Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
ISSN 1641-7224
January 2016
The Enigma Press, ul. Podedworze 5, 32-031 Mogilany, Poland; E-mail: enigma@post.pl
CLAUDE COHEN-MATLOFSKY
Institut Universitaire dtudes Juives
Paris
101
100
Few authors of Antiquity had called for such a bibliography. Heinz Schreckenberg,
Bibliographie zu Flavius Josephus (Leiden: Brill, 1968), had attempted already to draw
a complete list of works on him. See of the same author, Josephus (Flavius Josephus),
Reallexikon fr Antike und Christentum 18 (1998), pp. 761-801.
5 War III, 400-401.
6 L.H. Feldman, Flavius Josephus Revisited: the Man, his writings and his Significance, ANRW, II, (1984), pp. 779-780.
There is an abundant bibliography on the issue of the so called Testimonium Flavianum, see in particular: Serge Bardet, Le Testimonium Flavianum, examen historique
considrations historiographiques, Paris, 2002.
8 Tessa Rajak, Josephus. The Historian and His Society, London, 1983.
9 Josephus role as a Roman historian has been a distinctive emphasis of Steve Masons since the mid-1990s. He put together an international conference in Toronto, on
the theme in 2001, precisely because no one had ever seriously treated Josephus as a
Roman historian (resulting book: J. Edmundson, S. Mason and J. Reeves (eds), Flavius
Josephus and Flavian Rome, Oxford: OUP, 2005). Many scholars still resist the notion,
including Tessa Rajak and Jonathan Price.
10 Vita 422.
11 Vita 425.
12 Vita 423.
13 Vita 429.
103
102
14
Even though Y. Shahar argued that he did, and if so, this would add an argument
to my thesis.
15 See Cohen-Matlofsky, (2001) op. cit.
16 See Steve Masons discussion infra.
17 See discussion in commentary # 9 of Steve Masons Text and Commentaries of
Josephus Life in S. Mason, ed. Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary, vol.2,
in 12 (Leiden: Brill, 2001).
105
cial for the understanding of Josephus private life and ambitions. This
woman in Jerusalem could also have been only his betrothed, or just a
woman he befriended and whom he was particularly fond of, though
most likely, she was his first wife. The Mishnah Avot, 5, 21, sets the
age of marriage at 18. The funerary inscriptions as well as the archeological material found in the rock cut tombs in Roman Palestine could
confirm this. In the family tomb of the Goliaths of Jericho, for instance,
the evidence leads us to believe that Yeho`zer, son of El`azar Goliath,
was a grandfather of ten if not 14 at the age of 35 when he died in 10
CE23. Moreover, Josephus does not devote much effort to describing
this woman in Jerusalem because he does not devote much effort to
describing any of his female relatives, including his wives. He mentions
his mother only to position himself in the Hasmonean lineage. Had this
woman in Jerusalem been his mother, or sister (assuming he had any),
even sister in law, he would have at least mentioned the familial link.
Nevertheless, he does not explicitly identify her as his first wife because
he is writing his books as a Roman Historian and for several reasons
(which I shall explain below) Josephus had only rather briefly mentioned his first wife that he left in Jerusalem.
His first wife must have died in the siege of Jerusalem. Later on, the
Romans freed him24. Then he followed Vespasian to Alexandria where
the latter was proclaimed Emperor and where Josephus married for the
third time.
Josephus tells us25 that during his captivity he was forced by
Vespasian to marry a prisoner, but since he was a priest, Jewish Law forbade him from marrying any woman but a virgin, and a prisoner was assumed to have been raped. Therefore as soon as he was freed he repudiated this wife (or she left him?). There is a discussion in Steve Masons
commentaries on Josephus Life on the issue26. While I agree with Steve
Masons inclination to replace Josephus works in the context of Flavian
Rome audiences, I disagree with Masons methodology. In my view,
and with respect to Masons mastering of the ancient Greek language,
grammar cannot explain everything, especially when it comes to the
works of ancient authors and when the authors in question were not
native speakers of Greek. For Josephus one still has to consider a whole
104
18 Ioannes Hyrcanos I, 135-104 and Hyrcanos II, 67-63, both Hasmonean sovereigns
in Judaea.
