant of classical usage esp. with regard to the kings of Persia; see lsj 309, s.v., §iii.1. Cooper (1998: 389–390, §50.2.18) offers much evidence for such Attic usage and explains that it amounts to treating βασιλεύς as a proper name. My thanks to Deborah L. Gera for her help with this note. The image is one of putting a bit (ἐνστόμισμα) into the mouth of a horse in order to control it—another word from the equine world. For the familiarity with horses implied by the present story (§§15, 320, 322, 354), pointing to its Iranian background, see Herman 2006: 52. Although the manuscripts here read ἐνστομισμάτων, both the plural and the genitive are strange, and have occasioned emendations here, as has the appearance of the better-testified ἐπιστόμισμα, in the same sense, at §371 and 19.228. For such usage, from the literal “shut someone’s mouth, muzzle, gag” (as in Titus 1:11) to “curb, restrain” (Philo, Allegorical Interpretation 3.155), as here, see Spicq 1994: 2.61–62.

In the far-flung regions ruled by the rebellious satraps.

“Receive with pleasure” is a favorite collocation of Josephus; see the note on “pleasure” at §63. For Josephus’s admiration of soldiers for their courage, note especially 12.307, where he goes so far as to replace his source’s (1 Macc 4:10) claim, that God will support Judas’s forces because of his mercy and covenantal obligation, by his own claim that God will do so because he admires their εὐψυχία. Specifically for bravery in the face of death, see the note on “bravely” at 19.200. In general, see Spicq 1994: 2.155–156 and Feldman 1998a: 308–309.

This is the only occurrence of ἄποινα in Josephus. As is reported at §§325–326.

I.e., in secret. Josephus portrays Artabanus as quite wily: first he misleads Abdagases into thinking that he would be able to overcome Asineus, then he helps Asineus escape the danger.

This is the only occurrence of τηνίκα in Josephus. See the note on “wool” at §314. Contrast Josephus’s comments about Agrippa, who too underwent a major jump in his status. But that was due to his good fortune (§197) or—as the biblical Joseph—divine providence (§§127–130; see the note on “in common” at §201), while for these Babylonian gangsters it was due only to their “boldness” or “strength” (§347). That explains their downfall, which begins in a few lines.

This seems to mean that the honors he received from Parthia, to which Babylonia was subject (§§313, 337), mimimized the relative significance of the honor he received from the latter. Thackeray (ThLJ 13, s.v. αἴρειν) comments that the text here is doubtful; so is the sense. This reading in the plural, αὐτῶν, supported by a few witnesses and followed by Niese 1890a: 202 and Feldman 1965: 192, fits the opening of the next paragraph and also §347. Other witnesses, followed by Schalit (1963: 313), maintain here the singular in use in the preceding lines. As Goodblatt argues (1987: 616–622), followed by Herman (2006: 262–264), these were the years “from the disintegration of the rule of Artabanus in 36/7 till the consolidation of power by Vologases in 51/2.” For the heading, cf. §238.

This is a variety of a usual Josephan motif. See the note on “was jealous” at §240.

The need to identify him here reflects the fact that since §332, where Anileus was last mentioned, the story has concentrated on Asineus; cf. the note on “their” at §339. For use of σύνοδος in a sexual context, see also 17.51—there together with συμπράσσω, just as here together with ἐκπράσσω. This is the only occurrence of δυσαντίλεκτος in Josephus. For the idea that passion for a woman can be irresistible, cf. the note on “passion” at §350.

For Josephus’s use of χειροτονέω (lit. “stretching out hands,” i.e. voting), cf. the note on “elect” at §22. Neither text nor meaning is secure here. Niese (1890a: 202), following Ambrosianus, read ἐπ’ αὐτῆς, perhaps meaning “on her account,” but it is difficult to square that with the genitive, and Schalit’s (1963: 313) translation of Niese’s text, “together with her,” suggests the gang wanted to kill the woman too, but it is plain that they did not. The above translation is, faute de mieux, a guess at the meaning of the reading according to three other witnesses: ἐπ’ αὐτοῖς. Here Ambrosianus, followed by Niese (1890a: 202; 1890b: 174), reads κτείνων κιτιῶν, but other witnesses offer κτιλίων [or κτιλλίων] κιτίων or only some version of the second word, which remains obscure. This suggests that κτείνων, which clearly refers to killing, was born as a gloss for the obscure word that now follows it. Schalit (1965: 165–171; 1968: 75), followed by Feldman (1965: 533), suggests that κιτιῶν began as κτιλλίων or the like (found, as noted above, in two witnesses), which was a transliteration of the Aramaic qetila. That is, Schalit argues, Josephus’s source reflects the phrase (gavra) qetila (“a killed [man]”), which is used in the Babylonian Talmud (including Pesaḥ. 110b and Sanh. 71b, 81a, 85a) to denote a person who, although alive, is considered dead, whether because of a terminal medical condition or a death sentence. As such, he who kills such a person is not considered a murderer. That is, the brothers proclaimed the Parthian to be one who could be killed with impunity. For other putative evidence of an Aramaic source for the present story, see N. G. Cohen 1975/76. None of these suggestions is watertight (and see the reservations of Goodblatt 1987a: 619 and Lembi 2001: 67–68), but they are suggestive. For another such suggestion, cf. the note on “labor” at §319. For such use of πίπτω of death in battle, see also §§98, 366–367; 20.176. If, as has been suggested (Goodblatt 1987a: 620), this was thought to have been justified by the law of Deuteronomy 21:10–14//Ant. 4.257–259, the author sees no need to point that out; what is important is that conquest and unification come together, as stipulated in the preceding paragraph. This is an item in the case that this story began as a novella and the edifying comments at §§340 and 347 were added (by Josephus? or some predecessor?) only later.

This meaning of περιστέλλω, suggested for our passage by ccfj 3.401, as also the bracketed reference to worship, seems to be warranted by the continuation of this paragraph. Usually the verb refers to wrapping something in order to protect or preserve it; cf. lsj 1388, s.v., and, for example, 19.237. This is the only occurrence of ἀφίδρυμα in Josephus. Cohen (1999: 170, n. 93) commented that a wife’s insistence on worshipping gods other than her husband’s constitutes an “egregious exception” to the ancient norm formulated in Plutarch’s Advice to Bride and Groom 19 (Moralia 140D), and also illustrates the assumption that if she did do so, it would be in secret: “It is becoming for a wife to worship and to know only the gods that her husband believes in, and to shut the front door tight upon all queer rituals and outlandish superstitions. For with no god do stealthy and secret rites performed by a woman find any favour” (trans. Babbitt, lcl). It is not clear, however, how widely that expectation was recognized and observed. In this case, moreover, since Anileus’s wife had been taken captive, it was understandable that she might conclude that it need not bind her. For Josephus’s insistence on the significance of this change of status, cf. §40, also the note on “living together” at §148.

Niese (1890a: 208) marks a lacuna here, but it appears to be obvious that something like this is needed (and it is indeed supplied by the Epitome: ἔλεγον Ἀνιλαίῳ ὡς [Niese 1887–1896: 325]). Note that Josephus has them phrase the problem not merely as one of intermarriage, but rather as a matter of the violations of the Jewish religion it would inevitably entail. So too in Josephus’s main discussion of intermarriage: his version of Numbers 25 in Ant. 4; see esp. the Midianite women’s speech at §§134–138 and its immediate results at §§139–140. On that episode, see van Unnik 1974.

Similar phrase: 17.252. A frequent motif: see 19.319–325 and 20.162. No one likes criticism. Reading, with Niese, θεώμενος, which is normally plain “looking, watching.” Perhaps for this reason, L. A. Post (cited by Feldman [1965: 196] in his apparatus ad loc.) suggested reading ἀποθεώμενος, which would yield something like “looking away (from his own fate) to … ”, similar to the description of another martyr at 2 Macc 7:11 (where ὑπεροράω is used in the same sense). However, the emendation does not seem to be warranted, for two reasons: (a) in the only other place in Josephus in which ἀποθεάομαι might appear, War 2.310, the sense must be just the opposite: “look attentively at” (so both ThLJ 68, s.v. ἀποθεᾶσθαι and lsj 198, s.v. ἀποθεάομαι); and (b) there is no security that the verb indeed appears at War 2.310, where it is indeed offered by two manuscripts but rejected by Niese and even by Thackeray himself (jlcl 2.442), and lsj 198 offers no evidence at all for the verb, apart from War 2.310.

On γοῦν, see the note on “at least” at §243. For this image, apparently implied by the verb here (ἀνακειμένην), see also §9. Cf. the note on “wench” at §40.

As Lembi (2001: 55) notes, this motif, that passion for a woman can excuse a man’s crimes, already appeared at §80. This too suggests that, whatever the source, Josephus was at work as an editor. Cf. War 1.359 and Ant. 15.88, 93, on Antonius having been “enslaved” by his passion for Cleopatra (as men might be subjugated by a female slave [4.244] and Herod was by Mariamme [15.219]); as is noted by van Henten (2014: 60, n. 502), this view, which tends to excuse Antonius for his misdeeds, was “more or less the official one at Rome after Octavian’s victory at Actium.”

Lit. “murmuring,” “grumbling.” This is the only occurrence of θροῦς in Josephus. Apparently she assumed that it was really competition between the brothers that lay behind the complaints; the readers know better.

For ἀνδράποδον referring specifically to prisoners of war, see Gibbs and Feldman 1985/86: 291–292.

Following Niese’s (1890a: 205; 1890b: 176) emendation of ὁπλιτῶν instead of πλείστων, for the latter is difficult to construe and it is unlikely that we would be told of an attack by cavalary alone. As often (see Danker 2000: 798, s.v., §h2δ), here too “οἱ περίnn” means “nn and his men,” as we can see from the immediate continuation. Cf. the note on “retinue of” at 20.131. As above, §319. Here, however, it is not said that the Jews would not dare to fight, only that they would be at leisure, which perhaps means only an expectation that their guard would be down.

Namely, of Mithridates’s plan to attack them. On this “Syrian,” see the note on “this tragedy” §310. As at 12.306, καθ’ ὥραν apparently means “in a timely fashion,” i.e., early.

Presumably Josephus is assuming the Roman system of dividing the night (roughly 6 p.m. to 6 a.m.) into four watches (Mark 6:48; Pliny, nh 10.46; Vegetius 3.8 [Stelten 1990: 154–155]). The fourth, before dawn (hence a.k.a. ἑωθινὴ φυλακή—War 3.251; 4.63), was a good time for surprise attacks; see War 3.319 (on the ἐσχατή φυλακή, when guards might be expected to be lax and slumbering) and 4.63–64, also, for example, Livy 4.9.13 and Caesar, Gallic War 1.21. For a rabbinic discussion of whether the night is divided into three watches (as is apparently assumed by “middle watch” at Judges 7:19) or four, see t. Berakhot 1:3 (ed. Zuckermandel, 1; 1:1 in ed. Lieberman, 1). As Herman (2006: 257–260) documents, Persians considered even merely riding on an ass to be demeaning; to be forced into it, and while naked, made it all the worse.

Reading μετὰ … ὑβρίσματος, von Gutschmid’s emendation cited by Niese (1890a: 205) and adopted by Feldman (1965: 200); it is bolstered by περιύβρισται at §358 and τοὺς ὑβρίσαντας εἰς αὐτὸν at §360. The manuscripts here read μετὰ … ὁρίσματος, but “border” seems impossible to construe here. For this translation of μὴ καλῶς ἔχειν, which means more than the fear of the price to pay (§359), see, for example, 17.354 and 19.6–7.

Ἐν Βαβυλῶνι, that is, in the city of Babylon; cf. the note on “Babylonia” at §104. Assuming that, for which Niese (1890a: 205) reports no variants, is the correct reading, it is noteworthy that Josephus offers, here, no reason to expect the massacre in Babylon in particular, a city that has not been mentioned in this story. Apparently he, or already his source, has specified the city in light of what is reported later; see the note on “Babylon” at §373, where clearly the city is meant. For the Jews of the city of Babylon in the talmudic period, see Oppenheimer 1983: 44–62. That is, there will be no recovery from a royal attack on the Jews of Babylon, which would “use up” their strongest men. On the text and translation, cf. Feldman 1965: 202–203, n. b. For this fairly literal sense of ἀναστροφή, see also §173. Usually, however, it means “conduct, comportment” (as at 19.28, Galatians 1:13 and Ephesians 4:22), and so it has been proposed to emend it into ἀποστροφή; see the discussion in Part v of the Introduction. For this sense of ἀκμή, see ThLJ 18, s.v., citing, inter alia, Ant 3.8; 5.164; 7.78.

The italicized words render the opening of §361; I moved them to here so as to facilitate readability. For such use of προμοθήομαι, cf. §§284, 286 and 19.153. Cf. the note on “the king” at §330. This convoluted sentence seems to mean that she complained that his willingness to abstain from avenging himself entailed ignoring his obligation to avenge the contempt shown to her as well (καὶ ταύτῃ τιμωρῶν), which was especially reprehensible since she was the king’s daughter.

See the note on “people” at §360. As above, §328. A woman’s threat to walk away from her marriage unilaterally is part of Josephus’s standard hostile portrayal of a termagant. Cf. the note on “ancestral rules” at 20.143.

Cf. §245. As with Herodias (§§242–244), Josephus enjoys portraying a nagging wife who, taking an insult to her husband (that he is willing to accept) as an insult to her, rants and makes life impossible for him until he agrees to do something dangerous, against his better judgment. In the present case, however, her urging brings him to success, since his enemies are wicked; Herodias, in contrast, urged her husband to compete with Agrippa, who was Gaius’s, and God’s, fair-haired boy. The woman’s pushy nature, in this case, is accentuated all the more by the explicit moderation not only of her husband, but also of Anileus (§§357–359), both of whom desired to avoid further conflict. Again, as Herodias—§255. Cf. the note on “defeated him” at §246. Same phrase: §219. That is: not just his wife. Here Josephus contradicts his comment a line earlier, where he emphasizes that Mithridates was reluctant and unwilling and gave in only due to his fear of his wife. For a similar situation, see the notes on “others” at 19.193 and on “drug” at 20.148. In those cases too, Josephus’s antipathy to pushy women makes him loath to give up on blaming them, even when it creates tension within the story. Same verb below, at §375; cf. the note on “pushed around” at §155.

For similar thoughts, see the note on “resolve” at §5.

This is the only occurrence of προεκπλήσσω in Josephus. He uses a number of προεκ- words only once each; see ccfj 3.524. This portrayal of those who joined Anileus’s army as being in it greedily for booty, and as arrogantly supposing that the mere sight of them would cause the enemy to flee, prepares readers quite pointedly for their coming debacle.

Cf. 13.327: τῇ δυνάμει ἀπηγορευκότες (“exhausted in strength”) and 19.192.

Niese (1890a: 207) reads ἄπορον (“indigent”), with all the manuscripts. However, although scorn for the poor would fit the bias evinced at §315, it appears to be more natural to speak, when describing those who fill the ranks of an army, of an inexperienced mob than a “poor” mob, and that is what is also suggested by “lack of training” in the next sentence. Hence Hudson’s suggestion (cited by Niese), ἄπειρον, “inexperienced” (as, for example, at 2.347; 5.118; War 1.650). Hudson’s suggestion is bolstered, indirectly, by the Latin translation, infinita multitudohominum pessimorum which gives no support for ἄπορον but can well be a mistranslation of ἄπειρον. (“Infinita” [“boundless”] apparently renders another sense of the Greek adjective, one that, although adopted by Schalit [1963: 315], does not fit the context). For the emphasis on training and experience as a necessary for military success, see the note on “training” later in the next sentence. This is the only occurrence of ἀντανίσωμα in Josephus. This is the only occurrence of ἀμελέτητος in Josephus. Josephus likes to underline the importance of military training. See, for example, 19.243; War 2.577–582; 3.72–75; and Eckstein 1990: 200. In this passage, as in the comment in §366 about exhausted troops fighting fresh troops, and in a similar passage at 19.243, Josephus takes the pose of the experienced general. For an imaginative recreation of Josephus’s military career, see Hata 1994: 311–312, 318–319. On Roman military training, see esp. Vegetius 1.9–19 (Stelten 1990: 22–39) and Phang 2008: 37–53.

Reading τούτοις with Lowthius, cited by Niese 1890a: 207 (where the manuscripts’ ταύταις is retained) and later adopted by him (Niese 1890b: 178) and Feldman (1965: 204).

The opposition between good and peace-seeking Jewish citizens, on the one hand, and Jewish brigands and rebels, on the other, against whom the former are powerless, is a standard Josephan theme. See, for example, 20.180 and the note there on “remonstrated with them.”

For ἱδρυμνένος of a military force’s encampment, see for example Ant. 14.467. Cf. μεθιδρύσας at 18.55.

As above, §330. This interpretation of what makes for hatred of Jews is reminiscent of Esther 3:8//Ant. 11.212; perhaps Josephus had that in mind when writing here about this Babylonian episode. But it would resonate well in Rome as well; see Tacitus, Hist. 5.4.1 (“The Jews regard as profane all that we hold sacred; on the other hand, they permit all that we abhor …”). This clumsy first sentence of the new story, which adds so much information after the first mention of “the Babylonians” that it has to mention them again, reads like a seam, as if Josephus had a source that referred to Babylonians attacking Jews and he expanded its opening in order to create some continuity with the preceding story. This observation conforms to others, namely, that from this point on the narrative no longer reads like a novel and is also devoid of moralizing elements, and thus supports the conclusion that the two stories are of differing provenances. That conclusion, in turn, undermines, to some extent, the presumption that the order in which they appear in Josephus’s work is their chronological order; see the note on “this tragedy” at §310.

From the city of Babylon, as becomes clear, retrospectively, at §373. Josephus, perhaps already his source, apparently depends on readers to infer from “the Babylonians” that the attacks came in Babylon, as was already predicted at §359. On Seleucia on the Tigris, already mentioned at §49, see Held 2002: 221–236. The mss. read “Nicanor”; the same mistake occurs at 12.119 and 13.213. For the foundation of Seleucia by Seleucus Nicator, the first Seleucid king, see Pliny, nh 6.30, 122 and Appian, Syrian Wars 57. Strabo, Geog. 16.2.5 compares the city in size to such great metropolitan centers as Alexandria and Antioch. Indeed, its “Macedonian” character (“Macedonumque moris”) was emphasized by Pliny, loc. cit. Josephus usually uses the term of the Seleucids, quite regularly in Book 13 (see 12.434 and 13.1, 3, 7, 29, 43, 62 etc.), but after that it hardly appears. Hence “Macedonians” is appropriate here, after the reference to the foundation of the city by the first Seleucid king; for the Seleucid kingdom as Macedonicum Imperium, see Bikerman 1938: 5. In contrast, Ἕλληνες is common throughout (including above, §§20, 141, 257). Although the coming reference to the latter might suggest a purist distinction between Macedonians and Greeks, it seems likelier that it means “other Greeks,” since §374 ignores Macedonians and refers only to “Greeks” and Syrians.

This datum is the foundation of all discussions of the story’s chronology. Usually it is assumed that the civil strife (stasis) depicted in the coming paragraphs is the same as the conflict described by Tacitus at Ann. 6.42. Since Tacitus reports (ibid.), in the context of 36 ce, that Seleucia accepted Tiridates as its ruler, which amounted to a rebellion against Artabanus ii, and at Ann. 11.9, in the context of 41, reports that the revolt of Seleucia lasted seven years, it follows that the stasis, and the revolt, began in 35 or 36 ce. For that reconstruction, see esp. Goodblatt 1987a: 605–616. Accordingly, if the Jews moved to Seleucia just before the stasis began, as the present passage suggests, it follows that the slaughter in their sixth year in the city, with which the coming story ends, came in 40 or 41. That conclusion dovetails readily with the fact that Josephus places the story just after reporting the death of Gaius in 41. That is, just as elsewhere, Josephus tells some story that is peripheral to the history of Judea after concluding the history of Judea in that same period. See the note on “took them over” at §27. As at §359, ἐν Βαβυλῶνι refers to the city of Babylon itself; cf. the note on “departed” at §372.

This fits Josephus’s usual concern to portray the Jews as brave; see the note on “courage” at 18.333.

Same verb as above, §362. The manuscripts read τὸν λέγοντα (“that which was said”), which makes little sense; Niese (1890a: 208) adopts the first edition’s colorful reading, ταὐτὸν λέγοντας, which is supported by its (re)appearance at §378; so too at 10.107 and 17.35.

This is the only occurrence of ἐπιδιαλλαγή in Josephus; the verb ἐπιδαλλάττω also appears once (16.175). This sounds like bitter irony, reminiscent of 18.5.

The two faced each other on opposite sides of the Tigris, so close that later they were considered one city. As is also noted by Strabo, Geog. 16.1.6. Cf. above, §49. On ἀποσκευή, which can include both property and dependent people, see Lee 1972. Cf. the note on “elimination” at §41. This renders the text as emended by Hudson (1726: 1.913), τιμῆς …μὴ πεφροντικότων, followed by Feldman 1965: 210 and Schalit 1963: 316. Niese 1890a: 209 retains the manuscripts’ τιμῇ … πεφροντικότων in the dative and with no negation, which is difficult to construe. (Τhe verb usually takes the genitive; see, for example §221 and numerous examples in ccfj 4.323, s.v. φροντίζω.) What Josephus seems to mean is that while one might have thought that the royal presence in Ctesiphon would keep the local population, including that in nearby Seleucia, in line and therefore life would be safe for Jews who resided there, in fact that was not the case, for, when it came to the Jews, at least, the locals disregarded the king’s expectations. This is a typical stance of diasporic history: the king is just fine, so when there are troubles it must be caused by those who flout the king and disregard his will. Cf. 20.135, 182; Esther 7; 2 Macc 4:3–31, 36–38; 3 Macc 6:20–28 (satire); Philo, Leg. 159–160; and Yerushalmi 1976: 2–3, 17–34 (“‘And the king of Portugal was a gracious king,’” so if Jews were massacred he must have been out of town, like Antiochus at 2 Macc 4:30–36).

Same phrase as above, §375.

For the large Jewish communities of Nehardea in later generations, see Oppenheimer 1983: 276–293. As for Nisibis, see the note on “Nisibis” at §312. As was stated at §374. Thus, this long story ends neatly, as it began at §§311–312, with emphasis on the security provided the Jews by these two cities—which have now been contrasted with Seleucia. This is an impressive achievement by Josephus, esp. if we assume that the historical order of the stories is the reverse; see the note on “this tragedy” at §310. For such rounding out of stories, see the note on “with Petronius” at §288. For such a conclusion of an entire book, cf. Books 13 (“Such, then, was the death of Alexandra”), 14 (“This, then, was the end of what we received about the end of the Hasmonean family”), and 15 (“This, then, is, on the one hand, the tenor of what pertains to the construction of the sanctuary”).

For Josephus’s opening of a book with δέ, see the note on “turning now” at 18.1. Josephus regularly employs the term “insanity” or “madness” (μανία) with reference to Gaius in this book (§§5, 11, 39, 50, 69, 130, 193, 196, 258; cf. §284), having employed it already with regard to his order to erect his statue in the Jerusalem temple (18.277–278). Gaius’s “madness” is also reported by Seneca (Const. 18.1), Philo (Leg. 34), Tacitus (Ann. 13.3), and Cassius Dio (59.29.1); cf. Suetonius, Cal. 50.2–3. Below, at §193, Josephus mentions a tradition attributing Gaius’s madness to a love-potion given to him by his wife Caesonia (so also Suetonius, Cal. 50.2). Although early modern research generally accepted this depiction of Gaius as a madman, later research has been more critical of it. For skeptical reviews of the ancient sources, and of scholarship bent on diagnosing a mental condition, see Schrömbges 1988 and Sidwell 2010. Such skepticism leaves it to us to choose between an evil Gaius and a much more positive assessment of him. Indeed, some scholars would go far in the latter direction, offering a more positive assessment of Gaius’s personality and rejecting or belittling claims of wickedness as intentional calumny by hostile and later sources, influenced especially by senators; see Barrett 2019: 284–291 and Winterling 2011: 2–7, 187–194. For the argument, however, that such revisionism can swing the pendulum too far to the other side, and an analysis of some of its modern contexts, see Yavetz 1996. On imperial insanity in general, see Winterling 2018. In War 2.184 Josephus, auctorially, speaks of Gaius’s hubris (ἐξύβρισεν εἰς τὴν τύχην) in regard to his considering himself divine and his plan to erect a statue of himself in the Jerusalem temple, and above at 18.280 Josephus has Petronius do the same about that plan. Now, in Book 19, it is mentioned often (e.g., §§22, 42, 82, 129). By this brief introduction Josephus builds a bridge from the preceding book to this one, and in doing so artfully creates the impression that even the suffering of the Jews of Babylonia, said at 18.310 to be the topic of the last long section, was Gaius’s fault. On such insinuation, see the note on “also” at 18.310. Despite the immediate continuation, which somewhat limits this phrase, it appears that Josephus is alluding to a common Roman perception of Rome’s universal rule, terra marique. For that perception see also Josephus’s prophecy to Vespasian at War 3.402 (ruler of “land and sea and all of the human race”), also, for example, Polybius 1.2; 1 Maccabees 8:32; Diodorus 40.4; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. Rom. 1.3.3–5; Philo, Flacc. 104 and Leg. 44, 141; and Cicero, Pro. Man. 56 (“[O]ne law, one man, and one year … caused us again at length to appear really to be the masters of all nations and countries by land and sea”). For a passage like the present one, that condemns the Roman ruler (there: Pompey) in the same context, see the Psalms of Solomon 2:26, 29. See Nicolet 1991: 29–56, Shatzman 1999: esp. 54–58, 78–80, and Berthelot 2021: 127–132. In relation to Gaius, note also Philo’s description of the extent of the sovereignty he inherited from Tiberius in Leg. 8: “… he succeeded to the sovereignty of the whole earth and sea” (τὴν ἡγεμονίαν πάσης γῆς καὶ θαλάσσης); cf. ibid. §§10, 309. For similar formulations, see 18.187 and below, §§14, 40, 193. The Roman empire. Similar hyperbole: Ant. 11.299; 15.396; 18.310; 19.204; War 6.199.

For such tripartite structures as this, in which Josephus turns to focus upon his central topic after first addressing two relevant but outlying possibilities (in this case: Jews on the one hand, and provincial subjects of Rome around the world, on the other), see the note on “largest part” at 18.145. ἄγοντος καὶ φέροντος, as at 2.239, 16.277, 17.272, and War 7.91, also, for example, Xenophon, Hellenica 3.2.2 (φέρωσι καὶ ἄγωσι τὴν χώραν); “frequent in Herodotus and Attic prose” (lsj 17, s.v. ἄγω, §ι,3). The notion of attrition under Gaius’s unrelenting tyranny recurs several times in this book (§§173, 192, 246). A similar generalization about Gaius’s relation to the senators is expressed above at 18.306. Cassius Dio (59.6) writes that at the beginning of his reign Gaius “showed great deference to the senators,” and was generally rather fair and positive in relation to the Senate and prominent people (cf. Suetonius, Cal. 17). But his treatment of the senators soon turned demeaning and abusive. Suetonius (Cal. 26.2–3) reports that he had senators run for miles in their togas beside his chariot and serve as his waiters. See also ibid. 30.2, as well as Seneca, De Ira 3.18.3–19.2; Ben. 2.12. For Gaius’s abuse of some of the most distinguished families, see also Suetonius, Cal. 35, and note Aurelius Victor, De Caesaribus 3 (Bird 1994: 3), who emphasizes the “widespread murders of senators and nobles.” For the argument that, nevertheless, most senators had nothing to fear and that later sources exaggerated the hostility between Gaius and the Senate, see Barrett 2019: 307–312. Εὐπατρίδης, as below, §§75, 132, 136. In a Roman context, the term is used of “patricians”; see gtri 50. Josephus’s description here, of Gaius’s terrible treatment of them, recalls that of Tiberius (18.226) and of Herod, who too was “wont to kill members of the nobility (εὐπατρίδας) upon absurd pretexts and then take their property for himself” (17.307). That is, it is a standard element in the aristocratic Josephus’s list of complaints about tyrants. See S. Mason 2003c: 583; idem 2016a: cxlv–cxlvi; and Ben-Yishai 2021.

Philo too reports Gaius’s battle against the Senate and the equestrian order (Philo, Leg. 74–75). The equites were distinct from and of a lower status than those of the senatorial class; see the note on “equestrian order” at 18.2. Nevertheless, “they intermingled socially with senators; they married into senatorial families; like senators they could be summoned to serve on the emperor’s consilium. Sons of leading equestrian officials were the prime source of recruitment of new senatorial families” (F. G. B. Millar and G. P. Burton in ocd 552). In general see, on the equites’ relations with emperors, Brunt 1983. On Gaius’s attitude toward them, which seems to have been much more balanced than the present attack on him indicates, see Barrett 2019: 305–307. For the promotion of equites to the Senate, see Maecenas’s speech in Dio 52.25.6–7, also Dio 53.15.2: “the emperor himself selects equites to be sent out as military tribunes, both those who are prospective senators and the others …” Similarly, regarding Gaius, Dio reports that “some of them [scil., the equites] he even permitted to wear the senatorial dress before they had held any office through which we gain admission to the Senate, on the strength of their prospects of becoming members later, whereas previously only those, it appears, who had been born into the senatorial order were allowed to do this” (59.9.5). This term, ἀτίμωσις, appears in Josephus elsewhere only at 18.349, where, in reference to God, it can only mean degradation, lack of respect. So too, here Wiseman (2013a: 3, 44) offers “dishonour.” Here, however, the context seems to indicate something more specific. On τιμή, see the note on “office” at 18.17. The same notion, taken for granted at §65, is found in Dio 59.21.4, which, however, refers to provincials. Suetonius reports an episode in which Gaius arbitrarily had two rich equites, who happened to pass by, arrested and their property confiscated (Cal. 41.2). For his brutal treatment of the equites see also ibid, 26.4. Elsewhere Suetonius reports that Gaius criticized the equestrian order “as devotees of the stage and the arena” (ibid. 30.2). On Gaius’s plundering and various methods of financial extractions see especially Suetonius, Cal. 38–42 and Dio 59.10.7; 59.14–15. Both Suetonius and Dio explain these extractions as due to his urgent need for funds because he had squandered vast sums to pay for his extravagant lifestyle (see esp. Suetonius, Cal. 37.1–38.1); Dio (59.21.1) asserts that Gaius’s monetary extractions were so great that he eventually “spent practically all the money in Rome and the rest of Italy, gathered from every source from which he could in any way get it” and that given that “his expenses were pressing him hard, he set out for Gaul … with the purpose of exploiting both Gaul with its abounding wealth and Spain too.” See also Dio 59.21.1–6 and Barrett 2019: 297–302.

On his divine or semi-divine pretensions, see Philo, Leg. 75–80, 93–114; Suetonius, Cal. 22.2–4, 52; Dio 59.4.4 and 26.5–28.8; and, of course, his attempt to erect a statue of himself in the Temple of Jerusalem (18.256–309). See the discussions in Yavetz 1996: esp. 125–127 and Barrett 2019: 190–205. As is conventional, here, as elsewhere in Roman contexts, I render Josephus’s “Zeus” as “Jupiter.” This shows a foreigner’s perspective, as do §§24, 214. So does the very fact that Josephus troubles, here, to identify and describe this temple; elsewhere (see the next note) he mentions it without any such explanations, taking the readers’ familiarity with it for granted. As at §§11, 71, also, for example, 12.416; 14.36; 16.48; War 7.153. The Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus was, according to tradition, initially planned by Tarquinius Priscus during his war with the Sabines (Livy 1.55) and completed by Tarquinius Superbus, and dedicated in the first year of the Republic, but the temple of Gaius’s time was the one rebuilt—following its destruction by fire in 83 bce—by Q. Lutatius Catulus in 69 bce (e.g., Pliny, nh 19.23; Suetonius, Jul. 15; Tacitus, Hist. 3.72) and repaired by Augustus (rgdi 20). For the hill and the temple see Richardson 1992: 68–70 and 221–224, respectively. For this temple being called simply “the Capitol” see Pliny, nh 33.19. The Temple served, inter alia, as the archives of Rome from its earliest days (Suetonius, Vesp. 8.5; Josephus, Ant. 14.186–188, 266, 16.48), and was the site of numerous public events. Accordingly, Philo reports (Leg. 188, 346) that the statue of himself that Gaius wanted to erect in the Temple of Jerusalem was to be named “Gaius, the New Zeus made manifest.” Indeed, Gaius is said to have called himself “Jupiter Latiaris” (Cassius Dio 59.28.5; similarly, Aurelius Victor, De Caesaribus 3 [Bird 1994: 3]; cf. Suetonius, Cal. 22.2). Suetonius also writes that Gaius would engage in conversations with Jupiter Capitolinus, and reports that—saying that Jupiter invited him to live with him—Gaius built a bridge to connect his palace to the Capitol, over the temple of Augustus. Then, however, feeling he was still too far from Jupiter, he began to build himself a house on the Capitol itself (Cal. 22.4; cf. Cassius Dio 59.28.2). See also the note on “of him” at 18.261. For a somewhat skeptical review of the evidence, including the hostile literary sources but dearth of epigraphic evidence concerning Gaius’s self-deification, concluding that “Caligula had no desire for the world to identify him as a god, even if, like most people, he enjoyed being treated like one,” see Barrett 2019: 195–199.

I.e., Puteoli; see the note on “Puteoli” at 18.161. Misenum (modern Miseno) is at the southern tip of the peninsula at the west of what is known today as the Gulf of Pozzuoli, a northern extension of the Gulf of Naples. Suetonius (Cal.19.1) and Dio (59.17.1) agree that the bridge began at Puteoli, but report a different location of its other end, closer to Puteoli. Suetonius points to Baiae, which is located between Puteoli and Misenum, and is where Gaius received the embassies of Herod and Agrippa (see above at 18.248–249, which includes a description of Baiae). Dio locates its end at Bauli, of which the location is uncertain; for details, see Barrett 2019: 242–243 and H. Lindsay 1993: 94.

For his supposed conquest of the ocean, see Suetonius, Cal. 46. Dio (59.26.6) reports his posing as Neptune (cf. ibid. 17.11), and, speaking of his dressing up in general and in the likeness of gods in particular, Suetonius (Cal. 52) mentions that he often held a trident—Neptune’s symbol—when thus dressing up. On his dressing up as a god or goddess, see also below, §30, and the note on “earth and sea” at §1. Ca. 6 km. Cassius Dio 59.17.1 gives the length of the bridge, between Puteoli and Bauli (not Misenum) as 26 furlongs, i.e., ca. 5 km, while Suetonius (Cal. 19.1) gives 3,600 paces, i.e., ca. 5.3 km. Cf. H. Lindsay 1993: 94–95. Of Puzzuoli. In further describing this bridge of boats, Dio 59.17.2–3 writes that it included resting places and rooms for lodging, and that they had running drinking water. The dimensions of the project are illustrated by Dio’s report (ibid.) that the drafting of so many ships for the building of this bridge caused a famine; so too Aurelius Victor, De Caesaribus 4 (Bird 1994: 5). On καλῶς ἔχειν, see the note on “be appropriate” at 18.357. This story alludes, of course, to Herodotus’s story (7.22–24, 34–36) of Xerxes’s attempt to bridge the Hellespont, a famous exemplum of arrogance; cf. War 2.358, also, inter alia, Isocrates, Panegyricus 89 and 2 Macc 5:21. Gaius himself is reported to have compared his project with those of Xerxes and Darius; see Dio 59.17.11 (cf. Suetonius, Cal. 19.3; Seneca, De Brev. Vit. 18.5)—a comparison that will have fit right into Greek and Roman notions of tyrannical oriental despots. On this project, for which various explanations have been suggested, including three suggested already by Suetonius, Cal. 19.3, see Barrett 2019: 240–242 and Malloch 2001; Malloch’s own suggestion is that Gaius was asserting a similarity to Alexander the Great (cf. Dio 59.17.3). Dio reports this project in his narrative for 39 ce, and although some scholars have questioned that and proposed that it took place in 40, Dio’s date has been upheld by Wardle 2007.

Robbing temples is one of the typical sacrilegious acts attributed to ancient tyrants; see Dunkle 1971: 15–16. When perpetrated against one’s own temples, it is often thought to be among the most heinous of crimes, comparable to treason; see Xenophon, Hellenica 1.7.22 and Apion 2.263. Here, however, the reference is to a Roman emperor’s robbery of Greek temples, a focus that will have especially interested Josephus’s Greek readership. Pliny (nh 35.17–18) mentions Gaius’s failed attempt to remove portraits of Atalanta and Helen from a temple at Lanuvium. According to Pausanias 9.27.3–4, Gaius took a sculpture of Eros from Thespiae, which was later returned by Claudius, only to be taken again by Nero to Rome, where it was later destroyed by fire.

Lit. “the house,” but the use of the definite article (τὴν τε οἰκίαν) and the coming contrast with the plural “residences” points to something special. So too below, §162. On Gaius’s pursuit of art, see Barrett 2019: 223–224. Barrett emphasizes that Gaius was not exceptional in this pursuit; for great Greek works of art adorning imperial palaces, see Millar 1977: 145–146. Pheidias (or: Phidias) was a famous Athenian sculptor, who was active in the mid-fifth century bce. His most famous works were this Zeus of Olympia and Athena Parthenos (Quintilian 12.10.9). The former was especially large; on it, see Strabo, Geog. 8.3.30; and esp. Pausanias 5.10.2, 5.11. On Phidias himself, see Plutarch, Per. 13.4, 9; 31.2–5; Stewart 1990: 1: 257–263; Spivey 2013: 176–193. According to Suetonius (Cal. 22.2) and Dio (59.28.3), Gaius wanted to bring this statue to Rome in order to remove its head and replace it with his own.

Publius Memmius Regulus was suffect consul in 31 ce (Tacitus, Ann. 5.11), and in 35–44 ce he was legate in Moesia, Achaia, and Macedonia. In 38 ce, Gaius recalled Memmius to Rome and forced him to give him his wife, Lollia Paulina, in marriage, only to divorce her soon thereafter (Suetonius, Cal. 25.2; Dio 59.12.1; Tacitus, Ann. 12.22). Memmius was later proconsul of Asia, probably in 48/49. Dio (59.28.4) does not report the logistical problem, but reports such portents: the ship specially built to bring the statue was shattered by thunderbolts and loud laughter was heard anytime anyone approached the statue (cf. Suetonius, Cal. 57.1).

On such usage, cf. the note on “beat him” at 18.89. On such fortuitous timing, just in the nick of time, see the note on “Gaius’s death” at 18.305.

Julia Drusilla was born a month after Gaius’s marriage to her mother Caesonia, probably in the summer of 39 (Barrett 2019: 133–134). She was named after Gaius’s favorite sister Drusilla, who had died the preceding year; on her, see the note on “full sister” at §204. I.e., the Temple of Jupiter on the Capitoline hill; see above, §4. I.e., Jupiter’s statue. Dio (59.28.7) too mentions Gaius’s placing her on Jupiter’s knees and adds that he appointed Minerva as her nurse. For the question of the Roman, or possibly Egyptian, background of this procedure, see Barrett 2019: 134–135. Suetonius (Cal. 25.4) does not mention Jupiter, but does agree that Gaius, who took her “to the temples of all the goddesses,” eventually brought her to Minerva, whom he put in charge of her nurture and training. For ἐν μέσῳ in the sense of “placing before the public,” cf. the more usual εἰς μέσον—e.g. §§246, 261, also, for example, Ant. 4.29, Apion 2.197, and Life 334, 359. Compare Josephus’s closing comments on Gaius, where he is said to have been “anxious both to be and to seem greater than the deity” (§202). Suetonius reports that Gaius once sat beside the statue of Jupiter and “asked the tragic actor Apelles which of the two seemed to him the greater” (Suetonius, Cal. 33).

Reading ἐπεχώρησε, as is conjectured by Niese (1890a: 212 and 1890b: 183) and adopted by Feldman (1965: 220), rather than ἐπεχείρησε with the manuscripts, which are followed by Wiseman 2013a: 12. The latter—as also the Latin—would apparently imply that Gaius actually incited servants to bring charges. That would be a welcome sense, but the use of that verb for inciting others, rather than undertaking something oneself, is difficult to establish. Accusations of slaves against their masters are also mentioned below at §131, and readers of Josephus will recall Agrippa’s troubles with Eutychus (18.168–169, 185–187). Gaius’s elevation of slaves over their masters is mentioned shortly below (§14) as a major motivation of conspiracies against him. As another first-century Jewish aristocrat would comment, “Nothing is harder for those who were once superiors than to be accused by their former inferiors or for those who were once rulers by their former subjects, which is just as if masters were to be accused by slaves born in their house or purchased with their money” (Philo, Flacc. 127, trans. van der Horst 2203a: 77).

Suetonius (Claud. 9.1) states that Claudius “was continually harassed by all kinds of accusations, brought against him by strangers or even by the members of his household” (trans. Rolfe, lcl), but does not implicate Gaius in those matters. However, Suetonius (ibid.) does report another episode in which Gaius raged at Claudius and almost had him killed. Cf. ibid. 38.3 and below, §§67, 221. The same verb (ἀνέχω) is used at the outset of §12, but here it is ironic: they had to suffer Gaius’s nonsense, and he “had to endure” committing travesties of justice. For such bitter irony, cf. the note on “murder” at 18.5. As at the opening of §9.

See the note on “earth and sea” at §1. This is the only occurrence of συκοφαντία in Josephus, but he uses related words often enough, e.g., συκοφόντημα at 16.349 and συκονφοντέω at 10.114, 16.170, and Apion 2.42. Usually the term implies that the accusations are made in the hope of profit, whether by extortion of the victim or in order to find favor with the victim’s enemy. For the history and Athenian usage of the term, see Lofberg 1917: vii–xi. Lit. “slaveocracy” (δουλοκρατία); in Josephus, this appears only here and below at §261, and no other ancient author uses it; perhaps it’s Josephus’s own coinage. Josephus’s complaint here, about slaves ruling or having more power than their masters, is similar to Cassius Dio’s at 60.2.4, using the cognate verb, that Claudius “was slave-ruled and women-ruled (ἐδουλοκρατήθη καὶ ἐγυναικοκρατήθη).” Here Josephus starts to get to the point. Suetonius (Cal. 56.1) speaks of “several” who thought of assassinating him, and says that, at the time that the successful plot that he will describe began to take shape, “one or two had been detected, and the rest were waiting for favourable opportunity.” Suetonius also mentions “conspiracies,” ibid. 24.3 and 26.3. Dio (59.25.5b, 6–7) mentions conspiracies that were discovered. For the various conspiracies, see further Barrett 2019: 247–253; he argues that, however disparate, the various conspiracies were parts of one single process. Such euphemistic use of μεταχειρίζομαι (lit. “have in hand,” “handle,” as at 7.48 and 14.245) for killing is widespread; see 15.186, 17.79, 18.264, and below, §§68, 197, 270. This is part of a general tendency to avoid direct references to killing and death, especially when the perpetrators are casted positively. See, for example, Parker 2002 (a reference for which I am grateful to Jan Willem van Henten). E.g., both Vinicinianus and Chaerea; see below, §§20 and 21, respectively. For the same distinction as here, between those who were already Gaius’s victims and those who had to fear when their turn would come, see also §§42, 181.

For a tyrant, by definition, threatens or violates the laws. According to the Roman view, “Liberty is based on the laws,” as Cicero writes (Agrarian Law 2.102; see also his Pro Cluentio 146 and Wirszubski 1950: 7–9, 83–87), and tyranny is the opposite of rule based on the laws; see Wiseman 1992. In the present book, Josephus takes up this view most prominently in the long speech of Sentius Saturninus, below at §§167–184; see also §§156 and 230–231. Elsewhere too Josephus contrasts life under a tyrant to life according to the laws (e.g., War 5.429–441; 7.259–261; Ant. 5.234, 339; 15.321; 16.4; 17.304). Here Josephus alludes to his long account of Gaius’s order to erect his statue in the Jerusalem Temple (18.261–309). For such use of λόγος, cf. the note on “account” at 19.66. This passage amounts to something of an apology for the great length of the coming account, given the fact that its details—apart from the bare fact of Gaius’s death—have virtually no relevance to Jewish history as such. Contrast 20.154–157, where Josephus explains that, as an historian of the Jews, he has no need to expand upon the events of Nero’s reign. For this sense of ἀκρίβεια as the historian’s standard, see the note on “in detail” at 18.129. For the present phrasing, cf. Ant. 1.214, also, for example, Thucydides 1.22.2 and 5.26.5 (cited by Wiseman 2013a: 46).

For Josephus’s use of ἄλλως, see the note on “otherwise” at 18.19. In the body of the story there is hardly a hint of God’s involvement (note only §§61), but Josephus was explicit about it at 18.306–309 and here, in his introduction to the story, he similarly makes an effort to allow it to serve a—or rather: the—basic theme of his work; see the note on “virtue” at the end of this paragraph. Similarly, in the body of the story Josephus allows pagan speakers opposed to Gaius to involve “the gods” time and again (§72, 167, 182, 219, 233), and that too supports his theme; cf. the note on “law” at 18.222. As Mason notes, the double compound ἐπιμεταφέρω occurs only here in Josephus (if here, for the manuscripts diverge), and this is, in fact, the only instance of it in all surviving Greek literature. There are a number of such cases in War 4; see, inter alia, Mason 2022b: nn. 106, 356, 329, 354, 393. This is standard Josephan preaching in Antiquities, beginning with the prologue (1.14, 20). See esp. 17.149 and 18.127 (which too, as here [§15], opens with βούλομαι).

Triadic introductions like these are standard for Josephus; see the note on “three” at 18.11. He is not mentioned again by Josephus, apart from §19, or in any other source. Willrich (1903: 456) suggested that his name be corrected to Aemilius Rectus, and that he is to be identified with the Rectus who was a friend of a well-known Stoic opponent of Gaius, Julius Canus; see Plutarch, Moralia, frag. 211. According to that account, Rectus was executed by Gaius three days after his philosopher friend. Thus, this suggestion fits well with the apparent “philosophical” opposition to Gaius of Josephus’s Regulus (see §19), and explains his disappearance from Josephus’s narrative. Willrich (ibid. 456–457) further conjectured that this Rectus was a relative of Seneca, who also came from Cordoba; for more on that, see Kavanagh 2001b.

Chaerea was a tribune of the Praetorian Guard. His central role in the assassination is recorded in all of the other sources: Dio 59.29.1–7, Suetonius, Cal. 56–58, Tacitus, Ann. 1.32, and Seneca, Epistle 4.7, Const. 18.3. Tacitus (Ann. 1.32) records his heroics during the riots that broke out in Germany in 14 ce, following the death of Augustus. Since Tacitus says he was “adulescens” then, he must have been past forty by the end of Gaiuis’s reign; indeed, Suetonius (Cal. 56.2) characterizes him as already old (senior) by then. The manuscripts consistently have Μινουκιανός both for this conspirator, who is mentioned several other times, and for Marcus Vinicius below at §102, so, as Wiseman notes (2013a: 47) that is presumably what Josephus wrote. However, the correct name is Vinicianus, as is shown by Cassius Dio’s reference to him (60.15.1) in his account of the conspiracy, as also by epigraphic evidence (Smallwood 1967, nos. 4 and 10); the confusion of M and V would seem to imply a written source. I retain “Minucianus” in the translation but use either “Vinicianus” or, with scare quotes, “Minucianus” in the annotations. L. Annius Vinicianus was the son of Annius Pollio, and together they were charged with treason by Tiberius in 32 ce (Tacitus, Ann. 6.9). In 42 he was involved in a plot against Claudius, and committed suicide after its failure (Dio 60.15); see Swan 1970. His son, Annius Vinicianus, Corbulo’s son-in-law, would die after his failed conspiracy against Nero in 66. This is the first explicit reference in Book 19 to Gaius’s rule as tyrannical, but, clearly, throughout this narrative, his being a tyrant is the underlying justification for the assassination. In Josephus as elsewhere, τύραννος need not have a pejorative connotation, and could simply refer to a minor ruler (as at Ant. 13.235; 14.40, 297), where the implied contrast with βασιλεύς relates to magnitude of the realm, not to its quality. When used, however, of someone who could be a βασιλεύς, the contrast is qualitative. Compare, for example, Ant. 14.157 (Hyrcanus could become ἀντὶ βασιλέως τύραννον) and Philo’s discussion in On Providence 2.2, where God is said to be not a cruel and violent τύραννος but, rather, a benevolent βασιλεύς; later (2.24–32) the text enlarges on the evils of tyrants. For an assemblage of ancient evidence for the virtue of assassinating a tyrant, see Wiseman 1992: 5–8. On Josephus’s views on tyrants, see van Henten 2011 and Ben-Yishai 2021. More generally, see Luraghi 2018.

It is perhaps surprising that here and above at §17 Josephus lists this Regulus-Rectus (see the note on “Regulus” at §17) first, despite the fact that he disappears from the narrative hereafter and that Chaerea was known as the main conspirator. Perhaps this fact has no significance, but perhaps Josephus (or his source) intentionally listed him first given that, of the three, he is the only one who had no personal motivations and rather acted out of pure ideological motives of hatred of the regime and love of liberty. Θυμοειδής (“passionate, high-spirited, high-tempered” [lsj 810, s.v.]). This is its only occurrence in Josephus. For the plot becoming known to people, see below §§62, 91–92, 132–133, 197. Josephus’s conviction that only the δραστήριος should be involved in public affairs is especially explicit in his contrast between the brothers Aristobulus ii and Hyrcanus ii; see 13.407 and 14.8, 13, 44; D. R. Schwartz 1994.

Above, “Minucianus” was the third conspirator mentioned, but now Josephus turns to him second, prior to Chaerea rather than after him. This allows Josephus to emphasize Chaerea by putting him last. On such triads, cf. the note on “Rome” at §2. Throughout this account, Josephus will emphasize Chaerea’s centrality; see, inter alia, §§23, 111, 182–184, along with Destinon’s suggestion cited in the note on “hands” at §113. Marcus Aemilius Lepidus, son of M. Lepidus (consul in 6 ce), had been married to Gaius’s favorite sister, Drusilla (Dio 59.11.1), and was—according to Dio—repeatedly declared by Gaius to be his chosen successor (59.22.6). Philo (Flacc. 151, 181) reports his successful support for Flaccus in 38/39. It is also reported that Lepidus had adulterous relations with Gaius’s other sisters, Agrippina and Julia (Dio 59.22.6; Suetonius, Cal. 24.3; Tacitus, Ann. 14.2), and allegedly also with Gaius himself (Suetonius, Cal. 36.1; Dio 59.11.1). Gaius executed him in 39 on a charge of conspiracy against him (Suetonius, Cal. 24.3; Claud. 9.1; cf. Seneca, Epist. 4.7). For Lepidus’s genealogy and relationship to Gaius and the imperial family see further, Barrett 2019: 115–116; for analysis of the allegation of his involvement in conspiracy against Gaius, see ibid. 144–146 and H. Lindsay 1993: 110–111. For such use of σὺν ὀλίγοις, see the note on “a few” at §18.1. That is, apart from the widespread general fear mentioned at §14, Vinicianus’s friendship with Lepidus gave him particular reason to be fearful—as will be reiterated at §49.

For Gaius’s taunting of Chaerea for his supposed effeminacy see below, §29, as well as Suetonius, Cal. 56.2 and Cassius Dio 59.29.2. That is, quite appropriate. The translation here follows Hudson’s emendation, οὐκ ἀνελεύθερον; see the discussion in Part vi of the Introduction. For the intensifying function of the double negative (“litotes”), see the note on “not at all devoid” at 18.65. Niese, who retains the manuscripts’ reading, ὀυ πάντ’ έλεύθερον, would apparently translate “he considered Gaius’s death something not at all appropriate for a free man [to desist from],” but that is quite a stretch.

This image (ἀκμὴν ἀκμάζoυσαν), which characterizes the danger posed by Gaius as being both sharp and at its peak of readiness, adumbrates, as poetic justice, the swords that will eventually kill Gaius (§§105–110). For similar reasoning, see 18.278. As at §27.

It is not clear whether ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀδεέστερον means that Chaerea, since he was a tribune and therefore allowed to approach Gaius, would be less fearful than others, or rather that Gaius, for the same reason, would be less fearful (and therefore more easily overcome) when Chaerea approached him. The practical result is the same.

There were several games in Rome in which races took place. For a survey of Roman chariot racing, see Bell 2014. Wiseman suggests that the present reference is to the ludi Romani, held September 4–19. This comment, like §§4 and 214, shows an awareness or anticipation of non-Roman Greek readers. I.e., the Circus Maximus—the largest of all Roman circuses (hippodromes), between the Palatine and Aventine hills. On it, see Dodge 2014: 562–564, and the detailed account in Humphrey 1986: chapters 3–5. For this translation of χρῄζω, see also §47. For such petitions to emperors at venues of entertainment see Suetonius, Aug.34.2, Tib. 47; Tacitus, Ann. 6.13. As Cicero put it, “the opinion and feeling of the Roman People in public affairs can be most clearly expressed on three occasions, at a meeting, at an Assembly, at a gathering for plays and gladiatorial shows” (Cicero, Pro Sestio106, trans. Gardner, lcl; cf. ibid. 115). See further, Millar 1977: 368–375 and Cameron 1976: 157–192. For this translation here, similar to Schalit’s (1963: 321), see ThLJ 99, s.v. ἀχαριστεῖν and ccfj 1.285, s.v. ἀχαριστέω. Feldman (1965: 227) and Wiseman (2013a: 6) take it to mean the populace is not ungrateful, but that requires switching the subject.

Such tax relief was a standard gesture; cf. 17.204–205, 18.90, and 19.299. The distinction between τέλος and φόρος, in a Roman context, is usually thought to be between, respectively, indirect taxes and tribute. See Danker 2000: 999 and 1064, s.vv. Suetonius (Cal. 40–41) reports that Gaius had “levied new and unheard-of taxes,” that he taxed all goods and services, and that these new tax regulations were originally not published, leading to many offenses due to ignorance. When the people urgently requested that he publish the regulations, he had them posted “in a very narrow place and in excessively small letters, to prevent the making of a copy.” Cassius Dio (59.28.11) reports that he had the regulations inscribed in very small letters on a tablet which he had hung at a very high place, “so that it should be read by as few as possible and that many through ignorance … should lay themselves liable to the penalties provided,” and that the people then rushed to the hippodrome to complain. Cf. the note on “ground” at §291, about Claudius’s proper practice in this regard, just as Dio (60.4.1) reports that Claudius abolished the taxes that were introduced by Gaius. See the note on “gave heed” at §26. I.e., to make a public spectacle of their deaths. Cf. the note on “entire city” at 20.136.

The same verb (ἀνέχω) as at §25, i.e., Gaius did not heed their demands, but forced them to heed his response. For a similar move with the same verb, cf. above, §§12–13. Cf. Cassius Dio 59.28.11: “Once when the people had come together in the Circus and were objecting to his conduct, he had them slain by the soldiers; after this all kept quiet” (trans. Cary, lcl).

For εἰς κενόν, cf. §96 and War 1.275.

This translation follows the mss., which read ἐστρατεύετο; that is retained by Niese in both of his editions and followed by Mathieu and Herrmann (1929: 201), Schalit (1963: 321) and Wiseman (2013a: 6: “As a long-serving soldier, Chaerea did not enjoy …”). Josephus’s notion seems to be that career soldiers are men of action, so the need to bide his time was especially difficult for him—esp. given Gaius’s behavior reported in the coming lines. Naber (1893: xxvi), however, followed by Feldman (1965: 228–229)—perhaps because στρατεύομαι usually refers to the movements of an army (“to take the field, undertake a campaign (military expedition], invade …” [ccfj 4.50]), not something done by an individual, and given the fact that the motif of delay is frequent in this story (§§47–48, 70, 74, 77, 78, 84, 89 …)—adopted Holwerda’s emendation: ἐστραγγεύετο; “things had been going slowly.” That is quite a rare verb, so if Josephus used it here we might understand that copyists turned it into the more familiar ἐστρατεύετο (for the suspicion of the same confusion at 2 Macc 15:17, see D. R. Schwartz 2008: 503). However, στραγγεύομαι never appears in Josephus; the context seems to require something about Chaerea; and στρατεύομαι can refer to an individual’s serving as a soldier; cf. 3.287; 7.320; 14.226; 18.84. This phrase (ἡδονῇ φέρων) appears later in this story (§§83, 246), as also in Books 17–19 (17.148, 183, 211; 18.227, 289) and is, as Mason notes, characteristic of those three books, just as “receive with pleasure” (see the note at 18.63). On ἀναστροφή, see Danker 1982: 358–359 and Spicq 1994: 1.111–114; cf. the note on “recovery” at 18.359. Two manuscripts have συναναστροφήν (“living with”), and accordingly Wiseman translates: “Chaerea did not enjoy his intimacy with Gaius.” Wiseman notes that neither the doubling of the rate nor Chaerea’s role in collecting these payments is attested elsewhere. As others, I have ignored the puzzling ἐκεῖ (usually: “there”) here. ThLJ 231, s.v.: “‘on that occasion’ (?).” Here Niese (1890a: 215) offers αὐτοῦ with smooth breathing, Naber (1893: 212) with rough. Τhe latter (“his own”) fits the context better. Niese seems often (although not always; cf. e.g. 17.58 and 18.169) to have preferred to reserve the rough breathing for cases with the fuller orthography, ἑαυτοῦ, as, for example, at 18.52 and 19.88.

For this nuance of μαλακία (“softness”), which is especially warranted by §21 and by the watchwords mentioned in the next sentence, see Danker 2000: 613, s.v. μαλακός, §2. The watch of the Praetorian Guard appears to have changed in the eighth hour of the day (cf. Martial. Epigrams 10.48.1–3), and its commander would then be given the daily password by the emperor, an act perhaps symbolizing control of the empire; see Bingham 2013: 83–84 and Barrett 2019: 262. Other recorded instances of the giving of such passwords include Tacitus, Ann. 1.7 and Suetonius, Claud. 42, Nero 9.

The same is reported by Seneca, Const. 18.3 and Suetonius, Cal. 56.2, who say that Gaius gave passwords such as “Venus” and “Priapus,” and Cassius Dio 59.29.2, who mentions “Love” and “Aphrodite” (Venus). Cf. Pausanias 9.27.4. Cf. Sossius’s calling the last Hasmonean king, upon his surrender, “Antigone” instead of “Antigonus” (Ant. 14.481). For Gaius’s celebrating mysteries see also below, §§71, 104; cf. Barrett 2019: 292–293. This is the only occurrence of πλοκαμίς in Josephus. “It is a poetic word, hardly found before Josephus’s time in extant literature. Cf. Dionysius, Ant. rom. 7.9.4: Aristodemus, the tyrant of Cumae (6th cent. bce), nicknamed Malakos, undertakes to feminize the boys in his territory, forcing them to wear women’s clothes and hairstyles” (Steve Mason). All of the sources mention Gaius’s habit of dressing up in women’s attire; see Seneca, Const. 18.3; Pliny, nh 37.17; Suetonius, Cal. 52; Cassius Dio 59.26.6–8, the latter saying that he did so in order to impersonate female divinities. Cf. Barrett 2019: 195–196. Josephus similarly accuses John of Gischala’s followers of dressing up like women (War 4.561), and that seems to be part of his invective against them as “tyrants”; see von Ehrenkrook 2011. The same contrast between Gaius’s derision of Chaerea as feminine and the fact that he himself dressed femininely is made by Seneca, Const. 18.3.

This καί coordinates the use of παρίστατο here, of his courage, with the appearance of the same verb in the preceding paragraph, of his rage, underlining that the same impetus (Gaius’s demeaning behavior) engendered both a negative result and a positive one. That is (as the coming γάρ indicates), Chaerea’s resentment concerning effeminate passwords (which, although bothersome, were not of essential importance) was not the only problem, as Josephus will now explain.

Cassius Dio tells a similar story at 59.26.4, but names the accused Pomponius, and Suetonius briefly mentions it without naming those involved (Cal. 16.4). Swan 1976 identifies him as P. Pomponius Secundus (ocd 1219), who survived prosecution under Tiberius in 31 (Tacitus, Ann. 5.8), was at some point governor of Crete and Cyrene, and was suffect consul in 44. That Pomponius is referred to by Pliny (who also wrote his biography, according to Pliny the Younger, Ep. 3.5), as a “consular poet” (nh 7.80). Pomponius also wrote pieces for the theater (Tacitus, Ann. 11.13), which would account for his acquaintance with the actress Quintilia. For the present episode see also Barrett 2019: 251. Pomponius’s brother figures in §§263–264. The formulation is similar to Josephus’s introduction of Quirinius at 18.1. Neither Suetonius nor Cassius Dio describes him as a senator, as one who held offices, or as an Epicurean. This is the only occurrence of ἐπιτηδευτής in Josephus, and he is the earliest known user of this word. He also uses other forms of the word often, including 18.14, 15, 20, 21, 66, 92, 349; 19.49, 147; 20.264. For the notion, as here, that adherence to a particular school or sect leads people to “strive” (ἐπιτηδεύω) for some particular way of life, cf. 18.14–15, 20–21. I.e., a life unconcerned with public affairs; cf. §§221, 231 and the note on “inactive style” at 18.106. For the Epicurean doctrine of non-involvement in political life, see Diogenes Laertius 10.119: “… nor will he [i.e., the wise man] take part in politics, as is stated in the first book On Life [by Epicurus].” For examples of the implementation of this ideal, see Plutarch, Brutus 12.3; Philo, Spec. leg. 3.1–2; Schofield 2000: 437–443; and Goodenough 1926. By portraying Pompedius as both a senator and active public figure and also as an Epicurean who led an inactive life, Josephus has it both ways: he condemns Gaius both for persecuting senators (as above, §2) and for persecuting innocent people.

The name Timidius is unparalleled (Wiseman 2013a: 51). Cassius Dio (59.26.4) does not name the accuser, and rather says that Pomponius “had been betrayed by a friend.” Birley (2000: 620–622), pointing to manuscript evidence for “Tummidius,” suggests that Ummidius Quadratus is meant. But Ummidius has not yet been mentioned by Josephus; he appears only in Book 20 (§§125–133), so it would be surprising, although not impossible, for Josephus to mention him without introduction here. Is it too wild to suggest that Josephus, or his source, has mistaken the Latin adjective “timidius,” which denounced the informer as cowardly, for his proper name? Or that he or his source deliberately played that way with the informer’s real name (perhaps “Timinius,” as Wiseman suggests, or “Ummidius”)? For the use of Spitznamen that play with names in order to condemn, such as “Antiochus Epimanes” (“crazy Antiochus”) for Antiochus Epiphanes at Polybius 26.1a, Hierosyla (“temple-robbing”) for Hierosolyma (Jerusalem) at Apion 1.311, and “Biberius Caldius Mero” (“drinker of hot wine”) for Tiberius Claudius Nero at Suetonius, Tiberius 42.2, see Bruun 1999. According to Cassius Dio (59.26.4), the accusation was of plotting against Gaius. Quintilia is not named in the other sources. Dio (ibid.) says she was Pomponius’s mistress, and Suetonius identifies her as a “freedwoman” (Cal. 16.4).

For this translation of ἡ ἄνθρωπος of a woman, cf. the note on “poor woman” at 18.71. For μηδὲν εἰς ἀναβολάς, see the note on “without delay” at 18.107. Φονικός. In Antiquities, the word appears only here and below at 19.201; in War, however, it appears half a dozen times. Στρέβλωσις occurs only here in Josephus. The same root is used twice in the next paragraphs, στρεβλόω at §38 and στρέβλη at §41, and both are the only occurrences in Antiquities. As above, §29.

Barrett (2019: 251) assumes this was Chaerea himself, but Josephus apparently distinguishes between the two. For the topos of women who endure torture with manly virture, cf. 2 Macc 7:21; 4 Macc 15:30 and 16:14; and D. R. Schwartz 2008: 309. That is, as the sight of a beautiful woman should; see §33.

800,000 sesterces, according to Suetonius, Cal. 16.4.

Reading, as Feldman (1965: 232–234) and Wiseman (2013a: 41), with Hudson and Havercamp (1726: 1.919): κακῶν ὅσον ἐπ’ αὐτῷ γενόμενον. On παρηγορία, see esp. Ant. 15.277–278. Here it apparently refers to the παραμυθία mentioned at §36. M. Arrecinus Clemens. His daughter, Arrecina Tertulla, would later be Titus’s first wife (Suetonius, Titus 4.2), and his son, Arrecinus Clemens, held the same position as his father under the Flavians and was suffect consul in 73 and again in 83 or 84. At first he was close to Domitian and favored by him, but eventually Domitian executed him (Tacitus. Hist. 4.68; Suetonius, Dom. 11.1). He is unknown, but may have been related to Sextus Papinius, who had been executed by Gaius (Seneca, De Ira 3.18.3). I.e., like Chaerea.

Although Chaerea is said to be speaking here with both Clemens and Papinius, his first speech is addressed to Clemens, who is of higher rank, as is made clear here and at §41. For such conspiracies, see the note on “formed” at §14. As is reported at §36.

Along with §§31 and 32, this is the third time that παρίστημι has been used in a few paragraphs.

See the note on “by Gaius” at §21. This translation here is offered by ccfj 1.133, s.v. ἀνίημι. On such distinctions, which are very common in this book, see the note on “private gain” at 18.7.

For this Roman point of view, compare the note on “earth and sea” at §1.

That is, the complete opposite of “liberty,” libertas. Cf. Wirszubski 1950: 1–3 and the note on “liberty” at 18.4. For the expectation that this would come sooner or later, cf. §14.

Given the coming reference to pleasure, the point seems to be “l’appetito vien mangiando”—the assumption that, over time, a tyrant will want increasingly more victims in order to satiate his appetites. This assumption is the opposite of the one Tiberius expressed in his parable about flies at 18.172–176. See the note on “pleasure” at §201. For this sense of ψηφίζω, see also §193. Contrast the note on “decrees” at 18.265. Ἀνεπιβούλευτος appears in Josephus only in Ant. 19 (here and §§150, 178), and only as a substantive with τό. Here it is very apt: Chaerea’s point is that they need to conspire against Gaius in order to save the people from the emperor’s conspiracy against it.

