Daniel L. Smith, Review of Biblical Literature (original) (raw)

Review of V. Noam, Shifting Images of the Hasmoneans: Second Temple Legends and Their Reception in Josephus and Rabbinic Literature

Journal for the Study of Judaism, 2020

This book grew out of a larger collaborative project, headed by Noam together with Tal Ilan, that culminated in the two Hebrew volumes of Josephus and the Rabbis.1 Those hefty volumes, of which the first is dedicated to stories of the Second Temple period and the second to stories about the destruction of the Second Temple, trace the antecedents, and transformations along the way, of stories found in the writings of Josephus and in rabbinic literature. The six case-studies selected for the present volume bespeak and illustrate the same interest, but, given their common subject matter, also combine to enrich our understanding of ancient Jewish views of the Hasmoneans. The six studies, which are accompanied by a programmatic introduction and a new synthetizing concluding chapter on "The Image of the Hasmoneans: A New Perspective," deal, in chronological order, with six stories about the Hasmoneans that appear in Books 12-14 of Josephus's Antiquities and in rabbinic literature: the defeat of Nicanor; the heavenly voice heard by John Hyrcanus; the Hasmoneans' rupture with the Pharisees; the pelting of Alexander Yannai with citrons; Yannai's deathbed instructions to his wife; and the conflict between Yannai's sons and attendant death of Onias. Five of these six correspond to chapters by Noam in the Hebrew compendium and are, basically, revised translations of them; the one on Yannai's deathbed instructions to his wife was analyzed in the Hebrew compendium by Tal Ilan, and so Noam's study of it here is new. All of the studies are offered in support of the hypothesis that the rabbis did not use Antiquities, but, rather, that both Josephus and the rabbis made use of the same traditions, which-in all but one of the cases-are otherwise lost. The one exceptional case is the first, the defeat of Nicanor, for which an older version survives in 1 Maccabees 7, and Noam can therefore compare it separately to Josephus's version and to the rabbinic versions. In each case, the stories are presented in English translation and explained (including frequent reference to biblical allusions), and they are put in the historical context to which they refer. Noam's main objective is to show that the surviving witnesses depend on the same sources or traditions, and to analyze how the changes they underwent reflect the interests of the respective tradents. Most of the demonstration, that stories in Josephus and rabbinic literature depend on the same sources, is based on the application of two reasonable and venerable rules of thumb. First: the more a story in Josephus disrupts its context, or uses surprising or anomalous wording, the likelier it is that he did not create it himself but, rather, inserted it as a unit, from a source or tradition

Josephus' Roman Alexander?: A Comparison of the Origins of Hellenistic and Roman Rule in Antiquitates Judaicae

Society of Biblical Literature, 2020

This paper examines Josephus’ depiction of Pompey’s siege of Jerusalem in the Antiquities, in comparison with his depictions of Hellenistic rule in the same work. The conquests of Jerusalem by both Pompey in 63 BCE and Titus in 70 CE bear a marked resemblance to the actions of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in the second century BCE. This presented Josephus with quite a conundrum in his massive historical project of the Antiquities: If he merely sticks to his primary source for the period of Seleucid rule (1 Maccabees), he risks having his readers seeing parallels between the actions of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, Pompey, and Titus. However, to depart too radically from this narrative, perhaps downplaying the severity of Antiochus’ cruelty to the Jews, could place Josephus at odds with national heroes of Israel’s past (the Maccabees), as well as possibly highlighting his own abandonment of the Jewish rebellion in favor of imperial Rome. I will argue that Josephus avoided either of these options by inserting his narrative of Alexander the Great visiting Jerusalem in the Antiquities, portraying him as an ideal foreign ruler of Judea. Alexander’s actions in this famous passage are antithetical to those of Antiochus IV Epiphanes and present another Hellenistic ruler with which to compare the actions of Pompey the Great. Rather than the proud and arrogant Alexander of 1 Maccabees and the book of Daniel, Josephus’ Alexander humbles himself before the God of the Jews and permits them to continue to observe their ancestral customs. This allows Josephus in his own unique way to draw on the tradition of Pompey as a “Roman Alexander.” We are left with two origin stories of Hellenistic and Roman rule: Alexander the Great is presented as a model of the just foreign ruler, whose example of just rule was followed by some (e.g. Antiochus III), but neglected by many of his successors, chief among them Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Pompey, whose conquest might appear on the surface as resembling that of Antiochus, emerges a reluctant conqueror resembling Alexander’s humble stance before the God of the Jews and just rule in allowing the Jews to observe their ancestral customs and cultic activities. Pompey’s conquest in the Antiquities thus marks the beginning of Roman rule of Judea as the rightful successor to Alexander’s legacy, allowing Josephus to similarly frame Titus’ siege as being in accord with this legacy.

Between Triumph and Tragedy: Josephus, Bellum Judaicum 7.121–157

Reading Greek and Hellenistic-Roman Spolia Objects, Appropriation and Cultural Change (ed. I.J.F. de Jong & M.J. Versluys), 2024

This paper looks at how Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian writing in Greek in the first century AD writes about the Roman Triumph of 71 AD. This Triumph was celebrated by the new emperors Vespasian and Titus over Judaea (today's Israel), which they had restored to the Roman Empire after an uprising. The paper shows that Josephus' account is layered. On the surface he praises the conquering emperors, but if we delve deeper, he in fact displays pity with the conquered Jews. The paper focuses in particular on the objects from the now destroyed Jewish Temple which are carried along in the triumphal procession: the implied emotional evocation of the temple spoils is reinforced when readers recall two earlier descriptions of the temple treasures in Josephus' work. When looked at by uncomprehending ‘Roman eyes’, the objects are stripped of their symbolical significance, but those who have read Josephus’ work are in the know about their true meaning.

Shaye J.D. Cohen, “History and Historiography in the Against Apion of Josephus,” History and Theory, vol. 27, no. 4 [=Essays in Jewish Historiography] (December 1988): 1-11

Throughout his writings Josephus plays the historical critic.' The Jewish War opens with an attack against the Greek historians of the war of 66-70 CE: they disregard the truth, base their narratives on little data or false data, vilify the Jews, and magnify the Romans (Jewish War 1.1-8).2 Greek historians care more for rhetoric than truth (Jewish War 1.13-16). In the Jewish Antiquities Josephus criticizes Polybius, "a good man," for ignoring the true explanation of the death of Antiochus Epiphanes (Jewish Antiquities 12.358-359),' and criticizes Nicolas of Damascus for being biased in favor of his patron Herod (Jewish Antiquities 16.183-187). In the Vita Josephus devotes a long digression to the malfeasance of Justus of Tiberias as both politician and historian (Vita 336-367).4 These and other passages show that Josephus practiced historical criticism in all his works, but it is the Against Apion that contains his most detailed reflections on the duties and methods of the historian.