19 See Joseph Mlzes article Pre ou mre aux origines de la matrilinarit juive
in Le monde de Clio, April 2003.
20 Vita 426-427.
21 R. Hachlili and P. Smith, The Genealogy of the Goliath Family, BASOR 235
(1979), pp. 67-70.
22 War V, 419.
23
107
There is every reason to deduce from the above that this caesarean
captive Josephus was forced to marry was in fact a gentile. Josephuss
lineage would not have permitted him to marry a non-Jew. Moreover, he
was already about 30 years old therefore most probably, (according to
the normal age of marriage for men at the time) already married and to
a Jewish woman from Jerusalem. Moreover, since he was of Pharisaic
obedience at the time of the war, in light of a largely accepted ideal of
monogamy among this group30, Josephus could not have been happy
to be a bigamist. Josephus was probably hoping that his first wife was
still alive in Jerusalem. Indeed, only when he began to doubt this, had
he decided to marry the Alexandrian women (his third wife) after his
freedom from captivity in 69 BC.
For all these aforementioned reasons, Josephus informs us that he felt
forced by Vespasian to marry this prisoner from Caesarea, precisely
because Josephus was in fact already married to a Jerusalem woman and
could no longer respect the principle of ideal monogamy observed by
at least the aristocrats and sovereigns at the time and especially by the
Hasmonean rulers.
Therefore indeed the most important underlying question one should
ask when reading Josephus Vita 414 is why Vespasian commanded him
to marry this Caesarian prisoner? Was it common for a Roman conqueror to command a prisoner, privileged or not, to marry another prisoner?
Did Vespasian have a secret goal in doing so, such as erasing Josephus
priestly descent? Did this Roman Emperor to be, knowing that a cohen,
a priest, could only marry a Jewish virgin, force Josephus to take this
prisoner as a second wife in order to make sure that Josephus could no
longer assume a position of leadership among the Judeans? Or even
more importantly, did Vespasian do so in order to impede him from
claiming a Hasmonean type of leadership, a Great Priest-monogamous
Kingship? And who else other than the future Emperor would have
known better of Josephus ambitions?
Mason argues:
106
...Caesarea-on-sea, one of the largest cities of Judea with a population consisting chiefly of Greeks...28
27
Ibidem.
War III, 409.
29 See the mcmaster.ca web site.
28
What Josephus actually says is: ...Among the Romans finally I was kept
under guard with every consideration: Vespasian supplying me with all the
marks of honor. In fact, when he so directed [or at his direction, arrangement,
provision] I even took a certain virgin for myself, a native/local from among
30
See Claude Cohen-Matlofsky, Flavius Josphe: les ambitions dun homme, Paris,
2012, pp. 45-61 and also A. Schremer, How much Jewish Polygyny in Roman Palestine, in Proceedings of the AAJR vol. LXIII (1997- 2001), pp. 1-42.
109
the prisoners who were seized at Caesarea... Josephus did the choosing and
marrying, as he uses the standard verb (middle of age) for the description. He
is illustrating the honors and privileges granted by Vespasian. It was extraordinary that a prisoner of war should be permitted to take a wife -- especially a
virgin. Such a privilege could only occur at the direction of ones master, effectively the enslaved prisoners owner. The construction is of course a genitive
absolute. This construction separates two persons actions31
108
I disagree with this argument because firstly, one has to bear in mind
that Josephus wrote his books under the dictation of the Flavian emperors, therefore had no choice but to flatter them and praise the way they
treated him. Secondly, as I mentioned earlier in this study, Josephus uses
the term forced and virgin because he felt compelled to justify himself to the affluent Jewish community of Rome to say the least.
Therefore, I reiterate my questions: was it common for a Roman com31
See Steve Masons Text and Commentaries on Josephus Life, (2001) op. cit.