Similar wording at 17.193 and 18.111. Although, as we soon learn (§47), Chaerea did not fully trust Clemens himself to keep quiet. For such a portrayal of time (here: χρόνος) as playing an active role in history, compare Nero’s speech at the Isthmian Games in 67 (Oliver 1989: 573; no. 296, line 19), in which he complains about Time (ὁ αἰών) not having allowed him to live in a day in which he could have been even more generous than he was. See also §227 and Apion 2.279. For τυχαῖος, compare τυχαίως at §125 and τυχούσης at 20.215.

If the identification with M. Arrecinus Clemens is correct (see the note on “Clemens” at §37), it seems rather unlikely that he was indeed too old at this time, for his children were active in the 70s (see the note on “Clemens” at §37). Moreover, Chaerea too was no youth; see the note on “Chaerea Cassius” at §18. So, it seems, Clemens is to be understood as begging off with a flimsy excuse. While cynical readers may take this to indicate that he was “shrewd enough to distance himself from the actual mechanics of the assassination and let his subordinates run the real risks” (Barrett 2019: 253), readers are probably meant to see Clemens as a fearful foil for Chaerea. For more of that, see §57. On τόλμα, and its association with youth, see the note on “audacious” at 18.6.

For such metaphorical usage of περιφερόμενος (“bounced around”) see also §§57, 109; while Clemens and Gaius could be distracted, the heroic Chaerea could not. The next paragraph (§47) will explain why. According to Suetonius (Cal. 56, 58) and Cassius Dio (59.29.1), Cornelius led the conspiracy together with Chaerea. He is, apparently, otherwise unknown. This verb, ἐξεπίσταμαι, appears frequently in this narrative (§§46, 65, 133, 177). Here and at §65, it indicates that, alongside his other virtues, Josephus’s Chaerea is also a good judge of character. Τοῦ ἐλευθέρου ἐραστήν. Josephus uses similar language of the Israelites in Egypt: τῆς ἐλευθερίας ἐρῶντας (Ant. 2.281), but also in his description of the Fourth Philosophy, above, at 18.23: “[they] have a love for liberty that can hardly be overcome (δυσνίκητος δὲ τοῦ ἐλευθέρου ἔρως).” In his encomium of Ananus in the Jewish War, he writes “unique in his love of liberty and passion for democracy” (φιλελεύθερος τε ἐκτόπως καὶ δημοκρατίας ἐραστής; War 4.320), and φιλελεύθερος is used by Josephus several other times in War.

On the nuances of τὸ μεγαλόφρων, see the note on “high spirit” at 18.255. On Lepidus, see the note at §20. For Vinicianus, his relationship with Lepidus, and his current dangerous position, see above §§18, 20.

As Thackeray notes (ThLJ 57, s.v. ἀξίωσις), “meaning doubtful.”

For λόγου ἅπτεσθαι, see also 18.110. See §§29–31. Josephus uses ἀοίδιμος elsewhere only at 6.165.

I.e., although it was at his own expense. That is, he repaid his confidence by putting himself on the line. For such usage of ἀμείβω in the middle voice, compare §151 and 20.93. As Wiseman notes, the same password was used by Brutus at Philippi, according to Cassius Dio 47.43.1. See also below, at §186.

See the end of the note on “with Gaius” at §270.

This is the only occurrence of πίσυνος in Josephus. For σίδηρος (lit. “iron”) as “weapon,” see also §148 and 20.165, also 10.118; 11.283; 19.56; at War 2.619, Mason (2008: 408, n. 3688) notes that the choice of this term, rather than the more “prosaic” and usual ξίφος, “poeticizes the drama.” So too here, the fancier word fits the hortatory context. For similar thoughts, see §233 and 18.363. Cf. the saying quoted by Seneca (Epistle 87): “a sword kills no one; rather, it is the slayer’s weapon” (gladius neminem occidit; occidentis telum est).

See the note on “distracted” at §46. For ἐλπίς referring not only to “hope” but also to an unwelcome prospect, cf. the note on “expectation” at 18.277. ἐπαλγέω. “Only here in Josephus. Since he is only the third attested user of the verb, after Euripides (Suppl. 59) and Strabo (Geog. 11.3.2), this may be an allusion to the tragic situation of the former” (Steve Mason). See the note on “tyranny” at §177. For law as meant to foster virtue, cf. the note on “virtue” at 18.264.

On such usage of ἀπαλλάσσω in the passive and negative, see ThLJ 59, s.v., §2.

Apparently βεβαίως here means that some who tell the following anecdote insist that it is authentic, i.e. true; see the note on “full-fledged” at 20.38. However, the text is not simple and has invited emendations (see Feldman 1965: 244, nn. 2–3); Niese (1890a: 221) suspects a lacuna.

Συνωμοτῶν. Lit. “those who took an oath together”—Josephus’s usual term in this book for the conspirators (§§61, 73, 78, 101, etc.). Cf. συνόμνυμι at §38. “Traitor” (προδότης) is quite a harsh term, to which Josephus must have been sensitive. See his pious denial at War 3.354 (cf. §§361, 381) and especially Life 416, where καὶ αὐτῶν means that both Jews and Romans accused Josephus of being one. Above, at §§45–47, Chaerea worried about Clemens possibly revealing a secret, if only by indiscretion; now, as the story nears its climax, things are becoming more polarized. In Antiquities Josephus loves to underline divine providence. See esp. his explicit conclusions on the subject at the end of Books Ant. 10, 15, and 17, as well as War 7 (§453), also above, §16, and such passages as 18.127–128, 199, and 20.18, 49, 91; Attridge 1976: esp. 71–107; and Klawans 2012: 81–90. For heavenly voices in Josephus’s writings see Ant. 13.282, and—preceding the destruction of the Temple—War 6.299 (paralleled in Tacitus, Hist. 5.13.1). In Roman sources see Cicero, Div. 1.99, 101. They are reminiscent of the rabbinic notion of the heavenly bat kol (lit. “daughter of the voice,” i.e., echo); for one that is said to have presaged the death of Gaius, see t.Soṭah 13:6 (ed. Zuckermandel, 319; ed. Lieberman, 232) and parallels, along with Noam in Ilan and Noam 2017: 1.469–472.

Wiseman (2013a: 53) asserts that this stage of the narrative is equivalent to §22 above, therefore pointing to their origins in different sources. However, in context, the present passage assumes that some time has passed since the first expressions of discontent related in the earlier passage. For such usage of ἀριθμέω, see also 18.16, 210.

Τυραννοκτονία (“killing of a tyrant, tyrannicide”) appears in Josephus only in Ant. 19, here and below at §§92, 184, and 191. On Josephus on “tyrants,” see the note on “tyranny” at §18.

Apparently C. Iulius Callistus, to whom the physician Scribonius Largus dedicated his Compositiones. Cf. Millar 1977: 75–76; Barrett 2019: 116–117. Tacitus (Ann. 11.29.1) and Cassius Dio (59.29.1) also mention him among the prime conspirators. Callistus’s daughter, Nymphidia, was said to have had intimate relations with Gaius, and her son, Nymphidius—a claimant to the principate following Nero’s death—even claimed to be Gaius’s son (Tacitus, Ann. 15.72; Plutarch, Galba 9). Suetonius (Cal. 56.1) writes that the plot enjoyed the connivance of Gaius’s most influential freedmen, but does not name any of them. Pliny identifies Callistus as “the freedman of Claudius,” and also emphasizes his wealth and influence (nh 36.60), and Cassius Dio 59.19.5–6 illustrates Callistus’s influence over Gaius in the case of Domitius Afer. On the growing influence of freedmen under Gaius, see Yavetz 1996: 105–106. For Callistus’s rise to power, see also Seneca, Epistle 47. On Josephus’s sharing in Roman aristocratic hatred of wealthy and influential freedmen (such as Pallas and Beryllus—Ant. 20.182–184, also, more generally, 20.135), see the note on “friends” at 20.135.

Δωροδόκος. This is the only occurrence of this word in Josephus. For such usage of παρ’ ὁντινοῦν, see also §208. Josephus uses ἀντίσπασμα elsewhere only at 17.36. See the note on “property” at §3.

For such use of θεραπεύω of calculated self- serving cultivation of others, see the note on “relationship” at 18.167. For doubts about this, see the note on “himself” at §69. Using λόγος in the sense of a financial “account,” as at 11.102 and 17.223; see also Bickerman 2007: 1.437–438.

Here γοῦν indicates that the following story (§§67–69) is meant to illustrate the statement that concludes §66, a point that is made clear by the repetition, at §69, of the banking image (προκαταθέμενος χάριν and then χάριτος κατάθεσιν). Cf. the note on “at least” at 18.243. See the note on “denounce Claudius” at §13. For Gaius’s collection of poisons, see Suetonius, Cal. 49.3. On χρῆμα, here as at §75, see the note on “labor” at 18.319.

For a similar comment, cf. below, §107. For similar criticism of Nicolaus, cf. 14.9 and 16.183–187. So ccfj 1.121 (s.vv. ἀνέχω, ἀνίσχω) of this passage; so too above, §§25–26. For the verb’s range of meanings, including “to restrain oneself” at 18.241, 347, see also ThLJ 47. This parenthetical addition seems to be the simplest way to make sense of this passage, which has perplexed editors and attracted emendations. Here δεσπότης seems to have a negative connotation, as also at §179; 7.390; and 13.330. Usually, however, it simply means “ruler” or “master” (see, for example, 18.187, 213, 296; 19.6, 14, 131), just as Josephus can use it of God (on which see Fischer 1958/59). Cf. the long entry at ThLJ 130.

Josephus reverts here, with χάριτος κατάθεσιν, to the financial image he introduced at §66, thus indicating to readers that this story ends here. Indeed, Callistus remained prominent under Claudius (see Pliny, nh 33.134, 36.60; Tacitus, Ann. 11.38, 12.1–2). This has been taken by some as one of the reasons to suggest that Claudius himself was involved in the plot, and that together with one group of conspirators their original plan was to replace Gaius with Claudius (see Levick 1990: 35–39). That suggestion is rejected by Wiseman 2013a: 53–54, because the evidence indicates that, prior to the assassination of Gaius, Claudius was not a likely candidate to succeed him to the Principate (see Suetonius, Claud. 2–10).

This phrasing (τοῖς ἀμφὶ τὸν Χαιρέαν) does not exclude Chaerea (see the note on “retinue of” at 20.131). But it does put the onus on the others, a point the text goes on to make explicit. For a similar move, see the note on “you” at §80. This repeated emphasis on Chaerea’s resolve to do the deed as quickly as possible (see also above, §§23, 28, 47), and the contrast with the other conspirators’ hesitancy, clearly make Chaerea the main hero of this narrative. Note, however, that at §27 above, Chaerea himself is also said to have been hesitant to kill Gaius when he calculated his chances of success as not great.

See above, §§4, 11. See above, §11. It is unclear what the occasions for these sacrifices were. They could not have been her birthday, given that the account speaks of it occurring “often.” Although various scholars have assumed a palace on the Palatine was meant, Wiseman (2013a: 55) notes that, in that case, we would expect βασίλειον, as at §§75, 103, etc. Given the unanimity of the witnesses for βασιλική here, the reference is probably, instead, to the Basilica Julia, at the southwestern side of the Forum, which Suetonius (Cal. 37.1) also mentions as the building from the roof of which Gaius would scatter money to the people. On that basilica, see Richardson 1992: 52–53. Gaius’s scattering of money among the people from a basilica’s rooftop is mentioned by Suetonius, Cal. 37.1, as well as Cassius Dio 59.25.5, who also reports that many people died in the scramble for the money, and that Gaius mixed small pieces of iron with the coins. For similar scattering by emperors, see below §93. also, inter alia, Suetonius, Nero 11.2; Cassius Dio 61.18.1–2 (Nero), 66.25.5 (Titus); Suetonius, Dom. 4.5; and Millar 1977: 137. The collocation κατὰ κεφαλῆς has been the object of much discussion apropos of its occurrence, in another sense, in 1 Corinthians 11:4; see, inter alia, Massey 2007 and Brown 2013. As Brown notes (367, n. 4), there is some papyrological evidence for the collocation being used, specifically, of a blow to the head. Here, however, the reference to the height, from which Gaius would fall if pushed, seems to point to falling down head first, “headlong.” On these, see above, §30.

It seems that the subject of this sentence is Chaerea, and the point is that he knew he had these options because he was devoting all of his thought to the topic of how to kill Gaius. Others think that Josephus means that Gaius was so attentive to performing the cult properly that he would easily fall prey to an assassin; so, for example, Schalit 1963: 325, ccfj 1.110 (on this passage), and, perhaps, Wiseman 2013a: 12. But that is both to ignore Gaius’s bodyguards and also to agree that Josephus (or his source) would use such a nice adverb as εὐπρεπῶς for anything Gaius did. The construction of the last clause goes hand in hand with the one that precedes it. Schalit (1963: 325) and (apparently) Wiseman (2013a: 12) take it to mean that Gaius “confidently refused to believe that anyone would attack him,” and that gave Chaerea confidence that he could successfully assassinate Gaius. However, ἀπόγνωσις usually means “despair”; see, for example, 18.285 and 19.199, also ThLJ 66. Moreover, the notion that Chaerea thought his attack on Gaius would be without risk would undercut his heroism, while the notion that no one else would do it fits the context here (§70). I.e., to Gaius. That is, Chaerea is represented as thinking that he will kill Gaius unless some superior divine force steps in and does the job; see the next note.

This sentence is difficult and has attracted several emendations; see ccfj 4.110, s.v. τίμιος. Feldman (1965: 250) notes “The mss. yield little sense,” and Niese, who followed the manuscripts in his editio maior (1890a: 223), marked a lacuna in his editio minor (1890b: 192) just before the text quoted immediately below. Here, faute de mieux, I have attempted to render Niese’s text: εἰ δὲ μηδὲν τίμιον ὡς τῶν θεῶν αὐτῷ δύναμιν τοῦ θανάτου παρατυγχάνειν. Feldman followed Petersen in reading τὸ κωλῦον instead of τίμιον and Γαΐῳ instead of αὐτῷ, thus taking the sentence to mean that Chaerea would kill Gaius “if no divinity prevented Gaius from meeting his death,” and Hudson, followed by several including Mathieu and Herrmann (1929: 207) and Wiseman (2013a: 41, 55), suggested σημεῖον instead of τίμιον, the result being Chaerea’s readiness to kill Gaius even without any “sign” from the gods. Apart from the radical nature of those emendations, however, it also seems that Josephus’s Chaerea should not be contemplating that eventuality; Chaerea is portrayed as being so sure that Gaius should die that, for him, there was no reason to imagine the gods would want to save him, nor any need for any sign from them. The only question was whether the gods would preempt him. Lit: “an iron.” See the note on “weapons” at §56. Reading δι’ ὀργῆς εἶχε with two witnesses—a common formulation; see 3.12, 33; 5.155; 6.150; 7.147, 321. So too Feldman 1965: 250 and Wiseman 2013a: 12, 55. Niese (1890a: 223) adhered to the other witnesses, which offer εὐχῆς εἶχη, omitting the preposition and offering another noun. Βut how that can be rendered, without an inordinate amount of parenthetical supplementation, is not apparent.

Josephus uses νομίμων, “of that which law requires,” but it seems that a broader sense is needed here. Reading αὖθις with Holwerda (cited by Naber 1893: xxvii), instead of the codices’ αὐτοῖς.

Namely, during the Ludi Palatini, as stated by Suetonius, Cal. 56.2 and Cassius Dio 59.29.4. These ludi were established in memory of Augustus (as is said at §87) by Livia, shortly after his death in 14 ce. They began on Jan. 17, the anniversary of the wedding of Augustus and Livia (see Degrassi 1963: 161, 400–401), and are said to have lasted three days (Cassius Dio 56.46.5), but see the note on “[to the spectacles]” at §77. As for the Palatine, see the note on “to be settled” at §223. I.e., Augustus, as is said explicitly at §87, and see the previous note. As Wiseman (2013a: 55) notes, the observation that Augustus was the first to transfer the government of the people to himself contradicts the view reflected at §§173 and 187, which point, instead, to Julius Caesar. Indeed, it is obvious from 18.32–33 that Josephus considered Augustus the second emperor. However, while §§173 and 187 are complaints about Julius Caesar, here there is no criticism of Augustus, so perhaps we should understand that the former violated the extant legal order (§173!) while the latter is, here, said to have instituted the change of it. This translation of καλύβη, here and at §90, its only other occurrence in Josephus, is adopted from ccfj 2.426. Feldman (1965: 251) states that “hut” is the literal meaning (although he prefers “stage”), and Wiseman (2013a: 12, 56) indeed offers “wooden hut” and suggests, as Feldman, that it was part of the theater. However, it seems that the reference here is to where the audience was, not where the actors performed, and it also seems that (as Feldman apparently recognized) “hut” is too shabby a word to use of something erected for lavish imperial celebrations. As with καλύβη, Josephus uses πηκτός only here and at §90. I.e., patricians; see the note on “good birth” at §2.

In fact, however, the attack on Gaius came only after he left; see §101–105. The current statement about original plans contributes to the oft-repeated theme that the assassins’ plans were often delayed; see the note on “delayed” at §28. That, of course, heightens the drama of the story. On Gaius’s German bodyguards, see the note on “bodyguards” at §119. True, given the use of ὑπασπιστής here (which Josephus uses elsewhere only once, at Ant. 5.252), rather than δορυφόροι as at §119 or the usual σωματοφύλαξ (as at 19.214, 221, 237, 247), Wiseman (2013a: 56), pointing to the use of ὑπασπιστής for elite forces of Alexander the Great’s army, suggested that the reference is to the Praetorian Guard—Chaerea’s and Clemens’s (§37) comrades-in-arms. However, §§119–121 and §§149–150 make it clear that the bodyguards, from whom opposition might be expected, were the Germans, and the allusion to Alexander, if there is one, could be, as that at §95, only part of the story’s critique of Gaius for elevating himself to the status of a Macedonian monarch.

Here fortune (τύχη) is compared to a judge who grants “stays of execution.” On such delays, see the note on “entered” at §76. On Tyche in Josephus, see the note on “Fortune” at 18.54. This translation follows the manuscripts, which read ὑπερβαλλομένου. Wiseman (2013a: 56) renders that as “exceeding the three by the scheduled days,” observes that that is unintelligible, and assumes the reference is to Gaius’s three-day extension of the games that year, reported by Cassius Dio (59.29.6). Accordingly, he takes the text to mean “Even though three days were added to the scheduled programme” (Wiseman 2013a: 13). Other scholars, however, finding it difficult to take the verb to mean “having been added,” especially in the absence of reference to the subject, Gaius, emend to ὑπερβαλλομένοις and take the text to mean “having let pass the three days” (so Feldman 1965: 253, defended by Wardle 1991: 161). Given the unanimity of the manuscripts here on the one hand, and the frequency of difficulties with the Greek of Ant. 19 on the other, I tend to ascribe less weight to that argument than to the way the unemended text can be coordinated, as Wiseman noted, with Dio’s evidence—a move that also allows both to agree with Suetonius (see the next note). There is some debate about the date of the assassination. Suetonius (Caligula 58.1) clearly dates it to “viiii Kal. Feb.,” i.e., January 24, and although Cassius Dio does not supply a date, he does state (at 59.30.1) the length of Gaius’s reign and his datum brings us to January 23–24 (Wardle 1991: 158–159). This poses a difficulty, because, as noted above (on “Palatine” at §75), the spectacles were originally held for only three days, beginning on January 17, so will have ended on January 19. The only way to reconcile the data, if not by positing that Suetonius’s datum is erroneous, is to assume the spectacles were lengthened to eight days (January 17–24). Indeed, that seems to be stated by Cassius Dio 59.29.5–6, where we read that the conspirators planned to kill Gaius at the spectacles, waited five days, and then, when Gaius added three more days, they made their move. If we accept that statement about the length of the festival, and also Josephus’s datum (here) that they did their deed on its last day, Suetonius’s date is confirmed. True, that requires that we read Dio 59.29.5–6 to mean they acted at the conclusion of the additional three days, not when they were announced, and that is not necessarily the most natural meaning, and an additional problem would arise if we thought that Josephus, here, stated the conspirators waited only three days. But the reading of Dio is possible and, as explained in the preceding note, Josephus seems to mean something else, namely, that (as Dio reported) Gaius added three days. But even if we take Josephus to mean that the conspirators waited only three days, that would seem to be the weakest item in the dossier; perhaps it would reflect only the knowledge, of Josephus or of a copyist, that the festival usually lasted three days (Dio 56.46.5). For the entire debate see also Degrassi 1963: 400–401, who prefers to correct the text of Suetonius; Wardle 1991, who upholds January 24; and Barrett 2019: 261–262, who leaves the issue unresolved.

Μήνυμα. Josephus uses this term only here and at War 7.223.

For a very similar scene, in which one brave member of a deliberative body urges his fellows to overcome their fear of a tyrant and rise to the occasion, see Ant. 14.172–174 (which has a parallel at b.Sanhedrin 19a–b). As at War 7.323–336, 341–388, however, in the present case Josephus has the speaker give two speeches: after the first moves the crowd but insufficiently, the second carries the day. Note that in his first speech, at §79, Chaerea, with οὐχ ὁρῶμεν, politely included himself with the others who might not see what should be seen. Now, in the more insistent second speech, with the move to the second-person οὐχ ὁρᾶτε he creates—as explicit in §83—a gap between him and any who do not follow him. See the note on “final day” at §77.

For this translation of θεωρία here, see ccfj 2.344, s.v. Philo too mentions a planned trip to Alexandria (Leg. 172–173, 250–253, 338). Those passages, however, seem to imply that the intended expedition was to take place significantly earlier than what Josephus says here, possibly in the late summer, which would also be more reasonable than a sea-expedition in January (cf. Barrett 2019: 267, n. 57). Suetonius (Cal. 49.2) writes that just prior to his death Gaius “had made up his mind to move to Antium [Gaius’s birthplace (ibid. 8.2, 5)], and later to Alexandria.” Yet, as scholars have noted, this should be taken with a grain of salt; such an accusation would have been “an easy way to discredit him” (Barrett 2019: 292; H. Lindsay 1993: 152). It is difficult to render μεγαλαυχία here. On the one hand, Chaerea evidently means that as long as Gaius is alive he sullies the good name of Rome; perhaps, then, we should imagine him referring to Rome’s magnificentia or the like. For μεγαλαυχία as magnificentia, see Goetz 1888: 365; on the magnificentia of Rome, see Dyson 2010: 206.. On the other hand, however, when Josephus uses μεγαλαυχία or its cognates elsewhere, it has a pejorative sense, “boasting” or “arrogance.” See War 1.477, Ant. 4.62, and Apion 2.126 (also αὔχημα at §§174, 250). Perhaps, then, readers are to understand Chaerea to mean that as long as Gaius is alive, he shows that all the Romans’ talk of their own greatness is no more than empty and unjustified boasting. I have tried to capture this ambiguity by adding “vaunted” to “greatness.” For προέσθαι τῶν χειρῶν, see also §236.

As Reinhold (1980: 103) put it, “for centuries” the Romans “treated the masses of Egyptians as the ‘rubbish of society.’’” See, for example, Juvenal, Satire 15; Tacitus, Hist. 1.11.1; Dio Chrysostom, Orat. 32 (“Ad Alexandrinos”). See also Berthelot 2000: 196–202.

This translation of ὁμοῦ σήμερον is suggested for this passage at ccfj 3.209, s.v. ὁμοῦ. On this phrase see the note on “endure” at §28. Josephus uses σχέτλιος only here and at Apion 2.33.

For the tribune’s receiving of the password, see the note on “his day” at §29. Chaerea carried out this task of asking for the password later that day, and it was immediately followed by the assassination (below, §105). The sword “appears to have identified him as the individual responsible for this duty on that particular day” (Eaton 2011: 54).

This is the only occurrence of παρό in Josephus apart from War. Aristocratic outrage is palpable here; cf. §§2–3. Cf. Suetonius, Cal. 26.4: Gaius induced the general public to take the seats of the equites in the theater in order to produce discord between the two groups. Separate seating at the games was decreed by the Senate under Augustus, according to Suetonius, Aug. 44. He wrote that Augustus “put a stop to the disorderly and indiscriminate fashion of viewing the games”; that is, the exact opposite of Gaius’s policy here. For details about the separate seating arrangements, see Rawson 1987: 89–110.

Probably P. Nonius Asprenas, who was consul in 38 (Frontinus, Aq. 13; Dio 59.9.1), although it is surprising that Josephus, in contrast to 19.91 (and 18.1), does not characterize him as having been a consul but only as “one of the senators.” Assuming that the reading “Asprenas” at §98 is correct (see there), he was involved in the conspiracy. According to Suetonius (Cal. 57.4), however, it was Gaius whose clothing was soiled by the blood. For the argument that the original tradition was deliberately ambiguous, as reports of such omens often were, and that this omen actually presaged the death of both and Gaius did not understand that, see Woods 2018. Ibid. 875 Woods assembles evidence that the splattering of blood on someone was often taken to be an omen of death. On ambiguous omens, and “the delight that ancient authors often took in describing the initial misinterpretation of an omen by the relevant figure before he eventually realises, all too late, that he has got it wrong,” see ibid. 878. For a similar case, see the note on “Gaius” at §270. This is the only occurrence of ἐπικατασφάζω in Josephus. Feldman (1965: 257) takes it locatively: “over Gaius’ dead body,” but that notion is not supported in the report of Asprenas’s death, below at §123. Rather, ἐπί here probably is temporal (“to be slaughtered immediately after, be killed at the same time” [ccfj 2.161]), or perhaps even causative (“on Gaius’s account”).

This is the only occurrence of εὐπροσήγορος (“conversational”?) in Josephus. Cf. below on “familiarity” at §131.

“Josephus’ description of the arrangements for the games is one of the most confused of his whole narrative and rendered even more incomprehensible by textual corruption. It has so far eluded coherent explanation” (Barrett 1989: 170). Moreover, the fact that the whole of the Palatine hill was burned in the great fire of 64 ce (Tacitus, Ann. 15.39.1; Cassius Dio 62.18.2) makes reconstruction even more difficult. For an attempt, see Wiseman 2013a: 103 (Figure 2b, where “Augustan forecourt?” marks the assumed site of the temporary theater); more generally, see idem 1987 and 2013b. See the note on “tent” at §75. This is the only occurrence of ἀκρόαμα in Josephus. lsj 56, s.v. offers “lecturers,” “singers,” and “players” as, for example, at Polybius 4.20.10. As Walbank (1957–1979: 1.468) notes ad loc., this sense passed into Latin (acroama); he cites Cicero Pro Sestio 116 and Pro Archia 20. On ἀναστροφή, see the note on “recovery” at 18.359.

For the suggestion that Bathybius, “whose identity is a complete mystery” (Kavanagh 2010: 1007), be identified with one Pacuvius mentioned by Seneca in Epistle 12.8, who seems to have been both an ex-praetor and a connoisseur of things Greek, see Birley 2000: 622–623. This is the conventional reading, since Hudson and Havercamp (1726: 1.924, n. k), despite the variety of readings supplied by various witnesses; see Wardle 1992b: 467 and Free 2017: 589, n. 10. Beginning with Mommsen 1870, moreover, it has often been suggested that no one but this Cluvius would have known of this conversation or cared to report it, which led to the conclusion that Josephus’s source was a known historian, Cluvius Rufus. However, there remain doubts about the name, and, even if it is Cluvius, it may be that the chronological context is too early, for Cluvius Rufus is known mostly from the 60s, so perhaps the individual mentioned here is his father, from whom the story could have made its way to any historian, not only to his own son. For more discussion of this source-critical issue, see the introduction to Book 19. Specifically on the date of Cluvius’s consulship, apparently sometime under Nero, see Gallivan 1978: 423 (where, however, “too old” should apparently be “born too late”).

Given the ease with which both kings and bandits could be viewed as “tyrants” (on bandits, see Ben-Yishai 2007), this is apparently to be understood as a clever comment which, if overheard by the wrong people, could be explained as referring to the forthcoming performances; see the notes on “ruler” and “Myrrha” in §94. Cluvius’s response, however, shows that he understood it to be referring to the planned assassination of Gaius. So should readers, esp. since they have not yet learned what shows were on the program. The quotation is from the Iliad 14.90–91, nearly identical with the received text.

This is reminiscent of the practice described at §71 and by other writers; see the note on “upon the people” at §71.

The reference is, apparently, to a chief of bandits; see the next note. Josephus, however, uses the general term ἡγεμών in order to make the relevance of the omen clear. Suetonius (Cal. 57.4) mentions this omen, as a performance of “a farce called Laureolus, in which the chief actor falls as he is making his escape and vomits blood.” The present story is, according to Coleman (1990: 64), the earliest testimony to this popular Roman story about a bandit, Laureolus, who was caught and crucified; it is also mentioned by Martial (Spectacles 7) and Juvenal (8.187). The latter identifies its composer as a certain Catullus—whom Wiseman (1985: 192–198) proposed to identify as the well-known Roman poet of the first century bce. This is this only occurrence of ὀρχηστής in Josephus, although he used ὀρχηστρίς (female dancer) in the “Tobiad romance” (12.187, 188). lsj translates: “dancer; later esp. pantomimic dancer.” From Suetonius, Cal. 57.4, we know that it was a pantomime dance, and that the dancer’s name was Mnester—one of Gaius’s favorites, whom he would often kiss even in public (ibid. 55.1; cf. Dio 59.27.1), and who is elsewhere said to have been one of Gaius’s male sexual partners (Suetonius, Cal. 36.1; Cassius Dio 60.22.3–4). Suetonius, Cal. 57.4 does not name the tragedy. Cinyras was a legendary king of Cyprus, mentioned already in the Iliad (11.20–22). The mythical tragic story that was the subject of the pantomime is recounted in detail in Ovid, Met. 10.298–502, and more briefly in Plutarch, Parallelaminora 22 and Hyginus, Fabulae 58. According to the legend, one of Cinyras’s daughters, Myrrha, had an uncontrollable passion for her father—a story of unlawful lust, attempted suicide, and incest. In Plutarch, Parallela minora 22 and Hyginus, Fabulae 58 and 242, she is named Smyrna. In none of the various versions of the myth is Cinyras said to have been killed. Only Hyginus, Fabulae 242 says that he committed suicide because of the incest. As for his daughter, no version of the story has her being killed; rather, she is transformed into a tree. Wiseman (2013a: 60) suggests that Josephus misunderstood the omen: that its point was not the amount of blood spilled, but rather the play itself, since, as Suetonius reports (Cal. 57.4), the play presented (Cinyras) was also presented the day Philip was killed. Suetonius (Cal. 57.4) too writes that “the stage swam in blood.”

The belief that this type of coincidence is significant, suggesting some guiding hand that, for whatever reason, deliberately “roll good things to a good day and bad things to a bad day” (b.Ta ‘anit 29a), was widespread. Note, for example, the belief that Ventidius defeated the Parthians in 38 bce on the same date that they defeated Crassus fifteen years earlier (Eutropius 7.5); that Herod conquered Jerusalem on the same date as Pompey, twenty-seven years earlier (Ant. 14.487); that Herod completed the renovation of the Temple on the same date as his ascent to the throne (Ant. 15.423); that massacres of Romans in Jerualem and of Jews in Caesarea, in 66 ce, happened “the same day and hour, as if due to supernatural providence” (War 2.457); that both the first and second temples of Jerusalem were destroyed on the same date (m. Ta‘anit 4:6) but also that the messiah was born on that date (y. Berakhot 2:4); etc. For a variation on this theme, see the note on “precisely” at §187. As is noted at 11.304, “as has been told elsewhere” (§305); for his name and the story, see Aristotle, Politics 5.1311b and Diodorus Siculus 16.93–94. On ancient usage of hetairoi with regard to Philip ii and Macedonia, both for courtiers and for heavy cavalry, see Rzepka 2012. That is, Philip ii, the father of Alexander the Great. Philip, whose father was Amyntas iii, was killed in 336 bce. That murder is also reported at 11.304–305, where Josephus depends upon “as has been related elsewhere.” The occasion was the celebration of Philip’s daughter’s marriage to Alexander of Epirus. However, while Philip was murdered in the summer (Wiseman 2013a: 60), around July (Hammond and Griffith 1979: 726), Gaius was killed in January. Since Suetonius reports (Cal. 57.4) that the same play was performed at the games at which Philip was executed, but does not say it was the same date, we should conclude either that Josephus’s formulation here is simply confused and that he (or his source) meant, as Suetonius, to refer to the play, not to the date, or else that folk memory, which tends to like such coincidences, has had its way. For the comparison of Gaius here to a Macedonian monarch, cf. the note on “shield-bearers” at §76.

Suetonius (Cal. 58.1) explains that Gaius hesitated whether or not to go for lunch because he had an upset stomach on account of excessive eating the previous day.

For “My dear Sir” (suggested for μακάριος here by ccfj 3.50, s.v.), see Dickey 1996: 140. Namely, Vinicianus’s fear that the opportunity would be missed (§96).

The manuscripts give various versions of the name, but unless we are to assume that Josephus is emphatically referring (αὐτός, “himself”) to someone unknown to his readers, which would be perplexing, it makes sense, as most scholars agree, to read Asprenas, as at §87. If he was close enough to Gaius to be splashed by the blood of his sacrifice, as is reported there, he could indeed be close enough to talk with Gaius, as is reported here. Asprenas would soon be the first to be killed by Gaius’s German bodyguards, after the assassination (below, §123). Suetonius (Cal. 58.1) writes that he went “at the persuasion of his friends,” without identifying them.

For ᾗ καιρός, cf. 17.51 and 18.247, 313. Since sunup (§85), i.e., mid-afternoon. According to Suetonius (Cal. 58.1), it was about the seventh hour when Gaius began debating whether to leave to eat; that is more in line with the assumption that the eighth hour was the time of the change of the watch of the Praetorian Guard (cf. Martial. Epigrams 10.48.1–3)—which is when its commander would get the watchword from the emperor, as Chaerea will soon do.

Chaerea and his men. Perhaps the use of σημαίνω here points to trumpets, as for example at War 6.68 and Ant. 7.279, 12.307, 338, 410, 427—some sort of fanfare that accompanied the emperor’s move to depart. Such an official departure would probably entail, however, more of an entourage than the continuation of the story assumes. More usually, the verb simply means “mean” or “indicate”—namely, in this case, via the “tumult.” In Suetonius’s second version of the assassination (see the note on “severe blow” at §105) the crowd is likewise said to have been pushed back by “centurions who were in on the plot” (Suetonius, Cal. 58.3; cf. Suetonius, Claud. 10.1). However, in Suetonius’s version, that appears to take place later in the course of the assassination—after Gaius had left the theater and met the Asian boys’ choir (on which see below, §104).

The next emperor; the younger of the two sons of Drusus, the older being Gaius’s father, Germanicus. Cassius Dio 60.1.3, in contrast, just after his much less detailed account of the assassination, states that Claudius was with Gaius when he came out of the theater. Julia Livilla (cf. §251). The youngest of Gaius’s sisters (Suetonius. Cal. 7), she was born in 18 ce (Tacitus, Ann. 2.54.1). In 39 she was banished to the Pontic islands along with her sister Agrippina, on the charge of adulterous relations with Lepidus and involvement in his alleged conspiracy (Suetonius, Cal. 24.3; Dio 59. 22.6–9; see further the note on “Lepidus” at §20). The two were called back to Rome by Claudius (Dio 60.4.1). However, she was soon banished again (41 ce) after being accused by Messalina of having an adulterous relationship with Seneca the Younger, and was killed shortly thereafter (Dio 60.8.5; Suetonius, Claud. 29.1; Tacitus, Ann. 14.63). As in the case of Annius Vinicianus (see the note on “Minucianus” at §18), so too here, as also at §251, the manuscripts consistently read “Minuc-” but the true reading should be “Vinic-“; Tacitus (Ann. 6.15) gives the name of Julia’s husband as Marcus Vinicius. They were married in 33. Vinicius was consul in 30 ce, and the historian Velleius Paterculus dedicated his history to him as consul (e.g., 1.8.1, 12.6, 13.4; 2.7.5). In 36 he was appointed to the committee established to evaluate the damage caused by a serious fire in Rome (Tacitus, Ann. 6.45), in 41 he considered himself a candidate to replace Gaius (below, §251), and in 45 he was made consul for a second time (Dio 60.25.1). However, according to Dio (60.27.4), during the following year he was killed by Messalina, who had had Vinicius’s wife, Julia, banished a few years earlier (see the previous note). D. Valerius Asiaticus was a senator from Vienne in Gallia Lugdunensis. Although a provincial, he became highly respected and influential in Rome, serving twice as consul (Dio 60.27.1): suffect consul in 35 and ordinarius in 46 (Dio 60.27.1). His prestige and influence were certainly due to his great wealth (Tacitus, Ann. 11.1; Dio 60.27.2–3), but also to his close relationship with Antonia (Tacitus, Ann. 11.3). Seneca mentions his close friendship with Gaius (Const. 18). According to Tacitus, Ann. 11.1, Asiaticus was later accused of being one of the leaders of the plot against Gaius. If he was involved, probably that was, as Seneca implies, because of Gaius’s insults, including his criticism of the sexual performance of Asiaticus’s wife, Lollia (Seneca, Const. 18; Barrett 2019: 254–255). Josephus does not mention him as partaking in the conspiracy, but does mention Asiaticus’s retrospective approval of the assassination (below, §159; also Dio 59.30.1), thus implying that he had not been involved. For more on Asiaticus, his family background, and his descendants, see Kavanagh 2001a: 109–117; as Swan (1970: 156, n. 25), Kavanagh argues against the notion that Asiaticus was involved in the conspiracy. On the illustrious Arruntius family, see Syme 1986: 260–269. However, a Paullus Arruntius is not otherwise known; see ibid. 262. Kavanagh (2010) argues that the name should be emended into Aquila Arruntius, thus identifying him with the otherwise unknown Aquila who is said below (§110) to have given the final blow to Gaius. The twin advantages of identifying our Arruntius as that Aquila are that thereby Josephus did not introduce Arruntius without any relevance (the fate of the other people mentioned here as being with Gaius, apart from Arruntius, is reported later), and that Aquila, mentioned below without any introduction, would indeed be known to readers. Noting, furthermore, that prior to his death Gaius was in the company of former consuls, Kavanagh suggests that this M. Arruntius Aquila, who would deliver the final blow, is to be identified with the consul of 38 by the name of M. Aquila Iulianus (cil 6:811; Dio 59.9.1; Frontinus, Aq. 102).

For a suggested reconstruction of Gaius’s path to his death, see Wiseman 2013a: 106.

This στενωπός, narrow passage, alley (see Life 304), is also mentioned at Dio 59.29.6. Suetonius’s description (Cal. 58.1) is slightly different, speaking of “a crypta (a concealed, subterranean passage) through which he had to pass,” and not mentioning the baths. Suetonius (Cal. 58.1) writes that these youths were rehearsing their performance in the passageway. According to Dio 59.29.6, however, the youths were highborn boys whom Gaius had collected in Greece and Ionia. See the note on “mystery rites” at §30. Cassius Dio (59.29.6) writes that the boys were there to sing a hymn composed in Gaius’s honor. However, at 60.7.2 he says they had been practicing the Pyrrhic dance (just as the same is reported at 60.23.5, in Claudius’s days), which accords with their second role in Josephus’s version here. For Suetonius’s version, see the note on “theaters” at the end of this paragraph. Suetonius reports its performance in Rome both well before Gaius and well after his day (Jul. 39.1; Nero 12.1–2). Although the dance, which is said to have originated in Crete (Pliny, nh 7.204), once had a warlike character (Plato, Laws 814e–815b), by the first century, in Rome, it was more of a dramatic ballet, representing mythological themes, often associated with Dionysus (Bacchus), and at times involving animals (e.g., Pliny, nh 8.5). The dance is described in Apuleius, Met. 10.29–34. Suetonius (Cal. 58.1), ratcheting up the tension, adds that Gaius wanted to return to the theater and have the performance begin immediately, but that did not happen because the choir’s leader complained that he had a chill. Dio 60.7.2 reports that later they indeed gave a performance of the Pyrrhic dance and were rewarded by Claudius with citizenship.

For this repeated type of insult toward Chaerea see above, §§29–31. Suetonius (Cal. 58.2–3) provides two versions of the actual assassination. According to the first, as Gaius was talking to the boys, Chaerea came up behind him and shouted “hoc age!” (“do it”) and cut Gaius deeply in the neck, whereupon Sabinus, who was in front of Gaius, stabbed him in the chest. Although often it is thought that “hoc age!” was an allusion to a sacrificial rite, in which it was the priest’s response to the sacrificer’s question, “shall I do it?,” Rolfe (1933) argued that there is insufficient evidence for such a rite, and prefers to render Cheraea’s statement simply as the equivalent of “take that!” For the view that indeed the sacrificial allusion is intended, see Woods 2018: 878. Suetonius’s second version is closer to that of Josephus, but nevertheless varies in some significant details. In this version, the centurions are said to have first gotten rid of the crowd (see the note on “back” at §101), and then Sabinus, not Chaerea, asked for the password. Gaius gave the password “Iovem” (Jupiter), and Chaerea replied “Accipe Ratum!”—“so be it,” or “accept the fulfilment of your vow” (Barrett 2019: 259)—and, as Gaius looked around, “he split his jawbone with a blow of his sword.” Seneca (Const. 18.3) reports that Chaerea cut Gaius down with the first blow, to his neck, but does not say if he did so from the front (as in Josephus) or from the back (as in Suetonius’s first version). I.e., not mortal. For such use of καίριος, cf. 8.415 and 9.105. All the sources agree that the initial blow was not fatal. Josephus now digresses from the report about the assassination, in order to discuss assertions that Chaerea deliberately did not kill Gaius with the first blow; the description of the course of the assassination will be resumed at §109.

Διεργάζομαι is used in Antiquities only here and at §350, pertaining to the death of Agrippa. For these multiple wounds see below, §110. Charlesworth 1933: 112 suggests that this type of explanation arose out of a moralizing measure-for-measure tradition often employed for tyrants. For Suetonius (Cal. 30.1) reports that Gaius “seldom had anyone put to death except by numerous slight wounds, his constant order, which soon became well-known, being: ‘Strike so that he may feel that he is dying.’” Thus, killing him by inflicting numerous wounds would be poetic justice. For a pronounced case of this, see the very end of Philo’s In Flaccum.

For a similar type of Josephan evaluation of his sources see above, §§68–69. Josephus likes this ironic usage; cf. the note on “beat him” at 18.89. For this phrase, τὴν ψυχὴν ἀφεῖναι, see also 8.325; cf. ἀποψύχω at §114.

For similar statements, see War 5.257, and several with regard to miracles and the like, including Ant. 2.348, 10.281, 17.354, along with Begg and Spilsbury 2005: 317, n. 1192 (on 10.281). Cf. the note on “I believe” at 20.166.

See the note on “distracted” at §46. This is the only occurrence of μεσσηγύς in Josephus. This is the only occurrence of κλείς in Josephus. One may wonder whether this ἄλλως means only “anyway, because of the blow” or, rather, “anyway, even without any blow.” Cf. the note on “otherwise” at 18.19. The manuscripts read ἀφρονήσει—the only appearance of ἀφρονέω (“act senselessly”) in Josephus. Niese and Naber both proposed emendations, although maintaining the same root; see ccfj 1.284, s.v. This is in contrast to Suetonius’s account (Cal. 58.3). He writes that after the initial blows, Gaius was writhing on the ground and called out that he was still alive, and that his litter-bearers came to his aid with their poles.

On Cornelius, see above, §46, also the note on “Chaerea” at §111. This is the only occurrence of προκατεργάζομαι in Josephus. Scholars differ as to how to render ἀφ᾽ ἑνὸς ἐγκελεύσματος. Evidently it refers to something that was said, but the term ἐγκέλευσμα is very rare; see Mason 2008: 149, n. 1114 and 375, n. 3304. The latter comments on War 2.549, the term’s only other appearance in Josephus; Mason renders “encouragement,” a meaning that fits that passage and the only earlier evidence, where the verb (ἐγκελεύω) appears: Xenophon, Cynegeticus 6.25. So too lsj 471. However, “at a single encouragement” is impossible, for the reference is obviously to something that was uttered; at War 2.549, for example, Mason (2008: 375) translates “what sang out in response from the Judean side was encouragement.” Here, in contrast, there is no such accompanying reference to anything uttered, a fact pointed up by translators’ need to add it: “sur un seul cri d’exhortation” (Mathieu and Herrmann 1929: 212), “at a single word” (Wiseman 2013a: 16 [he prefers to introduce “word” instead of “encouragement”]), “at a single word of encouragement” (Schalit 1963: 328 and Feldman 1965: 269; my emphases, drs). Moreover, it is somewhat surprising to think that “encouragement” could be a single word, but an order is typically brief, and it is an order that is expected in the context of an armed attack by a number of men, of whom several, if not all, were soldiers. Accordingly, it appears preferable to translate “command, signal” (so ccfj 2.7, s.v.), in line with the sense of the verb ἐγκελεύεσθαι, “to command” (ThLJ 211, s.v.); so, for example, at War 2.176 (“directed” [Mason 2008: 149]; “with orders” [Thackeray jlcl 2.391]), a translation that does not require supplementation by “word[s] of.” Cf. Suetonius (Cal. 58.3): everyone joined in stabbing Gaius, “for the signal (signum) to all was ‘do it again.’” Here “signal” amounts to “order,” just as, for example, Pilate’s σημεῖον to his soldiers at War 2.172 amounts to an order. Seneca (Const. 18.3) writes that, following Chaerea’s initial blow, “from all sides blades showered upon him, avenging public and private wrongs,” whereas Suetonius (Cal. 58.3) reports that “the others dispatched him with thirty wounds,” adding that some aimed their swords at his genitals—which would again be poetic justice given Gaius’s alleged immoral sexual behavior. Cassius Dio (59.29.7) has a more gruesome report, that these assailants kept “stabbing him savagely, even though he was dead,” and even adding the sensational detail that “some even tasted of his flesh.” For Dio’s predilection for such lurid details, cf. Cassius Dio 62.7, 68.32.1, and [72].4.1 cited by Stern, glajj 2.387. Despite Josephus’s assertion that all agree about this, Aquila is not even mentioned in the other surviving narratives of the assassination, and is not otherwise known. For more on him, see the note on “Arruntius” at §102. “Actually” is Thackeray’s suggestion for this occurrence of ἀκριβῶς (ThLJ 20). Cf. the note on “in detail” at 18.129.

Seneca (Const. 18.3) too found it important to emphasize that Chaerea was entitled to most of the credit, writing that “among the conspirators he was the first to lift his hand” and that he felled Gaius by a single blow, and emphasizing it again after describing the subsequent blows landed on Gaius from other assailants: “but the first hero was Chaerea …” Cassius Dio (60.29) and Suetonius (Cal. 56.2; 58.2) split the credit more evenly between Chaerea and Sabinus.

True, Seneca (Const. 18.3) writes that Chaerea “had a way of talking that ill-accorded with his prowess; his voice was feeble and, unless you knew his deeds, was apt to stir distrust” (trans. Basore, lcl). But that description of his skill as a speaker hardly fits Josephus’s account of him in the next lines; see also his speeches at §§38–43, 54–58, 78–83.

Again, compare this to Seneca’s emphasis on Chaerea’s priority, quoted in the note on “Chaerea” at §111: “he was the first to lift his hand,” “but the first hero was Chaerea.” In Josephus, εὐεπίβατος appears only here and in War 6.51. Apart from War 1.79, this verb too, προθνήσκω, appears in Josephus only here. For the argument that especially §§111–113 indicate that Josephus’s story is based on a Roman pamphlet (Flugschrift) dedicated to demonstrating Chaerea’s primacy in the plot and the deed itself (especially in light of his less than impressive performance according to §105 and the excuses presented immediately thereafter), see Destinon 1904: 8–14.

This is the only occurrence of ἀποψύχω in Josephus, apart from one doubtful case (see the note on “very long” at 20.94). Cf. the note on “ghost” at §107. For this kind of transitional phrase, which wraps up one scene before toggling to another, cf. §§263, 272b, 274, and 292a, also, for example, Ant. 8.393 and War 2.654; 6.192. When the reference is to the death of an historical figure it can introduce, or even amount to, an obituary, as with Judas Maccabeus at 12.433–434 (see Wiseman 2013a: 64, citing Currie 1989), but that need not be the case. Josephus’s “obituary” for Gaius will come at §§201–211.

For ὄκνος, which is somewhere between hesitation and fear, compare §70; 20.157; and Life 251. For Josephus’s contempt for the masses, see the note on “the mob” at §130. For Gaius’s popularity among the general populace see also below, §158. However, as Wiseman notes (2013a: 71), elsewhere Josephus, as also Dio 59.30.1a, speaks of popular support for the assassins (§§189, 191; cf. 272), which suggests the use of more than one source; see the note on “meantime” at §158.

For the narrow alley in which the assassination took place, see above §104. These soldiers were members of the Praetorian Guard (either Chaerea’s soldiers, or those of Sabinus, or both) who were not privy to the plot and should be distinguished from the German bodyguards who will soon seek the assassins (§§119–126); see Millar 1977: 62–63.

Namely, the imperial palace, where Gaius was killed (§103); it is mentioned in the immediate continuation. As Richardson (1992: 281) observed: “By the last century of the republic [the Palatine] had become the most fashionable place in Rome to have a house,” and houses there were tightly packed. See also Wiseman 1987: 168–169. Wiseman writes: “[B]efore Domitian’s rationalization of the site, the ‘palace’ was not an organic whole but the combination of several originally independent neighbouring houses, acquired by Augustus and his successors in an increasingly extensive area of contiguous property” (ibid. 168). Cf. Barrett 2019: 234–238. The last words are problematic. The translation here follows Niese who, following Ambrosianus, reads τι τῶν ἡμερῶν, although he marks a corruption here in his editio minor (1890b: 198); Feldman (1965: 270) instead reads τι τῶν μερῶν with the editio princeps and renders “started some part of the structure.” One way or another, Josephus is referring to people whose contribution was only limited (in duration or extent) and nevertheless the whole building was named after them. Aside from the house of Germanicus mentioned here, some of these named houses on the Palatine are attested: the house of Hortensius, in which Augustus lived (Suetonius, Aug. 72.1); the house of Catulus, which already in Augustus’s day constituted a part of the palace (Suetonius, Gramm. 17); the house of Gelos (Suetonius, Cal. 18.3); and the house of Tiberius (Tacitus, Hist. 1.27; Suetonius, Vit. 15.3; Plutarch, Galba 24.7). See Wiseman 1987: 168.

As Mommsen (1910: 18, n. 1 [originally published in 1882]) notes, the text of the following sentence is in a ruinous state (“zerrüttet”); he reports his correspondence with Niese about it and Niese’s suggestion about restoring its text. Niese’s suggestion as reported by Mommsen, the reading in his ed. maior (1890a: 281), and the reading in his ed. minor (1890b: 198) all differ slightly from one another. Note that here, as at §42, Josephus uses δορυφόροι, in contrast to §§214, 221, 237, 247, 267, where he uses σωματοφύλακες—which at §214 he defines as the Praetorian Guards, as is usual in Roman Greek (gtri 90, s.v.). German horsemen were already employed by Julius Caesar as his personal guard (Caesar, b.g. 7.13.1; Speidel 1994: 12–15). German bodyguards of the emperor were undoubtedly employed by Augustus as well (Suetonius, Aug. 49.1), and also later by Tiberius and Nero (Tacitus, Ann. 1.24, 13.18, 15.58), and Gaius himself is said to have gone to Germany in order to recruit more of them (Suetonius, Cal. 43). Even King Herod had a German-Gallic-Thracian bodyguard, thanks to his Roman friends (War 1.672). For a survey of the evidence, see Mommsen 1910: 17–19; ibid. 18, n. 1, he identifies the unit mentioned here as the “Batavian” one known from inscriptions, from Suetonius, Cal. 43, and from Cassius Dio 55.24.7. The unit—which was called Germani corporis custodes (e.g., Suetonius, Cal. 55.2, 58.3) and, informally “Batavian” (Dio 55.24.7)—was disbanded by Galba in 68/69 (Suetonius, Galba 12.2). At times, they took part in military campaigns even when the emperor stayed in Rome. See further, Millar 1977: 62–63 and especially Speidel 1994, 12–31 and Bellen 1981. On ancient usage of “Celts,” in general, see Cunliffe 2011; on loose Roman usage of “Celts,” “Gauls,” and “Germans,” see Boatwright 2012: 34–35. For “Celts” of Gauls, see, for example the very first sentence of Caesar’s Gallic Wars. True, Josephus himself (War 7.75–76) distinguished between Gauls and Germans, as did some others, such as Caesar (e.g. the openings of Gallic Wars 6.21 and 6.24) and Strabo (Geog. 4.4.2). However, even the latter admits (ibid.) their similarity, and so it is not surprising that “the ancient writers in general regarded the Germans as Gauls (Celts),” as Oldfather (1939: 163, n. 1, on Diodorus 5.24.3) observes in explaining why Diodorus fails to mention Germans in his account of western Europe. In support of this translation of τάγμα, here, Bellen (1981: 52, n. 130) cites Tacitus, Hist. 3.69.1 (cohortes Germanicae) and an inscription (cil 14.2960: cohors Germanorum). Cf. the note on “units” at 20.122. For καταλέγω of recruiting, cf. War 2.268, 576; Ant. 15.109.

Josephus gives no noun here. For his assumption, that each nation has its characteristic nature (ἦθος), see Mason 2007a: 223–225.

This is perhaps meant to contrast with Romans, who supposedly could not be bought by gifts and would rather oppose a tyrant. Compare Tacitus’s characterization of the Parthian king Artabanus’s foreign bodyguards as “members of a class neither comprehending good nor regarding evil but feed and fed as the agents of crime” (Tacitus, Ann. 6.36, trans. Jackson, lcl). See Speidel 1994: 28.

Not to be confused with Cornelius Sabinus, who was among the assassins (above §§46–48, 110). This Sabinus was apparently one of the Thracian gladiators that Gaius put at the head of his German bodyguard (Suetonius, Cal. 55.2)—an anomalous appointment (Weaver 1983: 439) that Suetonius views as an example of his madness. Cf. Cassius Dio 60.28.2: he too mentions this Sabinus’s command of the gladiators under Gaius when he reports that, in 46, Claudius and many others wanted to see him killed in a gladiatorial match, but Messalina—whose lover he was—saved him. Josephus’s phrase here, κτησάμενος … ἀρητήν (“having acquired virtue”), although supplied by all the witnesses, is so strange that Feldman (1965: 272–273) and Wiseman (2013a: 42) emend to κτησάμενος … ἀρχήν (“achieved his command”). However, the text as it is reads well (as apparently recognized by Schalit 1963: 328, from whom I borrowed “this type of men”) as a snide comment by the aristocratic author who observes that, although Sabinus was not of respectable stock, uncouth barbarians, such as the Germans (§120), considered him “virtuous” (manly) because he had been a gladiator. In contrast, regular military tribunes were normally equites by birth; see Brunt 1983: 43, 47. For the virtues of one’s ancestors as a respectable justification for authority, see cf. §164. For the nuances of διεξιέναι, here as at §§226 and 318, see ThLJ 173, s.v. This is the only occurrence of ἀνερευνάω in Antiquities.

See the note on “Asprenas” at §87. As mentioned there, if the reading “Asprenas” at §98 is correct it implies that he was involved in the plot, and thus, in his case, the Germans indeed found and punished one of the assassins. But they had no way to know that, and Josephus explains his death simply by the fact that he was the first person they happened to encounter; the two victims mentioned in the coming lines seem to have been innocent. Similarly, Suetonius (Cal. 58.3) reports that the Germans “slew several of his assassins, as well as some inoffensive senators.” Apart from here, Josephus uses κρεουργέω only at 13.345, in an equally cruel scene. §87. Reading, with several manuscripts and Niese, δεύτερος Νωρβανός. However, two manuscripts read βάρβαρος instead of δεύτερος, and the search to make sense of that has led scholars, such as Wiseman 2013a: 66, to posit that the reference is to L. Norbanus Balbus (consul in 19) or his son of the same name. Ignoring βάρβαρος, one might also think of C. Norbanus Flaccus, who was consul in 15. See Barrett 2019: 267, n. 54. Whoever he was, there is nothing in the present story that suggests that he was among the conspirators. Rather, the Germans (who had no way to know who was part of the conspiracy) are pictured as running wild, killing whomever they met, as is stated at §126. A C. Norbanus was consul in 83 bce; C. Norbanus Flaccus was consul in 24 bce (and is the proconsul of Asia mentioned at Ant. 16.166, 171 and by Philo at Leg. 314–315); and the latter’s father, of the same name, was consul in 38 bce after having fought alongside Anthony and Octavian against the assassins of Julius Caesar (Appian, B. Civ. 4.87.1; 102–107; 130; Plutarch, Brut. 38.2; Dio 47.35–36)—which could account for the present reference to “generals.” See Smallwood 1970: 309–310 and Atkinson 1958: 319–323. For Josephus’s usage of αὐτοκράτωρ (imperator), when not of emperors (e.g. 18.27, 32–33, 79, 89), then of Roman generals (as here and at 14.164, 225, 306), see ThLJ 94, s.v. and gtri 118–120. Cf. the note on “commander” at §256.

Readers might note that the Germans’ total disregard for proper norms is underlined by the contrast between this μηδὲ αἰδουμένων … ἀξίωσιν and αἰδοῖ τῆς ἀξιώσεως at §102.

On σὺν ὀλίγοις, see the note on “a few” at 18.1. This Anteius is not otherwise known. Wiseman (2013a: 66) suggests he was related to Publius Anteius, who—at some later point—was supposed to become the governor of Syria, but eventually remained in Rome (Tacitus, Ann. 13.22; cf. ibid. 16.14). Perhaps, as Wiseman notes (2013a: 66), to be identified with an officer of that name who served under Germanicus in 16 ce (Tacitus, Ann. 2.6.1). As Barrett (2019: 148) notes, his fate (exile followed by execution by soldiers sent after him) is the same as that of Flaccus, according to the end of Philo’s In Flaccum. Indeed, ibid. 180–191 Philo reports that Gaius ordered the execution of many of his exiles (with Flaccus at the head of the list). For similar reports, see Suetonius, Cal. 28 and Cassius Dio 59.18.3.

As mentioned above, Suetonius (Cal. 58.3) too reports that the German bodyguards killed some of the assassins, along with some innocent senators. Cassius Dio (59.30.1b), reports not that they searched for the assassins, but rather that they fell “to rioting and quarreling, with the result that there was some bloodshed” (trans. Carey, lcl). Feldman and Schalit translate “thus,” as if Josephus is merely summarizing their death. But ταύτῃ may mean “there” (as, for example, at 18.62, 90–91, 123; 19.200) and that sense would prepare readers for the switch of scene at the opening of §127. Readers may note that, as usual, Josephus rounds out his story after giving three examples; cf. the note on “three” at 18.11.

A common Josephan phrase; see the note on “pleasure” at 18.63. For a similar situation at the time of Tiberius’s death, see 18.225. Suetonius (Cal. 60) likewise writes that at first people could not believe that Gaius was dead and suspected that the report was made up by the emperor himself in order to find out how people felt about him.

For Josephus’s contemptuous use of γύναιον rather than γυνή, see ThLJ 119, s.v. For Josephus’s scorn for women in general, see Ant. 4.219: “Let the testimony of women not be accepted because of the levity and boldness of their gender,” and 3.5; 5.294—all non-biblical notions—as well as 1.49 (with Feldman 2000: 17–18, n. 101), Apion 2.201, and the notes on “demands” at 18.42 and on “frivolous” at 18.255; Feldman 1998a: 188–192; and Ilan 2016: esp. 218–219. Josephus himself was married once while still in Judea (if War 5.419 is not only tear-jerking rhetoric) and three times thereafter (Life 414–415, 426–427), and his experience was not the best: he reports that, of those three, the first left him and he divorced the second because he was not happy with her habits; the third’s character was superior, he emphasizes, to that of many women. That this simple fact is adduced as reason to expect loyalty from mercenaries reflects, apparently, the recognition that they are dependent upon the ruler who pays their wages and, since they are foreigners, have little reason to consider what might otherwise be best for the state. On mercenaries and tyranny see, in general, Kiernan 1957. Here, however, it is not clear whether Josephus is referring to foreign mercenaries or, rather, to soldiers in general as if they were no better than mercenaries, for they only cared about their wages. This rare compound verb, συντυραννέω, which also appears at Strabo, Geog. 13.1.57, occurs nowhere else in Josephus. Apart from here, Josephus uses ἐπανασείω only at §143.

Josephus, the aristocrat, takes it for granted that his readers share his scorn for the masses and how they tend to behave (ὅπερ ὄχλος φιλεῖ); see also 6.81; 7.287; 17.156, 204; 18.60; 19.115. On his disdain for the masses, see also Rajak 1998: 239–240 and Mason 2001: 38, n. 188. Lit. “taken up”; for such use of ἀναλαμβάνω, cf. 18.299. Neither Suetonius nor Dio reports anything of this type. Dio (59.30.1a), in fact, writes that, following the assassination, the people actually dragged Gaius’s statues and images from their pedestals, “for the people in particular remembered the distress they had endured.” Yavetz explains Gaius’s early popularity among the general populace as due to his antagonism toward, and humiliation of, the upper classes, but concludes that by 39 the people became “disillusioned with Caligula” because of his cruelty and “completely antagonistic towards him.” See Yavetz 1969: 113–118, also Barrett 2019: 302–305. See the note on “considerable number” at §253. This is the only occurrence of κρεανομία in Josephus. For the manifold evidence for such viscerationes, as they were called, in ancient Rome, often in connection with public spectacles, see esp. Kajava 1998. Wiseman notes the similarity of the motives of the lowest classes in 69, as reported by Tacitus (Hist. 1.4): “The lowest classes, addicted to the circus and theatre, and with them the basest slaves, as well as those men who had wasted their property and, to their shame, were wont to depend on Nero’s bounty, were cast down and grasped at every rumour” (trans. Moore, lcl). Gaius is said to have given the people generous gifts, added a day to the Saturnalia, given several gladiatorial shows and races at the circus, and exhibited numerous plays (Suetonius, Cal. 17.2–18.3; Dio 59.2.2, 6.4). In Josephus, ἐκπίμπλημι, with the prefix that makes the verb emphatic, appears only here and, perhaps, in 12.187. Dio (59.10.2) writes that Gaius had an “insatiable desire for the sight of blood.” This is related to his general tyrannical saevitia, for which see Suetonius, Cal. 27–32; Dio 59.10. For that tyrannical trait in Roman historiography, see Dunkle 1971, esp. 14–15.

For this meaning of προσηγορία, see lsj 1512, s.v. True, Josephus uses it only in the sense of “designation, name, title,” which leads ccfj 3.558–559 to mark the present instance as doubtful; it lists three emendations that have been offered. I have translated in light of εὐπροσήγορος (“conversational”) at §88. As above, §§12–14. According to the Augustan law, it was a quarter (Tacitus, Ann. 4.20; cf. Suetonius, Nero 10.1). On informers (delatores) in the days of Gaius, see esp. Rutledge 2001: 103–105.

On εὐπατρίδης (“patrician”), see the note on “good birth” at §2.

See the note on “fear” above at §127. Such as those listed in §§128–131. For a survey of Gaius’s friends and associates, which identifies few Roman aristocrats who survived him although “there was no shortage of close acquaintances at the lower end of the social scale,” including gladiators, actors, and, especially, imperial freemen, see Barrett 2019: 111–117.

ἐπιφοιτάω. Also below, at §197. According to Josephus below, at §237, this type of story was circulated by Agrippa.

For this sense of κομιδῆ, as also at §362 (//War 1.203), see lsj 975, s.v. This is the only occurrence of ἄφροντις in Josephus. This is the only occurrence of δημηγορία in Josephus. For the people gathering in the Forum after the assassination, in a zealous attempt to find Gaius’s murderers, see below at §§158–159.

Josephus uses θροέω only one other time; see the note on “spread the report” in 18.234. In the theater. For ἐπιφέρω with ἀιτία see also, for example, §193 and 11.117; lsj 670, s.v., §i3.

The use of πλῆθος tends more toward “gang” than “unit,” thus intensifyng the fear; see the notes on “mob” at §130 and on “multitude” at 18.26. The emperor’s German bodyguards; see above, §§119–122. On ἐλπίς, see the note on “expectation” at 18.277. This verb, συγκόπτω, appears in Josephus only here and at 15.306, but is common elsewhere.

ἐπανάστασις. This term appears only here in Antiquities, but a few times in War.

This translation and bracketed supplement take παρέντας to be the crowd’s appeal to the Germans to leave the innocent alone and confine themselves to instituting a search (ἐρεύνην … καταστῆναι) for the guilty alone. So too Mathieu and Herrmann 1929: 216 and Wiseman 2013a: 21. This seems to be what the context requires. Feldman (1965: 281), in contrast, takes παρέντας, in and of itself more naturally, to mean they called on the Germans to abandon the idea of instituting a search. But nothing in the context suggests that could be a reasonable request under the circumstances.

This is the only occurrence of τύψις in Josephus. Mason compares Nicander’s use (coinage?) of it with regard to attacks by wild creatures (Theriaca 921, 933); on the term, see Overduin 2015: 522. Apparently a gesture of self-affliction that expresses lamentation and probably expresses the hope to forestall worse at another’s hands. See Sittl 1890: 20, n. 8 (referring inter alia to Juvenal, Satires 13.128, Curtius 7.2.5). My thanks to Yona Gonopolsky for his help with this note. Josephus uses ἐπιθειάζω a few times: War 1.656; Ant. 2.338, 4.118, 8.109.