32
111
fled Jerusalem in 66 and settled in Masada and were later joined by the
Zealots after the siege of Jerusalem.
This encounter with Bannous is quite questionable for all the reasons
stated above. Moreover, at age 16, Josephus was too young for this type
of experience in the desert. It is doubtful that his parents would have
given him that much freedom. Therefore, while I am not excluding the
possibility of punctual encounters with someone called Bannous, I do
not see enough persuasive merit in Josephus writings to support this
three-year experience in the desert. Josephus was most likely about to
get married in Jerusalem at the time, and therefore could not have left
the city for such a compelling experience.
Why did Josephus periodically appear to have chosen the Pharisees
if his familial origin should have pushed him towards the Sadducees?
One of the answers to this question is, Josephus prominent features:
opportunism and ambition. The Pharisees had much popular political
influence. Josephus seems to have chosen their obedience for the same
reasons the Hasmonean sovereigns finally did.
Some examples of his opportunism and ambitious personality will be
considered here. Josephus, apparently as a Sadducee and at the head of a
delegation of priests, accepted the honor of traveling to meet Nero. Then
he accepted the honor of commanding as a general against the Romans
in Galilee, agreeing with the Pharisees that the war was urgent self-defense. Josephus then turned to the Romans again instead of committing
suicide when he was in command in Galilee.
Nevertheless, it would be wrong to identify all priests of that time
as Sadducees. Some, like Josephus family, it seems, (as well as someone called Ioazros, of priestly descent in Jerusalem)39 could have been
of Pharisaic color for their culture, political orientations and ideology. Moreover, Josephus search for the best philosophy was typical of
Greco-Roman culture. For example Justin Martyr40, disappointed by
the Peripatetic, Pythagorean and Platonic philosophies, tells us how he
finally converted to Christianity. Galen and Lucian also went on search
for a philosophy to suit their convictions.
Then again Josephus does not provide us with any information about
his personal life from the age of 19 to approximately 28, when apparently, as he claims, he came back to Jerusalem from the desert. At this point
110
34
See Vita 9.
See Steve Mason, Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees: a Composition-Critical
Study (Leiden: Brill 2001). As well, of the same author, Flavius Josephus and the Pharisees, http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Flavius_Josephus.shtmlarticle
36 Vita 11.
37 Vita 12.
38 C. Cohen-Matlofsky, Les lacs.
35
39
Vita 197. See also the list of Pharisees priests in Joachim Jeremias, Jerusalem au
temps de Jsus, Paris, 1967, p. 344.
40 Dialogue with Tryphon 8.
113
of his life, as mentioned above, he traveled for the first time abroad in
an embassy of delegates, of apparently Sadducean obedience, sent to
Rome in the year 66 during the Revolt. Josephus was accompanying
a delegation of sacrificers. They reached Puteoles where Josephus met
a Jewish comedian named Aliturus that Nero greatly favored. Josephus
was then introduced to Poppaea. It is from this judeophile Empress that
he obtained gain de cause for the sacrificers41.
As for the rebels, after they managed to push away the Syrian governor Cestius Gallus, they rallied the pro-Romans to their side and then
they recruited extra generals, including priests, to direct the war. Among
them were Ananos, the Great Priest, John the Essene and Josephus. The
latter was in charge of upper and lower Galilee42. Upon his return from
Rome, Josephus tried to dissuade the insurgents, reminding them of their
inferiority to the Romans43. Then Josephus, along with the chief of the
priests, and as a leader of the Pharisees, decided that the war was urgent
if only for self-defense. He sent his two colleagues to Jerusalem, gathered some weapons and reinforced several towns44. He then befriended the affluent people of Galilee and forced the inhabitants into military service, subjugating Tiberias and Tarichea. He failed at Sepphoris
which had been fortified by his forces and which was abandoned by his
troops to Vespasian. He organized the resistance in Jotapata besieged
by Vespasian. He was subject to the insults of certain Galilean Jews
like Ioannes of Gischala who had sent a delegation to Jerusalem to ask
for his replacement. Once the city was taken, Josephus took refuge in a
cavern and decided to surrender to the Romans rather than take part in
a collective suicide as recommended by his companions. Since then his
fate was very much tied to the Romans45. Jewish soldiers wanted him
killed. In Jerusalem the first reaction was to grieve for him and later,
when it was understood that he had surrendered, to curse him as a traitor. Josephus went back to Jerusalem and encouraged the inhabitants to
surrender during the siege of Titus, but without success.