Cf. the note on “pity” at 20.255. This moral calculation does not correspond to the characterization of these German bodyguards at §§120–122. Cf. the note on “back” at §149. As at §126. This is the only occurrence of ἀπερείδω in Antiquities. As is usual, this formulation (οἱ περίnn) includes nn; see the note on “retinue of” at 20.131. And this is confirmed in the present case by §216. However, the initial story of this murder (§123) speaks of Asprenas being killed alone. This might have a source-critical implication; see the introduction to Book 19. Apparently the same altar on which Gaius sacrificed before the day’s spectacles, at the beginning of the assassination scene, where Asprenas was drenched with the sacrifice’s blood (above, §87)—thus completing the fulfillment of the omen.

In Josephus, ἐπανασείω appears only here and at §129.

Reading τῆς χώρας with Niese (1890a: 235); 1890b: 201), in accordance with the manuscripts, and, faute de mieux, taking χώρα metaphorically: they were not in the position to experience mirth. Cf. lsj 2015, s.v. χώρα, §i.4. For centuries editors have considered emending to some form of “joy” (χαρά). Among those who accept the latter, note esp. Wiseman 2013a: 42, 68: Niese’s text cannot be salvaged because “deprived of the place of pleasures” is “meaningless.” For something being “in the balance,” cf. 18.9, 349 and War 4.399 (ἐν πολέμου ῥοπαῖς). For such use of συνελθεῖν for parts coming together into a whole, cf. §127.

This Arruntius is not otherwise known, but not to be confused with the Arruntius mentioned at §102. Wiseman (2013a: 68) suggests, on the basis of the Greek cognomen (which means “well-pleasing,” “very suitable”), that he was a freedman.

That is, he had his priorities right; cf. §§107, 125.

ccfj 4.95, s.v. συμπεριφέρω, suggests only “to be” for this passage, but it seems that a more literal translation fits the context better; Schalit (1963: 332) offers “hurled this way and that.” For the way uncertainty about the emperor’s death could toss people around, see also 18.231–234.

Niese (1890a: 235) read καὶ Στήλας Ἀρούντιος, i.e., (L.) Stella Arruntius, who was appointed supervisor of the games in 55 ce (Tacitus, Ann. 13.22). Wiseman (2013a: 69) gives some details about his prominent family and suggests that he was, at the time, one of the Praetorian Prefects, alongside Clemens (above, §37), which would explain how he could give the Germans orders, as reported here. True, Feldman observes that, having just mentioned and identified Euarestus Arruntius (§145), Josephus would not have mentioned another Arruntius without clearly distinguishing between the two; therefore he adopts L. A. Post’s suggestion to emend καὶ Στήλας Ἀρούντιος into καταστείλας Ἀρούντιος, “By now Arruntius had got control” (Feldman 1965: 283). Feldman is followed by Kavanagh 2010: 1016. However, it appears both that the addition of “Stella” does distinguish between the two, and that if readers were meant to think only one Arruntius appears in the story, they would not understand why his arrival is reported twice (§§147–148)—a problem that, evidently, brought Dindorf (1865: 746, noted by Niese ad loc.) to follow the Latin “circumibat” and emend the verb at §148 from παρῆν into περιῄει, the result being that Arruntius, instead of “arriving” twice, merely “wandered about.” It seems simpler to assume two individuals are meant. See the end of the preceding note. Although διασαφέω frequently means merely “explain,” “inform” (e.g. 18.71, 199), here it seems that, in light of all the rumors and lack of clarity, as well as the Germans’ reputation for low intelligence (§120), the opening of διασαφοῦντες points to something more “thorough,” in order to convince the Germans.

This seems to conflict with the statement, a few sections back (§§138–142), that the people in the theater were saved because the Germans were convinced by their pleading and therefore refrained from what they had intended to do, understanding that it was evil. Likewise, it seems to contradict the statement at §121 that they had already learned that Gaius had been killed, and that was the impetus for their rage. However, these generalizations need not point to the use of different sources; they may be no more than expressions of the author’s desire to maintain tension, and in any case it is probable that the situation was ambiguous.

For this translation of εὔνοια (as opposed to the more literal “goodwill” at §§135–136), see the note on “loyalty to Gaius” at 18.124. Ἀνεπιβούλευτος. See the note on “conspiracy” at §43.

Note that σαφοῦς (“clear”) here confirms the success of διασαφοῦντες at §148. For the gifts of money through which Gaius obtained their goodwill, see above, §121. Wiseman (1992: 9) comments that the two possibilities mentioned were both well-founded: when the Princeps died with no heir, power was still expected to revert automatically to the Senate, but obviously it was possible that “some powerful individual might succeed in establishing himself, whether by bloodless coup or by civil war, in the autocratic position left vacant by the defunct.” Mentioning the two possibilities adumbrates the coming debate about restoring the Republic.

Chaerea has not been mentioned since the end of the long section on him at §§111–113, apart from the reference to his men at §115. It is unclear where he has been in the meantime. However, as Wiseman (2013a: 69) notes, it seems that unlike the preceding passages and those that follow (§§157ff.), the coming scene involving Chaerea, Vinicianus, and Clemens did not take place in the theater. Thus, this section cuts into the theater scene, and is one of the indications that suggest Josephus used more than one source; see the introduction to Book 19, at nn. 12–13. I.e., Annius Vinicianus, one of the main conspirators; see above, §§18, 20, etc. Not the Germans. As Wiseman notes (2013a: 69), the reference is probably to soldiers of Chaerea’s own cohort.

I.e., for judgment. For such usage of ἀνάγω, see the note on “bring Aretas up” at 18.115. Presumably, the commander of the Praetorian Guard, who was in on the conspiracy (see above, §§37–47). This is the only occurrence of συμμαρτυρέω in Josephus. Wiseman (2013a: 22) takes Josephus to mean that Clemens released the others just as Vinicianus, but that does not account for the prefix of συμμαρτυρῶν.

For Gaius’s hubris, see the note on “hubris” at §1. That is, a tyrant’s death will never be a happy one, for virtue—and those who uphold it—will hate him. For the notion of a “happy” (εὐτυχής) death, which therefore seems to refer to leaving a good reputation (see the note on “remembered” at 20.216), see also 20.18; contrast 19.270, where the reference to dying εὐδαιμόνως seems rather to apply to the victim’s mood. Τhe use of εὐτυχεῖς here sets up the contrast with μετὰ … δυστυχίας in the next paragraph. That is, they hate him in his lifetime and will revile his memory. For this formulation, μίσει χρωμένης, see also §146. Wiseman (2013a: 70) points to the similar opposition of tyranny and virtue in Tacitus, Ann. 16.21, where the tyrant Nero is said to have “conceived the ambition to extirpate virtue herself by killing Thrasea Paetus and Barea Soranus.”

For his turning his friends into his enemies, see also below, §§203 and 211. Suetonius, Cal. 26.1 writes: “It would be trivial and pointless to add to this an account of his treatment of his relatives and friends … [some examples] … all these were rewarded for their kinship and their faithful services by a bloody death” (trans. Rolfe, lcl). The rule of the tyrant is the opposite of rule based on the laws; see the note on “laws” at §15.

This verb, ὑπανίημι, appears elsewhere in Josephus only at 2.61, where the context is similar to here (prison guards relaxing their severity). As often, Niese retained the manuscripts’ reading (ὑπανίσως) in his editio maior (1890a: 237) but since it is difficult to construe he offered a conjecture (ὑπανεισῶν) in its apparatus and adopted the latter in his editio minor (1890b: 203), followed by Feldman (1965: 286). For other suggestions, see ccfj 4.236, s.v. ὑπανίημι. He is probably to be identified with “Alcon the surgeon,” mentioned by Pliny (nh 29.22) in the days of Claudius, and also mentioned by Martial (Epigrams 6.70; 11.84). It is unclear who had taken Alc(y)on and whom he was expected to treat. Wiseman (2013a: 70) suggests he was taken by the Germans to treat some of their men, who may have been hurt in the struggle with Norbanus (see above, §§123–124). Such contrasts between appearances and the truth are common in Josephus, and not least in this book; in the nature of things, tyranny requires both sides to dissimulate. See §§40–41, 97, 101, 130, 156–158, 166, 240, 246, 260, and the note on “private gain” at 18.7. There is some lack of clarity here, for if the beginning of this paragraph reported that people were leaving because the Germans had loosened up, now we read of departure—of masses?—only via subterfuge. But situations like these need not be unambiguous.

Wiseman (2013a: 70–72) suggests that §§158–160, which interrupt the flow of the story, introduce Valerius Asiaticus as if he were a new character (see §102), include an inconsistency vis-à-vis §115 (see the note there on “beloved”) and another vis-à-vis §161 (where the gathering of the consuls seems to contradict the consuls’ edict reported at §160), and duplicate material at §189, are drawn from a separate source: “158–160 and 160 [i.e., 161, drs]–89 probably represent two versions of the same debate … the doublet suggests that Josephus has given a very compressed account of the Senate’s debate from one source, followed by a longer one (though restricted almost entirely to Sentius’ speech) from another.” Concerning this meeting of the Senate, Suetonius, Cal. 60, writes: “the Senate was so unanimously in favour of re-establishing the republic that the consuls called the first meeting, not in the senate house, because it had the name Julia, but in the Capitol.” Cassius Dio (60.1.1) too notes that, following the assassination, the Senate was convened in the Capitol, and so does Josephus himself in War 2.205. However, here in Antiquities Josephus does not state where the Senate convened. For the location of a later meeting of the Senate on the Capitoline Hill, see the note on “Jupiter Victor” at §248. For the general populace’s attitude, see the note on “beloved” at §115. Cassius Dio’s account (59.30.1c), however, implies that the general public was quite happy about the assassination. Here the point is to portray the Senate as hoping to make the most of the opportunity, but also to denigrate it as impractical: it does nothing to enforce its claim to rule, but arrogantly thinks it will fall into its hands of itself (§161). Cf. the introduction to Book 19.

In Dio’s similar account (59.30.2), Asiaticus addresses the Praetorian Guard, not the general populace. On Asiaticus, see the note at §102. As noted at the beginning of the preceding paragraph, this introduction as if he were new to readers is among the hints that the present brief account of what happened “in the meantime” may be based on a source different from whatever supplied the main narrative.

The consuls were Gnaeus Sentius Saturninus and Quintus Pomponius Secundus (see War 2.205 and Dio 59.30.3). They are mentioned below at §166 and §263, respectively. Διάγραμμα; this term appears in Josephus only in Ant. 19, here and below, at §§274 and 279, and according to some mss. also in 285. For its use in the Roman period as one of the Greek terms for an edictum, see gtri 127–128, who points also to Plutarch, Marcellus 24.7, Pomp. 48.4; and Appian, b.c. 2.126. For Hellenistic usage, cf. Welles 1934: 324. Wiseman (2013a: 72) identifies these soldiers as the urban cohorts. However, as mentioned in the note on “to the camp” at §226, other sources report that the urban cohorts were ordered to take control of the Forum and the Senate, and the city in general, which conflicts with the notion that they had been ordered to return to their quarters. It is possible, therefore, that these were the German bodyguards, whom Josephus had already described as governed by their tempers and killing indiscriminately (above, §§120–126, 149–152), and who, according to Cassius Dio (59.30.1b), had already fallen “to rioting and quarreling, with the result that there was much bloodshed”—which sounds like the fear expressed in the continuation of this paragraph. The inhabitants of the city. Apart from here, Josephus uses σύλησις only in Ant. 12.267, where it replaces βεβηλόω in 1 Macc 2:12. As there, where, concerning Jerusalem, Josephus (by moving from pollution to robbery) creates a parallelism between robbing the city and robbing the Temple, so too here he creates the same parallelism with regard to Rome. On ancient expectations concerning the horrors that follow the conquest of cities, cf. Paul 1982 and below, n. 805. Josephus’s narrative here omits much that is reported elsewhere: the consuls and Senate used the urban cohorts to take possession of the Forum and the Capitol (Suetonius, Claud. 10.3), entrusted to those cohorts the protection of the city (Josephus, War 2.205), and transferred the public treasury to the Capitol (Dio 59.30.3).

Contrast §249, where, the next day, only one hundred senators are said to have assembled. Correspondingly, the present emphasis on their confidence contrasts with the emphasis there (§248) on their fear and despair. For use of πράγματα (“affairs”) in the sense of “state,” see Glass and Keddie 2020. In a Roman context, it often conforms to res publica. That meaning is certainly intended here, but I have adhered to the literal sense in order to reflect the word’s repetition at the start of the next paragraph. More scorn for the Senate; see the note on “appearance” at §158. At this point, readers expect to hear what was said at the Senate’s meeting, but Josephus first brings us up to date about what happened in the real world, before he allows the senators even to begin their fine rhetoric at §166.

Lit. “from the house”; see the note on “the palace” at §8. Indeed, after his departure from the theater (§102), Claudius was last mentioned as having been in the palace (§103, βασίλειον), and later too we read that it was while searching the palace (§214, βασίλειον) that the Germans found Claudius (§217), just as Dio 60.1.2 says he hid within the palace (τὸ παλάτιον). Suetonius (Claud, 10.1) specifies that he hid in a specific room or apartment (diaeta) called the Hermaeum, which is also known from inscriptions; see Hurley 2001: 95–96 and Barrett 2019: 271. Note the similar account of the soldiers’ meeting below, at §214, where they are also identified as the those of the Praetorian Guard. As at §§173 and 187, “democracy” is primarily a negative term, denoting rule without an emperor, as under the Republic; so too Cassius Dio 53.17.1–3; 66.12.2. Νote also the adverb δημοκρατικῶς at 20.234, where too, as the noun here, it denotes rule without kings. Contrast War 2.205, where, in the present context, the Senate’s goal is phrased positively, referring to what they do want, instead of an emperor: “aristocracy.” This is in line with Josephus’s usual usage for rule by council (D. R. Schwartz 1983/84: 33–34)—in this case, the Senate. For the same idea, see below, §225: “impossibility of the project” (ἀμήχανον τοῦ πράγματος) with regard to rule by the Senate. That statement accompanies another one (§224) that morally condemns the Senate; see the introduction to Book 19.

This fear is repeated at §225.

In Josephus’s other account, the soldiers’ reasoning emphasizes the popularity of Claudius’s brother, Germanicus (§§217, 223). Cassius Dio (60.1.3), more generally, writes that they made him emperor because “he was of the imperial family and was regarded as suitable.” One may suspect that at least the last-named consideration was more important to Josephus, or to the literate author of his source, than to the soldiers themselves. For Claudius’s devotion to learning, see the notes on “learning” and “Greek” at §213.

The expectation to be thus honored is also mentioned in the other version, below at §225. And, indeed, it is later reported that Claudius presented them with such rewards (§247). Suetonius (Claud. 10.4) reports Claudius’s promises to give each soldier fifteen thousand sesterces if he were made emperor. The quotation mark in Niese’s edition here (1890a: 238) is apparently a printer’s error. As Wiseman (2013a: xiv–xv, 72–73, 84) notes, as part of his argument for Josephus’s use of more than one source, in this account the soldiers had already decided to choose Claudius as emperor before they “snatched” him, whereas in the other account (§§212–225) the decision seems to have been reached only after he was “snatched.” By repeating the verb used at §162, ἁρπάζω, Josephus clarifies to readers that all that has been told since §162 is just the details of what was stated there.

Currently one of the consuls (41 ce), along with Q. Pomponius Secundus, who is mentioned below at §263. Sentius Saturninus is here introduced for the first time, and is not identified as a consul, but both consuls are mentioned as such and identified in this context in Josephus’s narrative at War 2.205, as well as Dio 59.30.3. This Sentius Saturninus is probably to be identified with the Sentius who was, according to Tacitus (Hist. 4.7.2), a friend of Vespasian. He came from a very prominent family: his father, who bore the same name, was suffect consul in 4 ce and became governor of Syria in 17 ce (Tacitus, Ann. 2.74), and a generation earlier his grandfather, C. Sentius Saturninus, had been consul in 19 bce and governor of Syria in 10–7 bce (see War 1.554, 577; Ant. 16.280, 344, 368, 17.24, 89). This is the only appearance of ἐπιδικάζω in Josephus. For Claudius’s reluctance to accept rule, see Dio 60.1.3a. Suetonius, in contrast, recounts how Claudius worked towards acquiring rule, in part by offering huge bribes to the soldiers (Suetonius, Claud. 10.4–11.1). Cf. the note on “ostensibly” at §157. On παραίνεσις (“exhortation” to virtuous behavior) and speeches devoted to it, see Swancutt 2005 and Malherbe 1986: 68–79. On Sentius’s speech, see esp. Timpe 1960: 482–486, Mason 2003c: 585–588, and Free 2017: 604–607. There is some tension between this statement introducing Sentius’s speech, with its emphasis that it was “appropriate to free and noble men,” which echoes the major theme of the speech (“liberty”), as well as the large space Josephus devoted to quoting it (§§167–184), on the one hand, and the way Josephus’s narrative undercuts the speech both by framing it between the army’s creation of a fait accompli in §§162–165 (and see the note on “to them” at §161) and the little ring-scene (§185), right after Sentius concludes the speech, on the other. It appears that Josephus wants us both to recognize the values on behalf of which Sentius will speak and to realize that, in this world, they cannot be attained. That message corresponds to the heroic role attributed to Chaerea, who will be executed for his efforts.

Wiseman (2013a: 74) asserts the significance of this opening, in that Sentius, although speaking to the senators (so we would expect a Greek equivalent of “patres conscripti”), addresses, as it were, the entire Roman citizen body. Mason, somewhat similarly, suggests that he may be addressing the senators as “Romans” because the issue is the liberty and history of the Roman people (Mason 2016a: cxlii–cxliii). In any case, §185 shows that Sentius’s audience was not limited to senators. As we will soon see, for Sentius, liberty was lost with Julius Caesar (§173). Correspondingly, at §187 too, after the speech, the length of time that liberty was lost is given as one hundred years; that too seems to point back to Caesar’s first consulship. See the note on “aside” at §187. Cf. §219, where Gratus, the soldier who finds Claudius, tells him that the gods have taken rule from Gaius and granted it to him, also §§169, 175, 182, 233. As is noted in the introduction to Book 19, in the discussion of doubts concerning the Cluvius theory, Josephus does not hesitate to allow non-Jews to refer to gods.

In Josephus, αὐτοτελής appears only here and in quoting Strabo at Ant. 14.117. See the next note. This is the only occurrence of αὐτόδικος in Josephus. As Mason notes, the only known occurrence of the word prior to Josephus comes, as here alongside ἀυτοτελής, at Thucydides 5.18.2, in the context of the terms that ended the first phase of the Peloponnesian War. Although Thucydides is referring to a temple and Josephus, here, to a state, it is possible that he borrowed his phrasing from Thucydides, and that his readers would recognize it. For tyranny being the opposite of rule based on the laws, see the note on “the laws” at §15. For the same image, see Ant. 1.171 and below, §192.

On γοῦν, see the note on “at least” at 18.243.

ἀρετή, the Greek equivalent of the Latin virtus. For virtus as a most important Roman value, see Sallust, Catiline 6.5, 7.5. 53.4, and esp. Cicero, Phil. 4.13. For the Republican notion of virtus, its complexity, and its evolution, see McDonnell 2006. For the emperors’ being in opposition to virtus, see below, §173; for Gaius’s hostility to it, see §203. For this translation of κατάστασις, see van Henten 2014: 188, n. 1752, on Ant. 15.267—a text which similarly contrasts a pristine ancient way of life (in that case: the Jews’) to the corrupted form to which it had deteriorated. This seems to refer to the forefathers of the Roman Republic. Apart from 18.290, this is the only occurrence of ἐκφροντίζω in Josephus. Cf. the note on “agreement” at 18.203. Cf. §41.

That is, it forces free people to give up their high-mindedness. The same is said at §174, with regard to citizens bereft of nobility. Sentius is thus challenging the senators to live up to the demands of the liberty they claim. On the laws’ wisdom, see the note on “wisdom” at 18.16.

For “democracy” meaning rule without a king (and not necessarily some specific alternative), see the note on “democracy” at §162. For the view of Julius Caesar as a tyrant see e.g., Cicero, De officiis 2.23, 3.82–85; Att. 10.1.3, and for Caesar as the beginning of the end of the Republic see also Lucan, Pharsalia 7.691ff; Appian, Preface 6, and further the note on “set aside” at §187. As is pointed out by Wiseman (1992: 10), it was especially fitting to count from Caesar’s first consulship, for the death of Gaius constituted the end of Caesar’s dynasty. Tacitus (Hist. 1.1.1), in contrast, points to Augustus’s victory at Actium, and so does Cassius Dio (53.17.1)—as already above at §75. Cicero (De Officiis 3.83) describes Caesar’s rule as “the destruction of law and liberty.” See the note on “pleasure” at §201. Below, at §201, Gaius is described as being “under the control of pleasure.” Compare also 5.179: “once they [the Hebrews] deviated from the order of their constitution, they turned to living in accordance with pleasure and their own will”; see Mason 2016a: cxlix. See the note on “harrying and plundering” at §2.

So too after Sentius’s speech, at §187, and implicitly also at §230, all of Julius Caesar’s successors are said to have been tyrants. This harsh attack against Caesar and all the emperors who followed him, beginning with Augustus, may well have been meant to be taken by astute readers as veiled criticism of Domitian; see Mason 2003c: esp. 583–586 and idem 2005a: 271–274. This adjective, κίβδηλος (“adulterated,” used especially of counterfeit or debased coins), appears in Josephus only here. Αὔχημα. In Josephus, only here and below at §250. Cf. the note on “greatness” at §81. See the note on “virtuous” at §171. Something seems to be wrong with the text at the end of §174; Niese (1890a: 240) marks a lacuna.

This is the only occurrence of ἀνύποιστος in Josephus. Βαρύτης is found in Josephus three times: here, below at §230, and at 18.371 concerning the harsh rule of Anileus in Babylonia. For Gaius’s treatment of citizens, see above, e.g., §§2–3, 12, 24–26. This is the only occurrence of συμπολίτης in Josephus, and the word may be a pointer toward the history of this narrative. Namely, simple πολίτης is the standard Greek way to refer not only to “citizen” but also to “fellow citizen” (see lsj 1435a, top; Danker 2000: 846, s.v. [§2]), as also among Jews (e.g. 2 Macc 4:5, 50; Letter of Aristeas 3, 36; Leg. 211; see D. R. Schwartz 2008: 50–51), so συμπολίτης is hardly attested. lsj 1685, s.v., cites only the present passage and a Roman inscription, along with the fact that the word was condemned by Phrynichus, for “to words like πολίτης, which imply fellowship, no Attic writer added σύν” (Rutherford 1881: 255–256). Similarly, Pollux, Onomasticon 3.51 (ed. Bethe, 1.171), although noting that Euripides used the term, denounced it as οὐ δόκιμον (“not approved”). Originally, however, as Benveniste (1974) has shown, πολίτης, in contrast to the Latin civis, did not imply commonality; indeed, he observes (275, n. 2; 277, n. 2) that the meaning “fellow citizen” remained “peu frequent,” “très rarement,” in Greek. Thus, the use of συμπολίτης here might be a pedantic rendering of the Latin civis by a Roman translator who was aware of the nuance intended (“fellow citizen”) but unaware, or not certain, that the same nuance was implied by the Greek πολίτης. Cf. the note on “civil life” at §306. Compare Josephus’s statement in his reflection—apropos of the reign of King Saul—on the corruption of the character of people who become kings or attain autocratic power: “they put on audacity, insanity, contempt of things human and divine” (Ant. 6.264). Cf. Plato, Republic 573c, concerning the tyrant: “And again the madman, the deranged man, attempts and expects to rule over not only men but gods.”

With hubris; cf. §155 above: “tyranny arises out of the pleasure of hubris.” For Gaius’s hubris, see the note on it at §1. On Gaius’s attacks on property, see above, §§2–3, with the notes there, as well as Suetonius, Cal. 38–41 and Dio 59.10.7; 59.15; 59.21. On wives, see the next note. Cf. Life 80, where Josephus defends himself against the charge of having been a tyrant (see Life 260, 302) by insisting that he always abstained from molesting women and from accepting gifts. As noted above on “Regulus” at §9, in 38 ce Gaius forced Publius Memmius Regulus to give him his wife, Lollia Paulina, in marriage, only to divorce her soon thereafter (Suetonius, Cal. 25.2; Dio 59.12.1). Other cases of such outrageous treatment of other men’s wives are reported by Suetonius and Cassius Dio: he seduced Ennia Naevia, wife of Macro, the commander of the Praetorian Guard (Suetonius, Cal. 12.2; but see Tacitus, Ann. 6.45; Dio 58.28.4; Philo, Leg. 39–40, 61, and Barrett 2019: 48–49); he took his sister, Drusilla—with whom, previously, he often had incestual relations—from her husband, the ex-consul L. Cassius Longinus, and treated her as his wife (Suetonius, Cal. 24.1–2); he took Livia Orestilla from her husband Gaius Piso, during their marriage ceremony, and divorced her within a few days (Suetonius, Cal. 25.1; Dio 59.8.7); see also Dio 59.3.3. This verb, διοχλέω, is usually taken to mean “annoy exceedingly” (lsj 435), which hardly fits here; that, together with the fact that it appears only twice in Josephus, here and 9.34, has attracted emendations, as Feldman (1965: 296, n. 3) notes. But the manuscripts are unanimous here (although they have the plural, διοχλουμένων; Niese [1890a: 241] follows Bekker in emending to the singular:—ου) and lsj (ibid.) cites a first-century case of it referring to “pressing for payment” (P. Oxy. 286.13), which more or less fits here. Πανοικεσίᾳ. Compare the harsh punishment executed by Herod against some conspirators and “their entire households (πανοικί)” (Ant. 15.290).

This contradiction between tyranny and liberty is the main point of this long speech. For this notion see also above, §§42, 79. As indicated in the note on “laws” at §15, according to the Roman view, “liberty is based on the laws” and the tyrant is the opposite of rule based on the laws; thus, the tyrant is the enemy of liberty. Tacitus, Agricola 3.1, plainly speaks of the incompatibility of the Principate with “liberty” (see also Lucan, Pharsalia 691–692). Cf. Wirszubski 1950: 124–171; Hammond 1963. For such euphemistic use of αἴρω for killing, as also at §182, see ThLJ 13, where it is labeled as characteristic of Ant. 17–19. On such euphemistic usage in general, see the note on “to handle” at §14.

ἀπογίνομαι occurs in Josephus only here and at Ant. 5.1, where it means “to be dead.” Ἀνεπιβούλευτος; see the note on “conspiracy” at §43. This is the only occurrence of ἀνταποφαίνω in Josephus. Wiseman (2013a: 76) points to the only earlier attestations, in Thucydides (3.38.2 and 3.67.3): “Josephus’s word choice again points to his conscious borrowing from the master historian” (Steve Mason). Cf. the note on “jurisdiction” at §168. Mason notes: “Josephus is the first known user of this double-compound verb, προεισηγέομαι, which does not appear again until late antiquity. The simpler εἰσηγέομαι (‘propose, introduce’) is Thucydidean (3.20.1; 4.76.2; 6.99.2; 7.73.1), also common among Athenian philosophers and orators. It is easy to imagine Josephus applying a second prefix for this purpose.”

This refers, in the present context, first of all to Sentius himself, but also more generally means that in the restored republic that will always be the case. On “despot,” see the note on “orders” at §68. This is the only occurrence of ἀνεύθυνος in Josephus. For this opposition of tyranny to free speech, compare Tacitus, Agricola 2.

An example of this senatorial silence is found in Cassius Dio 59.16.8–9. For this understanding, that tyrannical regimes are made possible by the silence and indolence of “good” people, see War 2.276, along with Mason’s note ad loc. (2008: 225, n. 1762) on the virtue of honest and free speech as a civic duty, also Ananus’s speech on the subject at War 4.163–192. Cf. the note on “with them” at 20.180.

Josephus employs τερπνός only here and at War 3.53. For the idea of “falling under pleasure,” cf. the note on “passions for her” at §193. Compare Tacitus, Hist. 1.88: “The leading men of the Senate were weak from old age and had grown inactive through a long peace.” For life under the emperors or tyrants as being the equivalent of slavery see also below, §227, where the senators are said to have “the ambition to get out from under the servitude that had been imposed upon them by the hubris of tyrants”; cf. Cassius Dio 46.32.1, 34.4. For the combination of the tranquility of peace and the willing acceptance of slavery, see also Sallust, Hist.i fr. 49.24–25; Tacitus, Ann. 1.2; Wirszubski 1950: 91–96. This is the only occurrence of πέλας in Josephus. For the same distinction, see §14. That is, we live because we fear to die virtuously. On Roman virtus, see the note on “virtuous” at §171.

Cf. the note on “completely” at §177. Throughout Josephus’s narrative it is stressed that Chaerea was the hero of the assassination (§§23, 27, 37, 45, 70, 83–84, 105, and esp. §§111–113); cf. the note on “Chaerea” at §111. Compare above, §113: the deed “should be accounted to the credit of Chaerea’s will, his virtue, and the work of his hands.”

I use this translation to reflect the emphatic prefixes of the two verbs here: προβεβουλευκότος … προκεκινδυνευκότος. Αgain, compare above, §111–113: “he was the first to ponder how to do it … and he was also the first to speak out boldly about it to others … he was clearly the first who moved and took the assassination in hand courageously.” This is the only appearance of προκινδυνεύω in Antiquities, but it does appear several times in War. This use of ἀποφήνασθαι reminds readers of the admonition with ἀνταποφήνασθαι at §178. This is the only occurrence of ἀνεπίτακτος in Josephus.

On benefactors, see the note on “benefit” at 18.95. That is, the assassination of Julius Caesar on the Ides of March, 44 bce. Josephus briefly mentioned Julius Caesar’s assassination in War 1.218 and Ant. 14.270. Wiseman (2013a: 77) notes the rare form for Julius Caesar’s name, Gaius Julius, here as well as in Tacitus, Hist. 1.50, instead of the more conventional Gaius Caesar, and suggests that it may have been used to avoid confusion with Gaius Caligula. But note “Julius Caesar” earlier in this same speech, above at §173. Such outright praise of the emperor/tyrant-killers and a positive comparison to the assassins of Julius Caesar was very problematic and dangerous during the Principate, and especially during the reigns of such emperors as Gaius, Nero, and Domitian. Authors were prosecuted for writing praise of Brutus and Cassius and their books were burned (Tacitus, Ann. 4.34–35), although those assassins were long dead, and the portraits of Brutus and Cassius could not even be shown in the funeral procession of Junia, Brutus’s sister and Cassius’s wife (Tacitus, Ann. 3.76); for similar reports, see Ann. 4.34 and 16.7. During Domitian’s reign—at which time Josephus was writing this work—authors who wrote in praise of opponents of past emperors suffered a similar fate along with their works (Tacitus, Agricola 2; Suetonius, Dom. 10; Pliny, Ep. 7.19; Cassius Dio 67.13.2). Thus, this praise of the assassins of Caesar and even higher praise of those of Gaius, which Josephus puts at the very end of Sentius’s speech, is significant and exceptional. Cf. Mason 2003c: esp. 559–560: idem 2005a: 252–254, 273–274. This is the only occurrence of ἐπαναρριπίζω in extant ancient Greek literature. As often with the double prefix ἐπαν-, it may be that the nuance is “stirred up again,” namely, the years of Julius Caesar’s tyranny were peaceful but were preceded by civil strife and that resumed after his death, while Gaius’s reign was characterized by tyranny and Chaerea had now freed the city from that. Cf. Mason 2008, 215, n. 1673, on similar language in War 2.265. Στάσις; see the note on “strife” at 18.8. Likewise, Suetonius reports that his father had told him “that Otho … so loathed civil strife, that at the mere mention of the fate of Brutus and Cassius at a banquet he shuddered” (Suetonius, Otho 10.1, trans. Rolfe, lcl), and Cassius Dio (44.1) opens his narrative of the assassination of Julius Caesar by asserting that it “brought upon the Romans seditions and civil wars once more after a state of harmony. His slayers … threw the city into disorder when at last it possessed a stable government” (trans. Cary, lcl). Indeed, the assassination of Julius Caesar led to renewed civil strife. However, the assassination of Gaius too brought Rome to the brink of civil war, as even the present scene shows (and see below, §§241–243 and War 2.205). Τυραννοκτονία. See the note on “tyrannicide” at §63. I renderedd ἐντεῦθεν according to its apparent sense here. A more natural reading would seem to imply that the assassination caused terrible things but Chaerea prevented them, but it does not seem that Josephus’s narrative or interpretation supports such a claim.

Probably M. Trebellius Maximus, who was suffect consul in 55 or 56. He was sent with others to carry out an assessment of Gaul in 61 (Tacitus, Ann. 14.46), and was governor of Britain from 63 to 69 (Tacitus, Hist. 1.60; Agricola 16). Either this Trebellius or his father commanded Roman forces active in Cappadocia in 36 ce (Tacitus, Ann. 6.41). A comprehensive description of the wearing of rings, as signets and as ornaments, is given by Pliny in nh, 33.8–13, 17–34, 41; 37.1–11. Pliny explains that golden rings were a mark distinguishing the equites from the plebs (33.29–34). Most important, for the present context, is Pliny’s description of a first-century custom of wearing rings with effigies (33.41), including images of the emperor. On ancient and Roman rings see Marshall 1907: xv–xxi, and the descriptions of the rings engraved with figures on pp. 22–31, 39–49, 71–86. Especially with regard to Pliny’s evidence, and the ring’s function as suggesting status and power (but also hinting at effeminacy [cf. §30]), see Hawley 2007, also Spier 1992. Barrett 2019: 272 points to this ring as evidence that Sentius could not have supported the republican ideals Josephus ascribed him. However, that seems to be only a remnant of the same passage in the first edition (1989: 174), in which Barrett also stated that Josephus reported that Sentius was himself a candidate to succeed Gaius. The latter, which is unfounded, was not repeated in the second edition, and probably some of the earlier skepticism should have gone with it. There is, however, some justification for Timpe’s observation (1960: 476) that this scene subverts the speech’s pathos (“eine hintergründige Entlarvung und Abwertung dieses Pathos”), as if to say that even senators who expressed the most high-sounding principles and opposition to imperial rule were not above kowtowing to it. See the introduction to Book 19. The effect is similar to that of the move from Ant. 15.423, where all are said to be so happy about Herod’s completion of the reconstruction of the Sanctuary, to the very next lines, which report that Herod built a secret tunnel on the Temple Mount in order to provide himself with a means of escape in case a popular revolt broke out against him.

Above, at §54, Chaerea was said to have hopefully characterized Vinicianus, who was not a consul, as giving him this same password; now it really happens. See also Hammond 1963: 98. For τὰ δρώμενα see also 20.191.

I have added this because the point seems to be that the number of years is striking particularly because it is so round. Cf. the note on “date” at §95. I.e., the Republic; see the note on “democracy” at §162. Above, at §173, the “democracy” was said to have been destroyed by Julius Caesar, but without specifying which point in his career, and a few points are possible. Thus, for example, Lucan points back to Caesar’s defeat of Pompey in the battle of Pharsalus in 48 bce (see Lucan, Pharsalia 7.691ff.), and apparently so does Appian (Preface, 6). However, as Wiseman asserts, the hundred years mentioned here point back to the establishment of the coalition between Julius Caesar, Pompey, and Crassus in 60 bce (the first “triumvirate”), and/or to Julius Caesar’s first consulate, in 59 bce (cf. above, §173)—which is especially apposite insofar as Gaius was the last of his dynasty (Wiseman 1992: 10). Indeed, in 59 bce Cicero wrote that the Republic is ruined and its “constitution is completely lost to us” (rem publicum funditus amisimus; Cicero, Ep. Ad Quintum Fratrem 1.2.15 and Ep. Ad. Atticus 2.21.1); see Wirszubski 1950: 74–76. See further the note on “democracy” at §173, where accounts that point instead to Augustus are also noted, and compare §228, where the days of Pompey are characterized as a period of civil strife. It appears that a verb like this is missing from the Greek here; see Feldman 1965: 300, n. 5. As is reported at Polybius 6.34.5–6.

Thackeray (ThLJ 221, s.v. εἰς) characterizes Josephus’s use of εἰς with numbers as “occasional.” Josephus seems to mean that the number of soldiers who came together as individuals, those who preferred the emperor-less situation, amounted to about the number of soldiers in four cohorts, that is, around 2000 men. However, the parallel at War 2.205 reports that three cohorts remained loyal to the Senate. That sounds like organized cohorts, not individuals. Indeed, Suetonius (Claud. 10.3), who speaks about this same event, explicitly reports that the urban cohorts were loyal to the Senate, and Tacitus reports (Ann. 4.5) that there were, at the time, three such cohorts. As for Josephus’s datum here, referring to four: a fourth was added in Claudius’s day, and it may be that Josephus, or his source, thought that was the case in Gaius’s day as well. On the urban cohorts, see Southern 2007: 119. For the use of σπεῖρα for a Roman cohors, a unit of around five hundred men (see Coello 1996: 1–11 and Webster 1998: 148–149), see gtri 85, 163. Apart from here, ἀβασίλευτος appears in Josephus only at 18.44. On the negative phrasing of the issue, “being without a king,” cf. the note on “democracy” at §162.

This partially parallels §160 above. Earlier, in contrast, we read that the hoi polloi were in favor of the Principate in general and Gaius in particular (see above, §§115, 158–159, and below, §§227–228). But such generalizations are cheap, and anyway Josephus loves to complain about the fickleness of urban riffraff; cf. the note on “upon them” at §157.

Julia Drusilla; see the note on “daughter” at §11. Gaius’s wife was Milonia Caesonia (below, §195), towards whom Gaius appears to have had genuine affection. Suetonius (Cal. 25.3) describes her as “neither beautiful nor young,” and says she was already the mother of three daughters by another man; Wardle (1998: 122–123), accordingly, suggests that Gaius married her because of her proven fertility, given his need for an heir. See further Barrett 2019: 132–135. On Gaius’s previous wives, see Suetonius, Cal. 12, 25.1–2 and Wardle 1998. Thus, below at §258, he also asks for the head of Claudius. Barrett (2019: 260) argues that, in fact, their murder had been decided upon in advance, so that Caesonia would not “become a focus of resentment and resistance,” and was carried out immediately after the assassination of Gaius. Therefore, he argues, Josephus’s coming account of her lying alongside her husband’s corpse is “a poetic elaboration.” He argues that (a) Caesonia would certainly have escaped and not remained near the corpse, (b) it is unlikely that the conspirators would have given her this window of time to escape, and (c) the palace appears to have been under the control of the Praetorian Guard very soon after the assassination. This Julius Lupus is not otherwise known. Suetonius (Cal. 59) mentions a centurion, but does not name him. Perhaps he was the father of Tiberius Iulius Lupus, who was the Roman governor in Egypt in 72–73, known, inter alia, from War 7.420–434; see Bastianini 1975: 275 and Cotton and Geiger 1989: 62–67.

The commander of the Praetorian Guard.; see the note on “Clemens” at §37. Townend (1961: 57–58) suggested that Clemens may have been married to Lupus’s sister. Levick (1990: 37–38) takes Josephus here to mean that the purpose of using Lupus was to implicate Clemens in the conspiracy. Wiseman (2013a: 80) agrees that that was the actual historical motive, but emphasizes that Josephus himself is not clear about Clemens’s involvement; see §§37–47. Be that as it may, it is clear that the present passage, by explaining Lupus’s involvement as the result of some devious consideration, undercuts his role in comparison to that of Chaerea. For the same goal served in another way, see §§269–271.

ἀπαγορεύω, as at 18.366. For the same idea as here, see §§2, 246. See the note on “harrying and plundering” at §2. That is, anyone who even only began to shine. Cf. the note on “blossomed” at §168.

Josephus’s recourse to “others” here allows him to solve a problem. On the one hand, he loves to complain about wives who do not know their place and bring catastrophe upon their husbands, and in particular he (as others: see the note on “insanity” later in this paragraph) likes to report that they resort to drugs (15.222–229 [a double opportunity for Josephus, which allows him to condemn both Herod’s conniving sister and his arrogant wife!], 18.352, 20.148); but on the other hand he does not want to portray Gaius as an innocent victim. By attributing the condemnation of Caesonia to others, Josephus has his cake and eats it too. For the same collocation, see the note on “brought against” at §137. For this sense of ψηφίζω, see also §43. See the note on “secure” at §43. Josephus likes to portray men who lose their heads over women and are thereby “enslaved” by them, such as David (7.130), Marcus Antonius (War 1.243) and Herod’s brother Pheroras (Ant. 16.194–200). Note also the case of Mundus (18.68), along with the note on “more severe penalty” at 18.80. That Caesonia gave Gaius an aphrodisiac drug that drove him to madness is reported by Suetonius, Cal. 50.2, and Juvenal (Satires 6.614–625) cites the case of Caesonia’s poisoning of Gaius as an example of wives who use “Thessalian potions which enable a wife to confuse her husband’s mind and beat him on the buttocks with her sandal.” Barrett (2019: 285) asserts that this claim should be discounted, suggesting that it “perhaps arose to explain Caesonia’s strange hold over her husband,” and H. Lindsay (1993: 156) suggests that it was propaganda by the conspirators intended to justify her murder. Elsewhere, Josephus usually uses ναυπηγ- literally, of ship-building (War 1.280; Ant. 8.163 and 16.147). Here, however, it is used of the “ship of state”; for that image, see esp. Plato, Republic 6.488a–489d, along with Castillio 2010. Cf. the note on “earth and sea” at §1.

This is the only occurrence of ἀποσπεύδω in Josephus. This is the only occurrence of μεμπτός in Josephus.

This is the only occurrence of χαμαιπετής in Josephus. The Roman custom was to wash, anoint, and dress the corpse according to the deceased person’s status and place a coin in its mouth, then to lay it on a bed surrounded by torches, while family and servants sing the lamentation of the dead. This lying-in-state period would last a few days, followed by the funeral procession and the cremation (Toynbee 1971: 43–61, esp. 43–48). Some of these will later be done to Gaius’s corpse by Agrippa (§237). This is the only occurrence of ἀναφύρω in Josephus. This is the only occurrence of παραρρίπτω in Josephus.

This is the same use of ἐπιφοιτάω as above at §134. For the possibility that word of the conspiracy had gotten around, see §§19, 46–47, 62, 91–92, 132–133. On μηδὲν εἰς ἀναβολὰς ἀλλ’ ἐκ τοῦ ὀξέος, which combines (as at 17.187, 312; 18.107, 309) two of Josephus’s favorite phrases, see the notes on “without delay” at 18.107 and on “immediately” at 18.58.

Josephus uses ἆσσον only here and at 1.328.

This is in stark contrast to Lupus’s behavior at his own execution later—where it is contrasted explicitly with that of Chaerea: he “was cowardly about extending his neck” (below, §271). For the noble bravery evinced by baring one’s own throat, cf. Josephus’s accounts of Jews at 18.59, 271, also the note on “courage” at 18.333. Τελειώσει. Compare Chaerea’s determination to “complete (τελειώσασθαι) his plan,” above at §190. I.e., the “drama” that the conspirators had put together for her and her daughter. Josephus frequently uses συντίθημι of the conspirators’ plotting; see §§45, 156, 191 (along with 20.54, 153, etc.). For its use for “composing” a literary work, see e.g., §208. In comparing the fate that the conspirators had assigned her to a “drama,” Josephus’s Caesonia plays with both senses.

For Josephus’s admiration of those who know death is imminent and accept it with εὐψυχία, compare esp. 6.350 and 14.367. More generally, cf. the note on “courage” at 18.333. Θυγάτριον. This is the only occurrence of this diminutive form in Josephus. Julia Drusilla was probably born in the summer of 39 (see the note on “daughter” at §11), so she will have been about a year and a half old at this point. According to Suetonius (Cal. 59), Caesonia was killed by being stabbed with a sword and Julia Drusilla’s “brains were dashed out against the wall.” Dio (59.29.7) simply mentions that they were murdered, without any details; so too Plutarch, Antony 87.4.

So too War 2.204. Counting from Tiberius’s death (16 March 37) to Gaius’s (24 Jan. 41), Suetonius’s datum of three years, ten months and eight days (Cal. 59) is much more precise. Cassius Dio 59.30.1 gives three years, nine months, and twenty-eight days. For ambiguities concerning the date an emperor’s rule began, see Mason 2008: 168, n. 1273. For the debate about the precise day of his death, see the note on “final day” at §77. This is seemingly contradicted later in this same obituary, at §210, where Gaius is said to have been corrupted by his rise to power. Similarly, at 18.256, Josephus wrote that during the first two years of his reign Gaius ruled “very magnanimously,” a view shared by others; see the note there on “respect for the divine.” Cf. the note on “brutal” at 18.44. Compare above, Sentius’s statement that Julius Caesar had been “under the control of whatever brought pleasure to him personally” (§173), also §§43, 176, 207, etc. On this common Josephan theme (see already 5.179: “once they [the Hebrews] deviated from the order of their constitution, they turned to living in accordance with pleasure and their own will”), see Mason 2016a: cxlviii–cxlix. The ninth book of Plato’s Republic is the classic ancient account of the tyrant as a pleasure-seeker; on it, see Nielsen 2019. So too in Gaius’s description by his contemporary Seneca (Const. 18.1). For his extreme fearfulness, cf. Suetonius, Cal. 51. Superlative of φονικός, which is used in Antiquities only here and at §34. Gaius’s favors to those he liked are the theme of Suetonius, Cal. 55; as the present passage, so too Suetonius focuses on those unworthy of such attention, such as an actor, some gladiators, and his horse (on whom see the note on “horses” at §257).

See §11 where, as at Suetonius, Cal. 33, he is said to have questioned which divinity was greater, Jupiter or himself. In general, on Gaius’s divine pretensions, see the note on “mortal” at §4. See the note on “laws” at §15; see also §§57, 156, 168, 173. That is, he was enslaved by the need to be praised by the πλῆθος, which, our aristocratic author (Josephus or his source) believed, was in fact unworthy of anyone’s respect; see the note on “multitude” at 18.26. On the Roman notion of virtus, see the note on “virtuous” at §171. For such a formulation of the radical contradiction between his behavior and the law, cf. Tacitus’s condemnation of the Jews: “The Jews regard as profane all that we hold sacred; on the other hand, they permit all that we abhor” (Hist. 5.4.1, trans. Moore, lcl).

See above, §156: “he taught those who were his closest friends to make war upon him, by treating them outrageously and intolerably,” and the note there, as well as below, §211. For such brutality, see Suetonius, Cal. 26–33. Josephus uses ἀναντίλεκτος elsewhere only at §24 and 3.5. Josephus uses ἐπιθυμία with λαμβάνω for a passion for a woman at 7.134 and 20.142—which conforms to the use of ὅθεν at the outset of §204. Compare his reply to his own grandmother, according to Suetonius (Cal. 29.1): “Remember that I have the right to do anything to anybody.” See also ibid. 32.3 and 33.

For the use of γνήσιος to denote siblings who share both parents, see the note on “legitimate” at 18.40. Here the reference is to Julia Drusilla, Gaius’s favorite sister. Both Cassius Dio (59.3.6, 26.5) and Suetonius (Cal. 24.1) report that Gaius had incestuous relations with all of his sisters, and Suetonius especially mentions his affection towards Drusilla, with whom he is said to have had relations already as a minor (cf. Dio 59.11.1). Barrett (2019: 117–121), although he accepts that Gaius was particularly attached to Drusilla. is skeptical about these reports of incest with his sisters, pointing to the fact that it is not mentioned by his contemporaries Philo and Seneca, nor by Tacitus—but even if it were, in the nature of things we would still wonder what those writers had for evidence, apart from their hostility. For this kind of vilification, cf. 20.145. This again asserts popular antipathy toward Gaius in agreement with some other passages (§§189, 191, 272) and opposition to others (§§115, 158). For such hyperbole, see the note on “recorded” at §1. For a previous instance, Wiseman (2013a: 205) points to reports that P. Clodius (first century bce) had incestuous relations with his sisters (Plutarch, Cicero 29.4–5).

Josephus exaggerates, for other sources do report quite a few building projects undertaken by Gaius. He is said to have attempted to build a canal across the Isthmus of Corinth (Pliny, nh 4.10; Suetonius, Cal. 21), and to have begun building necessary aqueducts in Rome that were ultimately finished by Claudius (Pliny, nh 36.122; Suetonius, Cal. 21; Frontinus, Aq. 13). Suetonius reports that “he built villas and country houses” and some other extravagant projects (Cal. 37.2–3), and also lists some projects he completed (the Temple of Augustus and the Theater of Pompey, of which construction began under Tiberius, and repairs of the city walls and temples at Syracuse) and others he planned: “to rebuild the palace of Polycrates at Samos, to finish the temple of Didymaean Apollo at Miletus, to found a city high up in the Alps” (Cal. 21). See further Barrett 2019: 223–246 (“Caligula the Builder”). Rhegium (modern Reggio Calabria) is located vis-à-vis Sicily at the western tip of the Italian “boot.”

As I was kindly informed in July 2021 by the National Archaeological Museum of Reggio Calabria, there seem to be no known remains of the project. See the note on “sluggish” at 18.173.

Dio (59.4.5) likewise describes him as spending money unsparingly, and Suetonius, Cal. 37, further details his costly extravagant lifestyle, such as drinking expensive pearls dissolved in vinegar and serving his guests food made of gold. For Josephus’s use of the post-classical ἀνομολογέομαι “agree” and the suggestion of “doubtless, undisputed” for the participial instance here, see ccfj 1.137. That is, all agree that Gaius had the potential for better—as §208 will now begin to demonstrate.

On Josephus’s use of ἄλλως, see the note on “otherwise” at 18.19. Here it serves to open the “on the other hand” part of Josephus’s summary. As Mason (2016a: cxliii) notes, Josephus frequently gives balanced “obituaries” when taking leave of major characters. Note, for example, his studied evenhandedness about Samson (Ant. 5.316–317), Salome (13.430–432), Mariamme (15.237–239), and Herod (17.191–192); for his extended discussion of how Herod could be both generous and cruel, see 16.150–159. His oratorical skills are also noted by Suetonius (Cal. 53), who claimed that Gaius was very boastful of those skills, asserting that, in contrast to him, his contemporary Seneca “composed ‘mere school exercises.’” Cassius Dio (59.19.3–8) also emphasizes this point and Gaius’s claim “to surpass all the orators.” See also Tacitus, Ann. 13.3. The Suda even attributes to Gaius a Latin book on oratory. See further Barrett 2019: 68–69 and Faur 1978. This is the only occurrence of εὐκολία in Josephus. For μελέτη in this sense, compare esp. §270.

Gaius’s father, Germanicus, was the son of Tiberius’s brother, Drusus the Elder. Tiberius. Recall that Gaius spent years with Tiberius in Capri and elsewhere; Barrett 2019: 43–54. For Tiberius’s studies and education see Suetonius, Tib. 56, 57.1, 70; Philo, Leg. 142; Smallwood 1970: 227; Levick 1999: 15–18.

As noted, this is in tension with §201. Elsewhere, Josephus uses ἀνυπεύθυνος only at 16.398 and War 1.469; ὑπεύθυνος appears at 2.146, 7.39 and 14.258. On self-control, see the note at 18.66. This is the only occurrence of δυσπόριστος in Josephus. For such general comments about human nature and life, cf. §§296, 319, also, for example, 6.341, War 1.208, and Life 80. For the theme that power corrupts good people, see Josephus’s more elaborate statement at Ant. 6.262–267.

This is the only attested appearance of this compound verb, ὑποσπουδάζω. Feldman (1965: 312) suggests emending it into ὑπερσπουδάζω, for the prefix makes better sense, and the verb, although rare, does appear elsewhere in Josephus (15.69). On such a turnabout in Gaius’s character, see the note on “for the divine” at 18.256. This is the only occurrence of ἀπαμφίασις in Josephus, and gave rise to variant readings and to the notation “dub[ious]” in lsj 177, s.v., where it is rendered “putting off.” The apparent meaning is that Gaius first enjoyed popular goodwill and it served to protect him, but eventually he behaved in a way that caused him to forfeit it. Compare Ant. 6.267, in Josephus’s statement mentioned in the note on “difficulty” at §210. I.e., instead of the goodwill. Compare 15.44 (according to most witnesses), the only other occurrence of ὑποφύω in Josephus; there too the subject is μίσος.

Josephus’s readers, who of course know that Claudius succeeded Gaius on the imperial throne, will recognize here not only a return to a thread of the narrative, but also the announcement of the next chapter of imperial history. At this point, the story changes from the struggle of liberty-seeking conspirators, supported by senators, against a tyrannical emperor, in which the Senate is on the right side, to the struggle between the army, which was powerful and desired an emperor, and the Senate, which unrealistically wanted to restore the Republic but did nothing but talk. On Claudius’s rise to power, see Momigliano 1961: 20–22; Scramuzza 1940: 51–63; Levick 1990: 29–39. The first part of this narrative, concerning the discovery of Claudius, repeats some details already noted earlier in this book (§§162–165) and also presents some views—such as popular support for the Principate, and specifically for Claudius, along with scorn for the Senate—that contrast with the earlier narrative, as is noted by Wiseman 2013a: xiv–xv. §103. This is the only occurrence of ἀπόρρηξις in Josephus. The use of the noun allows Josephus to avoid saying who deviated from whom. According to §102–103, Claudius and his party took the usual route and Gaius departed from it. “Cut off,” suggested here by ccfj 2.442, s.v. καταλαμβάνω, could refer to the assassins’ intentional separation of the crowd from the emperor (see above §101 and Suetonius, Cal. 58.3). Suetonius, Claud. 10.3 reports explicitly that Claudius was shut out with the rest of the crowd. Above, at §162, Claudius is only said to have been in the palace, just as Dio (60.1.2) simply writes that Claudius hid “in a dark corner somewhere.” Suetonius (Claud. 10.1) specifies that Claudius withdrew to an apartment called the Hermaeum and “hid among the curtains which hung before the door” of a balcony there. It is not clear whether this means that Claudius had no reason to fear danger, for he had given no offense, even apart from the fact that being a member of the nobility (and imperial family) meant no one would dare hurt him (cf. §102) or, rather, that although Claudius had no reason to fear danger on his own account, being a member of the nobility (and imperial family) could make him an object of indiscriminate violence in the wake of the assassination.

For Claudius’s lack of political ambition, whether innate or after initial rebuffs, see also Suetonius, Claud. 5. Nevertheless, Claudius had held some offices of state, including the consulship for two months alongside Gaius (ibid. 6–7). Claudius’s devotion to learning is also mentioned above, at §164. Suetonius (Claud. 3.1) reports that from early on he devoted serious attention to liberal studies and published his work in various fields, also that he wrote a history, an autobiography, and a “Defense of Cicero,” invented three new letters and published a book on their theory (ibid. 41) and another on the art of gaming (ibid. 33.2). Cassius Dio (60.2.1) also mentions his mental ability (cf. Tacitus, Ann. 6.46) and that he composed historical treatises. Pliny’s references to Claudius as a source (e.g., nh 5.63; 6.27, 31) probably refer to his historical works; see the next note. Suetonius reports that Claudius took “every occasion to declare his regard for that language and its superiority,” replied to Greek envoys in Greek, quoted Homer from the tribune, and “even wrote historical works in Greek, twenty books of Etruscan history and eight of Carthaginian” (Suetonius, Claud. 42). His use of Greek, quoting of Homer, and writing of history are also attested in Seneca’s satire, Apocolocyntosis (§5). See further Momigliano 1961: 1–19 and Levick 1990: 17–20, and recall that Claudius “grew up together” (18.165) with Agrippa i who, like his brother Herod, preferred Greek; see the note on “Romans” at §275.

As is explained immediately below, Josephus is referring here to the Praetorian Guards. See the note on “bodyguards” at §119. As Thackeray notes (ThLJ 70, s.v. ἀπολαμβάνειν, fin), “text and meaning doubtful.” Schalit (1963: 338) understands that the populace was afraid of the bodyguards, while Wiseman (2013a: 32) suggests that Josephus meant the populace was as cowardly as mercenaries. I have translated on the assumption that Josephus means that the Praetorians were at first at a loss as to what to do, although such indecision is what an aristocrat like Josephus would like to expect from lowly common citizens. Here Josephus uses another term for the Praetorian Guard, στρατηγικός (see also gtri 86), rather than σωματοφύλαξ, which he uses for the Guard at §§247 and 267, as is usual (gtri 90, s.v.). For such use of καθαρός (lit., “pure,” here in the superlative) with regard to army units, see already Herodotus 1.211.2 and 4.135.2, cited in lsj 850, s.v., §i,6. This meeting of the Praetorian Guard was already mentioned above, at §§162–165.

Here the rough breathing (αὑτούς), as in Naber (1893: 242), seems preferable. That is, what path would be to their best advantage, as at §§162–165 above. The emperor’s bodyguards (see above, §119). See above, §§123–126. Above, at §§121–122, vengeance appears to be their more prominent motive.

Claudius’s “terror” is also mentioned by Suetonius (Claud. 10.1). See the note on “Asprenas and his men” at §142. For his place of hiding, see the note on “passageway” at §212.

Otherwise unknown. Suetonius, Claud. 10.2 speaks of “a common soldier,” and Dio (60.1.2) speaks of “some soldiers who had entered the palace for the purpose of plundering.” Josephus uses ὑπολοχάω elsewhere only at War 6.366; Mason notes he is the only ancient writer known to have used this verb. Suetonius, Claud. 10.2 writes that the soldier saw Claudius’s feet. Suetonius (Claud. 1.3; 2.1) reports that one of the honors that the Senate voted to convey to Drusus the Elder, Claudius’s father, was the cognomen “Germanicus” for him and his descendants, and that Claudius too began using it when his elder brother, Germanicus (Gaius’s father), was adopted into the Julian family. This contrasts with §§164–165 above, where the soldiers are said to have planned in advance to enthrone Claudius, and then snatched him in order to realize their plan.

Νiese reads καὶ δείσας, μὴ κατὰ φωνὴν ἀποθάνοι τὴν Γαΐου, but κατὰ φωνήν seems to be quite difficult to construe. Schreckenberg, who indeed brands that reading “unverständlich” (1977: 124, n. 5), suggested (1970: 73) that we emend κατὰ φωνήν into κατ’ ἐντολήν, as if Claudius were afraid that Gaius, prior to his death, had ordered the soldiers to kill Claudius. He supports his suggestion by reference to Josephus’s use of ἐντολή for such deathbed orders (War 1.441–442, 579), also to the reasonable expectation that a dying Caligula would want to eliminate Claudius. Nevertheless, that is quite a radical emendation. Moreover, it does not explain the relevance of Claudius’s protest, in the continuation of this passage, that he had not been involved in the plot; if the dying Gaius ordered the death of Claudius, there is no reason to think that it was because of any suspicion that Claudius was involved in a plot to kill him. On both counts, it appears simpler to change only a single letter and read φονήν (as in Ambrosianus, followed by Feldman 1965: 60), or two letters, and read φόνον (so Naber 1893: 31), the former being a rare form of the latter, which is the usual term for shed blood or murder (according to a marginal note in A here, cited by Niese ad loc., φονή is a “poetic” form). Taking κατά with the accusative in its usual sense of “in accordance with,” which turns into “for, because of” (lsj 883, s.v., §iv), Josephus would mean that Claudius was afraid that the soldiers would kill him “for the blood of Gaius” or “for the murder of Gaius,” as translated above. A discussion of this case as one in which the usual rules and preferences conflict appears just before the end of Part vi of the Introduction. Suetonius (Claud. 10.2) writes that Claudius fell at the soldier’s feet “in terror.” Interestingly, Josephus uses ἀνεπαχθής elsewhere only at Ant. 18.207 and 209, of Claudius’s brother (and Gaius’s father), Germanicus. Cf. the note on “imposed upon them” at §227. Josephus uses ἀπρομηθής only here and at 18.175, in a passage concerning Tiberius; Mason notes that he is the earliest known user of the adjective. See also above, §213: Claudius “had conducted himself moderately as a private citizen, being content with what he had … and keeping himself far from anything that in any way tended to disorder.”

Μικρολογέομαι. This is its only occurrence in Josephus; here it is obviously meant to contrast with the coming call upon him to think big (μεγαλοφρονεῖσθαι), which is much more appropriate for rulers; see, for example, Ant. 12.115, 122, 128 (Ptolemy ii, Vespasian, and Titus) and 18.256 (Gaius). On the various senses of the verb, see the note on “high spirit” at 18.255. Again, this seems to refer to the Roman perception of Rome’s universal rule; see §14 and the note on “earth and sea” at §1. Although ἀπολαμβάνω can have the sense of “regain, recover” (ThLJ 70), as at §313, Claudius had never been emperor. Perhaps for that reason, translators regularly offer “accept” (Schalit 1963: 338; Feldman 1965: 317). But that fails to reflect the opening ἀπό, and also portrays Claudius’s role as very passive, whereas in fact Gratus is urging Claudius to become active. Possibly the verb is meant to refer to “taking back” rule for his dynasty, rather than letting it pass into the hands of the Senate—but the continuation seems to assume that, if not Claudius, someone else would sit on the imperial throne. It seems best, therefore, to render the verb in light of ἀντιλαμβάνεσθαι at §238. Josephus usually uses θρόνος literally, of the royal seat itself (see, e.g., Ant. 11.235, 238, 17.201, 18.107). For such metonymous usage for ruling, cf. Ant. 7.356.

Josephus uses ἀναβαστάζω elsewhere only at §226. Suetonius (Claud. 10.2) reports that the soldier who had found Claudius took him to his comrades, and they put him in a litter and carried it (cf. below, §222), while he was “in a state of despair and terror.” Cf. §222. Josephus, however, as in his “obituaries” (see the note on “nonetheless” at §208), likes to present pictures that pull in both directions; cf. Mason 2003a (on “counterpoint”) and Mason 2005a (on irony).

Determining who’s who at §§221–222 is quite difficult, and the situation is exacerbated by an apparent lacuna—after ἀγόμενον (Feldman 1965: 316) or after ἕλκεσθαι (Niese 1890a: 249). I have translated on the assumptions that the “bodyguards” are the Germans, who, outnumbering Gratus, would have dragged Claudius off to be punished for the assassination of Claudius; that the sight of that threat outraged “some” who are mentioned in this paragraph, who tried to get the Germans at least to agree to allow Claudius a trial before killing him; and that the next paragraph reports that so many more Praetorian Guards (Gratus’s comrades) arrived that “the mob” of Germans dispersed. I.e., in public affairs; on ἀπράγμων, cf. the note on “inactive life” at §32. As is also stated at §§213, 231. Suetonius (Claud. 10.2) too reports that the people who saw Claudius being led off “pitied him, as an innocent man who was being hurried off to execution” (trans. Rolfe, lcl). However, Suetonius refers to onlookers in general, whereas Josephus is referring here to the “bodyguards”; see the note on “bodyguards” at §221. This is the theme of Suetonius, Claud. 9. Cf. the note on “Claudius” at §13.

Note that συστρεφομένων here answers and trumps συνεστρέφοντο at §221: Germans gathered threateningly, Romans gathered protectively, and the Germans scattered. See the note on “mob,” below, but also that on “bodyguards” at §221. And so Gratus was no longer isolated. That is, the Germans. This portrayal of the Praetorian Guards as respectable, while the German bodyguards are a barbaric mob (§§119–122, 138) who flee from real soldiers, was music to Roman ears. For the pejorative nuance of ὅμιλος, cf. 4.37 and 18.60. Cf. just above, at §220, where he is said to have been unable “to walk on his feet on account of his fear and his joy at what had been said.” This seems to refer to his regular litter-bearers. Suetonius (Claud. 10.2) reports, similarly, that the soldiers placed Claudius in the litter and carried it themselves because Claudius’s litter-bearers had absconded.

So too Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 1.87.3; Livy 1.7; Tacitus, Ann. 12.24. Cf. Richardson 1992: 280. For the Palatine in general and its development see ibid. 279–282. The fact that the Palatine is here introduced to readers as if it were not already familiar to them from §§75, 85–86, where it was not defined, is among the reasons to posit the use of more than one source. True, τὸ δημόσιον (lit. “public [building]”) can be used specifically of the Treasury, see 13.265–266 and 16.164, also Life 363, 370, along with gtri 35. However, there seems to be no support for the notion that the treasury (aerarium) was located on the Palatine, and in fact what our story requires is a statement that those who had abducted Claudius in the inner passages of the imperial residence had now made their way out to where they might meet the general public. Apart from 17.43, this is the only appearance of ἐπιφοίτησις in Josephus. But the verb, ἐπιφοιτάω, appears several times in these books (18.82, 241, 368; 19.134, 197). Here the story continues the line begun with Gratus’s grabbing of Claudius (§§217–220) and then the arrival of more soldiers at §222; they are the ones who make Claudius emperor. Gaius’s father and Claudius’s older brother. For the surname “Germanicus” see above, §217. For Germanicus’s continued popularity, long after his death (19 ce; see above, 18.53–54) see 18.206; Cassius Dio 58.8.2, 59.3.8; Tacitus, Ann. 11.12, 12.2, 14.7; and the note on “elsewhere” at 18.54. For the people’s goodwill towards Claudius thanks to his older brother’s reputation, see also Suetonius, Claud. 7.

Elsewhere Josephus uses ἀναλογισμός only at War 2.18, and there in a financial context. The consideration cited at §225 is similar to that reported at §§162–165, but this one, the senators’ greed, is new. It corresponds to the general tendency of this story, since the death of Gaius: to delegitimize the Senate and the possibility of its returning to rule as during the Republic. I.e., whenever it ruled without an emperor, in the days of the Republic. This seems to be indicated by §228 as well, where the reference to greed is accompanied by an allusion to the days of Pompey; see Wiseman 2013a: 88–89. But the motif of greed leading rulers astray is universal. Cf. the observation Josephus attributes to Tiberius at 18.172, as well as his own frequent attribution of greed (πλεονεξία, as here) to wicked rulers; see the data assembled by Feldman 1998a: 203–204.

Of the state being ruled by the Senate, as opposed to a single individual—for which latter two options now follow. Something is wrong with the text here; Niese (1890a: 251) marks a dittography. Josephus uses ἐπιχώρησις only here and at §231. Similarly, the verb ἐπιχωρέω is frequent in this story (§§12, 107, 252), but appears elsewhere in Josephus’s oeuvre only at 17.32, 300; 18.376. This is part of the distinctive lexicon of Ant. 17–19. This consideration too was raised above, at §165.

See the note on “criss-crossed” at §122. I have translated πρόκλησις here on the background of War 2.579, where Josephus uses it of a bugled order to soldiers to advance; see the next note. ccfj 3.394, s.v. περικλάω has only a question mark to offer for this verb here, and elsewhere in Josephus it appears only at 15.335, with regard to breaking waves. But Polybius (10.23.6; 11.12.4 and 23.2) uses it or the cognate noun of something like “wheeling about” or “breaking away” (from the former direction) by soldiers. For such maneuvers by Roman soldiers, see War 2.579 and 3.105, where Josephus uses περιαγωγή. That is, to the Praetorian camp; so too Suetonius, Claud. 10.2. The Praetorian camp (Castra Praetoria) was built by Tiberius in 21–23 ce (Suetonius, Tib. 37.1; Tacitus, Ann. 4.2; Cassius Dio, 57.19.6) in the northeast corner of Rome, beyond its inhabited area, outside the Porta Viminalis, at one of the highest points in the city. See further Richardson 1992: 78–79. According to Suetonius (Claud. 10.3), “the consuls with the Senate and the city cohorts had taken possession of the Forum and the Capitol,” and the urban cohorts’ support for the Senate, at this time, also emerges from War 2.205, despite its vagueness; see Mason 2008: 170, n. 1281, and the note on “cohorts” at §188. Therefore, the Praetorians certainly could not remain within the city, and their camp was the safest place. Φοράδην. Only occurrence in Josephus. Ἀναβαστάζω, as at §220, above. Since the usual litter-bearers had absconded when Claudius was taken (§222; Suetonius, Claud. 10.2).

For such a portrayal of time (χρόνος) as an actor, cf. §44. See the note on “prisoners” at §181 above. This use of ἔπακτον resonates well with the emphasis at §218 that Claudius, just as Germanicus (18.207, 209), had always been the opposite: ἀνεπαχθής. For the hubris of tyrants see above §§155 and 176; for Gaius’s, see §1. This succinctly summarizes some of the main points of Sentius’s speech (§§167–184), including the view of all emperors as tyrants.

On ἐπιστόμισμα, see the note on “curbing” at 18.330. As above, §224. The reference to civil strife (στάσις) in the days of Pompey would seem to point to the civil war between him and Caesar in 49–48 bce. It is interesting that the narrative here points to the days of Pompey, whereas above (§173, and by implication at §187) the “end of democracy” and the “upheaval of the state” are connected to Julius Caesar, just as the narrative above seems to count the end of the Republic from 60 or 59 bce (§187). Are these divergent views as to when the Republic ended (cf. the notes on §§173 and 187)? Do these differences (Caesar or Pompey; 60/59 bce or 49–48 bce) attest to the use of different sources? Note too, that the view ascribed here to “the people” contradicts §189 above, where they are said to have been joyous to have regained “rule of themselves” (see also §191). Suetonius (Claud. 10.4) too writes that “the populace … called for one ruler and expressly named Claudius.” However, such general assessments need not point to the use of sources; they are putty in the eyes of the observer and conform to an author’s needs at any particular juncture.

These delegates are identified below, at §234. Feldman (1965:321) renders: “He must not take forcible action to put himself on the throne.” That conforms to the etymology and usual sense of βιάζομαι; see Thackeray, ThLJ 104–105. However, if their appeal related specifically to the use of force, it would imply that the issue were only how Claudius should become emperor, the delegates’ request being that he do so without violence, namely, by submitting to the Senate, which would then make him emperor, without violence. In fact, however, as §231 shows, they want him to return to uninvolvement in politics, that is, not to become emperor. Hence it seems preferable to assume that, in their opening statement, the delegates were diplomatic, and did not necessarily allude to the possibility of Claudius using force. Thackeray (ibid.) lists several passages, including this one, for βιάζομαι as plain “insist” (although some are less unambiguous than others); for this sense, see also 18.299 and Papone 1990. Cassius Dio (60.1.4) reports that the consuls sent tribunes and others to instruct Claudius not to do anything in order to attain power, but rather to submit to the authority of the people, the Senate, and the laws. Here, however, the focus is on the Senate.

Same argument as above at §221. Βαρύτης. See the note on “harshness” at §175. This is reminiscent of the Senate’s goals reported just above, at §227. To this ἐπὶ παροινίᾳ θαρσεῖν compare §364: ὕβρεως καὶ παροινίας. Claudius was apparently a notoriously heavy drinker; see Suetonius, Claud. 5.1, 33.1, 40.1; and Dio 61.34.2. For Josephus’s frequent use of drunkenness as a literal or metaphorical charge against those who relate recklessly to the body politic, see Mason 2008: 185–186, n. 1408.

See above, §§213 and 221. On βέβαιος, see the note on “full-fledged” at 20.38. On Roman virtus, see the note on “virtuous” at §171.

This translation of σωφρονίζω here is suggested by “drunkenly” at §230. Cf. 20.166. The same argument is made again later by the Senate (§242). In War 2.205 Josephus wrote that the Senate “voted to make war against Claudius.” The army mentioned here is certainly the three urban cohorts mentioned in War 2.205, which would amount to 1500 soldiers; cf. note on “four cohorts” at §188.

I.e., along with army and armed slaves, they can also count on the help of the gods. (For μέρος of a part of an army, see e.g., 12.295, 428; 13.95.) For a similar thought, see 18.363. Wiseman (2013a: 90) sees this as “the most pointed of all his [i.e., Josephus’] Thucydidean reminiscences,” for the arguments are the same as those used against Athenian power by the Melian commissioners in 415 bce, according to Thucydides (5.102, 104). If so, the outcome of that debate, which was so catastrophic for the Melians, is, for readers familiar with that story, a powerful element in the portrayal of the Senate as pathetic. For Josephus’s echoing of the Melian debate in War (2.355–357; 4.175–179; 5.364–367), see Mason 2008: 268.

Quintus Veranius, later consul in 49 and governor of Britain in 57–58. See Tacitus, Ann. 14.29 and Agricola 14. Brocchus’s identity is unknown, and the manuscripts offer various spellings. For the suggestion to identify him as Sertorius Brocchus, who apart from being plebian tribune in 41 is also attested on a coin (RPCSup 1.103, no. 2101A) as governor of an eastern province, probably Bithynia, during the reign of Claudius, see Levick 1990: 31. Mason notes that the Senate’s mobilization of plebian tribunes, whose function had largely been eclipsed by the emperors’ tribunicia potestas, itself pointed to the desire to restore the Republic. For similar scenes and formulation, cf. 17.94 (προσπεσόντος … ἱκετεύοντος) and War 4.640 (προσπίπτοντες … καθικέτευσαν); cf. Ant. 14.481. For such usage of φράσσω, comparing soldiers to walls, cf. §§74, 241. That is, the forces supporting the consuls (and the Senate)—mostly: the urban cohorts (see the note on “to the camp” at §226). That is, the tribunes themselves realized that the argument they had just presented, about the strength of the Senate’s army (§232), was blatantly false. Indeed, the Praetorian Guard, which was now supporting Claudius (§§223–226), was made up of nine cohorts (Tacitus, Ann. 4.5.3)—three times the strength of the urban cohorts, who seem to have still remained loyal to the Senate (see the preceding note). In addition, the Praetorians were much better armed and trained.

Same verb as at §227. Αἰσιώτερον, comparative of αἴσιος, which Josephus uses only here. Note that Josephus reports no response to the Senate’s delegates, nor that that they depart, while below, in the context of a story in which Agrippa i stars, we read again that the Senate dispatched delegates to Claudius and they did receive a response and depart (§§244–247a), whereupon the story returns at §247b to Claudius (Κλαύδιος δέ). It is likely that Josephus’s main source, which focused on Claudius, and his source which focused on Agrippa i, had different versions of the same delegation. See D. R. Schwartz 1990a: 28.

That is, the Senate’s lack of strength made its stubbornness in voicing such demands arrogant, presumptuous. Here Josephus strikingly moves from the high-sounding speech to the facts of life, signing on, as author, to the realpolitical view that those who do not have power are arrogant if they persist in acting, or even in talking, as if they did; once again the Melian debate comes to mind (see the note on “fortune” at §233). For the same usage of αὐθάδεια (arrogance/stubbornness in the face of insuperable odds), see Titus’s speech before Gischala at War 4.94, 96. On the word’s range of senses and the difficulty of rendering it into English, see Spicq 1994: 1.229–230. That is, at first, before “recuperating,” he was somewhat intimidated by the Senate; perhaps this is the context of Suetonius’s report (Claud. 10.3), that when Claudius was summoned to consult with the Senate, he replied, disingenuously, that he was being detained against his will. For Josephus’s (and/or his source’s) story it is important to portray Claudius as intimidated, for that enhances the importance of Agrippa’s intervention, to which the story immediately turns. Cf. the notes on “empire” at §238 and on “Quintus” at §264. Suetonius, Claud. 10.3–4, explains that the change in Claudius’s attitude from fear to confidence resulted from the Senate’s slowness in acting on its plans because of “the tiresome bickering of those who held divergent views,” along with the support for his rule by the populace. This led him to allow “the armed assembly of the soldiers to swear allegiance to him” (trans. Rolfe, lcl), and also to offer bribes to those soldiers: fifteen thousand sesterces each. In Antiquities 19, this is the first mention of King Agrippa i, grandson of Herod the Great, who was one of the main characters in Book 18. Indeed, the last we heard of Agrippa he was in Rome, but that was so far back (18.289–300) that the fact that Josephus offers here no explanation as to why he was in Rome suggests a move to a source focused on Agrippa; see the introduction to Book 19, at n. 14. So do the very suddenness of the introduction of Agrippa here, the need for a flashback (down to §245a) to bring us up to date about his activities until now, and the fact that §236a now gives two explanations for Claudius’s change of attitude; all this suggests that Josephus is here supplementing a source that focused on Claudius, the army, and the Senate, from one that focused on Agrippa. Agrippa’s part in helping Claudius become emperor is reflected by a coin (see the note on “Romans” at §275) and mentioned briefly by Cassius Dio (60.8.2), but not by Suetonius. It is also claimed in War 2.206–217, although in writing that account Josephus seems not to have had access to the pro-Agrippan source he used to supplement his story here. See the next notes and D. R. Schwartz 1990a: 23–30. Same expression as at §81. I.e., rule that he had not sought out to obtain for himself. The notion seems to be that had it been his own initiative he could decide to give it up, but it would be disrespectful to the gods (or to “Time”; cf. §44) to spurn what they had sent his way.

Gaius had released Agrippa from prison and given him the first two-thirds of his kingdom; see Ant. 18.236–239, 252. For their friendship and the honor in which Gaius had held Agrippa, see Ant. 18. 289–301. For περιέπω in this sense see War 3.408, 438; Ant. 10.53. For Roman customs of dealing with the deceased, see the note on “the dead” at §195. Suetonius, Cal. 59, reports that Gaius’s corpse was taken in secret to the Lamian gardens, where it was only partly consumed on the pyre, “and buried beneath a light covering of turf,” and that his sisters later dug it up and had it properly cremated and buried. The Lamian gardens, which are also mentioned in Philo, Leg. 351, have been identified south of the Piazza Vittorio Emanuele ii and Piazza Dante (H. Lindsay 1993: 170; Richardson 1992: 199). Compare above, §134. Here Josephus portrays Agrippa as cleverly hiding the fact of Gaius’s death in order to allow his successor time to organize his takeover of power. For similar cases, cf. §353 (Agrippa i), also 13.400 (Alexander Janneus), War 1.666//Ant. 17.193 (Herod); and Cassius Dio 69.1.3–4 (Trajan).

See the notes on “take over” at §219 and on “lay claim” at 18.4. The account here is significantly different from Josephus’s report of these same events in War 2.205–210. There, after we hear nothing about an embassy from the Senate to Claudius and rather learn that the Senate “voted to make war against Claudius,” Claudius appears to be more determined to rule and there is no hint that he considered deferring to the Senate. Correspondingly, Agrippa is a much more passive figure there: he does not initiate anything, is rather summoned for consultations by both Claudius and the Senate, and decides to go to Claudius first, “having fully understood that the Caesar was already in power.” That is, Agrippa’s enhanced role in our story entailed a weakening of Claudius. Cf. the note on “restraint” at §236.

As mentioned in the preceding note, War 2.206 reports that Agrippa had been summoned by the Senate already earlier, at the same time that he had been summoned—according to that account—by Claudius. According to §207, Agrippa went to the Senate immediately after his meeting with Claudius, the latter having sent him there “as an emissary.” On such practice, cf. Petronius, Satyricon 60.3 and 65.7, along with Schmeling 2011: 248, 270–271; he cites Tibullus, Elegies 1.7.51, who “notes that scented oil in the hair is a mark of a party-person.” Note also Martial, Epigrams 3.12 and Athenaeus 9.408e and 11.462d–the latter two cited by S. Lieberman (1955–1988: 1.95) in his commentary on t. Berakhot 5:29 (“it is not praiseworthy for a sage to depart with a fragrant head”), to which I was kindly referred by Yair Furstenberg. Cf. the note on “perfuming themselves” at §358.

This is the only occurrence of προσανέρομαι in Josephus. Lit. “in his words (he replied).” Apparently Josephus is pointing out that, just as by spreading rumors (§237) and anointing his head (§239), so too in his response to the Senate, Agrippa was playing a double game. For more of the same, see the note on “ours” at §243. The opposition of “words” and “fact” is very common in this book; cf. the note on “ostensibly” at §157. This is the only occurrence of εὐκλεής in Antiquities, but it appears a few times in War.

For this image, see above, §234. Or perhaps: encounter such forces (serving the other side) and fail, as Schalit (1963: 340) translates.

Τhe same list of assets appears in the Senate’s appeal to Claudius at §232. For the freeing and arming of slaves in times of need, cf. Suetonius, Aug. 25.2.

The Greek employs no possessive adjective here. Various translations add “your,” but perhaps “our” would fit Agrippa’s pose better; see the next note.

Here, as at §§239–240, the author enjoys portraying Agrippa’s duplicity: the senators are easy prey for his flattery and seductive words. As already at 18.146, 166–167, he is portrayed as something of a manipulator, who knows how to get along with the powerful to his own advantage. Note, in this context, that in arguing his case Agrippa totally ignores the urban cohorts, which are still on the Senate’s side (see the note on “the camp” at §226). For σύγκλυδες, cf. 18.37—the riffraff who settled in Tiberias. This is the only appearance of δυσκράτητος in Josephus. On Josephus’s appreciation of the importance of military training, see the note on “training” at 18.367.

Cf. the note on “soldiers” at §236; the narrative now resumes from there, after the Agrippan interlude (see the note on “King Agrippa” at §236).

For such use of τρύω, cf. 18.175; for the same notion, see also 19.2, 192. There might be some irony here on Josephus’s part, reflecting common knowledge that actually the opposite was true: although nominally, during the Principate, it was still the Senate that ruled and the Princeps was only first among many, in fact the emperor ruled alone. Cf. Wallace-Hadrill 1982. For εἰς μέσον in the sense of “accessible to all equally,” see the note on “leave open” at §11. Claudius’s argument here is, for the most part, paralleled in the account in War: he would rule moderately and not as a tyrant, he would be satisfied solely with the honor of his title, and he “would yield to all [of them] the deliberation over each [item] of public business” (War 2.208). Similar promises of moderation and intention to share power with the Senate were attributed to other emperors at the beginning of their rule; see Cassius Dio 59.6.1 (Gaius Caligula); Tacitus, Ann. 13.4 (Nero). Cf. above, §§13, 67–68. After Claudius’s response, until this last sentence, has been conciliatory, promising the Senate its authority and his cooperation, here he ends up with something of a threat: since it seems clear that he enjoys good fortune, the senators should not imagine he might fail.

On such oaths, see the note on “loyalty to Gaius” at 18.124. Here σωματοφύλαξ apparently refers to the Praetorian Guard. See the note on “Praetorian Guard” at §214. The Guard was also rewarded for its role in Claudius’s accession by its depiction on two coin-types minted in his early years; see Levick 1990: 39. Five thousand drachmas, i.e. 5/6 of a talent (see the note on “talents” at 18.160), were the equivalent of 20,000 sesterces, “an enormous sum” (Levick 1990: 32). Suetonius (Claud. 10.4), however, reports that Claudius promised each soldier 15,000 drachmas, commenting that by doing so Claudius was the first of the emperors who resorted to bribery to assure himself of the soldiers’ loyalty. For officers receiving proportionately (ἀνάλογος) larger shares than soldiers, see also War 1.356. As Levick (1990: 32–33) notes, this was probably intended to undermine the loyalty of the urban cohorts to the Senate. As we shall soon hear, that apparently worked.

Earlier it was assumed to have been on the Palatine, and that Josephus should have referred here to the Temple of Zeus on the Capitoline Hill (the “Capitolium”; see the notes on §4); see, for example, Mason 2008: 170–171, n. 1282. An epigraphical find changed that: “The temple of Jupiter Victor referred to by Josephus in his narrative of a.d. 41 is now firmly sited on the Capitol by a new fragment of calendar fasti” (Wiseman 2013b: 251). This location of the Senate’s meeting tallies with other evidence for the Capitol being under the control of the consuls and the Senate at this point (Suetonius, Claud. 10.3), and that the consuls had already transferred the treasury there (Cassius Dio, 59.30.3). Indeed, the Capitoline Hill, and especially the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, was most defensible and, at times of particular importance, served as the meeting place of the Senate; cf. above, the note on “Senate” at §158. However, the question remains why the Senate would choose, for the meeting described here, this temple rather than the Capitolium. Be that as it may, note Suetonius’s claim (Cal. 60) that the senators were so much in favor of reestablishing the Republic that the consuls deliberately convened the Senate not in its regular venue, the Curia Julia, in order to distance itself from that name’s imperial association. For this meaning of ἀγρός (lit. “field”), see also Life 422. For senators fleeing the city or hiding in the dangerous times following the killing of emperors, cf. Tacitus, Hist. 3.86 (following the death of Vitellius in 69) and Herodian 2.6.3 (after the murder of Pertinax in 193), both cited along with our passage by Talbert 1984: 149. Contrast §161, which reports, concerning the Senate’s deliberations on the day of the assassination, that “the whole multitude of them had already assembled earlier.” This is exactly the complacent behavior condemned by Sentius in his speech (above, §§180–181). Compare above, §§2 and 164: “dignity of ancestors.” This is the only occurrence of ἀμφίβολος in Antiquities.

Out of a total of around 600 senators, probably no more than 400 might be expected to attend in the best of times; see Talbert 1984: 134–152. Having already mentioned the “confusion” in the Senate (§245), here Josephus appears to be rubbing in his accusation, in §248, that the majority of senators behaved like self-serving cowards. Διαβουλεύω. Only here in Josephus. I.e., the urban cohorts, which evidently were still loyal to the Senate. See Mason 2008: 170, n. 1281. Here αὐτοκρατόρα is an adjective, but, in context, it obviously refers to an emperor. Cf. the notes on “ancestors” at §123 and on “commander” at §256. The only other occurrence of πολυαρχία in Josephus is at Ant. 4.297, where too the point is the impossibility of successful rule by many. Feldman ad loc. (2000: 462, n. 1018) aptly compares Thucydides’s comments at 6.72.4 on the problem of too many generals issuing orders.

Although the coming words add nothing to the foregoing, they nevertheless seem to be the continuation of the soldiers’ demand, not (as in Feldman 1965: 331) the Senate’s response. This is the only occurrence of ἐφέσιμος in Josephus. The senators. In the parallel account in War, the option of nominating an emperor was on the Senate’s table from the outset, alongside the option of a return to the Republic (War 2.205). Perhaps that is a consequence of Josephus’s summarizing a longer narrative, as suggested there by Mason (2008: 171, n. 1287). Be that as it may, the present story makes the Senate look all the more pathetic insofar as it did not even consider, as a possibility, the option that, in short order, became the only one. Αὔχημα. As above, §174, and cf. the note on “had been sent” at §236.

Niese (1890: 254) reads Μινουκιανὸς Μάρκον, but here I have followed Swan (1970: 153–154) in reading both names in the accusative (the object of “held back”), parallel to the opening accusative of §252. On Marcus Vinicianus, see the note on “Minucianus” at §102. Josephus introduces him fully here, carefully distinguishing him from Annius “Minucianus”—just as carefully as in the next paragraph, §252 where he identifies the latter “Minucianus” as “one of Gaius’s assassins” although readers should already know that from §§18, 20, 49–50, 96, 153–154; that too clarifies that the reference in §252 is not to the person mentioned here, in §251. Niese followed the manuscripts and read the first name in the nominative, as if Josephus meant that “Minucianus [proposed?] Marcus,” but several considerations argue against that: the absence of a verb (which led Niese [1890b: 217] to posit a lacuna here); readers’ ignorance as to which “Marcus” would be meant; the failure to identify “Minucianus” here in contrast with the identification of Annius at §252 (we would have expected the opposite if both references were to the same person); and the fact that since Annius was among the conspirators (§§18, 20, 49–50, 96, 153–154), readers would be mystified by the notion that he now supported a candidate for emperor, rather than supporting the attempt to restore the Republic. Hence, from all points of view it appears wisest to follow Swan and conclude that the present passage refers to Marcus “Minucianus.” See the note on “sister’s” at §102. Cf. ThLJ 42, s.v. ἀναρτᾶν.

On Asiaticus, see the note on “Valerius Asiaticus” at §102. I.e., Annius Vinicianus. See the note on “Minucianus” at §18. Here he is identified this way to distinguish him from Marcus Vinicianus, mentioned in the preceding paragraph. According to Suetonius (Galba 7), the future emperor Galba was another such potential candidate now, but despite being urged by many to compete for the empire, he refused.

Although not as favored as the circus races, gladiators and gladiatorial shows were quite favored by Gaius. He gave several gladiatorial shows (see §130, also Suetonius, Cal. 18.1), he owned his own gladiatorial school (Pliny, nh 11.144, 245) and even took part in the contests (ibid. 32.2; 54.1), and he entrusted the command of his bodyguard to Thracian gladiators (ibid. 55.2). See further Barrett 2019: 65–66. This is the only occurrence of νυκτοφυλακέω in Josephus, although νυκτοφύλαξ also appears once, in War 4.645. On watches, see the note on “watch” at 18.356. The reference is, apparently, to the cohortes vigilum. Established by Augustus, these were seven cohorts, each responsible for two regions of the city. They were commanded by a prefect and originally consisted only of freedmen. Their duty was to prevent crime and especially fires in the city at night. Accordingly, they were armed only with staffs and whips, along with their fire-fighting equipment. See Suetonius, Aug. 30.1; Cassius Dio 55.26.4–5; Southern 2007: 119–20, and the more detailed discussions of Daugherty 1992 and Rainbird 1986. There is evidence that in the early third century each cohort numbered around a thousand men, but according to Rainbird (1986: 150) their numbers were doubled then, each cohort numbering originally 560 men. If so, at the time of Gaius and Claudius there would have been nearly 4,000 of them in Rome. Ἐρέτης. In Josephus only here and in War 2.110. Some of the fleet was stationed in Ostia, and those oarsmen could have easily made their way to Rome (cf. Suetonius, Vesp. 8.3). That is, the Praetorian camp, where Claudius was; see above, §226. For this sense of μέτειμι, see also Plutarch, Publ. 11.1 and Cicero 1.3.

This is the only occurrence of ἀναθορυβέω in Josephus. It portrays the soldiers as a mob; cf. the note on “tumult” at 18.58.

Wiseman emphasizes the contrast with the Senate’s determination the previous day, and notes that the consuls are not mentioned here; cf. §259, where they do not function. Thus, the Senate (i.e, the senators who dared remain) appears weak, lacks leadership, and wallows in dilemmas; cf. Suetonius’s comment cited in the note on “soldiers” at §236.

There seems to be something pointed in Chaerea’s diction here: the soldiers wanted an αὐτοκράτωρ, by which they meant a commander, imperator, but he, knowing that in the meantime the word had come to refer to a tyrannical head of state (our “emperor”; see gtri 119–120) and that was what he opposed, responded with the term, στρατηγός, that was appropriate for soldiers but not for states. On Josephus’s usage of αὐτοκράτωρ, see the note on “ancestors” at §123. This was an ironic taunt, as will immediately be explained. Josephus attributes to Chaerea simililar irony at §38.

There were four teams, or factions, in Roman chariot races, named by colors: green, white, red, and blue. On them, see Cameron 1976: 45–73. Suetonius (Cal. 55.2–3) reports Gaius’s enthusiastic devotion to the Green faction, saying that “he constantly dined and spent the night in their stable,” and that he once gave Eutychus 2 million sesterces in gifts. Cf. Cassius Dio 59.14.5–6. For emperors with preferences for this or that faction, see Cameron 1976: 54. Probably Gaius is meant, Josephus thinking of his most famous horse; see the next note. On Gaius’s pampering of his favorite horse, Incitatus, see Suetonius, Cal. 55.3, who lists ridiculous details under the heading of Gaius’s “insania.” Cf. Barrett 2019: 66–67. For the sources’ tendency to generalize from single instances to the plural in order to condemn Gaius all the more, see Charlesworth 1933: 110–111.

For Gaius’s “insanity” (μανία), see the notes on “insanity” at §1 and on “horses” at §257, also §284. I have translated παραφροσύνη as at §§284 and 285, but there it applies to Gaius and is meant to condemn him morally. Here, however, it seems that no more is needed than lack of good sense. Claudius was certainly not stupid, but rather very learned; see above, §213 and the note there. Nevertheless, Dio (60.2.4) writes that Claudius, because he was frequently ill and also out of fearfulness, “feigned a stupidity (εὐήθεια) greater than was really the case.” Cf. Levick 1990: 13–15.

This is the only occurrence of διατρέπω in Antiquities. That is, the Praetorian Guard, as at §247 above. According to the parallel account (War 2.212), the one soldier who had started stirring those who were with the Senate (see the note, above at §249) led his fellow-soldiers to Claudius, and the senators, realizing their helpless situation, followed. In the short account in Dio 60.1.4, the soldiers’ desertion of the Senate is likewise the turning point. According to the aristocratic view expressed here, “private citizens” (ἰδιὼται) are by definition pathetically ineffective, as they are described in the next sentence, cf. §214.

I.e., the senators.

See above, §§46 and 110. For speakers stepping out εἰς μέσον in order to speak “in the eyes of all,” see, for example, Life 37, 134, 251. Cf. the note on “to all” at §246. As he will soon indeed do (below, §273). In all of extant ancient Greek literature, δουλοκρατία appears only here and at §14. The latter uses it to refer to slaves ruling over their masters, and that seems to be the case here as well, given the characterization of Claudius as stupid—hence: easily misled—at §258. Cassius Dio (60.2.4–5) writes that the deterioration during Claudius’s rule was mainly due to “the freedmen and the women with whom he associated; for he … was ruled by slaves and by women,” and commented that he himself “had become a slave.” Similarly, Suetonius, Claud. 25.5, 28, 29.1. For this type of invective, see the note on “passion” at 18.350. On the influence of Claudius’s freedmen, see the notes on “influence with him” at §362 and on “friends” at 20.135. This is reminiscent of the implied charge against many of the senators above, at §248. But with regard to Chaerea it contradicts virtually all that we had been told about him, as the fearless leader and hero of the plot to assassinate Gaius and as a champion of “liberty”—including just above, at §258. Hence readers will expect Chaerea to deny the charge, as he immediately does.

So renders ThLJ 149; this is the only occurrence of διακωδωνίζω in Josephus.

I.e., for the senators. For transitional phrases such as this, which allow Josephus to toggle between one location and the other (and in the present case allows him to pick up the camp story from §247), cf. the note on “his many wounds” at §114. That is, the Praetorian camp, where Claudius was; see above, §226. To Claudius, as explicit in some manuscripts. Q. Pomponius Secundus, suffect consul in 41, brother of P. Pomponius Secundus, and half-brother of Gaius’s wife, Caesonia; see the note on “Pompedius” at §32. This Q. Pomponius eventually joined a rebellion against Claudius in 42 (Tacitus, Ann. 13.43). For the consuls calling for liberty and/or assembling the Senate see above, §§160, 186–187, 248. In the parallel narrative, in War 2.213, it is the leaders of the group in general who are in danger, and are saved by Claudius, after King Agrippa—who is not mentioned in the narrative here—made him aware of the situation and advised him to restrain the soldiers.

For this magnanimous gesture, cf. §333. In War 2.214 Claudius is said to have “welcomed the Senate into the camp” and even “showed kindness towards them,” whereas here he welcomes them only later, at the suggestion of Agrippa. For similar modifications of Claudius’s attitude so as to enlarge Agrippa’s role, see the note on “restraint” at §236. On Josephus’s use of a pro-Agrippan source here but not in War, see the note on “Agrippa” at §236. Evidently: from the soldiers. On ἔντευξις see Guéraud 1931 and Spicq 1994: 2.6–10. Aponius, who has not been mentioned above, is probably to be identified with Aponius Saturninus, who is said to have once unknowingly bought thirteen gladiators for a fortune of nine million sesterces at one of Gaius’s auctions, after he fell asleep but kept nodding as the price went up (Suetonius, Cal. 38).

This is the only occurrence of ἤπιος in Josephus. In War (2.213) this is phrased with a colorful image: Agrippa persuaded Claudius to intervene and restrain the soldiers’ attack on the senators, lest, “after destroying those on whose account being supreme is impressive, he would be king of a desert.” On that image, which also appears in Josephus’s Herodian narrative at War 1.355//Ant. 14.484, see Mason 2008: 177, n. 1345.

According to War 2.214, Claudius welcomed the senators into the Praetorian camp, and then went out with them to offer sacrifices of thanksgiving for his accession. Here too, Mason (2008: 177, n. 1349) raises the possibility that War compresses the source of the present account. Cf. above, the note on “him” at §264. Attentive readers will note that the repeated use of συγκαλέω, first for the consuls’ “convening” of the Senate (§248) and now for Claudius’s, underlines who won—the same point that he made by the very fact of convening the Senate himself, at a venue that he ordained, although it was already convened elsewhere. Probably in the Temple of Apollo (so Talbert 1984: 117–118 and Wiseman 2013a: 97). That temple was completed and dedicated by Augustus in 28 bce, in a part of his house on the Palatine that had been struck by lightning. The area was large enough to accommodate meetings of the Senate, and such meetings were indeed held there frequently (Suetonius, Aug. 29.1, 3; Cassius Dio 53.1.3; Tacitus, Ann. 2.37). See also Richardson 1992: 14.

Rufrius Pollio, who later accompanied Claudius on a campaign to Britain (43 ce), and was granted a seat in the Senate upon his return (Dio 60.23.2). As Wiseman points out (2013a: 97), after the assassination of Gaius, it was clear that the former commanders of the Guard could not retain their positions. Here εἰργόμενοι is unambiguously passive. Cf. the note on “excluded” at 18.19.

For Claudius’s ἑταῖροι (“companions,” amici principis), also mentioned at §89 and referred to as his “freedmen and friends” at 20.135, who could function, as here, as an informal but nonetheless influential advisory council, see Musurillo 1954: 202–204 and Crook 1955: 40–45. On Josephus’s use of ἀπιστία for treachery, as also in Ant. 15.110, see D. R. Lindsay 1993: 108–110. According to Dio 60.3.4, Claudius executed Chaerea “as if he had caught Chaerea plotting against himself.” For Claudius’s need to preserve appearances by executing whoever assassinated Gaius, although he welcomed the act, cf. 15.61 (Herod’s need to mourn, publicly and ostentatiously, the death of Aristobulus iii, which he had arranged) and 18.236 (Gaius’s need to avoid the impression that he was happy about Tiberius’s death, although he was). On this topic see, in general, the note on “derangement” at §284.

On Lupus and his assassination of Gaius’s wife and daughter see above, §§190–200. The fact that, in contrast to Chaerea and Sabinus (§267), Lupus did not come forward bravely is part of the portrayal of him as a cowardly foil for Chaerea; see the note on “conspire” at §191 and on “willingly” at §199. In contrast, Suetonius (Claud. 11.1) reports that, after establishing his power, Claudius pardoned all that had happened during the two days of the assassination and its aftermath, and executed only “a few of the tribunes and centurions who had conspired against Gaius … both to make an example of them and because he knew that they had also demanded his own death.” Similarly, Dio (60.3.4) speaks of the execution of Chaerea and “some others.” Josephus’s story has Agrippa’s man, Claudius, behaving more humanely and also mentions that Claudius executed Chaerea “as if he had caught Chaerea plotting against himself.” Cf. §§273–274. For Josephus’s emphasis that dying μεγαλόφρονως proves a man’s heroic nature, note also the cases of Samson (5.317), Jonathan (6.127), and even Ahitophel (7.229). Cf. the note on “high spirit” at 18.255. This is the only occurrence of ἀμετάπτωτος in Josephus.

Recall that this was taking place at the end of January, a few days after the execution of Gaius. Playing with the Latin lupus, wolf. This is often taken to point to a Latin Vorlage, but see the introduction to Book 19. For Roman executions as public spectacles, cf. the note on “the entire city” at 20.136. Possibly the Campus Esquilinus, just outside the Esquiline Gate, which was a regular place of executions; see Tacitus, Ann. 2.32 and Suetonius, Claud. 25.3. Niese (1890a: 257) and others note that there seems to be a lacuna here, for the soldier’s reply is missing. But since Chaerea asks not only about the soldier’s experience but also, specifically, about “the sword” (τὸ ξίφος), which he obviously must have had, it may be that no answer was expected. Rather, in something of the same “highminded” joking spirit evinced by the reference to “wolf,” Chaerea’s question may have been meant only as a rhetorical opening for his coming request to bring his own sword, as if to say that “my sword has experience and so can be trusted to do the job.” On beheading by sword in the Principate (not an ax, as earlier, e.g., War 1.357—Antigonus), see Mommsen 1899: 917–918, 923–924. He also notes that, under the Principate, it was usually carried out by soldiers, as is reported here. Readers are probably meant to take this as a matter of pride for Chaerea, and to remember that Chaerea’s forerunner in tyrannicide, Cassius, to whom Chaerea was favorably compared at §184, was said to have taken his own life with the very dagger he had used in the assassination of Julius Caesar (Plutarch, Caesar 69.3). Readers seeking oracular ambiguity (such as that at War 6.312–314), may, however, recall that at §55 Chaerea said (prophesied?) that his sword would suffice for “both of us”: in context, there, that means that one sword was enough for him and Vinicianus to kill Gaius, but here it turns out that it was sufficient to kill Gaius and him. Although translators usually take εὐδαιμόνως here to mean that Chaerea “was fortunate” insofar as he was killed by a single blow (Feldman 1965: 339; Wiseman 2013a: 39), the contrast with Lupus, whose being despondent and cowardly multiplied his wounds, seems to indicate that in fact it is, first of all, the attitudes of the two that are being contrasted—as usual, to Chaerea’s advantage; cf. the note on “his age” at §45, and on “conspire” at §191.

As mentioned above (in the note on “willingly” at §199), Lupus’s uncourageous behavior here at his execution is in stark contrast, not only to the behavior of Chaerea, but also to that of Lupus’s own victim, Caesonia, as well as to that of heroic Jews. I have borrowed this translation of δεξιῶς (lit. “right-handedly,” “dexterously”) here from ThLJ 128; cf. the note on “invidious” at 20.266. Cf. the end (§189) of Philo’s In Flaccum, where the villain’s desperate attempt to avoid the executioners’ blows simply resulted in multiplying them. For a similar contrast between courageous and pathetic victims executed one after the other, in very similar circumstances, cf. Tacitus, Ann. 15.67–68.

I.e., the Feralia (or: Parentalia), the Roman festival of ancestors, on February 13–21 (see Ovid, Fasti 2.533–570). This is the only occurrence of ἄμηνις in surviving ancient literature. But Josephus does use μῆνις several times—including 18.188, where it refers to a long-held “grudge”; so too elsewhere, including Life 392. Indeed, Ovid’s text on the Feralia, mentioned in the preceding note, opens and closes with its definition as being an occasion to “appease” (placare) the souls of the dead. On “the powers of the dead” in ancient Rome, see King 2020: 89–127.

Sabinus had come forward and acknowledged his role in the assassination; see §§110, 267. On Claudius’s restraint in this regard, cf. the note on “derangement” at §284. I.e., the office of military tribune (§46). This is the only occurrence of ἐκλειπία in surviving ancient literature. Especially in light of his rhetoric at §261! Dio too reports his suicide, writing that Sabinus did not desire “to live after his comrade had been executed” (60.3.5). This is the only occurrence of κώπη in Josephus. Richards and Shutt 1939: 183 ironically comment on the use of μέχρι without τοῦ and suggest it has fallen out: “μεχρὶ … συνελθεῖν is, even for J., too strange: prob. μέχρι <τοῦ>.” Βut given that, remarkably, no manuscript mentioned by Niese preserves that, although any scribe could have added it, perhaps we should suspect interference by a Latin phrase that comes, of course, without any article; see the next note. Cf. Virgil, Aeneid 2.553 and 10.535–536: killing “capulo tenus” (by a sword-thrust “up to the hilt”) testifies to power and decisiveness.

Feldman (1965: 341) translates “Claudius purged the army of all unreliable units,” as if the reference is to something new, beyond what has been reported. But the text seems to refer to individuals, not to units, and it seems unlikely that Josephus would have his readers assume there were otherwise unmentioned units of the army that were suspected of being disloyal to the new emperor, and other sources fail to report anything of the kind. Rather, this line should be read as another summary that amounts to a transition from the preceding story (which reported the death of Charaea and Sabinus) to the next one; cf. the note on “his many wounds” at §114. While the next part of the sentence is paralleled at War 2.215–216, the removal of soldiers is not. Suetonius, Claud. 11.1 says that Claudius decreed that all should be forgiven and forgotten, apart from the execution of some tribunes and centurions who were involved in the conspiracy against Gaius (see also Cassius Dio 60.3.4–5). Διάγραμμα. See the note on “edict” at §160. That is, Claudius confirmed Agrippa’s rule of the territories Gaius gave Agrippa in 37 and 39, as reported at 18.237 and 252–255: the territories that previously formed Philip’s tetrarchy (Batanea, Trachonitis, Auranitis, Gaulanitis, and the area around Panias), Lysanias’s tetrarchy (Abila, some twenty km. northwest of Damascus, Souk Wadi Barada), and Herod Antipas’s territories (in Galilee and Transjordan). However, in the next paragraph (§275) we read that Claudius additionally gave Agrippa Lysanias’s Abila. That contradicts 18.237 but corresponds to War, where 2.181 does not mention Abila among Gaius’s gifts to Agrippa in 37 and 2.215 mentions it among Claudius’s. Barrett (1990: 284–285) suggests that following Gaius’s death all of his acta were abolished and that would have included the client kings he appointed; therefore, client kings had to be reinstated by Claudius, and this may explain some of the confusion in Josephus. This suggestion is, however, rejected by D. Wardle 1992a; see the note on “Commagene” at §276. As noted on “Lysanias’s tetrarchy” at 18.237, it seems simplest to suspect that 18.237 was wrong to include Abila. Cf. Kokkinos 1998: 280–281. I.e., all that he did not yet rule. Herod’s kingdom had been divided, for the most part, among three of his sons, and, in 37 and 39, Gaius had given Agrippa the lands of two of them, Philip (18.237) and Herod Antipas (18.252). Now Claudius gave him the rest, the real heartland of the kingdom.

See the note on “had given him” at §274. On the emperor’s property, and the problematic distinction between his fiscus and the imperial treasury (aerarium), see Millar 1977: 133–201; Osgood 2011: 312–313. For ὅρκια τέμνειν, see, for example, Iliad 2.124 and Polybius 21.24.3; “Temnein horkia means ‘to make a treaty’; the primary meaning of this formula means cutting the pledges of the contract which has been sworn (horkia), viz., the sacramental victims, while the oath is being taken” (Bickerman 2007: 1.3). This ceremony is apparently commemorated by a coin, issued simultaneously by Agrippa and his brother, Herod of Chalicis, that shows them crowning Claudius; the inscription on the reverse mentions the “oath” (ὅρκια) that established Agrippa’s alliance with the emperor, the Senate, and the people of Rome. See Meshorer 2001: 100–101 and Kropp 2013. Indeed, Cassius Dio (60.8.2–3; glajj 2.367–368) writes that Claudius “enlarged the domain of Agrippa of Palestine, who, happening to be in Rome, had helped him to become emperor, and bestowed on him the rank of consul” (trans. Cary, lcl), and that he also gave Agrippa’s brother, Herod, “the rank of praetor and a principality. And he permitted them to enter the Senate and to express their thanks to him in Greek.” For a hint that Claudius’s commitment to Agrippa i referred to his posterity as well, see the note on “oaths” at §362. As stated in the preceding note, Cassius Dio mentions the two brothers together, and the coin at least shows them both (although only Agrippa is mentioned in the legend). Our passage, however, ignores Herod of Chalcis here, and at §277 will portray him as the beneficiary of Agrippa’s intervention with the emperor, just as we will even see reluctance to call Herod “king” (see the note on “Chalcis” at §338). All of this points to use of a source that focused favorably upon Agrippa. Cf. the note on “Agrippa” at §236. For this full formulation, instead of plain “Rome,” which in this case might reflect Forum Romanorum, see the note on “Jerusalemites” at 20.11.

In 37 Gaius Caligula appointed Antiochus iv king over his father’s former kingdom, Commagene, and also added the coast of Cilicia to his realm, after it had been annexed to Syria for close to two decades (Cassius Dio 59.8.2; cf. Bickerman 2007: 1.268–271). Therefore, Josephus’s statement here means that Claudius deposed Antiochus and then, seemingly immediately, reinstated him as king over the very same territories. That is quite odd. Dio, in contrast, writes that Antiochus was already deposed by Gaius, and was restored by Claudius in 41 (Dio 60.8.1). Feldman accepts Dio’s report and assumes Josephus was confused. However, as Barrett notes, Dio reports this in his narrative about Claudius (Book 60), while in his chapters about Gaius (Book 59) there is no hint of any falling-out between Gaius and Antiochus. Consequently, Barrett upholds Josephus’s report here, suggesting that Claudius’s deposition of Antiochus had nothing to do with Antiochus himself, but was rather a part of a sweeping abolition of all of Gaius’s acta (cf. Suetonius, Claud. 11.3; Dio 60.4.1), and that Dio did not understand the process and therefore assumed Gaius had deposed Antiochus (Barrett 1990: 285). D. Wardle (1992a) rejects Barrett’s view, and asserts that in the early empire client kings were formally given their position by the Senate and therefore a general abolition of Gaius’s acta would not have affected those kings’ positions. Wardle further points out that the events of the year 40 in Dio’s Book 59 survive only in the epitomes, and therefore their absence in that book does not mean much—so Gaius may have indeed deposed Antiochus in 40. On Alexander, see the note on “Alabarch” at 18.159. For a particular implication of the present datum, that he was Antonia’s guardian, see the note on “money” at 18.165. Probably what is meant here is that he managed her property in Egypt; so Evans 1995: 580. On that property, for which there is a good bit of papyrological evidence, see Rostovtzeff 1957: 1.292 and 2.670, n. 45, also Kokkinos 1992: 68–86. On the manuscript variant here that adds “Lysimachus” to Alexander’s name, probably because of a misreading of Philo’s De Animalibus, see Terian 1981: 25–28 and Evans 1995: 586–589. The next line supplies the name of Alexander’s son. Julia Berenice, daughter of Agrippa and Cypros. Years later she would become Titus’s lover. About her, see Krieger 1997; Mason 2008: 178, n. 1359; and Ilan 2022.

Although some have taken this passage to mean that she was a virgin when married by Herod (see hjp 1.572, n. 59), so had been only engaged to Marcus and their marriage was not consummated, that requires some clever punctuation of the text and also contradicts the plain meaning of the end of §276. Rather, it seems that all Josephus means is that she was first married, as a virgin, to Marcus, and then later, in a second marriage, to Herod; for similar use of παρθένον λαβών, as here, with regard to a first marriage as opposed to a second one, see 17.352. Josephus has, however, collapsed several events, for epigraphic evidence shows that Marcus was still alive in 43; see cpj 2.197–200 and the note on “his reign” at §350. If Agrippa married her off to his brother Herod, that must have been between Marcus’s death and Agrippa’s, later in 43 or in 44—but that is well after the present context, 41 ce, when, according to both Josephus (here) and Cassius Dio (60.8.2–3), Claudius granted Herod the kingdom of Chalcis. We should conclude, accordingly, that Josephus’s reference to Berenice’s widowhood and second marriage appears here only to round out the presentation of Alexander the Alabarch, which does indeed belong to the present chronological context. The facts that §277 is out of chronological order, opens with a reference to “Alexander’s son, Marcus” although the previous line referred to him with no name, and focuses on a marriage within the Herodian family, all suggest that this passage, like 20.104, is a snippet based on a Herodian family chronicle; see the note on “Herod” at 20.104. Marriages with nieces seem to have been fairly widespread in Jewish antiquity—widespread enough to be taken for granted, even as a usual expectation, by tannaitic texts (t. Qidd. 1:4 [ed. Lieberman, 276]; b. Yevamot 62b–63a; m. Nedarim 8:7 and 9:10; the last two apparently assume the expectation was prevalent enough to require someone to bind himself by an oath if he wanted to evade it), and to be opposed by some Qumran texts; see esp. Damascus Document 5:8–11 and Temple Scroll 66:15–17. Josephus takes it for granted concerning Abraham and Sarah at Ant. 1.154, and mentions another case at 12.187–189. In general, see Mayer 1987: 55–56. In any case, royal families often have their own needs and preferences when it comes to marriage, and the practice was fairly common in the Herodian family (see 20.103; War 1.563//Ant. 17.19; Ant. 16.194–196, 215, 18.110). I.e., Herod’s. Chalcis was in the Beqaa, the Lebanese (or “Massyas” [Strabo 16.2.10]) plain between the Lebanon and anti-Lebanon mountains; see hjp 1.571–573. That Claudius awarded this kingdom to Herod is also stated at War 2.217, but that does not say it was at Agrippa’s behest; cf. the note on “Agrippa” at §275.

The lack of an article and the use of the genitive here (Ἰουδαίων) is perhaps meant to soften the report; not “the Jews,” but only “[some] Jews,” were engaged in the stasis. On Claudius’s policies and dealings with the Jews, and their contradictory tendencies, see the note on “nation” at 20.12. On his involvement with the Jews of Alexandria, see Tcherikover in cpj 1.69–74 and 2.36–55 (cpj 153), Kasher 1985: 262–309, D. R. Schwartz 1990a: 74–77, Slingerland 1997: 143–150, and Ben Zeev 1998: 294–342. It is possible that Josephus means only that there was a conflict “between Jews and Greeks” (Feldman 1965: 343; Schalit 1963: 343). However, given the explanation in the next sentence, that the Jews took up arms, this πρός + accusative should be given its full sense, which assigns the initiative to the Jews; see lsj 1497, s.v. πρός, §iii.C.4 and D. R. Schwartz 1990a: 102–103, n. 49. For a similar formulation, but with the shoe on the other foot in a later episode in Alexandria, see War 2.487: ἀεὶ μὲν ἦν στάσις πρὸς τὸ Ἰουδαϊκὸν τοῖς ἐπιχωρίοις. Thackeray (jlcl 2.543) renders merely “there had been incessant strife between the native inhabitants and the Jewish settlers,” but Mason (2008: 350) renders more specifically, “there was ongoing civil strife among the natives toward the Judean [element],” and the continuation indeed goes on to portray the Jews as victims. For this full formulation, rather than plain “Alexandria,” see the note on “Jerusalemites” at 20.11. For those terrible events of 38 ce, see 18.257–260, and especially Philo, Flaccus 26–107 and Leg. 120–137; Bergmann and Hoffmann 1987; Modrzejewski 1997: 165–173; Sanders 2016; Ritter 2015: 132–183; Alston 2020.

It is perhaps surprising that Josephus here lays the initiative for the renewal of violence on the Jews, although he does emphasize how justified their grudge was. Moreover, this appears to contradict the quoted edict itself, which lays the blame on the Greeks (§284). This incongruity between the introduction to the edict and the edict itself is at the heart of discussions about the authenticity of the edict; see the note on “text” at §279. A solution proposed by a scholar who assumes the authenticity of the edict is that Josephus, in this introduction to the edict, was following “an independent Alexandrian Jewish source that did not survive,” which dealt with the events that occurred later that same year and provoked Claudius’s later letter, preserved on papyrus (cpj 153), that was more negative towards the Jews; so Ben Zeev 1998: 313–315. As Ben-Zeev notes, that suggestion entails the conclusion that Josephus was either unaware of or did not care about the discrepancy in tone between the introduction and the edict. So does any other suggestion, unless one attempts to neutralize the opening of §278 by taking πρός as “with” (see the note there on “against”), by emphasizing its statement that the Jews had good reason to take up arms, and by arguing they did so only in self-defense, not in vengeance. Those are all possible. The identity of this governor is not clear, for two reasons. First, there is a gap in the dated evidence for Roman governors of Egypt: for C. Vitrasius Pollio there are dated testimonies between October 38 and sometime in 40, while for his successor, L. Aemilius Rectus, the evidence begins with the opening of cpj 153 in November 41 and goes down to April 42; see Bastianini 1975: 271–272. Thus, even if we were sure that the present text is authentic and was published shortly after Gaius’s death in January 41 (as is suggested by §§278–279), we would not know who the governor was. Moreover, there is room to doubt that the document is authentic; it might be a Jewish version of cpj 153; see the note on “text” at the end of the present paragraph. Διάγραμμα. See the note on “edict” at §160. Yet the following edict discusses the rights of Alexandrian Jews alone, and Josephus soon explicitly writes that it was addressed to Alexandria (§286). It is followed, beginning at §287, with one to the rest of the world. Probably Josephus refers to Syria here because that is the part of the rest of the world that will interest him in what follows; see esp. §§300–311. The following two edicts, and especially the first one, which was addressed to Alexandria, have elicited extensive scholarly discussion. For references to some of the huge bibliography about this issue, see cpj 2.36–37 and Ben Zeev 1998: 295–296; for reviews of scholarship, see Feldman 1965: 346–349 and Ritter 2015: 142–156. The debate was sparked especially by the discovery of a papyrus, first published in 1924 (Bell 1924 = cpj 153 = Smallwood 1967, no. 370), that preserves a copy—a “very careless” private copy (Harker 2008: 26)—of a letter of Claudius addressed to the Alexandrians and dated to the same year; like the present edict, it deals with the clashes between Jews and their neighbors in Alexandria and with the rights of the Jews. That papyrus drew much scholarly attention for many reasons, but in the Jewish context was and is important especially because Claudius’s attitude towards the Jews is distinctly more negative than in the edicts quoted here by Josephus. Thus, the present document opens by emphasizing that the Jews were longtime residents of Alexandria, were called “Alexandrians” and had “obtained equal civil status from the (Ptolemaic) kings” (§281) and that the Romans too had preserved their rights (§§282–283); it says nothing (apart from the hint that might be indicated by the closing call upon both sides to keep the peace [§285]) about Jewish violence; and it blames the Alexandrians for rising up against the Jews (§284), saying that that happened when Gaius, in his “great madness and derangement,” persecuted the Jews (§284). All of that is music to Jewish ears. The papyrus letter, in contrast, is much more evenhanded, but expresses suspicion and hostility toward the Jews. “The tone of this version of the letter favours the Greeks. They are given a slap on the wrist for starting a ‘war against the Jews,’ while the Jews are castigated and given a series of prohibitions” (Harker 2008: 26): not to send two delegations (meaning unclear), not to infiltrate games in the city, not to bring in Jews from Syria or Egypt. Not only that, but Claudius also warns the Jews that if they do such things, which he characterizes as aiming for more than they have “in a foreign city” (l. 95), he will treat them “as fomenting a common plague for the whole world” (lines 98–100). Scholars have suggested, with various nuances, the two obvious solutions: either Claudius’s attitude towards the Jews changed radically during his first year and both documents are authentic (e.g., Kasher 1985: 273–274, and—more cautiously—Ben Zeev 1998: 305–326; cf. Ritter 2015: 153–156), or the edict quoted by Josephus is a Jewish forgery, or a Jewish “version” of Claudius’s letter; so, for example, D. R. Schwartz 1990a: 99–106 and Harker 2008: 25–28.

Tribunicia potestas. Hudson (cited by Niese 1890a: 259 ad loc.) suggested correcting the text by adding to Claudius’s titles here ἀρχιερεὺς μέγιστος, i.e., pontifex maximus, as appears in the following edict (§287) as well as in Claudius’s letter to the Alexandrians (cpj 153, lines 14–15). But perhaps we should not expect too much consistency. On the one hand, both of the latter documents include a consular title as well; and on the other hand, at 20.11 too there is no reference to Claudius’s high-priestly office.

Writing that the Jews of Alexandria are “called ‘Alexandrians’” implies that they enjoyed the same legal status as their Greek neighbors. This is one of the most significant contrasts with the aforementioned papyrus letter of Claudius (cpj 153), which clearly distinguishes between the “Alexandrians” and “the Jews”—see lines 82–83, 88–89: “I conjure the Alexandrians (Ἀλεξανδρεῖς μέν) to behave gently and kindly towards the Jews … The Jews, on the other hand (καὶ Ἰουδέοις δέ), I order …” (see also Τcherikover’s comments at cpj 2.49). Ben Zeev (1998: 315–316), however, stresses that even Josephus’s text of the edict here only says that the Jews were “called ‘Alexandrians,’” suggesting that they were not so in the strict legal sense. Yet, the continuation of this sentence in the edict makes it explicit that the Jews enjoyed equal rights with the Alexandrians; whereas the papyrus letter mentions only the Jews’ right to live according to their religious practices and customs (lines 85–87) but not any political rights, even admonishing them to be satisfied with that and not to seek more in a city that “is not their own” (lines 94–95). Twice more in Josephus’s writings the Jews are referred to as “Alexandrians”: (1) at Ant. 14.188 Julius Caesar is said to have made a bronze tablet declaring that the Jews of Alexandria were Alexandrian citizens (cf. Apion 2.35–37), and (2) at Apion 2.38 Josephus takes issue with Apion’s amazement that the Jews “were called ‘Alexandrians’”; see Barclay (2007: 188–189, n. 124, ad loc.). It seems that the Jews often claimed to be “Alexandrians,” even if not all would agree they were entitled to that status and insisted, instead, that they were merely inhabitants of the city. This is implied by another papyrus, which contains a petition of a Jewish man who called himself an “Alexandrian” but someone knocked that down to “a Jew from Alexandria” (cpj 151, l. 2 [cpj 2.30–32]). Cf. Feldman 1965: 344–346, n. d and Ritter 2015: 86–88. Kasher (1985: 274–278) suggests a rather complicated solution: that the term was used to stress that the Jews had a status equal to that of citizens of the polis; but they were not themselves citizens of the polis; rather, “they were politai of their own political organization, and because the existence of that organization in Alexandria was legally recognized, they could be called ‘Alexandrians’” (p. 275). Presumably, not all would understand such usage and/or agree with it. Συγκατοικίζω; lsj: “colonize jointly, join in colonizing.” In Josephus this term appears only here and in Ant. 17.352, and in the latter it is used metaphorically of marriage. War 2.487 asserts that Alexander the Great granted the Jews “the [privilege of] settling (μετοικέω) in the city.” As mentioned in the previous note, at War 2.487 Josephus asserts that the Jews settled in Alexandria already in Alexander’s time, and he does so also in Apion 2.42. In contrast, in his papyrus letter to the Alexandrians, Claudius merely writes that the Jews “have inhabited the same city for many years” (lines 83–84). I.e., the Ptolemaic kings. War 2.487–488 likewise mentions that Alexander’s successors upheld his grant of equal rights to the Jews of Alexandria. See also Apion 1.189 (Pseudo-Hecataeus) on the Jews’ rights in Alexandria upon settling in Egypt (τἠν κατοίκησιν αὐτῶν καὶ τὴν πολιτείαν) early in the Ptolemaic period. These documents about the status of Jews in Alexandria, which presumably were collected by the Jews of Alexandria, have not survived and are not quoted by Josephus. See Motzo 1977: 751–753 and Ben Zeev 1998: 300–301. For the use of διάταγμα for “edict,” as also below at §§285–286, 291–292, 304, 306–307, 310, see gtri 36, s.v., also 127–128.

On the Roman governors of Egypt, see Bastianini 1975. But we have no evidence about their dealings with Jews prior to the fourth decade of the first century. On Roman rule in Egypt as it pertained to the Jews down to the days of Claudius, see Tcherikover in cpj 1.55–69; Barclay 1996: 49–56; and Modrzejewski 1997: 161–173.

For the relatively rare title “ethnarch” see Sharon 2010. Among other known ethnarchs are the Hasmonean Hyrcanus ii (e.g., Ant. 14.194, 196) and Herod’s son Archelaus (War 2.93//Ant. 17.317; War 2.96; 111, 115, 167; Ant. 17.339; and a fragment of Nicolaus—glajj 1.252, lines 73–74), as well as the “ethnarch of King Aretas” in or near Damascus mentioned in 2 Corinthians 11:32. On him, see Taylor 1992. An ethnarch of the Jews in Egypt is mentioned in a passage from Strabo cited by Josephus at Ant. 14.117 (and Philo, Flacc. 74, mentions a “genarch”); see Stern, glajj 1.280–281. Probably C. Iulius Aquila, who is known to have been the prefect of Egypt in 10/11 ce (Bastianini 1975: 269). This implies, realistically enough, the assumption that even had Augustus wanted to put an end to the office he would not have put an end to an ethnarch’s tenure but, rather, have waited until a more elegant opportunity presented itself. Cf. Tiberius’s annexation of Philip’s tetrarchy to the province of Syria upon the tetrarch’s death (18.108) and Claudius’s transformation of Judea into a province upon that of Agrippa i (19.360–363). This seemingly contradicts Philo’s statement in Flacc. 74 that, after the death of the genarch (a title which is apparently synonymous with ethnarch; see the hendiadys at Philo, Who is the Heir 279), Augustus appointed a gerousia to take charge of Jewish affairs. To resolve this apparent contradiction, Box (1939: 103) noted that Philo did not write that the office of ethnarch was abolished, and therefore suggests that all Philo meant is that Augustus now put the ethnarch at the head of the newly-formed gerousia (cf. Sharon 2010: 486). Another suggestion is that Claudius knew that there had been no ethnarchs since the day of Aquila but wanted to underline that that was not Augustus’s fault; perhaps the deceased ethnarch was the last of a dynasty that died out. See van der Horst 2003a: 168–169; cf. D. R. Schwartz 1990a: 104 and Ben Zeev 1998: 302. Ben Zeev (1998: 302–303) points to the existence of inscriptions and papyri that attest to Augustus’s recognition of the rights of several subject peoples. On the translation of θρησκεία, see the note on “religion’s” at 18.287. For Josephus’s claim that he himself followed the tolerant policy that he here ascribes to Augustus, see Life 113.

It seems that ἐπαρθῆναι implies both being moved to act and arrogance. Cf. 20.82 and Life 24. This plain assignment of blame to the Alexandrians, not the Jews, goes well with the coming reference to Gaius in creating doubts about the authenticity of this document. Cf. the note on “text” at §279. For ἀπόνοια, lsj 211, s.v. offers “loss of all sense” and “madness.” Cf. the note on “insanity” at §1. Claudius refers to Gaius’s παραφροσύνη in the next paragraph as well (§285). However, on the one hand Josephus himself uses it, as author, in §258 (as also at 12.112 and 14.101), and, on the other hand, its appearance in an official document, alongside “madness,” in an emperor’s characterization of his predecessor, appears suspicious, for Gaius was Claudius’s nephew, and predecessor, and one might expect appearances to be maintained; cf. the note on “disloyalty” at §268. This is among the considerations that suggest the present document is a product of Jewish forgery or editing. Yakobson (1989: 50–65) portrays an ambiguous public attitude of Claudius vis-à-vis Gaius, underlining his punishment of Gaius’s assassins (but not all of them; see §273), his refusal to impose damnatio memoriae (but surreptitious removal of Gaius’s statues, at night [Cassius Dio 60.4.6]), and his failure to punish most of those who had collaborated with Gaius in his crimes. Similarly, in response to Ramage’s (1983: 202–206) attempt to infer from numismatic evidence that Claudius used his coinage to attack Gaius, Levick (1990: 88–89) argued that that evidence has been wrongly interpreted, just as, more generally, she assembles other evidence for Claudius’s usual abstention, early in his reign (to which the present document belongs), from attacks on his predecessor. As S. R. F. Price (1984: 81) underlines, referring to Leg. 353, Gaius was the only significant exception to the rule that “the Roman emperors did not use theos of themselves when communicating in Greek with their subjects.”

Διακελεύομαι. This is its only occurrence in Josephus’s writings. The papyrus letter uses plain κελεύω at the outset of its warning to the Jews (cpj 153, line 89). This last section is the operative section of the edict—Claudius’s decision. Its call upon both sides to strive to avoid provocation contrasts somewhat with the rest of the document, which is wholly in favor of the Jews. But it is in line with Claudius’s letter preserved on papyrus, cpj 153: lines 86–88 demand that the Alexandrians allow the Jews “to keep their own ways”; lines 79–80 urge both sides to “stop this destructive and obstinate mutual enmity”; and in lines 100–102, near the end of the letter, Claudius writes: “If you both give up your present ways and are willing to live in gentleness and kindness with one another …”. So if Jewish forgers or editors were involved in formulating the present document, they were clever enough to allow the emperor an evenhanded conclusion.

Yet, in introducing the edict Josephus had said that it was addressed to both Alexandria and Syria (see above, §279). On this edict, see the detailed dicussion in Ben Zeev 1998: 328–342.

Claudius’s second consulate was in 42, so he was “cos. design. ii” in 41—his first year as emperor. Ben Zeev 1998: 330 lists three letters of Claudius to various cities, all dated to 41, in which appear the same titles of Claudius as here.

Here in the singular, in contrast to the plural used at §279. Τῶν φιλτάτων μοι. Ben Zeev (1998: 331) writes that this is a common expression in official Roman documents, and mentions Millar’s observation that Roman emperors used in their edicts “language which implies that these are essentially personal decisions and pronouncements,” for which he cites this instance as an example (Millar 1977: 258–259). Yet, as Ben Zeev also notes, the friendship between Claudius and Agrippa was a real one; see the note on “along” at 18.143. Intervention of leaders of Judea in favor of Jews of the Diaspora is recorded from the days of the ethnarch Hyrcanus ii in the 40s bce: for the Jews of Ephesus (Ant. 14.223–227) and of Laodicea (Ant. 14.241–243). Cf. Mendels 1997: 211–212; Sharon 2010: 481–482, 490. Personal friends often petitioned Roman leaders in order to secure rights and privileges, and, as at 20.12–13, Claudius often mentions personal friends in his speeches and edicts (Ben Zeev 1998: 335–336).

I.e., the Jews of the Roman Empire. The loyalty (πίστις) of Hyrcanus ii is mentioned as a reason for Julius Caesar’s granting of rights to Hyrcanus and his children and the Jews in the first Roman document, among those cited by Josephus, that postdates the Roman takeover of Judea (Ant. 14.192). Loyalty and goodwill of peoples under Roman domination are often given as reasons for conferring rights upon them by Claudius; see Ben Zeev 1998: 331–332, 337–338. This formulation, that assumes that the Jews have a stronger claim to their rights than Greek cities do to theirs, is another giveaway of the Jewish editing this document has undergone. As Ben Zeev (1998: 338) observes and illustrates, “confirmation of the rights given by Augustus is a common feature of the policy implemented by Claudius.” So too in his letter to the Alexandrians, Claudius confirms the rights of the Alexandrians “in the same way that the god Augustus confirmed them” (cpj 153, lines 57–59).

Τὰ πάτρια ἔθη. The same formulation as in Caesar’s edicts in 14.194, 216 and the decree of Ephesus at 14.263. Below in this same section Claudius speaks, instead, of “their own laws” (νόμοι), just as such terms appear fairly indiscriminately in those earlier documents as well; see, for example, 14.195 (νόμοι), 216 (νόμιμα), 263 (νόμοι). While for Jews such distinctions could be very important (see, for example, 13.296–297 and Philo, Hypothetica 7.6, along with the note on “regulations” at 18.274), no one should expect a Roman emperor, or a formulator of Roman documents, to care much about them. In general, see Schröder 1996. For similar use of ἀνεπικώλυτος in a Roman privilege for the Jews, see 16.169. Cf. the last verse of Acts: Paul is allowed to live and preach in Rome ἀκωλύτως. Of the present document, Ben-Zeev (1998: 332) writes that “this is the first unambiguous mention of rights applying to all the Jews living in the Roman world.” But earlier texts do point in the same direction; see Ant. 16.162–165 (Augustus) and 14.194–195, 213–216 (Julius Caesar), as well as various letters by Roman magistrates to Greek cities (e.g., to Ephesus—Ant. 14.225–227; to Laodicea—14.241–243). See Sharon 2017: 125–135. For this sense, referring to the document itself and not only to the value it expresses, see lsj 1932, s.v. φιλανθρωπία §iii. See also Ben Zeev (1998: 332), who quotes Benner’s explanation that “a quality of the emperor is substituted for the actual manifestation of that quality, i.e., beneficium or edictum.” For rulers’ pride in this quality in Roman period, see esp. Bell 1949 and Spicq 1994: 3.160–171. Bell cites several cases of such use of φιλανθρωπία with a personal pronoun; see, for example, sp no. 217, in which the emperor Gallienus (267 ce) concludes a decision granting privileges to someone with the statement that the latter shall thereby enjoy τῆς ἐμῆς φιλανθρωπίας. Cf. the note on “benevolent” at §330. This is the only occurrence of ἐξουθενίζω in Josephus. Δεισιδαιμονίαι. Although the term can have a negative sense, “superstition” (see Mason 2008: 145, n. 1096, on War 2.174), in Josephus it is usually positive or neutral (“religion”); see Koets 1929: 21–24 and ThLJ 126, s.v. δεισιδαιμονία. Here too, as in other Roman documents with regard to the Jews (such as Ant. 14.228, 232, 234) and others, both with regard to those others and with regard to the Romans themselves, the term is not negative, and probably corresponds to pietas or religio; see Koets 1929: 23–24 and Ben Zeev 1998: 153, 332. True, translating ancient Latin “religio” into modern English “religion” is not without its pitfalls; but there does not seem to be a better alternative. Cf. Mason 2007: 482 and Barton and Boyarin 2016.