What one may conclude about Flavius Josephuss personality is that
he was eager to learn, he was hungry for power and prestige and that he
112
41
Vita 16 says that Flavius Josephus was the ambassador of a group of prisoner
priests traveling to Rome to ask the Emperors favor.
42 War II, 562-565.
43 Vita 17-19.
44 War XII, 569-576.
45 War II, 577-584, 614, 646; III, 60-63, 111, 129, 131, 135-140, 141-339, 340-408,
410, 434-439, 464; IV, 9, 56.
46
115
This was the first book he wrote in 71 and which was edited in 7579. Then in a largely apologetic tone he wrote the Jewish Antiquities,
published in 93-94; this is a history of the Jewish people from their
origin until the beginning of the Jewish war of 66. Books 12 to 22 of
the Jewish Antiquities constitute a development of the two first books
of The Jewish War. The Life, his autobiography, was also published in
93-94. There he mostly discusses the accusations he had to face some
twenty years after the Jewish war concerning his surrender. Therefore
The Life is not really an autobiography. One may wonder whether it
was Josephus himself who decided to title this writing Vita, The Life. It
seems rather, that The Life is an appendix to his Jewish Antiquities, and
a second version of the third book of his Jewish War. Eusebius quotes
Vita calling it Antiquities49. This would mean that in the 3rd and 4th century Vita did not have a proper title. Josephus himself, at the end of the
Jewish Antiquities, expresses his wish to talk about his life and career,
in order to respond to an attack against his family. Finally the Contra
Apionem, where he responds to Apion, the greatest anti-judean author
of Alexandria, was released in 96. In this work, Josephus goal is to
counter-attack Apion mostly by proving Judaisms great antiquity.
Originally written in Aramaic and Greek, Josephuss works were later translated into Latin, Syriac, Slavic, then English, French, Italian,
Modern Hebrew and Japanese. The linguistic imperfections in Greek reveal Josephuss Jewish nature. However Josephus was not the worst of
the Hellenizing historians who had migrated to Rome and wrote about
Roman politics and the military history of the contemporary sovereigns.
Among them were Polybius, Dionysos of Halicarnasses, Appian, Arrian,
Cassius Dio, etc. According to Henry St. John Thackeray50, Josephuss
works were written by many different hands. This statement is based
on the fact that Josephus himself mentions, in Contra Apionem1. 50,
that he used assistants for the Greek language in writing The Jewish
War, but not for his other works, which were written twenty years after he had been immersed in the Hellenized environment in Rome.
Moreover, Josephuss use of Thucydides and Sophocles expressions
was common practice with first century authors. Therefore it is natural
that Josephus wanted to try different styles in his writings. Among his
114
Regevs study provides the answer for why Josephus was not satisfied
by any of the Jewish schools of thought at the time and did not make a
clear philosophical choice for any of them.
The Josephus who ended up in Rome, had the intellectual baggage
of a Jerusalemite, and was fluent in Hebrew and Aramaic and knew
some Greek, yet he did not devote much time to interpreting the Hebrew
Bible. Josephus came from a Palestine Hellenized ever since the days
of Alexander the Great but which had made efforts to preserve Judaism
with its political, social and educational institutions. He had been a politician, then soldier and finally a writer. Had he succeeded in restoring
the Hasmonean rule in Palestine, following some of the Hasmonean
sovereigns, he would not have hesitated to base his political power on
Pharisees grounds. Flavius Josephus belonged to a native Hellenized
urbanite elite that had spread all over the Empire, among them: priests,
landlords, dynasts, etc.