This is the only occurrence of κολωνία in Josephus. Usually he uses ἀποικία; the use of the transliterated Latin term (colonia), as the next noun too, gives the document some Latin flavor. This is the only occurrence of μουνικίπιον in Josephus; cf. the preceding note. This is the only occurrence of the otherwise common verb ἔκκειμαι in Josephus. As Katzoff (1982: 209–217) notes, although it was not usual to include instructions concerning publication in the body of an edict, reserving them instead for a cover letter to the relevant official, “Roman imperial practice was not consistent on this point” (216). The present document is one of two that he cites. For other such lack of consistency, see the note on “Dorites” at §303. Feldman notes that the final requirement, that it should be published in a place where it may be read from the ground, is almost identical to a Latin formula—ut de plano recte legi possi(n)t; for texts with this and similar formulations about publication, see Ando 2000: 97–101. For Gaius’s unfair practice in this regard, see the note on “upon them” at §25.

For the argument, that the section starting here and ending at §299 was mistakenly placed here by Josephus, and actually describes Agrippa’s return to Judea following his first enthronement by Gaius in 37 (described in Ant. 18.237), see D. R. Schwartz 1990a: 11–14 and below, the note on “better” at §294. For criticism of that theory, see Kokkinos 1998: 282–284. This is the only occurrence of ἐράσμιος in Josephus.

On Agrippa i, see Ciaceri 1917; Charlesworth 1936b: 3–30; hjp 1.442–453; Smallwood 1981: 187–200; D. R. Schwartz 1990a; Wilker 2007: 131–192. In context, this refers to Claudius’s enlargement of Agrippa’s kingdom in 41 (above, §§274–275). Perhaps, however, it in fact alludes to Agrippa’s release from prison and acquisition of Philip’s realm in 37; see the note on “Agrippa” at §292. This is the only occurrence of ἐκπληρόω (“fill up”) in Josephus. It might refer to “fulfillment” of a vow (as at Acts 13:32–33), but no vow has been mentioned. Probably we need only assume an expectation that the safe conclusion of a voyage should entail some thanksgiving, and that can be expressed negligently or “fully.” On this theme, see Kattan Gribetz 2017. But Jewish law did not, apparently, require any thanksgiving sacrifices; they are voluntary. See Josephus, Ant. 3.228–229. Perhaps all that Josephus means is that when Agrippa offered such sacrifices he did so the way the law prescribes (as suggested by Feldman’s expansive translation: “omitting none of the ritual enjoined by our law”).

Paying for a Nazirite’s sacrifices was a well-known type of charity. The Palestinian Talmud (y.Ber. 7:2, 11b//y. Nazir 5:5, 54b) narrates a story in which a Hasmonean king, Alexander Janneus, paid for 450 sacrificial animals for the sacrifices of 150 indigent Nazirites—three each, as required by Numbers 6:14. Büchler (1897/98: 700–701) suggested that that story was in fact initially about Agrippa, as the present story—a suggestion rejected by Joshua Efron (1987: 147–50) but supported by Goodblatt 1987b: 16–23. Noam (2017) proposed a more nuanced view, according to which the talmudic story combined two traditions: an early story from Hasmonean times, not involving King Jannaeus, to which the story about Jannaeus was later added, perhaps on the basis of the story about Agrippa. That later Jewish tradition confused Jannaeus with Agrippa would not be surprising, especially since both were often mentioned in connection with a woman (Salome Alexandra/Berenice); cf. D. R. Schwartz 1981/82: 266–267. Feldman (1965: 353) renders ξυρᾶσθαι here as “to be shorn” and Schalit too (1963; 344) refers to haircuts. Βut the biblical text that lies behind this, Num 6 (see the next note), refers literally to shaving (glḥ), as does Josephus’s use of ξυρήσας at Ant. 7.129, where it is used of beards. On this episode, see esp. Schumann 2021: 217–220. Since a main component of the Nazirite’s vow was not to cut his hair (Numbers 6:5; Judges 16:17), the plain meaning of this section is that Agrippa ordered the violation of the vow of many Nazirites, which would not at all fit the context. Reference to Acts 21:23–24, where Paul is told to pay for four men who had taken vows, so they could “shave their heads,” solves the problem: what is meant is that Agrippa and Paul covered the expenses of the offerings of some needy Nazirites—which would allow them to end the period of the vow and, therefore, to shave (Numbers 6:18–19). That the reference is to payment, which is clear in Acts but not in Josephus, accords with, and is explained by, the formlation preserved in the Mishnah, where the term tiglaḥat (lit. “shaving”) is indeed used in the sense of “to bring the offerings of a Nazirite”; see m. Nazir 2:5, 6; Epstein 1938: 15–16; Feldman 1965: 352–353, n. c; D. R. Schwartz 1990a: 68 and n. 4. It is remarkable that Josephus, in the present short passage, both fails to recognize that his readers might not know what a “Nazirite” is (contrast 4.72, the only other occurrence of “Nazirites” in his writings, where he takes that into account and therefore adds “that is how they are called”; cf. the note on “named” at at 18.4) and also uses a verb that only Jews would understand properly in this context. (Note, in this context, the difficulties—Josephus’s? copyists?—raised by the appearance of the same verb at War 2.313, set out by Mason 2008: 250, n. 2004). Whether these in-group formulations point to a Jerusalemite source or only to Josephus’s own Jerusalemite vocabulary is unclear, but it certainly indicates a lack of attention on his part. Στυγνός. Josephus uses this term only here and below at §318, in a similar phrase. See 18.237 and the note on “better fortunes” at §293. This is the most convincing consideration in favor of the suggestion that this section describes Agrippa’s first return to Judea following his enthronement by Gaius in 37 (see the note on “Agrippa” at §292). For why would Agrippa wait four years to commemorate his turn of fortune? And why, in 41 ce, would Agrippa think that anyone in Jerusalem would have been happy to see him dedicate, in the Temple, a gift emanating from an emperor who had, so recently, attempted to desecrate it? On the temple treasury, cf. Hamilton 1964 and hjp 2.279–284. For this common theme, of the great change of fortune, in Josephus’s materials on Agrippa, see also 18.129, 197–202 and 239, below at §318 and just above at §292. The prominence and utility of this theme in Agrippa’s story is reminiscent of two well-known biblical stories, that of Joseph in Egypt as related in Genesis and the story of the book of Esther (see further the note on “have in common” at 18.201 and D. R. Schwartz 1990a: 33–35). More generally, on reversals of fortune in Josephus, see the note on “[to us all]” at 20.57.

Namely, after being king of Philip’s territories since 37 (18.237) and Antipas’s since 39 (18.252), he was now given Judea and Samaria as well, the heart of the country, along with additional territories (§§274–275). That is, this sentence reflects Josephus’s opinion, reflected in this story’s location here, that it refers to Agrippa’s return to Judea after Claudius’s ascent to the throne.

Niese (1890a: 261) reads καὶ πεσεῖν ὀλισθάνειν τὰ μεγέθη but brackets πεσεῖν and notes “mihi spurium aut corruptum uid[etur].” Feldman (1965: 354) would rescue the word by emending it, following two mansucripts, into πᾶσιν, rendering “for all grandeurs to glide away.” But that dative is difficult to construe and anyway the point of the statement is that for some grandeur can be reachieved. Perhaps πεσεῖν was born as a gloss on the rare ὀλισθάνειν. On this trope, see the note on “[to us all]” at 20.57.

This is the only occurrence of ἐντελῶς in Josephus. It corresponds to ἐξεπλήρωσε in §293. For the beginning of his high priesthood, see 18.123. Rabbinic tradition records the case of “Simon the Just,” who heard a voice from the Holy of Holies announcing the death of Gaius and the cancellation of his decrees (t. Sotah 13:6; y. Sotah 9.24b; Scholion to Megillat Taʽanit for 22 Shebat [Noam 2003: 283]). If the name is not merely a stock name for a high priest of the mythic past (see A. Tropper 2013), then, as has been noted, the reference would be to this Simon Cantheras; see Winter 1954 and Noam 2003: 283–290. That would imply, however, that Simon was already high priest when Gaius died (cf. Winter loc cit., 73, n. 6), which is another reason for the suggestion that this entire section actually speaks of Agrippa’s initial return to Judea after his enthronement by Gaius; see the note on “Agrippa” at §292. On this surname and its implications, see the note on “Cantheras” at 19.342. I.e., of the Boethus clan; see the note on “Boethus” at 18.3. As for “Cantheras,” see the note on “Cantheras” at §342 and Appendix 2. See Ant. 15.320–322, recalled at 18.136.

I have rendered σύν here on the assumption that it does not imply any sharing of the office. Contrast Ant. 11.306, along with Spilsbury and Seeman 2017: 110, n. 1035. “Macedonian” is Josephus’s usual term for the Hellenistic period prior to the Hasmoneans; see the first and last paragraphs of Ant. 12. This refers to Ant. 12.238, where Josephus gave the sons’ names as Onias, Jesus/Jason, and Onias/Menelaus. That is apparently confused, both because it is unlikely that Simon had two sons named “Onias” and because of the much earlier evidence supplied by 2 Maccabees. Cf. the note on “Menelaus” at 20.235. This type of topic interested Josephus; cf. 20.197–198 on Ananus and his sons.

On this tax, perhaps reflected in m. Bava Batra 1:5 (which states that inhabitants of a town may be compelled to contribute to the building of the city walls and gates), see Udoh 2020: 177–180. For this type of gesture of goodwill, cf. the note on “remitted” at 18.90. Most of the witnesses here read ἵππαρχον, lit. “commander of the cavalry.” Since, however, Josephus says “of the entire army,” Niese (1890a: 261; 1890b: 223) and Feldman (1965: 356) prefer the Ambrosianus’s ἔπαρχον, “governor.” But the manuscripts all read ἵππαρχος at §317 and ἱππαρχίας at §320. Rather than depending on a single manuscript here and correcting the text at §§317 and 320 (as is suggested by Dindorf [1865: 762] and followed by Niese [1890a: 261, 264–265] and Feldman [1965: 356, 362, 364]), it seems more prudent to read ἱππ- in all three passages and conclude that the term could designate an officer with a broader command—as is already suggested by 18.237 (see the note there, on “cavalry commander”). Moreover, note that ἔπαρχος (“prefect”), when used without qualification, usually refers to provincial governors (as at 18.33; 19.363, 20. 193, 297), not to generals (for whom we would expect στρατηγός; cf. the note on “commander” at §256). This is the only occurrence of συμμετέχω in Antiquities. Usually plain μετέχω is used (e.g. §§133, 191). This apparently refers to the assistance Silas afforded Agrippa when he was imprisoned (18.204). This reward too thus points to a time close to Agrippa’s release from prison and initial enthronement by Gaius, rather than after his second enthronement by Claudius; see the note on “Agrippa” at §292.

That the rowdies were youths is a standard topos; see the note on “our youths” at 18.10. On the present episode, see Kasher 1985: 264–267 and Krause 2017: 117–123. The coastal city Dora, founded by Phoenicians, was located ca. 12 km. north of Caesarea. On it, see hjp 2.118–120 and Nitschke, Martin, and Shalev 2011. This is the only occurrence of the form ὁσιότης in Josephus. For such pejorative use of θρασύς, especially of youthful hotheads, see the note on “audacious” at 18.6. Or: set it up; see the note on “installation of the statue” at 18.272. In Alexandria too, according to Philo (Leg. 134–135), the anti-Jewish violence in 38 ce included the introduction of portraits and statues of Gaius into the Jews’ synagogues. This is the earliest context in which Josephus mentions a synagogue in Palestine; others are mentioned in his narratives about the 60s ce (War 2.285–289; Life 277–280). On synagogues in Josephus, see Krause 2017. More generally on synagogues in antiquity, see Levine 2005a; he discusses the present episode at pp. 66–67.

For this sense of δύνασθαι here, see ThLJ 194, s.v., §4. This is the only occurrence of ἀμελλητί in Josephus. See the note on “without delay” at §341. On Petronius, see 18.261ff. Josephus’s introduction of him as a new character here, and his failure to relate in any way to the fact that this Petronius is the main actor in the long story related at 18.261–309, which in fact dealt with an issue very similar to the present one (the introduction of a statue of the emperor into a Jewish sacred site), is quite an egregious instance of the way stories have been thrown together in these books.

This is the only occurrence of ἔννομος in Josephus. The way it allows for vagueness as to whether the reference is to Jewish law or Roman law is very convenient for Josephus here. For a similar case, cf. Acts 18:12–16. His anger would, historically, and perhaps for attentive readers, reflect his experience in the Temple-statue affair in Gaius’s day and first-hand knowledge of the way it could threaten public order. As noted, however, it is quite remarkable that Josephus does not comment on that. Although the manuscripts read τοῖς ἀποστάσι (“to the rebels”), this translation follows Niese’s conjecture (1890a: 262): τοῖς προεστῶσι (“the leaders”). That fits the address at §303, also the assumption at §304 that not all of the addressees were guilty.

This (πρεσβευτής) is Petronius’s title at 18.261 as well. It represents legatus but, as Eck (2008: 220) points out, when complemented only with the emperor’s name, as here, it is not precise. Petronius, as governor of Syria, was legatus Augusti pro praetore; for pro praetore, ἀντιστράτηγος would be expected (see gtri 22, 106–107), as for example with regard to Vitellius at 15.407 (τῷ τῆς Συρίας ἀντιστρατήγῳ), according to Niese 1892: 405. As a glance at ccfj 1.145 shows, witnesses and scholars differ frequently about Josephus’s use of ἀντιστράτηγος. Ben Zeev (1998: 351–352) notes the hybrid character of this document. It opens with the name of its writer, Petronius, his title, and the verb λέγει, all of which is, as at §§280, 287, characteristic of edicts; but then it names the addressees—which is, as at 20.11, a characteristic of letters. As she notes, however (following Katzoff 1980: 810, n. 7), this is not without parallel; see also the note on “posted” at §291. Moreover, even if it were unparalleled, it would be difficult, as is so often the case, to decide whether that more likely points to authenticity (and a careless chancellery) or, rather, to a negligent forgery.

The reference is, apparently, to Claudius’s second, universal, edict cited above, §§286–291, for only it applied anywhere outside Alexandria. At §310, however, Petronius refers to both—perhaps to make his appeal all the weightier as it draws to a close.

The definite article here seems to mean no more than “the one that generated this dispute.” Tcherikover (1959: 306) stressed that this is the only document in which we find “a trace of the exemption of the Jews from the worship of the divine Caesar, but this emphasis had a special reason connected with contemporary events” (i.e., following Gaius’s attempt to place his image in the Temple). Cf. above, §283: “Augustus … because of his desire that each [subject people] remain subject to its own customs and not be forced to violate its ancestral cult.” Ἐπίκριμα here must reflect the Latin decretum (gtri 46, 128–129). In Josephus’s writings it appears only here and in the next line.

What decree is meant is unclear, for we do not know of another decree of Petronius. Ben Zeev (1998: 348–349) suggests that it refers to this message to Dora, but that does not see to be supported by the text here. This is the only occurrence of συμπολιτεύω in Josephus; but συμπολίτης (“fellow citizens”) also appears once, above at §175; see the note on it there. For the term see further Ben Zeev 1998: 354–355. Here we have a statement of what we would term separation of religion and state: the Romans recognize that two sets of norms obligate the Jews, and expect them to go their own way (if they want) concerning their own but otherwise to follow those of the Greek cities in which they live. To the extent that the laws and customs of a Greek city included what we would term religious practices, this implies a recognition that Jews would be excluded from some of the city’s norms due to their own religious norms—as is spelled out in some of the Roman documents assembled in Ant. 14 and 16. On those documents and rights, see Ben-Zeev 1998.

Here and in §310 I have translated σεβαστός rather than rendering it as “Augustus,” as usual, because it seems clear the reference is to Claudius’s edict, cited at the outset (§304). This Vitellius seems to be otherwise unknown.

On such polite usage of παραινέω, see the note on “urged” at 20.6.

ἀπόνοια. The sense here is as at 18.274, in a very similar context.

See the note on “edict” at §304. The Jews of Dora. Ben Zeev (1998: 350) remarks that “the choice of the term δωρεά to express Claudius’ grants to the Jews is highly meaningful, since it shows that, in spite of the fact that the Jews had been accorded the right to follow their traditional customs already by Julius Caesar and then by Augustus, this right is still regarded by Petronius as ‘a privilege,’ which consequently can be revoked any time.”

This parenthetical addition is required to avoid the implication that what had already happened had happened to others, not to Jews. Another way of dealing with that would be to accept the suggestion of Richards and Shutt (1939: 183) to emend εἰς αὐτούς into εἰσαῦθις (“again”), which occurs, for example, at 16.153 (two words), 17.115, and 18.200.

Jonathan, the brother of Theophilus whom Agrippa removed from that same post not much earlier, before appointing Simon Catheras (above, §297), had already been high priest prior to his brother’s term (18.95) until he was deposed by Vitellius (18.123). For Ananus see above, 18.26. For the senses of ὁμολογέω (agreeing, confessing …), see Tov 1999: 115–121. The notion that a high priest should be “worthy” of the position is not to be taken for granted, for Bible and tradition make descent from Aaron, and from particular families among the Aaronites, the sole criterion. However, the notion is not an unnatural one (see already Malachi 2!), especially in a Hellenistic context in which the very word for priest (ἱερεύς) is derived from “holy,” and such passages as Ben Sira’s praise of Aaron (45:6), and 2 Maccabees’ condemnation of Menelaus (4:25: “with nothing worthy of high priesthood”), show that it indeed was held here and there. Although ἀπολαμβάνω need not imply recovery of something previously held (cf. the note on “take over” at §219), this translation, as for example at 15.180, seems to be indicated here by the repetition of the same verb at the end of §314; so ThLJ 70. This is the only occurrence of ἀσμενιστός in Josephus.

If the reconstruction suggested in the note on “in Judea” at 18.90 is correct, the reference is probably to Passover of 37 ce. On the high-priestly vestments, see the note on “ornaments” at 18.90. Jonathan’s surprising response is among the reasons that led Smallwood (1981: 173) to suggest that when Vitellius deposed him (18.123), it was perhaps in accordance with Jonathan’s own wishes.

On Matthias, cf. VanderKam 2004: 448. C. Vibius Marsus was suffect consul in 17 ce. He had been considered for the governorship of Syria already in 19 ce, following Germanicus’s death, but deferred to the seniority of his competitor, Cn. Sentius Saturninus (Tacitus, Ann. 2.74). Now, in 42 ce, Claudius gave him that office, from which he would later remove him, shortly after Agrippa i’s death (see below, §20.1). During his tenure in Syria he was able to impede the aspirations of Vardanes, the Parthian king, to recover Armenia (Tacitus, Ann. 11.10.1; cf. below, §§20.69–73). See Dąbrowa 1998: 44–46 and hjp 1.263–264. For διέπω of ruling a province, see the note on “administered” at 18.29. For such bunching of changes in functionaries, see the note on “taking” at §342, the opening note at 20.103, and the note on “Phabes” at 20.179.

At §299 he was defined as “cavalry commander of the entire army.” See 18.204 and the note above, on §299. Josephus uses ἀναίνομαι elsewhere only at 17.10. As also at §299, although the Greek is different.

That is, he never accepted an inferior role. Josephus uses ὑποκατακλίνω only once more, at Ant. 12.210, where it refers to seating arrangements at a feast and the placement at the foot of the table implies inferior status. Σεμνύνω. As at §329. Στυγνός. See the note on “bitter” at §294. As reported at 18.204.

This adjective, ἀταμίευτος, appears in Antiquities only here and at §329. But Josephus frequently uses words of the same stem (ταμι-) in a similar sense. Readers might especially think of the frequent use of ταμίας for quaestor (gtri 91), who was something like our “comptroller,” whose job it was to keep things within their proper bounds.

For an otherwise thoughtful person’s λογισμός being overcome by some baser emotion, cf. §107. However, §353 suggests that there was some larger background for Agrippa’s removal of Silas. Here all the manuscripts give ἱππαρχίας. Cf. the note on “cavalry commander” at §299, Josephus does not identify Silas’s homeland, but it seems likely that he hailed from the military colony of Babylonian Jews established by King Herod in Batanea (Ant. 17.23–31). Batanea was under Agrippa’s rule and Josephus testifies that this colony continued to serve Agrippa, as well as his son, Agrippa ii (ibid. §§28, 31). Moreover, Silas’s name was shared by one “Silas the Babylonian” who, in the 60s, deserted the army of Agrippa ii and joined the rebels (War 2.520; cf. 3.11, 19 and Life 54). See D. R. Schwartz 1990a: 70.

Lit. “purer.” Josephus uses εἰλικρινής elsewhere only at War 2.345. This is the only occurrence of ἀνατλῆναι in Josephus. As above, §§299, 317. Celebration of birthdays by Jews in antiquity is virtually unheard of; see Hoehner 1972: 160–161. But the coming scene is clearly reminiscent of Gen 40:20, where Pharaoh, celebrating his birthday, recalls a senior official whom he had imprisoned. This is, then, alongside 18.195–201 and 18.237, another case in which the story of Agrippa has been enriched by allusions to the biblical story of Joseph (cf. the note on “in common” at 18.201). That—perhaps reinforced by Agrippa’s upbringing in Rome, where such celebrations were common (hjp 1. 346–348, n. 26)—can account for the current reference. This is the only occurrence of θαλία in Josephus. For the gesture, cf. §§264, 333. This is the only occurrence of συνέστιος in Josephus; the verb συνεστιάω appears a few times.

Josephus uses ἀποσυλάω elsewhere only at 15.279—there in its literal sense, “to strip off.” For ὑβρίζω, to act with hubris, cf. the note on “hubris” at §1.

This seems to be implied by the heavy formulation opening this sentence: οὐκ ἐγώ. Josephus frequently uses plain μεθίστημι of death (e.g. 18.31, 89; 19.66), but here the formulation (μεταστᾶσα τῆς σαρκὸς ἡ ψυχή) is fuller, given Silas’s desire to speak of what would happen thereafter. The separation or liberation of the soul from the body is a phrase and notion found frequently in Josephus; see Sievers 1998: 27–31. This is the only occurrence of συνεπιφέρω in Josephus. Josephus here allows Silas to speak as a Pharisee (18.14) or an Essene (War 2.154–155), not as a Sadducee who believes that the soul perishes along with the body (18.16). This is frequent for Josephus; see War 6.47 (a pre-battle speech by Titus), 7.344–348 (Eleazar b. Yair’s second pre-suicide speech at Masada), Apion 2.203, 218, along with Sievers 1998 and Mason 2008: 124, n. 947 on the Platonic background.

At War 5.149–151, Josephus reports that the new area of the city was called Bezetha (Βεζεθά, best known from John 5:2) and was opposite the Antonia. He further writes there that the term Bezetha “might be translated into Greek as ‘New Town,’” but that is wrong; for options as to forms of the name and what it means, see Mason 2008: 255, n. 2062. At War 2.530 Josephus formulated more accurately: “Bezetha, also called the ‘New City.’” The fortification of Jerusalem during Claudius’s reign is also mentioned by Tacitus (Hist. 5.12.2). Josephus appears to discuss the building or reinforcement of this same wall in two other passages—War 2.218–219; 5.147–155—but there are significant divergences among the three. Here Josephus appears to speak of reinforcement of an already-existing wall that “faces” the “new city.” In War 2.218–219 he says that Agrippa began to surround Jerusalem with a wall and does not mention the “new city,” seemingly implying a new construction of a wall surrounding the entire city. Moreover, that passage says that construction came to a halt due to Agrippa’s death, mentioning no Roman intervention. In War 5.147–155, Josephus describes the “third wall” around Jerusalem, and says that it was “built” by Agrippa to encompass the new additions to the city, which had been outside of the previously existing walls and thus unprotected. In that description too, however, Josephus writes that the construction was not completed, and although he does not mention Marsus’s involvement, he does report that Agrippa, wary lest Claudius view the construction of such an enormous wall as indicating that he had revolutionary intentions, suspended this wall’s construction after merely laying its foundations. For these sources, remnants of the wall, and attempts to reconstruct its course, see D. R. Schwartz 1990a: 140–144; Mason 2008: 170–180, n. 1364; and Arbiv 2023. This is a curious statement, insofar as it basically confirms that the Romans had some reason to worry about these walls. Cf. the note on “Romans’ interests” at §341. On Marsus, see the note at §316. For Jewish suspicion that a governor’s reports about them to Rome might put them in a worse light than was justified, cf. Philo, Leg. 202.

Compare §§338–342, where Marsus interferes with another project that, sincerely or maliciously, he took to betray more independence than a vassal should be allowed. For a similar formulation, see Philo, Flacc. 26.

Josephus uses the adjective εὐεργετικός only three times. Here and at §330 it describes Agrippa, in contrast to Herod. But in Ant. 16.150 it is actually used to describe Herod, and is used in the superlative: “… he had a most beneficent (εὐεργετικοτάτη) nature,” a passage which, however, as §329, contrasts Herod’s beneficence towards most people with his ill-treatment of his subjects and relatives. On euergetism, and Josephus on euergetism, see the note on “benefit” at 18.95. While in Jewish Greek ἔθνη often means “other nations,” corresponding to Hebrew goyim, and, as such, has something of a negative valence, that is too uncouth for Josephus, in general, and especially here, in light of the opening of §330. For a long catalogue of his uses of the word, see ThLJ 213–214. So already from the outset: 18.144–145.

On ἀταμίευτος, see the note on “unrestrained” at §319. Given Herod’s work in Jerusalem, this is a gross misstatement; contrast War 1.401–402; Ant. 15.380–425. Cf. Josephus’s similarly hostile comment about Gaius Caligula at §§205–206.

This occurrence of πραΰς is the opening bracket of the coming story; cf. πρᾴως at §333 and πρᾳότητα at §334. On the term, see Spicq 1994: 3.160–171. See the note on “benefactor” at §328. Just as Herod too was φιλάνθρωπος to foreign cities (15.327). On this quality, see the note on “edict” at §290. This use of τοῖς ὁμοφύλοις, borne out as it is by references to Agrippa’s adherence to the appropriate rites of purity and offering of sacrifices, conforms to the impression gained elsewhere as well, that Josephus means something like “fellow religionists.” See the note on “religion” at 18.64. For this sense of ἀναλόγως, compare the adjective at §247 and the adverb in War 1.356//14.486. Just as, in those two cases, each officer received more than each soldier, here Josephus apparently means that the amount of money Agrippa spent on his projects for Jews was, given their relatively small numbers, proportionately greater than what he spent for gentiles.

This supplement seems to be indicated by the flow from the preceding paragraph. This is an obvious exaggeration, given all the time Agrippa spent in Rome, and the reports in the following sections about him being in Caesarea (the very next section), Beirut (§§335–337), and Tiberias (§§338–342), and then his death in Caesarea (§§343–350). In fact, Acts 12:19 reports that after Peter’s escape from prison, Agrippa “went down from Judea to Caesarea, and remained there.” For detailed skepticism about Josephus’s claim here, see Lämmer 1981/82: 201–202. Cf. the note on “daughters” at §357. The formulation is reminiscent of §293. As there, probably the intention is not that he brought his own sacrifice(s) daily, which in fact the laws would not require, but, rather, that he undertook financial responsibility for some sacrifices (such as the Nazirites’ sacrifices mentioned at §294)—as did various earlier benefactors, such as Seleucus iv (according to 2 Macc 3:3) and Augustus (according to Philo, Leg. 157).

On καὶ δή as a way to introduce something that illustrates the preceding statement, see the note on “for example” at 18.257. In this case, the story is meant to illustrate Agrippa’s “gentleness”; see §§330 and 334. This characterization of Simon has led some to assume he was a Pharisee. Indeed, Josephus often associates the Pharisees with “exact” interpretation of the laws (e.g., War 2.162; Ant. 17.41; Life 191); see A. I. Baumgarten 1982: 413–417. However, other religious virtuosi could well make the same claim, competing with the Pharisees; cf. War 2.145. For the suggestion that Simon’s views here are “priestly” and that he was, therefore, closer to the Sadducees and/or Qumran than to the Pharisees, see the note on “by birth” at the end of this paragraph. This is the only occurrence of ἁλίζω in Josephus. The topos of critics of a king, clothed in the aura of religious authority, whose criticism is either malicious or turns out to be false (just as Simon’s turns into naught at §§333–334), appears a few times in Antiquities: 13.288; 15.277–279; 17.41. Lit. “native-born.” According to our notions, there is some tension between the claim that Agrippa was not “holy” (ὅσιος), which sounds like it applies to his behavior, and the complaint that his ancestry was improper. Earlier scholars thought, therefore, that the received text (τοῖς ἐγγενέσιν) should be emended, a notion that was reinforced by the assumption that Herod’s (and therefore Agrippa’s) Idumean ancestry could not have been an issue because, according to rabbinic Judaism, converts are considered full Jews. Accordingly, they thought Simon’s complaint pertained to Agrippa’s behavior (see below, the note on “theater” at §333), which was thought to make him impure, and they therefore preferred, beginning with Niese (1890a: 267), to emend the text and have it apply to those whose behavior is improper. However, on the one hand we now know that the word Niese suggested instead of ἐγγενέσιν here (and indeed adopted, as usual, in his editio minor [1890b: 227]), namely εὐαγέσιν (Feldman: “ritually clean”), and which was adopted by Alon (1977: 138–145) and Feldman (1965: 370–371, n. c), never appears elsewhere in Josephus (ccfj 2.225). So although it is not impossible, it is not likely; while there are many words that appear only once each in Josephus, creation of another via emendation should be only a last resort. Moreover, the point of departure for the emendation was the rabbinic and traditional Jewish notion that converts are considered full Jews (“after he was baptized and emerged from the water he is an Israelite from all points of view” [b. Yevamot 47b]), something that Niese could have found in any handbook about Judaism in his day. Indeed, the Mishnah (Soṭah 7:6) explicitly indicates that although Agrippa was worried that his ancestry might be an issue, the rabbis reassured him that he was considered fully Jewish, just as m.Bikkurim 3:4 indicates the rabbis’ assumption that Agrippa could enter the Temple (although it is not a report that that actually happened).However, already during Niese’s lifetime an inscription from the Temple Mount (ogis 598 = cii/pi, no. 2; Boffo 1994: 283–290 [no. 32]) was discovered that prohibited the entry of an ἀλλογενής (see the note on “secretly” at 18.30), and a few decades after his death the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrated more generally, but also in this particular connection, the existence of a type of Judaism in the late Second Temple period that put a heavy emphasis on pedigree. This was a priestly type of Judaism, for the basic distinction between priests and rabbis is that while rabbis choose to be rabbis, and are recognized as such by teachers, peers, and communities who choose to do so, Jewish priests (kohanim) are defined exclusively by their birth, as sons of male Aaronites; see the note on “priesthood” at 20.226. Accordingly, it made sense for priests, and members of priestly communities, to deny the possibility of conversion to Judaism, for that process is predicated on the assumption that it is people’s decisions and commitments, not their descent, that define them. Indeed, evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls shows that such natural priestly insistence on the importance of differential descent was alive and well late into the Second Temple period. See, for example, Damascus Document 14:3–6, which insists that priests, Levites, other Jews (“Israel”), and converts (ha-gĕr) sit in four separate sections in community meetings, which basically means that converts are not Jews. With regard to our particular issue in the present passage, note esp. two Qumran texts that restrict or condemn the entrance of converts into the Temple: Temple Scroll 39–40 and 4QFlorilegiumi, 3–4. See D. R. Schwartz 1990a: 124–130 and 2013: 50–57, also, in general: Himmelfarb 2006 and Thiessen 2011. It appears, therefore, that we should retain the received text and infer that while Simon may well have had the reputation of being a strict observer of the law, his orientation was priestly, not Pharisaic/rabbinic.

This seems to be the only reference to such a position in Jerusalem, perhaps comparable to the Roman praefectus urbi (see the note on “guardian of the city” at 18.169). Perhaps, however, the reference is to the “captain of the Temple” (War 2.409, 6.294; Acts 4:1, 5:24), who is probably the officer the rabbis termed “captain of the priests” (m. Pesahim 1:6; m. Yoma 7:1). On the theater in Caesarea, see War 1.415, Ant. 15.341, Segal 1995: 64–69; and Z. Weiss 2014: 16–17. Lämmer 1981/82: 206–209 assumes that Agrippa was attending games or a festival. For Jewish opposition to such games, and the attempt to interpret the present story in light of it, see Alon 1977: 138–145.

For τυχεῖν… συγγνώμης see also 1.311 and Life 227. Reading, with Hudson (Hudson and Havercamp 1726: 1.949, n. p) and Naber (1893: xxxiv), θᾶττον ἤ προσεδόκηησέν τις. Josephus likes comments like this, as may be seen in the way he adds them into accounts otherwise based on the Bible, such as 1.115 and 11.80. Cf. 18.309 and Life 394, where he uses similar phrases to finish up a story, also 20.86. That Agrippa was “gentle” is the point of the story; see the note on “gentle” at §330. This is part of a king’s “high-mindedness”; see the note on “valor” at 18.326. On the senses of ἐπιείκεια, see Spicq 1994: 2.34–38 and Danker 1982: 351–352.

Cf. the formulation above, §330. That Beirut was a Roman colonia since the days of Augustus (“a Latin island in a sea of Oriental Hellenism” [Mommsen 1885: 459; cf. Isaac 1998: 270–271]) made it an especially apt object of attention for Herodian euergetism; see Hall 2004: 62–64. The Herodian tradition of generosity towards the city began with Herod himself, who built a market (War 1.422); for Agrippa ii’s generosity towards this city, including the building of (another?) theater, see below, Ant. 20.211–212. On Beirut in this period, see Hall 2004: esp. 84–88. For Josephus’s use of “amphitheater” for a hippodrome, see Weiss 2014: 24–28, hence Weiss’s scare quotes (ibid. 68) with reference to the edifice mentioned here.

On this episode, see Lämmer 1981/82: 209–214 and, for such spectacles in the Herodian period, Weiss 2014: 158–159.

Elsewhere Josephus uses πασσυδί only at 5.161. Contrast the apparently positive description here to the condemnation of the same type of gladiatorial show by Herod in Ant. 15.274–275, as well as of Agrippa ii’s generosity towards Beirut in Ant. 20.211–212. Things like this are ad personam, rhetorical putty in Josephus’s hands; cf. the note on “pregnant” at 20.18.

For its foundation, see 18.36–38. King Antiochus iv of Commagene; see the note on “Commagene” at §276. Perhaps this visit was the occasion for the kings’ agreement that Agrippa’s daughter would marry Antiochus’s son; see §355. The two kings probably knew each other already in Rome; see esp. Cassius Dio 59.24.1 (glajj, no. 421). On Sampsigeramus ii of Emesa, see Sullivan 1977b: 212–214. Agrippa’s brother Aristobulus married Sampsigeramus’s daughter Iotape (18.135). Armenia Minor (described by Strabo, Geog. 12.3.28), which was eventually ruled by a son of Herod of Chalcis (20.158) and then incorporated by Vespasian into Cappadocia, was near the Black Sea on the western side of the Euphrates, which divided it from the rest of Armenia. In general, see Mitford 1980. Here the reference is, apparently, to the son of Cotys, king of Thrace, who is mentioned by Tacitus in Ann. 2.67; the son was appointed king of Armenia Minor by Gaius (Cassius Dio 59.12.2). Agrippa may well have known him from his days in Rome, where he too enjoyed the patronage of Antonia Minor; see the note on “along” at 18.143. On Polemo ii of Pontus see Sullivan 1980: 925–30. At 20.145 Josephus refers to him as king of Cilicia. Indeed, according to Dio 60.8.2 Claudius granted him territory in Cilicia, around the same time he expanded Agrippa i’s kingdom. For Herod’s being made king of Chalcis by Claudius see above, §277 and War 2.217. It appears that Josephus, or his pro-Agrippan source, is somewhat begrudging about terming Herod a “king,” a term he avoids here, at §353, and at 20.15. Cf. the note on “city of the Romans” at §275.

Lit. “the king’s,” if the reading τοῦ βασιλέως is retained, with Niese (1890a: 268). My “each” is a way to avoid the other option, suggested by Hudson (as cited by Niese ad loc.): emending to τῶν βασιλέων. That is, if the opening of the paragraph refers to all the guests, the end of it praises Agrippa for making each one feel special.

This is the only occurrence of the Homeric word ἀπήνη in Josephus. Josephus noted a similar suspicion on the part of Marsus in the story above about Agrippa’s attempt to reinforce or build the “third wall” of Jerusalem (§§326–327). However, two factors suggest that, despite that basic similarity, Josephus probably derived them from different sources: (1) Josephus writes here that this episode was the origin of enmity between Marsus and Agrippa, a statement that seems not to be aware of the first episode; (2) the earlier story refers to Agrippa by name, confirms that the walls he was building would be impregnable, and reports that the emperor himself, to whom Marsus reported the conclave, viewed Agrippa’s actions as suspicious and ordered him to desist, whereas here Agrippa is referred to as “the king,” Marsus’s suspicions are said to be baseless, and the emperor is not mentioned. That is, the point of view from which the second episode is told is quite different from that of the first. See D. R. Schwartz 1990a: 15–16. This is the only time δίχα μελλήσεως appears anywhere in ancient literature. Usually, in Antiquities, Josephus prefers οὐδὲν εἰς ἀναβολάς; see the note on “without delay” at 18.107.

This is the only appearance of ἀνιαρῶς in Antiquities, but cf. Life 377. As is illustrated by 20.1. Although this reads as if the change in the high priesthood expressed Agrippa’s hostility toward Marsus, in fact it seems the two are unrelated. Rather, Josephus is simply taking the opportunity to bring us up to date about the high-priestly succession before turning to the last scene of Agrippa’s life. On such bunching, see the note on “Syria” at §316. For a similar case, see 20.139. See §316. Niese (1890a: 269) retains Ambrosianus’s τοῦ Κιθαίρου, but some witnesses read τοῦ Κανθερᾶ and it is usually assumed that the latter should be read here, as at 19.297 and 20.16. See, for example, Ilan 2002: 411 and VanderKam 2004: 449–451. Note also that, according to 20.16, “Cantheras” was his surname (like Simon’s [§297]), i.e., not the name of his father. (For that usage, see the note on “Boethus” at 18.3.) That point goes together with the fact that the Mishnah refers to a high priest named Eliehoeinai b. HaQoph (m.Parah 3:5), where HaQoph probably corresponds to “Caiaphas”; Brody 1990 suggests that the Aramaic name Caiaphas and the Greeco-Roman name Cantheras basically mean the same thing, namely, “porter, carrier of burdens.” This implies that Eliehoeini and Simon were brothers of Joseph Caiaphas. For details, see Appendix 2.

I.e., since Claudius’s rise to the throne; see §274. Although readers, if they care about such details, might therefore infer that Agrippa died no earlier than late January 44, in fact we know from numismatic evidence that Agrippa counted his years from the autumn, so his first year ended in the autumn of 41 and the present datum, if it reflects Agrippa’s practice, points to the autumn of 43. See esp. Stein 1981: 22–26; also D. R. Schwartz 1990a: 57–58; Kokkinos 1998: 285; Meshorer 2001: 91. Similarly, War 2.219 says that he died after reigning as king (of Judea) for three years, “having ruled the tetrarchies for three years before that,” i.e., in Gaius’s days. Cf. §351. Strato’s Tower had been renamed Caesarea (Maritima) and built magnificently, with one of the largest harbors in the Mediterranean, by Herod the Great (see War 1.408–415; Ant. 15.331–341). On it, see the note on “Caesarea” at 18.55. When mentioning Caesarea, Josephus often adds its former name, as here; so at Ant. 13.313; 14.76; 15.293; 20.173. That might reflect the felt need to distinguish it from Caesarea Philippi, on which see 18.28 and 20.211. Reading ἐπιστάμενος with Niese’s ed. maior (1890a: 269) and the manuscripts, followed by Feldman (1965: 376) and Kokkinos (1998: 378). But whereas Feldman renders simply as “knowing,” Kokkinos renders “being informed” in order to serve his theory discussed in the next note. Others, including Niese in his ed. minor (1890b: 229) and Post as cited by Feldman, would emend to ἐνιστάμενος, making Agrippa the one who “instituted” the festival. This has everything to do with the question, who is “Caesar” in whose honor the festival was held; see the next note. Kokkinos (1998: 378) renders “There he then exhibited shows in honour of Caesar (i.e. Claudius), being informed that there would be a certain festival for his (i.e. the Emperor’s) safety.” He explains that the text means Agrippa learned of celebrations in honor of Claudius’s safe return from Britain in the spring of 44 and, therefore, held a similar celebration in Caesarea in Claudius’s honor—an interpretation that creates a late terminus post quem for Agrippa’s death (see the note on “reign” at §350). However, ἐπίσταμαι means “to know,” “to recognize” (cf. 18.201, 221; 19.236; 20.56, 70, 264), and if Agrippa is said to have known about the nature of the festival, the implication is that the festival already existed. Rather than avoiding that conclusion by a forced translation or by emendation (see the preceding note), it seems preferable to follow it to evidence for a festival in Caesarea known as “Isactium”—games in honor of Augustus’s rise to power in the wake of his victory at Actium. For Josephus’s use of plain “Caesar” for Augustus, see, for example, 18.32–32; for the evidence for such quadrennial games, established already by Herod (War 1.415; Ant. 16.136–141) upon the completion of Caesarea, see D. R. Schwartz 1992: 167–181, building on the reference to a Caesarean Ἰσάκτιον in igrr 3.1012. If the festival was first celebrated in September (the month of Actium) of 10 BCE, upon the celebration of the construction of Caesarea (see hjp 1.293), the festival mentioned here will have been, in September 43, the fourteenth regular celebration. This also dovetails neatly with the conclusion, from numismatic evidence, that Agrippa counted his years from the autumn; see the note on “all of Judea” earlier in this paragraph. That means the end of his third year as king of all Judea will have been marked in the autumn of 43. Readers, who will certainly note that death came to Agrippa after he—as Gaius—was deified, might also note, already now or retrospectively, that death came to both in the context of spectacles in memory of Augustus (§75). On this episode, see also Lämmer 1981/82: 215–220. Here Josephus uses ἐπαρχία in a general way, reflecting Judea’s usual status in the Roman period.

In the parallel in Acts 12:21 it is said to have been a “royal garment.” Cf. Dewar 2008: esp. 224–226, where Claudian’s description of Honorius’s glorious woven toga picta is cited and discussed, also Eusebius, Life of Constantine 3.10.3, on the emperor’s grand entrance to the Council of Nicaea: “… and he finally walked along between them, like some heavenly angel of God, his bright mantle shedding lustre like beams of light, shining with the fiery radiance of a purple robe, and decorated with the dazzling brilliance of gold and precious stones” (trans. A. Cameron and S. G. Hall). On the association of Agrippa’s appearance here with the usage of ἀνατολή (lit. “sunrise”) for the appearance of rulers, see Siegert 2001: 279; he adduces inter alia Luke 1:78–79, which links messianic hopes to dawn and light. For similar solar imagery with regard to supernatural figures in a broader Jewish and Near Eastern context, see J. M. Baumgarten 2022: 152–174. For the motif of radiant garments indicating links to divinity, see esp. Warren 2016, a study that takes its point of departure from the description of Joseph’s and Asenath’s clothing in Joseph and Asenath, chs. 6 and 18. My thanks to Dr. Atar Livneh for her help with this note. As Mason notes, if we assume that the audience was sitting facing the Mediterranean to the west, and Agrippa was standing facing the audience, the rising sun would indeed have caused his silvery garment to shine remarkably. On the theater Herod built in Caesarea, and its orientation toward the sea, see Weiss 2014: 16–17. The last few words include three verbs that appear only here in Josephus: καταυγάζω, ἀποστίλβω, and μαρμαίρω. For the latter, φρικῶδες, cf. War 5.438, where the name of God is said to be φρικτός. This verb, ἀτενίζω, appears in Josephus only here and at War 5.517.

This is the only occurrence of κόλαξ (flatterer) in Josephus, although he uses κολακεία and κολακεύω a dozen times each. For ἄλλος ἄλλοθεν see also War 3.384. For the common use of θεός of Hellenistic monarchs, see S. R. F. Price 1984: 81–82. For the expectation that God will be εὐμενής, cf. 2.161, 276; 3.72, 78, 80. A very similar story appears in Acts 12:21–23, where “King Herod” (= Agrippa) dies suddenly after a speech of his was received by the Caesarean crowd’s shouts that his was “a voice of a god, not of a man.” In Acts the story functions as his punishment for persecuting the apostles at the beginning of that same chapter. This episode figures prominently in the debate about Luke’s use of Josephus; see the note on “Theudas” at 20.97.

Feldman (1965: 378–379) thinks Josephus means that Agrippa did not reject the flattery “as impious,” and therefore notes Richards’s and Shutt’s suggestion (1939: 183) to add ὡς (or emend Niese’s ἀσεβοῦσαν into ἀσεβῆ οὖσαν). But Josephus could well be giving his own opinion, as author, that the flattery was impious. The definite article is to remind readers that Agrippa already saw the owl once, and its reappearance was promised long ago: 18.195. The rope over his head is part of the portent, an image presaging death. In a case like this, it is convenient that ἄγγελος can refer both to a mundane “messenger” (e.g. 20.87, 89) and to an “angel”; cf. ThLJ 3, s.v. Note that in Acts 12:23 no owl is mentioned, but it is said that “immediately an angel (ἄγγελος) of the Lord smote him.” As was usual for Rome; see the note on “bubo” at 18.195. For stomach pains as the characteristic symptom of the death of wicked kings, often accompanied by worms (as Acts 12:23 specifically reports of Agrippa [“Herod”]), see Herodotus 4.205 (Pheretime), 2 Macc 9:9 (Antiochus Epiphanes), War 1.656//Ant. 17.169 (Herod), along with Nestle 1936; Africa 1982; and Spicq 1994: 3.266–267.

Reading ἀναθεωρῶν with most of the witnesses (mwe and the Latin). That is, after §346, using a finite verb (εἶδεν), reported that Agrippa first saw the owl, here the participle indicates that Agrippa now looked, instead, at his friends. However, Niese (1890a: 269), Feldman (1965: 380), and Thackeray (ThLJ 35, svv. ἀναθεωρεῖν, ἀναθρῴσκειν) read ἀναθορών, “leaping up,” following Ambrosianus. Neither verb appears elsewhere in Josephus, so the choice is difficult and perforce tentative. However, note that θεωρέω and related words are common, in Josephus as elsewhere, while θρῴσκω never appears in Josephus. Given Ambrosianus’s frequent preference for colorful readings (see the note on “brought to him” at 20.5), it seems that the more pedestrian reading of the other manuscripts should be preferred, especially given the ease with which it can be coordinated with εἶδεν a few lines earlier. For the senses of ἐλέγχω (expose, reveal, convict, refute …), see the note on “convict” at 20.266. For such use of πόρω, cf. 10.76 and Apion 1.247, 266 (where the story begins with a prophecy at 1.236). This is the only occurrence of δεκτέος in Josephus. For a φαῦλος life, cf. Josephus on Justus at Life 41, where Mason (2001: 46) renders “sordid.” The point seems to be the standard religious sentiment that it is God’s prerogative both to impose suffering and to bestow boons, and that especially one who has been the beneficiary of the latter should consider himself estopped from complaining about the former. Cf. Job 1:21 and m. Berakhot 9:5 (“one must bless God for the bad as for the good”). In referring to what destiny and God decreed, Agrippa naturally ignores the possibility that his death was a punishment for his hubris in accepting (perhaps even soliciting) deification.

For ὠς ἔχοι, cf. 18.269 and 19.63.

For the wearing of sackcloth as a traditional (πάτριος νόμος) accoutrement of Jewish petitioning of God in times of distress, see Ant. 12.300, where his source, at 1 Macc 3:47, written for Jews, needed to offer no such explanation. Indeed, it was common; cf. 20.123, Nehemiah 9:1, Esther 4:1–4, Jonah 3:5–8, Judith 4:10–14, 2 Macc 3:19 and 10:25, etc. Cf. the note on “ashes” at 20.123.

Διεργάζομαι, See the note on “doing away” at §106. Precisely as was predicted at 18.200. For Latin influence on Josephus’s formulation here, see Ward 2007: 636–637. Counting from his first installation as king, shortly after Tiberius died in March 37 (see 18.237), this places Agrippa’s death “in” the year that began in the spring of 43 ce. This allows for our conclusion from the more specific statement at §343, that Agrippa’s death came “when he completed” his third year as king of all of Judea, that it came in the autumn of 43; for the assumption that he counted his years according to an autumnal era, see the note on “Judea” at §343. See further, D. R. Schwartz 1990a: 107–111, 203–207. True, Kokkinos (1998: 378–380) rejected that early dating for Agrippa’ death, offering four arguments in favor of the more usual 44. His main argument (1998: 302, n. 134) is based on an ostracon (cpj 419d) that mentions Marcus (son of Alexander the Alabarch) in Claudius’s fourth year: given that Claudius acceded to the imperial throne in January 41, that means Marcus was alive at least until late in January 44, and since §277 states that Agrippa I married Berenice off to his brother Herod after Marcus died, it follows that Agrippa too was still alive then. However, it appears that it was common, in Egypt, to count the years of Roman emperors according to the Egyptian civil year, which began on August 29 or 30, counting the time between the emperor’s accession and the end of the following August, however long that time was, as his first year; see Bagnall and Worp 2004: 43. That moves the terminus post quem for Agrippa’s death, supplied by this ostracon, back up to the end of August 43, which is prior (although not by much) to the September/October 43 date of death posited above. Moreover, note (with Fuchs 1947/49: 16–17) that the ostracon is a receipt issued in Marcus’s name by his agents in a port distant from Alexandria, and may well have been issued some time after Marcus’s death. Kokkinos’s second argument is from the apparent nexus between Passover and Agrippa’s death in Acts 12. However, on the one hand there really is not a chronological nexus between the two (see esp. Acts 12:19!), so even if Peter was arrested on Passover it could have been Passover of 43 (with Agrippa dying a half a year later), and, on the other hand, the Passover/liberation motif is so strong in the story in Acts (see D. R. Schwartz 1990: 120), while there is no reference at all to Passover in Josephus’s story of Agrippa’s death, despite the other similarities between the two accounts, that it is difficult to assign much historical weight to the dating in Acts. Concerning the third and fourth arguments offered by Kokkinos, see the notes on “welfare” at §343 and on “successor” at 20.1.

Josephus is writing in a general way, rounding up, for Gaius himself reigned somewhat less than four years; see above, §201. In War 2.219, Josephus instead rounded down, speaking just as generally of Agrippa’s three years of rule prior to the additional kingship he received from Claudius. See War 2.181 and Ant. 18.237. See War 2.183 and Ant. 18.252. Counting from Claudius’s ascent to the throne in January 41, this round figure is either somewhat high (if Agrippa died in the autumn of 43, as suggested in the note on “Judea” at §343) or somewhat low (if he died around Passover of 44, as suggested by Kokkinos; see the note on “reign” at §350). Neither would be unacceptable; the question as to when, precisely, he died must be decided on the basis of other considerations. In any case, readers who do not get into the details can content themselves here by noting that this datum, at the end of Josephus’s account of Agrippa’s death, corresponds precisely to the statement, at its opening at §343, that he died after completing three years as king of all of Judea. The separate reference to Caesarea, which is not mentioned at §§274–275, simply reflects the city’s importance and the fact that Agrippa died there.

As Feldman noted ad loc. (1965: 382, n. c.), the text here does not name the coinage, but “drachmas” should be understood. Momigliano (1934: 387–388) suggests that the very existence of the present figure reflects a Roman investigation into Agrippa’s finances, and that the finding that his kingdom had a large deficit played a significant role in Claudius’s decision to appoint a Roman governor, rather than Agrippa’s son, to succeed him. Cf. the note on “reasonable” at §362. There is some paronomasia here: he had income (προσωδεύσατο) but borrowed much more (προσεδανείσατο—this word’s only occurrence in Josephus). Φιλόδωρος, as at §330; the same theme appeared already at 18.144–145.

Josephus likes to discuss what those in the know do in the interval between a ruler’s death and its becoming known; cf. the note on “way” at §237. Josephus uses ἐκπνοή only here and at §358; the verb ἐκπνέω appears six times, including twice inAntiquities (8.273 and 12.357). As at §338 above and 20.15 below, it seems like Josephus, or his source, is somewhat begrudging about terming Herod a “king.” This is, probably, Helcias “the elder,” who is mentioned above at 18.137 and 273; see the note on “Helcias the Elder” at 18.273. At 20.94 we read of Helcias the treasurer (of the Temple) in the next generation—probably this Helcias’s son and the reason for specifying “the elder” here. For Silas’s appointment by Agrippa as commander of his army, see §299; for his imprisonment, see §§317–325. It seems, accordingly, that there were other issues pertaining to Silas, and not merely his intemperate reminding of Agrippa of his past difficulties as claimed by the novelistic report at §§317–318.

Agrippa i and Cypros had another son, Drusus, who died before growing up (see 18.132). See above, §277. A similar summary of his offspring is found in War 2.220.

The same Helcias mentioned above at §353. His son, Julius Archelaus, remained prominent for decades; Josephus even names him, alongside Agrippa ii and some “Herod,” as one of the Jews who were well-versed in Greek wisdom, to whom he sold copies of his War (see Apion 1.51 and Stern 1976: 613). For this Archelaus see also Kokkinos 1998: 197. On the fruit of their marriage, and its dissolution, see 20.140, 147. For Antiochus iv of Commagene see above, at §276. Epiphanes was injured during the Roman civil war following the death of Nero, as he was cheering on the soldiers fighting for Otho (Tacitus, Hist. 2.25). For Epiphanes’s significant role alongside the Romans, and against the Jews, in the Great Revolt, see War 5.460–465. Drusilla’s engagement may have been contracted when Antiochus iv visited Agrippa in Tiberias, as reported above at §338. At 20.139, Josephus reports that Epiphanes eventually rejected the marriage because, despite his promise to convert to Judaism, he was unwilling to do so, whereupon Drusilla was given by her brother, Agrippa ii, to Azizus, King of Emesa. Cf. 20.141–144.

As §365 makes clear, the reference is to units of auxiliary troops recruited from these two major gentile cities in Judea. For some detail about their numbers, perhaps totaling around three thousand, see §365. On these units, of which the latter is known already from the days of Herod and Archelaus (War 2.52; Ant. 17.266), see Yankelevitch 1979/80; Shatzman 1991: 193; Lémonon 2007: 88–91; Eck 2007: 107; Mason 2008: 36, n. 318, and idem 2016c: 258–260. More generally, on Roman military in Judea between Herod’s death and the rebellion of 66, see Dąbrowa 2015. For the background of hostility between Jews and Greeks in Caesarea, see also 20.173–178, 182–184, and Levine 1974. Agrippa’s generosity towards these cities is mentioned again immediately below, at §359. However, apart from the spectacles which he put on in Caesarea in honor of the emperor (§343, above), Josephus does not mention any specific projects that Agrippa undertook for these two cities, and we have no other evidence for them.

Of the six times Josephus uses κατοίχομαι, three are in this story (here and §§363–364). This verb, ἁρπάζω, implies the use of force; usually (e.g. 15.289; 20.214) it refers to the unauthorized seizing of someone or something. Here it underlines the heinous nature of the deed. In order to maintain Agrippa’s image as a pious Jew (as at §331), Graetz (1905: 351) posits (arguing against Schürer and others) that the statues were set up not by Agrippa but, rather, by the gentile population of Caesarea; perhaps the flow of the present sentence indicates that they were located in the soldiers’ baracks. However, the very existence of these statues, whether Agrippa himself set them up or only allowed others (the soldiers?) to do so, raises some doubts concerning the king’s reputation for Jewish piety. More generally on such doubts, which are not allayed by Agrippa’s image in rabbinic literature, see D. R. Schwartz 1990a: 132–134, 157–171. Josephus emphasizes that they were all despicable. On the high degree of unanimity implied by ὁμοθυμαδόν, see Spicq 1994: 2.580–582. This is the only occurrence of ἀφυβρίζω in Josephus. For the notion that bringing an image of someone into a brothel was a way of denigrating the person, see McGinn 2004: 86, who cites evidence, such as Suetonius, Tiberius 58, for Roman prosecution of those who brought images of emperors into latrines or brothels.

Given the reference to “crowns,” perhaps this too refers to their heads; cf. the note on “dispersed” at §239. The mythological ferryman of the underworld. See, for example, Aenid 6.295–336.

For Herod’s lavish projects at Caesarea and Sebaste, see War 1.408–415; Ant. 15.331–341; War 1.403; Ant. 15.292–298.

As Claudius himself mentions at 20.12; note also 20.135. For the Herodian practice of sending princes to be educated in Rome, see Ant. 15.342–343; 16.6; 18.143. For the same practice by other client kings, see 18.52 and the note on “hostages” at 18.42. According to §354, Agrippa ii was sixteen when his father died.

This is the only occurrence of ἐμπεδόω in Josephus. We know of only one oath between them: at the occasion of the confirmation of Agrippa i’s kingship. See the note on “oath” at §275. But the use of ὅρκος in the plural is usual, even when only a single occasion is meant; compare, for example, 18.334 and 20.62. Perhaps the plural reflects the fact that the oath included more than one promise—including, apparently, some promise, however explicit or vague, that Agrippa i would be succeeded by his son. Claudius’s dependence upon his freedmen is a common theme in Josephus and elsewhere (e.g., Suetonius, Claud. 25; Cassius Dio 60.2.4–5)—one that is apparently overstated; see Carney 1960 and Osgood 2011: 190–205. War 2.220 simply says that Claudius did not appoint Agrippa ii “since he was altogether immature,” and does not mention this influence. See also the note on “friends” at 20.135. There are only three appearances of κομιδῇ in Josephus, two in Ant. 19 (here and above at §136), and the third at War 1.203, where it pertains to Herod’s being quite young (κομιδῇ νεόν). Indeed, Josephus is quite consistent: the reference here is to Agrippa ii at the age of sixteen (§354), and the passage in War 1.203 is paralleled by Ant. 14.158, where Josephus reports that, at the time, Herod was fifteen. (Whether the latter datum is true is another issue; see Sharon 2014b.) The question, why Claudius decided to put an end to the kingdom and restored direct Roman rule, would seem not to be a difficult one. It is natural for empires to annex territories they have conquered, even if there need be no rush about it, and sometimes, as in the case of Judea, the process is held up for a while thanks to personal ties (such as those of Octavian and Marcus Antonius with Herod or of Gaius and Claudius with Agrippa I) or simply by the fact of continuing stable and submissive rule by the local vassal dynasty. Now, in the absence of such, history could take its natural course. Cf. the note on “of drachmas” at §352 and D. R. Schwartz 1990a: 149–151.

Apart from the passing reference at War 2.220, he is known only from Antiquities. Thus, Judea was officially returned to provincial status. For the question whether it was a full-fledged “independent” province from 6, from now (44), or only from 66/67, see the note on “appendix to Syria” at 18.2. The formulation continues to distinguish between Judea and other parts of Herod’s kingdom, despite their reunification under Agrippa i; cf. §351. This reflects the ambiguity of “Judea,” which properly refers only to the region around Jerusalem but also designated the entire kingdom. I.e., Agrippa’s enemy; see §§326–327, 341–342, and 20.1. Reading βασιλείαν with Niese (1890a: 272), who adopts Hudson’s emendation of the manuscripts’ βασίλειον (“palace”). This implies that, were it not for the enmity between Agrippa and Marsus, the latter would have been entrusted with the administration of Agrippa’s kingdom. This corresponds to the assumption that between the suspension of Pilate in 37 and the installation of Agrippa as king of Judea in 41, Judea had had no governor of its own and had been ruled directly by the governor of Syria; Claudius would have returned Judea to that status quo ante were it not for the special consideration concerning Agrippa and Marsus. See also below, 20.1, on Agrippa’s efforts to keep Marsus out. On Ed. Schwartz’s theory about a later attempt of Claudius to attach Judea to Syria, see the note on “Jews” at 20.118. For the discussion of Judea’s official status vis-à-vis Syria until the revolt of 66, see the note on “to Syria” at 18.2.

For παροινία, cf. §230; for its combination specifically with ὕβρις, as here, see 17.254.

In this period, Greek ἴλη usually represents the Roman ala (“wing”), but “in the literary writers tends to mean little more than ‘a unit of horse’ and it is up to the readers to deduce the Roman unit involved” (gtri 56, 155). Probably here an auxiliary unit of five hundred is meant; see Webster 1998: 145–148. On the Roman garrison of Judea, see the note on “Sebastenians” at §356. At 20.122 and at War 2.236 Josephus refers to the “Sebastenian” wing, but here he refers to one composed of both Sebastenians and Caesareans. Probably it was indeed mixed (so, for example, hjp 1.364, n. 52), and perhaps that is reflected by the formulation at War 2.236, that it was (merely?) “called” (καλουμένην) Sebastenian. But it is not impossible that Josephus meant to refer, here, to one wing each. On “cohorts,” see the note at §188. For such use of ἀναπληρόω for reassignment of troops after the movement of units, cf. War 5.43. For doubt that Claudius really intended to do what is described here, and the comment that Vespasian later did do it, thereby neutralizing to some extent the ethnic hostilities between the Judean population and the Roman military, see Mason 2016c: 270, 280.

ἀπομειλίσσομαι appears in Josephus only here and at War 1.221. On the Judeans’ future troubles with them, see War 2.236 and Ant. 20.122, where the procurator Cumanus, who preceded Florus by several years (48–52), is said to have used them against the Judeans, and at the time of Felix (52–60), during the Caesarean dispute the Caesarean and Sebastenian soldiers again stood against the Judeans (Ant. 20.176). The fact that Roman rule in Judea was enforced by units drawn from the non-Jewish population, which had its own interests and reasons for hostility toward the Jews, played a significant role in the rebellion; see Rappaport 1981 and Mason 20016c: 258–260. Here, prominently at the end of the book, by referring to Florus just as at the beginning of Book 18 (§25) and the end of Book 20 (§§252–258), Josephus reminds readers where this is all going. There is no such report in Antiquities, and it would in fact be surprising if Josephus, so far along in his work, of which the story ends in 66, really thought he might take it as far as Vespasian’s accession to the imperial throne in 69. He did not do so, and the current promise, as several in Book 20 (§§48, 53, 96, 144, 147), is not fulfilled in Josephus’s extant writings. Concerning them all, we can only wonder which to prefer: that, even this late in the work, he did not know where it would end; that he meant to refer to another projected work (such as the update of War mentioned at 20.267) but failed to make that clear; or that the reference came along as part of a passage he based on some other source, in which the topic was indeed discussed later on. In the present case, the reference here to “shortly” apparently excludes the second option; when Josephus wants to refer to another, projected, composition, he typically uses ἐν ἄλλοἰς or ἐν ἑτέροις (“elsewhere”; see, for example, 1.192 and 3.143). See the lists of such references in Drüner 1896: 82–94.

For such explicit reference to the division of Antiquities into different books, see also the openings of Books 8, 13–15, the statement at 20.267 that it includes twenty books, and the end of Apion 1. Along with the references at Ant. 13.173, 298 and 18.11 to “the second book” of War, they indicate that, in contrast to the works of some other authors, Josephus himself divided Antiquities into books, and so the book-divisions may be included among other considerations concerning the interpretation of his work. On Cassius Longinus, governor of Syria ca. 44–50 but best known as a legal scholar, see hjp 1.264 and Dąbrowa 1998: 46–49. On the end of his term, cf. the note on “Quadratus” at §125. According to Kokkinos (1998: 380), in his case for dating Agrippa’s death to the spring of 44 (see the note on “reign” at 19.350), this passage means that Marsus was replaced “almost immediately” after Agrippa’s death; since “Marsus threatened an attack on Vardanes shortly before the death of the Parthian king (Tacitus, Ann. 11.10),” and coins show Vardanes was alive as late as the autumn of 44, it follows that it is unlikely that Agrippa died a year earlier than that. However, Josephus does not say that Claudius removed Marsus from office immediately after Agrippa’s death, and Tacitus’s summary of Marsus’s blocking of Vardanes and the latter’s subsequent doings until his death does not require the inference that the former took place “shortly” before the latter. For the death of Vardanes in 45, or perhaps even 47/48, see Schippmann 2016. For the hostility between Agrippa and Marsus, see 19.326, 340–341, 363.

On Fadus’s term of office, see hjp 1.455–456; Smallwood 1981: 257–262. On this title, see the note on “prefect” at 18.33. The region of Jewish settlement in Transjordan, from the Dead Sea northward and bounded by the hinterlands of Decapolis cities to the east and north; see the note on “Perea” at 18.240. Philadelphia is modern Amman; it was named after Ptolemy ii Philadelphus, who refounded it. According to War 3.47, Philadelphia (or its surrounding villages, as here) marked the eastern frontier of Perea. The manuscripts read ΜΙΑΣ, i.e., “one” village of which the name has been lost. The translation follows H. Relandus’s (1714: 897) emendation to ΖΙΑΣ on the basis of Eusebius’s reference (Klostermann 1904: 94, l. 3) to a village named Zia not far west of Philadelphia. That is, “the Jews residing in Perea” mentioned a few lines earlier.

Josephus, of course, wants his readers to view this as a cynical and insincere declaration, similar to that at §126. For this stock phrase, see also §120 and, for example, 5.150; 17.242; and Life 31, 391.

Ἀννίβας is the Greek form of “Hanibal”—hardly an expected name for a Jewish rebel; see the note on “Arabs” at §5. For Schlatter’s suggestion on the basis of the Latin reading here, “Antibam,” that “Antipas”—a name that makes some sense in this region—should be read, see Schalit 1968: 13, s.v. Ἀντίπας 3; Hengel 1989: 343, n. 163.

Ambrosianus and the Epitome (Niese 1887–1896: 349) add “in fetters,” but fetters may be taken for granted (cf. §§102, 168). For other examples of such “useless” (Niese 1892: xxxiii) additions in Ambrosianus, see the notes on “leaped down” at §58, “killed himself” at §80, “very long” at §94, “inhabitants” at §114, “formed” at §180, “literature” at §263, “nations” at §264, and “odious” at §266, as also on “lie” at 18.194. In all of these cases, Niese rejected A’s additions, but Feldman accepted them. It seems that, with Hengel 1989: 343–344, we should understand that Tholomeus, Annibas, Amaramus, and Eleazar were all Jewish. Eleazar’s name shows he was Jewish, and probably Ἀμάραμος (cf. Moses’ father, Ἀμαράμης [2.210, 217, etc.]) does the same for him. Similarly, the fact that they are said to have been in conflict with Philadelphians, Idumeans, and Arabs associates them with the other antagonists—the Jews. Finally, the very fact that the next sentence says that Judea was thereby purged of brigands points toward the same conclusion.

Although παραινέω usually refers to urging (as, for example, at §32), when a ruler urges it can amount to an order (as at §§32, 109 and 19.308)—as is said more explicitly at §7. Josephus also adds this gloss at §110, 18.91, and Life 20. The fortress is not mentioned frequently in Antiquities (and only that once in Life), and apparently Josephus thought the Roman-sounding name might mystify readers. Here Josephus apparently thinks of the tunic and the sacred robe all as one item, called “the vestment” at §§7–9 (as also at 15.405–408 and 18.90–95). See the survey of this topic in 18.91–95.

For intervention by the Roman governor of Syria in order to keep the peace in Judea, as for example at 18.88–89 and 20.125–133, see also Stern 1974a: 311–314; Eck 2007; 35–37, 45–48. The question whether (as Stern thought) such intervention was within a neighboring province (Judea) simply because Syria had legions, or rather (as Eck argues) Judea was in fact still part of the province of Syria, is largely academic; see the note on “appendix to Syria” at 18.2. For a similar issue and similar procedure, see §193.

At 19.360.

For χάριν εἰδέναι in this sense see also, for example, 4.261 and 14.182. For this nuance of ἐπί with the dative, as also at §120, see Haenchen 1971: 62–63, n. 6. On the procedure here, with the emperor’s oral decision in Rome being transmitted via letter to the province, as is explicit at War 2.284, see Millar 1977: 218–219.

For much evidence of such use of ἀποδείκνυμι, see gtri 24. On the date, see the note on “July” at §14. Claudius originally refused the honorific title “pater patriae,” “the one honour that acknowledged the monarchic character of his rule” (Stevenson 2007: 119), but took it in 42; see Levick 1990: 41 and 204, n. 2 and Stevenson 2007: 123–124. For more Greek evidence for this title, see gtri 74. Such a full formulation of a city’s name (rather than plain “Jerusalem”), as often in Ant. 20 (§§49–50, 95, 105, 133, 204, 244) and Life (§§130, 202, 237), is widespread in antiquity, and recurs elsewhere in Josephus as well, including of such cities as Rome (19.7, 275; 20.148), Alexandria (19.278), and Ptolemais/Akko (Life 214). Although sometimes it is taken to be more “grandiose” (Bagnall 1993: 333, n. 2), often, as here, that does not seem to be the case. Although this formulation, with references to archons, boulē and dēmos, sounds as if Jerusalem were a polis, there is virtually no evidence for archons or a boulē in Jerusalem. It is, therefore, likelier to assume that this is just some official’s, or some copyist’s, notion of what is standard in such letters. See Tcherikover 1964. Cf. the note on “citizens” at 18.15.

See the note on “Claudius Caesar” at 19.360. In the present context, this alludes to the documents preserved in 19.280–291. On Claudius and the Jews in general, see Momigliano 1961: 29–38, Tcherikover in cpj 1.69–74, Stern, glajj 2.113–117, D. R. Schwartz 1990a: 90–106, Botermann 1996, and Slingerland 1997 (with Linder 2000/2001). Note that Josephus nowhere mentions a most central item in that dossier (on which Botermann and Slingerland focus): Claudius’s expulsion of the Jews of Rome (Cassius Dio 60.6.6; Suetonius, Claud. 25; Acts 18:2). Nor does Josephus give us any inkling of the fact that Claudius was perfectly capable of threatening to deal with the Jews “as fomenting a common plague for the whole world”; see the note on “following text” at 19.279. Rather, beginning with Claudius’s benevolent treatment of the Jews of Alexandria (19.278–291) and Agrippa (§292) and the present incident, and then his disposition of the Jewish-Samaritan dispute reported later in this book (§§134–136), Claudius is portrayed as consistently friendly to the Jews, without exception. One may wonder whether this owes more to Josephus’s desire to portray him schematically as the opposite of Gaius or, rather, to Josephus’s dependence on Agrippan materials that had every reason to portray Agrippa’s patron, whom Agrippa had helped to the throne, as good for the Jews. For the conflicting tendencies that affected Claudius’s attitude toward the Jews, of which Josephus shows us only one side, see esp. Momigliano 1961: 29–38. See 15.405 and 18.91–95. For the close relationship between Claudius and Lucius Vitellius, see esp. Suetonius, Vitellius 2, also pir1 V500.

For the translation of θρησκεία (and so θρησκεύω) in this general sense, cf. the note on “their religion” at 18.287. As in the documents cited at 19.283–285, 290. The words “shall greatly please” (πάνυ χαριοῦμαι) are in the first edition, but not in the manuscripts, which (as noted by Niese 1890a: 278) apparently have a lacuna here; something like them is necessary. “King Herod” is Herod of Chalcis (brother of Agrippa i). As for “Aristobulus the Younger”: as Kokkinos (1998: 309) explains, he is probably that Herod’s son, mentioned at 18.134. Cf. the last note on §104. See the note on “friends” at 19.288. The rhetoric seems to require this sense.

For a son to bear his father’s name was not common, but not at all without parallel; cf. §197; War 5.534; Life 8, 33; Luke 1:59; Hachlili 1983/84: 192–194. The name of the month did not survive in the Greek witnesses nor in what Niese considers the better Latin witnesses; “kal. Iulii” is found in some of the other Latin witnesses, and that translates into 28 June 45 ce. It seems, however, that in fact 29 July 45 is the correct date. Already Eck (1972: 264, n. 15) contemplated making the correction, and it was confirmed by Gallivan (1978: 408) on the basis of a text published just around when Eck wrote, which indicates that these consuls’ predecessors were still in office in late June 45. The year, in any case, corresponds to the titles enumerated at §11. For such use of ἐπί to denote “during the time of,” see esp. Haenchen 1971: 62–63, n. 6; he also cites §§144, 228 and Life 37. See also see lsj 621b, §ii, and the note on “his” at §101.

This imperial mandate apparently explains not only appointments and removals of high priests but also such measures as those described at §§216–218, 222–223. For a detailed discussion of this authority, which is again mentioned at §222, see Wilker 2007: 205–252.

Use of the definite article here, at the opening of the final book of Antiquities, amounts to a reminder (like the one just above, at the very end of Book 19) as to where this story is going; cf. below, the note on “the” at §184. The only descendant who actually inherited it from Herod of Chalcis was his nephew, Agrippa ii. This is not mentioned specifically in the account of his inheritance of his uncle’s kingdom (§104), but is clearly shown by his repeated appointment and removals of high priests (§§179, 196, 197, 203, 213, 223) and the stories at §§216–218, 222–223. On καὶ δή, see the note on “for example” at 18.257. On Elioneus b. Cantheras, see the note on “Cantheras” at 19.342. Like so many high priests, whose names were no more than items on a list (see the Introduction, at n. 9), Josephus has no more to say about him, apart from his replacement at §103. But it might be that his name is among the names of high-priestly families that appear in a fragmentary Qumran text; see Eshel 2001: 133 and VanderKam 2004: 454–455.

That is, during the Judean governorship of Fadus, in the mid-40s. Presumably Josephus placed the story here because it resulted in Helena’s pilgrimage to Jerusalem (§§49–53), which he dates at §101, perhaps on the basis of his own first-hand knowledge (for he was a youth in Jerusalem at the time), to the days of Fadus’s immediate successor. Adiabene was a small kingdom in northern Mesopotamia. For its historical geography, see esp. Marciak 2017: 257–271. On this episode, see Täubler 1904: 62–65; Neusner 1984: 61–63; Schiffman 1987; Cohen 1987: 424–425; Gilbert 1990/91; Broer 1994; Mason 1998b: 90–95; Rajak 2001: 286–293; Livesey 2010: 35–40; Marciak 2014. On Helena in particular, see also Liebowitz 2018, also Kattan-Gribetz 2024. On the rabbinic version of the story, in Gen. Rabbah 46:10 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, 467–468), which shares some motifs with Josephus’s story, see Ilan in Ilan and Noam 2017: 1.508–520; as Noam notes, ibid. 1.31, the fact that the midrash does not give Helena’s name in this story, although she is well-known in rabbinic literature (including m. Nazir 3:6 and m. Yoma 3:10), suggests that it is not dependent on Josephus’s account. Although Josephus, as usual, refers to adoption of Jewish practices rather than using a more abstract term (see the note on “practices” at 18.141), it is obvious that his story is very positive about what we term conversion to Judaism. It has been argued, however, especially by Cohen (loc. cit.), that usually Josephus is more embarrassed by this topic and circumspect about it, since it aroused antagonism and resentment in Rome; among Josephus’s contemporaries, see for example, Seneca, De superstitione, as cited by Augustine, City of God 6.11; Tacitus, Hist. 5.5.1–2; Juvenal, Satires 14.96–106 (glajj, nos. 186, 281, 301). If so, the presence of this story is to be understood as exceptional because it is based on a source that Josephus took over wholesale and/or because it relates to a region outside of the Roman Empire, concerning which he perhaps thought that he need not be worried about Roman antagonism and resentment. Mason, for his part, takes the story, Josephus’s most sustained discussion of conversion, to be a major support for his impression that Antiquities was meant to encourage gentiles interested in Judaism. On the thin line between recognizing that Josephus, in Antiquities, is attempting to win respectability for Judaism, and the conclusion that he is actually missionizing for Judaism, see Sterling 1992: 306–308. On the story’s function in Book 20, see the note on “providence” at §49. For this formulation as a means of introducing material from a separate source into a narrative, especially when it comes together with “at this time” or the like, see the note on “circumstances” at 18.39. The use of a source for the story is also suggested by the unfulfilled cross-references at §§53, 96. Given the focus of the story it is natural to think of a Mesopotamian or specifically Adiabenian Jewish source, but there is little to go on; see the notes on “pregnant” at §18, on “power” at §90, and on “daughters” at §92.

Apparently a nickname (“hypocoristicon”) based on the latter part of his full name, similar to “Honyo” for Yohanan. Josephus likes expressions like this. Cf. the note on “passion” at 18.350. This is an egregious case of Josephan favoritism; contrast §145, where merely the suspicion of such an incestuous relationship is part of Josephus’s case against Agrippa i’s daughters, and 19.204, where it functions as part of the condemnation of Gaius Caligula. (For similar double standards, cf. the notes on “wiped out” at 19.337 and on “squandering” at 20.211.) However, note that, apart from the fact that Helena and Izates are heroes for Josephus, while Agrippa’s daughters and Caligula are at the other pole, the relationship that is reported, and the narrative’s evident acceptance and approval of it, may reflect Mesopotamian practice and a Mesopotamian Jewish source that took such relationships for granted. See Skjærvo 2013: “In Zoroastrian Middle Persian (Pahlavi) texts, the term xwēdōodah (Av. xᵛaētuuadaθa) is said to refer to marital unions of father and daughter, mother and son, or brother and sister (next-of-kin or close-kin marriage, nuclear family incest), and to be one of the most pious actions possible.” This formulation allows Josephus both to report a heavenly voice and to avoid taking responsibility for its reality. For another way of achieving the same end, cf. 13.282: if here Josephus reports the voice himself but says only that the king thought he heard it, there Josephus reports that “they say” that Hyrcanus heard a heavenly voice. These are both variations on his usual procedure concerning miracles, namely, to tell the story but inform readers they are free not to believe; see the note on “like” at 19.108. For such pre-birth annunciations concerning infants who will enjoy divine favor, cf. Judges 13:3–5//Ant. 5.277–278 and Luke 1:30–33. On this kind of story, cf. Finlay 2005. On dying with a good reputation, see the note on “remembered” at §216.

The emphatic καί γε (“indeed”) implies that the meaning of this name is somehow appropriate to what was just said; indeed, “Izates” is (as was explained to me by Michael Shenkar) a grecized form of the Parthian yazad, “god.” Various more or less similar names (“Zoitos,” “Yazutos”…) appear in witnesses to the rabbinic version of the story in Gen. Rabbah 46:10 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, 467).

On μονογενής as expressing especial endearment (even if there are other children), see Winter 1953; at p. 342, on Josephus’s usage, Winter comments that the present passage is exceptional, for usually he uses it literally of someone without siblings (Ant. 1.222; 2.181; 5.264), while here it means “favorite,” “best beloved.” However, on the one hand even the literal meaning implies special affection (as in the first and third passages quoted), and, on the other hand, here too it is used literally; the fact that Izates was not in fact the only son is indicated by ὡς, “as if.”

Josephus tells the story in a way reminiscent of the biblical story of Joseph and his brothers (Gen 37//Ant. 2.10–38), a story of which Josephus was fond; see the notes on “before he died” at §24 and on “have in common” at 18.201. Cf. the similar motif in the Tobiad story, at 12.202, 218.

That is, being afflicted by hatred. For love (usually of a woman, here of a father) as excusing misdeeds, cf. the note on “severe penalty” at 18.80. The coins of Abinergaos i of Characene show he reigned 10/11–13/14 ce or later, and then, after an interruption, from 22/23; see Schuol 2000: 320–326. “Spasines’s Fort,” named after its founder, Hyspaosines, a satrap of Antiochus iv. This city at the northwestern end of the Persian Gulf was capital of the kingdom that therefore became known as Characene. See esp. Pliny, nh 6.138–141, with Schuol 2000: 106–109, 278–279. On the political history of the kingdom, see ibid. 453–461. In Hebrew and Aramaic sources, the region is termed Meishan (Mesene) (Schuol 2000: 276–278); at Ant. 1.145, Josephus notes the equation.

This sounds like an allusion to Gen 45:28, in the biblical Joseph story, as does also Life 204; see the note on “to them” at §21. The manuscripts and Niese (1890a: 280) read Καρρῶν, but that is otherwise unknown, hence the general acceptance of the seventeenth-century emendation to Καρδῶν, Gordyene, which, as the notes to §25 show, fits the coming references to amomum and to Noah’s ark. See Marciak 2014: 197–198.

On this aromatic plant, which is difficult to identify today but was often mentioned in ancient literature and “in bestem Ansehen stand” (see, for example, Strabo, Geog. 16.1.24, in the context of his description of Gordyene), see P. Wagler, “Amomon,” pwre 1.1873–1874. That Noah’s ark, which according to Genesis 8:4 came to rest on “the mountains of Ararat,” is still visible “in Armenia on the mountain of the Cordyaeans” (Gordyene) in Armenia, was stated by the Babylonian author Berossus (third-century bce), as quoted by Josephus at Ant. 1.93 (where the next paragraph records references to the ark by other Hellenistic writers). Others held, however, that its remains were found near Apamea, in Phrygia; see Meshorer 1981.

Josephus, as others, uses εὔχομαι sometimes for swearing (as at War 2.313), sometimes for praying (e.g., 13.304; 14.22; 17.13; 18.211); see Spicq 1994: 2.147–154. Here, it seems the latter is to be preferred, for Helena would not want to put the nobles into the position of contemplating whether or not to do something contrary to Monobazus’s oath. Moreover, Josephus typically uses ὅρκος with an auxiliary verb for the taking of oaths, as at §62 and 19.247, 362. True, sometimes (as Spicq notes, ibid. 150) εὔχομαι amounts to no more than “wish,” and translators typically prefer the latter here (Feldman 1965: 405, “had set his heart”; Mathieu and Herrmann 1929: 257, “souhaitait”). It may well be, however, that Josephus, or his source, is deliberately portraying Helena as using religious language.

For this eastern alterity of proskynesis, cf. Feldman 1998a: 353–354: he shows how Josephus, in his version of the biblical story of Joseph, which includes several references to his brothers’ bowing down to him (which the Septuagint renders with προσκυνέω at Genesis 42:6; 43:26, 28; 47:31) “carefully avoids all indication that anyone bows down to Joseph.” For discussion of the meaning of the term and of the critical view of prostration as an abominable oriental practice in literature more or less contemporary with Josephus (Q. Curtius, Plutarch, and Arrian), see Balsdon 1950: 371–382. Correspondingly, Josephus usually uses προσκυνέω more generally, of showing respect, or worship; see, for example, §§49, 56, 65, 71; 20.164.

This is the only occurrence of προαποκτείνω in Josephus (just as many of the προ- words listed in ccfj 3.516–517 appear only once each), and the earliest of those cited by lsj 1469. For such practice as standard operating procedure in royal courts, see the note on “to his death” at 18.187.

On the senses of ὁμολογέω see Tov 1999: 115–121.

For the tracing of this Greek version of the word (known also from Arrian and a papyrus) back to the Middle Persian šamšēr, see Brust 2005: 571–576.

For the evidence on Jewish inhabitants in the region, see Schuol 2000: 276–278, 326 and Oppenheimer 2005: 409–416. This use of σέβειν is calculated, for it is the beginning of a discussion that will come to focus, at §§38–42, on the question whether it is enough to revere (“fear”) God or whether one who does so should also convert to Judaism and thus become a Jew. Josephus, as others (such as Juvenal, Satires 14.96–106 = glajj, no. 301) is very well aware of the distinction between sympathizers, who “fear God,” and those who go all the way and convert to Judaism. See the note on “Jewish practices” at 18.82.

συναναπείθω appears in Josephus only here and in Life 424. That is, by his father’s testament; see §27.

That is, he claimed to use them to guarantee Adiabene’s peaceable intentions vis-à-vis the two great powers, but his main motivation was to keep them far away from him. On diplomatic hostages, see the note on “hostages” at 18.42.

This passage apparently assumes the distinction between “revering God” (§34) and living according to Jewish laws (§35). Izates had already been won over to the former while in Charax Spasinou, while his mother, in Adiabene, had been won over to the latter (§35); now Izates too, having come to Adiabene, wants to accept the latter. See the note on “revere” at §34. I take this sense of εἶναι βεβαίως Ἰουδαῖος from the comparison with War 2.263, where a sympathizer with Judaism is termed “mixed” (μεμιγμένον), from the Syrians’ point of view, as opposed to a Jew who is βεβαίως ἀλλόφυλον (“an actual foreigner” [Mason 2008: 342]). Another sense, “stably” (as at 19.231), might also be indicated here, inasmuch as circumcision was, basically, thought to be irrevocable, although the operation known as “epispasm,” that undoes circumcision, does begin to appear in the first century. See Hall 1988: 82 and D. R. Schwartz 2022: 157–158. For circumcision as the sine qua non of a Jewish male, see esp. Thiessen 2011 and Livesey 2010. For the suggestion that there was significant contemplation in first-century Judaism of the possibility that a male gentile might convert to Judaism without circumcision, see the arguments offered by McEleney 1974 and the rebuttal by Nolland 1981. On rabbinic literature, which is later, and a survey of scholarly views, cf. esp. Porton 1994: 94–95.

This use of τὸ θεῖον, as opposed to τὸν θεόν at §§42, 44, 48, might be calculated: Ananias is urging Izates to remain a non-Jew, and therefore uses a more general and universal term. See the note on “the deity” at 18.5. For this meaning of κυριώτερον see, for example, 4.309 and Apion 1.19.

The use of a preposition here (ἐκτῶν ὑπηκόων) is somewhat heavy, for only a plain genitive is needed; see, for example, 18.215; 19.51, 250. Βut this pleonasm is not infrequent in Josephus (e.g., 11.287; 13.356; 14.113; 20.220), as elsewhere (lsj 1947, s.v. φόβος, §IIa).

To become a “full-fledged” Jew, as at §38. On this phrase, see the note on “exacting about the regulations” at 19.332, where it is emphasized that this need not denote Pharisees. However, if there Simon apparently denied the efficacy of conversion, here Eleazar is positing it, and if Simon’s position is priestly (see the note on “by birth” at 19.332), Eleazar’s is not; his view corresponds with that followed by the Pharisees and the rabbis. On the latter, see Lavee 2018. In the present context, however, Josephus does not raise the questions, whether conversion is an effective process or whether circumcision is a sine qua non for it for males. All agree about both points. Rather, by contrasting Ananias (and Helena) to Eleazar he raises only the question whether conversion, which of course entails circumcision, is wise or safe for a king.

It is interesting to wonder what readers are supposed to think about where Izates found the book and in what language it was, but these are not questions that need concern edifying storytellers.

Genesis 17:9–14. There, however, as also at Leviticus 12:3, it is only the circumcision of male infants that is contemplated. Similarly, although Exodus 12:48 states that the circumcision of a gentile allows him to partake of the paschal sacrifice, it says nothing more general about becoming a Jew. For the argument that, accordingly, there were ancient Jews who denied the possibility of conversion to Judaism, by males, for circumcision later than the eighth day was ineffective, see esp. Thiessen 2011. For Josephus, however, it was clear that conversion was feasible and circumcision was, for males, a necessary condition; see War 2.454; Ant. 11.285; Life 113; also Cohen 1987: 421 and D. R. Schwartz 2007c: 94–96.

This use of ἐσήμαινεν, rather than plain “told,” sounds mysterious, perhaps hinting either that he was so weakened by the operation that he could not talk but only gesture, or, perhaps, that he showed them what had been done.

For this sense of εἰς ἔλεγχον ἐλθούσης, cf. Life 91: εἰς ἔλεγχον … ἀφικομένης.

This formulation indicates that Izates’s advisers failed to dissuade him, which Josephus takes for granted. For such usage, which juxtaposes the admission that sometimes things just happen with the belief that God’s providence can protect against them, see Spicq 1994: 3.97–98. On Josephus’s usage here, see D. R. Lindsay 1993: 125: “the idea of believing or trusting in God results in a passive benefit for the believer.” For this metaphor, as already at Hosea 10:12, Letter of Aristeas 232, and Philippians 1:11, see esp. Satlow 2010. Concerning Izates, see §§75–91. Concerning his children, see War 6.356–357—a story that Josephus perhaps hoped to retell (see below, §267).

This motivation for Helena’s conversion is just the same as that given for Izates’s brother and kinsmen (§75). Apparently it was important for Josephus to argue that conversion to Judaism need not arouse contempt. There was, indeed, plenty of contempt for Jewish proselytes in Rome in Josephus’s day; see the note on “way of life” at §17. This story’s emphasis on divine providence (§§18, 48, 49, 72, 75, 81, 85, 91) is underlined by Gilbert 1990/91: 300. As he notes, it conforms to a basic theme of Antiquities (see the note on “of man” at 19.61) and, thereby, amounts to promising righteous converts that which Judaism promises righteous Jews. For readers who go on to read down to the end of Book 20, the point will be all the more reinforced (as Sarit Kattan Gribetz pointed out) when they realize the other half of the same notion: that while God providentially protects righteous converts even in Mesopotamia, he will “hide his face” even from thoroughbred Jerusalemites if they stray from his ways; see esp. §166. Given the fairly obvious way in which the end of Book 19, where Agrippa is treated as a god, matches the opening of the book, where Gaius is, it is not difficult to imagine that Josephus, or his readers, would notice this point in the present book. For similar phrases that proudly underline the worldwide fame of the Temple of Jerusalem, see 13.77, also 2 Macc 2:22 and 3:12; Philo, Leg. 191, 198. That fame cannot be distinguished from that of Jerusalem, the “longe clarissima urbium Orientis non Iudaeae modo” (Pliny, nh 5.70), “famosa urbs” (Tacitus, Hist. 5.2.1). On Jerusalem’s fame in antiquity, see also Stern, glajj 1.477–478 and idem 1991: 518–530. This story is vaguely reminiscent of the Mishnah’s report (Nazir 3:6) that she vowed to become a Nazir if her son returned safely from war. On Nazirites, see the note on “Nazirites” at 19.294.

H. van Herwerden was so bothered by this departure from usual Jewish—and Josephan—parlance about “going up” to Jerusalem (see the note on “went up” at 18.90) that he proposed (as is reported at ccfj 1.83, following Naber 1893: xxxv) emending καταβαίνει into ἀναβαίνει. But the manuscripts are unanimous, and we can infer that Josephus simply referred to her westward voyage, in the direction of the Mediterranean, with the usual Greek phrase for “go down from the inland parts to the sea, esp. from central Asia” (lsj 884, s.v. καταβαίνω, §I.2); cf. §116 and the note on “satrapies” at 18.100.

This famine is probably to be identified with the one in the late 40s mentioned at Acts 11:27–30 and at Ant. 3.320–321 as having been in the days of Claudius. (On the chronological problem raised by the latter passage, see D. R. Schwartz 2024a. On this famine, see Gapp 1935 and Dupont 1955: 52–55. On the question, whether it really affected “the whole world” [Acts 11:28], see esp. Aus 2015: 167–199.) At §101 Josephus clarifies that it occurred in the days of Fadus’s successor, Tiberius Julius Alexander; that is, Josephus has located the entire Adiabene story under Fadus (§§2, 97) but in including this episode it has moved beyond that timeframe. The use of her title, as also the identification of Izates as her son at §53 (which is superfluous in general, and certainly after §§49–50), are remarkable. Perhaps it reflects Josephus’s sense that their first appearance in the new geographical context requires something of a new introduction. As did Herod in 25 bce, in similar circumstances; see Ant. 15.306–308. Egypt was famous for its wheat in the Roman period; see, for example, Seneca, Epistle 77.1; Josephus, War 2.386; Rickman 1980; and Erdkamp 2005: 225–237. Ibid. 226–230 Erdkamp discusses Josephus’s testimony at War 2.386: if Josephus claims that Egypt supplied Rome with a full third of its grain, Erdkamp argues that, in fact, it supplied most of it. At §101, as also 3.321, Josephus mentions only the wheat from Egypt. On figs, which could easily be dried, stored, and shipped, and were therefore a standard item in famine relief, see Garnsey 1988: 53–55.

For “leaving behind (καταλείπω)” a reputation, cf. the note on “remembered” at §216. For εὐποία, cf. 2.261–262; 15.405; and 19.356. For the concept, which is more usually expressed by εὐεργεσία and related words, see the note on “benefit” at 18.95.

Apart from a passing cross-reference back to here at §101, Josephus does not fulfill this promise, nor the one at §96, and we do not know what good works Josephus meant. Although it is possible that Josephus planned to write about this, whether in Antiquities or in a later work (see §267), the general assumption that this detailed narrative is based on a Mesopotamian Jewish source that focused panegyrically on the Adiabenian dynasty suggests that uncorroborated cross-references within the narrative derive from that source. Cf. the note on “shortly” at 19.366.

This episode, which for Josephus is important only insofar as it brought the Parthian king to seek Izates’s help and occasioned a demonstration of the latter’s gracious behavior towards his fallen overlord, is not simple to date. Usually it is placed between Artabanus ii’s agreement with Vitellius mentioned at 18.96–100 (late in Tiberius’s reign or early in Gaius’s; see the opening note on 18.4.4 [§96]) and Artabanus’s death in 38 (see the note on “died” at §69); so Debevoise 1938: 165–166 and Schippmann 2011. However, that seems to derive only from the order of events in Josephus: from the fact that he records the meeting with Vitellius in Book 18. It seems likelier that the present reference is to the same flight of Artabanus ii mentioned by Josephus at 18.99–100 among the events that preceded Artabanus’s meeting with Vitellius. Note that in both cases Artabanus is said to have fled (i) from high-ranking internal opponents (there “men of the first rank,” here “satraps”), (ii) inland (there “to one of the upper satrapies,” here to Adiabene), (iii) only temporarily, for he was soon able to return (although the explanations of how that happened are different). In any case, it is remarkable that Josephus makes no cross-reference here to the episode in Book 18, and if the two episodes are identical it is just as remarkable that he makes no reference there to the present story. See the Introduction, at n. 11.

For rhetorical usage of this motif, compare, for example, §61; 14.381; 19.296; and—with regard to Titus’s ruminations when he saw Josephus fall from command to captivity—War 3.394–396. It is also a central element of Josephus’s story of Agrippa i; see the note on “fallen” at 18.294. For its most famous occurrences, see Herodotus 1.86 (Cyrus regrets his decision to burn Croesus alive) and Polybius 38.21.1–3 (Scipio’s tears at the destruction of Carthage); Polybius highlights this theme already at the opening of his work (1.1.2). Parallels and other cases are assembled by Grethlein 2013: 261–262.

Here Ambrosianus adds ὀξέως (“quickly”); see the note on “brought to him” at §5.

This recalls the German prisoner’s speech to Agrippa at 18.197–200.

See the note on “alone” at §67.

On the giving of the right hand, see the note on “for visitors” at 18.328.

For serious doubts about this whole story, beginning with Josephus being the only literary account of the Cinnamus story, Cinnamus not being a Parthian name, and there being no numismatic evidence for his existence, and also raising questions about the logic of the story, see Chaumont 2011.

As at §61. On the Parthian king’s tiara, which is prominent in royal iconography, see Olbrycht 1997. As for καθεύδειν on a golden κλίνη: the verb appears (although with no explicit subject), in a similar context of rewarding at an eastern court, at 11.35, and there Spilsbury and Seeman (2017: 20) render “sleep upon a golden (bed).” However, although that is the usual meaning of the verb, it seems likelier that the reference here is to reclining on a couch, including at meals, as at §61; cf. Esther 1:6. On depictions of golden couches at Sasanian royal banquets, see Minov 2021: 238–239 (to which I was kindly referred by Michael Shenkar).

As Mason notes, this is the only known reference to Epimygdonia in surviving ancient Greek. For the region’s fertility, see Cameron 2019: 12–13; he cites, inter alia, Strabo, Geog. 16.1.23 and Pliny 6.117. Cameron notes (12, n. 50) concerning the present passage, “Josephus is confused,” for, in fact, Nisibis was not a land (or “district”); it was a city, the same city also known as Epimygdonian Antioch. This Nisibis is to be distinguished from the more obscure one mentioned in the story of Asineus and Anileus; see the note on “Nisibis” at 18.312. On such statements, which wrap up the preceding narrative before moving on to the next, see the note on “Petronius” at 18.288.

This is usually dated ca. 38 ce; so Debevoise 1938: 166 and Schippmann 2011. Josephus here skips Artabanus’s first successor, Gotarzes ii, who reigned briefly (Tacitus, Ann. 11.8; see Debevoise 1938: 166–167) before unhappy subjects called in Vardanes i, who successfully took over and reigned until ca. 45 or later (Schippmann 2016). For Gotarzes’s return, see below, §73.

Rome’s δύναμις and τύχη, as reasons not to oppose it, are (as opposed to the benefits of Roman rule) recurrent themes in War; note especially their collocation at 2.373 as explaining the Gauls’ submissiveness, just as, at Life 17, Josephus claims that he himself pointed to Rome’s τύχη along with its (successful) experience at war as reasons Judeans should abstain from rebellion. On Josephus’s use of τύχη, see Lindner 1972: 89–94; on the way mobilization of it subtly undercuts Rome’s merit, see Mason 2008: 289–290, n. 2354 (and the note on “Petronius” at 18.305). On Plutarch’s resort to τύχη in explaining the success of Rome, see Swain 1989.

This is implied both by the nature of their studies and by the parallelism of the coming reference to Helena. Above, §§49–53. That is, Izates claimed that if he were to join in war against the Romans it could endanger his mother and sons, who were in Roman territory. Perhaps Josephus was thinking here of his own attempts to use similar arguments (Life 17–19) to avert war with Rome, or those of Agrippa ii (War 2.345–401) and others, which all failed, just as did Izates’s. In any case, Josephus is evidently happy to show his Roman readers that pious Jews respect their empire.

I.e., Gotarzes ii; see the note on “Vardanes” at §69. The reason Josephus gives for the Parthians’ opposition to Vardanes is not found in Tacitus’s account (Ann. 11.10), but Roman readers might be happy to read it.

According to Tacitus (Ann.12.14), (a) Gotarzes was first succeeded by a Vonones, who reigned only briefly before being replaced by Vologases, who (b) was in fact Gotarzes’s son, not his brother (hence Artabanus’s grandson, not his son). But Josephus is consistent; see below, §82. Debevoise (1938: 174) sides with Tacitus on the first issue (suggesting Josephus simply skipped Vonones because his reign was so short) and leaves the second one open; Schippmann (2016) takes the opposite options. On these events, see Debevoise 1938: 170–174.

As above, §49. Interestingly, Josephus usually assumes that a ruler’s success attracts envy that is hostile; so, for example, Ant. 6.193; 13.288//War 1.67; 14.163; 18.240; War 1.208; and Life 122. On that motif, see the note on “jealous” at 18.240. Here, however, Josephus, in consonance with the general message of this story, namely, that conversion to Judaism can enlist divine providence and thus promise well-being, asserts that those who observed Izates’s success realized it was because of his piety, and so their envy brought them to desire to emulate him.

In the following two stories, Josephus fleshes out the fear mentioned at §§§41, 47 and the divine protection promised at §48; see Marciak 2014: 111–112. As at 18.44, 99–100 and above, §54, the eastern grandees are portrayed as conspiratorial and conniving—a portrayal Romans would probably be happy to read.

As at the opening of §55, so too here καὶ δή moves from the statement of intention to report of consequent action. On such full translations of καὶ δή, see the note on “for example” at 18.257. Retsö (2003: 414) argues that these Arabs lived west of the Tigris in northern Mesopotamia, and are probably the ones to whom Josephus refers in War 1.3 as well, alongside the people of Adiabene. See also Marciak 2014: 239, n. 47.

For εἰς χεῖρας ἐλθεῖν, cf. 5.73, 356; 15.149. For τὰ νῶτα ἐντρέψαι see already Herodotus 7.211. Cf. Ant. 12.424 where Josephus, paraphrasing 1 Macc 9:10, has Judas Maccabeus proudly refuse to show his back to his enemies.

A standard outcome; see the note on “to flee” at 18.87.

According to Retsö (2003: 414), Arsamus is probably the same as Arsham, known to have been between Mosul and Zakho. Here, as elsewhere (see the note on “brought to him” at §5), Ambrosianus offers a superfluous expansion: “before he could be closed in upon by Izates.”

On the coming episode, known only from Josephus, see Debevoise 1938: 177–178.

Cf. the note on “rose up” at 19.284. Artabanus ii; see the note on “Vologeses” at §74. As reported at §§66–68. I have translated according to the obvious meaning of καταγγέλλω above at §72, as also elsewhere. At times, however, the sense is rather “threatening,” as, for example, in 11.222, 229. In the present context, there is not much difference between an ultimatum and a threat of war.

For Josephus on God as an ally (βοηθός), see esp. Gafni 1989: 126–127 (where “allegiance” on p. 127 should be “alliance”). On the meaning of βᾶρις, see the note on “large building” at 18.91. Such scorched-earth tactics by those retreating in the face of invasion were well-known in antiquity. See, for some examples, Herodotus 4.120; Xenophon, Anabasis 1.6; Caesar, Gallic War 7.14.

On θᾶττον ἐλπίδος, see the note on “expected” at 19.335. The border between Adiabene and Media Atropatene (to its east) was marked by the Zagros Mountains (Marciak 2017: 270); the river is probably the Great Zab.

For such use of ashes cf. §123 and 7.171, 204. As here, it comes together with fasting at 1 Macc 3:47. For fasting as reinforcing prayer, cf. 2 Samuel 12:16–23; Jonah 3:5; Esther 4:16; 1 Macc 3:47; 2 Macc 13:12; etc. Note esp. 1 Macc 3:17, which (echoing 1 Samuel 14) refers to soldiers who had not eaten. No explanation is given, but Josephus (Ant. 12.290) naturally explains this was pre-battle fasting. Cf. Hacham 1996. On this prayer, see especially Jonquière 2007: 202–207. Prayers that attempt to motivate God to intervene on behalf of the faithful by arguing that the attack on them is really on him are quite standard; see, for example, Exodus 32:12; Deut 32:27; Psalms 79:9–10; 115:1; Isaiah 37:15–20; Jeremiah 14:21; lxx Daniel 3:34, 43 (Prayer of Azariah); 2 Macc 8:15; 3 Macc 2:9, 14, 17–18; 2 Baruch 5:1; Johnson 1948: 38–41 (“An Appeal to God’s Dignity or Pride”); Miller 1994: 120–126 (on “intimating that God’s reputation is at stake”). See the next note.

The manuscripts’ ἐγενόμην, maintained by Niese (1890a: 291), is somewhat difficult to render here, and has engendered emendations; see Feldman 1965: 434, n. 3. But in any case the logic of the appeal is clear: suffering a disaster is all the worse if it comes shortly after being the beneficiary of God’s grace. For the same consideration, cf. 8.128, also Judith 4:3 and 2 Macc 13:11 and 14:36. In the present passage, the reference to the enemies as those who showed contempt for God (just as 2 Macc 13:11 refers to the blasphemous enemies), argues that such a quick reversal of fortunes, if God were to allow it, would also sully his own name. Cf. the preceding note. On χρηστότης as characteristic of God, as of princes and rulers, see Spicq 1994: 3.512–513. For a discussion of variant readings of this conclusion of the prayer, and the suggestion that in its original Aramaic it denounced Vologeses as one whose mouth arrogantly “speaks great things,” echoing Daniel 7:8, 20, see Schalit 1965: 174–176.

On such use of χείρ, see the note on “force” at 18.261. For this type of salvation, cf. 2 Kings 19:7//Isaiah 37:7. In his version of that story, at Ant. 9.14–18, Josephus too, as his biblical sources, underlines God’s providential involvement. Contrast the very similar case at 1 Macc 6:55–57: while a religious author, like Josephus here (and Tilly 2015: 169) finds it important to assert divine string-pulling, the author of 1 Maccabees did not (nor did Josephus, who closely follows 1 Maccabees in his version of that story at Ant. 12.379–381). Cf. D. R. Schwartz 2022: 22–36.

See the note on “male [children]” at 18.132. This repeated use of twenty-four, which is a very standard round hyperbolic number in aggadic literature (see Bergmann 1938: 367–368), clearly shows the folkloristic nature of Josephus’s source for this report. Compare, for example, b. Berakhot 55b (“twenty-four dream interpreters in Jerusalem” all gave different interpretations) and y. Sanhedrin 10.29c (Israel was exiled after it split into twenty-four different sects).

See above, §32.

Josephus’s statement, in this context, that Izates had been εὐσεβέστατος, is somewhat ambiguous: does it refer to his piety toward God or, rather, to his mother (on filial “piety” see esp. Feldman 1998a: 128–129)? But there is no need to choose between those two options. Contrast, for example, Absalom, who, in a situation similar to that of Izates, rebelled and sinned against both God and his father (7.198), whereupon David, quite appropriately, characterizes Absalom as ἀσεβής, aligning himself with God against him (7.209). Here Ambrosianus has a long dramatic addition: “rather, crushed by old age and the pain of grief, she soon breathed her last.” On such additions, see the note on “brought to him” at §5.

These monuments, which are mentioned (as “Helena’s grave”) as a landmark at War 5.55, 119, 147 (as also by later visitors to the Jerusalem; see inter alia Eusebius, Church History 2.12 and Jerome, Letter 108.9), must have been very impressive; Pausanias (Description of Greece 8.16.5 [glajj 2.196–197]) expands on Helena’s grave alongside his account of the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus that was considered one of the seven wonders of the world. Today the remains of these monuments are known as the “Tombs of the Kings,” north of the wall of the Old City. Among the finds there were sarcophagi of which one, now in the Louvre, has inscriptions that apparently label the deceased as “queen,” so it is thought to be that of Helena, or perhaps one of her relations. See hjp 3.164, n. 66, and esp. Marciak 2014: 139–162. On the question, whether other Jews from the region of Adiabene and Parthia customarily sought to be buried in Jerusalem (as burial in Palestine was common in later periods [Gafni 1997: 79–95]), see Shenkar 2014.

This promise remains unfulfilled; see the note on “these kings” at §53.

On γόης as impostor/charlatan/deceiver, rather than “magician,” see esp. Bloch 1999, followed by Barclay 2007: 248, n. 530. The former nuance emerges from Josephus’s pairing of the term with ἀπατέων; see the note on “deceptive men” at §167. Theudas is also mentioned at Acts 5:36–37, where he is apparently said to have preceded Judas the Galilean, although in fact Judas preceded Theudas by some four decades (18.4). That egregious error has been explained as the result of Luke’s careless reading of the present passage, which mentions Judas at §102, a few lines after this report about Theudas. Given the fact, however, that this would be the most cogent item in the dossier showing that Luke read Josephus, and that other explanations of the error are possible (and that, indeed, the use of μετὰ τοῦτον in Acts 5:37, in introducing Judas after Theudas might mean only “furthermore,” not “after him”), the case remains inconclusive. Not much has changed since, a century and a half ago, Schürer (1876: 582) concluded his study of “Lucas und Josephus” with the oft-quoted verdict that Luke either ignored Josephus or, having read Josephus, forgot what he read—although it is possible that he read Josephus, recalled the name “Theudas,” and was not concerned about chronological details. See the detailed discussions in Schreckenberg 1980: 195–198 and Mason 2023: 465–469. On this episode, see Hengel 1989: 229–230; Horsley and Hanson 1999: 164–167, and the commentaries to Acts 5:36. As Horsley and Hanson emphasize, it is not surprising that there was anti-Roman agitation in the years immediately following the Roman re-annexation of Judea. Nor is it surprising that Josephus is not explicit about that; see below, the note on “Jerusalem” at §98. This promised miracle must have been understood in light of the fact that its biblical precedent (Josh 3:14–17//Ant. 5.16–19) constituted the closing bracket of a divinely-orchestrated story of redemption from foreign rule, and conquest of Palestine, that began with the splitting of the Red Sea (Exodus 14//Ant. 3.338–339). See the note on “Jerusalem” at §98. To get to the Jordan River, Theudas and his followers had to enter the Judean desert; see the note on “providence of God” at §168.

See the note on “wing” at 19.365. This collocation, with λαμβάνω, is a favorite in Ant. 20; see also §§122, 171, 177, 208 and Life 412, also καταλαβὼν ζῶντα at §80. It does not appear in Books 18–19. Indeed, elsewhere, Josephus prefers to let those not killed escape; see the note on “flee” at 18.87. Josephus does not explain why a Roman governor would take an interest in such a self-proclaimed prophet and his followers, much less—why he punished them. Why should Fadus care about Theudas and some dupes who thought he could split the waters of the Jordan? It seems likely that Fadus, whether or not he knew that, according to Joshua 3, Joshua’s splitting of the Jordan was a preliminary to the conquest of Canaan, would worry that any mass movement might turn into an anti-Roman rebellion. But Josephus says nary a word about that. For Josephus’s attempt to hide, in Antiquities, the potentially dangerous links between religion and state, see also the note on “punished” at §168.

On Tiberius Julius Alexander and his highly successful career in Roman service in Judea and Egypt, eventually rising to the governorship of Egypt and then serving as Titus’s commander-in-chief at the siege of Jerusalem (where he presided over the destruction of the Temple to which his father had so generously and piously donated [War 5.205] and to which his uncle Philo had made a pilgrimage [On Providence 2.64]), see A. Fuks in cpj 2.188–197; Modrzejewski 1997: 185–190; Schimanowski 2007; Mason 2008: 181–182, n. 1378; Sterling 2020; and the new epigraphic material presented in cpj 5, 185–188. See also the note on “alabarch there” at §147. As for the dating of Alexander’s Judean governorship, see the note on “Alexander” at §103. On this well-known figure, Philo’s brother, see the note on “Alabarch” at 18.159. For Alexander’s costly contribution to the Temple of Jerusalem, see War 5.205. For some Josephan elaboration on the point that the piety of sons can fall far from that of their fathers, see 6.33–34. On the question of Tiberius’s “apostasy,” see Schimanowski 2007. Romans seem hardly to have been aware of his Jewish origin: Juvenal (Satires 1.127–131) alludes to him, apparently, as an Egyptian “arabarch” and Tacitus, who names him, identifies him once as an Egyptian (Hist. 1.11) and once as an “inlustris eques Romanus” (Ann. 15.28.1).

Reading ἐπὶ τούτου with Niese (1890a: 293; 1890b: 247), who followed the Epitome (Niese 1887–1896: 355). The manuscripts read a dative plural, ἐπὶ τούτοις, which has been taken to refer to the days of Fadus and Tiberius Julius Alexander; so esp. Schürer, hjp 1.457, n. 8. That could be preferable insofar as Josephus places the whole Adiabene story, including famine relief in Judea (§§51–53), within his “chapter” on Fadus, just as Acts (11:28) has the famine occur near Agrippa’s death (ch. 12). However, either or both of the latter considerations could just as well be a reason for scribes to change the singular, here, into a plural. In fact, Josephus, in telling the whole Adiabene story as one long unit, may have departed some from the chronological context of Fadus’s term of office (see the note on “famine” at §51), and the reference to the famine at Acts 11:28 is to a prophecy of the famine, which is said to have occurred sometime “in the days of Claudius.” Moreover, if we read ἐπὶ τούτοις it could well be that it does not mean “in their days”; it could be not much more than “next.” Cf. the note on “thereupon” at 18.104. Two considerations against taking ἐπὶ τούτοις to mean “in their days” are: (1) the use of ἐπί +dative of time is rare (lsj 622, s.v. §B.ii); (2) the only way readers could understand “their” here as referring back to Fadus is if they realize that all the text about Alexander, since his name appeared near the beginning of §100, was parenthetical. But ancient texts did not have parentheses and there seems to be nothing else in the text that could indicate to readers that “their” refers not to Alexander and his father but, rather, to Alexander and his predecessor. In contrast, the reading ἐπὶ τούτου is unproblematic, for (1) ἐπί +genitive is usual with regard to time (see the note on “during” at §14) and (2) we expect to read, after the introduction of a new ruler, about what happened in his days. Cf. esp. 15.405, where, in a historical survey, the mention of Tiberius is followed by a report of what happened “in his days” (ἐπὶ τούτου), also, for example, although with other formulations, 18.29 and 20.105. See §51, where, quite appropriately, more details are given.

At 18.4–9, 23–25. Lit. “brought up,” i.e., to the governor, for judgment; cf. the fuller formulations at §§5, 168. Josephus does not say why they were arrested. We must assume, from the governor’s response, that they were involved in anti-Roman agitation or rebellion—just as in the next generation as well, a grandson (?) of Judas was a leader of the Sicarii and, eventually, the last commander of Masada (War 7.253). For the Sicarii as anti-Roman rebels, see the note on “Sicarii” at §186. On this family, see Stern 1973: 135–140, also the note on “Golanite” at 18.4. On ἀνασταυρόω, see the note on “crucifixion” at 18.64.

In the next three sentences (§§1103–104) Josephus reports changes of personnel in the high priesthood, the Roman governorship of Judea, and the kingdom of Chalcis. As at 19.342, for example, these should not be understood as if they all happened at the same time, or as if there were some essential or literary relationship among them. Rather, Josephus is simply taking advantage of the transition between narratives to bring us up to date. For similar updating of various fronts between chapters of Judean history, compare 18.36–54, below §§137–159, and Ant. 11.346–347. In accordance with the authority granted him by Claudius (above, §§15–16). This Ananias is also known from the Talmud (b. Pesaḥ. 57a//b. Keritot 28a–b). On him, see VanderKam 2004: 454–463. VanderKam (as others, including hjp 2.231) assumes that Ananias remained high priest for around a decade, 48–59 ce. It might be, however, that although he remained influential after his tenure as high priest (§§205, 213; War 2.243; and note that two of his sons were captains of the Temple; see the note on “Ananus” at §131), that tenure itself lasted not much more than a year, ending with the end of Cumanus’s governorship; see below, Appendix 1. True, a problem is raised by his designation as “high priest” at Acts 23:2 and 24:1, where he apparently chairs the trial of Paul sometime in the 50s. But it is perhaps no more difficult than his designation as “high priest” at Ant. 20.205, 208 and War 2.243, where it is clear that he was not the serving high priest. On such usage, see the note on “Joazar” at 18.3. For a former high priest identified as “the high priest” and presiding over a judicial process, cf. John 18:13–24. Josephus does not specify the length of Tiberius Julius Alexander’s tenure as Roman governor of Judea. Usually it is assumed that he lasted two years, on the one hand because the next sentence refers to Claudius’s eighth year (48), on the other hand simply because it is attractively neat to assign Fadus 44–46 and then Tiberius Alexander 46–48. The notion that two years was a standard term of office reappears in standard reconstructions of the sixties, which assign Festus 60–62 and Albinus 62–64; some would also take Acts 24:27 as if it dated something “when Felix’s two years” as governor were completed, as if that were the rule. But such a short tenure for Felix entails problems of its own (see Appendix 1, §§9–10) and, in any case would undermine the presumption concerning Festus; see, for example, Lambertz 1953: 224–225. Accordingly, for dating governorships in the second half of the forties and the first half of the sixties we basically have to do the same type of guesswork as for 6–15; see the note on “thereafter” at 18.31.

Although readers might infer from the next few words that Josephus is carefully distinguishing this Herod from “King Herod of Chalcis” who was mentioned at §102, in fact they were the same person. It seems that Josephus, in bringing us up to date on various fronts, is using diverse materials and has not put much effort into editing them. In this case, the first snippet seems to have been drawn from a chronicle of the high priesthood (see the note on “Theophilus” at 18.123), while the second may derive from a family chronicle that focused on Agrippa i (see the note on “Herod the Elder” at 18.130). This, rather than Agrippa “the Great,” seems to be the best translation of τοῦ μεγάλου here, esp. given the reference to his son later in this paragraph. Cf. the note on “Agrippa the Elder” at 18.142. I.e., the year that began in January 48. Agrippa ii, who was appointed to replace his uncle, apparently began counting his regnal years a year later; see the note on “reign” at §257. Mariamme (18.134). Namely, the daughter of Agrippa i (Ant. 19.277, 354); on her, see Ilan 2022. On uncle-niece marriage, see the note on “Herod” at 19.277. According to Ant. 19.362, when Agrippa i died, Claudius wanted to give his kingdom to Agrippa ii but was dissuaded by his friends, who argued that Agrippa ii, who was then around sixteen, was too young for the responsibility. Now, four or five years later, Claudius gave him another kingdom; for a further change a few years later, see §138. In general, on Agrippa ii and his territories, see also War 2.223, 247 along with hjp 1.471–483 and Wilker 2007: 31–32. Kokkinos (1998: 309–310) points out that Herod of Chalcis’s own son, Aristobulus (named “the Younger” at §13), was probably too young to succeed his father, which is why his kingdom was given to Agrippa ii.

Apart from a reference in Tacitus, who fills his name out into Ventidius Cumanus and gives a different version of one of the coming stories (see the note on “Jews” at §118), Cumanus is known only from Josephus. Usually it is thought that he was governor between 48 and 52, but in §8 of Appendix 1 (and in more detail in D. R. Schwartz 1992: 218–242 and 2024a) it is argued that in fact 48–49 is more likely.

See the note on “Pascha” at 18.29. See the note on “twenty thousand” at §112. The intensity of nationalist feeling during pilgrimages, when large masses of Jews came together in what was once the capital of a sovereign Judean kingdom, and hence the likelihood of disorder on such occasions, is frequently mentioned by Josephus; see, for example, Ant. 13.372; 15.50–52; 17.213–218, 254; War 2.517.

This standard procedure is also mentioned at §192. Note, however, that in the parallel to the present passage at War 2.224 we read only the general statement that soldiers are usually posted around the colonnades on holidays. The reference here, to Cumanus’s forerunners, is the type of detail we would expect to find in a brief defending Cumanus, insofar as it emphasizes that he did not do anything unusually provocative. See the note on “festival” at §109.

For a similar formulation, see 18.260.

This statement, which has no parallel at all in the version in War (2.224–227), underlines that Cumanus was not to be blamed for the subsequent violence. For the suggestion that the present version somehow reflects Cumanus’s defense brief, at the hearing described below (§§134–136), see D. R. Schwartz 2012b; for a similar case concerning the other Judean governor of whose accusation we know, see the opening note at 18.55 (on 18.3.1). The notion that Josephus was following such an earlier document here conforms to Mason’s observation (2008: 188, n. 1431) that War 2.229’s version of the present story is awkwardly out of order, which suggests that Josephus, in War, “is quickly condensing the longer account that will be given more space in Ant. 20.”

The description here, reminiscent of that at 18.60–61 in Pilate’s day, reinforces Cumanus’s defense discussed in the preceding note by emphasizing the misbehavior of the Jewish mob. Including at 15.292, 409, and 18.91. For the formulation here (ἐπικείμενον τῷ ἱερῷ), cf. esp. War 5.245 (φρούριον γὰρ ἐπέκειτο τῇ πόλει μὲν τὸ ἱερόν, τῷ ἱερῷ δ᾽ ἡἈντωνία [“the Temple dominated the city, but Antonia dominated the Temple”]). For Josephus’s appetite for such formulations, cf. War 1.112 (Salome “ruled the others, but the Pharisees ruled her”); Ant. 15.361 (“with regard to their goodwill toward him [Herod]: after [Marcus Vipsanius] Agrippa, Augustus honored no one more than Herod, just as after Augustus, Agrippa assigned Herod first place in his friendship”//War 1.400); and War 5.257 (“But I say, that although the stasis subdued the city, the Romans subdued the stasis.”) As with the comparison at §§253–254, it could well be that Josephus, when composing Antiquities, remembered his catchier formulations in his earlier composition.

For a rabbinic expression of surprise that it happened only once that someone was crushed in the Temple on Passover, despite the crowds of pilgrims, see b. Pesaḥim 64b. Note well: the Jews were not killed by the Romans, nor did the Romans even enter the Temple Mount. The Romans, according to the present story, kept their distance: they only showed themselves in battle gear in Antonia, the Roman bastion north of the Temple Mount, in order to intimidate the Jews. Compare War 2.226, which, at this point of the story, has Cumanus’s soldiers pouring into the colonnades.

Thirty thousand according to the parallel at War 2.227. Such numbers are not to be pressed; what’s a myriad here or there? Nevertheless, numerous sources put myriads of Jews in Jerusalem on the pilgrimage festivals (even if we discount the millions mentioned by Josephus [War 6.420–427] and the rabbinic parallel [t. Pesaḥim 4:15, ed. Lieberman, 166 = 4:3, ed. Zuckermandel, 163], on which see Y. Fisch in Ilan and Noam 2017: 2.812–821); see, for example, Ant. 14.337 and 17.214, 18.313, 20.187, War 2.515, Philo, Special Laws 1.69, Acts 2:1–11, and m.Pesaḥim 5:5, 7, also Jeremias 1969: 77–84 and Safrai 1976: 901–902. This phrase, πένθος δ’ῆν τὸ λοιπὸν ἀντὶ τῆς ἑορτῆς, sounds formulaic, perhaps inspired by Amos 8:10, which is echoed at 1 Macc 1:39 (and 9:41) and, very similarly, in the parallel to the present passage at War 2.227: γενέσθαι δὲ τὴν ἑορτὴν πένθος. This is the only occurrence of κλαυθμός in Josephus. Cf. the similar comment at Ant. 18.84. That comment excuses the Jews at large, the present one tends to clear Cumanus; see the note on “during the festival” at §109. For a more famous case of this tactic, cf. War 6.252 (the Temple was destroyed because a single soldier, ignoring his orders, vitiated Titus’s decision, together with his most senior officers, to preserve it.)

As Norden (1913a: 642, n. 1) observed, Josephus’s account of Cumanus, as that of Pilate, is presented as an unrelenting series of calamities. Introductions such as the present passage, just as 18.65 and 18.85, carry much of the burden. For another case, see the note on “unholiness” at §167. The verb λῃστεύω, which also appears at §186, identifies the perpetrators as “brigands”—on whom see the note on “brigands” at 18.7. On imperial slaves and freedmen in this period, see the collection of sources in Smallwood 1967: 56–59.

Here there is another “useless” but dramatic addition in Ambrosianus, telling us what we anyway can infer from the fact they were arrested: “so they could account for the things that had been done so insolently.” Cf. the note on “brought to him” at §5.

Compare evidence for Roman soldiers tearing up Jewish scrolls at Masada: Cotton (1989): 160–161, with n. 23. On the severity of the offense in Jewish eyes, and the significance of the Torah scroll as a symbol of the Jews’ identity, see S. Schwartz 2014: 1–3. Although βλασφημία usually means “insult” or “slander” (e.g. at §109), here, where no human object is mentioned, it seems that whatever the soldier said in the context of destroying a scroll of the Torah would be construed as what we term “blasphemy.” See the discussion of Greek and English usage in Danker 2000: 178, s.v. βλασφημία, §bγ. The verb κατακερτομέω appears only twice elsewhere in Josephus, both of them, as here, together with πολλά (Life 323; War 6.172).

For “going down” to the coast see also, for example, Ant. 17.219//War 2.14 and Acts 12:19. Cf. §50. This literal translation of ἐκδικέω (just as for the noun at §119, according to Ambosianus), seems to fit the context better than the usual “avenge,” for the appropriate stance of provincials is to ask the governor to do what justice demands, not to dictate what that is. Cf. §§3, 126 and, for example, Flacc. 105–106 and Acts 25:16 along with Dupont 1961. The same distinction as above, §108. The Jews’ devotion to their laws, even unto death, is a favorite Josephan theme; see the note on “accept death” at 18.59.

Same phrase as at §133. What “again” here, and “second time” at the end of this paragraph, refer to is not clear. Since the end of the paragraph refers to the fear that στάσις (“civil strife”) would break out a second time, apparently we should infer that the first στάσις was the preceding episode, which is indeed termed στάσις at §112. But if so, usage of πάλιν νεωτερίσειεν here is hardly justified, for all we have there is a protest that ends with Jews in panic and flight; that is not something Josephus should refer to as “fomenting rebellion” or “rebelling,” and only with difficulty can we call it “civil strife”; note that Feldman (1965: 449–451) renders στάσις by “revolution” and “uprising” at §117, but only by “disturbance” at §112. Probably we should infer that the allusion here is, nonetheless, to the angry Jewish complaints mentioned in §§108–109. Cumanus had every reason to make them seem as threatening, perhaps even violent, as possible, so as to counter any Jewish complaints that he used excessive force against the Jews. This suggests, in turn, that Josephus’s formulation here reflects his use of a document written in Cumanus’s defense. For Josephus’s use of such materials regarding Pilate and Cumanus, see the next note. For a Roman governor’s amici, see the note on “friends” at 18.89. By noting their agreement here, Josephus’s account defends Cumanus against potential complaints that he gave in to his subjects’ demands after they had been rebellious. For the Sitz im Leben of such a defense, cf. above, the note on “festival” at §109. War 2.231 adds that this was done after he was led off “in the midst of his accusers”; on such demonstrative punishments, cf. the note on “dragged around” at §136.

On hostility between Samaritans and Jews, see the note on “Samaritan men” at 18.30. The present episode has been the object of intense study; see, among others, Momigliano 1934: 388–391; Aberbach 1949/50; Stern, glajj 2.76–82 and 1974a: 374–376. This interest has been sparked especially by differences between it and Tacitus’s report in Ann. 12.54 (glajj, no. 288), in the context of 52 ce: although evidently referring to the same episode, it refers to Ventidius Cumanus as governor of the Galilee and to Felix (whom Josephus does not mention as being in Palestine until after Cumanus’s term of office) as governor of Samaria, but mentions no governor of Judea. This, together with Tacitus’s statement there, that Felix had already ruled Judea (“iam pridem Iudaeae impositus”), and his statement at Ann. 12.23.1 (glajj, no. 287), in the context of 49 ce that, upon the death of Agrippa, Judea was annexed to the province of Syria, led E. Schwartz (1907: 286–287) to suggest that, although Josephus did not know it, Claudius embarked on an administrative experiment (Verwaltungsexperiment) upon the death of Agrippa i, subsuming the Judean heartland under the authority of the governor of Syria (hence no governor of Judea is mentioned in 12.54) and leaving other regions of Palestine under various officials (much as the situation we posited from 37–41; see the note on “commander” at 18.237). However, accepting Tacitus’s testimony wholesale entails setting aside all of Josephus’s detailed data about the governorships of Fadus, Tiberius Julius Alexander, and Cumanus, and Tacitus’s blooper at 12.23.1, that Agrippa i died in 49 ce, inspires no confidence. With regard to Judea, at best we might conclude, with Stern (glajj 2.75), that Tacitus is consistent in his error. However, it may well be that Felix was in Palestine in some secondary role already in the days of Cumanus; that could explain, for example, the fact that a prominent Judean high priest supported Felix’s candidacy for the governorship (see §162). If, then, Felix had been in Palestine in some secondary position under Cumanus, then, since we know that the violence that ensued was between Galileans and Samaritans and we can see from §§134–137 that, when the dispute came to be adjudicated in Rome, Felix was the winner and Cumanus the loser, it is not too difficult to understand how Roman observers might gain the impression that each of the two had been charged with ruling one of those two regions. Apart from that, note Eck’s position, cited in the note on “Syria” at 18.2, that Judea was always part of Provincia Syria until the rebellion of 66. For this appellation (here: τὴν ἰερὰν πόλιν) for Jerusalem, elsewhere in Josephus, see War 2.397; Ant. 4.227; and Apion 1.282. It is found already in the Hebrew Bible (Isaiah 48:2 and 52:1; Nehemiah 11:1; Daniel 9:24); in literature of the Second Temple period it is found in such texts as Sirach 36:12, Tobit 13:9, 1 Macc 2:7, 2 Maccabees 1:2; 3:1; 9:14; 15:14, and Philo’s Flacc 46 and Leg 281. The city’s holiness derived from the Temple, a point reflected in the Qumran preference for ‘ir hamiqdaš (“city of the Temple”); so Damascus Document 12:1; 11QTemple 45:11–12, 16–17; and 4Q248 (Broshi and Eshel 1997: 121). Cf. the note on “of Jerusalem” at 18.271. As Mason (2008: 189–190, n. 1449), Josephus reports at Life 269 that, using this route, one could come from the Galilee to Jerusalem in three days; the same is indicated by m. Bava Metzia 2:6. But he also indicates, there, that it could be risky—as is suggested by Luke 9:52–53. As a result, or for other reasons, some pilgrims to Jerusalem from the north instead took the longer but safer Jordan Valley route, as Jesus is said to have done (Mark 10:46; 11:1). But the route via Samaria seems to have been the main one; see Safrai 1965: 116–117 (= Safrai 1981: 136–138). Although Josephus’s nomenclature concerning “the plain” and “the great plain” is not always unambiguous (see the note on “Great Plain” at 18.122), in this case the reference is clearly to the Esdraelon, which is between Samaria and Galilee, for War 3.48 specifically says that this village is on the northern border of Samaria; cf. War 2.232 (the village is “in the great plain of Samaria”). It is assumed to be at the site of modern Jenin, some 35 km. due east of Caesarea. As the next paragraph makes clear, Josephus means that the Samaritans of Ginae killed many Galileans. At War 2.232, while some witnesses have only one Galilean being killed, three manuscripts say “many” were; Niese and Destinon (1894: 199), Thackeray (1926: 414, n. 1), and Mason (2008: 190, n. 1451, with detailed discussion) follow the former, assuming the latter are accommodating that text to ours.

A frequent complaint, as at §183 and 18.97. Cf. 5.144 and 12.395, where, similarly, ὀλιγωρέω is used for belittling/ignoring—respectively, justice and oaths. Niese (1890a: 296; 1890b: 249) leaves the verb ὀλιγωρέω with no explicit object, which is quite possible, as at 10.85. I have completed the thought ad sensum; other supplements are offered by Ambrosianus and the Epitome (Niese 1887–1896: 357).

See the note on “addition” at §10. For the contrast between “liberty” and “slavery” and the rebels’ use of it, see the notes on “enslavement” and “liberty” at 18.4.

For Josephus’s frequent use of δίκας εἰσπράσσω παρά for “punishing someone,” see §76 and ThLJ 224. This is a frequent motif in Josephus, with an apologetical point: the elders, who represent legitimate and intelligent Jewish leadership, oppose rebellion and express faith in Roman justice, but hotheaded youths fail to listen to them. See the note on “youths” at 18.10. On his end, see below, §161. He seems to be mentioned as a murderer in m. Sotah 9.9, also, in Midrash Song of Song Rabba 2.7, alongside Bar Kochva and others, as one who “pushed the End” (attempted to force a messianic redemption) and failed; see Ilan in Ilan and Noam 2017: 1.521–526. For ἐν ὄρει in this general sense, see also 13.19, 159. Αlthough those cases include a definite article (τῷ), it does not refer to any antecedent. Without the article, as here: Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 10.15.1. Burning and looting villages is standard in this book; see also §§121, 125, 172, 185, and 187.

See the note on “Sebastenians” at 19.356. Τάγμα usually means “legion” (gtri 90, 163), but that is out of the question here. Probably “cohort” is meant, as at 19.119 (see the note there on “cohort”) and War 4.645, where Josephus’s τάγματα, referring to troops in Rome, corresponds to what Tacitus, in the same context, terms “cohortes” (Hist. 3.64). Since 19.366 indicates that all the Caesarean and Sebastenians auxiliaries totaled one or two (see the note on “Sebastenians” at §365) cavalry “wings” and five cohorts, the force described here constituted most of the troops at Cumanus’s disposal; perhaps most of the others were still in Jerusalem (§106). Note, however, that the parallel at War 2.236 mentions no infantry at all, only the cavalry wing. For another case of a Roman governor fielding a local militia under Claudius, see Tacitus, Ann. 12.49, cited (along with Tacitus, Hist. 2.12 and other passages), by Marquardt 1876: 520–521. For this standard outcome of such clashes, see the note on “alive” at §98. According to War 2.236, however, the opposite was true. Here too, the present version shows Cumanus’s restraint; see the note on “festival” at §109.