In Antiquity it was important that the historians personally witness
the events they described. Stringent examples include Herodotus,
Thucydides, Polybius, Sallust, etc. Josephus wrote his Books while in
Rome. These Books are the main sources for the rise of the Flavian
Emperors as well as the History of Palestine in the first century of the
Common Era. Above all, much of the information given in his books
has been authenticated by recent archeology. There is no indication of
the date of his death.
In his writings, he was at times biased and concerned about presenting himself and his role in the events under the most favorable light.
In The Jewish War, the Roman power is described as overwhelming
and Josephus praises the power of Rome while criticizing Zealot nationalism, which he sees as responsible for the ultimate catastrophe.
49
117
opponents was Ioustos of Tiberias, another Jewish historian, a contemporary of Josephus, who was also implicated in the Jewish war against
the Romans, and whose writings were not published.
Josephus Flavius political perspicacity led him to conclude that the
Jewish religion developed better under Pax Romana than under complete independence in Judea. He was not the only one to have had
such a conviction. Yohanan ben Zakkay, followed by Yehoshuah Ben
Hannanyah also thought so and in this regard were closer to the prophet
Jeremiah or the authors of the Acts.
In conclusion there are no doubts that Josephus is a controversial figure of Second Temple Jewish history. Nevertheless, there are grounds to
believe that Josephus had four wives rather than three and that he had
planned to become a leader of Hasmonean type in Judea.
Josephuss reflection on the long glory of the Hasmonean house in
Vita 1-4 matches in tone his summary at Jewish Antiquities XIV, 490-91.
He could have been a Great Priest-King, a Hasmonean on his mother
side and a priest on his fathers (at least). He tells us that his fathers
name was Mathias, a recurrent name in his family and the name of the
instigator of the Maccabean revolt and the father of the five leaders of
this revolt and rulers of the Hasmonean Dynasty. He named his eldest
son: Hyrcanos51, the name of two Hasmonean sovereigns in Judea. This
son Hyrcanos was the only one to survive. Josephus never mentions
daughters, because even if he had any they would not have been included in his intended Hasmonean type of dynasty that would have started
with himself as a sovereign. He stated that he was forced by Vespasian
to marry a prisoner because a prisoner was not a virgin. Vespasian
knowing that a cohen, could only marry a Jewish virgin commanded
Josephus to marry a pagan prisoner in order to impede him from claiming a Hasmonean type of leadership. Josephus was already married,
since age at marriage was around 18, and had been made a prisoner in
his early thirties, and there was an ideal of monogamy amongst priests,
Pharisees and Hasmonean sovereigns.
Josephuss first wife was a Jewess from Jerusalem, the second one was
a pagan captive from Caesarea and the third was probably a pagan from
Alexandria (he would have mentioned otherwise like he mentioned that
his fourth wife was Jewish). He married the Alexandrian woman after
his first wife had most likely died in the siege of Jerusalem and after he
had repudiated his second wife. He eventually divorced from his third
wife and married for the fourth time, in Rome, with a noble Jewess of
Cretan origin. Again we see through the above the ideal of monogamy,
since Josephus insists every time on the fact that he separates from the
previous wife before he marries the next.
It is obvious that Josephus had a vision. He was disappointed by
the Herodian style of leadership. He depicts Herod the great and the
Herodian sovereigns in rather negative terms. However Josephus was
not very popular among the Judeans of that time. Thus he sought the
help of the Romans, like his ancestors (in particular Yehudah, son of
Mathithyahu, surnamed Maccabee) did (I Macc. 8, 17-18), in order
to eventually establish a Hasmonean type of government of which he
would have been leader. And as a cohen and Hasmonean he had to take
a Jewish wife of noble descent, like his last Jewish Cretan wife, the only
one that he did not repudiate and of whom he talks with great pride.
116