For the combination of sackcloth and ashes, cf. Isaiah 58:5; Esther 4:1, 3; Judith 4:10–15; 1 Macc 3:47; 2 Macc 10:25, Matthew 11:21//Luke 10:13, etc. Sometimes it is not clear whether σποδός refers to ashes (Heb. ’efer) or dust (Heb. ‘afar); see Muraoka 2009: 631, s.v. Cf. the note on “law” at 19.349. For similar appeals, meant to show readers that the Jewish leadership is responsible and recognizes Roman power, see the end of Agrippa ii’s long speech (War 2.400), the appeal by other dignitaries at War 2.416, and those by Josephus himself at War 5.361–419, 6.96–112, and Life 18.

In light of the problem addressed in the next note, it is tempting to translate “but.” But the parallelism of the two clauses (coordinated with μέν … δέ), both elaborating on the general statement that the peace-seeking speakers were persuasive, seems to exclude that. How could the land become full of brigands if, after the prominent Jerusalemites had spoken so persuasively, they had all returned to their strongholds? It seems that Josephus is torn between two tendencies: the need, in the present story, to emphasize that the Jews, as represented by their legitimate leaders, were not responsible for further violence, and the more general need, in this book, to show a deterioration of the situation until it finally exploded into a rebellion; see the note on “downhill” at §160. Here, therefore, although admitting that the brigands returned to where they previously were, he portrays that restoration of the status quo ante as if it were a new filling of the country with brigands. For a similar case, cf. §215.

On Quadratus, governor of Syria from sometime in the middle of the first century until 60, see hjp 1.264. and Dąbrowa 1998: 49–53. It is often assumed that he began his term of service only in 50 or even 51. Schürer lists Quadratus’s predecessor, Longinus, as having been in office until “c. 50” and infers from Tacitus’s reference (Ann. 12.45) to Quadratus’s functioning as governor of Syria in 51, only that “he may well have gone there in 50,” and Dąbrowa (1998: 47) goes even further and suggests Longinus remained in office until 51. However, since the sparse numismatic evidence includes Longinus’s latest coin as governor of Syria from 47/48 (Dąbrowa 1998: 46), the basis for a later terminus post quem is only the fact that Tacitus, in the course of a story he offers at Ann. 12.11–12 in his account of 49 (ibid. 12.5–24), refers to Longinus as the governor of Syria and his involvement in Parthian affairs; Schürer leaves that as is, while Dąbrowa suggests that Claudius probably asked Longinus to remain involved even after 49. However, Tacitus’s account of this episode, in the course of his account of 49, opens at 12.10 with the appeal of a Parthian delegation that actually arrived already in 47 (Ann. 11.10), and it goes on until the report at 12.14 of the death of Gotarzes, which came in 51 or 52. That is, Tacitus has located, in his account of 49, a long story about Parthian affairs, and Longinus’s role in it comes early on in the story, before the details and campaigns reported in 12.10–14; for details, see Schwartz 1992: 239–240. Accordingly, if Josephus’s account, here and at War 2.223–244, indicates that Cumanus’s term of office lasted no more than a year, 48/49 (see Appendix 1, §8), Quadratus’s involvement would not contradict that. Here Josephus repeats the formulation at §121, but astute readers will realize that that is only the end of the account that in fact began earlier, at §118, with Samaritan criminality: the wicked Samaritans fail to report both that they had begun the violence and that they had bribed Cumanus to punish the Jews. As at §3, readers are supposed to realize just how villainous the Samaritans are: after doing all those terrible things they dare to present themselves to the Romans, via a very selective and skewed version of the story, as the injured party—and also present themselves cynically, in the next few lines, as those who nonetheless are not so much upset about their own suffering as about the violation of Roman law and order; for a similar move by an earlier villain, cf. 2 Macc 14:8. For Josephus’s portrayal of another manipulative Samaritan statement to the Romans, see the note on “Tirathana” at 18.88. For Josephus’s fundamental antipathy toward Samaritans, see the note on “Samaritan men” at 18.30.

See the note on “exact justice” at §116.

This refers to the appeal reported at §119.

On the sense of ἀκριβέστερον, see the note on “detail” at 18.129.

The Samaritans and the Jews. This verb, διακούω, appears four times in this story (§§129, 130, 135, 136), also at §195 and at Life 229, but only twice elsewhere in Antiquities, both in Book 14. It may be added to Thackeray’s list of words common to Ant. 20 and Life (ThLJ ix).

On ancient Lydda (modern Lod, northwest of Jerusalem on the way to Tel-Aviv), see J. J. Schwartz 1991 and Oppenheimer 2005: 47–65. This name occasioned an intricate chain of conjectures in Schalit 1968: 39–40, 129. Cf. Ilan 2002: 272, s.v. Διόδοτος. Since the foregoing account of the strife between Judeans and Samaritans does not include this detail, perhaps readers are supposed to think it is a Samaritan calumny meant to enlist Roman support. That would be a welcome result for Josephus, similar to the one he seeks at §126; see the note on “pillaging them” at §125. But Josephus says simply, earlier in this sentence, not merely that a Samaritan said or accused or alleged that Doetos had incited rebellion, but that Quadratus, in a thorough hearing, learned that from the Samaritan, which sounds like Josephus confirms it was true and means that Quadratus was convinced by it. Correspondingly, §131 reports that Quadratus acted decisively on the basis of the information—but nothing here indicates that Josephus condemns Quadratus. Moreover, as the prominent Jerusalemites realized (§130), it was not possible, in Roman Judea, to fight with the Samaritans without fighting the Romans.

Literally, τοὺς περὶ Ἀνανίαν refers to those around Αnanias, so might exclude the high priest himself. However, that is a very pedantic reading, and often it may be shown that the whole group is meant; see the notes on “Anileus’s men” at 18.354 and on “around Chaerea” at 19.70. Moreover, in this case the parallel at War 2.243 explicitly includes Ananias among those sent to Rome. Those who insist, here, on leaving him in Judea do so in order to allow Ananias to continue serving as high priest until the appointment of Ishmael b. Phiabi which, they think, occurred much later, at the end of Felix’s term of office (where notice of it is given: §§179–181). That, however, seems to reflect a misunderstanding of the way Josephus organizes his material; see the Introduction, at n. 16. This temple official, mentioned also in War 2.409 and 6.294, Acts 4:1; 5:24, 26, is probably the same as the segan hakohanim mentioned in rabbinic literature, e.g., m. Sotah 7:7 and m. Yoma 3:9. See hjp 2.277–279; Safrai 1976: 875–876. The parallel at War 2.243 says Ananus was the son of Ananias the high priest. Such nepotism was common; note especially War 2.409, which reports that Ananus’s brother was in the same position in 66 ce, and the bitter ditty preserved in b. Pesaḥim 57a//t. Menaḥot 13:21 (ed. Zuckermandel, 533). On the use of “sending up,” (ἀναπέμπω, as also at §§134, 161), namely to Rome (where else is there to be sent?!), as expressing a Roman point of view, see the note on “sent up” at 18.51. For this phrasing (λόγον ὑφέξοντας) see also 14.180; 17.144; Life 13, 408.

On this use of χιλίαρχος, see gtri 163. We are not told of what he was accused, which, judging from his fate (§136), must have been serious. For the use of ἐπί with reference to a person in the genitive as referring to the one who shall judge (as also, for example, at Life 258, and Acts 25:9), see Schalit 1967/68. According to Mommsen (1899: 241), referring to this passage and also to Life 3, it was relatively rare for local governors to send such cases to the emperor, if they did not involve Roman citizens (such as Paul: Acts 22:27–28; 25:11–12). In general, on Rome’s handling of complaints against provincial governors, see Brunt 1961; on appeals to Caesar, see Jones 1968: 51–65.

The same phrase as §117. Same type of idyllic scene: 18.90, 122.

Lit., “they received a day from the emperor” (λαμβάνουσι παρὰ τοῦ αὐτοκράτορος ἡμέραν). Cf. Claudius’s statement to Alexandrian delegates: μερίσω σοι ταύτην τὴν ἡμέραν (cpj 156a, col. 2, lines 12–13). This phrasing seems to preserve the memory of a dispute between Cumanus and the Samaritans, as at §125.

On the real or perceived influence of freedmen on Roman emperors, which peaked in the days of Claudius and Nero, and accordingly “the reactions to their wealth and power were virulent, and the historical tradition surrounding these individuals is exceptionally hostile,” see Mouritsen 2011: 95–96. For such hostility, see also below, §183. On the freedmen’s wealth, which often fanned jealous hostility, see also ibid. 109–118. On the traditional claim that Claudius was enslaved by his freedmen (and his wives), see the note on “great influence with him” at 19.362. On the way this functions well for a diasporic historian, here as at §182, see the note on “monarchy” at 18.377. Agrippa ii, born ca. 27 (19.354). He was raised in Rome (19.360; 20.12), as was common for princes of vassal kingdoms; see the note on “Claudius Caesar” at 19.360. On Agrippina, who was Gaius Caligula’s sister and Nero’s mother, see Barrett 1996. Josephus likes to report intervention by emperor’s wives on the Jews’ behalf; so too §195 and Life 16. Agrippina the Younger was the granddaughter of Antonia Minor, who had been a patron of Agrippa i (see above, 18.143, 164, 202–203); for the assumption that Agrippina supported Agrippa ii’s case in this instance because of her family’s long association with his, see Barrett 1996: 126.

Lit. “before” (ἐπί); apparently what is meant is “before [the walls that encircle the] entire city.” For parallels for such public and demonstrative punishment, cf. War 2.231 and 6.359; Curtius Rufus 4.6 29; 2 Macc 4:38; Suetonius, Cal. 35.2. More generally, on “punishment parades” and punishment as a spectacle in late antiquity, see Lavan 2020: 1.184–191 and Carucci 2019. Mason (2008: 199, n. 1545) notes that such a terrible punishment for Celer may have been a move on Claudius’s part to assuage the Jews’s anger, similar to what was done to the soldier who had ripped up the Torah scroll; see above, §117. I have attached this paragraph to the preceding (as already Buchon 1836: 532), despite the traditional paragraphing, because the appointment of a new governor finishes up the disposition of Judea that Claudius began by exiling the incumbent governor; for a very similar passage, see 18.237. Moreover, it seems (as explained in the note on “Judea” at the end of the present sentence) that several years went by between the appointment of Felix and Claudius’s twelfth year, which is mentioned in the next paragraph (§138). On the way indenting and translation here have been affected by that chronological issue, see the Introduction, beginning at n. 91. For another deviation from the traditional paragraphing, see below at §151.

Following the reading of the manuscripts here; see the Introduction, at n. 92. On Pallas, a famous influential freedman, see the note on “slaves” at 18.182. Josephus does not say how long Cumanus remained in office. Usually his tenure is thought to have extended from 48 ce (Claudius’s eighth year, mentioned alongside the appointment of Cumanus at §§103–104) to 52 ce (Claudius’s twelfth year, mentioned in the next paragraph [§138]); so, for example, hjp 1.458–459 and Smallwood 1981: 263–268; Mason 2008: 184, n. 1396. However, there is reason to think Cumanus was replaced after only a year, already in 48/49. This is suggested both by the very stormy account of his tenure in War 2.223–246, of which the natural reading is that it lasted only a year, and by other considerations, including the need to have a high priest named Ishmael (b. Phiabi), who was appointed in the days of Felix (20.179), serving, as is reported at Ant. 3.320, during the famine of the late forties (see the note on “famine” at §51). See Appendix 1, §8.

I.e., late in 52 or early in 53. On Agrippa ii’s territories, see the note on “younger Agrippa” at §104. According to 17.319 and 18.106, Philip’s domain had indeed included Trachonitis, Gaulanitis, and Batanea. The fact that Trachonitis and Batanea are nevertheless listed separately here might suggest that some changes had been made over the years. On which see 18.237 and 19.275, also hjp 1.567–569.

Although this sounds as if there is some causal relationship between the gift and the matchmaking, none is evident, and it seems, rather, that Josephus is just trying, artificially, to create some flow between disparate data that he has assembled here. For a similar case, see 19.342. Josephus takes it for granted that after the death of the father his son inherits the responsibility for marrying off remaining daughters. So too Philo, Spec. leg. 3.67; cf. Ant. 4.246 and Schremer 2003: 127, n. 4. Homs in northern Syria. Azizus, whose death is recorded at §158, was the son and successor of Sampsigeramus ii, king of Emesa, who was Agrippa I’s colleague (19.338) and his brother’s father-in-law (18.135); see Sullivan 1977b: 215–216. As is reported in 19.355. For the Herodians’ insistence that men who marry their daughters be circumcised (as opposed to the Herodians’ willingness to marry gentile women without any conversion process), see also, on the one hand, §145 and 16.225, and, on the other, 16.11; 18.109, 135, 139 along with Cohen 1999: 272 (“The biblical principle still applies: a gentile woman ‘converts’ by being married to a Jewish husband”); Hadas-Lebel 1993; and Wilker 2007: 49–53.

On Helcias, see the note on “Helcias” at 19.355, where this engagement is reported. On Mariamme’s marriages and children, see also §147 and Kokkinos 1998: 198–199.

Indeed: the marriage was not contracted earlier than late 52 (above §§138–139), and Azizus managed not only to lose Drusilla but also to die by sometime in Nero’s first year (§158), i.e., 54/55. On this introductory phrase as indicating the introduction of material from a new source—in this case, one hostile to Agrippa ii, as the following two stories show—see the note on “circumstances” at 18.39, also D. R. Schwartz 1981/82 and the note on “between the two” at §213.

On the Jews of ancient Cyprus, see van der Horst 2003b. For silly women who fall for the promises of wily dissimulators, see also Ant. 17.41 and 18.65–84. Jewish magicians from Cyprus are also mentioned at Acts 13:6 and, apparently, by Pliny, nh 30.11; see van der Horst 2003b: 118–119. As Bloch notes (1998: 151), in the present passage Josephus shows no embarrassment concerning the notion that a Jew might be a magician or pretend to be one, just as in general he does not seem to have been worried by accusations concerning Jewish magic. Cf. the note on “charlatans” at §160 and, in general, Bohak 2008. As Feldman notes (1965: 465, n. g), Thackeray suspected a pun here (felix = happy).

Josephus thus manages to begin his sniping at Berenice even before he turns his attention directly to her; see the note on “falsehood” at §145. The construction of the first part of this sentence, with its several clauses, is difficult, and has attracted emendations and divergent translations. Niese (1890b: 253 marks a lacuna); for some suggestions, see Feldman (1965: 466a). Josephus condemns Drusilla, first of all, for leaving one husband for another without divorce—as other Herodian women, Salome and Herodias, condemned earlier by Josephus (15.259 and 18.136), and as Drusilla’s two sisters, mentioned in the next lines (§§146–147). (On this phenomenon, which might have been more acceptable in Roman eyes than in Josephus’s, see Jackson 2005.) But the fact that nothing is said of Felix having been circumcised, in contrast to §§139, 145, makes it all the worse.

There is no such later report, and it is also difficult to imagine that Josephus thought he would continue his history as far as 79 ce, when Mt. Vesuvius erupted, destroying Pompei, for the logic of Antiquities has it stopping where it does, upon the outbreak of the war to which Josephus devoted another work. For the options, see the note on “shortly” at 19.366.

The death of Herod of Chalcis, in 48 ce, was reported at §104. This is the only instance of ἐπιχηρεύω in Josephus. For the expectation that widows remain chaste and virtuous, cf. the note on “chastity” at 18.180. Here, Josephus will hasten to tell us that Berenice was no Antonia Minor. The verb here, συνείη, appears in similarly incestuous contexts at 18.42 and 19.204. Berenice often appeared together with Agrippa ii as his “queen”; see Acts 25:13, 23; War 2.344, 402; and a Beirut inscription (Boffo 1994, no. 41 = ae 1928: no. 82). Note also 18.194 (and, for the suggestion that the “king and queen” mentioned at b. Pesaḥim 57a were Agrippa ii and Berenice: D. R. Schwartz 1981/82: 263–268 and Ilan 2022: 16–17). For the malicious rumor this could engender, especially after Berenice later achieved notoriety by her affair with Titus (on which see glajj 2.9), see also Juvenal 6.153–160 (glajj, no. 298), which refers to a gift that Agrippa once gave his “incestuous” sister (incestae … sorori). For this kind of defamation, see also 19.204. Curiosity and the human tendency to conjectures about such relationships are not limited to antiquity; cf. Ilan (2022): 72–75. See the note on “Pontus” at 19.338. On the senses of ἐλέγχω, see the note on “convict” at §266. This whole report about Berenice is a masterpiece of innuendo: a rumor of incest, a pushy move to convince someone to marry her for her own purposes, and the ridiculous notion that entering into marriage could prove she had not been incestuous (not to mention the notion that her fellow Jews would hardly have been happy with her marriage to a gentile). And all that just warms readers up for the next lines, where Josephus, having stuck in the knife (as already at §143), begins to twist it, with a snide reference to Berenice’s wealth and outright condemnation for licentiousness, which made divorce from her into liberation. What underlies Josephus’s hostility to Berenice here, as opposed to the positive picture in War (esp. 2.309–314, also 2.333, 344, 402), is unknown. As Krieger (1997: 9) notes, the fact that between the compositon of War and that of Antiquities her relationship with Titus ended (and Titus died) might help explain why Josephus felt free to express his hostility. But that does does not explain what generated it. Krieger (ibid.) suspects that her image depends on that of Agrippa ii, whom Josephus attacks (at §§189–190, 216–218) as part of his general claim, late in Antiquities, that it was criminal behavior by the Jewish aristocracy that led to the catastrophe. For the suggestion that this hostility draws on a source used by Josephus, whether primarily anti-Agrippan or primarily anti-Berenician, see, respectively, D. R. Schwartz 1981/82 and Ilan 2022: 76–85. Use of such a source could also explain the references in §§144, 147 to events beyond the scope of Antiquities. Be that as it may, it may be enough to point, here, to Josephus’s usual hostility to pushy women (see the note on “demands” at 18.42) and to Berenice’s bad reputation in Rome (see above, the note on “brother”), as another eastern princess who, as in the case of Cleopatra and Marcus Antonius, seduced and subjugated a Roman ruler.

Given that Josephus’s usage here obviously relates to life according to Jewish customs as having been a burden suffered by Polemo, the use of the same verb for his “release” from Berenice is biting. For its use with regard to deliverance from shame or oppression (as at 18.371; 19.184, 243), see ThLJ 59, s.v. ἀπαλλάσσειν.

This use of καὶ Μαριάμμη, after a sentence about Polemo, is somewhat puzzling. Apparently it means that, for Josephus, this entire section, beginning with §139, is about Agrippa ii’s sisters, and now he has something to report about Mariamme too. Moreover, by using καί to remind readers of the other two sisters, Josephus primes them to expect a nasty story about her, and thus encourages them to read the coming story as a condemnation, although it is not as clearly heinous as those about Drusilla and Berenice. See the next note. On this Archelaus, see above, §140. Here Josephus turns to similar condemnation of yet another sister of Agrippa ii: pushy and a gold-digger, she took the initiative to get rid of her first husband in order to marry a richer one. For Josephus’s explicit condemnation of such behavior, which (he claims) characterized all three daughters of Agrippa ii, see the note on “ancestral rules” at §143. See the note on “Alabarch” at 18.159. Given Josephus’s description of the family, Demetrius may have been a brother of Tiberius Julius Alexander (20.103). None of them reappears in the narrative; cf. the note on “recount later” at §144.

He died on 13 Oct. 54. Counting from the assassination of Gaius on 24 January 41, Josephus’s statement is extremely precise: ten days short of thirteen years and nine months. For the same figure, which is “exactly correct” (Mason 2008: 202, n. 1558), see War 2.248 and Cassius Dio 60.34.2. For similar data about other emperors, see the note on “days of rule” at 18.32. Note that the last we heard of Claudius concerned his penultimate, twelfth, year (§138), which is where Josephus opened his excursus on the Herodians. Now, having completed that, Josephus finishes up his account of Claudius. This is a fairly usual procedure; see the Introduction, at n. 15. See Tacitus, Ann. 12.66–67 and Suetonius, Claud. 44.2. Nasty rumors like this one are natural and can be neither proven nor disproven. For a review of the evidence, see Barrett 1996: 138–142. Josephus, in any case, was not about to pass up the opportunity to record such an accusation of a woman, even if, instead of reporting that Agrippina killed Claudius or stating (as at 19.110, 207) that “all agree” that she did, he hides behind “some” and “so it is said” (§151) and thereby avoids taking responsibility for it. Cf. the note on “others” at 19.193. Consul in 32 ce, Domitius had married Agrippina in 28 ce. He was banished by Tiberius in the last year of the latter’s reign, returned to Rome after Tiberius’s death, but died late in 40; he “occupies a special place in history as the only one of Agrippina’s husbands she was not accused of murdering” (Barrett 1996: 70).

That is, Claudius adopted her son, as is stated more clearly at §150 and by Tacitus at Ann. 12.26. In 48 ce; see Barrett 1990: 64–67. The main source is Tacitus, Ann. 11.26–38.

Claudius’s children. Actually, Aelia Paetina was Claudius’s second wife; see Suetonius, Claud. 26. On καὶ δή, see the note on “for example” at 18.257. Its use here means that Claudius not only took this son in, along with Agrippina (§149), but “indeed” also fully assimilated him into his family by betrothing him to his daughter. Instead of “Domitius.” On the adoption (in 50) and the betrothal (in 53?), see Barrett 1996: 111, 135. For the evidence concerning Nero’s old and new names, see ibid. 280, n. 61.

I have given this heavy translation of δέ here, and also abstained from indenting for the new paragraph, in order to reflect Josephus’s logic here: having opened 8.1 with the suggestion that Agrippina murdered Claudius, he went on to report that although Claudius fully adopted Agrippina’s son (see the note on “indeed” at §150), nevertheless she was worried that Nero might be passed over. Britannicus was born early in 41. “Becoming a man” (ἀνδροθεῖς) probably refers to the donning of the toga virilis, around the age of fifteen. Cf. Harrill 2002: 255–266. Probably this refers not to a putsch, but to being designated heir. The same stock motivation of pushy and wicked mothers was attributed at 18.41–42 to the wicked Thesmousa; contrast the virtuous Helena at 20.29–30. As reported at §148.

I.e., prefect of the Praetorian Guard. For such usage of ἔπαρχος, see gtri 138–140. Burrus’s presence alongside Nero, upon his accession, is reported by Tacitus too (Ann. 12.69). Burrus would later be counted, at least by rumor, among those murdered by Nero (Tacitus, Ann. 24.51; Suetonius, Nero 35.5). Cf. the note on “Beryllus” at §183.

Britannicus seems to have died in February or the early spring of 55. On the claim that Nero poisoned him, see Tacitus, Ann. 13.15–17 and esp. Cizek 1999. Agrippina. For her death, in 59, see Tacitus, Ann. 14.1–13 and Barrett 1996: 181–195. Josephus now gives up the pretense of merely relating a rumor (cf. §§148, 151). For such use of μηχανή, which characterizes what Agrippina did in a way that is apparently more devious or sinister than the plain διαπράσσω (“brought about”) did at §152, see the note on “engineered” at 18.41. For the death of Octavia (Claudius’s daughter and Nero’s wife [§150]) in 62, see Tacitus, Ann. 14.63–64, Griffin 2000: 98–99, and Murgatroyd 2008. Especially the Pisonian (Tacitus, Ann. 48–71) and Vinician (Suetonius, Nero 36–37) conspiracies. On these, and others, along with Nero’s persecution of the Stoics, see Griffin 2000: 164–179 and Rutledge 2001: 166–173. For similar passages, see the parallel at War 2.250–251, also 4.491–496; Ant. 14.1–3; 16.186–187.

For a survey of the earlier but lost sources that served such later authors as Tacitus, Suetonius, and Cassius Dio, see Griffin 2000: 235–237 and Hurley 2013: 29–31. For a very similar passage, see Apion 1.46. For the argument that here Josephus was thinking specifically of Cluvius Rufus as having flattered Nero, and Pliny as having been hostile toward him, see Gercke 1895: 254–261. According to Hurley (2013: 30), however, it is likely that already Cluvius joined in the chorus supporting “the new Flavian dynasty whose legitimacy was being defined by the illegitimacy of the deposed Nero and whose sobriety could be contrasted with the flamboyance of the reign just past.” On Nero’s image in antiquity, see Krüger 2012: 559–578 and Heerink and Meijer 2022, including Schulz 2022: 326: “The Flavian response [to Nero], the distance to Nero, as expressed in several media, is a conscious and well-calculated construction of Flavian identity. It is highly probable that Flavian historiography, which has not come down to us, portrayed Nero in a critical and negative way, too.”

For ironic concessions like this to untruthful historians, which amount to condemnations, compare 16.186–187 and Apion 1.218.

As Josephus frequently emphasizes, e.g., 8.56; 14.1–3; 16.187; War 1.16; Life 40, 364; Apion 1.6, 23–27, 47–52, etc. See also below, §260. For the understanding of truthfulness as balance and impartiality, cf. Marincola 1997: 158–174 (168–169 on Josephus, although only in War). On sine ira et studio (“without anger or favor,” Tacitus, Ann.1.1) as a professed ideal of ancient historians, along with a discussion of how it was often honored in the breach, see Heldmann 2011. Here Josephus excuses himself for failing to offer any proof for the mud he just slung. By the time he was writing, Nero’s reputation seems to have been so bad that he could probably assume readers would readily accept his attitude. Cf. the note on “condemn them” at §154. Actually, however, as at §§103–104, he first devotes two paragraphs that bring us up to date concerning ancillary matters.

Cf. above, note on “Emesa” at §139. On Sohaemus, see Sullivan 1977b: 215–218. During the Judean war he sent troops to support the Romans (War 2.500–501 and 3.68; Tacitus, Histories 5.1.2). See the note on “Armenia Minor” at 19.338.

Usually identified as Magdala, somewhat more than “thirty furlongs” (Life 157) north of Tiberias on the western coast of the Sea of Galilee, despite the fact that Pliny (nh 5.71) places it at the southern end of the Sea; see hjp 1.494–495, n. 44; Stern, glajj 1.309 and 478; Kokkinos 2010; and Mason 2016c: 395–401. The reference is apparently to the city founded by Herod Antipas; see the note on “wife” at 18.27. On “Perea,” Transjordan north of the Dead Sea, see the note at 18.240. On Felix’s term of office in Judea, see hjp 1.459–466; Smallwood 1981: 269–270; Mason 2008: 206–221; D. R. Schwartz 2017: 377–387.

As already at §124, which the present passage virtually repeats, Josephus punctuates Book 20 with such reminders that the final explosion is in sight; see also §§172, 210 and 214. The result is a sense of inevitability, a remorseless deterioration toward catastrophe. For the thesis that Josephus, with his hindsight, has misled modern scholarship into accepting that assessment, see McLaren 1998.

See the note on “son of Deinaios” at §121. See the note on “sent up” at §131. In this passage Josephus has his cake and eats it too. On the one hand, it is good that a Jewish terrorist was apprehended, because that was at least a move in the right direction—the attempt to restore order. On the other hand, however, Josephus reports that the Jewish rebel was so successful that it was only via perfidy that the Romans could apprehend him. (For similar ambivalence in Josephus’s depiction of rebels, see the note on “bizarre manners” at 18.23.) Although some readers might think that Eleazar was naïve to believe Felix’s guarantee, Josephus’s portrayal of the terrorist as a victim of perfidy nonetheless enlists readers’ sympathy for him, for, as the Roman stereotypes of graeca fides and punica fides show (see Gruen 2011: 115–140) and whatever the true facts were, the Romans prided themselves on keeping their promises. Compare, for example, War 3.532–542, where Vespasian has to be convinced, against his moral qualms, to violate a promise of free passage, and even then is said to have framed his promise ambivalently (ἀμφίβολον); similarly, at War 2.450–456, where Jews violate their oath promising free passage to Roman soldiers, it is clear that Josephus condemns the Jews for that and views the Romans as innocent victims of a terrible crime. For a list of villains portrayed by Josephus as oath-breakers, see Mason 2008: 109–110, n. 842.

I.e., the former high priest (see 18.95, 123 and 19.314). For continued use of the title by and of former high priests, see the note on “Joazar” at 18.3. Presumably Jonathan had the opportunity for such involvement during the hearings that led to the deposition of Cumanus, perhaps in the wake of prior dealings with Felix, who (according to Tacitus, Ann. 12.54) had served in Palestine already during Cumanus’s governorship; see the note on “the Jews” at §118. For a similar comment, see 19.319.

For “convincing” by bribery, cf. the note on “money” at 18.97. The parallel at War 2.254–256 calls them Sicarii, a term that Josephus first introduces, in this book, at §186. But neither passage asserts that the Sicarii first appeared at that time, and their roots seem to go back earlier. See the note at §186 on “Sicarii.”

On “coming up” to Jerusalem, see the note on “went up” at 18.90. For the assumption that a popular high priest might be surrounded by a large crowd of admirers, see also Ben Sira 50:5, Ant. 15.50–52, and m. Yoma 7:4 with b. Yoma 71b.

Lit. “their iron(s).” See the note on “weapons” at 19.56. “[T]he defilement of the temple by bloodshed committed in or near it is an important leitmotif of Jewish War (4.150–51, 201, 215; 5.15–18, 100–105; 6.95–110). For Josephus, this bloodshed plays a particular role in bringing about the divine punishment that concludes the rebellion (cf. Ant. 20.165–166)” (Klawans 2010b: 291). Note also Ant. 9.168; 11.300–301; Matthew 23:35; and Klawans 2012: 126–129. More generally, on the importance, for Josephus, of the Temple’s ritual purity (which also comes up in these books at 18.19, 29–30 and 19.332–334), see Mason 2013 and Hasselmann 2022: 144–147.

On Josephus’s use of “I believe,” cf. Daube 1976 (on Ant. 11.237). It appears to be a way of hedging, of telling readers that it is not required that they accept this datum, similar to his statements concerning miracles; cf. the note on “however they like” at 19.108. Here, as at War 2.539, Josephus argues that God punished the Jews not directly but, rather, by “turning away” from them (suspending his providential supervision, thus allowing calamities to occur) on account of their sins, what the Bible calls “hiding his face” (Deut 31:17–18; 32:20; Isaiah 54:8; 2 Macc 5:17). On this theme, see Friedman 1977; Balentine 1983; and D. R. Schwartz 2008: 262 (on 2 Macc 5:17). Here Josephus assumes the plain meaning of the Temple: as the Bible put it so frequently, it was God’s house. For a most explicit version of this, see War 6.300//Tacitus, Hist. 5.13.1 (glajj, no. 281). Elsewhere, of course, Josephus can evince more delicate formulations that give their due both to God’s transcendence, on the one hand, and to the human perception that he is present or even resident in the Temple, on the other. See esp. Ant. 8.102, 106–108, 114, 119, also the note on “him” at 18.306. For this notion, see esp. Krieger 1998. For such use of σωφρονίζω in a similar context, interpreting suffering as meant to edify and reform (as in Deut 32 and 2 Macc 6:12–17), cf. 2.305 and 5.256; 18.128; D. R. Schwartz 2003; Werse 2018. Cf. “sobered” at 19.232.

For this kind of linkage of troubles, continued at §169 and then again at §172b, cf. the note on “befell them” at §113. Josephus likes this collocation (γόητες καὶ ἀπατεῶνες); cf. Apion 2.145, 161, where he rebuffs the charge that Moses was one. Similar formulations are found at §188 (τοῦς ἀπατηθέντας … ὑπὸ … γόητος) and Life 40 (where he claims Justus of Tiberias successfully overcame his opponents γοητείᾳ καῖ ἀπάτῃ). Cf. the note on “charlatan” at §97.

These desert prophets are reminiscent of Theudas (above, §§97–99) and those mentioned at §188. On such figures, and why the wilderness attracted them (no tax-collectors? inspiring quiet and purity?), see Longenecker 1998 and D. R. Schwartz 2000. For Josephus on providence, see the note on “of man” at 19.61. Readers will note, however, that, unlike the author, whose identification of the workings of divine providence are of course supposed to be accepted as true (such as recently at §§18, 49, 91; cf. the note on “of man” at 19.61), villains who make claims about divine providence can turn out to be wrong, with fateful consequences for those dupes who believe them. As with Theudas (§§97–98), Josephus prefers not to say why the governor, who certainly did not believe the promised miracles would occur, bothered to intervene; see the note on “to Jerusalem” at §98. In the present case, we may point to Josephus’s fuller account in War (2.259–260), where he explicitly says that the prophets fostered “revolutionary” changes by promising signs of “liberty,” and Felix quite properly saw in such agitation an impetus to “rebellion” (νεωτερισμοὺς … ἐλευθερίας … ἀποστάσεως). That is, the promised miracles were meant to demonstrate divine support for a movement that aimed to put an end to Roman rule in Judea, and it was quite reasonable for a Roman governor to fear that the aroused multitude might pursue rebellion even if the miracles did not happen. It seems that in War Josephus told things the way they were, but in Antiquities, written more than a decade later, he tried to tell stories, even about pre-70 Judea, according to the separation of religion and state that Jewish life in the Diaspora required—so religious figures, such as prophets, should not be involved in anti-Roman agitation. If that leaves some of Josephus’s stories somewhat opaque and incoherent, he must have thought it was worth it. See the notes on “images” at 18.55 and on “to us” at 18.264, also D. R. Schwartz 2013: 156–160.

On Josephus’s aristocratic use of πλῆθος for this pathetically gullible multitude, cf. the note on “multitude” at 18.26. That is, about a kilometer away from Jerusalem. This mountain is actually a long ridge, so the fact that elsewhere (War 5.70) Josephus estimates the distance at six furlongs is not surprising. See Mason 2008: 213, n. 1648.

On such usage, cf. the note on “Jerusalemites” at §11.

Here too, only the parallel in War explains why the Roman governor got involved: the prophet did not merely intend to order the walls of Jerusalem to fall. Rather, he intended to attack the city with his men, overcome the Roman garrison, and set himself up as ruler instead of the Romans. And that corresponds to the report in Acts 21:38, apparently in reference to this same Egyptian prophet, that his followers were Sicarii. None of that appears here. Rather, as with the preceding story, Josephus has leaned over backwards, even at the price of maiming a coherent story, in order to avoid revealing such pragmatic political involvement by Jewish religious figures.

Note well, here Josephus ascribes this program to “the brigands,” last mentioned in §167, not to the prophets mentioned in the preceding two stories. As explained above, here Josephus keeps the latter at a distance from affairs of state; see the notes on “punished” at §168 and “arms” at §171. In the parallel at War 2.264, in contrast, Josephus, less concerned to separate religion from state, says the charlatans and the brigands joined forces. Note that Josephus says the rebels wanted Jews not just to disobey Rome, but, rather, to obey them. This contributes to vilifying them.

As Mason (2008: 217, n. 1681) notes, in the parallel account in War 2 Josephus introduces the Judeans’ adversaries in Caesarea as “Syrians” (§266) but usually calls them “Greeks” (§§265, 267–268, 284–285), while the account in Antiquities uses only “Syrians” (§§173–175, 183–184). This, Mason suggests, should be correlated with the fact that in War the Syrians’ argument focuses on the (Hellenistic) statues and shrines that Herod established in the city, in contrast to Antiquities, where that argument is absent and the debate pertains only to the question of who first resided in the city. On “Greeks and Syrians in Josephus” see also Rajak 2001: 140–141; she suggests that, in general (but without referring to the present passage), Josephus views the former as urban and the latter as rural. Andrade (2010: 343), similarly, argues that ethnic Syrians could refer to themselves (as Josephus here) as “Syrians” but preferred “Greeks” in discussions of the identity of the polis. Taking Rajak and Andrade together, one may wonder if Josephus, here, does not deliberately stick to “Syrians” (rather than “Greeks”) in order to engender doubt about their claim on the polis. On this episode, which is continued at §§182–184, see esp. Levine 1974, Kasher 1977/78, D. R. Schwartz 1992/93, and Andrade 2010. On the parallel but somewhat divergent account in War 2.266–270, see Mason 2008: 215–221. This passage, which clarifies that the issue was who was to rule in Caesarea, undercuts Josephus’s attempt, in the preceding sentence, to upgrade the issue as if it were about equality of civil rights (isopoliteia). Perhaps the choice to formulate the issue as one about equal rights reflects the needs of the Judean delegates when the matter came to be adjudicated in Rome. The same argument is ascribed the Jews at War 2.266. For Herod’s foundation of Caesarea, see 15.331–341. However, it is difficult to imagine that the type of Jews who were willing to slug it out with gentiles in the streets of Caesarea looked back with any enthusiasm or sincerity at Herod as having been a Jew. More likely they viewed him as “a half-Jew” (Ant. 14.403; cf. m. Sotah 7:8; cf. the note on “by birth” at 19.332) and, in any case, condemned him for having kowtowed to Rome. But when disputes came before Roman officials the Jews (as the Samaritans of §126) had to find arguments that might work in such contexts. Josephus and his readers must have realized this, and so there is something ironically amusing about the present passage.

This reference is χώρα is somewhat mystifying (and is absent in the parallel at War 2.269, which refers to ἔπαρχοι with no further identification). Although at times Josephus uses χώρα in its Hellenistic sense as the “territory” belonging to a certain city (as at 18.311), usually he uses it with regard to an entire “country”; see, for example, 18.50, 121; 20.23–24, 118. 160, 204. That fits, to some extent, the use of ἔπαρχος; see the next note. Josephus usually uses ἔπαρχος in the singular, of a province’s praefectus (see the note on “prefect” at 18.33), so the use of the plural here is surprising. Given the fact that §177 takes Felix’s presence for granted, perhaps Josephus means “the authorities” in general (so ccfj 2.138) or “the prefect and those of his officers who were responsible for this region,” the latter being the Roman officers who commanded auxiliary troops, whose duties included maintaining law and order in the region. Correspondingly, Mason (2008: 220–221, n. 1705, on the parallel at War 2.269, also Mason 2016c: 274) suggests that Josephus is using the term of prefects of (auxiliary) cohorts; for such usage see, exceptionally, War 3.122 and 5.48.

Here Josephus condemns these Jews who, depending on their wealth, evinced scorn for their neighbors; he implies they got what they deserved. See the note on “the laws” at 18.59.

Such negative usage of μέγα φρονέω (“thinking too big” and therefore tending to misbehave) is especially characteristic of Life (17, 43, 52). For its positive sense, see the note on “high spirit” at 18.255. On them, see the note on “Sebastenians” at 19.356. Given the fact that Josephus views the Caesarean dispute as generating the war (§184), it is apparently these troops’ involvement here that Josephus was thinking of in the very last lines of Ant. 19, where he says they were “the source of the greatest troubles for the Judeans, sowing the seeds of the war under Florus.”

This, or perhaps “generous,” “kind,” is the usual translation of ἐπιεικής, and I have adopted it here as also in the similar passage at §201. ccfj 2.157, s.v. assigns it the meaning “eminent, distinguished” here, but that seems to be covered by the next words, προὔχοντες κατὰ τὴν ἀξίωσιν. For the continuation of this story, see below, §182.

On this Ishmael b. Phiabi (as the name is vocalized in rabbinic literature, such as m. Sotah 9:15 and b. Pes. 57a; see Schalit 1968: 121 and Ilan 2002: 403), see VanderKam 2004: 463–475. He is not to be confused with his father or grandfather (see Appendix 2, n. 13), mentioned at 18.34. The present one might be identical with the Ishmael whose sons are referred to at War 6.114 as sons of a high priest; there we read that he was beheaded in Cyrene, perhaps in the context of post-rebellion disorder there (War 7.437–450; Life 424–425). Be that as it may, the dating of the present Ishmael’s tenure as high priest is unclear. Josephus reports it here just before the end of Felix’s governorship, but (1) it is not clear when that was (see the note on “successor” at §182) and (2) anyway it seems that Josephus bunches notices of this type between tenures of procurators (see the opening note at §103), so even if it occurred in the middle or beginning of Felix’s tenure it would still be listed here. If indeed Cumanus lasted only one year in office (see Appendix 1, §8), and was replaced in 49/50 ce, this Ishmael could be identical with “Ishmael the high priest” in the days of Claudius mentioned in Ant. 3.320. Otherwise it is quite impossible to identify the latter. Moreover, as a secondary advantage, if we conclude that Ishmael was appointed around 49/50 and lasted in office until ca. 60 (see the note on “as hostages” at §195), our conclusion would tally with the talmudic report that he served as high priest for ten years (b. Yoma 9a). That report is wrong if, as the consensus has it, he was appointed only ca. 59; moreover, that consensus has Ishmael’s predecessor, Ananias b. Nedebeus, serving more than a decade, but he is not mentioned in that talmudic list of long-serving high priests. It is not clear that much weight should be assigned to the talmudic list, but all things being equal, a reconstruction based on Josephus that conforms to the list’s report is to be preferred to one that contradicts it regarding both Ishmael and Ananias. For a detailed discussion of the issues (including the interpretation of Acts 23:2–5, where Ananias is called “high priest” but Paul is said not to have realized that he is the high priest), see D. R. Schwartz 1992: 218–242 (and Goodman 1987: 142, n. 5). For a detailed response that defends the conventional chronology, see VanderKam 2004: 455–475; for a rejoinder, see D. R. Schwartz 2024a.

There is some uncertainty about the text here, but the basic meaning, which pits the high priests, as villains, against the others, appears to be clear. Namely, of the high priests, as is clarified by the opening of §180 and exemplified at §213. Ambrosianus adds “and collected unto himself,” which adds nothing to the statement that each man formed a group and was its leader; see the note on “brought to him” at §5. For this pejorative translation of στῖφος in connection with brigands, cf. 8.204, War 3.450, Life 21 and Mason 2001: 32, n. 144 (“swarm”). For the same pair, see §213. For this theme, that the good citizens of Jerusalem were cowed into silence by the troublemakers, see also War 2.276 and esp. Ananus b. Ananus’s speech at War 4.163–192 and Life 20–23, also the note on “it wished” at 19.180. The same theme, basically, is also at the bottom of the string of three rabbinic stories about the destruction of Jerusalem in b. Gittin 55b–56a, where the first denounces rabbis who were afraid to open their mouths to protest improper behavior, the second denounces one who was afraid to make an extraordinary decision when the alternative would be to do nothing and let a calamity occur, and the third shows that even the rebels’ commander was afraid to tell his men that the time had come to surrender and that his guards at the gates of Jerusalem failed to do their duty because of their fears of what people might say about them. See D. R. Schwartz 1997/98. This theme is an elegant solution to a dilemma: how to maintain the notion that the catastrophe came about on account of the Jews’ sins but avoid claiming that all or even most Jews were wicked? Answer: by portraying them as basically good people whose sin was of omission, and that was due to fear: they erred insofar as they did not have the courage to speak out against the lawless and rebellious minority.

For high priests‘ slaves who, in a similar context, are said to beat people up with their staves, see the angry ditty in b. Pesaḥim 57a. On the loose use of δεκάτη (here and at §§206–207) to include not only tithes but also other offerings, including “heave-offerings” (terumot), in the context of the broader debate as to whether tithes were meant for Levites or (as here) for priests, see J. M. Baumgarten 2022: 205–212 (pp. 209–210 on Josephus’s usage here). On tithes in this period, see Oppenheimer 1977: 23–51. For reports of similar violence by high priests, see the stories in b. Pesaḥim 57a and y. Sotah 9.24a//Maaser Sheni 5.56d. For the topos of poor priests going to threshing-floors in order to collect their tithes, cf. Midrash Proverbs (ed. Buber) 59, where Prov 29:4 is taken to mean that one should prefer a judge who, like a king, is rich and therefore independent, and not one who is poor, like a priest who, for his livelihood, makes the rounds from one threshing-floor to another. People apparently liked to tell stories like this, especially in reflection about the causes of the Destruction. A very similar story appears at §206, and a comparable tannaitic story appears in b. Pesaḥim 57a; on it, see Y. Fisch in Ilan and Noam 2017: 1.526–543. That tannaitic story does not mention Ishmael b. Phiabi, but it is followed (ibid.) by two other tannaitic traditions that do, and both—the first explicitly and the second ironically (see D. R. Schwartz 1981/82: 262–268)—condemn him, alongside other high priests of the first century, reflecting rabbinic thoughts about who was to blame for the Destruction. As the solution discussed in n. 381, so too this one: by focusing blame on a type of Jew who no longer exists (high priests), Josephus and the rabbis could maintain the notion that sin brings on suffering without blaming themselves and their own predecessors. For similar comments about how a small number of villains can bring disaster on all, cf. §112 and 18.84.

There is, especially because of the reference in Acts 24:27 to Festus’s arrival in Judea in the context of the trials of Paul, considerable controversy as to the date of Festus’s appointment; see Saumagne 1966, Stern 1974b: 74–76, and Appendix 1, §9–10. On “going up” to Rome, see the note on “sent up” at §131. This account is quite different from that provided by War 2.270, 284, for in that case delegates from both sides were sent by Felix and the decision came only after several years, while here we read of a delegation that went to Rome after the end of his term and received a swift response. As is argued by Schürer (hjp 1.467, n. 45) and Mason (2008: 221–222, n. 1721), probably the account in War is to be set aside (or read very loosely, with 2.284 opening with a flashback), both because, in general, such a delay is unlikely and because, specifically, of the consideration cited immediately below, in the note on “by Nero.” For complaints about governors after the conclusion of their terms of office, taken for granted at Flacc. 105 and Leg. 199, see Brunt 1961. Josephus tells us, in War and Antiquities, next to nothing about unjust acts by Felix. While we can well imagine Jews who had their complaints about him, for example Jews in Caesarea who thought his repression of violence there (§177) was too heavy-handed, Josephus does not present it that way, but here he nevertheless signs on, as an author, to the condemnation. It seems, that is, that Josephus is torn between a narrative that portrayed Felix simply as wicked, as was to be expected from the brother of the wicked Pallas (such as that in Tacitus, Ann. 12.53–54 [“he thought he could do any evil acts with impunity”] and Hist. 5.9 [“every kind of barbarity and lust”]; cf. the next note), on the one hand, and his own growing desire, in Antiquities, to point to the Jews’ sinfulness as explaining their suffering, on the other. Similar tension may be observed in Josephus’s account of Albinus as well; see the note on “brigands” at §215. On Pallas and his influence, see the note on “slaves” at 18.182. Josephus likes to complain about the great influence of Greek freedmen; see the note on “friends” at §135. Pallas died in 62 ce (Tacitus, Ann. 14.65), and his death is said to have come at Nero’s hands—all the more reason to reject the plain meaning of War 2.284, namely, that Nero’s decision about Jewish rights in Caesarea, which here we read was urged by Pallas, came only in 66. E. Schwartz (1907: 285) doubts the truth of Josephus’s statement here, because Pallas fell from grace shortly after Nero’s rise to power (Tacitus, Ann. 13.14). However, Tacitus reports only that Pallas was removed from office, but emphasizes that he was not treated as a criminal, and he also retained great wealth, so whether or not he was still “highly honored” by Nero, it could well be that his influence helped save his brother. Cf. Oost 1958: 133–138.

Hudson (cited by Niese ad loc. [1890a: 307]) emended this to Burrus, thus equating him with the praetorian “prefect” mentioned at §152. But although Mommsen (1885: 529, n. 1) considers the identity of the two certain (sicher), and others too subscribe to it, there seems to be little to recommend it: there seems to be no manuscript evidence for the emendation and Josephus identifies the two in very different ways. For Nero’s having a paedagogus, see also Suetonius, Nero 22.1. On the position, see Bradley 1985. On Beryllus’s position as ab epistulis graecis, and his role in the present story, see Millar 1967: 15–16. For “convincing with money” of bribery, see the note on “money” at 18.97. See the note on “rule” at §173.

Griffin (2000: 55) states that Beryllus was here looking after “his Syrian compatriots,” but offers no evidence regarding his roots. For the possibility that a Jewish critique of him has survived as a grafitto in Poppaea’s villa in Torre Annunziata (near Pompei), see Ciardiello 2012. On the definite article here (contrast the expected anarthrous appearance of στάσις with the same verb, ἐξάπτω, at §§109, 180), as again at § 224, cf. the notes on “downhill” at §160, on “brigands” at 18.7, and on “the” at §16. For Josephus’s thoughts on the catalysts of the war, see the survey in Bilde 1979. The contribution of the Caesarean conflict is similarly emphasized in War 2.284. That passage, however, raises a chronological difficulty; see the note on “to Rome” at §182. For more general thoughts about who was responsible for the catastrophe, see the notes on “with them” at §180 and on “starved to death” at §181, also Klawans 2010b and Price 2007.

On Festus’s term of office in Judea, see hjp 1.459–466 and Smallwood 1981: 269–270. On its termini, apparently 60–62, see Appendix 1. Festus played a role in Paul’s trial, according to Acts 25–26, but is otherwise unknown, apart from the brief parallel in War 2.271. As is usual in this book (§§121, 125, 172, 187).

On the Sicarii, see esp. Stern 1973: 135–140; Hengel 1989: 76–145 and—on their commonalities with the Zealots—380–404; Mason 2008: 207–208, n. 1604; Brighton 2009; Rappaport 2011; and (on the way Josephus “vituperatively” used the term to arouse condemnation among Roman readers) Vandenberghe 2016. Cf. the note on “brigands” at §163. Given the fact that Eleazar b. Yair, the commander of the rebels at Masada in the early 70s, is specifically said, at War 7.253, to have been both a Sicarius and a “descendant” (grandson?) of Judas the Galilean (who led the rebellion against Rome at the time of the census of 6 ce [18.4–9, 23; War 2.118; Acts 5:37], and whose sons were executed as rebels in the forties [§102]), it is usually assumed that the movement goes back at least to the early first century, and is to be identified with what Josephus terms a “fourth philosophy” with regard to Judas (18.23; War 2.118). For that identification, see also the note on “manners” at 18.23. Some scholars tend to play down the characterization of the Sicarii as anti-Roman rebels, emphasizing that they largely sat out the war at Masada and are known mostly for their attacks on other Jews and participation in what may be viewed as regional conflicts with the non-Jewish population of Palestine; see esp. Mason 2016: 255, who roundly states that, as opposed to other groups of rebels, “Josephus gives the sicarii no role in the war against Rome.” However, such distinctions are difficult to make and, whatever explains the Sicarii’s preference for Masada over Jerusalem during most of the war (for some speculation, see Rappaport 2011: 336), it is difficult to argue that Josephus or the Romans made such distinctions. Josephus lists the Sicarii alongside the other groups in his catalogue at War 7.262–274; the Sicarii’s platform rested on a rejection of Roman authority (18.4//War 2.118, also 7.323, 410, 418–419), their attacks on other Jews are explained as punishment of them for submitting to Rome (§172//War 2.264–265; 7.254–255), many other Jews did join the Sicarii “in the war against the Romans” (War 7.257), at §102 Josephus takes it for granted that Judas of Galilee called for rebellion against Rome and that a Roman governor had good reason to kill Judas’s sons, and regional conflict between Jews and non-Jews necessarily entailed rejection of Roman law and order in Judea; see §§2–5 and the note on “Romans” at §130. As for other sources, note a Roman officer’s assumption, according to Acts 21:38, that Sicarii, even those who “go out into the desert,” are involved in stasis, and the end of the next note; the fact that the rabbis’ memories of the war against Rome included Sicarii in Jerusalem does not disprove Josephus’s account, but it too indicates that the Sicarii were seen to be a group of rebels against Rome. The term is probably of Roman origin, one that denounces them and categorizes them as the type of criminals addressed by the Lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis of 81 bce; see Vandenberghe 2016 and Mason 2016c: 256–257. But Josephus treats them as a well-defined group; see esp. the catalogue at War 7.262–274. For references to them in rabbinic literature, of rebels in Jerusalem, see Hengel 1989: 50–53. Cf. the preceding note. Feldman (1965: 489, n. d), who renders ἀκινάκης “scimitar,” refers to Herodotus (3.118), Xenophon (Anabasis 1.2.27), and Horace (Odes 1.27.5–6: Medus acinaces). For Josephus’s interest in such weapons, cf. 18.45. This is the only occurrence of ἐπικαμπής in Josephus. On sicae, which were often used by criminals and also by gladiators, see Hug 1923 and Rustoiu 2007 (with numerous illustrations). Two or three have been found in Judea; see Streckert and Seevers 2023: 306–307.

See the note on “twenty thousand” at §112. Here Josephus emphasizes the religious purpose of the pilgrimage, which makes the murders all the more heinous. At §165.

On σωτηρία, which elsewhere often means “security” or “safety” (e.g. §§22, 48) but when prophesied refers to “salvation” by God, see Spicq 1994: 3.344–357. But that had political meaning in first-century Judea; note especially the rebels’ coins from the rebellion of 66 that proclaim ge’ullat Zion (“the redemption of Zion”). As Hengel (1989: 117–118) points out, the same term (with “Israel”) also appeared alongside of the unambiguously political “for the freedom (ḥerut) of Israel” (or: “of Jerusalem”) on coins of the Bar-Kokhba rebellion. That is, yet another of the type mentioned at §§97, 167.

Mason (2008: 264, n. 2162) suggests that an additional story is meant, which offered the enhanced view assumed by the following account. On the Hasmoneans’ palace, mentioned here as already at 14.7, which (according to §191) must have been on the eastern edge of the Upper City, opposite the Temple Mount, see Netzer 2018: 123, 126–127. On what is meant by this—a “polished” terrace on the slope leading up to the Upper City?—see Mason’s detailed discussion at War 2.344 (2008: 263–264, n. 2159).

That is, the members of the Hasmonean dynasty, which ruled Judea, first independently and later under Roman tutelage, from the mid-second century until the days of Herod; its story fills much of Ant. 12–14. The name does not appear in the Books of Maccabees or elsewhere in sources of the Second Temple period, but is not uncommon in rabbinic literature; see Noam 2018. For suggestions concerning its origin, see First 2015: 76–93. The phrasing here (“sons of”) is a literal rendition of the Hebrew benei Ḥashmonai, as, for example, at m. Middot 1:6. Elsewhere too (11.111; 12.265; 14.490–491; 15.403; 16.187 and the high-priestly chronicle: 20.238, 247, 249, also Life 2, 4), Antiquities consistently identifies the dynasty as that of Asamonaios, including by the otiose “descendants of the sons of Asamonaios” at §238. In the more polished War, in contrast, the graecized substantive οἱ Ἀσαμωναῖοι is used (2.344 and 5.139). Even just reclining, as if watching a show meant to entertain him, was disrespectful enough; in the Temple court itself, according to y. Yoma 3.40b//b. Yoma 25a, no one, with the possible exception of Davidic kings, was even allowed to sit. If Agrippa was not only reclining, but also eating (as κατάκειμαι often implies, as at 10.232 and 13.291), the outrage of those who protested would be all the more understandable. However, the verb need not entail eating; see for example 6.363 and 19.349.

It seems that, as already suggested by such biblical texts as Numbers 4:20, the viewing of the sacred rituals or vessels, by gentiles or others who were unauthorized, was considered to be forbidden, perhaps because it somehow demeaned them; see 14.71–72, 482–483 and D. R. Schwartz 1986; Anderson 2009: 168–183; and Fraade 2009. Viewing the Temple service from above, literally “looking down” (κατοπτεύω) upon it, would be all the worse. If Agrippa was not aware of such sensitivities, or was but chose to ignore them, it is difficult to agree with Curran (2011: 73) that this episode shows that “Agrippa’s intentions were further illustration of a committed interest in Judaism and its institutions,” to which he compares Acts 25:22ff. Apparently the present reference is to the hall mentioned at War 6.150, 220. Since it faced west, a wall on top of it could indeed block the view from the Hasmonean palace further to the west.

See above, §§106–107.

For a similar issue and procedure, see §7. As at §116. So too Herodias at 18.242, but she is only a manipulative and self-centered woman. In contrast, Josephus loves to impute to the Jews and their spokesmen such seriousness about the law; see the note on “accept death” at 18.59. Given the fact that they had themselves built the wall, what was really at stake here was the question, who was in control of the Temple—the prefect? the Temple’s Herodian supervisor (§§15–16, 222)? Or the Jews (or priests) themselves? That also seems to be reflected by Nero’s two-fold response, that he both approved of what they had done and allowed the wall to remain (§195); since all they had done, according to Josephus, was build the wall, the first clause suggests that there was also an argument about whether they needed anyone’s permission to do that. Cf. esp. War 6.124–128, where Josephus has Titus emphasize the Romans’ willingness to grant the Temple something like exterritorial status.

On the institution of municipal deka protoi, which appears in the first century, see Dmitriev 2005: 197–200. For Palestine, see esp. War 2.639 and Life 69168, along with Tcherikover 1964: 68–69, n. 13 and Mason 2001: 61, n. 376. On Helcias, who belonged to a family that was close to the Herodians for generations, see the note on “Helcias the Elder” at 18.273. As for the treasurers of the Temple, see hjp 2.279–284 and, for rabbinic sources, Safrai 1976: 879–880.

There has been quite a bit of scholarly interest in Poppaea’s involvement on the Jews’ behalf and Josephus’s characterization of her as god-fearing (θεοσεβής), but apart from §252 and (in contrast) Life 16 there is very little to go on. It is not clear whether the adjective refers to her generally as pious or, rather, as sympathizing with Judaism (see the note at 18.82 on “Jewish practices”). Moreover, given her generally unsavory reputation in Roman sources, beginning in extant texts with Tacitus, Ann. 13.45–46 (“She was a woman possessed of all advantages but a character [praeter honestum animum] … she paraded modesty, and practiced wantonness [lascivia]” [trans. Jackson, lcl]), it is not clear whether the adjective reflects anything more than Josephan flattery or ad hoc characterization in this case. Moreover, whatever Josephus thought, it is possible that the claim that Poppaea tended to Judaism originally functioned as yet another slur. See Williams 1988; Grüll and Benke 2011; Ciardiello 2012; Edelmann-Singer 2013; Hollander 2014: 59–63; and Baughman 2014. Josephus does not date the delegates’ departure for Rome. For the argument that it was ca. 60 ce, and that Ishmael was high priest until then, see Appendix 1, §9–10.

On this Joseph b. Simon, whose surname is given in different forms by different witnesses, see Schalit 1968: 70, s.v. Καμεί and VanderKam 2004: 475–476. He was, perhaps, a member of the same family as Joseph b. Camith (18.34) and Joseph b. Camei (20.16), assuming that “Cami” (or the like) was the name of their clan, not specifically of their father; see the note on “son of Boethus” at 18.3. Nothing is known about him. True, a “Joseph b. Simon” was among the aristocratic high priests who, like Josephus, were at first entrusted with the rule of a district at the beginning of the Jewish revolt against Rome (War 2.567), and a “Joseph” was among the “high priests” who eventually surrendered to the Romans (War 6.114). But the name is common; in the Babylonian Talmud (Gittin 24b), “Joseph b. Simon” is the equivalent of our “John Smith,” a standard example of a name borne by more than one person. On this episode, see Brandon 1967b; F. S. Jones 1990; McLaren 1991: 148–155; Bauckham 1999; McLaren 2001; Lambers-Petry 2002; Mason 2003b: 236–248; Painter 2004: 130–141; Eliav 2004; Martin 2006: 29–82 (a detailed commentary on §§197–203); Frey 2024. As opposed to the Testimonium Flavianum about Jesus (18.63–64), there is relatively little debate about the authenticity of the present passage, if only because of the reserved way in which it refers to Jesus, merely as “called Christ,” at §200; see the note there on “Christ.”

Of which Josephus has not informed us. For sons who bear their father’s name, see the note on “John” at §14.

For the first four, see above: 18.34, 95, 123; 19.316. For Josephus’s natural interest in such recurrence of the office in a given family, compare 19.297, which refers, in turn, to 12.238. In recognizing this family’s important role in the high priesthood, we should also recall that Joseph Caiaphas, who served for quite a long time (see 18.35, 95), was (according to John 18:13) Ananus’s son-in-law, just as Luke 3:1–2 and Acts 4:6 put them both in “the high-priestly family.” Given the fact that Ananus (“Annas” in biblical translations) the father was significantly involved in the trial of Jesus (John 18:13, 19–24) and the apostles (Acts 4:5–6), while Ananus the son was responsible for the death of James, this family seems to exemplify the hostility of the Sadducean high priesthood toward the nascent church; on “the hatred of the house of Annas,” see Gaechter 1947. Such hostility is taken for granted at Acts 4:1–3 and esp. 5:17, also Luke 20:27–40 and Acts 23:1–3. It is not difficult to think of reasons for it, be they the Christian focus on resurrection as opposed to the Sadducean denial of it (Ant. 18.16; Luke 20:27; Acts 4:2 and 23:8) or the Christian tendency to locate sanctity outside of the Temple (and/or to use the term “temple” as a metaphor), such as at John 2:21, 1 Corinthians 6:19, 2 Corinthians 6:16, Ephesians 2:19–22. The memory, in this connection, of Jesus’s disruption of order in the Temple (Matthew 21:12–13// Mark 11:15–18) and prophecy of its destruction (Matthew 24:1–2//Mark 13:1–2) may well have contributed to Sadducean antipathy toward his followers; cf. Acts 6:13–14. See, in general, Le Moyne 1972: 401–406; B. Chilton in abd 1.257–258; and Regev 2019: 42, 192. Namely, ca. 6–15; see Ant. 18.26, 34, also VanderKam 2004: 420–424.

This is pejorative, as is shown by the reaction of the fairest and most law-observant residents of the city (§201); cf. θρασυτάτ- at §206, 213 and ἀναθαρρήσαντες at §210, also the note on “audacious” at 18.6. Josephus’s negative picture of the younger Ananus, in the present episode, sharply contradicts his narrative in War 4.318–325, where this Ananus is the paragon and mainstay of respectability and law and order, and his murder, by villainous rebels, is taken to have been the point of no return on the road to catastrophe; Mason (2016b: 22–23) takes it, indeed, to be the very turning-point of the entire work. While Rajak (2002: 131, n. 73) has taken this contradiction to show that the present passage is not authentic, it seems preferable to accept the passage as authentic and view the contradiction as indicating that, in Antiquities’ retrospective view of the events of the revolt, Josephus was adopting a narrative that tended—esp. in the cases of Felix and Albinus—to blame the high priesthood in general and, accordingly, found it more difficult, or less functional, to distinguish between good guys and villains in their ranks. Cf. the notes on “with them” at §180 and on “starved to death” at §181. For such a narrative in rabbinic literature, see b. Pesaḥim 57a. On μέτειμι, see the note on “belong” at 18.16. Actually, Josephus never says this. But at Ant. 13.294 he reported that the Pharisees tend toward lenient punishments. The present passage thus indicates that Josephus thought of the Pharisees and Sadducees as a matched pair of binary opposites: what he posited for the one he denied for the other. Cf. the note on “in contrast” at 18.16.

“Council” renders the Greek “sanhedrin” (συνέδριον); so too at §202, also §216. That has led various scholars to see take the present passage as referring to the convening of “the Sanhedrin” (as Feldman 1965 translates in all three passages), a body mentioned in the New Testament and rabbinic literature but difficult to pin down historically. However, §§200, 202, 216 do not attach a definite article to συνέδριον, and the impression (as is noted by Grabbe 2008: 12 concerning §216) is one of an ad hoc assembly, not a regular institution; indeed, the present story suggests that one could not be convened without special authorization. In the numerous references in the Gospels and Acts, in contrast, a direct article is the rule and the impression is one of an institution that convenes regularly (and when John 11:47 refers, exceptionally, to the convening of a συνέδριον without a definite article, the impression is that it is an informal consulation.) That is part of the growth of a Christian narrative that presents the Jews as collectively and institutionally, not merely occasionally, hostile to Christianity. Similarly, the later rabbis would, for their own reasons, of course take it for granted that the Sanhedrin (“from which the Torah goes forth to all of Israel”) was a regular institution (m. Sanhedrin 11:2; this Mishnah refers to “the Great Court that [sat in]the Chamber of Hewn Stone”; m. Middot 5:4, in turn, defines that court as “the Great Sanhedrin of Israel”). For surveys of the evidence and attempts to reconstruct the situation in the first century, see Safrai and Stern 1974: 379–400; McLaren 1991: 213–217; Sanders 1992: 472–490; and Grabbe 2008. Concerning ancient Jewish usage of συνέδριον (deliberative body? advisory body? court?), note also the debate among Wolfson 1945/46, Zeitlin 1945/46, and Hoenig 1946/47. The contrast between the non-committal way in which Josephus here says only that Jesus was “called ‘Christ,’” on the one hand, and “he was the Christ” and other declarations of Christian belief about Jesus in the Testimonium Flavianum (Ant. 18.63–64), on the other, is one of the reasons for the consensus that the present passage is authentic. See, for example, Winter 1973: 430–432; Whealey 2016: 353. Doubts have been expressed, nevertheless, by scholars who suspect the present text is a Christian interpolation; so Rajak (see the note on “bold” at §199) and Carrier 2012. Carrier suggests that originally the Jesus mentioned here was not identified more precisely and the person Josephus meant was not Jesus of Nazareth; rather, he suggests, Josephus referred to Jesus b. Damnaios, who is mentioned a few lines later (§203), and whose appointment as high priest, replacing Ananus, could be understood as Agrippa’s taking sides in a feud between the two families. He argues that the current text, which identifies “Jesus” precisely the way he is identified at Matthew 1:16, a text quite familiar to Christian copyists, resulted (a) from misunderstanding by such copyists, who probably did not realize how common a name “Jesus” was, and (b) from Eusebius’s quoting of Origen’s citation of Josephus in a way that does not properly distinguish between Josephus’s text and Origen’s interpretation. Whatever one thinks of the latter arguments, it must be noted that the case would be more persuasive had Jesus b. Damnaios been mentioned before this passage, so readers could think of him when reading “Jesus” simpliciter. As in the New Testament (Galatians 1:19; Acts 15:13; 21:18), so too here, Jesus’s brother is named Jacob, which is usually rendered “James” in English (via the popular Latin “Jacomus”). On him, see Painter 2004. The present passage is the only direct non-Christian evidence for him. Today it is usually assumed that a Jerusalem ossuary bearing the inscription “Jacob the son of Joseph the brother of Jesus,” is a modern forgery, but even if not: (a) the names are common and need not refer to James the Just, and (b) it might be Joseph, rather than Jacob, who is referred to as Jesus’s brother. See Goodblatt 2013. Nothing is known about the identity of these others, not even whether they were associated with James or, rather, other non-conformists or dissidents that Ananus found threatening and took the opportunity to purge. Nor can we exclude the possibility that even if there was only one victim, James, Josephus might throw in some others gratis to make Ananus look worse. This contrasts with the New Testament portrayal of James as adhering to Jewish law, a point that elicited some criticism from Paul; see Acts 21:18–24; Gal 2:12, and the apparent response to Paul (esp. Gal 3:1–14?) in James 2:8–26. It is not surprising, however, that someone to Paul’s right, in this respect, might still be well to the left of Sadducees. On stoning as a Jewish mode of execution see, inter alia, Ant. 4.264//16.365; 14.24; 17.216; Life 76; Apion 2.206; John 8:7, Acts 5:26; 14:19; 7:58–59, m. Sanhedrin 6:1; 7:1, 7, 9. For the argument, on the basis of biblical and rabbinic texts, that the choice of stoning indicates the charge was “blasphemy,” see Lambers-Petry 2002: 102–104. Bauckham 1999 argues, instead, that the charge was based on the law of Deuteronomy 13 concerning a man who leads others into idolatry, which too was punishable by stoning, according to m. Sanhedrin 7:4, 10. For other traditions about the mode of James’ death and his place of burial, see Eliav 2004.

See the note on “moderate” at §178. This is often predicated of the Pharisees, as for example at War 2.162; Life 191; Acts 26:5 (and 22:3); see A. I. Baumgarten 1982 (he derives the name “Pharisee” from a Hebrew equivalent). Indeed, if the protesters were Pharisees it would fit their specific antagonism to the Sadducees here. But Josephus has no reason to suggest that among the Jews only some sectarians were outraged by this travesty of justice. See esp. McLaren 1991: 151–152, n. 3 and idem 2001: 6–12. For such use of ἐπιστέλλω as straddling the field between writing and—given the status of the writer—ordering, compare, for example, 19.327, 341. Cf. the note on “orders” at 19.262.

For Alexandria as a usual port on the way between Rome and Judea, see also 14.376; 18.169; Flacc. 26, 28; Charlesworth 1936a: 42–43. Here the reference is specifically to a council that exerts judicial authority, especially one that undertakes to impose a death penalty; for the Roman monopoly on capital jurisdiction, see John 18:31, War 2.117, and y. Sanhedrin 1.18a (“forty years before the destruction of the Temple capital jurisdiction was denied [to the Jews]”), also the note on “full authority” at 18.2. For doubts about that monopoly, see esp. Martin 2006. In any case, presumably Agrippa had no need to convene a council for purposes that were within his authority, such as the one described at §§216–218.

This full reference to Agrippa ii, with his title, seems to have been typical of Josephus’s source for the high-priestly succession; cf. the note on “Theophilus” at 18.123.

On Albinus’s term of office in Judea, see hjp 1.468–470; Smallwood 1981: 280–282. On Josephus’s account: D. R. Schwartz 2011. It appears that Albinus served from 62 or 63 (four years before the war and seven and a half years before the destruction—War 6.300, 308), until 64 or 65, for, according to §257, the outbreak of the war, in 66, came in Albinus’s successor’s second year. Albinus’s name is often identified as the Lucceius Albinus whose later governorships, and death under Vitellius, are reported by Tacitus at Hist. 2.58–59; so, for example, pir 2.400 (L264). This is one of the more egregious differences between the accounts of the pre-war years in War and Antiquities. Whereas according to War 2.271–277, Festus was fine and tried to maintain law and order, Albinus was terrible but at least tried to hide his crimes, and Florus was even worse and flaunted them, here—since Josephus wants to blame Jews—Albinus is rehabilitated and comes off wonderfully, thus serving as a foil for the Jews. Josephus will reproduce War’s account at §§252–254, and already §215 will show him struggling to coordinate his present narrative with it; see the note on “brigands” at §215. Here, however, in Antiquities’ main narrative about Albinus, Josephus wants to condemn sinful Jews, esp. villainous high-priests, and Albinus is the beneficiary. See D. R. Schwartz 2011.

This is the only occurrence of ποριστικός in Josephus; ccfj 3.495 s.v. renders “clever at producing something for oneself,” which sounds quite pejorative. Cf. the next note. This characterization of Ananias is somewhat ambiguous, given the reference to the goodwill Ananias enjoyed, which sounds nice. Nevertheless, the emphasis upon his wealth, along with the report that he plied it daily upon the high priest and the governor, imply condemnation, and so it seems that the reference to the goodwill he garnered is ironic. Condemnation is implied by the immediate continuation as well.

Feldman (1965: 499) and Schalit (1963: 369) open this sentence with “but,” as if Josephus meant Ananias was fine but his servants were wicked. That, however, seems to be the kind of harmonization that only the naïve might accept, so it is difficult to think that Josephus meant that. For similar harmonization, note Rashi’s commentary on b. Pesaḥim 57a, s.v. Ishmael b. Phiabi: he thinks the text first condemns Ishmael’s household (in a story similar to Josephus’s) but then praises him. There too, it is easier to assume the latter is bitterly ironic; see D. R. Schwartz 1981/82: 263–266. See the note on “starved to death” at §181; we have here a stock story about high-priestly magnates who preyed upon the poor. Readers may wonder whether Josephus remembered, when writing the present passage, that he had already used this story in the earlier context.

This too is at §181.

The use of the definite article here, without any specification as to which holiday is meant, is perplexing. Perhaps it reflects Hebrew usage, according to which he-ḥāg (“the festival”) was Tabernacles (so, for example, m. Rosh Hashana 1:2, m. Bikkurim 1:6). Contrast 18.122 and 20.133, where, when Josephus wants to be vague, he refers to “a festival” with neither a name nor a definite article, and cf. D. R. Schwartz 1997: 105–109, in connection with War 1.229//Ant. 14.285. Cf. the note on “at night” at 18.56. This Greek term, γραμματεύς, often refers generally to administrative officials, including as the Septuagint’s translation not only of sophēr (“scribe”) but also of šoṭēr (“officer”). Cf. D. R. Schwartz 1992: 89–101; Mandel 2017: 73–75. Indeed, lists of officials associated with the Temple in the first century do not include “scribes.” See the detailed lists offered in m. Sheqalim 5:1–2//t. Sheqalim 2:14 (ed. Lieberman, 210–211), along with b. Pesaḥim 57a (a bitter ditty complaining about such officials); see Jeremias 1969: 165–166, 195–196. But the latter text does mention officials with “quills.” For such use of “high priest” of a member of the high-priestly aristocracy even if not currently the high priest, see the note on “Joazar” at 18.3.

Given the fact that this Eleazar was soon to be revealed as one of the major leaders of the anti-Roman rebels (War 2.409), it is not wild to speculate, with Smallwood (1981: 282), that he was colluding with the Sicarii in organizing such moves to coerce Albinus into releasing prisoners.

Another ominous generalization, alongside §§124, 160, and 214, marking the road to the final catastrophe.

On Caesarea Philippi, of which the founding was reported at 18.28, see hjp 2.169–171, Z. U. Ma‘oz in neaehl 1.136–143, and M. Hartal, ibid. 5.1587–1594. “Caesarea Neronias” appears on coins of Agrippa ii minted in 65/66 (rpc 1.4991), but was abandoned after Nero’s death; see Meshorer 1985: 68–69 and Bernett 2007a: 353. Agrippa ii’s contributions to Beirut continued a family tradition; see the note on “Berytus” at 19.335. Note especially Boffo 1994: 338–342 and Ilan 2022: 67–69 on a Beirut inscription (ae 1928: no. 82) honoring him and his sister, Berenice, for their restoration of a building originally donated by Herod. For such a pejorative sense of ἀναλίσκω (rather than merely “spending”), cf. 2.88 and 18.145, also War 1.91. It is only natural that those who liked Herod and Agrippa would take pride in their generous support of important centers around the Mediterranean, while those who did not might view it as wasting the Judeans’ wealth. Note especially the complaints at 16.158 and 19.329–330, in contrast to the praise at War 1.422–428. Presumably the latter should be traced to Nicolaus of Damascus (cf. Stern, glajj 1.229–230). Cf. the note on “pregnant” at §18.

And, of course, the financing of statues in particular will have aroused the Jews’ ire. On the hostility to Agrippa ii evinced here, see the next note.

As Hölscher notes (1916: 1990–1991), at Life 204 Josephus claims that Jesus b. Gamaliel was his good friend. Hölscher takes this as evidence that the present passage is based on a written source (whose nuance Josephus did not notice). See also the notes on “themselves” and on “than them” at §214. For the suggestion that such material hostile to the high priesthood and to Agrippa ii derived from a source that focused on such themes, as also above at §§141–147, 179–181, see D. R. Schwartz 1981/82. But it is also congenial to Josephus’s major theme in the present book, that things were going downhill on account of the Jews’ own sins; see D. R. Schwartz 2011. As at §180, and similar to §207.

Even without the emphatic addition of αὐτοί (“themselves”), and certainly with it, this passage seems to assume that readers already know who they are. But they do not, and even the explanation of their boldness, namely, that they were of the royal family and close to Agrippa, does not identify them. Contrast War 2.418, where they are properly introduced—as brothers who were relations of Agrippa IΙ. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Josephus was either following a source that had previously introduced them, or else writing up his own notes with little thought for his readers. See also the next note. Although War 2.418, 556 portrays these relatives of Agrippa as respectable citizens who fled Jerusalem when the rebellion began, here they are portrayed as gangsters, which amounts to a swipe at Agrippa too, similar to those at his sisters (§§141–146), at the high priests he appointed, and personally at him as well (§§189–195, 216–218). Whether or not Agrippa ii was already dead by the time Ant. 20 became available (see hjp 1.481–483, n. 45 and D. R. Schwartz 1992: 243–282), Josephus apparently wanted to include him more generally, and not only specifically at §216–218, among those responsible for the final deterioration and catastrophe. For the Thucydidean metaphor of “sickness” with regard to stasis, see already Josephus’s opening of War, with Price 2005b: 139*. Note also Mason 2008: 214, n. 1660 on War 2.264. On this refrain, see the note on “downhill” at §160.

On such gestures, which can amount to bribes in order to suppress complaints about a governor’s behavior, cf. Acts 24:27 and Tacitus, Ann. 13.31, along with Brunt 1961: 214–215. Compare Josephus’s analysis of Herod’s remission of taxes after a famine at Ant. 15.365: although the pretext was relief of his subjects’ suffering, the real goal was conciliation of his opponents. For διὰ μίκραν καὶ τὴν τυχοῦσαν αἰτίαν see also Life 13, where Josephus’s point, as their advocate, is that those so charged should not have been imprisoned. “The land was filled with brigands” continues a—or the—major theme of Ant. 20; see the note on “downhill” at §160. As Cohen (1979: 62) noted, however, “the tone of aj 20.215 is particularly ambiguous and/or self-contradictory.” How could the release of petty criminals fill the land with brigands, who are heinous criminals? And if the point is to show Albinus as doing something beneficial, why report that, when releasing these criminals, he took money, which sounds like bribery? It seems that Josephus, caught between his narrative in War 2.272–276, in which Albinus was terrible (and he will revert to that line shortly, at §252, after the excursus on the high-priestly succession), and his present narrative, which is devoted to showing that it was wicked Jews whose sins brought about the catastrophe, gives some of this and some of that. See D. R. Schwartz 2011. For such playing of both sides, cf. the notes on “brigands” at §124 and “others” at 19.193.

On the Levitical singers, see Safrai 1976: 872. Josephus’s need to explain to his readers that “Levites” denotes a “tribe” reflects the general paucity of references to them in his works; while priests are mentioned very often, the last time “Levites” were mentioned was at 13.63, 73. Nor is the situation much different elsewhere: “On the whole the evidence about Levites is extraordinarily meagre” (Jeremias 1969: 213). Although the term used is συνέδριον, as at §200 there is no definite article; see the note on “a council of judges” at §200. In a case like this, one would expect the priests to be involved; see the note on “office” at 18.17. For the priests’ linen vestments, see Exod 28:42 and 39:28, also Ant. 3.152–153; 8.93; and War 5.229. See also the note on “the Fast” at 18.94. As a rule, the sources record no special vestments for Levites, but note the strange exception at Ant. 8.94, where Josephus refers to linen garments for the Levite singers. For contextualization of the present episode on the background of other evidence for debates about the functions and relative status of the Levites as compared to priests, see Fraade 1999: 116–117, nn. 23–24. For Josephus’s concern that priests be allowed special clothing forbidden to others, see also Ant. 4.208. That a king should want to be remembered is natural; see, for example, §§18, 52, also 6.343, 11.183, 15.380, and 19.223. But the present passage is terribly ironic for, as Josephus will emphasize at §218 (as already at 18.9), innovation in cultic ritual is the last thing a pious king should want to be associated with his name. See the note on “innovation” at 18.9.

This is the only occurrence of ἐποίχομαι in Josephus.

Probably referring to psalms; for the juxtaposition of David’s “songs and hymns” and the Levites’ songs and musical instruments, see also Ant. 7.305–306. For a survey of the sources on the recitation of psalms in the Second Temple, such as m. Sukkot 5:4 and m. Tamid 7:4, see Rendsburg 2014: 106–117. This apparently means that he allowed Levites, whose clans were traditionally assigned particular roles in the Temple (see 1 Chr 9:17–18, 33; Ezra 2:41–42), to move into other positions. For such competition between Levites, see also the story in Sifre Numbers §116 (ed. Horovitz, 132)//b. Arakhin 11b): a Levite doorkeeper tells a Levite singer who wanted to help him to desist, “for you are among the singers, not the doorkeepers.” Cf. the note on “innovation” at Ant. 18.9.

Although Herod completed the renovation of the Temple already in the penultimate decade of the first century bce (Ant.15.380, 420–421), it seems clear that work continued, or was required by new circumstances, such as the damage inflicted in the “War of Varus” (Ant. 17.261–262; Assumption of Moses 6:9); note John 2:20–21, where, in the days of Jesus, reference is made to forty-six years of work having gone into the Temple. For post-Herodian work in Jerusalem, see Szanton et al. 2019 (on Pilate).

That the reference is to the Temple’s treasury is evident both from the fact that hitherto the money had supported work on the Temple and from the explanation in §222 that Agrippa was the Temple’s supervisor. On the money in the Temple treasury, see the note on “sacred moneys” at 18.60. For instances in which the Romans robbed it, see Ant. 14.105–109 (Crassus) and 17.264 (Sabinus), also War 2.293 (Florus); cf. 18.60–62, on Pilate’s use of the Temple’s money for public works, and already Cicero, Pro Flacco 28.66–69 (glajj no. 68). Here Josephus is evidently alluding to the law of Deuteronomy 24:15//Leviticus 19:13//m.Bava Metzia 9:11–12, which he states at Ant. 4.288; see Feldman 2000: 456–458.

Cf. the note on “white stone” at §222. Although Josephus’s “twenty cubits” (around ten meters) is an exaggeration, some of the stones in this wall were nonetheless huge, the largest being more than seven meters long (Mazar 2011: 145). So too War 5.185. This portico is, correspondingly, known as “Solomon’s Portico” in Acts 3:11 and 5:12. That Solomon built the eastern wall seems to be stated at 15.398 (on the text, see van Henten 2014: 302, n. 2829) and is clearly stated at War 5.185–187, where Josephus adds that the wall-building in Herod’s days was on (the other) three sides. As Orit Peleg-Barkat kindly explained to me, since Herod did not expand the Temple Mount on its eastern side, its relative antiquity could give rise to the belief that its wall remained from the First Temple, Solomon’s. Indeed, it seems that parts of the eastern wall originated in the First Temple period, but Herod’s work on the wall, both on its northern and southern ends, was massive; see Mazar 2011: 275–276.

See §§15–16. For the same notion, see also Ant. 15.380–390, as well as the talmudic story of Herod’s reconstruction of the Temple (b. Bava Batra 3b–4a). The latter comes in the context of the law that one may not destroy a synagogue until a new one has been built, lest, for whatever reason, it prove impossible to build the new one. On the use of Temple funds for public works in Jerusalem, see the note on “water” at 18.60. For Josephus’s references to “white stone” in Antiquities, which is more accurate than “marble,” which is mentioned in parallels in War (where this particular passage has, however, no parallel), see Fischer and Stein 1994. For the suggestion that it was the Roman notions (e.g. Suetonius, Aug. 28.3) of Josephus’s assistants for War (Apion 1.50) that created that book’s references to “marble,” see D. R. Schwartz 2015a.

Perhaps the son of Theophilus b. Ananus (18.123; 19.297); see VanderKam 2004: 487. That is, in addition to his serving as high priest; cf. 18.31.

For this sense of διηγέομαι, in other passages in which Josephus introduces lengthy excurses, see, for example, 18.129, 310. That lists of high priests, and of other priests as well, were preserved over long periods of time is mentioned by Josephus, with some pride, at Ant. 13.78 and Apion 1.36, and reflected by his account of his own genealogy, as he found it “in the public documents” (Life 6). It is also reflected by such passages as Ezra 7:1–5. Note especially the opening of Ant. 11.297, where the reference to Jehoiarib b. Eliashib, concerning whose tenure Josephus has nothing to report and so his name functions only as a place-holder representing a generation, reflects Josephus’s use of such a list; so too 18.34. On the present list, see esp. Hölscher 1940 and Gußmann 2008: 273–286. For a list of discrepancies between data in the pre-Herodian part of the present list and those found elsewhere in Antiquities, which shows that Josephus, at least for the early period, did not create the list by assembling his own data, and suggests he depended on another extant source, see Hölscher 1916: 1989–1990. On the use of the definite article here with no further identification, cf. the note on “the” at §184. Actually, the present list goes until the destruction of the Temple (§250). Whatever was left of the war after that (as recounted in War 7, including the long Masada story), it left no place for high priests.

Here Josephus has simplified matters: since he is discussing only the high priesthood, he formulates the limitation to sons of Aaron as if it regarded the high priesthood alone. In fact, tradition allowed only sons of Aaron to be priests, not just high priests—as Josephus himself emphasizes, especially in his history of the divided kingdom; note his additions to the biblical text at Ant. 8.228//1 Kings 12:31 and Ant. 9.224//2 Chronicles 26:19.

For the story of this alleged country bumpkin, who was made high priest by sacrilegious rebels, see War 4.152–157, which has a rabbinic parallel at t. Kippurim 1:6 (ed. Lieberman, 222); see VanderKam 2004: 487–489, also D. Baratz in Ilan and Noam 2017: 2.665–672. Rajak (2002: 132–333) sees in the rabbinic accounts, which tend to negate Josephus’s portrayal of him as a low-class boor, “a clear demonstration of the historian’s prejudice.”

This addition is entailed by §229, which explains why they were so few. For a similar case, see §§242–243. The formulation is somewhat sloppy, as if Solomon built the Temple immediately after the entry into Judea. Josephus will clarify this at §230.

The early practice of holding the office for life explains how so few could fill such a long period. I.e., the two surviving sons; see Lev 10:1–2//Ant. 3.209. Given the opening of §228, Josephus seems to mean that each of these thirteen inherited the position only upon the death of his predecessor. In line with a Greek tradition especially developed by Aristotle and Polybius, Josephus keeps track of the type of constitutions that characterized the Jewish polity; note especially Ant. 6.83–85, 11.111–113, and 14.41, 91; Apion 2.164; D. R. Schwartz 1983/84; Mason 2012: 136–147. Josephus distinguishes here between the “aristocratic” constitution in the days of Moses and Joshua (as in Ant. 6.83); the rule of the Judges, who ruled “alone” (hence were “monarchs,” as is explicit at §261 and 11.112) but not as kings; and the rule by kings, which began with Saul (Ant. 6.83, 11.112).

On such use of ἄρχω, which is common in this summary (§§§238, 245, 246; note also the use of ἀρχή of the high priesthood at §249), as elsewhere in Josephus, see the note on “ruled” at §238. But 1 Kings 6:1 states that 480 years went by between the Exodus from Egypt and Solmon’s construction of the Temple. While the present figure, 612, reappears at Apion 2.19, at Ant. 8.61 the figure is 592, and the latter is also assumed by Ant. 10.147, which has the period from the Exodus to the destruction of the First Temple being 1062 years; since that same text says the Temple existed for 470 years, that leaves, as does 8.61, 592 years for the period from the Exodus until its construction. As for the discrepancy between 612 and 592, both of which are thus attested twice: if we do not simply assume that Josephus had two different traditions, which is unlikely, we might suspect that the data reflect some doubt concerning the length of the reign of Saul (concerning which the text of 1 Samuel 13:1 is notoriously problematic). Namely, at Ant. 10.143 Josephus assigned Saul only twenty years, but at 6.378 he assigned him 22 + 18 years, i.e., forty. At 6.378, however, the Latin version assigns him 2 + 18 years, i.e., twenty, as at 10.143. Perhaps, then, we should assume that (a) Josephus originally assigned Saul twenty years, and held the total period from the Exodus to the construction of the Temple was 592 years, but (b) Christian copyists, who preferred to assign Saul forty as is stated at Acts 13:21, corrected Josephus’s text at Ant. 6.378 and correspondingly added twenty years to the total stated here and at Apion 2.19, but failed to correct the data at 8.61 and 10.147. For that suggestion, see Rappaport 1930: 51. For more discussion, see Milikowsky 2002: 191–197.

This definite article (οἱ) is puzzling, and several witnesses indeed omit it. So too Sifre Numbers §131 (ed. Horovitz, 173); y. Yoma 1.38c; and b. Yoma 9a. At Ant. 10.151–153 Josephus gives their names—but only of seventeen, down to Josedek. Here he counts eighteen, because he includes Josedek’s son Jesus among this first group, just as he excludes him from the “fifteen” mentioned at §234. How Josephus related, if he did, to 1 Chronicles 6:10–15, which lists only nine, is unknown. Josephus’s text here, Μετὰ δὲ τοὺς δεκατρεῖς ἀρχιερέας ἐκείνους οἱ δέκα καὶ ὀκτὼ τὴν ἀρχιερωσύνην ἔσχον ἀπὸ Σολόμωνος βασιλέως ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις αὐτὴν διαδεξάμενοι, is somewhat ambiguous. Feldman (1965: 511) and Schalit (1963: 371) link “in Jerusalem” to Solomon, in accordance with the order of Josephus’s words, but on the one hand, there is no apparent reason to specify that Solomon was king in Jerusalem and, on the other hand, we see at §237, as elsewhere (e.g., 2 Macc 3:9; see D. R. Schwartz 2008: 193), the notion that the high priest was “of the city.” At Ant. 10.153, after listing all the high priests from Solomon until the destruction of the First Temple, Josephus emphasizes that “in all of these cases, sons succeeded their fathers to the high priesthood.” For his pride about that, see also 13.78, as well as the formulaic repetitions in the list at 10.152–153. Cf. the note on “ancestral” at 18.172. It is remarkable that here and at §233, Babylonia is rendered as Βαβυλών, rather than Βαβυλωνία, although the latter was usual in Ant. 18 (§§104, 310, 311, 313, 318, 331, 337, 379), apart from the two passages in which Josephus seems to be referring to the city of Babylon (18.359, 373; see the note on “Babylon” at 18.359). Apart from pointing to differential editing, it might be, given the nature of the present list, that ultimately it is the fact that Hebrew has only one topnym, babel, for both the country and the city, that lies behind the usage here. A few witnesses give the name the same Hebrew way it is given in §234. 1 Chronicles 6:15//Ant. 10.150. Actually, as VanderKam (2004: 18–19) notes, Jehozadak’s father was serving as high priest when the Temple was destroyed, so Jehozadak did not serve as high priest. But Josephus calls him high priest at 10.150, 154, as also here. On such general usage, see the note on “Joazar” at 18.3. In this case, moreover, the title imparts some desirable continuity; see the note on “Josedek” at §234.

Compare Ant. 10.143, where Josephus states that the Davidic dynasty reigned for six months more than 514 years, and that includes, as it states, twenty of Saul and, presumably, forty of David (Ant. 7.389). That leaves only 454 years for the period beginning with Solomon, less than the 466 mentioned here. Moreover, given that the construction of the temple took seven years and Solomon began the project only a few years into his reign (1 Kings 7:38; Ant. 10.99), the present figure should be even lower—bringing it close to the 410 years posited by the Talmud (b. Yoma 9a). Modern estimates are somewhat shorter. As is said at §229. Here one sees clearly the distinction between the high-priestly leadership, on the one hand, and rule, on the other. Cf. the note on “high priests” at §251.

The same number of years is stated quite prominently in the first line of Ant. 11. Actually, however, fewer than fifty years went by between the destruction of the First Temple (586 bce) and Cyrus’s proclamation (ca. 538 bce). Josephus’s figure is based, apparently, on the assumption that Jeremiah’s prophecy of seventy years of exile (Jer 25:11–12; 29:10; Ant. 10.112) was fulfilled precisely, as he indeed emphasizes at the opening of Ant. 11. As in his version of Cyrus’s edict at 11.4, here too Josephus has Cyrus refer to the constructiοn of the ναός. Usually, however, Josephus uses τὸ ἱερόν of the Temple in general, reserving ναός specifically for the Sanctuary (hekhal), its central building. See Joüon 1935 and the notes on “Temple” at 18.29 and on “God” at 18.261.

Evidently Josephus expects readers to realize that Jesus was the son of the last pre-exilic high priest (§231), thus indicating basic continuity. On this Jesus, see VanderKam 2004: 18–42. For a reconstruction of the list, from Joiakim (who succeeded Jesus; see the note on “eighteen” at §231) to Alcimus, see VanderKam 2004: 491. This figure, which in our terms takes us back from Antiochus Eupator’s accession to the throne late in 164 bce to 578 bce, seems to be calculated, not from the return from Babylonian exile after Cyrus’s edict but, rather, from the destruction of the First Temple a few decades earlier, which we date to 586 bce. Similarly, at Ant. 13.301 Josephus states that 481 years (the parallel at War 1.70 reads 471) and three months went by between the return from Babylonia and Aristobulus I’s accession to the throne in 104 bce. If we assume that there too Josephus confused the return from Babylonia with the destruction of the First Temple, we arrive in the same vicinity. Elsewhere, however, it seems that Josephus—as other Jews (cf. Daniel 10:1 + 11:2–3; b. Abodah Zarah 9a)—thought the Persian period (the Second Temple period prior to the days of Alexander) was much shorter than it really was; see D. R. Schwartz 1990b: 184–185. Contrast Ant. 11.111, which characterizes the constitution during this period as “aristocratic and oligarchic,” a statement that Josephus explains as pointing to rule by high priests. It appears that δημοκρατία here has the negative meaning of “without kings” (contrast the end of §232), which is the way the term functions the other times it is used in Antiquities (19.162, 173, 187); see the note on “democracy” at 19.162.

The formulation seems to be clumsy, for what Josephus really means, and what he emphasizes by opening the sentence with πρῶτος, is that this was the first time anyone removed a serving high priest from office. Antiochus Eupator’s priority in this is also emphasized, similarly, at 15.40–41, which also lists two later cases. For this equation see also Ant. 12.239, 383; cf. the note on “as his father” at §236. But the identification of Menelaus as Onias has no basis in 2 Maccabees, which is our only other source about Menelaus, and the fact that Josephus himself claims at Ant. 12.237–239 that Menelaus had a brother named Onias (namely, Onias iii) makes it highly unlikely that Menelaus too was named Onias. Rather, 2 Maccabees identifies Menelaus as the brother of Onias’s rival, Simon, who in turn was identified as a Benjaminite (or, according to the Latin text, a member of the priestly clan of Bilgah; see 2 Macc 4:23 and 3:4, also D. R. Schwartz 2008: 95–96). As for the origin of Josephus’s confusion, Stern (1991: 45–46) suggested that Josephus’s source identified Menelaus as Onias iv’s “uncle” (θείος) and Josephus assumed that meant “his father’s brother” whereas in fact it meant “his mother’s brother.” For the execution of Menelaus in Beroea (Aleppo), by Lysias (Antiochus V’s vizier), see also Ant. 12.384–385 and 2 Macc 13:3–8. This is one of the few data in 2 Maccabees shared by Josephus although without parallel in 1 Maccabees; see D. R. Schwartz 2008: 86–87. That Alcimus (as he is named in 1 Macc 7 and 2 Macc 14) was an Aaronite is explicit in 1 Macc 7:14; that he was not of the high-priestly family is explicit in Ant. 12.387.

That is, this Onias was, respectively, the son and nephew of two brothers named Onias. This corresponds to Josephus’s statement at Ant. 12.237–238 that Onias iii, the son of Simon, had two brothers, Jesus and Onias, of whom the former changed his name to Jason and the latter—to Menelaus. See the note on “Menelaus” at §235. At War 7.423, however, Josephus states that it was Onias son of Simon, that is, Onias iii, who founded the Temple of Onias in Egypt. For detailed discussion of this issue, culminating in the suggestion that War is correct and Onias iv is only a figment of Josephan confusion, see Piotrkowski 2019: esp. 79–102. Heliopolis, in the eastern Nile delta, north of Cairo. Concerning the location of the temple, of which no remains have yet been found, see Piotrkowski 2019: 346–350. For Josephus’s “overtly miso-Oniad” (Piotrkowski 2019: 54) version of Onias iv’s appeal to the Egyptian monarchs (arguing that a multiplicity of temples engenders mutual hostility among their devotees and therefore asking for permission to build yet another one!) and their approval, see Ant. 13.65–71. It pertains only to permission to build the temple, not to the appointment of Onias as a high priest, but perhaps that should be taken for granted, given both his pedigree and his role as founder of the new temple.

See War 1.33; 7.421–436; Ant. 12.387–388; 13.62–73. On Onias’s Temple in general, see Capponi 2007 and Piotrkowski 2019. This probably means “in the third year.” According to 1 Maccabees (7:1 and 9:54), Alcimus became high priest in 151 of the Seleucid Era (henceforth se), i.e., 162/161 bce, and died in 153 se (160/159 bce). See the note on “in Jerusalem” at §231. At Ant. 12.414 Josephus reports that Judas Maccabeus became high priest after Alcimus died, at 12.434 he says Judas served as high priest for three years until his death, and at 13.46 he notes that when Jonathan became high priest, it was after the position had been vacant for four years. That notion, which means seven years passed between the death of Alcimus and Jonathan’s rise to the high priesthood, derives simply from the combination of 1 Macc 9:54 (Alcimus died in 153 se [153/152 bce]) and 1 Macc 10:1, 21 (Jonathan’s appointment to the high priesthood in 160 se). Here, however, we see that Josephus has given up his earlier claim (which has no basis in 1 or 2 Maccabees) that Judas was ever high priest, so the “intersacerdotium” has grown to seven years. For speculation about who (if anyone) was really high priest in Jerusalem during the seven-year “intersacerdotium,” which of course comes along with speculation about why someone preferred to ignore him, and what that might have to do with the origin of the Qumran sect, see VanderKam 2004: 244–250 and D. R. Schwartz 2022: 313.

This does not suggest that the Hasmoneans had previously appointed a high priest and now did so again; in the Greek, “again” (πάλιν) opens the sentence, right after the statement that the city went for seven years without a high priest, and all it means it that again a high priest was appointed—namely, as the continuation reports, by the Hasmoneans. Note, however, that Jonathan, although indeed a Hasmonean, was not appointed by the Hasmoneans; he was appointed by Alexander Balas (1 Macc 10:20–21//Ant. 13.45–46). Hasmonean independence began only under his successor, Simon (1 Macc 13:41–42). For a similar inaccuracy, note 17.162, where Josephus states (in a speech ascribed to Herod) that the Hasmoneans ruled as kings (ἐβασίλευον) for 125 years prior to Herod. These might be innocent generalizations reflecting the knowledge that most Hasmonean rulers were sovereign. Perhaps, however, a role was played by the fact that Josephus’s claim to be linked to the Hasmoneans (Ant. 16.187) was via Jonathan’s daughter (Life 2–4), a datum that will have made him especially unwilling to sully his credentials. (While in Life 4 it might well be that Josephus is confused and should have referred to Alexander Janneus, whose Hebrew name was Jonathan, he identifies her as the daughter of the Jonathan who was first Hasmonean high priest and was Simon’s brother.) This plain use of ἄρχω for serving as high priest, as elsewhere (see the note on “ruled” at §230), corresponds to the nature of things in the Hasmonean period, even before the Hasmoneans undertook such a quasi-title as ἡγούμενος (1 Macc 13:8; 14:41) or moved all the way to “king” (Ant. 13.301). For the real meaning of high priesthood for Jonathan, see esp. 1 Macc 10:21; for Simon, see 1 Macc 16:11–12. As Arenhoevel (1967: 45–46) observed, “the priestly office did not correspond well to what the family really did; that was probably recognized by the author of 1 Maccabees himself … of high priesthood one notices [in 1 Maccabees] nothing but the title.” This statement contradicts the evidence of 1 Maccabees, which states at 10:21 that Jonathan began to serve as high priest in the autumn of 160 se and, after reporting Jonathan’s death at 13:23, goes on at 13:42 to define Simon’s first year as 170 se (as does Josephus, at Ant. 13.213), thus giving Jonathan a full decade of rule, ca. 152–142 bce. Most take “seven” here to be an error; for a speculative suggestion as to how it could have been born from a scribal error, see Marcus in jlcl 7.332–333, n. b. But, although we can depend on 1 Maccabees, §240a shows that Josephus indeed meant seven; see the note on “brother” at §240. For the rejection of a suggestion that, despite 1 Macc 10:21, Jonathan in fact began to serve only in 150 bce, see VanderKam 2004: 256–259.

Ant. 13.191–192, on the basis of 1 Maccabees 13.

In general, all that is meant is a dinner, but Josephus probably uses “symposium” (lit. “drinking together”), here as in 13.228, in recognition of the fact that, according to 1 Macc 16:16, Simon and his sons were drunk when Ptolemy killed them. According to War 1.54 and Ant. 13.288, where he is first introduced into Josephus’s narratives, his name was John (Johanan), although he was also called Hyrcanus. Indeed, at War 1.67–58 he is just “John.” In Antiquities, however, apart from that introduction, he is always (at 7.393 and some forty times in Ant. 13) just “Hyrcanus,” as here. But Hyrcanus ii (John’s grandson) is also just “Hyrcanus” (as below at §§242–245), a fact that explains why 18.91 notes, although with some exaggeration, that there were “many” high priests named Hyrcanus. In rabbinic literature, in contrast, we consistently read of “John the high priest,” not of Hyrcanus; see, for example, in the Mishnah: Ma‘aser Sheni 5:15, Sotah 9:10, Parah 3:4, Yadayim 4:6. That is, Simon served as high priest for eight years, as is said explicitly at Ant. 13.228—from 170 se (1 Macc 13:42) until 177 se (1 Macc 16:14), i.e., 143/2–136/5 bce. See the note on “seven years” at §239. Same phrase, τῆς τιμῆς ἀπολαύσας, above §198; for the high-priestly office as a τιμή, see the note on “office” at 18.17. As is also said explicitly at Ant. 13.299–from 135/4 bce (1 Macc 16:14) until 105/4; for details, see D. R. Schwartz 2022: 405, n. 5. If indeed it was claimed, albeit maliciously, that John Hyrcanus was born to a mother who had been a captive in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes (Ant. 13.292), i.e., in the days of the Hasmonean revolt in the 160s, he will not have been much older than sixty at his death. It might be that Josephus’s somewhat exaggerated phrasing means simply to reflect the fact that, as opposed to Jonathan, Simon, and Aristobulus, John died an untroubled death. Such a point would correspond well with John’s general function, for Josephus, as the idyllic apogee of the Hasmonean dynasty; he achieved what no one else ever did (Ant. 13.299–300; //War 1.68–69), but after his death things quickly went downhill. That Aristobulus was also called Judas is not stated elsewhere by Josephus, but has recently been confirmed by numismatic evidence; see Shaham 2020. It is interesting to wonder what led Josephus to introduce, here and in the next paragraph, a Hebrew name he ignores elsewhere, in the same context in which he refers both to Hyrcanus and Alexander without repeating their Hebrew names (John and Jonathan/Jannai, respectively), which are indeed stated elsewhere in Antiquities (13.228, 320).

For a dramatic (“pathetic”) account of Aristobulus’s disease and death, see Ant. 13.314–317. Josephus underlines Aristobulus’s taking of the royal crown very emphatically at Ant. 13.301//War 1.70. 104/103 bce; for the termini, see D. R. Schwartz 2022: 405, n. 5. That Aristobulus ruled only one year is also stated by Josephus at Ant. 13.318//War 1.84. On the mistaken chronology at War 1.70//Ant. 13.301, see the note on “four hundred and fourteen years” at §234.

That Alexander reigned for 27 years (103–76 bce) is also stated at Ant. 13.404//War 1.106. That it was Alexander’s widow, Salome Alexandra, who appointed Hyrcanus ii to the high priesthood, is stated at Ant. 13.408//War 1.109. But Josephus’s account of Alexander’s deathbed instructions to his wife (13.400–404) focuses on relations with the Pharisees and does not address this point. The same is true of the talmudic parallel to the latter story; see b. Sotah 22b, along with T. Ilan in Ilan and Noam 2017: 1.308–317. On his name, see above, the note on “Hyrcanus” at §240. Note, with Ilan 1987/88: 10–11, that we do not know that his Hebrew name was (as his grandfather) John (Johanan), nor, indeed, whether he in fact had a Hebrew name. That Salome ruled for nine years (76–67 bce) is also stated at Ant. 13.430//War 1.119. As at §228, this assessment seems to be required by the explanatory γάρ (“for”) that opens the next clause.

See Ant. 14.4–7, 97. Here, in this survey of the high-priestly succession, as also in that detailed discussion in Ant. 14, Josephus fails to repeat the statement at War 1.121 that Hyrcanus was at least allowed to retain his honors as the “king’s brother”; on that designation, and esp. for the argument that it did not denote any official status (and certainly not the high priesthood), see Schalit 1939.

In 63 bce; for the date of Pompey’s conquest of Jerusalem, see Ant. 14.66. At 14.97, however, Josephus states that Aristobulus was king and high priest for three years and six months—and that, together with the three months of rule Josephus assigns to Hyrcanus ii after their mother’s death (15.180), indeed fills up (as is noted by Marcus 1943: 450–451, n. c) the time between her death and Pompey’s conquest of Jerusalem. Thus, the datum given here seems to be too short (as is emphasized by Sharon 2017: 395), and the fact that it is phrased, in the Greek, not as “after two years and three months” but, rather, as “in his third year and the same number of months,” suggests there might be some confusion with Antigonus, who is assigned three years and three months (§246). It might also be, as Claude Eilers pointed out to me, that Josephus (or his sources) was inconsistent as to where to place the end of Aristobulus’s term, perhaps once dating it according to his arrest (14.55–57) and once according to the end of the subsequent siege of the Temple, which came, according to War 1.149, in the third month of the siege. In his “constitutional” discussions Josephus frequently refers to the prostasia of the people and locates it with the high priests; see esp. §251. Usually, this seems to be only a general manner of speaking, one that compares the Jews to a collegium, without any formal content; see D. R. Schwartz 1983/84. In the present case, however, there might be some formal content as well, since according to documents preserved in Ant. 14 (including §§191, 194 [quite demonstratively], 196, 200, 209), Julius Caesar referred to Hyrcanus ii as the Jews’ “ethnarch” (as did also Marcus Antonius—14.306, 314, 317), and such a vague authority might well be associated with such a vague (not royal) title. True, it is not clear that already Pompey endowed Hyrcanus ii with that title (as is proposed by several scholars; see Sharon 2017: 127, n. 27). But however that may be, Josephus might be thinking of it. On the title, see Sharon 2010.

While his mother ruled (§242). At 15.180, Josephus states that after Pompey restored him to the high priesthood, Hyrcanus served in that position for another forty years. That is plainly wrong, for Hyrcanus was taken captive, and mutilated so as to disqualify him from the high priesthood (14.366), in 40 bce, which is close to twenty-four years after Pompey’s activity in Judea. For suggestions concerning the datum at 15.180 (typology? polemics?), see van Henten 2014: 120, n. 1067. This clearly shows the provincial and high-priestly orientation of the present text (cf. the note on “high priesthood” at §226); the Parthians had other things on their mind. On the Parthian invasion of the Roman East, which began in winter/spring 41/40 bce, see Debevoise 1938: 108–119; Reynolds 1982; Stern 1995: 249–255; and Lanser 2021. Here Josephus omits the detail given in both of his works, that Antigonus himself mutilated Hyrcanus in order to ensure that, according to the terms of Leviticus 21:17–24, he would not be able to return to the high priesthood; see War 1.270 and Ant. 14.366.

For relevant calculations, see Sharon 2017: 427–428 (but cf. the note on “reign” at §244). On Antigonus’s rule as king and high priest, 40–37 bce, see VanderKam 2004: 385–393. For his coins, which are the most impressive of all the Hasmonean coins, see Meshorer 2001: 50–57. Gaius Sosius, who is well known from a variety of evidence; see Stern, glajj 1.367. It is not surprising that while Josephus refers here to Sosius and Herod, Roman observers tended, naturally, to credit the former alone; see Seneca, Suasoriae 2.21, Tacitus, Hist. 5.9.1, and Cassius Dio 49.22.3 (glajj, nos. 149, 281, 414). On the execution of Antigonus, which attracted attention and fostered rumors about Herod’s personal involvement, see War 1.357; Ant. 14.489–490 and 15.8–10 (quoting Strabo); Cassius Dio 49.2.6; Stern, glajj 1.284–285 and 2.359–362; and Schalit 2001: 691–692. On the possibility that Antigonus’s bones were buried in Jerusalem, see Sharon 2017: 453–459.

On Herod’s policy, which preferred high priests from new families, even from Jewish families from abroad, who would not compete with him, see Stern in Safrai and Stern 1974–76: 1.250; 604–608 and Stern 1982: 49–55. For details on the individual high priests under Herod, see VanderKam 2004: 394–416. Cf. Josephus’s assertion at the opening of his autobiography that he is not of a family that is ἄσημος but, rather, of one related to the Hasmonean high priests, and note esp. Ant. 15.22, where Josephus explains that since Herod did not want to appoint anyone τῶν ἐπισήμων to the high priesthood, he imported from Babylonia a priest who was τῶν ἀσημοτέρων. Note that Josephus did not identify himself as a descendant of the Hasmoneans in War; the closest he comes is at War 5.419, where he says that he was of a distinguished family. Only in Antiquities (16.187) and its appendix (Life 2–4) does he claim the Hasmonean connection. Whatever brought him to do that, it functions, inter alia, as part of his critique of the high priests of his day; see the notes on “death” at §181 and on “bold” at §199. See the note on “by descent” at 18.103.

See the scene depicted at Ant. 15.51–52//War 1.437. At Ant. 15.50–56. A shorter account appears at War 1.437.

The use of οὐκέτι here concerning the appointment of Hasmoneans, as at §247, signals, as a Wiederaufnahme, that the main narrative is resuming. This statement concerning the continuity from Herod to Archelaus to the Romans, concerning the high priesthood, echoes a similar one at Ant. 18.93.

Josephus’s use of ἑλών corresponds to that in War, where it is a leitmotif denoting the final conquest of each of the three theaters of the war (north, Perea, Jerusalem: War 4.120, 339; 6.435). See D. R. Schwartz 2015b. Both the span of years and the number of high priests are accurate. Josephus counts from Herod’s conquest of Jerusalem in 37 bce to its destruction in 70 ce, and his narratives do indeed list twenty-eight high priests; see hjp 2.228–232, along with VanderKam 2004: 411, n. 42 and 488.

The use of πολιτεύομαι here is striking; while Josephus can no longer speak of high priests “ruling,” as in the Hasmonean period (see the note on “ruled” at §238), he chose a word that suggests something of the political nature of the position. This conforms to the end of the present sentence, which states that after Herod and Archelaus, it was the high priests to whom “leadership” of the people reverted. So here the verb tends more to “serve in office” than merely its usual sense (2 Macc 6:1; Acts 23:1; see Spicq 1994: 3.131–133) of “live according to the civic laws.” As at §244, Josephus carefully distinguishes here between Herod, who reigned as a king (βασιλεύοντος, singular), and Archelaus, who did not. Cf. the note on “as king” at 18.93. Josephus is speaking loosely here, for concerning Archelaus what mattered was not his death but, rather, his exile (Ant. 17.342–344). As Ant. 11.111, this sounds as if “aristocracy” were equated with rule by high priests; note Apion 1.30, where the priests are termed τοὺς ἀρίστους. However, both passages actually refer to the high priests holding prostasia, alongside of an aristocratic government. On prostasia, see the note on “leadership of the nation” at §244. On Josephus’s use of “aristocracy” of government by council (as is clearest at 4.223; 5.135; and 14.91), see D. R. Schwartz 1983/84: 32–34. However, Josephus apparently refers not to any regular council, for the existence of which he gives no evidence. Rather, he seems to mean that, in the absence of a king, the priests and high priests were the highest authorities among the Jews. For Josephus’s general preference for priestly rule, see Ant. 4.224 and Apion 2.185–187.

On Florus’s governorship, see Smallwood 1981: 282–292. A city in Ionia, not far from the Gulf of Izmir on the western coast of Turkey. Given Josephus’s frequent concern to distinguish between marriage and less formal liaisons (see the note on “wife” at 18.344), and given his characterization of this Cleopatra and Poppaea’s reputation (see the note on “god-fearing” at §195), his use of γυνή rather than γαμετή for these women may be disparaging. Poppaea became Nero’s wife in 62, after he divorced and killed his first wife, Claudius’s daughter Octavia (above, §153). See Griffin 2000: 98–100. That is, although Florus began far from Rome, his marriage opened up opportunities for him. For Florus’s marriage as an example of the way eastern or Greek parvenus could advance themselves by marriage with spouses with the right connections in Rome, see Levick 1967: 105–106. On the phenomenon that although until the days of Claudius most Roman governors of Judea were of Italian origin, from then on Greeks become prominent among them, and on its implications (a natural sympathy for, and tendency to take the part of, the Syro-Greek population of Judea?), see Stern 1974a: 318–319. Such a tendency, to the extent it existed (Stern points to only three of the last seven prefects, Tiberius Julius Alexander, Felix, and Florus, and of them the first was of Jewish descent, even if he “became in all respects a Hellenized oriental”), would dovetail neatly with the natural tendency of auxiliary troops at the governor’s disposal; see the note on “Judeans” at 19.366.

For this same type of comparison (“A was terrible, but B made even A look good”), cf. War 7.262–263. This same comparison of Albinus to Florus, including the following statement about Albinus hiding his crimes while Florus flaunted them, is found in War 2.277: Josephus reports that although Albinus had been terrible, in comparison to Florus he was wonderful. As we have seen, however, in Antiquities Josephus’s main account of Albinus focuses on Jewish sinfulness and that improved Albinus’s image; see the note on “Sicarii” at §204. Now, moving toward the end of his story, and after the long excursus on the high priesthood, Josephus reverts to his narrative line in War: Albinus and Florus goaded the Jews into rebellion. Compare Philo’s assertion (Leg. 199) that a wicked governor might seek to provoke his subjects into misbehaving so as to deny them the imperial goodwill necessary to allow them to accuse him of his misdeeds.

Note, with Smallwood (1981: 283–284) and McLaren (1998: 110–111), that Josephus gives, in Antiquities, no details to flesh out his broad condemnation of Florus here. Its purpose is to contribute to Josephus’s effort to impart a sense of increasing unrest, and deterioration toward explosion, and to place the blame on Roman misgovernment; see esp. §257. (This assignment of blame, which is already found in War, competes with another, most prominent in Antiquities, that blames the Jews themselves; see the note on “Sicarii” at §204.) Note, moreover, that already at the outset of Roman rule, at 18.25, Josephus had informed his readers that things would explode under Florus, and he reminded them of that in a very prominent place, namely, the very end of Book 19 (§366); now, after punctuating Book 20 with numerous pointers to the deterioration toward explosion (§§124, 160, 172, 210, and 214), that circle is completed. For an egregious case of the tendency of modern scholarship, problematized by McLaren, to follow Josephus closely, not only in his reports of events, but also in his interpretation of them and evaluation of individuals, see hjp 1.470: this conclusion of Schürer’s survey of the Roman governors of Judea is hardly more than a paraphrase of Josephus’s account here and its brief parallel at War 2.277–279.

This adjective, ἄτεγκτος, appears elsewhere in Josephus only in War 5.417. Florus thus appears to be even worse than Caligula (19.36, 38) and barbarian Germans (19.141–142). I.e., nothing was too small for him to take lawlessly. Apparently: engaged in brigandage. The meaning of the last clause is not clear. Feldman (1965: 523) treats it as an independent sentence commenting on the whole situation: “There was no limit in sight” (or: “And this was intolerable”). It seems likelier, however, despite the move from plural to singular (μέρεσιν τοῦτο), that it characterizes the size of Florus’s shares of the brigands’ takings.

On this passage and its parallel in War 2.279, see D. R. Schwartz 2013: 39–43.

For this important apologetical theme, that the rebellion was forced upon the Jews by Florus, see already 1.6, also 20.258 and Life 27. Even Tacitus echoes this theme, noting at Hist. 5.9.3–10.1 that, despite all the terrors of Felix’s days (see the note on “against the Judeans” at §182), the Judeans’ patience lasted until Florus’s governorship and only then did war break out. See Bilde 1979. On καὶ δή as illustrating the preceding statement or what it implies, see the note on “for example” at 18.257. For such dating in more than one way as a marker of an important historical moment, cf. 8.61–62, War 2.284, Luke 3:1–2, and Thucydides 2.2. That the war broke out in the twelfth year of Nero’s reign is also stated at War 2.284, although there it is equated not to a year of Florus’s tenure but, rather, to the seventeenth year of Agrippa ii’s reign. Nero’s twelfth year began in October 65; counting back seventeen years places the beginning of Agrippa ii’s reign in 49/50 ce, which is about what we would expect on the basis of 20.104. See D. R. Schwartz 1992: 225 and Mason 2008: 183–184, n. 1394, and 231, nn. 1824–1825.

For such use of ὑπομένω, which combines both the passage of time (since the beginning of the war at the time mentioned in the preceding line) and suffering, cf. §§116, 193. See the note on “what we suffered” at §260.

On this conclusion, see Laqueur 1920: 3–6 and Barish 1978. Laqueur thought that §§259–266 are the conclusion of a second edition of Antiquities, which appeared along with the Life (as is promised at §266) after the death of Agrippa ii in 100 (since Agrippa’s death is mentioned at Life 359–360), while §§267–268 are the conclusion of the first edition of 93/94. Barish, however, saw §§267–268 as merely concluding the present conclusion and doubted, as many others, that late date for Agrippa ii’s death, which basically derives only from the late testimony of Photius. For a review of the evidence and arguments, one that leans toward the later date for Agrippa ii’s death, see D. R. Schwartz 1992: 243–282. But accepting the later date for Agrippa’s death need not entail Laqueur’s conclusion about two endings and two editions. As is obvious from the end of the preceding sentence, as well as from other considerations (including the fact that according to Life 359–361 and Apion 1.50–51 he presented War to Vespasian, who died in 79), Josephus in fact wrote War well before Antiquities. What he means here must be only that War narrates events that occurred after those dealt with in Antiquities. For dependence upon paradosis as legitimating, see A. I. Baumgarten 1987. On Josephus’s use of first-person plural of the Jews, as also below at §264, see the note on “among us” at 18.64. For Josephus it is quite exceptional to refer to Judea as “Palestine.” Feldman (1990: 11–12) states that Josephus almost always uses the term for Philistia, the only exception being the present passage. An obvious explanation for the exception is that his reference to Ioudaioi all over would have been perplexing had he gone on to refer to “Judea.” That is, Josephus realized that his readers would tend to take Ioudaioi as if it referred to people resident in or from Judea, what we would call “Judeans,” but wanted to avoid that, in recognition of their ubiquity. Therefore, when referring to those Ioudaioi who came from what he normally called “Judea,” he chose a toponym that did not point out any special relationship between Ioudaioi and that place. A similar phenomenon may be seen among other writers of the first century, who seem to have had problems with “Judea” because of their awareness of Ioudaioi who were not there; they too prefer to use “Palaestina” or “Idumea” (facilitated by Herod’s Idumean roots); see D. R. Schwartz 2005: 69. Indeed, within two generations Rome, following the Bar-Kokhba Revolt, would change the name of the province from Judea to Syria Palaestina. See Smallwood 1981: 463–464, and, on Hadrian’s motives, Mason 2016c: 245.

While “happened to” at §259 need not imply passivity, the present summary of Jewish history, as if (as already at §258) it is all a matter of suffering at the hands of others, unambiguously does. Cf. E. S. Gruen 2011. Two manuscripts (ae) add δεινά, thus characterizing what the last three empires did to the Jews, or at least what the Persians and the Macedonians did to them, as “terrible”; Feldman (1965: 524–525) adopts the word and renders “the harsh treatment.” That would allow all of the empires to come under the general statement about “what we suffered,” but if that were the intention, why break up the list? Hence, it seems wiser to exclude the word, with Niese, and to conclude that Josephus summarizes Judean history of the First Temple period (when they had a state of their own) as one in which foreign empires were by definition oppressive, while the relations of the Judeans with the empires of the Second Temple period, when Judeans generally had no state of their own, were more nuanced. Cf. the note on “truth as our goal” at §157.

For such written records, see the note on “high priesthood” at §224. Not surprisingly, this is somewhat exaggerated, even according to Josephus’s own data in the high-priestly summary (§§224–251), which total less than 1700. Feldman (1965: 526) adopts here Ambrosianus’s additional reference to the kings’ ἀγωγή (“conduct”), but it is not clear to what that might refer in addition to their “acts,” and at 18.169, the last time Josephus used the word, it had the concrete sense of being brought before an official. Niese (1890a: 319), following the other witnesses, and the lectio brevior potior principle, omits it here. Given the juxtaposition to “kings” (βασιλεῖς), by “monarchs” (μονάρχες) Josephus probably means the biblical Judges; see esp. §229 and 11.112. Given the reference to the holy books, Josephus is presumably referring here to his promise, at the beginning of his work (Ant. 1.5, 17) as elsewhere (4.196; 8.56; 10.218), not to add or detract from what is stated in the Bible, in fulfillment of the biblical admonition (Deut 4:2; 12:32). On this promise, which must be taken with a grain of salt (and anyway the biblical admonition applied to laws, not to narrative), although conforming in general to a claim to be thorough and truthful, see Feldman 1998a: 37–46 and Cohen 1979: 27–28. For a similar claim concerning the post-biblical period, see the opening of Ant. 14. After documenting widespread use of the formula by others (citing esp. van Unnik 1949 and Schäublin 1974), Cohen remarks that since Ant. 1.17 “consists of historiographical commonplaces … we may suppose these pronouncements are not to be taken very seriously. Probably none of the writers quoted above fulfilled his promise to present a translation only and not to add or omit anything.” For the argument that Josephus, as others in his age, thought that repetition of a text required faithfulness to its content (as understood by the new writer) rather than its wording, see Inowlocki 2005.

Here is a clear statement about his intended audience, as already at 1.5, 9, and 10–17 (where he compares his project to that of the Jews who translated the Torah for Ptolemy Philadelphus), also, very explicitly, at 16.174. See the Introduction at nn. 34–35. Here too Josephus is probably thinking of his introduction, which repeatedly terms the work a πραγματεία (1.5, 17, 25). But he uses the term the same way frequently, whether of his own works (4.198; 12.245; 13.173; Apion 1.50, 54) or of those of others (Life 336–337). For the history of this sense of the term, see Krebs 2015: 514. For this full sense of ἀκριβῶς, see the note on “detail” at 18.129.

After τὴν ἐπιχώριον, Ambrosianus (again followed by Feldman [1965: 526] but not by Niese [1890a: 320]) adds καὶ παρ’ ἡμῖν (“and among us”), but since only the next part of this paragraph refers to non-Jewish Greek learning, the result is that both of the first formulations refer only to Jewish learning, so nothing much is gained by adopting Ambrosianus’s reading. Perhaps it reflects a misunderstanding inspired by παρ’ ἡμῖν γάρ at the opening of the next paragraph, §264. Cf. the note on “brought to him” at §5. Josephus makes similar assertions at Life 9 (precocious child), War 3.352 (priestly education as a biblical scholar), and Apion 1.218. On the latter, as Josephus’s assertion of his superiority in comparison to other Jewish Hellenistic writers, see D. R. Schwartz 2007a. For studies of Josephus’s education, which use fewer superlatives than he did, see S. Schwartz 1990: 23–57 and Tuval 2013: 115–128. Here, since it is listed as a stage after “grammar” (τὴν γραμματικὴν ἐμπειρίαν), grammata refers to literature and not merely the letters of the alphabet. But grammata in that broader sense includes poetry, so (even if Josephus did want to claim knowledge of that), Ambrosianus’s “and poetry” is superfluous. As in Ambrosianus’s “plus” at §264 (see the note there on “nations”), it looks like some devotee of literature added details that interested him. Cf. the note on “brought to him” at §5. See also Destinon 1904: 25, n. 1 and 26; he underlines Josephus’s striking failure to claim that he learned to write Greek, adducing it in support of his argument for Josephus’s dependence upon assistants for much of his work. On such theories, see the Introduction, at nn. 48–54. It is usual to translate προφορά here as “pronunciation,” and it certainly includes that. But literally it is broader, and Dionysius of Halicarnassus uses it, at Demosthenes 22, of the delivery of a speech, including reference to tone and the moods the orator conveys. As Price (2005a: 105) observes, it might be that Josephus is apologizing, here, for some unwillingness to read from his work in public; on such recitations, by authors, see Ogilvie 1980: 12–13; Huitink and van Henten 2009; and Mason 2011. Cf. Pliny the Younger, Ep. 9.34, where the author, pointing to his own lack of proficiency in reading poetry, considers asking a freedman to do so in his stead. Similarly, Swain (1996: 43–51) shows that some first- and second-century intellectuals expressed anxiety even about their written Greek. For a comparable case that sounds familiar to the present writer, see Scriptores Historiae Augustae, Septimius Severus, chs. 1 and 19: the African-born emperor, who began studying Greek and Latin as a youth and moved to Rome already around the age of eighteen, retained an African accent in Latin even in old age. So too Quintilian (Inst. 1.1.13) complains about the Latin pronunciation of those who first learned Greek when they were young and became too used to Greek formulations and intonation.

For this sense of ἀποδέχομαι (lit. “admit,” “receive”), which, Thackeray noted, is characteristic of Antiquities (e.g. 8.206 and 12.108, where it is parallel, respectively, to reward and to praise), see ThLJ 67. Here too Ambrosianus has a substantial but “useless” expansion (“or who adorn their style with smoothness of diction” [trans. Feldman 1965: 529]); cf. the note on “literature” at §263. That is, even one who is not an aristocrat. Cf. §§183–184 on a Greek expert in writing who was a terrible villain, also Josephus’s attack on Justus in Life 40, where he admits Justus’s dexterity in language and nevertheless condemns him; note also Josephus’s general complaint in the first paragraph of War. For similar comments on Greeks, see the note on “philosophy” at 18.9. On learned slaves, see Forbes 1955 and Harris 1989: 247–248. In the present passage, Josephus basically aligns good pronunciation alongside linguistic skill as frills that, as opposed to knowledge and truthfulness, need not guarantee quality. Lit. “they.” On the translation of this paragraph, see n. 89 to the Introduction. For this sense of δύναμις, see 3.90, where too it is the meaning of a text that is meant, as distinguished from its wording. Josephus boasts about his own skill at interpreting the Bible at War 3.352 and Apion 1.54, in both cases linking his capability to his priestly descent. For the assumption that priests would best understand and teach the Torah, see, for example, Malachi 2:6–7; Ben Sira 45:17; Testament of Levi 13:2; War 2.417; Ant. 3.321, 4.304, etc.

Compare esp. Apion 2.147, 286–287; “Josephus is acutely conscious of the problem of self-praise,” which can arouse envy (Barclay 2007: 330, n. 1152). This is part of a yet larger theme in Josephus, that success tends to arouse jealousy; see the note on “jealous” at 18.240. Here Ambrosianus again expands: “nor seem to many to be σκαιός.” However, on the one hand this does not add much, and on the other it appears that, although elsewhere the adjective (lit. “left-handed”) often means “gauche” or “awkward” (as Feldman [1965: 529], who adopts Ambrosianus’s text, translates here), Josephus tends to use it more harshly. True, ccfj (4.20) suggests “awkward” (as Feldman) or “unpleasant” for this passage, but this is the only such passage; five of the other six occurrences of the word, all in Antiquities (6.80; 9.232; 11.216; 18.44; and 19.201), are covered by its other suggestions, which are harsher: “bad, evil, wicked, brutal, harsh,” and even for the sixth, at 14.267, it suggests nothing milder than “malicious, injudicious”; in the present volume, I rendered “brutal/ity” at 18.44 and 19.201, where it is used to describe the worst of villains. That is, it may be that Ambrosianus preserves here the contribution of an expansive copyist who used the adjective here in a sense that is usual elsewhere but not for Josephus. Cf. the note on “brought to him” at §5. This amounts to an announcement of his Life. Indeed, formally that book is an appendix to the Antiquities; note not only the enclitic beginning (“As for me … ”) but also, and especially, the fact that Life ends at §430, with Josephus’s statement that he hereby concludes Antiquities. On the senses of ἐλέγχω (expose, reveal, convict, prove, refute, confute), see ThLJ 245. Here, as at §145 and 19.347, I have preferred “convict” in accordance with Josephus’s other alternative here, “testify on behalf”; for Josephus’s tendency to phrase attacks and defense in such juridical terms, cf. esp. Against Apion, along with Kasher 1996: 170–171. As van der Horst 1979 notes, Josephus’s δέ at the opening of the Life could be emphatic, signaling “a self-assertive counter-attack” on anyone who cast doubts on his priestly descent. Given the fact that Josephus’s Life polemicizes against Justus of Tiberius (§§336–367), Laqueur (1920: 270–271, followed by van der Horst) assumes that such doubts had been among the aspersions he cast on Josephus. For Josephus’s insistence on his own honesty, as shown by his willingness to publish his War while those who might contradict him were still alive, see his argument with Justus in Life 361–362 and his proud declaration at Apion 1.50. For Life as a work that presents (and defends) Josephus’s character, see esp. Mason 2001: xlvii–l.

Cf. the note on “Thereupon” at 18.104. On the question whether this is a new conclusion or just a peroration of the one that began at §259, see the note on “end my Antiqities” at §259. Josephus thus estimates 3000 lines per book. For the usual length of lines in ancient manuscripts, around 34–38 letters per line, see Birt 1882: 194–204; Harris 1893: 15–16; and Finegan 1974: 39. The product of those two data, over all twenty books of the Antiquities, would yield a total of somewhat more than two million letters for the whole of the Antiquities. That is fairly accurate, not far from the 1.71 million letters estimated by Graux 1878 (non vidi; cited, although apparently with an extra zero, by Birt 1882: 204, n. 1); Graux’s figure, in turn, is very close to the 1.68 million I arrived at by counting the letters in a random sample of six paragraphs (237 words) from Antiquities 18 and extrapolating on the basis of the total of 305,870 words in all of Antiquities, according to the online Perseus word study tool. As for words: dividing the latter total among twenty books yields an average of somewhat more than fifteen thousand words per book, which places the books of Antiquities squarely in the medium-length range of the chart for ancient Greek compositions. For comparative figures, see Burridge 1992: 118. The present passage is the only citation in lsj (1371, s.v. περιδρομή ΙΙ) for κατὰ περιδρομήν in the sense of “cursorily”; Gutschmid (1893: 374) renders “breviter omnia percurrendo” (“briefly running through everything”). Laqueur (1920: 32–33, 1), however, who agrees that that is the expected sense but notes the difficulty of supporting it according to the received reading, suggests reading κατὰ παραδρομήν, for which he compares ἐκ παραδρομῆς in Polybius 21.34.2 and Plutarch, On the Education of Children 10 7c. Note also Aristotle, Politics 1336b24, ἐν παραδρομῇ τοῦτον πεποιήμεθα τὸν λόγον. Josephus expresses such a hope elsewhere as well (§§53, 96, 144, 147), but no such work, nor any hint of it, has been found. The closest he gets to an update of his history to cover the post-70 period is in the concluding section of his Life, which deals cursorily with his own personal affairs until the days of Domitian. By 93/94, when he finished the Antiquities, Josephus was pushing sixty, and as Thackeray noted (1929: 106–107), was likely getting tired of the project (and perhaps indicates as much in his prologue—1.7). Given the pressing need to defend himself against Justus (which engendered the Life) and to defend the Antiquities (which engendered Against Apion; see its opening lines), it would not be surprising if he never seriously began another work. See Petersen 1958. Josephus was born in the first year of Gaius’s reign (Life 5), i.e., 37 ce (and so was about thirty in 67—Life 80), and Domitian began to rule in 81; together, these data bring us to 93/94. For details, see Vincent 1911 and Jones 2002.

As with the hope to write another history (§267), in this case too there is no evidence that Josephus fulfilled or attempted to fulfill this hope, although it is expressed elsewhere as well (perhaps as early as War 5.237 and certainly at Ant. 1.25, 29; 3.94; 4.198, etc.). In general, on the topic of such unfulfilled plans, see Petersen 1958. For the suggestion that Against Apion (esp. 2.145ff.) is what resulted when Josephus sat down to write this projected work, see Altshuler 1978/79 and Gerber 1997: 64–65. For this formulation summarizing the laws as they might be explained to gentiles, cf. Letter of Aristeas 143 (in the story to which Josephus points, at the opening of Antiquities [1.10–12], as justifying his own project): “there is a deep reason in each individual case why we abstain from the use of certain things and enjoy the common use of others” (trans. R. H. Charles).